Writing Convincing Research Proposals and Scientific Reports

8/8/2019 Writing Convincing Research Proposals and Scientific Reports

1/176


2/176

Writing convincing research proposals and e ectivescienti ic reports

A learning module

Part A: Writing a convincing proposal

Sylvester Dickson Baguma, Ponniah Anandajayasekeramand Ranjitha Puskur

ILRIINTERNATIONALLIVESTOCK RESEARCHI N S T I T U T E


3/176

ii

Authors a liations

Sylvester Dickson Baguma, National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Uganda

Ponniah Anandajayasekeram, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ranjitha Puskur, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2009 ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute).All rights reserved. Parts o this publication may be reproduced or non-commercial use provided thatsuch reproduction shall be subject to acknowledgement o ILRI as holder o copyright.

Editing, design and layoutILRI Publication Unit, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ISBN 9291462403

Correct citation: Baguma SD, Anandajayasekeram P and Puskur R. 2010. Writing convincing research proposals and e ective scienti c reports: A learning module. Part A: Writing a convincing proposal. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 174 pp.


4/176

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements vForeword viIntroduction to the workshop 1

Trainers guide: Session 1: Paradigm shifts in agricultural research and development

and emerging challenge s 5Session 1: Summary of presentation slides: Paradigm shifts in agricultural research and

development and emerging challenges 6Session 1: Notes to trainers: Paradigm shifts in agricultural research and development

and emerging challenges 22Trainers guide: Session 2: What sort of projects do donors like? When and when not to write

a full proposal? 39

Session 2: Summary of presentation slides: What sort of projects do donors like?When and when not to write a full proposal 40Session 2: Notes for trainers: What sort of projects do donors like? When and when not

to write a full proposal 44Session 2: Individual exercise on what sort of projects donors like 46Session 2: Individual exercise on when and when not to write a full proposal 47

Trainers guide: Session 3: Competitive grants program and how to respond and qualitiesof a convincing proposal 49Session 3: Summary of presentation slides: Competitive grants programs and how to

respond and qualities of a convincing proposal 50Session 3: Notes to participants: Competitive grants programs and how to respond and

qualities of a convincing proposal 55Session 3: Pair exercise on qualities of a convincing proposal 58

Trainers guide: Session 4: Proposal format and order of preparation 59Session 4: Summary of presentation slides: Proposal format and order of preparation 60Session 4: Notes to participants: Proposal format and order of preparation 64Session 4: Individual exercise on proposal format and order of preparation 66

Trainers guide: Session 5: Project goal(s) and the projects contribution 67Session 5: Summary of presentation slides: Project goal(s) and the projects contribution 68

Session 5: Notes to participants: Project goal(s) and the projects contribution 73Trainers guide: Session 6: Project objectives, anticipated outputs and beneciaries 75

Session 6: Summary of presentation slides: Project objectives, anticipated outputs andbeneciaries 76

Session 6: Notes to participants: Project objectives, anticipated outputs and beneciaries 84Trainers guide: Session 7: Inputs, activities, work plan 89

Session 7: Summary of presentation slides: Project inputs, activities, work plan 90Session 7: Notes to participants: Project inputs, activities, work plan 95Session 7: Exercise Project inputs, activities, work plan 98


5/176

iv

Trainers guide: Session 8: Project management, monitoring and evaluation 99Session 8: Summary o presentation slides: Project management, monitoring and

evaluation 100Session 8: Notes to participants: Project management, monitoring and evaluation 107Session 8: Exercise 111

Trainers guide: Session 9: Logical ramework, indicators and measuring impact 113Session 9: Summary o presentation slides: Logical ramework, indicators and

measuring impact 114Session 9: Notes to participants: Logical ramework, indicators and measuring impact 128

Trainers guide: Session 10: Project proposal budgets 133Session 10: Summary o presentation slides: Project proposal budgets 134Session 10: Notes to participants: Project proposal budgets 138

Trainers guide: Session 11: Project background and summary section 143Session 11: Summary o presentation slides: Project background and summary sections 144

Session 11: Notes to participants: Project background and summary section 151 AnnexesAnnex 1: Answers: What sort o projects do donors like? 158Annex 2: Answers: When and when not to write a ull proposal 160Annex 3: Answers: Qualities o a convincing proposal 161Annex 4: Answers: Proposal ormat and order o preparation 163Annex 5: Answers: Inputs, activities, work plan 164Annex 6: Answers: Project management, monitoring, evaluation 165

Annex 7: An example o a work plan or a project: Generation o knowledge and technologiesthat ensure sustainable utilization o sh stocks (capture sheries) on Lakes Kyoga,Kwania and Bisina (in digital version) 166

Annex 8: An example o a project log rame: Development o propagation establishmenttechniques and harvesting methods that ensure market quality o orest products 167


6/176

v

AcknowledgementsThis module could not have been produced without the support provided by ILRI senior management.We would like to record our deep appreciation and sincere thanks to Dr Carlos Sere, Director Generalo ILRI, Mr Bruce Scott, Director o Partnership and Communications, Dr John McDermott, DeputyDirector General, as well as members o the Board o Directors or their continuous support andguidance.

We would also like to thank Dr Denis Keytere, Director General o the National Agricultural ResearchOrganization (NARO), Uganda, or allowing Mr Sylvester Dickson Baguma to participate in thisexercise.

