Statement by the NEPAD CEO, Dr Ibrahim A.

Mayaki at the 6 Africa Agriculture Science Week and FARA general assembly
th

CAADP Day Session

17th July 2013

Honourable Minister of Agriculture, Ghana; Honourable Ministers, Madam Commissioner, Members of Parliament, Chairman of FARA Board, Directors of the Regional and International Research and Academic institutions, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and gentlemen You know the importance that NEPAD attach to science and innovation, which is reflected in the mandate it received for the implementation of the Africa's Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) to respond to the economic challenges facing the continent. The place given to research as one of the four pillars of CAADP is also a reflection of this fact. This reveals that when the CAADP was launched, there was the acute perception that research required to recover the position it had dramatically lost during the structural adjustment period. Actually, from 1991 to 1999, public expenditures on agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa fell in real terms while at the same time the demand for crop products in Africa increased by 40%. Fortunately things have changed over the last decade with a renewed interest in research that is reflected in spending increase of about 2.6% per year in real terms against 1% in the previous decade. However, even if the expenditure has increased from U.S. $ 0.5 to more than 0.6 dollars for each 100 dollars of agricultural GDP, it remains still below the levels existing prior to the devastating effects of structural adjustment. Furthermore this increase is mainly due to increases in some few countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. This means that the situation remains precarious in most countries. The numbers of researchers even decreased in some countries (Niger, Togo, Congo, Gabon). Efforts in agricultural research remain below the target of 1% of agricultural GDP which can be derived from the general commitment that African leaders had taken in 2006 to allocate 1% of global GDP to research and development. The number of countries that have achieved it is very close to that of countries that comply with the target set in Maputo in 2008 to spend 10% of public expenditure on agriculture. In sub-Saharan Africa for each million agricultural workers there are less than 70 full-time agricultural researchers. Involvement of private sector for financing of research has been presented as an option but examples of support to specific research in commodities chains where private companies have interests are too few to be presented as a general model (palm oil in Ghana). Funding from the private sector to the public research remains very limited whereas research efforts within companies for products that will be produced in Africa have significantly increased. Nevertheless the large majority of public research institutions have restructured their systems to become more responsive and accountable to stakeholders (clients, farmers,

NEPAD and CAADP always engaged behind Science and research even during hard times

Even if the financial situation has improved

we are still far from the target

and private sector funding has not proved to be an answer

Of course institution management has improved

agribusinesses and consumers) and to introduce sound financial and accounting systems. Studies have shown that many institutions were applying the principles identified as important for strengthening operations since quite all were involved in regional collaboration and integration; a large majority having strengthened linkages between research, extension and farmers and most of them having institutionalized a strategic planning process; and a majority having improved their institutional and management capacity. We thus must recognize that many efforts have been made in recent years. But it is not just to go back from where research had been neglected but to rebuild institutions and improve governance. In fact, the decay of research systems over a long period has had significant indirect effects in the way of doing research and still undermines its effectiveness, which adds to the difficulties and harms the recovering capacity for good governance. 1. Career advancements and recognition of competencies have been limited while working conditions have deteriorated leading to an erosion of skills of researchers. The prestructural adjustment generations with high levels of qualifications and experiences are retiring and being replaced by young people who statistically are less educated. In some countries, a majority of new researchers are only undergraduate. 2. The capital is being eroded: some national research institutes are even forced to lease their land or equipment and cannot maintain their research tool. In countries where higher expenditure is recorded, most of the funds are used to pay wage increases or rehabilitation of infrastructure and equipment at the expense of increased research production. 3. It is also clear that due to the lack of means, engagement of the researchers in field work is limited, mostly remaining in their offices and therefore focusing on desk work which is disconnected from reality. 4. Last but not least, research faces cultural and societal prejudice leading to an overwhelmingly disproportion of men in its structures while the agricultural world is vibrant thanks to the work of women. Certainly the funding aspects played a role in the reduction of the contribution of research to agriculture development and its isolation from the demand however the reverse movement must be based on a comprehensive approach to the governance of research. I see four major areas of further efforts: 1 - Maintaining a critical mass of research at the national level. My main concern is that the coordination efforts made at regional and continental levels should not distract our attention from the difficulties of the national research systems. Their comparative advantage is obvious being closer to the ground, where a concrete practice in research and development can occur. Only research at national level makes sense to coordination at a higher level 2 - Having an open approach to the relationship with the private research based on transparency and exchange of experiences between countries. Some researchers blame the large companies for encouraging the brain drain. Some public research centers complain of not knowing what happens in private centers located nearby. We know the risk that commercialization of research results is marginalizing vulnerable farmers

