Supranational Collaboration in Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa

Johannes Roseboom

Paper prepared for the ASTI–IFPRI/FARA Conference

AGRICULTURAL R&D: INVESTING IN AFRICA’S FUTUREAnalyzing Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities

Accra, Ghana, December 5–7, 2011

Introduction

Supranational collaboration in agricultural research has been high on the policy agenda in SSA over the past decade;

Paper focuses on two aspects in particular: The institutional arrangements for

supranational collaboration in agricultural research in SSA and how have they evolved over the past decade; and

The volume of resources invested in supranational collaboration.

Why is supranational collaboration in agricultural research important?

Many technologies developed by public agricultural research organizations do not stop at ‘artificial’ national borders.

This leads to an incongruency between costs and benefits a national policymaker will only take into account the in-country benefits and not those that spillover to other countries.

From a supranational point of view this leads to two things at the same time, namely: (i)relative underinvestment in public research; and (ii) duplication of research effort.

By working together at the supranational level:

More innovation opportunities become economically attractive.

Duplication of research effort can be reduced.

The higher benefits and lower costs that can be obtained through supranational collaboration can be used to conduct more in-depth and advanced research.

Despite these important benefits, one should be careful not to oversell it. A great deal of agricultural knowledge and technology remains highly site-specific requiring local research.

A brief history

1960< Federal government structures in British and French Africa facilitated the establishment of federal agricultural research agencies in addition to research stations with a strictly national focus

1960s At the time of independence this supranational collaboration collapsed or slowly disintegrated countries focused on building their own national agricultural research capacity

1970s The void left in terms of supranational collaboration was initially filled by CGIAR centres such as IITA, ILRI, ICRAF, WARDA, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, etc.

1980s A proliferation of regional research networks emerged, usually led by a CGIAR center or another external agent (FAO, IDRC, USAID, CIRAD, etc.) and with the NARS as relative passive members.

1990s Introduction of the SROs to streamline the coordination of these networks and to strengthen the position of the NARS in them

2000s Establishment of FARA and strengthening of the roles of the SROs, i.e.: (i) coordination, advocacy and policy formulation; (ii) information exchange; (iii) capacity building; and (iv) promotion of supranational agricultural research

The principal building blocks of supranational collaboration in SSA

CGIAR All 15 CGIAR centers have activities in SSA, four of them have their hq in SSA. Nowadays, half of the CGIAR budget is spent on SSA.

FARA Established in 2001 with the SROs as the founding members. FARA took over from SPAAR, which operated under World Bank auspices between 1987 and 2001.

ASARECA

Established in 1992.

CARDESA

Established in 2011, but preceded by SADC-FANR (2001-2011) and SACCAR (1984-2001).

CORAF Established in 1987. Initially only covering French-speaking countries. Since 1995, however, membership also open to English and Portuguese speaking countries in West Africa.

NARS Some 48 – varying very strongly in size and strenght

Expenditures

2006 2007

2008 2009

2010

(million US dollars)

CGIAR 219.8 242.9

254.7 307.5

336.5

FARA 5.3 8.8 12.1 16.5 20.2

ASARECA 8.1 13.0 5.6 9.0 15.1

CORAF 0.9 1.4 1.6 2.6 8.8

SADC-FANR NA NA NA NA NA# Substantial double-counting of resources as money flows between the different organizations# Contributions in kind by participating NARS not included # CGIAR by far the biggest actor at the supranational level and expanding. Moreover, CGIAR expenditures per $100 NARS expenditures in SSA far higher than in other developing regions (US$12-13 against US$2-3)# Growth FARA and the SROs far below the US$ 500 million target set by FAAP

Key institutional reforms over the past decade

An African-owned policy framework launched by NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.

Adoption of an agricultural innovation system perspective

Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism as the preferred tool to allocate research resources

Adoption of a programmatic approach by the SROs Introduction of multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on the

concept of mutual interdependency Structural changes within the CGIAR

Competitive grant mechanism

All three SROs have gained experience with the implementation of the CGM

While beneficiaries have gained experience with developing joint project proposals

Despite being a promotor of the use of competitive grant mechanisms to allocate R&D resources, I am having second thoughts about how it is working out at the SRO level.

Limitations and weaknesses of CGM

Relatively little steering from the top – research priorities are formulated very broadly.