This module is a direct response to a request made by Graduate Fellows o ILRI. The content o thismodule was drawn rom a large number o sources. We are grate ul or the authors o these variouspublications. The content o the module was presented during a training session or the GraduateFellows in Addis Ababa and Nairobi. The eedbacks received rom participants certainly added valueto this module.

Finally, we would like to thank all those who either directly or indirectly contributed to the contentas well as the development o this module. This is a work in progress and we would welcome anysuggestions and comments.

Authors


7/176

vi

ForewordThe growth in agricultural research investment was very rapid in the 1970s and slowed down since themid 1980s. The rate o expansion o research sta has been more rapid than that o unding, resultingin a growing proportion o research unds being used to pay salaries and an acute shortage o operating

unds or undertaking research. As national public sector spending on research is alling, many NationalAgricultural Research Systems are heavily depending on donor unds to support research. This situationis more acute in sub-Saharan A rica than anywhere else in the world. In order to keep the researchagenda moving, it is critical or individual agricultural research scientists and their organizations to

nd new sources o unds. While the available research resources are declining, there has been auniversal move towards the use o competitive unding or research. Many institutes also started movingtowards results based contractual arrangements. That means a success ul researcher will have to writeconvincing proposals to secure unds and be able to widely publish the results (outputs and outcome)o their work to attract more resources.

During one o the interactions between the management o the Capacity Strengthening Unit, andthe Graduate Fellows o ILRI, the students identi ed the need or additional training in areas such asexperimental design and data analysis, oral and poster presentation, scienti c writing and proposalwriting, project management, and leadership training. ILRI also noted that although a large numbero theses were produced by the Graduate Fellows, they were not proli c enough in writing scienti cpapers and journal articles. This module is a response to this request. The training module was primarilyintended to assist the Graduate Fellows to write convincing proposals to access the available competitive

unds, and also to write and publish the results o their work widely. Once the Graduate Fellows leaveILRI, we also want them to train their own colleagues in the systems they come rom. To enable this,the learning module is designed to include learning objectives, handouts (teaching notes) and the

PowerPoints used during the presentations or every session. Where relevant, exercises and additionalre erences are also provided. The materials are presented in the orm o Reusable Learning Objects sothat the users can make use o the relevant sections based on the target group and purpose.

The materials have been drawn rom many sources, but the key ones are the training module prepared bythe ormer ISNAR (How to write convincing proposals 2003) and a book titled Writing and presentingscienti c papers (Malm ors et al. 2004).

Although the primary audiences o this module are ILRI Graduate Fellows, the materials can be easilyadapted by our national research partners. The users are expected to modi y and change the contentto suit their speci c context and need. We are planning to update this module periodically to respondto the changing needs and circumstances. Hence, any eedback and constructive comments rom theusers are very much appreciated.

Ponniah AnandajayasekeramManager, Capacity Strengthening UnitILRI


8/176


9/176

2

Improved knowledge and skills in researchproject proposal writing

Participants able to mobilize resources requiredfor conducting agricultural research projects

Participants able to produce high quality researchpapers/communication products

Expected outputs of the workshop

Thank you!


10/176

3

Project cycle, research process, scienti ic paper

New knowledgetechnology information

Target group identificationProblem identificationResearch question

Diagnosis

Evaluation

Planning

Implementation

MonitoringCollecting data

Clear definition of problem and causes

Defining purpose and objective

Deciding on the interventionsactivities methodologyAnalysis of data

Interpret results Draw conclusion

ResultsAnalysisInterpretationDiscussionConclusionImplicationsLimitation

IntroductionBackgroundLiterature ReviewResearch GapGoalsPurposeObjectives

MaterialsMethodsDesign options

Scientific Paper

Collection of background information


11/176

4


12/176

5

Trainers guideSession 1: Paradigm shi ts in agricultural researchand development and emerging challengesSession objectives By the end o this session participants will:

Be amiliar with the ongoing trans ormations and paradigm shi ts in the agriculturalresearch or development

Have a good understanding o the emerging challenges con ronting the R&D system

Training materials Flip chart

White boards

Assorted chisel marker pens

Time needed 1.5 hrs

Method o acilitation

Activities Contents Time

Plenary presentation Paradigm shi ts in agricultural research and development and emergingchallenges

45 minutes

Group exercise Participants share their experiences in our groups 60 minutes

Plenary presentation Trainer leads participants in discussing answers to the group exercise 30 minutes


13/176

6

Session 1: Summary o presentation slides: Paradigm shi ts inagricultural research and development and emerging challenges1.1

1.2

1.3

Challenges of the R&D systems

and

changing paradigms

Session 1

Objectives of the session

List and explain the changingparadigms in research for development

Identify and describe the emergingchallenges of agricultural research fordevelopment systems

Major goals of agricultural research

Produce agricultural technologies tocontribute to rapid economic growth

Provide options for adaptation to changingglobal economy; changing policies and;emerging environmental concerns

Contribute to the reduction of poverty byincreasing the supply of staples

Increasing international competitiveness of national economies


14/176

7

1.4

1.5

1.6

Guiding principles of agricultural researchfor development

Innovation Systems Perspective (ISP) Value Chain Approach (VCA) Impact Orientation (IO) Research for Development (R4D)

Complementary and mutually reinforcing

4 4

Changing context

Ongoing transformations Changing paradigms Emerging challenges

Reform agenda within the R&D arena

Redefinition of role of government in agricultural R&D

Decentralization/Privatization of agricultural R&D activities. Broader and active stakeholder participationpluralism in service

provision, networks and partnerships. New funding arrangements .

