Journal of Food Security, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2, 30-41 Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jfs/1/2/4 © Science and Education Publishing DOI:10.12691/jfs-1-2-4 Repackaging Agricultural Research for Greater Impact on Agricultural Growth in Africa Papa Abdoulaye Seck1, Afiavi Agboh-Noameshie2,*, Aliou Diagne2, Ibrahim Bamba3 1Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Equipment, Dakar, Senegal 2Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), Cotonou, Benin 3International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Via Paolo di Dono, Rome, Italy *Corresponding author: a.agboh-noameshie@cgiar.org Received July 30, 2013; Revised November 10, 2013; Accepted November 12, 2013 Abstract Despite the enormous research activities embarked upon by the various research entities in Africa over time, the expected research impacts remain obscure. This paper is a compilation of facts and figures from published peer reviewed articles, agricultural research and development reports from national and international institutions, and base-line data from the Africa Rice Centre aimed at elucidating the performance of agricultural research in Africa between 1960 and 2010. It discusses the constraints to the visible impact of agricultural research on the growth of Africa’s economy, and suggests how to repackage agricultural research for more visible impact on Africa’s economic growth. Results show that agricultural research has been beneficial for African agriculture widely and is believed to be the backbone of the economic growth of the continent. Agricultural research has also served as the bedrock of agricultural technological transformation to enhance agricultural growth. Research has helped to increase agricultural production and productivity and food security in several countries. Also, investment in agricultural research has yielded positive impact on poverty reduction and food security. However, food security and poverty are still visibly mining the African population. The major constraints in the utilization of agricultural research results are the lack of adequate public investment in agriculture, lack of well-trained researchers, inadequate research infrastructures and poor management of the agricultural research and development system. Findings show that in order to package agricultural research for visible impact on the economy, agricultural research systems would need to be adequately funded and handled by skilled human resources under good governance. An effective innovative agricultural policy would demand the initial acknowledgment that a break from the past is necessary to ‘produce more and better’ in Africa and that successful agricultural research systems should be designed in a framework of co-construction, co-execution and co-evaluation. Keywords: agricultural research, development, food security, governance, agricultural growth Cite This Article: Papa Abdoulaye Seck, Afiavi Agboh-Noameshie, Aliou Diagne, and Ibrahim Bamba, “Repackaging Agricultural Research for Greater Impact on Agricultural Growth in Africa.” Journal of Food Security 1, no. 2 (2013): 30-41. doi: 10.12691/jfs-1-2-4. livelihood and quality of life has not been realized. This situation has its roots in the way research was being 1. Introduction conducted, mainly because it did not adopt inputs from the non-research sector [8]. Institutional innovations are Agriculture remains one of the pillars of Africa’s needed to improve productivity and make public economic, social and rural development. About 70% of agricultural institutions more responsive to markets, more Africans and roughly 80% of the continent’s poor live in accountable to the communities they serve, and better rural areas and depend mainly on agriculture for their recognized as an important tool for achieving economic livelihood [1]. The sector accounts for about 20% of growth. Africa’s GDP [2,3], 60% of its labour force and 20% of Chen and Démurger (2002), FAO (2001), and Seck et the total merchandise exports [4,5]. It is the main source al. (2010) [9,10,11] reported that investment and of income for 90% of the rural population in Africa [6]. technology are essential prerequisites for agricultural Although most people in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) growth and development. Other studies have shown that engage in agriculture, its productivity has been stagnant huge productivity gains are possible and accrue where from the 1960s until year 2001 when it rose slightly [7]. governments allocate the necessary resources to The reasons for this stagnation include inadequate returns agricultural research and development [12]. In East and from investments in agricultural research and development South Asia, for example, increases in government efforts, among others. Agricultural research has generated spending on agriculture have been clearly linked to rapid several kinds of technology with high potentials for growth in agriculture and progress towards achieving the impact, but the expected impact on farmers’ productivity, Millennium Development Goals [13]. In SSA, however, Journal of Food Security 31 public investment in agriculture is still far below what is 2. Review Methodology needed, despite commitments by African governments to allocate 10% of their public spending to it [4]. The paper is developed from a comprehensive review Increased spending on agricultural research is vital, but of peer-reviewed literature and an extensive review of the it is equally important to ensure that the research carried grey literature. A primary literature search was done out benefits the smallest farmers. In developing countries, online by visiting agricultural research and development research has too often by-passed the most needy farmers, sites such as The United Nations Food and Agriculture offering solutions that are beyond their reach or simply Organisation (FAO), The International Fund for inappropriate to their livelihoods. The challenge is to Agriculture Development (IFAD), the International Food develop technology that is relevant to small farmers and to Policy research Institute (IFPRI), and also the Access to enable them to transform their farms into viable small Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) website businesses that make a vital contribution to local and using the various keywords for our research (Impact, national economies. This calls for client-oriented Agriculture, Africa, Economic growth, etc). The grey agricultural research. literature search involved reference lists from other papers, In the past, agricultural research had worked as if the websites of the International Center for Agricultural farmers and end-users had nothing to say about the Research, discussions with colleagues and searches in technologies and priority was given to cash crops research AfricaRice library. The authors individually reviewed the (cotton, coffee, cocoa, rubber, etc). Research on food papers and reports, and prepared summaries that were crops was almost forgotten; but as soon as it was discussed and agreed upon before the elaboration of the embarked upon, the same trend of linear top-down paper, The various draft were discussed and contributions syndrome dominated so that research innovations were not from each author was integrated. effectively adopted. Several reasons may explain the aversion to technology adoption by the end-users. The main reason suspected in the 1950s and 1960s was that 3. An Overview of Agricultural Research: farmers were “ignorant” so that intensification of extension teaching was then targeted as the appropriate What Was Achieved from 1990 to 2010? solution [14]. This view, however, divided farmers into innovators and idlers. The salient fact as disclosed by For the preachers of the “gospel of agriculture”, such as Asiabaka (1994) [15] is that it is not really true that Meijerink and Roza (2007) [16], the 1990’s was a decade farmers are ignorant; rather they have solid experience of of “agro-pessimism”. This means that the promise of agricultural activities and know what they need, meaning agricultural development did not materialize, especially in that the ideal solution would go beyond intensification of SSA where it was believed that agricultural development extension services. From the 1980s to the 1990s, it was would bring economic development as was the case of the discovered that the technologies developed did not tally Asian green revolution (Figure 1). However, an overview with the farmers’ objectives. Therefore, it became of the impact of research in agriculture for developing imperative that farmers be involved at every stage of countries conducted by Waibel (2006) [17] revealed that decision-making in the process of technology past investments in agricultural research paid off development and transfer and that a participatory considerably and yielded high rates of returns. This was approach should be designed to suit this process. also demonstrated by Alston et al. (2000) [18] who based One of the challenges today is to effectively involve their conclusions on several studies conducted in the clients of the research system to generate more demand- United States of America (USA) and in developing driven research-for-development agenda. The institutional countries. models for achieving this include, among others, the involvement of farmers and farmers’ organizations in the governance of agricultural research, and various types of contractual relationships with clients in executing research [11]. Another challenge is the strategy of decentralization being pursued in many countries. This is meant