Strategies for Restructuring the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Process, Opportunities, and Lessons S.C. Babu, E.O. Oyedipe, O. Ajakaiye, and K. Ajoni May 2017 WORKING PAPER 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives of the Strategy Report .................................................................................................................................. 1 Approach for Development of the Strategy Report ........................................................................................................ 1 Main Areas of the Reform of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ................................................................... 2 2. Agricultural Research Systems in Nigeria: The Background and Context for Reform ..................................................... 5 Current Structure and Organization of the National Agricultural Research System ...................................................... 7 Agricultural Research System Structure ........................................................................................................................ 9 Challenges Faced by ARCN ........................................................................................................................................ 10 3. Review of International Best Practices in National Agricultural Research Systems ...................................................... 11 Agricultural Research Council Models ......................................................................................................................... 11 International NARS Study Tours .................................................................................................................................. 13 Lessons Drawn from International Experience ............................................................................................................ 15 4. Recommendations for ARCN Reform from Country Review Exercises and International Experiences ........................ 17 Organizational reforms ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Governance and budgeting .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Capacity building .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Communication ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 5. Restructuring the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ........................................................................................... 19 Current and Proposed Structure and Organization of ARCN ...................................................................................... 20 Analyzing Gaps in NARS and Suggested Reforms to Address Them ......................................................................... 24 Funding Mechanisms ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 40 6. Legal Framework ............................................................................................................................................................ 42 Review of ARCN Act .................................................................................................................................................... 42 7. Implementation of the Transformation Process .............................................................................................................. 44 8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................... 45 References ........................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Annex 1: List of Agricultural Research Universities in Nigeria ..................................................................................... 47 Annex 2: ARCN Operational Plan – Logical Framework ............................................................................................. 47 Annex 3: National Research Institutes and Federal Colleges of Agriculture ............................................................... 49 Annex 4: Federal Colleges of Agriculture under ARCN ............................................................................................... 50 Annex 5: Organogram for Agricultural Extension in Nigeria ........................................................................................ 51 LIST OF TABLES Table 1—Growth Rates of Agriculture and Related Subsectors, 2011–2014, percent ......................................................... 5 Table 2—Contributions of Agriculture and Related Sectors to GDP, 2010–2014, percent ................................................... 6 Table 3—Ratio of Agricultural R&D to GDP, 2010-2013, percent ....................................................................................... 41 Table 4—Share of ARCN in Total Budgetary Allocation to Agricultural Research Institutes, 2009-2013, percent ............. 41 Table 5—Proposed Budgetary Allocation to ARCN and NARIs, Nigerian Naira ................................................................. 41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1—Current Structure of Nigeria’s the National Agricultural Research System in Nigeria .......................................... 8 Figure 2—Policy Process Mapping of Institutional Reforms: Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ............................... 9 Figure 3—Current Organogram of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ................................................................ 21 Figure 4—Proposed Organogram of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (Option 1) ........................................... 22 Figure 5—Proposed Organogram of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (Option 2) ........................................... 23 Figure 6—Map of Agro-ecological Zones in Nigeria ............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 7—National Agricultural Research and Development (R&D) Framework ................................................................ 33 LIST OF BOXES Box 1—Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach ................................................................... 27 Box 2—Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) ................................................................ 34 Box 3—A Case Study of the National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI), Vom ............................................................. 37 i ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADP Agricultural Development Programme ARCN Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria ARMTI Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute ARTTC Agricultural Research Technology Transfer Center ATA Agricultural Transformation Agenda CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CAAS Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences CATAS Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences CEO Chief Executive Officer CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazil Agricultural Cooperation) FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FCA Federal College of Agriculture FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FRIN Forestry Research Institute GB Governing Board GDP Gross Domestic Product IAR4D Integrated Agricultural Research for Development IARC International Agricultural Research Centre ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics ICT Information and Communications Technology IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture IPR Intellectual Property Rights KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDAs Ministries, Departments, and Agencies MOU Memorandum of Understanding NACGRAB National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology NAERLS National Agricultural Extension Research and Liaison Services NAREF National Agricultural Research and Extension Fund NARI National Agricultural Research Institute NARP National Agricultural Research Project NARS National Agricultural Research System NCAM National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO Non-governmental Organization NISER Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research NRCRI National Root Crops Research Institute NUC National Universities Commission R&D Research and Development REFILS Research Extension Farmer Input Linkage Systems SAU State Agricultural University SRC Staff Research Council WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program ii ABSTRACT This paper aims to develop specific strategies for reforming the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) for achieving greater efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability through its constituent institutions. Based on a two- year consultative and interactive process of internal discussion, external learning, and analysis of various restructuring options, this paper proposes specific interventions for promoting results-based approaches to priority setting, resource mobilization and allocation, effective implementation of research programs, enhanced and timely delivery of results, mon- itoring and evaluation, impact assessment, and improved networking among domestic and international partners. The paper recommends a phased approach to ARCN reforms, beginning with organizational transformation and capacity strengthening at all levels. In addition, issues, challenges, and opportunities for sustainable funding, integration of re- search, extension, education, and the regulatory mandates of ARCN are discussed. Finally, an implementation plan for restructuring ARCN is presented. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the majority of Nigeria’s rural population. Hence, agricultural growth has direct implications for the country’s national economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security. Over the years, the performance of the agriculture sector has not been adequate to fulfill its critical role in the country’s economy. The sec- tor’s performance is constrained by several factors, including the policy environment, diverse agro-ecological zones, and several institutional failures. Agricultural research can play an important role in overcoming these constraints. But agricul- tural research in Nigeria stagnated for many years, adversely affecting the achievements of strategic programs aimed at improving agricultural productivity and transforming agriculture into a productive and efficient sector of the economy. Re- cent efforts to revive agricultural growth through initiatives such as the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) show promise. Yet the fundamental challenge of reforming research and extension institutions to meet the technological, insti- tutional, and policy objectives of the agriculture sector remains. This report is outlines a strategy for reform of the Agricul- tural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) to enable research and extension systems to meet the needs of Nigeria’s agri- culture sector. Considerable efforts were made in the past to revive Nigeria’s research and extension institutions. For example, the Report on Strategic Options for Revamping Agricultural Research and Extension Systems, prepared in 2004, con- cluded that institutional transformation was the first step to transforming the agriculture sector. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) therefore put forward a plan for institutional change to reform ARCN and the broader National Agricultural Research System (NARS). The aim of the plan was to ensure compatibility between socioeconomic and development objectives for the nation’s agriculture and environment sectors. Objectives of the Strategy Report This strategy report takes the reform effort further in view of recent developments in the agriculture sector. A broad ob- jective of this report is to develop key interventions that would ensure a harmonized and effective system of management of ARCN’s human, financial, and physical/scientific infrastructure. The reform efforts would improve coordination of re- search, technology development, and adoption along innovation and value chain pathways. It is expected that the pro- posed interventions would promote a results-based framework for effective priority setting, resource mobilization, fo- cused implementation of research programs, enhanced and timely delivery of results, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), impact assessment, and improved networking among partners domestically and internationally. The report’s specific objective is to undertake a study of the agricultural research system in Nigeria to develop a strategy for transforming ARCN (and its component research institutes) to better drive research-based agricultural devel- opment. The report envisages a phased approach to reform ARCN in light of its complexity and size. The first phase of the reform focuses on organizational transformation and capacity strengthening of ARCN. Project activities, in this strat- egy development phase, include technical and legal consultations, mapping institutional architecture of the Nigeria’s re- search policy process, and extensive stakeholder engagement and learning. Approach for Development of the Strategy Report To understand the gaps in the organizational structure of ARCN, the team undertook the following tasks. First, the strategy development team built a contextual understanding of the current structure, mandate, and gov- ernance style of ARCN. The specific objectives in undertaking this task were to: understand the overall structure, con- duct, performance, and organization of agricultural research in Nigeria; identify potential organizational structures that would enable ARCN to play its role in more efficiently; develop a framework for better human resources management; mandate functions under the new structure; and articulate mechanisms for clear governance for improved research, training, and extension functions within ARCN and for relevant programs and departments of the institutions in NARS. Second, the team devised a set of strategies and an implementation plan for the reform process. The effort spe- cifically focused on: devising an implementation agreement for ARCN’s reform to address institutional and policy issues; identifying sustainable funding mechanisms for ARCN; developing a framework for commercialization of technology gen- erated by ARCN’s National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs); strengthening relationships between the research system and extension services; and encouraging private sector participation in the seed system. Third, the team conducted a comprehensive analysis of the policies and strategies needed for effective develop- ment and utilization of ARCN’s human resources. This effort aimed to develop a human resources development strategy that promotes innovation and efficiency; develop an intellectual property rights (IPR) policy that improves staff productiv- ity; and identify strategies that promote staff mobility and performance. 2 Finally, to facilitate a legal framework for the reform process, the team comprehensively reviewed all existing laws relating to agriculture research, training, extension, and the seed system. The objective was to: understand the role of all institutions within the context of the legal framework; highlight key overlaps in organizations’ roles; identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing legal provisions that might affect the efficiency of Nigeria’s agriculture research system; and explore the possibility of speeding up the ARCN reform process. To develop a long-term strategy, the team examined lessons from and factors responsible for the successful transformation of similar large NARSs in developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, and Kenya. To gain a deeper understanding of Nigeria’s need for reform, the team consulted institutions with direct bearing on technology generation, utilization, extension, support, and transfer. These stakeholder consultations included representation from: 1) NARIs, 2) middle-level manpower institutions, 3) development partners, 4) investors in the agriculture sector, 5) universities, 6) federal agencies, 7) state agricultural development programs, 8) international agricultural research centers (IARCs), 9) other related national research centers, 10) ongoing special agricultural programs, and 11) farmer-based organiza- tions and commodity associations. The study covered various agro-ecological regions across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. Data used in the report were based on both primary and secondary sources. Primary data were collected through interviews with all prominent stakeholders, including beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. The questions used were carefully structured to guide the interviews. The team conducted personal or phone interviews with staff of ARCN, the FMARD, NARIs, Federal Colleges of Agriculture (FCAs), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers, faculties of agriculture, and other relevant stakeholders. These interviews obtained baseline infor- mation on the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and impact of the current system, and determined the need for pro- posed changes. During these consultations, proposals for a new management framework and middle-level manpower under the suggested structure were presented to get major stakeholders’ input. Secondary sources of data and information comprised a literature review, including West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) project documents and other relevant material. For example, the team undertook an ex- tensive literature review of documents from various institutions and stakeholders to gather information on governance, structure, staff, funding, history, projects, and policies of NARS. Research, training, and extension functions of NARS were evaluated to propose suggestions on relevant organs and programs of ARCN, NARIs, FCAs, and other related or- ganizations. This strategy report also draws on lessons learned from international best practices and experiences in gov- ernance, budgeting, capacity building, and communications. The strategy report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the background and context for the ARCN reform. Section 3 reviews the lessons and best practices from NARS in other developing countries. Sections 4 and 5 make spe- cific recommendations on issues related to the structure, governance, accountability, institutional and performance gaps, and funding mechanisms. The legal framework for the ARCN reform is discussed in section 6. Section 7 presents the implementation process and section 8 concludes. Main Areas of the Reform of the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Based on the above analytical process and consultations, this strategy report’s specific recommendations are as follows: GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE It is recognized that the reform will be an important issue for staff during the transition period, particularly at ARCN head- quarters. The roles and responsibilities of key leadership positions in ARCN need to be streamlined to avoid duplication or conflict in the roles of individuals in ARCN and its institutes. Contrary to apprehensions of some of the staff of ARCN, the new organizational structure will strengthen the ARCN Secretariat and enable greater mobility of researchers within the system, promoting better linkages and efficiency. The ARCN reform involves a shift in the power structure, roles, and responsibilities – some positions may become less powerful while others may get more specific responsibilities. The au- tonomy of individual organizations may be compromised due to seeming concentration of powers. The rebalancing of governance, power, and responsibilities is necessary for the reform process, however. Political interference in NARIs’ and FCAs’ operation was identified as a major impediment. ARCN should base selection of candidates on their merits. Reducing opportunities for the representation of politicians in governance and management of ARCN organizations will be the first step in the reform of human resources management. The reform proposes only one Governing Board (GB) for the entire country, so political interference will very likely reduce. The re- form process proposes greater representation of nonpolitical actors (such as the private sector and farmers) in the GB of ARCN and its institutes. The choice of representation should be determined by the agro-ecology and commodity man- dates of the organization in question. The reform proposes a drastic reduction in the numerous boards currently in opera- tion. Only a limited number of boards (five to six) that meet the needs of specific subsectors should be considered. Thus, 3 we propose a clear, lean structure for ARCN, with minimum bureaucracy. Specific guidelines for the integrated function- ing of ARCN organizations will be developed and implemented through the collective efforts of their leaders. ARCN should adopt a system of centralized governance and decentralized operations. Hence, all operational issues relating to programs, human resources, and finances will still originate from the research institutes and colleges in a bottom-up manner. This approach is not expected to result in any erosion of autonomy of NARIs and FCAs due to abo- lition of their individual GBs. In reality, NARIs and FCAs do not have autonomy, as their GB’s (Grade ‘B’) are subsidiary to ARCN’s GB (Grade ‘A’); the law dictates that all issues in NARIs or FCAs must come to the ARCN GB for delibera- tions and final ratification. Hence, there is still a level of autonomy to be maintained by the constituent institutions. The CEOs of NARIs and FCAs misinterpret the principle of subsidiarity extended to them, and their role as political appoin- tees, as a notion of autonomy. Additionally, the notion that abolishing of GBs of NARIs with only one GB for ARCN will distance NARIs from ARCN is incorrect. On the contrary, having only one GB will unite the system rather than creating a distance, as constitu- ent institutions will operate as one. While consolidation of the institutions under ARCN can improve overall governance, and make the system more accountable, centralization of powers can also result in bureaucratic bottlenecks, slowing down the decision-making process. This is still a challenge in other large NARS, such as in India. Specific guidelines will need to be developed for sharing authority and power between ARCN headquarters and individual institutions. Transparency in the appointment of the Executive Secretary and the Deputy Executive Secretaries is essential in building ARCN’s credibility. While the Executive Secretary is a political appointee with adequate credentials to lead a national research system, we propose that Deputy Executive Secretaries be recruited through a selection committee ap- pointed by the Executive Secretary. The report suggests establishment of a separate recruitment unit in ARCN head- quarters. For instance, India has a separate agricultural research recruitment board under the Indian Council of Agricul- tural Research (ICAR) that ensures fair selection and promotion of scientists in the research system. The ARCN reform should establish linkages among its institutions prominently for effective coordination. The vertical and horizontal coordination among its constituent organizations and between them and ARCN need to be defined clearly to avoid overlap or confusion. Additionally, since training, outreach, and extension are key to this reform, the re- port suggests forming a separate unit dedicated to capacity-building efforts. The unit should function under the direct su- pervision of either the Executive Secretary or the Deputy Executive Secretaries. Forming this new unit with existing ARCN staff will help keep costs low. Depending on the need for development of specific subsectors or commodity value chains, the reform suggests that ARCN should have relevant subcommittees. Such subcommittees should include a wide range of stakeholders, such as farmers, scientists, private sector players, and international organizations, to ensure their informational needs