Separation of financing from service provision and researchexecution

Changing the funding base to competitive funding. Orientation of R&D to be more outward looking, client oriented

and impact driven. Embracing systems perspectives .


15/176

8

1.7

1.8

1.9

Reform agenda (contd..)

Increased recognition of cross-sectorallinkages

Globalization of research and emergingregional and continental bodies Increased use of networks and partnerships Commercialization of smallholder

agriculture Changing attitude and mindset of change

agents

Exogenous trends contributing tothe reform process

Changes in the political andsocioeconomic context

Changes in the market context Changes in the demand for R&D services Change in research technologies,

methodologies and approaches Changes in the organizational context

Emerging agri-food systems Massive increase in food moving across national

borders

Rapid rise and economic concentration of supermarkets

Creation of private standards in addition to publicstandards

New technologies to extend shelf-life of produce Non-price competition among supermarket

chains Increased differentiation of food products by class New forms of relationships between suppliers

and buyers


16/176

9

1.10

1.11

1.12

Paradigm shifts in agricultural R&D

Led by

Approaches for technologydevelopment Framework for organizational analysis Changing expectations

Approaches to agricultural research Traditional linear model for research and

extension Farming systems perspective (OFR/FSP) Participation/Participatory research methods Action research Rural livelihoods IAR4D*

Agri-food systems/Value chain* Positive deviance

Approaches to agricultural research (contd..)

Knowledge development, dissemination and usecontinuum

Doubly green revolution Rainbow revolution Knowledge quadrangle participatory innovations,

information, knowledge and education quadranglewith ICT playing a critical role


17/176

10

1.13

1.14

1.15

Organizational analysis NARIs

NARS (loose conglomerate of agencies andactors involved in agricultural research) AKIS (R,E,T in one system; knowledge triangle) Innovation systems perspective*

Innovation, innovation system and

innovation systems perspective

Innovation system

Application of systems thinking in agriculture

Framework for technology developmentand dissemination (TDD)

Organizational analysis within R&D

Both are interlinked


18/176

11

1.16

1.17

1.18

Systems thinking and its application in agricultureFramework for organizational analysis

NARIs-Focus on generation of knowledge (public sector researchinstitutes only)

Agricultural innovation system (AIS)Focus on knowledge generation,

diffusion and application

National systems framework

- National agricultural researchsystem (NARS)National agricultural extension

system (NAEs)National agricultural Education

and training systems (NAES)

Agricultural knowledge andinformation system (AKIS)

Focuses on knowledgegeneration and diffusion

Farming systems approach (FSA)Focus on research, ext. and training

Farming systems development (FSD)R+E+T+Policy + Institutions

Agricultural research fordevelopment (AR4D)

Framework for technology development

Cropping systems

Farming systems

Household production system

Farming systems research (FSR)(Focus on research)

Farming systems research andextension (FSR/E)

(Focus on Research & Extens

Factors contributing to the adoption of ISA in agriculture

A number of factors contributed to the adoption of AIS: Successful application of the concept in the

industrial sector Inadequacy of the existing framework to be all

inclusive in terms of coverage Multiple sources of innovation model

Inadequacy of the linear model to explain theprocess of innovation Increase demand for demonstrated

developmental impact Impact orientation.

Innovation vs Invention

Invention delivers new technology/knowledgeas solution to a problem things new to theworld

Innovation Economically successful use of invention is innovation, delivers social andeconomic change

Knowledge cannot be regarded as innovationunless it is transformed into products andprocesses that have social and economic use


19/176

12

1.19

1.20

1.21

Innovation

Innovation In its broadest sense, innovation covers

the activities and processes associatedwith the generation/production,distribution, adaptation and use of newtechnical, institutional, organizationaland managerial knowledge.

Innovation

Innovation Deals with product innovation, process

innovation, management, organizationaland institutional innovation and servicedelivery innovation.

Two important factors are knowledgeand networking.

Value of knowledge increases with itsuse, and exchange can only berealised in a cooperative environment.

Organizations and institutions

Organizations are entities created by individualsto support the collaborative pursuit of specifiedgoals. Formal organization is that kind of cooperation that is conscious, deliberate, andpurposeful.

Institutions are the rules of the game whichprohibit, permit, or require certain actions.Whether formal or informal, they are recognizedand generally followed by members of thecommunity.


20/176

13

1.22

1.23

1.24

Innovation system An innovation system is

a group of organizations and individualsinvolved in the generation, diffusion,adoption and use of new knowledge and theiractions and interactions

the context and institutions that govern theway these interactions and processes takeplace.

Associated learning Not a theory, but an organizing principle Can be defined at different levels

It is an analytical construct

National innovation system (NIS)(Innovation ecology)

The network of organizations in the publicand private sectors whose activities andinteractions initiate, import, modify anddiffuse technologies (Freeman 1997)

Those institutions that affect the process bywhich innovations are developed, deliveredand adopted (laws, regulations, customs,norms).

Incorporates actors, processes as well asproducts.