to bring publicly-funded service providers closer to their clients. The question, therefore, is whether decentralization and empowerment can actually lead to the required radical shifts in the flow of funding, to effect increasing funding flow to the end-users. If so, then who should contract the needed research services? For this to be feasible, we would need a good governance structure that is acceptable to all the stakeholders along the technology development and commodity consumption chain. This paper reviews the performance of agricultural research during the last Figure 1. Average cereal grain yield (mt/ha) from 1960 to 2010 (Source: two decades and discusses what is hindering the visible Will Masters (2011) [7] Retrieved from the web on) impacts of agricultural research on the growth of Africa’s Raitzer (2003) [19] conducted a meta cost-benefit economy and suggests a governance structure that can analysis of all the investments in agricultural research at lead to the development of technologies that are the International Agricultural Research Centres of the acceptable to, and adoptable by male and female end-users Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research for a better agricultural and economic growth.. (CGIAR) using two overarching principles: (i) high 32 Journal of Food Security degree of transparency, i.e. studies that had clearly derived CGIAR and their National Agricultural Research Systems key assumptions, provided a comprehensive description of (NARS) partners’ research, with increase in adoption of data sources, and had a full explanation of data treatment; improved varieties from less than 5% in the 1970s to and (ii) “demonstration of causality”, i.e. studies that used about 60% in 2005 and with annual economic benefits a plausible counterfactual and demonstrated concise estimated at $2.9 billion, an increasing trend over time, institutional attributes of the impact. The study revealed and an overall rate of return to research investment that an aggregate investment of $ 7,120 million (1990 US (CGIAR and national) of 43% [25]. dollars) produced benefit/cost ratios higher than 1, Improved varieties of cowpea, which provide both food indicating efficient investments. The study also showed and livestock feed, are being widely adopted in the dry that research projects have generated more than 90% of savannah of West Africa, with estimated benefits of $299 the total CGIAR benefits. Over 80% out of this is million to $1.1 billion which is still expected to accrue attributed to plant genetic improvement, and the remainder during 2000-2020. to cassava mealy bug biological control. A negligible Eastern and Southern Africa have also registered proportion is attributed to policy research [17]. Similarly, impressive gains, where improved varieties of common the average internal profitability rate for investments made bean, developed with farmer participation, have been on research and dissemination of Sahel varieties of rice in adopted on about 50% of the total bean area over 15 years. the Senegal River Valley is estimated at over 221%, which A study conducted in 2008 estimates that the new varieties is considerably higher than the cost of access to capital are strengthening food security and raising incomes in 5.3 valued at 18% for the period 1995-2004 [20]. million rural households. The benefits of bean improvement research for Africa are estimated to have a 3.1. Indicators of Agricultural Research current value of roughly $200 million, compared to costs Impacts in Africa of about $16 million [24]. New Rice for Africa, or NERICA, which combines the A holistic evaluation of the impact of agricultural high yields of Asian rice with African rice’s resistance to research demands both qualitative and quantitative local pests and diseases, has spread to about 250,000 approaches. Consequently, the actual volume of the hectares in upland areas, helping to reduce national rice contribution of agricultural research cannot be measured import bills and generating higher incomes in rural because of insufficient research coverage and lack of communities. appropriate qualitative evaluation techniques. Furthermore, Recent research has also begun to document nutritional because many African countries have small economies, benefits from improved crop varieties. In Mozambique, inadequate capacities and resources to undertake their own the introduction of new orange-fleshed sweet potato basic research, but share similar agro-ecological and significantly increased the intake of vitamin A among socio-economic conditions, the need for greater young children [26]. In Kenya, Farm Concern regionalization of Research and Development (R&D) International undertook a woman targeted work on arose [21]. This regionalisation was well accepted by the commercialization of traditional leafy vegetables, the national R&D systems, and materialized in the intervention of which was later shown to be effective in establishment of the Forum for Agriculture Research in increasing consumption of the micronutrient-rich Africa (FARA), the Association for Strengthening vegetables [27]. Millet also was found very beneficial Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa because of its high content of the minerals phosphorus, (ASARECA), the West and Central African Council for manganese and magnesium [28,29]. Agricultural Research and Development The first livestock-related impact listed regards the (CORAF/WECARD), and recently the Coordination of development of a vaccine against an ‘orphan’ livestock Agricultural Research and Development for Southern disease of poor people in Africa. The production and Africa (CCARDESA). Consequently, the agricultural delivery of a vaccine for East Coast fever — a tick- challenges facing each major sub-region are in some transmitted disease that threatens some 25 million cattle in respects similar with regard to the need to increase 11 countries of eastern, central and southern Africa — is investment in agricultural R&D, to increase the yields of being placed in the hands of private sector partners. It is many basic food staples, to improve agriculture research expected to save more than a million cattle, with benefits capacity and infrastructure. The differences for regional worth up to US$270 million a year in the countries where approaches, occur in the range of key food staples, the disease is now endemic [24]. agricultural production systems, and constraints; the The second livestock-related impact listed concerns a characteristics of individual economies; the current change in policy that enables poor producers of milk to performance; and the degree of integration through trade grow their businesses. Development impacts depend on [22,23] This paper will refer to the regional impact but not just new technologies but also better policies that offer also to the national impacts as well. rural people the means and incentives to invest in sustainable agricultural production and resource use. 3.1.1. Impact of Crop and Livestock Commodity While it is hard to measure, the impacts of CGIAR policy Research on Economic Growth research and advocacy appear to be substantial, as A review of the activities of the CGIAR over its first 40 suggested by recent case studies indicating benefits of years of existence revealed forty major achievements several millions of dollars. Research and advocacy aimed related to crop and livestock commodity [24]. These at decriminalizing the marketing of milk by small-scale include: vendors in Kenya created benefits for producers and Maize improvement in West and Central Africa (1971 consumers with an estimated value of $44-283 million to 2005); improved varieties were derived from the [24]. Journal of Food Security 33 3.1.2. Impact of Natural Resource Management (IDRC), and the Department for International Research on Economic Growth Development of the UK (DFID). Research results on natural resource management have proved harder to implement and evaluate than work on 3.1.4. Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty crop improvement. Nonetheless, a set of seven case Reduction and Food Security studies published in 2007 [30] indicates that such research Poverty and hunger are closely linked and form a is giving highly positive returns on investment, based vicious circle. In many ways, hunger can be considered partially on the benefits for agricultural productivity. If the severest form of poverty. People are willing to methodologies were available for gauging the sacrifice many needs such as clothes, shelter, health care, environmental benefits as well, the returns would no doubt and education before they surrender to hunger [44]. be much higher. By 2002, more than 66,000 farmers in Several studies conducted to evaluate the impact of Zambia had adopted an agro-forestry system called agricultural research in Africa widely demonstrated the “fertilizer tree fallows”, which renews soil fertility using positive impact of agricultural growth on poverty on-farm resources [31]. The system has been shown to reduction and food security with a major component of boost maize production while reducing production risks this growth being driven by investment in agricultural and soil erosion, with benefits of up to $20 million, research [45,46,47,48]. High rates of return are commonly compared with an investment of about $3.5 million. In achieved from agricultural research and development as Malawi, an integrated agriculture-aquaculture system, seen in a comprehensive statistical analysis undertaken by introduced during the mid-1990s with active farmer IFPRI that indicates an average return of around 60% per participation at a cost of $1.5 million, has created benefits year for research in developing countries [18]. In spite of worth nearly $3.5 million by doubling the income of rural this, however, investment in agricultural research has households and dramatically increasing fish consumption declined since the mid-1980s [48] and discussions still [32]. abound concerning how best to organize and manage international and national agricultural research. 