are met. Wherever possible, the centralized function of ARCN should be undertaken by ad hoc com- mittees and taskforces. The reform proposes appointing 20 Directors at ARCN, but keeping the overall number of head- quarters staff members low. Globally, decentralization is the focus for technical decision making on the functioning of the individual research institutions. For example, the CGIAR has a Board and each CGIAR center has its own GB. However, ARCN research institutes will not have their own GBs under the reform. They will be expected to have internal management committees that could have external members appointed by ARCN, similar to ICAR. The internal management committees of research institutes should consist of technically sound and well-quali- fied candidates who formulate good policies. For simplification and greater clarity in governance, we propose changing the titles, reporting, and accountability systems of employees of ARCN and its institutes. The proposed strategy may be perceived as diminishing the position of the Executive Director (ED) or Director General (DG) to that of a Director. The position of Deputy DGs, Deputy EDs, or equivalent should be created within each research institute to support its administration and management. Program lead- ers should continue to be referred to as Directors of Research for each commodity or program. Better-sounding titles and corresponding responsibilities may indicate a sense of significance of the position. However, for improving the effective- ness of ARCN as a system, these title changes are necessary. Such changes are global good practice and were used in the reform of other NARS in the developing world. HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND CAPACITY BUILDING A major objective of the ARCN reform is to look critically at the human resources need, streamline the existing capacity, and fill the gaps. Appropriate capacity building to meet research and development (R&D) requirements will require a ca- pacity needs assessment. There is also a need to develop guidelines for recruitment, placement, promotion, and other related human resources management issues. The reform suggests centralized recruitment, placement, promotion, and other related human resources management issues in ARCN. Such centralization is expected to bring greater harmony 4 within the system. However, the process would be bottom-up as it would be based on needs assessments and submis- sions from affected institutions. Due to differences in remuneration and benefits, “brain drain” from research institutes to universities is consider- able. This can be avoided if more incentives exist for scientists to stay in the ARCN system. In India, while salaries are comparable between state agricultural universities and ICAR, researchers belong to a civil service cadre called the Agri- cultural Research Service, which they join through a competitive examination. This improves the status and quality of the scientists recruited. Research scientists in ARCN should focus on research activities of NARIs, instead of on administra- tive management activities. The report suggests conducting a needs assessment to ensure that all existing human re- sources strategies are revisited. Considerable scope exists for improving entry-level candidate requirements for re- searchers in Nigeria. FUNDING AND UTILIZATION Under the proposed reform, ARCN should take ownership and responsibility for provision of the financial and human re- sources of its institutes, universities, and colleges. This will place the responsibility for maintenance of sustainable fund- ing arrangements, sourcing of internal and external resources, resource allocation, and budgetary control in the ARCN leadership. A resource mobilization and allocation committee composed of selected leaders of ARCN institutions under the leadership of the Executive Secretary needs to be formed. Such committee will operate on well-established guide- lines, similar to the control and sharing formula of the National Agricultural Research and Extension Fund (NAREF), es- tablishment of which is also suggested in the reform. The sharing formula for NAREF is administrative and does not need to be spelled out in the law. However, a Board of Trustees could administer the fund. The funding arrangement proposed should consider contributions from farmers’ organizations and the private sector. Allocation of funds to ARCN and its in- stitutes should be direct. ARCN’s mandate should seek ways to leverage means to ensure adequate levels of funding and to rehabilitate and forge working linkages with the industry and external development partners. ROLE OF FEDERAL COLLEGES ARCN should consider establishing a Directorate of Agricultural Education to meet the specific needs of Federal Col- leges of Agriculture (FCA). (See list of FCAs in Annex 4.) Regularizing the issue of linkages between FCAs and universi- ties will be a key step to integrate colleges with research institutions. For the reform to be effective, FCAs should remain under ARCN. FCAs were asked to rethink their position vis-à-vis their long-run benefits. The reform specifies areas or plat- forms where FCAs should adequately feature or actively take part in the nation’s agricultural system. Finally, the reform suggests full autonomy for FCAs whereby they are freed from the parent institutes both administratively and financially. REGULATORY MANDATE OF ARCN For the proposed change, we examine systems that have worked before, identify existing problems, and consider solu- tions that work and how they can be scaled, as in the case of the National Universities Commission (NUC). It is sug- gested that all staff (Secretariat, institutes, and colleges) be managed under one umbrella and be staff of ARCN. However, it must be remembered that fundamental differences exist between ARCN and NUC. NUC is a regula- tory organization for universities, and is guided by the civil service protocol. ARCN is a single managing organization guided by conditions of service determined by the ARCN GB. While the chairmen of internal management committees of NARIs are members of the ARCN GB, the chairmen of Governing Councils of universities are not members of the NUC GB. Consequently, NUC is not involved with the general management of universities. OTHER ISSUES Several other issues will require more attention as part of the reform process, including: weak mechanisms for IPR, own- ership, patenting, and related issues; the need to reposition the professional image of agricultural scientists and agricul- tural research to attract the best minds; the weak working relationship between ARCN, NARIs, FCAs, and related agen- cies; the poor communication and linkage system; the poor legal framework; insufficient private sector participation and partnerships; technological challenges; weak procedures for copyright notification; inadequate focus on soil research and management; biotechnology; the need for commercialization of technology; and the low level of involvement of trade un- ions in the reform process. These factors add to the existing challenges facing Nigeria’s NARS and need to be ad- dressed concurrently. 5 2. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS IN NIGERIA: THE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR REFORM Agriculture is a key component of the Nigerian economy, accounting for an average 23 percent of the Nigerian gross do- mestic product (GDP) between 2010 and 2014. The sector employs about 60 percent of the country’s working popula- tion. Of the total land area of 9.2 million hectares, cultivable land is 83.6 hectares (NBS 2015). The country is blessed with abundant rainfall of between 300–400 mm per year, and an extensive coastal region rich in fish and other marine products. Agriculture contributes to wider economic growth through three key channels: • Technical change, which rapidly transforms traditional agriculture through adoption of science-based technology, leading to productivity gains for poverty and hunger reduction, food security, and nutrition; • Linkages and multiplier effects that enable growth originating in the agriculture sector to spill over into other sec- tors, such as output processing and input supply industries; and • Increased effective demand for outputs of agriculture and non-agriculture sectors as incomes of rural farming households rise. These three processes lead to agricultural-demand-led industrialization, implying that agricultural growth can contribute to employment generation, poverty reduction, and a bridging of the rural-urban income gap. Agriculture is ex- pected to contribute to national development by: enhancing economic output; providing employment and income for pov- erty reduction; providing food security; providing raw materials for industry; reducing imports of food and industrial raw material; and contributing to foreign exchange earnings by increasing export of processed agricultural commodities. In Nigeria, instability in agriculture sector growth led to fluctuations in availability of food and raw materials. Table 1 shows that the average agricultural growth rate was around 4 percent between 2011 and 2014 (NBS 2015). Apart from that, while the growth rates of crop production and fishing remained positive throughout the period, the growth rates of the livestock and forestry subsectors were negative in 2012. The table also reveals that the growth rates of sectors like food, beverages, tobacco, and wood products, which depend on the agriculture sector for inputs, were low and unstable, reflecting the indirect effects of fluctuating quantities of agricultural raw materials. Sectors such as textiles and paper products that registered relatively higher growth rates were supported by imported inputs, with adverse effects on foreign exchange reserves. A more focused agricultural research system would play an important role in smoothing these fluctu- ations. Table 1—Growth Rates of Agriculture and Related Subsectors, 2011–2014, percent Sector/subsector Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture 3.45 6.64 2.94 4.27 Crop Production 2.26 8.44 2.54 4.12 Livestock 14.56 -10.87 5.98 5.42 Forestry 12.01 -3.90 5.63 4.55 Fishing 12.06 4.10 8.98 6.70 Food, Beverage and Tobacco 12.14 1.96 11.81 5.63 Textile, Apparel and Footwear -0.86 133.26 34.48 31.19 Wood and Wood products 9.88 16.06 8.88 12.70 Pulp, Paper and Paper products 13.91 9.39 45.04 14.15 Plastic and Rubber products 21.22 159.29 30.15 30.22 Source: National Bureau of Statistics, 2015. Table 2 shows that the agriculture sector’s contribution to GDP was around 23 percent between 2010 and 2014 (NBS 2015). The numbers clearly show that agriculture sector output is dominated by crop production. The contributions of livestock, forestry, and fishing remained in single digits and generally fell, suggesting that a lot needs to be done to increase their productivity and output. The low contribution of agriculture to GDP is also reflected in the relatively low contributions of sectors that derive their inputs from agriculture (food, beverages and tobacco, textiles, wood products, paper products, and rubber products). Undoubtedly, a better-organized agricultural research system can increase the agriculture sector’s productivity and outputs and its contribution to GDP. 6 Table 2—Contributions of Agriculture and Related Sectors to GDP, 2010–2014, percent Sector/subsector Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture 23.96 23.59 23.91 23.33 22.90 Crop Production 21.49 20.92 21.56 20.96 20.54 Livestock 1.76 1.92 1.62 1.63 1.62 Forestry 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.24 Fishing 0.46 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.50 Food, Beverage and Tobacco 4.24 4.53 4.39 4.65 4.62 Textile, Apparel and Footwear 0.65 0.61 1.36 1.73 2.14 Wood and Wood Products 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 Pulp, Paper and Paper Products 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 Plastic and Rubber Products 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.22 0.27 Source: National Bureau of Statistics, 2015. Data on imports