Distinction between the supranational and national research agenda rather weak – a series of adaptive trials in different countries does not classify as a strong supranational project.

Priority setting excercises provide insight into the volume and distribution of potential benefits, but does not answer the question which part of the research agenda is best organized supranationally and which part nationally

Domination of the stronger NARS in the CGM Mobilizing partners in different countries to develop a joint

research proposal is costly potential opportunities do not materialize because nobody wants to carry the development costs.

The CGM exploits existing research capacity and does not contribute (or only very little) to the development of it.

SROs are not supposed to be involved in the development of project proposals submitted to the CGM.

Key institutional reforms over the past decade

An African-owned policy framework launched by NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.

Adoption of an agricultural innovation system perspective

Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism as the preferred tool to allocate resources

Adoption of a programmatic approach by the SROs

Introduction of multi-donor trust funds Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on

the concept of mutual interdependency Structural changes within the CGIAR

Multi-donor trust funds

Trust funds are an increasingly popular instrument to disburse development assistance as they help to reduce the (often high) transaction costs for both donors and beneficiaries

In 2010, the World Bank managed some 1000 trust funds with a total turnover of about US$ 9.5 billion.

One category of trust funds is the financial intermediary trust fund. The role of the WB in these funds is that of an intermediary between donors and benificiaries, performing mainly an administrative role.

In order for MDTFs to work, the beneficiary agencies need to have in place: (i) a clear strategy; (ii) a detailed work program with performance targets; (iii) a functioning M&E system; and (iv) a reliable accounting system.

An MDTF has become operational for ASARECA in 2008, for FARA in 2009, and for CORAF in 2011. There is one in the making for CARDESA. They each target a turnover of about US$ 50 million over five years (slightly less for CORAF).

A recent evaluation of the trust funds managed by the WB recommends a consolidation of trust funds option to be considered(?)

Key institutional reforms over the past decade

An African-owned policy framework launched by NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.

Adoption of an agricultural innovation system perspective

Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism as the preferred tool to allocate resources

Adoption of a programmatic approach by the SROs

Introduction of multi-donor trust funds Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on

the concept of mutual interdependency Structural changes within the CGIAR

Centres of excellence

Model pioneered by the WB Selected national agricultural research

programs stimulated to become a centre of excellence of supranational importance

Based on the idea of mutual interdependence: by clustering countries together each will carry the costs of a centre of excellence, while benefiting from the others.

Organized in the form of Adaptable Program Loans, which can be adapted both horizontally (more countries) as well as vertically (through time)

Agricultural productivity programsProject/phase Participating countries Centre of

excellenceBudget (IDA loan)

West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP)

Phase 1a (03/2007)

Ghana, Mali, Senegal Roots and tubers, irrigated rice, and drought-tolerant cereals

US$ 49.4 million (US$ 45 million)

Phase 1b (09/2010)

Burkian Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria

Onion, mango, bananas/ plantains, and fisheries

US$ 122.2 million (US$ 90 million)

Phase 1c (03/2011)

Benin, Niger, Sierra Leone, Togo, Guinea, Liberia, Gambia

Maize, livestock, and mangrove rice

US$ 118 million (US$ 83 million)

East Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (EAAPP)

Phase 1 (06/2009)

Ethiopia , Kenya, Tanzania

Wheat, diary, rice US$ 90 million (US$ 90 million)

Phase 1a (11/2009)

Uganda Cassava US$ 30 million (US$ 30 million)

Phase 1b Other East African countries

?? ??

“Southern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program” [under construction]

Key institutional reforms over the past decade

An African-owned policy framework launched by NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.

Adoption of an agricultural innovation system perspective

Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism as the preferred tool to allocate resources

Adoption of a programmatic approach by the SROs

Introduction of multi-donor trust funds Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on

the concept of mutual interdependency Structural changes within the CGIAR

Conclusions

Overall architecture for supranational collaboration from within Africa now in place

Emphasis for the coming years: further fine-tuning of processes

Linkages between the different components remain an issue for concern

National capacity crucial bottleneck for supranational collaboration Are we not putting too much resources into supranational

collaboration, while neglecting the national capacity? High donor dependency limits truly African ownership Establishment of an African funding base for

supranational collaboration an important challenge that needs to be addressed