3.1.3. Impact of Agricultural Research on Nutrition Thirtle et al. (2003) [49] explored the relationship Berti et al., (2003) [33] in their review of impact of between agricultural productivity and poverty in 48 agriculture interventions on nutritional status of developing countries between 1985 and 1993. It was households found that interventions that invested broadly found that a 1% improvement in crop yields reduced the in different types of capital were more likely to improve proportion of people living on less than US$1 per day by nutrition outcomes and that projects which invested in 0.6. Fan et al. (2003) [50] also reported that rice varietal human capital (especially nutrition education and improvement research has contributed tremendously to consideration of gender issues), and other types of capital, increase rice production in several countries. In each had a greater likelihood of effecting positive nutritional country, the benefits from rice research are, on average, 10 change, but such investment is neither sufficient nor times higher than the total agricultural research investment. always necessary to effect change. They [33] also revealed Research has also helped to uplift large numbers of the that most agriculture interventions increased food rural poor above the poverty line. According to more production, but did not necessarily improve nutrition or recent impact assessment studies in SSA [51]–[54], health. Furthermore, in the last few years, there has been national and international organizations are making a big increase of interest in how to shape agriculture for more impact in reinforcing food security and alleviating poverty impacts on nutrition, particularly among mothers and through rice research. Rice varietal improvement children [34,35]. Reviews conducted by several authors contributed, on average, US$375 million per year to the [33,36,41] concluded that the current state of empirical region’s economy. Overall, improved varieties have evidence for impacts on nutrition ascribed to defined increased net revenues by $93 per hectare, with the agricultural interventions is weak and mixed. The highest gains in irrigated and rain fed lowland ecologies. statistical significance of impacts has been documented in The annual returns to investment in rice research now a few cases, mainly in terms of micronutrient status exceed 20%. Studies also revealed that, without varietal (usually Vitamin A). However, net effects across all improvement, the regional balance-of-payment deficit for nutrients have not been documented and there is apparent rice imports would have been 40% higher [55]; moreover, lack of sound, empirical evidence on efficacy, an additional 658,000 hectares of land would have been effectiveness at scale, and cost-effectiveness of all kinds required to maintain current levels of consumption. of agricultural intervention on nutrition remains a NERICA, developed by AfricaRice and its partners, is a significant barrier to policy advocacy and investment. It is well-known breakthrough. It is considered as one of the therefore time for methodologically rigorous studies that major recent advances in rice variety improvement. There can produce findings which offer guidance on how best to are many reports of NERICA’s positive impact on leverage agriculture’s potential for nutrition [42]. It is farmers’ livelihood across SSA, from Guinea in West encouraging to note that a gap analysis of impact of Africa to Uganda in East Africa. Impact studies also agricultural research on nutrition, has been already reveal that rice research contributes effectively to the conducted [43] and identified 151 research activities on- realization of almost all the Millennium Development going or planned focussing on the agriculture-nutrition Goals, including halving levels of poverty and hunger, linkages in which more than 50 organizations are involved promoting education, improving health, reducing child (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United States mortality, empowering women and ensuring Agency for International Development (USAID), the environmental sustainability [56]. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Evaluation of the impact of rice research on food International Development Research Centre in Canada security has shown that rice research is the single largest 34 Journal of Food Security documented source of agricultural research benefits in the takes place while most African farmers already use too developing world [57]. Annual economic benefits from little fertiliser to maintain the fertility of their soils [67,68]. research enhanced rice productivity, as documented by In 2006, a report from the International Centre for Soil CGIAR centres and their partners, by more than $19.5 Fertility suggested that African soil nutrients were, on billion. This is nearly 150 times the combined annual average, depleting five times quicker than they were investment in rice research as provided by IRRI through renewed [69]. the national systems. Ironically, rice research is the source The need to better understand, prioritize and meet the of roughly half of all documented benefits from the pressing global challenges facing resource-poor CGIAR system, although it has usually received less than agricultural communities is overwhelming [70]. 10% of CGIAR expenditures [58]. Other analyses have The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for also shown that research-enhanced productivity on rice is Development (GCARD) identified a number of current the largest expected source of future impact for the poor practices which suggest the need to repackage agricultural among focal crops for agricultural research. For example, research to induce clearer visibility of its impacts. These the World Bank Development Research group of analysts practices invariably comprise conceptualization, have found that the productivity growth rate for rice has processing and delivering in agricultural research. more than doubled the global poverty reduction potential of any other agricultural product. In the same way, a study 4.1. The Conceptualization of Research for by the agricultural economists of the International Institute Development of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) show that maize research in West and Central Africa pays off and that the The adoption of the United Nations’ Millennium generation and diffusion of modern maize varieties in SSA Development Goals (MDGs) was followed by the lifted more than one million people out of poverty within adoption by the African heads of state and government of three decades (1971-2005) [59]. The study further the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development revealed that maize improvement research had a benefit- Program (CAADP) [71] inspired by the New Partnership cost ratio of 21 in the region. This means that every dollar for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The basis for invested in maize research generated additional food CAADP was the realization that “Agricultural worth $21. Estimates for country-level benefit-cost ratio development is fundamental to cutting hunger, reducing ranged from 11 (Mali) to 84 (Nigeria), with an average poverty, generating economic growth, reducing the burden rate of return of 43% in West and Central Africa. Since of food imports and opening the way to expansion of maize and rice are major staples in large regions of Africa, exports” [4]. Agricultural research, technology it is clear that investment in agricultural research is dissemination and adoption are the fourth “pillar” of yielding perceptible impacts on food security and poverty CAADP and have the potential for producing long-term reduction. benefits. They work closely with partners like the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)’s ‘Research into Use’ (RIU) program which aims 4. What Needs To Be Changed? to boost the support available to help farmers to adopt new options. RIU focuses on ensuring that research results are In spite of the litany of benefits derived from put into use in the field, and on out-scaling and up-scaling agricultural research outlined above, the number of hungry workable options that can improve farmers' lives. RIU people grew from 175 million to 239 million in Africa strongly supports both the Forum for Agricultural during the period of 1990-1992 to 2010-2012 [60], while Research in Africa (FARA) and CAADP by funding the number of people living below the international events, providing training, and helping CAADP to poverty line has increased from 289.7 million in 1990 to develop the key partnerships used to produce the CAADP 386.0 million in 2008 [61]. Two thirds to three quarters of brand and broad communication system. CAADP has the rural poor live on agriculture where they, like the affected the scaling up of support to science and urban poor, critically depend on sustained productivity technology programs at the regional and national levels. growth for affordable food [62]. The explanations This support includes funding for the sub-regional frequently cited include geography and environmental research organizations such as CORAF/WECARD, decline [63] poor policies