and exports of agricultural commodities between 2010 and 2013 show that agriculture remained an insignificant contributor to merchandise export and imports. The World Development Report (World Bank 2015) sug- gests that the share of Nigerian agriculture in exports and imports has since increased. However, the increase in imports was much more than that of exports, reflecting the lack of diversification in Nigeria’s agricultural economy. The agricul- ture sector needs to contribute to the country’s self-reliance by reducing imports and further increasing exports of agricul- tural and food commodities. For example, Nigeria is the largest producer in the world of cassava, yam, and cowpea and has a comparative advantage in exporting processed cassava. This is a result of strides in cassava research that led to improved varieties. However, since labor constitutes a large percentage of the production cost (75 percent), competitive- ness can be improved by labor-saving technologies, especially in the context of rapidly aging peasant farmers. An effec- tive agricultural research system has the potential to contribute to this goal. Finally, the contribution of agriculture to employment shows a declining trend (NISER 2015). While agriculture remains the main source of employment for most Nigerians, it is among the lowest sectors in remuneration earned, re- flecting a lack of commercialization of agriculture in Nigeria. In 2014, while 41.3 percent of the population’s primary occu- pation was agriculture, only 0.9 percent received substantial remuneration from it (NBS 2014). Productivity and incomes can be enhanced by improving farm management practices such as land and irrigation management practices that vary substantially across agro-ecological zones. Furthermore, increasing area under irrigation will expand output since crop yield under irrigation systems is much higher than under rainfed systems (except for cassava, yams, and leafy vegeta- bles). Farmers can also diversify and become commercial farmers. This requires a responsive agricultural research sys- tem that meets the emerging technology and innovation needs for commercialization of Nigeria’s agriculture sector. Nigeria’s agriculture sector has not fulfilled its avowed role in the national economy due to several factors, includ- ing a prolonged unstable policy environment, diverse agro-ecologies, and institutional failures. With the country’s high rate of population growth, sustainable use of its resource base is increasingly under threat. Cognizant of the food insecu- rity challenges the country has faced, the federal government of Nigeria put in place different policies and programs over the years (Babu and Mavrotas 2014). The country recently embarked on an Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) – a strategic program aimed at improving agricultural productivity and transforming agriculture into a productive and effi- cient sector of the economy. As transformation proceeds, productivity gains must occur in all parts of the agricultural sys- tem. Some efforts toward such a transformation include: increased efficiency in transportation, which lowers distribution costs; better packaging and handling techniques to make more products available to consumers; and new ways of pro- cessing commodities into higher-value products for both domestic and international consumers. These have the potential to increase employment and income to support wider economic growth. In this context, a NARS can play a critical role in increasing the sector’s productivity through technological devel- opment and knowledge sharing. At the same time, the system faces severe constraints, such as declining budgets and donor support, lack of human and physical resources, fragile institutional structures, and a weak policy environment. To survive, NARS must deliver technologies that are effective and relevant to secure domestic political and financial sup- port, especially given dwindling government revenue and associated austerity measures. To this end, activities of agricul- tural research and extension institutions need to be: 1. “Demand-driven” in the focus and conduct of research programs. This implies allocation of resources effectively so that they respond to the needs and opportunities of the marketplace and the natural environment. 7 2. Directly linked to technology development by: identifying research results that can become viable technologies; incorporating product development into ongoing research programs; and understanding the requirements of ef- fective technology transfer. Development and dissemination of new technology is an important factor determining the future of agriculture. As demonstrated by the experience of the Green Revolution in Asia, which led to a doubling of food grain yields in the 1960s and 1970s, technological change in agriculture can be a powerful force in reducing poverty through both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are gains for adopters of technology, while indirect effects are gains derived from adoption of technology for others, leading to lower food prices, employment creation, and growth linkage effects (De Janvry and Sadoulet 2001). Thus, agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, employment, food prices, envi- ronmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of the rural economy. Agricultural technology was a primary factor contributing to increased farm productivity in developing countries over the past half-century (DFID 2015). The importance of technology and research has long been recognized at the continent level and supported by the international development community. For instance, under its Malabo declaration, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) aims to achieve 6 percent growth in agriculture by increasing agricultural productivity through technology generation and dissemination. The fourth pillar of NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is concerned with technology generation, dissemination, and adoption. At the sub-regional level, efforts in the recent past under the World Bank-assisted project for members of the Economic Community of West Afri- can States (ECOWAS), the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Project (WAAPP), were designed to support the genera- tion and adoption of improved agricultural technologies across West Africa (Phillip et al. 2013). In 2004, the World Bank conducted a study on “Strategic options for revamping agricultural research and exten- sion services in Nigeria,” and attributed the inability of Nigeria’s agricultural research and extension services to meet pro- ducers’ needs to the weak linkages between research, extension, and producers; and between government services (World Bank 2004). The study recommended a paradigm shift toward a system that is responsive to stakeholders by im- proving access to research and extension services. This is critical for moving Nigerian agriculture onto a higher growth path. Lessons from more developed economies show that system coordination and strategic research planning under an Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) plan require a robust management structure. A retrospective look into the Nigerian economy and its development reveals that agriculture was both the main- stay of the Nigerian economy and the chief foreign exchange earner (Chigbu 2005; Federal Republic of Nigeria 2000). The agriculture sector’s contribution to economic growth declined over the years, however (Central Bank of Nigeria 2014). Agricultural growth is directly related to growth in agricultural productivity, which in turn is driven by investments in agricultural research and technology dissemination. Transforming the agriculture sector to contribute to the economic transformation agenda requires transformation of its institutions as a first step. This calls for developing a long-term strat- egy and implementing specific actions to transform ARCN. In this spirit, the strategy report suggests a pathway to reform Nigeria’s NARS. Current Structure and Organization of the National Agricultural Research System The composition of the Nigeria’s National Agricultural Research System with its major partners in the research system is shown in Figure 1. This demonstrates the need to strengthen and build capacity of the ARCN to promote and manage agricultural research and become capable of contributing as major player in agricultural transformation of the country. This includes capacity to manage research on diverse problems facing production and developing new technologies suited to different agro-climatic conditions through a network of projects and strategic programs. ARCN should also be well positioned to link the research system to regional and international initiatives. The National Agricultural Research Institutes NARIs and non-ARCN institutes and universities in Nigeria are described below. Traditionally, ARCN has had a relationship with all the of these institutions mentioned below: Research Institutes. The ARCN-based research institutes comprise five crop based-based research institutes; one hor- ticulture institute; three plantation and tree crops research institutes; two livestock research institutes; two fisheries re- search institutes; one post-harvest research institute; and one extension research institute. The non-ARCN-based re- search institutes are the Federal Institute for Industrial Research, Nigeria Institute for Trypanosomiasis Research, For- estry Research Institute, Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute, National Centre for Agricultural Mechani- zation, Nigeria Institute for Social and Economic Research, National Biotechnology Development Agency, and National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology. A detailed list of all the institutes is presented in Annex 3. 8 Figure 1—Current Structure of Nigeria’s the National Agricultural Research System in Nigeria Source: Authors. The ARCN-based research institutes vary in size, age, scope, and mandate. Some focus on narrow problem ar- eas, such as freshwater fisheries, while others have wide mandates and several out-stations in remote parts of the coun- try. These out-stations do not receive enough attention due to poor funding. This results in inadequate staffing and re- sources to handle the commodities for which the out-stations were set up. There is, therefore, a need to establish Research Centers (RCs), which would cater to neglected commodities. These centers would open avenues for partnership between the federal and state governments in funding of Research Centers (RCs), with certain states having a comparative advantage for the same. Jigawa State has already taken took a bold step in this direction, but there is a lack of commitment due to budget constraints. These commodity-based Re- search Centers would require multidisciplinary teams working on issues that have direct relevance to resolve regional demands and problems. The Research Centers would be designed to concentrate on crops and commodities not well served by Institutes in their regular course of work. These centers may in the future grow into full-fledged institutes if their standard of work increases or their area of work assumes greater national importance. National Agriculture Research System ARCN DES Technical co- operation, Exten- sion and commu- nication DES Research & Development DES Administra- tion and Finance Agriculture and other core univer- sities with institute for food security Federal, State and Private Universities Voluntary/ pri- vate organiza- tions/ Society Scientific and technical Committee National Research Institute Research Management Academy, ARMTI National Research Centre Central institutions Project Directors Colleges; Agriculture, Horticulture, veterinary science, fisheries, for- estry, agriculture Regional research stations Special Schemes (ARTIC, AV, IPS) Ad-hoc/special Schemes (CARGS) National Agricul- ture Research Project Nationally Coordi- nated Research Project Centers of Excel- lence Faculties/Colleges Departments Related scientific organizations: RMRDC, FIIRO, NABDA, NISER, NIMET