National innovations systems (contd..) Reveals that R&D organizations are one

type of knowledge agents in a largersystem Need for multiple roles for R&D

organizations Importance of institutions and framework

conditions


21/176

14

1.25

1.26

1.27

Agricultural innovation systemA dynamic processes of interacting embedded in specific institutional and policy contexts

Demand domainConsumers of food and food products in rural and urban areas

Enterprise domain

producers of mainly tacit

Farmers

particularly agroprocessing

NGOs

and otherentrepreneurs

associations

Research domain

National and internationalagricultural research

organizations

collages

foundations Sometimes

Support Structures

Agricultural innovation system(Innovation ecology)

A collaborative arrangement bringing

together several organizations andindividuals working towards a desiredchange in agriculture can be calledagricultural innovation system (AIS)

Agricultural innovation systems include

Traditional sources of innovation (ITK) Modern actors (NARIs, IARCs)

Private sector including agro-industrial firmsand entrepreneurs (local, national andmultinational).

Civil society organizations (NGOs, farmersand consumer organizations, pressuregroups).


22/176

15

1.28

1.29

1.30

Facilitating Institutions

Policies, legal framework, market, information,quality control Research, extension, training, credit,etc.)

Facilitating Services

Transport, storage, packaging, facilitating,equipment, import and export, communication,promotion, etc.

IS of a commodity chain (Innovation ecology )

Agro-industry(Input supply)

Agricultural production(Farm production)

Agro industry(Product marketing)

Processing Value adding

Marketing

Enabling environment

Political stability, law and order, infrastructure,Governance favorable micro-macro and sectoral policies,etc.

Intervention based innovation systems

An intervention-based innovation systemincorporates the invention system, as well as the complementary economic processes

required to turn invention into innovation andsubsequent diffusion and utilization

intervention-based Innovation systems do not occurautomatically it is the problem situation that defines a

particular innovation opportunity

Intervention-based innovation systems arecreated for a purpose,

they will change in content and patterns of interaction as the problem situation evolves and

they are constructed at mico-and macro levels. Although the IS can be defined at different levels

(national, sectoral, commodity andproblem/intervention), the most relevantinnovation system is the one that is constructedto address a particular problem i.e., interventionbased


23/176

16

1.31

1.32

1.33

Innovation systems perspective Using the innovation lens in analyzing critical

constraints; identifying, implementing andassessing appropriate interventions and;subsequent utilization of knowledge generated.

Suggests the analysis of three elements Components (organizations and actors) Relationships and interactions (institutions) Competencies, functions and result of such

interactions

Key features of ISP

Focus on innovation as its organizing principle Makes the distinction between organizations

and institutions explicit Learning and role of institutions are critical Partnership and networks are integral parts

Escapes the polarized debate demand drivenVs. supply push

IAR4D

a new approach to help research contributemore effectively and efficiently to povertyreduction and sustainable NR use

to mainstream a new way of doing businessthat ensures that research does not only leadto knowledge and publications, but also andmost of all contributes to change andinnovation for the betterment of people,while also preserving the natural resourcebase for future generations


24/176

17

1.34

1.35

1.36

Major thrusts of IAR4D approach

Set of principles for conducting research fordevelopment

New research agenda that addresses interactionbetween NRM, production systems andagricultural markets and policies

Institutional change for new partnerships

involving all stakeholders in the agriculturalinnovation system

The 4 pillars of ARD

Organizationaland

Institutionalchange

Knowledgemanagement

andinformation sharing

CapacityBuilding

M&E andImpact

Assessment

Intensifyingsmall holder

farming Developingappropriate

policies

SustainableNRM

DevelopingefficientMarket

Key steps in AR4D procedure

Problem

ResearchProposals

The 4 phases of the ARD procedure

Organizing the Team

Defining the Systemof Interest

Formulating ResearchPlans

Identifying Strategies

I

III

II

IV

Report

iteration iteration


25/176

18

1.37

1.38

1.39

Value chain/Commodity chain/Agri-food chain

A value chain describes the full range of activities which are required to bring abouta product or service from design throughthe different phases of production, deliveryto final consumers, and final disposal afteruse

From hoe fingers From Plough fork

A simple value chain has four basic links

Production Marketing

TransformationPackaging

Processingactual sale

Design Consumptionand recycling

Consumer

Distribution, Exporting

Marketing

Processing and packaging

On-Farm Production

Input

Value

Feedback

Agricultural food chain: Value adding


26/176

19

1.40

1.41

1.42

Why is value chain analysis important ? Value chain analysis plays a key role in understanding the

need and scope for systemic competitiveness growingdivision of labor, global dispersion of production of components

Efficiency in production is only a necessary condition forsuccessfully penetrating regional and global markets Entry into the various markets: national, regional, and

global requires an understanding of dynamic factorswithin the whole value chain

Commercialization of smallholder production system andmarket orientation

To reap the maximum benefit it is important tounderstand the nature, structure, and the dynamics of thevalue chain.

Value chain analysis cont.

In the real world, value chains may be much morecomplex

Intermediate producers may feed into a number of value chains e.g. the forestry, timber

SeedsMachinery Water

Chemicals

Design

Machinery

Furnituremanufacturers

Forestry

Sawmills

ExtensionServices

Machinery

Logistics, qualityadvice

Paint, adhesives,upholstery etc.