and institutional failures [64]- ASARECA, as well as national programs in Ghana, Mali, [65]; lack of technology; unfavourable external conditions; Senegal and Kenya. At the national level, the “second lack of effective demand for farm output; continuing generation” poverty reduction strategy paper is being used government failures that frighten investors; and market to aid the implementation of CAADP [12]. failures that also discourage investment [63]. It is true that Unfortunately, the interlinked nature of the four Africa is endowed with natural resources. However, they “pillars” of CAADP is weakened. In addition, there is no are not always of high quality and there are many emphasis on research by the NARS on reducing under- substantial natural limitations to agriculture; climate nourishment. Thus there are cases of malnutrition in the change, bad soil quality, higher disease and pest pressure face of abundant food supply because of the lack of are constraining African agriculture which heavily integrating researches on crop production, nutrition and depends on rainfall in many sub-regions. But, it is health. Also, research on the processing of farm produce believed that that things are getting worse, because of the in SSA is missing in the agenda of all the programs [12]. natural resources degradation resulting from population Besides the absence of programs for attracting increased growth, including deforestation for fuel wood, overgrazing participation of the private sector in African agricultural and other unsustainable land management practices research, there is insufficient investment in university leading to widespread soil fertility decline [66,67]. This education for science and technology [12]. Consequently, Journal of Food Security 35 another major problem facing national agricultural R&D direct investment into building and returning a new systems is the aging of qualified researchers. Traditionally, generation of agricultural scientists. Apart from Botswana, Africa has had a pro-public sector research approach, Mauritius and South Africa, most African National often regarding the private sector as capitalistic and Agricultural Research Institutions (NARIs) are short of exploitative. Efforts made towards involving the private funds [77]. They depend mainly on donors to support up sector mostly evolved into the formation of parastatals to 75% of their budgets for research funding and (quasi-private organisations). Agricultural research is still sustenance. Consequently, due to competing demands, far from being a priority for political decision-makers. investments in agricultural science and technology have During the 1990s, state investments in agricultural R&D stagnated over time in many developing countries (Figure diminished annually by 0.2% [72]. The structural 2). adjustment programmes during this period restricted the Moreover, most public information domains are still not public sector in the various countries. Consequently, state widely accessible to African agricultural research investments have decreased or remained stagnant in many institutions. Beintema and Rahija (2011) [78], in their African countries despite the positive effects of communication at the ASTI/IFPRI-FARA conference in agricultural research. Ghana, reported the existence of large variations in A consultative process has been established through the research capacity and growth over time by countries and FARA-Sub-Regional Organisation for strengthening observed high staff turnover and brain drain whereby agricultural research-CGIAR-NARS (FARA-SRO- researchers leave their institutions due to low salaries and CGIAR-NARS) Training Groups. This is meant to ensure inadequate conditions of service [79]. that training responds to African needs. The overall goal is The United Nations Food Conference of 1974 projected to enhance the NARS’ capacity in agricultural research, that, for effective national development through for incorporating appropriate elements of sustainable use agriculture, the NARS in Africa must increase their of genetic resources [4] organic agriculture or climate research expenditure to 0.5% of Agricultural GDP smart agriculture for resilience and sustainability [73], (AgGDP). The United Nations Food and Agriculture integrated pest management, policy research, Organization (FAO) and the World Bank, respectively, biotechnology, information technology, technology recommended 1 and 2% [80]. Nonetheless, in 2002, the dissemination and farm-level impact assessment. average was 0.54% [81] - Only four countries spent over 2.0% of their AgGDP on research; 22 countries spent less 4.2. The Processes than 1.0%, while 11 countries recorded less than 0.35%. Data from IFPRI [82] revealed stagnation in agricultural spending in the 1990s where region-wide funding grew by only 20% between 2001 and 2008. The data show that Nigeria had the highest level of spending which shows tremendous increase ranging from US$110 million in 2001 to US$404 million in 2008. Seven other countries including South Africa invested more than US$50 million each in 2008. The complaint was that many African countries have suffered unstable inflows of donor funding and development bank loans leading to a dwindled spending in some countries since the turn of the millennium. Therefore, there exists growth retardation in some 13 nations such as Guinea, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, and Togo in West and Central Africa and Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, and Zambia, and in East and Southern Africa. This has severely weakened some research institutes [83]. Private sector spending represented only 2% of all Figure 2. Public agricultural research and development investment agricultural funding in 2000, and most of this was in trends in developing countries, 1981–2006 (Source: Beintema and Stadt South Africa [84]. Conversely, the completion of large (2010) [72]) donor-funded projects, and the subsequent withdrawal of As stated earlier, the capacity of African Agricultural funds, has precipitated severe financial crises in some scientists is low. Staatz and Dembele (2008) [74] noted countries. that half of a sample of 48 SSA countries had fewer than African heads of state, during their meeting in 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) scientists where 40% were Mozambique in 2003, pledged to allocate 10% of their working in five countries namely, Ethiopia, Kenya, national budgets to agriculture by 2008. Burkina Faso, Nigeria, South Africa, and Sudan. Africa contributes only Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Niger and 0.3% to the capital of worldwide scientific results and has Senegal have exceeded this target and most others have only 70 researchers to 1 million inhabitants compared to made significant progress towards it [85]. CAADP’s 4,380 in Japan [75]. Moreover, Africa has a poor capacity agricultural growth target is 6% and, of the 42 countries for innovation [76] with a menial ability of the national investigated, 10 (Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, scientists to form meaningful productive partnership with Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda) scientists from either the CGIAR or Advanced Research have exceeded this target while four others ( Democratic Institutions. There is no strategy by national governments, Republic of Congo, Ghana, Malawi, and Sierra Leone) their development partners and the CGIAR system to achieved 5-6% (Figure 3). 36 Journal of Food Security Figure 3. Agricultural growth rates compared to CAADP’s 6% target (Source: World Bank 2009 [84]) 4.3. The Delivery 5.1. Funding The extension services are insufficient and there is no interaction and coordination of research. The private Finance is a key element that serves as a tool for tidying sector contributes about 2% to research support [12] thus up and transporting research innovations from source to proffering very limited leverage for the coordination of end-users. Agricultural research impacts can be more agricultural research. This situation discourages client visible and expanded only through adequate investment by responsiveness, organizational collaboration and supporting appropriate research capacity and partnerships, thereby causing a lack of impact orientation infrastructure. Hence, Mokwunye (2010) [12] suggests and system linkage, both within and among institutions that researchers should diversify their sources of funding [86]. The CGIAR’s (2005) [87] report on SSA Task and national governments should address under- Forces shows the absence of credible mechanisms for investment. Headey et al (2009) [89] used expert surveys effective interaction and a high level of competition by interviewing senior policymakers in ministries of among Centers causing a duplication of efforts and failure agriculture, ministries of finance, planning authorities, and to ensure that programs are aligned with the priorities of donor agencies, in two selected sub-Saharan African the sub-regions. The Framework for African Agricultural countries – Uganda and Ghana and found out that the Productivity [88] was thus developed to provide under-investment in agriculture sector could be attributed guidelines and criteria for encouraging implementers and to “a range of institutions and processes, including weak investors to work in harmony and at an appreciable and inconsistent political leadership, ineffectual and sustainable scale to achieve the African vision. organizationally dysfunctional ministries of agriculture, and budgetary processes that disadvantage both short term spending and long term planning in agriculture”. 