Government Organizations: Sci- ence and Technology, Agricul- ture & Cooperation. Biotechnol- ogy, space, ocean development, Environment and Forests, Indus- try, commerce, food and rural development Other Ministries: HRD, Water Resource and Power, Labor 9 Universities. In the Nigerian NARS there are 46 federal, 40 state-owned, and 61 privately-owned universities. These are located in different agro-ecological zones of the country and offer attractive opportunities for strengthening collaborative partnerships for agricultural research. All the universities listed in Annex 1 have been partners with ARCN in the past. International Agricultural Research Centers. Several international agricultural research centers operate in Nigeria. The major ones include International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Africa Rice Research Center, and Sasa- kawa Global 2000. Agricultural Research System Structure The importance of a well-functioning agricultural research system in Nigeria has long been known. ARCN was estab- lished in 2006 with a mandate to coordinate, supervise, and regulate agricultural research, training, and extension in Ni- geria. The policy process for institutional reform in Nigeria in ARCN’s context is shown in Figure 2. As depicted, ARCN comes under the FMARD. It became the apex body of 15 NARIs and 11 FCAs under the FMARD. The formation of ARCN aimed at revitalizing and refocusing the research system, since NARS’s structure and organization was not wholly effective in: responding to the government’s demand for cost-effective management; generating appropriate technolo- gies; reversing the stalling agricultural growth; or meeting the needs of smallholder farmers. Figure 2—Policy Process Mapping of Institutional Reforms: Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Source: Authors. Currently, Nigeria has the largest NARS in Africa south of the Sahara, comprising 18 Agricultural Research Insti- tutes (15 under the aegis of ARCN), 17 FCAs (11 under ARCN), 19 State Colleges of Agriculture, three Universities of Agriculture, 47 Faculties of Agriculture in both state and federal universities, ten Faculties of Veterinary Medicine, and five IARCs (International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Africa Rice, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), IFPRI, and International Livestock Research Institute). In addition, several private sec- tor organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, and faith-based organiza- tions carry out research in the agriculture sector. Over the last 10 years, ARCN has undergone several reorganizations, leading to instability in its structure and functions. Instability in the agriculture sector also resulted in transfer of some of its key institutions to other ministries. 10 These include the National Center for Agricultural Mechanization, National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnol- ogy, Forestry Research Institute (FRIN), and the Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI). Figure 2 maps out all NARIs and FCAs, along with their mandates. Recent reports reveal that over 120 research institutes and university-based institutes are in the system (ASTI 2010). The report suggests a dwindling number of full-time equivalent researchers with limited access to resources. At the last review in 2012, the total number of employees of NARS stood at 9,889, of which 1,282 were researchers. Of these, 308 held a PhD (24 percent) and the ratio of research to non-research staff was 1:7, which is quite high (ASTI 2012). The federal government is the main source of funding for agricultural research, with an average of USD 0.074 billion per year covering recurrent and capital expenditure from 2000 to 2012. This trend continues to exist. Overall, gov- ernment funding toward agricultural research is 0.02 percent of agricultural GDP, well below the all-Africa average of 0.85 percent (ATSI 2012). Further, the recurrent funds induced greater stability than the capital grants. This is because researchers did not have access to adequate operating capital for grants; thus, the research institutions lost many quali- fied staff. Challenges Faced by ARCN The Government of Nigeria prepared and put in place different policies and programs aimed at addressing the chal- lenges faced by the agriculture sector. The country is currently operating its Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) – a strategic program aimed at improving the sector’s productivity and transforming it into an efficient sector of the econ- omy. The federal government mapped out a plan to achieve the objectives of ATA and is implementing specific actions to transform ARCN. ARCN is not effective for four main reasons: ineffective governance, lack of funding, low human capacity, and poor communication, all of which mutually reinforce the institution’s suboptimal performance. ARCN has ineffective gov- ernance due to the multiplicity of unprofessional GBs, lack of coordination among involved entities, poor central planning, and lack of focus on strategic priorities. Insufficient funding has led to an inability to hire and retain top-level researchers and to limited resources for research. Current research facilities are obsolete, acting as a constraint to researchers. Bu- reaucracy and unclear legal structures have led to weakened collaboration and communication across the research cen- ters. Finally, extensive political interference limits the autonomy of the institutions at all levels. Specific challenges facing Nigeria’s agricultural research system are summarized below. Research management strategies. Institutions do not have effective research management strategies. Their chal- lenges are in: identifying technical, economic, and institutional constraints for effective management; developing and adapting resources and resource mobilization; conducting on-farm trials for different ecological zones to extend technolo- gies and innovation; and working with extension agents to ensure transfer of knowledge to farmers and to receive feed- back on emerging farm-level problems. The absence of a centralized research program on human resources planning and management at the national level makes it difficult to align human resources needs with national agricultural devel- opment challenges. Governance structures. A major challenge for Nigeria’s NARS is the weak governance structures within ARCN and NARIs. Currently all NARIs have separate GBs, whose research objectives, funding, appointment process for CEOs of institutes/colleges, and other management issues are not aligned. In some cases, duplication of NARIs’ mandates still exist. Appropriate governance structures are needed for better coordination and for holding leadership accountable for performance and results. Partnerships. Building international and national partnerships to keep institutions aware of and adopt best practices can speed up the innovation process. Research lessons from global partnerships can help design national policies and pro- gram that are evidence-based. However, institutions in Nigeria face leadership and capacity challenges in: evaluating risks in partnerships; building research coalitions and developing flexible research strategies; and partnering with the university system through consensus. Research coordination. Coordination of research is essential to avoid overlap and duplication of effort. Better coordina- tion can help in building synergy in research and innovation across the country. However, several challenges arise in bringing the existing institutions together to set research priorities, plan research programs, implement research projects, and monitor, evaluate, and assess the impact of research investments. In addition, developing research programs based on specific agro-ecological zones that cuts across several states involves coordination at the state level. Responding to persistent and emerging challenges. Making NARS responsive involves conducting research and building a knowledge base in agricultural science for short-, medium-, and long-term interventions in a more rapid man- 11 ner; this will be essential for responding to current and future food security challenges. This involves: developing environ- mentally sound technologies for various agro-ecological zones for year-round production; adapting food systems to new settings, such as climate change and the vagaries of the economy; and modifying food systems to meet dietary and nu- trition goals. In the current context of Nigeria, research is needed to address productivity-enhancing technologies, water use efficiency, changing consumption patterns, and food price fluctuations. Building linkages with extension and education systems. This refers to NARS’ capacity to address and articulate the needs of federal, state, and local governments, universities, and other institutes of higher learning. Increased partnership with the private sector/industry and markets and establishment of linkages and stability in the extension delivery system are essential in the Nigerian context. A better-organized ARCN could facilitate such linkages at the national level. Sustainable funding mechanisms. Delays in budgetary process, inflationary trends, and delays in release of approved funds are major factors that constrain the smooth functioning of NARS. In addition, poor remuneration for research scien- tists has led to internal brain drain from institutes to universities. Nigerian NARIs are characterized by high instability of funding from the government. ARCN can play a leadership role in mobilizing resources for NARS and developing various mechanisms for effective use of research resources. Monitoring, evaluation, and impact evaluation. Regular monitoring, evaluation, and impact evaluation of research pro- grams are necessary in understanding the appropriateness and relevance of developed technologies in specific agro- ecological contexts. This requires institutes to build capacity for evaluating various impact components, such as social, economic, environmental, and livelihood returns. In addition, impact evaluation involves the challenge of: conducting technical and economic feasibility studies of research outcomes; estimating the extent of adoption and commercializa- tion; and keeping pace with international best practices. Legislation and legal instruments. Multiple legislative instruments (both principal and subsidiary) purport to regulate agricultural research. A review of the literature indicates that the research 47 is deemed to be the cornerstone, nucleus, and catalyst for transformation of the agriculture sector. The current state of disorganization has stemmed legislation conferring powers to a large number of stakehold- ers who conveniently operate in silos, without any incentive to bear allegiance or commitment to national agricultural pri- orities. The Coordinating Council of ARCN, which is expected to be the apex for agricultural research, became ineffective over the years due to the multiple layers of authority. The current membership of the GBs of ARCN and NARIs prefer appointments through political patronage as op- posed to merit-based selection of members. In its current state, the ARCN GB lacks the academic and professional skills required to implement the ARCN mandate and to provide leadership for driving agricultural research. At least two catego- ries of NARIs exist from the point of view of their legal instruments: • Those established under University Statutes, before the establishment of ARCN; by constitution, these are en- trenched in the academic environment, operating under the statutes of their parent academic institutions. • Those established under the National Research Institutes Act 1964; these are federal establishments under the supervisory responsibility of the Minister. The members of their GBs bare appointed by state and local govern- ments and are in much higher numbers than required. Other challenges. Other challenges facing Nigeria’s NARS include: institutional instability; poorly articulated funding mechanisms; inadequate research staff in both number and quality; inadequate government policies; poorly developed legal frameworks; and unmarketable technologies leading to poor commercialization potential. 3. REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES IN NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS Agricultural Research Council Models NARSs differ significantly in their effectiveness, reflecting the inherent strengths or weaknesses of their organizational systems for specific functions. It is generally recognized that countries of Asia and Latin America have achieved suc- cesses in their agriculture because they were able to reorganize their research systems to enable research to play a piv- otal role in transforming the agriculture sector. The changes that took place in Asia and Latin America are examples of interactive dynamics between political and socioeconomic processes. Although the socioeconomic and political condi- tions differ, the processes that led to the establishment of Agricultural Research Councils in countries of Latin America and Asia have striking similarities. The reorganized Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), for example, re- sulted from a situation in which technology and research were seen by the relevant political system as key factors in solving the problems faced by the country. In Brazil and some other Latin American countries, it was shortages in food 12 grain availability or declining trends in export commodities that accelerated the reorganization of agricultural research systems. Different models exist for reorganization of agricultural research systems. The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) model operated in India, Brazil, China, South Africa, Kenya, and Bangladesh represents a variant of an autono- mous research organization, playing the roles of policy making, managing or administering, coordinating, and funding through respective research councils. The ARC model may or may not include responsibility for agricultural education. ARCs are organized either as managing councils, coordinating councils, or funding councils. MANAGING COUNCILS The Managing Council model is considered quite effective. Managing Councils plan, organize, manage, and direct most of the government-funded research station network. They carry out some research through their own research institutes and some in collaboration with other organizations. They administer the activities of experimental stations, institutes, pro- grams, and scientists. Their numbers vary according to the size of the research system. In large countries, where agricul- tural research is organized at both federal and provincial levels under different administrative set-ups, Managing Councils link federal and regional experimental stations through a series of national programs. ICAR, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Chi- nese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS), Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), and Indone- sian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD) are examples of Managing Councils. ICAR has about 100 research institutes while EMBRAPA comprises 47 research institutes. South Africa’s ARC has 11 research institutes. These countries’ experience with the Managing Council model show that: • While the function of policy planning, reviewing, and funding should be centralized, the process of program exe- cution, administration, and authority for use of resources should be decentralized to make individual units effi- cient but responsible. • The review process and a system of incentives and deterrents encourages efficiency and should be built into the system. • A system of external program and management reviews is useful in toning up research and management. • Comparatively greater autonomy with accountability is needed in administrative and financial matters. • The recruitment and promotion process is usually harmonized through establishment of autonomous units or boards for the entire system. • As an ARC is responsible for partially funding, strengthening, and coordinating research, training, and extension, it should ensure that institutes and universities have a healthy balance of basic, strategic, applied, and adaptive research. FUNDING COUNCILS Funding Councils do not have any research under their administrative control, but influence the direction of research through control over disbursement of government funds. Thus, in prioritizing research, they give a sense of direction to and shape research programs. To a large extent, financial control can influence the course of research without inspiring or catalyzing it. In addition, Funding Councils tend to be highly bureaucratic because of their financial powers. The Philip- pine Council for Agricultural and Resource Research and Development (PCARRD) is such an example. COORDINATING COUNCILS Coordinating Councils’ primary responsibility is coordination of research for the country, but the research institutes that they coordinate maintain administrative and budgetary independence. This is the model presently practiced in Nigeria by ARCN’s Coordinating Council. Coordinating Councils’ functions are to: • Develop national research plans based on strategic and economic considerations, thus influencing the research program of different experimental stations in the country; and • Periodically review the work of experimental stations. Coordinating Councils are the least effective of the three ARC models, because they lack both resources and administrative powers. Persuasion and motivation alone cannot effectively influence the course of research without proper planning, adequate resource mobilization, and efficient management. 13 International NARS Study Tours A select group of professionals in ARCN and NARS took study tours of ICAR, CAAS, CATAS, and EMBRAPA. Tours were organized by FMARD and sponsored by WAAPP. The purpose of the tours was to collect relevant infor- mation and acquire knowledge to inform the ARCN reform process. These research systems are playing a major role in the speedy transformation of their countries from food-deficit to food-surplus nations. At each institution visited, the delegation received lectures on the: • Organization of agricultural research; • Role played by the institution in the country’s agricultural revolution; • Relationship between the agricultural research system and extension services; • Relationship between the agricultural research system and the seed system; • Relationship between the agricultural research system and the private sector; • Process of commercialization of research results; • Mechanism of funding of NARIs; and • Relationship between the agricultural research system and the central, state, and local governments. Observations made as a result of the study tours and their relevance for Nigeria are summarized by country. INDIA’S NARS Delegates visited ICAR, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, the National Gene Bank and Cryopreservation Centre, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), the Punjab Agricultural University, the Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, ICRISAT, and the Bio-Seed Company. A strong link was observed between ICAR and India’s NARS, as evidenced by the following: • ICAR is headed by a Director General who is also the Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) in the Ministry of Agriculture and chairs the Governing Council. Thus, ICAR is represented at the highest policy-making body of the Ministry. The Council has been in existence for almost 60 years. • The India NARS comprises of 30 research institutes, 60 project directorates, 78 All-India Coordinated Research Projects, 61 state agricultural universities (SAUs), six deemed universities, and agricultural faculties in many tra- ditional universities that are under ICAR’s coordination and supervision in terms of funding of research activities. Thus, ICAR is closely linked with NARS through funding, even though the different institutions may be under dif- ferent administrative management. • Of the 30 research institutes, seven are national institutes. All national institute staff are staff of ICAR and are funded through ICAR. The staff strength is about 10,000, made up of 4,000 scientists with an annual budget of about US$2 billion. Each institute has a management board chaired by the Director. Staff are recruited and pro- moted through an autonomous Recruitment Board headed by an equivalent of the Director-General of ICAR. Even though the states have the primary responsibility for the agriculture, health, and education sectors, ICAR has a strong relationship with the states in setting priorities and implementing agricultural research. • Different fora exist where issues concerning national agricultural research activities are discussed under the guidance of ICAR and all stakeholders are usually represented. Agricultural research policy is generated through a bottom-up approach and is completely participatory. Decisions reached at such fora are prioritized and guide ICAR in approving projects to be funded annually. All agricultural research centers have similar operational, structural, and funding mechanisms across provinces, and all funding comes through ICAR. • India’s KVKs (Agricultural Science Centers) are a big success story as effective platforms for fostering close re- search-extension-farmer linkages. ICAR established 642 KVKs at the district level (one per district); these tech- nology transfer centers are under the administrative control of research institutes affiliated with ICAR, SAUs, and NGOs. The centers are responsible for the transfer of new technologies, for training extension agents and farm- ers, for providing soil testing for farmers, and for other related services. Extension agents visit KVKs to obtain technologies to disseminate to farmers. KVKs are the smallest unit of the various research institutes. CHINA’S NARS The delegates visited the CAAS headquarters, CAAS facilities and its gene bank, and the CATAS headquarters and its gene bank. The administrative and academic systems of both CAAS and CATAS are virtually identical, the differences 14 being only in their peculiar ecologies (that is, the northern, cooler climate versus the southern, warm or tropical climate, respectively). The following observations were made during the China visit: • CAAS is headed by a President, who is also the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, supported by five Vice-Presi- dents. CATAS’s administrative set-up is similar. CAAS has 40 research institutes with a staff strength of about 10,000, of which 7,000 are researchers, with an annual budget of US$700 million from the government. • CAAS and CATAS both operate nonprofit research institutes and revenue-generating ones through various sub- sidiaries and research activities. • Research funding is heavily dependent on the government, even though institutes compete for funds for re- search projects through a competitive research grant scheme (70 percent of funds dedicated to this). Funding of CAAS/CATAS is in three categories: (i) 60.5 percent government; (ii) 35.2 percent contract research; and (iii) 4.3 percent self-generated income. Research institutes are allowed to invest their income. However, some institu- tions are nonprofit organizations that are fully funded by the government. • Extension developed over time, allowing for uptake of research findings at the grassroots level. Agricultural re- search and extension in China operate on hi-tech basis and linkages with farmers are mostly linear. China plans to adopt the Farming Station approach, similar to India’s KVKs. • Both CAAS and CATAS have very functional and effective gene banks as the nucleus of their work for crop im- provement. Each has elaborate biotechnology laboratories for identifying what it has at molecular level, not phe- notypic or anatomical. BRAZIL’S NARS Delegates visited EMBRAPA headquarters, the Ministry of Agrarian Development, the Chamber of Foreign Trade, a pro- ject site in the Cerrados, the head office of EMATER (an agricultural extension company), and