But effects of longstanding negligence has persistent impacts in terms of governance: Competencies of researchers have decreased Capital needs upgrading Loss of contact with the field Marginalization of women

In order to reconnect research to demand: 4 principles of good governance

including those who are on a path of accumulation. The social benefits of Public-Private Partnerships need to be thought in a broader context than the particular relationship and, if possible, at the regional level. 3 - Integrating research in a two-way knowledge system: even if farmers are actually integrated into the boards of research institutions, some agricultural organizations like ROPPA consider that it is not enough to ensure proper consideration of the producer needs. Often researchers have little interaction with extension services and farmers. In some cases farmers never get to know about new technologies developed in the research systems because effective mechanisms to share innovations from research to extension systems do not exist. Better still, consideration should be given to research approaches with extension, farmers and other practitioners on the value chain well involved in the technology generation processes. Also special attention must be given to the entrepreneurial role of women. Women, not only reinvest in their businesses, but also place high value on social investments in their communities. Recent experiences like farmer assessments and citizens juries in West Africa as well as the trend to strengthen local innovation efforts as promoted by the CGIAR deserve to be monitored. The enhancement of endogenous innovation is a key strategic focus in particular for all systemic approaches to agricultural production and farming systems. 4 - Having a development based approach to research evaluation. Researchers should be evaluated more appropriately based on development objectives rather than for example their ability to publish in scientific journals. This means improve the appreciation of their contribution to development, their ability to interact with other disciplines on their subject of research and with national, regional and international partners, the mechanisms they put in place to integrate the final beneficiaries in the definition of research themes in order to better appreciate the social utility of research results. Finally, to face development challenge, research must address concerns at three levels: political, societal and technical: 1At the political level, we must maintain the control of our knowledge production system and increase our capacity by improving the leadership through public funding: the dependence on external funding-will not allow research to take over our agricultural destiny. My country, Niger has experienced dramatically the consequences of drop in research funding when the World Bank loan programme expired in 1999 leading to reduction in funding for agriculture research from US$25 million to less than UD$5 million without any rise during the 2000s. This situation is far from being general, fortunately. It should alert us to the risk of being exposed to the discontinuity when funding is not ours. Financing by professional bodies and farmers are interesting because they create links between the results of research and the demand of its beneficiaries but they only concern structured and commercial commodity chains. New trends in economic growth and availability of domestic resources should allow us to include more human resource development in our priorities: remember that tax revenues rose from 140 billion dollars in 2002 to over 500 billion in 2011. We no longer have an excuse not to strengthen our human capital and knowledge. 2At the societal level we need to better listen to local knowledge even if it is challenged by unknown circumstances such as climate change. We must also be open to foreign knowledge and we know that mistrust vis--vis science has had a significant cost, for example in the case of the fight against HIV in some countries. But ignorance pave the way to sterile oppositions. Misunderstandings about the role of innovation, especially in

the challenges for agricultural research are three fold political

societal

the field of biotechnology is often indicative of a too narrow approach that is not aware of all implications of such innovations. Opinions are conflicting since other aspects beyond the technical one, including economic and social assessments are often insufficiently factored into the equation. 3Finally, at the technical level, we need to better align to and meet demand. We must also consider the conditions for the adoption of technologies in the concrete conditions of farmers. Risk aversion should be part of the research concerns. Only the implementation of measures to reduce economic risk, especially through improved market functioning which includes insurance, price stabilization will allow for innovation demand to become effective: it is also a condition to add value and assess the social utility of research. Good economic governance is an essential link in the chain of research efficiency. CAADP is the vehicle for Africas response to challenges in the agriculture development. It is based on inclusiveness and evidence. Ten years after its launch, CAADP was able to remobilize around agricultural development. We are at a time when we need to sustain the momentum especially in clarifying the vision we have on agriculture in the next decades. This is what should provide a framework for research objectives. To conclude, let me stress some key points that result from our vision that could shape the governance of the sector, including research: with the growing global uncertainty and external pressure on our natural resources we should think of upgrading the African food security strategy to a food sovereignty strategy with its political economy implications, at a more technical level, we certainly should promote the preference for sustainable farming systems that are labor intensive and we should give much more emphasis to farming as a business. And finally, change and transformation in agriculture must start from within the continent and its men and women especially with smallholder farmers that are the majority and have the highest potential for change. I am confident that the African agricultural science agenda will contribute to forge conducive governance for research to attain these developmental goals for agriculture.

Technical

CAADP as a political process is the vehicle to provide a vision that will guide research contents