5. Re-packaging Agricultural Research Calestous Juma, an international development researcher for Development at Harvard University says that "No country has ever been able to sustain agricultural growth without consistent For an efficient agricultural sector, there should be research and development” [90]. He calls on governments, appropriate innovations to combine adequate funding, funding donors and researchers in the region to collaborate partnership at all levels, a good information sharing more closely to maximize the potential of agricultural system, adequate research and market infrastructure, and research and that African states should substantially concerted governance. increase budget for agricultural research. In 2010, the Journal of Food Security 37 GCARD recommended that developing countries must stakeholders, including farmers. Agricultural research work towards endogenous funding by allotting at least dully responds whenever knowledge and information are 1.5% of GDP to agricultural research for better socio- needed in order to augment rather than replace the existing economic transformation of African countries. knowledge [8]. Consensus-orientation - A proactive participation of 5.2. Leadership Model stakeholders is required in the governance board where a predefined participatory approach is used. Stakeholders, There is a crisis of management, with top-heavy being the major target users of innovation, are required to bureaucracy, centralization of decision making, and lack define research priorities and ensure their implementation. of incentives for the innovation process for effective Accountability - Ideal agricultural research governance research [91]. The leadership model used by Pillar IV of involves changes in the way researchers are evaluated, CADDP could be ideal for greater success. The model their behaviour and attitudes towards the production involves the expectant beneficiary actors while being environment. Furthermore, all institutions should have a imbedded in effective governance with components of a good communication strategy to relay messages among good governance system. Improved governance and researchers and to other stakeholders (farmers, extension accountability systems can make an important workers, decision makers, etc.). contribution to the performance of agricultural research 5.3. Practical Packaging of Research for Development: organizations [92] and restore coordination and Case of the Africa Rice Center cooperation in the agricultural research system. This section presents the example of AfricaRice and its “Governance” in this context specifically refers to the tradition of partnership with NARS scientists, process of decision-making and implementation. Reform international research centers and other agents of change, should include the induction of the effective participation such as NGOs, extension services, universities, and the of actors in the value chain and redefinition of the top management of research institutions. relationships between researchers and other relevant 5.3.1. AfricaRice and Its Unique Modus Operandi professionals. It should be characterised by partnership at The Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), formerly the West all levels, a hybrid of partnership, based on consultation African Rice Development Association (WARDA), was within planning, implementing, evaluating and optimizing created in 1971 by 11 West African countries. Today, it research results. This form of partnership will encompass: comprises 24 member countries in West, Central, East and • The rule of law which, according to Hamilton (2008) North African regions 1. It is currently the leading pan- [93], entails the expectation that the rights of people, their African rice research organization with the mission to relationship with others and the role of government and its contribute to poverty alleviation and food security in impact on people’s lives will be determined by established Africa through research, development and partnership and knowable rules. activities. It seeks to increase rice sector productivity and • Transparency: - For Parigi et al. (2004), [94] profitability to ensure sustainability of the farming “transparency means that decisions taken and their environment. The approach is partnership at all levels. enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and AfricaRice conducts research and development activities regulations”. Information is freely available and directly in collaboration primarily with the NARS, academic accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions institutions, advanced research institutions, farmers’ and their enforcement. The international agricultural organizations, NGOs, and donors. This is targeted for the research system has developed into a network comprising benefit of African farmers, mostly small-scale producers, scores of actors within a very large number of as well as the millions of African families for whom rice organisations from field to national level and in many is the staple. different countries. The fact that this network is highly decentralised increases the need for transparent and 5.3.2. Partnership with Scientists and Other Agents of flexible working tools. Change • Responsiveness- a model to meet the objectives of the Since its early days, AfricaRice adopted the “Task agricultural sector through the development of innovative Force” approach, which ensured the constant flow of institutional models that encourage the participation of knowledge and broad consultations with stakeholders. alternative research funders and suppliers [91]. This approach has been indispensable for achieving • Participation - Men and women should be the technology development, dissemination and adoption. The cornerstone for good governance and the top-down, Task Forces metamorphosed into the ROCARIZ2 which gender-indifferent approach should be avoided to pave the structured itself around a multi-country, issue-driven way for the spread of knowledge to boost the adoption of ‘Task Force’ that decentralized the international research innovations. This is because technology targeted for poor agenda to the NARS [96]. The aim of ROCARIZ was to farmers requires even greater effort for adaptation to local link together rice stakeholders in West and Central Africa conditions, given the complexity and diversity of the to generate improved and relevant rice technologies, and production systems [95]. Qualitative transformation facilitate their rapid transfer to end-users by enhancing the cannot be effected by agricultural research alone due to the diverse production conditions in Africa. Interaction among actors is highly desirable. 1 The 24 countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African • Equitability and inclusiveness - Agricultural research Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Gabon, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, stimulates interaction and interactive learning among the Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Senegal, Sierra various stakeholder groups involved in agricultural value Leone, Togo and Uganda. chains and should ensure the combined contribution of all 2 ROCARIZ (a French acronym) stands for West and Central Africa Rice Research and Development Network. 38 Journal of Food Security capacity of the National Agricultural Research and and the International Center for Development-oriented Extension Systems (NARES). This enhanced capacity Research in Agriculture (ICRA). boosted participatory rice research planning, technology Ten conditions (Box 1) have been recognized as being generation, evaluation, and transfer. The network essential for the success of this complex partnership [97]. increased knowledge sharing and improved the capacity of They may be summarized in a single sentence - NARES staff which is a credit to the modus operandi of “Partnership is not something that is superimposed on the Task Force. The learning-by-doing approach was used research activities; real partnership is an integral part of by the network to engage the national partners and research activities that are conducted by the common will AfricaRice scientists as equal partners in all aspects of the of collaborating scientists, to find common solutions to research-for-development cycle. The cycle covers idea rice farmers’ constraints in the world.” generation, priority setting, fund raising, work planning, building collaborative teams, project execution, Box 1. Ten conditions for the success of Global Rice Science monitoring and evaluation, and reporting. Partnership (GRiSP) CORAF/WECARD’s decision to merge its cereal 1. Exclusion of hegemonic thinking. This will disprove the initial belief networks in 2005 compelled AfricaRice to explore other at AfricaRice that the world can evolve with and through diversity alone and that it is the synthesis of these differences that will make for a way means of continuing its rice R&D partnership with the forward. NARES. At present, there are 6 Task Forces through 2. Regional differences should be taken into account. Africa and Asia for which collaboration is being reinforced to achieve the instance are entirely two entirely different regions. Similarly, each of priorities set for research-for-development. These are: them differs from Latin America. At any instance, the area of Rice Breeding Task Force, Rice Agronomy Task Force, intervention should determine the methods to be adopted. Basic preoccupations under consideration should serve as a guide even in the Rice Processing and Value Addition Task Force, Rice face of exploiting complementarities. Mechanization Task Force, Rice Policy Task Force, and 3. Institutional identities should be respected. This factor is particularly Gender in Rice Research and Development Task Force. essential for AfricaRice. For example, all flags should be made to fly in The Task Forces are facilitated by AfricaRice and have GRISP. This is a call for a co-existence among all the member countries. decentralized governance decided by the members. 