the Ministry of Foreign Trade. The following observations were made: • EMBRAPA has a Policy Supervisory Board of three members; an Executive Administrative Board of seven mem- bers that includes the President of EMBRAPA; and a National Advisory Board of forty members chaired by the President of EMBRAPA. The latter works very closely with the Executive Board and is responsible for strategic action planning. Three Executive Directors under the President of EMBRAPA oversee the three major depart- ments: Administration, Research, and Technology Transfer. • EMBRAPA is the focal point of agricultural research in Brazil. It is a public organization that undertakes research design, implementation, and innovations to overcome agricultural problems in Brazil. • EMBRAPA has 47 research centers under its purview. Their entire staff are part of EMBRAPA, which is the fund- ing source for each center. The organization has a total of 9,790 employees, of which 2,444 are researchers, 2,503 are analysts, 1,780 are technicians, and 3,063 are assistants. • About US$1 billion is disbursed to EMBRAPA annually by the federal government to finance the capital, re- search, overhead, and recurrent expenditures of its research centers. Funds for research activities are given to the centers through a competitive research grant scheme. Other sources of funding for specific research protocol can be obtained directly from the federal government by each center. • The head of each center is appointed by the President of EMBRAPA. Staff are recruited through an open public examination conducted by EMBRAPA. Various fora exist through which issues concerning national agricultural research activities are discussed under the guidance of EMBRAPA and key stakeholders are represented. • EMBRAPA’s research program is policy-induced and demand-driven. The policy thrust behind the organization’s technology-generation efforts is provided by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, which grants EMBRAPA a liberal budget policy in terms of regular allocations for running costs and competitive grants for actual research work. • In the value chain of agricultural technologies, EMBRAPA is a critical link to end users. The organization has a Technology Transfer Secretariat that operates under a Technology Transfer Board and focuses on the private sector and large-scale farmers as end users of technological innovations. • EMBRAPA’s technologies are delivered to farm families through the research-extension linkage system estab- lished by the Federal Ministry of Agrarian Development. The Ministry provides farm families access to services of private companies or independent public corporations. The Ministry operates on the concept of “family farm” to make knowledge available to farmers, to provide technical assistance in terms of farm subsidies, and to provide 15 farm inputs to farmers. Furthermore, the Ministry implements the “More Food International” program and a “School Feeding Program” targeting vulnerable people. • EMBRAPA’s R&D activities draw considerable benefits from technological innovations of the global development community through international cooperation for knowledge exchange and professional services. This is usually tied with the sale of machinery to developing countries through the Chamber of Foreign Trade. The R&D activi- ties management system is based on a 12-year master plan under a governance structure directly linked to the Ministry through the Deputy Minister of Agriculture as chairman of the Governing Council. Lessons Drawn from International Experience The study tours revealed important insights about the three countries’ experience with NARS. These insights were appli- cable to the Nigerian context, and were used as a basis for this strategy report. Lessons learned from the study tours that have application for Nigeria are described below. RESEARCH AND EXTENSION LINKAGES In all three countries, state governments oversee agricultural extension and a strong linkage exists between extension and agricultural research. The Indian KVKs are an effective platform for fostering close research-extension-farmer link- ages. KVKs trains their workers to transfer technologies to outgrowers and other farmers. These centers have a distinct line of reporting by which all KVK Coordinators report to the Zonal Project Directors at their respective zones (eight in number), while the Zonal Project Directors report to the Deputy Director General (Extension) of ICAR. Establishment of KVK-like bodies in the Nigerian system would go a long way in alleviating the country’s poor research-extension linkage. ARCN would more effectively coordinate agricultural research efforts in Nigeria if these centers were operated by univer- sities, NGOs, and other institutions that are linked and can collaborate under ARCN supervision. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SEED SYSTEM The seed systems in all three countries are fully liberalized. That does not hinder research institutes’ business units’ abil- ity to produce seeds. In fact, seed companies work very closely with the research institutes. In India, an Agro Business Incubator Model between ICRISAT and seed companies offers private, easy access to skilled researchers and research facilities (laboratories, trial/demonstration fields) required for the development and scale up of products, their quality con- trol, and standardization at manageable fees. Seed certification in India and China is not centrally controlled but done by private companies and research institutes, respectively. In Brazil seed certification is done by licensed private certifica- tion officers/agencies. The strength of EMBRAPA, CAAS, CATAS, and ICAR seed systems is their ability to actively in- volve private and multinational seed companies, such as Bio-Seeds, Monsanto, Du Pont, Syngenta, and others. Seed companies in these countries compete vigorously among themselves for market share and maintain demonstration plots, well-equipped laboratories, market outlets, and a highly skilled manpower. The procedures for determining seed requirement in these countries are well-structured and coordinated, with demand flowing from states to the national level. The Agro Business Innovation Platform, known as Value Chain Consor- tia in India, can be easily replicated in Nigeria for stakeholders’ interaction. However, this would require an upgrade of infrastructure and research facilities in NARIs, along with adequate and sustainable funding. Robust capacity building geared toward enhancing skills of researchers and production of more scientists, particularly seed breeders, is of utmost necessity in Nigeria. The practice of establishing a Seed Business Unit strictly treating foundation seed as a business is worth emula- tion, as it ensures an adequate supply of foundation seed to beneficiaries at acceptable standards. The use of licensed private certification officers/agencies, as in Brazil, enhances the acceptability of seeds and increases private sector par- ticipation in the seed system. Nigeria needs to consider development of such a system to ensure adequate seed supply at reliable quality standards. FUNDING OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Agricultural research is very well funded by the government of all three countries. Additionally, funds for research are generated from other sources. Most funds for agricultural research are allocated through block grants, but funding through competitive grants is now gaining acceptance, especially for operating and equipment costs. Resource allocation decisions are based on informed opinion and collective wisdom regarding research priorities that address development objectives. Institutions are directly involved in allocation decisions, and other stakeholders are widely consulted. In India, the central government funds a block grant to agricultural institutes through ICAR, which also manages grants and loans from multilateral donors and collaborative research programs funded by bilateral donors and international organizations. Additionally, ICAR manages an Agricultural Produce Fund levied at 0.5 percent on specified export commodities. Overall, 16 the central government provides 52 percent of public funding for agricultural research and education, almost all of which passes through ICAR. A significant proportion of ICAR funds (30 percent) is made available for extramural funding and a large propor- tion of this (87 percent) is directed to SAUs. About 30 percent of the extramural funding from ICAR is disbursed through AICRIPs in the form of block grants, 12 percent through competitive funding, 34 percent through donor-funded projects, 17 percent through grants to KVKs, and 7 percent as development grants to SAUs. In China, funding of research is heavily dependent on the government. As per the funding arrangement, insti- tutes compete for funds through a competitive research grant scheme. Funding of research in Brazil is mainly done by the federal government (about 1 US$ billion), given to research centers through a competitive research grant scheme, although other sources of funding are also available for specific research protocol. COMMERCIALIZATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS Agricultural research in all three countries is demand-driven. Research institutes and universities have strong linkages with farmers and manufacturers. Also, platforms exist within different regions of these countries and nationally where researchers, farmers, and manufacturers meet to hold discussions on the ongoing technological developments to build synergy and avoid duplication of effort. To promote the process of commercialization of research results, ICAR set up the Intellectual Property and Technology Management Unit (IP&TM) headed by an Assistant Director General. ICAR is thus slowly, steadily, but comprehensively moving toward intellectual property management and technology transfer in an or- ganized manner. A decentralized three-tier intellectual property management mechanism was institutionalized in ICAR in 2006, comprising three major components. The first includes individual institutes of ICAR, empowered and enabled to enter licensing contracts or commercial agreements for the commercial transfer of ICAR technologies to interested parties. The second includes a middle-tier consisting of five Zonal Technology Management and Business Planning and Development Units stationed at IARI in New Delhi; IVRI in Izatnagar; CIRCOT in Mumbai; NIRJAFT in Kolkata; and CIFT in Kochi. The units were developed to facilitate business and strengthen public-private partnerships. The units also publicize ICAR technology profiles available at various ICAR institutes located in the respective zones. The third includes a central IP and technology management unit at ICAR headquarters to facilitate techno-legal and policy matters/concerns on a case- by-case basis and to catalyze public-private relationships at the central level. ICAR’s focus areas for commercializing research results are streamlining the transfer of knowledge and technol- ogy products through commercial, cooperative, and open public channels; joint intellectual property management support in collaborative projects; facilitation and advisories in techno-regulatory and policy matters related to intellectual property and technology management; and public-private partnerships in technology/know-how transfer and R&D. ICAR encourages interested parties to enter into commercial ventures with its technology and knowledge prod- ucts and services. In addition to the above, ICAR headquarters and its institutes established Business Planning and De- velopment Units. EMBRAPA’s Technology Transfer Secretariat operates under a Technology Transfer Board that fo- cuses on end users of its technological innovations. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT In India, China, and Brazil as in Nigeria, a very close and complex relationship exists between agricultural research and the central governments. The government finances every aspect of research and education through ICAR in India, CAAS and CATAS in China, and EMBRAPA in Brazil. These research councils: • Fund and manage a vast network of national research institutes for research and postgraduate education; cen- tral research institutes for commodity-specific research; national bureaus for conservation and exchange of germplasm and soil-survey work; and national research centers for applied, commodity-specific strategic re- search. • Manage many nationally coordinated research projects. In India for instance, ICAR manages the All-India Coor- dinated Research Projects, which draw scientists from both ICAR institutions and SAUs. However, for the most important All-India Coordinated Research Projects – those for rice, wheat, maize, cattle, oilseeds, water, crop- ping systems, and biological control of pests – ICAR established special project directorates with their own re- search infrastructure under ICAR administrative control, consisting of teams of multidisciplinary scientists. All-India Coordinated Research Projects are like Nigeria’s Nationally Coordinated Research Projects (NCRPs). NCRPs attempt to link the country’s research system to universities across the nation, with NARIs coordinating the pro- jects in accordance with their mandates. Additionally, ICAR established KVKs at district level for the transfer of new tech- nologies. Similarly, EMBRAPA’s Technology Transfer Unit disseminates knowledge. These models can be easily repli- cated for Nigeria’s agriculture sector. http://ztmbpd.iari.res.in/ http://ivri.nic.in/ztmbpd http://bpdcircot.com/ http://www.nirjaft.res.in/bpd/bpd.htm http://www.cift.res.in/php/viewContent.php?CatID=178#187 17 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND STATE GOVERNMENTS The relationship between NARS and state governments can be seen clearly in the context of the Indian experience. Apart from the district-level KVKs, India has training centers to train extension workers in areas such as livestock, horti- culture, fisheries, and home science. One central agricultural university under ICAR caters to the needs of small states in northeastern India. And SAUs have zonal research stations to address research problems for different agro-climatic zones. Although agriculture is a state responsibility, India’s central government funds a block grant of substantial amounts through ICAR. Additionally, grants and loans from multilateral donors and other collaborative research pro- grams funded by bilateral donors and international organizations are provided through ICAR. The training centers in the Indian system can be compared to the Federal and State Colleges of Agriculture in Nigeria, which are meant to train mid- dle-level extension workers in all aspects of agriculture in accordance with farmers’ needs. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARCN REFORM FROM COUNTRY REVIEW EXERCISES AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES Organizational reforms A review of Nigeria’s NARS helped identify the weaknesses that need to be addressed to revamp the system. Overcom- ing the following challenges would be essential in increasing productivity of the agriculture sector and ensuring efficient use of resources: • Restore the role of ARCN as the apex body responsible for coordinating the budgeting, planning, monitoring, and funding for all research projects and technology transfer across the country as per the ARCN Act. • Provide adequate funding of ARCN for its effective and efficient functioning, also enabling it to exercise some control over agricultural research activities in the country. • Ensure that NARIs follow ARCN guidelines for staff recruitment and funding processes. This will enable a higher level of control over research institutes, similar to other countries. • Review governance procedures for efficiency, quality of membership, and multiplicity of GBs to ensure better coordination among NARIs. • Reexamine NARIs’ mandate to avoid duplication and strengthen them financially; there is a strong need to split some research institutes in the National Vision 2020. This would ensure better focus on farmers’ needs and help boost enterprises with comparative advantage in specific regions. • Refocus and strengthen the weak research-extension linkage in Nigeria. The existing Research Extension Farmer Input Linkage Systems (REFILS) arrangement is expensive and unsustainable. • Revive the NCRPs for proper and effective coordination of research projects and activities across the country. • Carry out extensive transformation of the seed system in Nigeria, which is currently quite weak, especially re- garding the relationship between agricultural research and seed companies. • All institutions/organizations related to agricultural research should be properly placed within NARS for adequate supervision and coordination; for instance, National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (NACGRAB) and National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization (NCAM) should be under ARCN. • For maximum impact, it is suggested that at least one Agricultural Research Technology Transfer Center (ARTTC) be established in each Local Government Area (LGA) of the country. The strategy team devised recommendations based on research, stakeholder interaction, and international experience. The following recommendations form the fulcrum of the reform process: • Review ARCN’s structure and transform it from a Coordinating Council to a Managing Council, making it more effective in its supervisory role. This also implies reorganizing the ARCN governance structure to exert greater authority in NARS, hence repositioning it as the focal point of research for agricultural transformation in Nigeria. • Identify and establish the roles and responsibilities of ARCN as a Managing Council, and propose management and implementation guidelines for all NARIs and FCAs. • Reform the research funding system, directing greater financial control toward ARCN and its component NARIs. • Develop and implement a strategy for funding NARIs. 18 • Develop clear recommendations for revitalization of FCAs and their role in technology delivery. • Develop strategies for sustainable partnership arrangements with key stakeholders in the agriculture and allied sectors. • Develop a strategy to establish in all Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the country Agricultural Research Tech- nology Transfer Centers (ARTTCs) to strengthen the research-extension linkage. These centers will be responsi- ble for transfer of new technologies, trials, demonstrations, training of extension agents, soil testing for farmers, vocational training, and other extension activities. Centers should be established in phases. • Review the extension system to identify the role of research in the delivery of technology and knowledge dissem- ination. • Promote commercialization of research results within the research system and through establishment of Busi- ness Plan and Development Units in ARCN and NARIs. NARIs with clearly viable technology and innovations should be encouraged to establish spin-off companies. • Revitalize the IPR reward and protection system in the agriculture sector under the management of ARCN. • Promote states and the private sector as active stakeholders in agricultural research. • Establish and operationalize NCRPs to draw multidisciplinary scientists from all over NARS (both national and state) and work on different research topics of strategic national importance. WAAPP should support ARCN in this regard. • Reform the crop variety and livestock breed release systems to consolidate related services within ARCN, under services of the Variety Release Committee and the National Agricultural Seed Council, respectively. • Develop a framework or platform to facilitate cooperation between the central and state government for joint pro- graming and implementation of the agricultural research agenda. • Revise legal provisions relevant to management of Nigeria’s NARS. • Based on the above experiences, it is strongly recommended that ARCN and its research institutes create a Business Planning and Development Unit for effective commercialization of research results. This unit will facili- tate close linkages and collaboration with the private sector. The institutes should engage with the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) and the Association of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (ACIMA) for dissemination and adoption of technologies developed. Governance and budgeting Governance and budgeting-related reforms will set the foundation of the entire reform process. Currently, ARCN and its institutes have their own independent GBs, although the mandate of coordinating, supervising, and regulating agricultural research, training, and extension across the country rests with ARCN. As per the current Act, ARCN also has supervi- sory role over NARIs. Due to this provision, the NARI Chairpersons are currently the members of the ARCN GB. Thus, the expectation is that the Chairs of the NARI GBs will ensure that NARI policies are aligned with those of ARCN. Experi- ence has shown, however, that having the Chairs of NARI GBs as part of the ARCN GB does not ensure the intended congruence. Instead, this arrangement has made the ARCN GB rather unwieldy and expensive to maintain, while the policies adopted by NARI GBs are not aligned with those of ARCN. Meanwhile, members of the NARI GBs are typically nontechnical, detracting from the quality of policy decisions and guidance offered. To reform the governance process, it is recommended that the usefulness of NARI GBs be revis- ited and that the ARCN GB be made leaner. At the NARI level, GBs could be called Internal Management Committees. Additionally, it is important that these committees consist of technically competent persons with relevant intellectual and practical experience in all components of the agriculture sector, including processing and agro-allied industries. These committees’ members should be appointed by ARCN. Last, the challenge of varied procedures for appointment of chief executives of university-based NARIs should be harmonized by allowing the involvement of ARCN in the selection process. Regarding the budgeting process, ARCN should oversee the budget process to be effective. Currently, the budget supervisory role is played by the Agricultural Science Department of the FMARD. The ideal process should be for NARIs to forward their budgets to ARCN for vetting and moderation as necessary. Thereafter, ARCN should consolidate NARI budgets and its own to arrive at the budget for NARS, which is considered and authorized by the Minister of Agriculture to be submitted to the Federal Ministry of Fi- nance. However, in practice, the budget process in NARIs bypasses ARCN. Evidence shows that NARIs submit their budgets to the FMARD, after which they are forwarded to the Federal Ministry of Finance. Thus, the institutes operate on their own agenda, without connecting or contributing to a larger vision for agricultural research. Apart from detracting 19 from the supervisory role of ARCN, the process renders the research budget vulnerable, fragmented, and ineffective. There is no full accountability for the funds received as the FMARD does not have the capacity to track or evaluate NARIs’ research. Capacity building For ARCN and its institutes, the two dimensions of capacity considered most pertinent in the context of agricultural re- search, training, and extension are human resources capacity and organizational capacity. The capacity constraints iden- tified as critical in preventing NARIs from fulfilling their mandates were the dearth of research scientists due to brain drain to universities; and the inability to attract young scientists because of obsolete research facilities and infrastructure, par- ticularly in comparison to those of universities or the private sector. In addition, NARIs have a pyramidal staff structure, with a very large base of nonscientists and a very narrow apex of scientists; and their institutional rigidities do not allow partnership arrangements with local and international research organizations. Communication Comm