Buyers

Extracted from Kaplinskyand Morris (2000)

Domesticwholesale

Domestic retailConsumers

Recycling

Foreign Wholesale

Foreign Retail

The forestry, timber and furniture value chain


27/176

20

1.43

1.44

1.45

Industry value chain

Primary Transport Processing warehousing Retailproduction and and(farming) distribution marketing

Endconsumer

Endconsumer

Industry value chain

44 44

Primary Warehousing Retail and

(farming)

Available Margin

Inno va ti ve

me t hodologies to

process a t t he farm

remo ves t he need to

transpor t ra w

produce

N e w

t e c h n o l o

g i e s

r e d u c e t h

e

c o s t o f

p r o c e s s i n g

Efficient retailingstreamlines the cost

of selling to the endconsumer

Emerging Challengs Global financial crisis

Emerging food and energy crisis Greater concern for the environment Climate change Trade, market liberalization and emerging agri-

food systems Emerging diseases Growing need for inter-sectoral linkages


28/176

21

1.46

1.47

1.48

Emerging challengs(contd)

Changing expectations from science,technology and innovation

Underinvestment in agriculture andagricultural research

Technological advances in biotechnologyand ICT

Globalization of private agriculturalresearch and innovation

Meeting commitments and targets

Main messages Approach to research is changing What constitutes R4D systems

(organizations and institutions) haschanged

Emerging challenges require R4D systemsto be dynamic and flexible

Thank you!


29/176

22

Session 1: Notes to trainers: Paradigm shi ts in agricultural researchand development and emerging challenges1.1 Introduction

During much o the 1970s and 1980s, investments in agricultural research were largely motivatedby concerns about growing population, a nite resource base, import substitution and ood securityat both global and national levels that required a clear ocus on increased ood productivity. In the1980s, natural resources management and environmental preservation received much higher priorityin the research agenda, as well as ood sa ety in the industrialized countries. In the recent past, withthe advancement o the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), poverty alleviation has come to the

ore ront as one o the developmental goals. At present, the major goals o agricultural research are:to produce agricultural technologies to contribute to rapid economic growth; to provide options ore ective adaptation to a rapidly changing global economy and changing policies; to address emergingenvironmental concerns and to contribute to the reduction o poverty (and ood and nutritional security)

by increasing the supply o staple products and by increasing the international competitiveness o national economies (Rajalahti et al. 2008).

For a considerable period, the public sector research investment and research policy has ocused onnational agricultural research organizations/institutes (NAROs/NARIs). In this paradigm, public undswere provided as a block grant, usually through the Ministry o Agriculture, to a centralized researchdepartment or institute who then set research priorities and executed research through a network o research centres under the control o NARO/NARI. In the 1990s, this paradigm has been challenged,since it ailed to consider a variety o other public and private organizations that are involved inresearch policymaking and research execution (Byerlee 1997).

The research approach was also challenged, as the traditional approach (o ten re erred to as the topdown approach) to agricultural research and development was not having signi cant impact on thedevelopment o small-scale agriculture. The researchers and development practitioners argued thatan appropriate technology could only be developed i it was based on ull knowledge o the existing

arming system and livelihood system, and technologies should be evaluated not only in terms o their technical per ormance in speci c environments, but also in terms o their con ormity with theobjectives, capabilities and socio-economic conditions o the target group o armers. As a response tothese challenges, there is a gradual evolution o the central source model o innovation o the 1970sand 1980s to the current agricultural innovation systems approach. This evolution occurred as a resulto the identi ed weaknesses o the predominant paradigm o the time, and the emerging challengesand needs o the society.

Over the years, the agricultural R&D arena has seen a number o paradigm changes and trans ormations.In this chapter, we will rst discuss the re orm agenda within the agricultural R&D arena, then theparadigm shi ts and the changes in the global ood systems. Currently, the knowledge generation,dissemination and the utilization process within the agricultural sector is guided by our complementaryand mutually rein orcing principles. They are the innovation systems perspective, value chainapproach, impact orientation and research or development. These concepts are briefy discussed sothat the reader is amiliar with these developments and e ectively use this understanding in developingwinning proposals. However, it is worth noting that impact orientation and research or development

are implicit in the concept o innovation.


30/176

23

1.2 Re orm agenda within agricultural R&D

The policy and institutional context within which agricultural research and innovation occurs havechanged dramatically over the years. Rapid changes continue to take place in the structure and authorityo governments, the global economy, the structure o the arming sector and in the global and local

ood industries. The institutional landscape is also changing dramatically with the third parties (suchas non-governmental organizations, armer organizations and civil society organizations) playing animportant role in agricultural R&D.

Ongoing re orm agenda within the agricultural R4D includes:

Orientation o research to be more systems based, outward looking, client oriented and, impactdrivenRede nition o the role o governmentDecentralization and privatization o agricultural R4D.Broader and active stakeholder participation and pluralism in service provision

Increased recognition o cross-sectoral linkagesGlobalization o research and emergence o regional, continental and global coordinating bodiesIncreased use o networks and partnershipsNew unding arrangements including separation o nancing rom service provision and researchexecutionCommercialization and market orientation o smallholder agriculture andChanged attitude and mindset o the change agents (research, extension and other serviceproviders)

Given the sweeping re orms that are taking place, the R&D systems are acing a transition period inwhich they will need to restructure themselves, con ront new demands, and adjust to new political,scienti c, institutional and economic environment.