4. There should be equity in resource allocation based on the real needs as expressed by the various continents. The specific countries involved 5.3.3. Partnership Model with Other CG Centers and should participate in deciding the resource allocation. Institutions 5. Bureaucratic bottlenecks should be removed. This inadvertently AfricaRice is one of the architects of the Global Rice increases transaction cost. Research funds should be strictly used for research and not for bureaucracy: the simpler things are, the better it is Science Partnership (GRiSP), which was the first CG for all of us. Research Program (CRP) to be approved by the Fund 6. Decisions of governing bodies should be respected. Failure or neglect Council and the CGIAR Consortium Board in November of this could lead to hegemonic thinking which counteracts our 2010. It is led globally by the International Rice Research partnership model thereby leading to diluted accountability and lack of Institute (IRRI), based in the Philippines. AfricaRice is transparency. responsible for implementing GRiSP in Africa. 7. There should be a concerted effort towards strengthening all Implementation will also occur through the CRP led by stakeholders, especially African stakeholders, to strengthen the operational capacity of all entities involved. Adequately equipping the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) on farmers, processors, and others for ownership and adoption of ‘Durable solutions for water scarcity and land technological innovations is the vital target. degradation’ and the CRP on ‘Climate change, agriculture 8. Meaningful impact requires a conducive environment and adequate and food security’ led by the International Center for incentives, which is the sole responsibility of policy makers. Communication channels should be established with policy makers. In Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). It is expected that links will Africa, the Council of Ministers provides a platform for direct dialogue be established with the CRP on ‘Policies, institutions, and with 24 ministers at each sitting. The objective is to present a markets to strengthen assets and agricultural incomes for comprehensive analysis of the current situation of rice production, the poor’ led by the International Food Policy Research propose solutions and formulate a number of concrete and pragmatic Institute (IFPRI) and the CRP on ‘Integrated systems for recommendations to optimize production. This is a credit to the AfricaRice policy makers the humid tropics’ led by the International Institute of 9. NARES have an important role to play. NARES should no longer be Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Other co-architects of GRiSP viewed solely as consumers of ideas but as both consumer and producers. are the Centre de coopération international en recherche They should have the means to effectively express their creative genius agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), Institut de like their peers within this partnership. recherche pour le développement (IRD) and Japan 10. The trend of over-assessment and over-reporting should be broken as International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences it makes scientists spend more time in preparing their assessments than (JIRCAS). Collaboration will also be established with in doing research. To avoid all this, rules must be defined and trust established. Effective mechanisms should be established to maintain emerging strong national research systems, notably those order. from Brazil, China, Egypt, and India. Advanced research institutes and universities in developed countries are also AfricaRice is establishing the “rice sector development playing a key role, mostly in conducting basic research hubs” to involve a large number of farmers and other rice that is beyond the capacities and comparative advantages value chain actors such as rice processors, rice millers, of CGIAR centers and other partners. In addition, and rice marketers. These hubs will be the testing grounds collaboration is being established with international where thematic scientists from AfricaRice and other organizations and centers such as the Food and agents of change from the Task Forces and partners will Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), join efforts to generate appropriate technologies using the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the integrated research-for-development protocols and Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International (CABI) following a reverse-research approach. This type of research process will exploit a combination of approaches Journal of Food Security 39 whereby the producer-consumer preference with those of [4] New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), 2003. other value chain actors would be required. Through this Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme multifaceted partnership, AfricaRice and all the (CAADP); Johannesburg; NEPAD. [5] ECA, 2009. Economic Report on Africa: Developing African stakeholders ensure: agriculture through regional value chains. Economic Commission • adequate funding to support research activities, for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. infrastructure and human resources; [6] ECA, 2005. Economic Report on Africa. Meeting the challenges • a good and practical information sharing system to of unemployment and poverty in Africa; Economic Commission for Africa Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. enhance effective communication between [7] Masters, W. 2011. Africa’s Turnaround: Towards Sustainable researchers and stakeholders; Growth in African Agriculture; paper presented on Tufts Research • good governance that follows the rule of law, is Day on Sustainability, 3 May 2011. [online] Available from accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable, http://www.tufts.edu/willmasters/.../2011/.../WillMasters [Assessed 15 October 2012]. inclusive, effective, efficient and participative. [8] Hawkins, R., Heemskerk, W. Booth, R., Daane, J., Maatman, A. and Adekunle, A. A., 2009. Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D): A Concept Paper for the Forum for 6. Conclusion Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA CP). FARA, Accra, Ghana. 92 p. Agricultural research and technology adoption have [9] Chen Yu and Démurger, S., 2002. Foreign Direct Investment and Manufacturing Productivity in China; CERDI. Available from impacted food supplies and poverty alleviation. Yet, from http://www.bm.ust.hk [Assessed June 15, 2012]. roughly one billion people go hungry every day and 1.4 [10] FAO, 2001. Agricultural Investment and Productivity in billion live in extreme poverty, indicating that more effort Developing Countries. Economic and Social Development Paper is needed to address the main challenges and opportunities 148. Available from http://www.fao.org [Assessed 23 January 2012]. facing agricultural research, technology generation, [11] Seck P. A., Diagne, A. and Bamba, I. 2010. How to develop an knowledge dissemination and delivery systems. innovative Agricultural policy? Role of renewed governance of Agricultural research systems need to be adequately agricultural Research ; In: E. Coudel, H. Devautour, C. Soulard funded and handled by skilled human resources under and B. Hubert eds. Proceedings of the Symposium on Innovations good governance. Defining innovative agricultural & Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food (ISDA), Montpellier- France, 28 June – 1 July, 2010. policies in Africa requires a break from the past in order to [12] Mokwunye, U. 2010. Review of Africa’s Agricultural Research ‘produce more and better’. Clearly, a framework of co- and Development [online] Available from: construction, co-execution and co-evaluation is necessary http:// for successful farming. Each actor in the agricultural value www.fao.org/.../REGIONAL%20REVIEW%20OF%20AFRICA.pdf [Accessed 12 August, 2012]. chains has a contribution to make and it is the sum of the [13] United Nations Environment Program (UNEP); 2006. Our Planet; various individual contributions that leads to new The magazine of the United Nations Environment Special Edition, knowledge and processes. It is therefore important for the Kenya: UNEP. various actors to maintain dialogue in order to establish [14] Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the last first, effective innovation systems. Africa has suffered long Longman, Harlow. [15] Asiabaka C. C., 1994. The rate of adoption of yam minisett enough from dirigisme (a form of dictatorship whereby technology among farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Final report initiatives and decisions are undertaken by the ruling International Foundation for science (IFS) Stockolm Sweden. bodies and imposed on the production units), low [16] Meijerink, G. and Roza, P. 2007. The role of agriculture in productivity and non-systematic approaches. These have development; Markets, Chains and Sustainable Development led to the neglect of strategic areas such as research and Strategy and Policy Paper, no. 5. Stichting DLO: Wageningen. Available at: http://www.boci.wur.nl/UK/Publications/. extension, marginalization of professional organizations in [17] Waibel, H. 2006. Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research for policy formulation and assessment, and the prevailing Development and Poverty Reduction; Working Paper 2006 No. 2; non-conducive environment for private sector Development and Agricultural Economics Faculty of Economics involvement. Consequently, a change in mindset is and Management; University of Hannover, Germany [18] Alston, J. M., Chan-Kang, C., Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G. and essential and should encompass all actors, public and Wyatt, T.J., 2000. A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural private. An improved distribution of responsibilities is Research and Development. Research Report 113: International required and should be the result of dialogue, dictated by Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. merit, involving all the actors at all stages of the value [19] Raitzer, D. A., 2003. Benefit-Cost Meta-Analysis of Investment in chains. Africa can and should reject a fatalistic attitude. the International Agricultural; Research Centres of the CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Science Council Secretariat, FAO. 45 p. After all, it has sufficient water and land, large human [20] Fisher, M. G., Masters, W.A., and Sidibé, M. 2001. Technical capital and a number of unused technologies. The change in Senegal’s irrigated rice sector: impact assessment under continent must reframe its rural development by daring to uncertainty. Agricultural Economics 24(2): 179-197. think differently and invest in its future by embracing a [21] Binswanger-Mkhize, H. P., and McCalla. A. F. 2009 The framework of information and cooperative analysis. Changing Context and Prospects for Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa. Rome and Tunis: International Fund for Agricultural Development and African Development Bank [22] Abdulai, A Johnson, M. and Diao X.. 2006. Leveraging Regional References Growth Dynamics in African Agriculture. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1 (1): 49-66. [1] Maxwell, S. 2001. Agricultural issues in food security. In: S. [23] You, L., and Johnson. M.; 2010. Exploring Strategic Priorities for Devereux and S. Maxwell eds. Food Security in Sub-Saharan Regional Agricultural R&D Investments in East and Central Africa. London, UK: IT Publications; pp. 32-66. Africa. Agricultural Economics 41 (2): 177-190. [2] Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), 2004. Assessing [24] CGIAR; 2011. Forty Findings on the Impacts of CGIAR Research Regional Integration in Africa, Addis Ababa, ECA, E.04.II.K.3. 1971-2011. Available from http://www.cgiar.org/...cgiar.../Forty- [3] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development findings-CGIAR (OECD); 2006. Promoting pro-poor agriculture, Paris, OECD. http://www.cgiar.org/.../www-cgiar-org-monthlystory-septem [Assessed 4 April 2012]. 40 Journal of Food Security [25] Alene, A. D., Menkir, A., Ajala S. O., Badu-Apraku, B.,. Research on Agriculture and Health/University of Olanrewaju , A. S Manyong V. M., Ndiaye A. (2009); The Aberdeen/Center for Sustainable International Development. economic and poverty impacts of maize research in West and [44] FAO, 2003. Anti-hunger programme; A twin-track approach to Central Africa; Agricultural Economics 40; 535-550. hunger reduction: priorities for national and international action; [26] Low J.W., Arimond M., Osman N., Cunguara B., Zano F., Rome, November, 2003. Tschirley D. (2007). A Food-Based Approach Introducing [45] Evenson, R. E. 2001. Economic impacts of agricultural research Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potatoes Increased Vitamin A Intake and and extension. .In: B. L. Gardner and G. C. Rausser, eds. Serum Retinol Concentrations in Young Children in Rural Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 1A Amsterdam: Mozambique. The Journal of Nutrition, 1320-1327. Elsevier Science 819-836. [27] Herforth, A. 2010. “Nutrition and the Environment: Fundamental [46] Evenson, R. E. and Gollin, D. eds., 2003. Crop variety to Food Security in Africa.” In The African Food System and Its improvement and its effect on productivity: the impact of Interaction with Human Health and Nutrition, edited by P. International Agricultural Research. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pinstrup-Andersen. Ithaca, NY, US: Cornell University Press in [47] Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2001. Is research a global public good? cooperation with the United Nations University. Agriculture and Rural Development, 8:3-5. [28] Singh P, Raghuvanshi RS. 2012. Finger millet for food and [48] Pardey, P. G. and Beintema, N. M. 2001. Slow magic: nutritional security. Afr J Food Sci 6(4):77-84. Agricultural Research and Development a century after Mendel. [29] Saleh, A. S.M., Zhang, Q., Chen, J. and Shen, Q. (2013), Millet Food Policy Report. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Grains: Nutritional Quality, Processing, and Potential Health Research Institute. Benefits. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food [49] Thirtle C., Lin, L. and Piesse, J. 2003. The impact of research-led Safety, 12: 281-295. agricultural productivity growth on poverty reduction in Africa, [30] Waibel, H. and Zilberman, D. 2007. Natural resource management Asia and Latin America. World Development, 31 (12), 1959-1976. case studies: overview and summary. In: H. Waibel and D. [50] Fan, S., Chan-Kang, C., Qian, K. and Krishnaiah, K. 2003. Zilberman, eds. International research on natural resource National and international agricultural research and rural poverty: management: advances in impact London, CAB International, pp. the case of rice research in India and China; EPTD Discussion 56-67. Paper N0. 109; International Food Policy Research Institute [31] Ajayi, O. C., Place, F. Kwesiga, F. and Mafongoya, P., 2007. (IFPRI) 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A.. World agroforestry Center: impact of improved tree fallow [51] Kijima, Y., Otsuka, K. and Sserunkuuma. D., 2008. Assessing the technology in Zambia. In: H.,Waibel and D., Zilberman, eds. Impact of NERICA on Income and Poverty in Central and International research on natural resource management: advances Western Uganda. Agricultural Economics 38: 327-337. in impact. UK: CABI, 147-168. [52] Adékambi, A. S., Diagne, A., Simtowe, F. and Biaou, G., 2009. [32] Dey M. M., Paraguas, F. J., Kambewa, P. and Pemsl, D. E., 2010. The Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption on Poverty: The The impact of integrated aquaculture–agriculture on small-scale case of NERICA Varieties in Benin. Paper presented at the farms in Southern Malawi; Agricultural Economics 41(1): 67-79. meetings of the International Association of Agricultural [33] Berti, R. P. Krasevec, J. and Fitzgerald, S. (2003) A review of the Economists, Beijing, August 16-22, 2009. effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition [53] Diagne A., Midingoyi, S. K. G., Wopereis, M. and Akintayo, I., outcomes. Public Health Nutrition: 7(5), 599-609. 2011. Increasing Rice Productivity and Strengthening Food [34] USAID. 2011. U.S. Investments in Global Nutrition. Feed the Security through New Rice for Africa (NERICA). In: P.Chuhan- Future Fact Sheet. September 2011. http://feedthefuture.gov Pole and M. Angwafo, eds. Yes Africa Can; Success Stories from (accessed September, 20, 2013). a Dynamic Continent Washington D. C. The World Bank, 253- [35] Herforth, A. 2012. Guiding Principles for Linking Agriculture and 267. Nutrition: Synthesis from 10 development institutions. Report for [54] Dontsop Nguezet PM, Diagne, A., Okoruwa V. O. and Ojehomon the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. V., 2010. Impact of improved rice technology (NERICA varieties) Rome, Italy: FAO. on income and poverty among rice farming households in Nigeria: [36] Leroy J, Frongillo E. Can interventions to promote animal a local average treatment effect (LATE) approach. Paper presented production ameliorate undernutrition? J Nutr. 2007;137(1):2311– at the ICG/AERC workshop, Mombasa, Kenya, 3–4 December 16. [55] CGIAR, 2006. Transforming Sub-Saharan Africa's Rice [37] Bhutta, Z., T. Ahmedb, R. Black, S. Cousens, K. Dewey, E. Production through Rice Research: Story of the month; Available Giugliani, B. Haider, B. Kirkwood, S. Morris, H. Sachdev and M. from Shekar. 2008. What works? Interventions for maternal and child http://www.cgiar.org/.../www-cgiar-org-monthlystory-septem under-nutrition and survival. Lancet, 371 (9610): 417 – 440. [Assessed 4 April 2012]. [38] Kawarazuka, N. 2010. The contribution of fish intake, aquaculture, [56] AfricaRice center (AfricaRice) undated; Rice research addressing and small-scale fisheries to improving food and nutrition security: the millennium development goals; available from A literature review. The WorldFish Center Working Paper www.africarice.org/publications/brochure/warda-mdg-a4.pdf No.2106. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. [Assessed on August 2012] [39] Masset E., L. Haddad, A. Cornelius and J. Isaza-Castro. 2011. A [57] Asia Society, 2010. Never an empty bowl: Sustaining food systematic review of agricultural interventions that aim to improve security in Asia; Asia Society and International Rice Research nutritional status of children. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Institute Task Force report, 71p; available from Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of asiasociety.org/files/pdf/FoodSecurityTF_online.pdf ‎ [Assessed on London. August 2012] [40] Arimond, M., C. Hawkes, M. Ruel, Z. Sifri, P. Berti, J. LeRoy, J. [58] Raitzer D. A. and Kelley T. G, 2008; “Benefit-Cost Meta-Analysis Low, L. Brown and E. Frongillo. 