1.3 Emerging agri ood system

The last several decades have also seen a pro ound change in the nature o the global ood system.These changes include:

Massive increase in the volume o ood moved across national borders (both ormal and in ormal)Rapid rise in supermarkets globallyEconomic concentration in the super market sector

Creation o a multiplicity o private standards, o ten built on top o public standardsRise in third party certi cation o ood production and entire supply chainDevelopment o new technologies designed to extend shel li e o agricultural productsShi t towards non-price competition among super market chainsGreater di erentiation o ood products by class andDevelopment o new orms o (contractual) relationships between suppliers and buyers

These changes o er both challenges and opportunities to the smallholder producers. In some instances,they can squeeze small producers out o certain markets, contributing to greater poverty and inequality.On the other hand, i the smallholder armers respond positively, this can o er new sources o incomeand a marked improvement in the quality and sa ety o ood.


31/176

24

1.4 Paradigm shi ts in agricultural R&D

Agricultural research and development has been undergoing paradigm shi ts over the years which isin act a ecting their organizational structure, management style, as well as the way business is done.We have seen a shi t rom a single commodity and mono-disciplinary base to an innovation system

and a multidisciplinary based approach together with a change rom topdown research model toparticipatory approach to research or development.

The system thinking is not new to agricultural research and development. It has been there sincethe 1970s when a signi cant shi t in paradigm occurred by moving away rom the topdown, linear,technology development and trans er model to the introduction o arming systems approach (FSA).Since then, the application has evolved gradually to the various participatory approaches to the currentinnovation systems approach. Now the use has been extended to the application in the organizationalanalysis resulting in the Agricultural Innovation System concept. This evolution is traced in Figure 1,and it is the result o the changing needs and expectations o the society.

Source: Anandajayasekeram et al. (2005).Figure 1. Evolution o systems thinking and its application in agriculture.

Framework for organizationalanalysis

NARIs Focus on generationof knowledge (Public sectorresearch institutes only)

Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) Focus on knowledge generation, diffusion and

application

National systems framework- National agricultural

Research system (NARS) - National agricultural

Extension system (NAEs) - National Agricultural

Education and trainingsystems (NAES)

Focus on generation of knowledge

Agricultural Knowledge andInformation System (AKIS)

Focuses on knowledgegeneration and diffusion

Farming systems approach (FSA)Focus on research, ext. and

training

Farming systems development(FSD) R+E+T+Policy +

Institutions

Agricultural research fordevelopment (AR4D)

Framework for technologydevelopment

Cropping systems

Farming systems

Household production system

Farming systems research (FSR)(Focus on research)


32/176

25

The origin and application o the innovation systems perspective (ISP) in agricultural research canbe traced to a number o sources. These include: the success ul application o the concept in theindustrial sector o the developed economies, the multiple source o innovation model or agriculturalresearch and technology promotion as suggested by Biggs (1989); the inadequacy o the linear model toexplain the actual process o innovation in the real world; the inadequacy o the existing organizational

rameworks to be all inclusive in terms o the coverage o the various actors; and the increasing demandor demonstrated developmental impacts and the expanded mandate and expectations rom the R&D

communities (research or development).

The main attraction o innovation systems ramework stems rom the act that: it recognizes innovation asa process o generating, accessing and putting knowledge into use; explicitly recognizes the interactionsand knowledge fows among di erent actors in the process; emphasizes that institutions are vital inshaping the nature o these innovations and learning as a means o evolving new arrangements speci cto local contexts (Sulaiman 2008).

1.4.1 Innovation, innovation system (IS) and innovation systems perspective (ISP)In the literature, di erent authors have de ned the term innovation di erently (ECm 1995; Drukker1998; OECD 1999; Quintas 1977 cited in ISNAR 2001). The simplest de nition is anything newintroduced into an economic or social process (OECD 1999). The most use ul de nition o innovationin the context o R&D is the economically success ul use o invention (Bacon 1998). Here inventionis de ned as a solution to a problem. This allows us to make distinction between knowledge andinnovation. Taking a brilliant idea through, on an o ten pain ul journey to become something which iswidely used, involves many more steps and use o resources and problem solving on the way.

In the past, science and technology generation were equated with innovation. It is crucial in

recognizing that innovation is strongly embedded in the prevailing economic structure, which largelydetermines what is going to be learned and where the innovations are going to take place. Moreover,such innovations are not limited to technological (both product and process) innovations only butalso include institutional, organizational, managerial and service delivery innovations. This alsoemphasizes the notion that the responsibility o agricultural research organizations does not end withthe production o new technology or knowledge only. They can claim success when their innovationsare being disseminated, adopted and used (Chema et al. 2001).

Innovations are new creations o economic signi cance. They relate to the production o new knowledgeand/or new combination o existing knowledge. The critical point to note is that this knowledge cannot

be regarded as innovation unless it is trans ormed into products and processes that have social andeconomic use (Edquist 1997). This trans ormation does not ollow a linear path but rather characterizedby complicated eedback mechanisms and interactive relations involving science, technology, learningproduction policy and demand. The use o the term innovation, in its broadest sense, covers theactivities and processes associated with the generation, production, distribution, adaptation and useo new technical, institutional and organizational, managerial knowledge and service delivery (Hall etal. 2005).

The thinking until the early 1990s was that innovations were created by knowledge and technologyproduction processes and through ormal R&D initiatives by rms and technology creating agents

such as universities and publicprivate research institutes. The assumption was that the market woulddraw upon the technological resources it needs, as and when necessary. The demand or knowledge


33/176

26

would be identi ed by the ormal R&D systems, produced and passed down to those who necessarilyapply it because o its use ulness (Hartwich and Meijerink 1999). In reality, however, innovations arenot only associated with or stem rom major scienti c discoveries, but also o ten develop as a airlyminor scienti c and technological advances and can occur without any research (e.g. through learningand adaptation process). There ore, innovations can be generated by di erent organizations, group or

individuals and the conventional research institutions is only one such entity.