2011. Agricultural Interventions of Investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers and Nutrition: Lessons from the Past and New Evidence, in B. of the CGIAR,” Agricultural Systems 96, nos. 1-3 (2008): 108-23. Thompson and L. Amoroso (eds.) Combating micronutrient [59] Alene, A.D., Menkir, A., Ajala, S., Badu-Apraku, B., Olanrewaju, deficiencies: food-based approaches. Rome, Italy: Food and A., Manyong, V. and Ndiaye, A., 2009. The economic and poverty Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/CABI impacts of maize research in West and Central Africa. International, chapter 3, pp 41-75. Agricultural Economics 40: 535-550. [41] Girard A, Self J, McAuliffe C, Oludea O. 2012; The Effects of [60] FAO, WFP and IFAD. 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the Household Food Production Strategies on the Health and Nutrition World 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to Outcomes of Women and Young Children: A Systematic Review. accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome, FAO. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 26 (Suppl. 1), 205-222. [61] World Bank. 2013. Africa Development Indicators 2012/13. [42] Webb P, Kennedy E. 2012. Impacts of Agriculture on Nutrition: Washington, DC: World Bank. Nature of the Evidence and Research Gaps. Research Briefing [62] World Bank; 2008. World development indicators; Poverty data, Paper No. 4. Boston, MA: Nutrition CRSP/USAID. a supplement to World Development Indicators 2008; Washington, [43] Hawkes, C. R. Turner and J. Waage. 2012. Current and Planned D.C. , The World Bank Research on Agriculture for Improved Nutrition: A Mapping and a [63] Wiggins, S. and Leturque, H. 2010. Helping Africa to Feed Itself: Gap Analysis. Report for the Department of International Promoting Agriculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger, Occasional Development (DFID). London: Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Paper 002. Future Agricultures Consortium, the Friends of Europe, and the Overseas Development Institute Journal of Food Security 41 [64] Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. M. 1997. “Sources of Slow Growth in from Experience. Technical Paper No. 5, Investment Centre, FAO, African Economies,” Journal of African Economies, 6(3):335-380. Rome, Italy. [65] Johnson, D., Evensohn, R., 2000. How far away is Africa? [81] Moussa, Z. S. 2002; Technology transfer for agricultural growth in Technological spillovers and productivity. American Journal of Africa; African Development Bank Economic research papers No Agricultural Economics 82, 743-749. 72 (march 2002). [66] Pender et al, 2006, Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in [82] Beintema, N. M. and Stads. G. J., 2011. African agricultural R&D the East African Highlands: Conclusions and Implications In: in the New Millennium; progress for some, challenges for many; Pender, J., F. Place, and S. Ehui, eds. Strategies for sustainable Food policy report of IFPRI (Washington DC) and ASTI (Rome, land management in the East African highlands.Washington, Italy); 44p. D.C.:International Food Policy Research Institute. Pp 377- 416 [83] Beintema, N.M. and Stads, G.J. 2006. Agricultural R&D in Sub- [67] Koning, N., and Smaling. E. 2005. Environmental crisis or “lie of Saharan Africa: An Era of Stagnation. ASTI Background Report . the land”? The debate on soil degradation in Africa. Land Use International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., Policy 22 (1): 3-12. USA. http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/AfricaRpt_200608.pdf Vol 33, [68] Sanchez, P.A. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science No 4, 2004, pp 239-246. 129, 2019-2020 [84] Omilola, B.; Lambert, M. 2010. Weathering the Storm: [69] Henao J. and Baanante, C. 2006. Agricultural Production and Soil Agricultural Development, Investment, and Poverty in Africa Nutrient Mining in Africa Implications for Resource Conservation Following the Recent Food Price Crisis. ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Policy Development: Summary An International Center for and Outlook Report 2009. International Food Policy Research Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development; IFDC Institute (IFPRI). [70] Global Conference on Agricultural Research and Development [85] World Bank, 2009; World development indicators (WDI) 2009. (GCARD), 2010. Synthesis report of the GCARD Process and Washington, D.C., The World Bank Conference: Towards Transforming Agricultural Research for [86] Lynam, J., and Elliott, H., 2004. Organizing agricultural research: Development; Available from Fitting institutional structure to the research agenda. In: C. Ndiritu, http://www.cacaari.org/.../gcard_synthesis_report_en.pdf. J. K. Lynam, and A. N. Mbabu, eds. Transformation of [71] MDG Africa Steering Group (2008) Achieving the Millennium agricultural research systems in Africa: Lessons from Kenya, East Development Goals in Africa; Recommendations of the MDG Lansing, Michigan State University Press, pp. 145-169 Africa Steering Group June 2008. [87] Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research www.mdgafrica.org/.../MDG%20Africa%20Steering (CGIAR); (2005). Report of the CGIAR Sub-Saharan Africa Task [72] Beintema, N. M. and Stads. G. J., 2010. Public Agricultural Forces- The Tervuren Consensus- 2005. Rome, CGIAR Research and Development Investments and Capacities in Secretariat, 67 pages Developing Countries Recent Evidence for 2000 and beyond; [88] Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). 2006. Note prepared for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research Framework for African Agricultural Productivity/Cadre pour la for Development (GCARD), Montpellier, 27–30 March 2010 productivité agricole en Afrique. Accra, Ghana, FARA. [73] FAO; 2013. Organic Agriculture: African Experiences in [89] Headey, D, D., Benson, T., Kolavalli, S. and Fan, S. 2009); Why Resilience and Sustainability; Natural Resources Management and African governments under-invest in agriculture: results from an Environment Department Food and Agriculture Organization of expert survey; Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at the the United Nations, Rome Italy International Association of Agricultural Economists’ 2009 [74] Staatz J. M. and Dembélé, N. N., 2008. Agriculture for Conference, Beijing, China, August 16-22, 2009, 16 pp. Development in Sub-Saharan Africa ; Background paper for the [90] Gilbert, N., 2011. Rise in African agricultural research spending world development report 2008; [online] Available from hampered by instability; [online] Available from http:// www. worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087- http://www.nature.com/news/2011/.../news.2011.219.ht. [Assessed 1191427986785/StaatzJ&Dembele [Assessed on 10 July, 2012] 6 February, 2012]. [75] AfricaRice, 2011. AfricaRice News Brief; available from [91] Byerlee, D., and Alex, G. E., 1998. Strengthening National africarice.blogspot.com/2011 05_01_ar; [Assessed on July 2012] agricultural research system- Policy issues and good practice, Vol [76] FARA 2007: Strengthening Capacity For Agricultural Research 24 . Washington D.C., World Bank, 87 p. And Development In Africa (SCARDA); Inception Report [92] Gijsbers, G., 2001. Governance and institutional innovation; Volume 2; Preliminary Institutional Analyses of Focal Institutions Discussion paper No 01-09; International Service for National http://www.fara-africa.org/media/uploads/File/scarda/final_ Agricultural Research (ISNAR) , The Hague; Netherland; 35 p. [77] FARA.2008. Productivity and competitiveness of African [93] Hamilton, D. Neil (2008): Feeding the World’s Future: Agrarian agriculture in a global economy Proceedings of the 4th Forum for Justice and the rule of law; Drake Journal of Agricultural Law Agricultural Research in Africa General Assembly. Sandton 13(3): p 545-560. Convention Centre, Johannesburg, 10–16 June 2007. Accra, [94] Parigi V. K., Geeta P., and Kailasam R., 2004 ; Ushering in Ghana. 68 pp. Transparency for Good Governance, Center for good governance; [78] Beintema N. and Rahija. M., 2011. Human Resource Allocations www.cgg.gov.in in Sub-Saharan African Agricultural Research: Behind the [95] Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H., and Park. J. R., 2001. Why Regional Trends; Presentation at the ASTI/IFPRI-FARA promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation Conference “Agricultural Research and Development: Investing in during adoption. Research Policy 30 (5). 819-836 Africa’s Future. Analyzing Trends, Challenges, and [96] Narteh, L.T, Winslow, M. Youm, O. and Keya, S.O. 2006. Opportunities”Accra, Ghana, December 5-7, 2011. Available from Partner-driven agricultural research-for-development networks in http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/conference/Theme2/Beintema.pdf West Africa: the case of ROCARIZ. Knowledge management for [Assessed 12 July, 2012]. Development, 2(2), 84-90. [79] United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2006. Incentive [97] Seck P. A. 2011. Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP): Ten systems: Incentives, motivation, and development performance, a Essential Conditions for Success; Inaugural speech of the UNDP capacity development resource. UNDP. launching of GRiSP – Africa Science Forum, AfricaRice Cotonou, [80] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Benin September 2011. 1990. The Design of Agricultural Investment Projects - Lessons