Innovation systemAn innovation system is a group o organizations and individuals involved in the generation, di usion,adaptation and use o new knowledge and the context that governs the way these interactions andprocesses take place. In its simplest orm, an innovation system has three elements: the organizationand individuals involved in generating, di using, adapting and using new knowledge; the interactivelearning that occurs when organizations engage in these processes and the way this leads to newproducts and processes (innovation); and the institutions (rules, norms and conventions, both ormaland in ormal), that govern how these interactions and processes take place (Horton 1990). People

working on similar issues, be it in a speci c commodity sector, at a particular location or in anyproblem area, tend to orm a chain or network that can be described as innovation system.

Agricultural innovation systemA collaborative arrangement bringing together several organizations working towards technical changein agriculture can be called Agricultural Innovation System. Such a system may include the traditionalsources o innovations (indigenous technical knowledge); modern actors (NARIs, IARCs, advancedresearch institutions); private sectors including agro-industrial rms and entrepreneurs (local, nationaland multinationals); civil society organizations (NGOs, armers and consumer organizations, pressuregroups); and those institutions (laws, regulations, belie s, customs and norms) that a ect the processby which innovations are developed and delivered. Agricultural innovation system can be de nedat three levels: national, commodity-based, and intervention-based. A typical national agriculturalinnovation system is presented in Figure 2. An AIS within an agri ood chain is presented in Figure 3. Anintervention-based innovation system can be developed based on the nature o the problem and thecontext in which the innovation is applied (see section 5 or details).

Intervention based innovation systemIt is important to make sure that the innovation system is not con used with the invention system.Innovation system incorporates the invention system as well as the complementary economic processesrequired to turn invention into innovation and subsequent di usion and use. Innovation systems donot occur naturally; it is the problem situation that de nes a particular innovation opportunity. Hence,

innovation systems are created or a purpose, they will change in content and patterns o interactionas the problem sequence evolves and they can be constructed at micro- and macro levels. Thus,although the innovation systems can be de ned at di erent levels (national, sectoral, commodity andproblem/intervention), the most relevant innovation system is the one that is constructed to addressa particular problem. As Antonelli (2001, 2005) argues, innovation systems are constructed to solvelocal innovation problem and they are constructed around a market problem (along the value chain)that shape innovation and not problems that shape the growth o science and technology.


34/176

27

Source: World Bank (2007).Figure 2. A national agricultural innovation system.

Innovation systems are constructed to address speci c problems. These systems are very speci c innature and deal with the connection between the relevant components o the ecology as well as ensurethat the fow o in ormation is directed at a speci c purpose. Depending upon the problem at hand,there can be multiple innovation systems supported by the same innovation ecology. Moreover, sincethe solution o one problem typically leads to di erent and new problems, we would also expect that,as the problem evolves, the actors in the system as well as their interconnectedness will also vary.

Thus, while the ecologies are more permanent, the problem- ocused innovation systems are transientor temporary in nature. Once a particular problem sequence is solved, the associated system can bedissolved. The dynamism o an economy/value chain depends on the adaptability with which innovationsystems are created, grow, stabilize and change as problem sequence evolves (Metcal e 2008, 442). Aproblem- ocused innovation system can be trans-boundary in nature or cut across national boundariesand may be spatially unconstrained. This problem- ocused, transboundary, and dynamic nature o theinnovation system is the most relevant one or the R&D community.

Linkages to othereconomic sectors

Linkages to generalscience and technology Linkages tointernational actors Linkages topolitical system

Agricultural value chainactors and organizations

Input suppliers

Agriculturalproducers

* Different categories

Trade, processing,wholesale, retail

Consumers

Agriculturalresearch system

* Public sector* Private sector

* Third sector

Agriculturaleducation system

* Primary/secondary * Post-secondary

Agricultural

advisory services * Public sector * Private sector * Third sector

institutions

Agricultural researchand education systems

Informal institutions, practices and attitudes Examples: Learning orientation; trust; communications; practices; routines

Integration invalue chains

Political channels

Stakeholderplatforms

Agricultural policies and investments General agricultural policies and specific agricultural innovation policies


35/176

28

Source: Anandajayasekeram et al. (2005).Figure 3. AIS in an agri ood chain/agri business system. Innovation systems perspectiveInnovation systems perspective implies the use o innovation lens in the design, implementation andevaluation o the activities o the various actors involved in the innovation process. Innovation systemsperspective (ISP) sees the innovative per ormance o an economy as depending not only on howindividual institutions ( rms, research institutes, universities etc.) per orm in isolation, but on howthey interact with each other as elements o a collective system and how they interplay with socialinstitutions such as values, norms and legal rameworks. ISP suggests the analysis o three elements:the components o the system, principally its actors; the relationships and interactions between these

components; and the competencies, unctions, processes and results such components generate.There ore, the analytical implications o ISP are that there is a need to consider a range o activities andorganizations related to research and development and how these might unction collectively and theneed to locate R&D planning and implementation in the context o norms and the cultural and politicaleconomy in which it takes place, i.e. the wider institutional context.

The key eatures o ISP are (Hall et al. 2005):

Focus on innovation (rather than research/technology/knowledge) as its organizing principle;Helps to identi y the scope o the actors involved and the wider set o relationships in whichinnovation is embedded;Escapes the polarized debate between demand driven and supply push approaches;Recognizes that innovation systems are social systems, ocusing on connectivity, learning as wellas the dynamic nature o the process;Leads us to new and more fexible organizations o research and to a new type o policymaking

or science, technology and innovation;Emphasizes that partnerships and linkages are integral part o the innovation system;Emphasizes that learning and the role o institutions are critical in the innovation process; andThe dynamics do not depend on the agents expanding the rontier o knowledge but on theinnovative abilities o a large number o agents. This dynamics depends on the strength o in ormation fows and the absorptive capacity o the individual agents o institutions and o

Agroindustry(Input supply) Agricultural production(Farm production)

Agro industry(Product marketing)

ProcessingValue adding Marketing

Enabling environment Political stability, law and order, infrastructure,

governance, favorable micro -macro and sectoral policies, etc.

Facilitating Institutions Policies, legal framework, market, information, quality

control research, extension, training, credit, etc.) Facilitating services

Transport, storage, packaging, facilitating, equipment,import and export, communication, promotion, etc.


36/176

29

society as a whole. The innovation processes depend on the interactions among physical, socialand human capital, but mostly on the absorptive capacity o individual agents (Ekboir 2004).

A good understanding o the concept o innovation, innovation systems and the innovations systemsperspective is vital to develop success ul proposal as most o the unding agencies are looking ordevelopmental impacts o research.

1.4.2 Agricultural research or development (AR4D)

The agricultural research or development takes a systems approach that goes beyond integrated naturalresources management to encompass the domains o policies and markets and the e ects that thesehave on the productivity, pro tability, and sustainability o agriculture. The our pillars o agriculturalresearch or development and their important interactions are presented in Figure 4. The procedurerecognizes that the general approach to rural trans ormation involves intensi cation o subsistence-oriented smallholder arming systems, better management o natural resources while intensi ying theiruse, developing more e cient markets and enabling policies.

Figure 4. The 4 pillars o ARD and their important interactions.

Organizationaland

institutional chain

Knowledgemanagement

andinformation sharing

Capacitybuilding

M&E andimpact

assessment

Intensifyingsmallholder

farming Developingappropriate

policies

SustainableNRM

Developingefficient market


37/176

30

Agricultural research or development requires additional mechanisms to oster integration o theseour dimensions and a new way o doing research and development. There ore, the support pillars o

agricultural research or development include:

Promotion o organizational and institutional change to enable cross-disciplinary research anddevelopment and multi-institutional collaboration.Capacity building o the various stakeholders ( armers, scientists, and other relevant stakeholders)In ormation and knowledge management andContinuous monitoring and evaluation and systematic approach to impact assessment.

The agricultural research or development in act utilizes the various participatory methods and tools.The our key steps in the agricultural research or development process are team organization, de ningthe system o interest, identi ying strategies, and plan ormulation (Figure 5). These steps are discussedin the ollowing sections based on material prepared by International Centre or Development-orientedResearch in Agriculture (ICRA).

Figure 5. The our phases o the ARD procedure.

Phase I: Team organization

The AR4D procedure starts rom the assumption that one or more organizations (including your own)and other stakeholders have identi ed a problem or area o concern, or an idea or intervention.It also assumes that addressing this problem requires concerted action o these organizations andstakeholders. This may require a team o pro essionals rom these organizations, comprising specialistsin the various disciplines needed to address the problem. It is assumed that by using the variousdiagnostic procedures the clients and stakeholders have agreed on a su ciently well-de ned speci cproblem. Clear planning requires that your team develops a good understanding o the problemstatement and the output that the client expects at the end o the process.

Problem

Research

proposals

Organizing the team

Defining the system

of interest

Formulating research

plans

Identifying strategies

I

III

II

IV

Report

interation interation


38/176

31

At the end o this phase, the team should have produced the ollowing outputs:

Team is composed, mandates are de ned, and resources are made available (at least or planning)An agreed upon team work procedure establishedThe problem is clearly stated and the expected output is clearly de nedWork plan is ormulated and approved by all partnersA mechanism or monitoring is established

Phase II: De ne the system o interest

Here the team looks at policy issues, markets, institutional issues and other macro-development inand outside agriculture that may have an infuence on the problem and on attempts to solve it. Itis important to identi y the system that needs to change in order to address the problem that wasde ned in phase I. We have to look at all elements needed or the change within the mandate o thestakeholders involved. It is o little use to suggest changes that the stakeholders do not have the powerto change or infuence.

At the end o this phase, the ollowing outputs must be in place:

Description o how the wider macro trends infuence the problemRede nition or urther elaboration o the problem as seen rom di erent perspectivesDemarcation o the system o interest

Phase III: Identi y strategies

Here there is need to engage all stakeholders involved in the system o interest de ned in phase IIto identi y strategies that will bring about the desired changes, under di erent scenarios based on theexternal actors infuencing the system o interest. There may be also a need to strati y the target group

based on resource endowments, capabilities, strategies and vulnerabilities. It is also important to assessthe anticipated e ect o these alternative strategies on the environment (sustainability), vulnerablegroups (social equity) and the competitiveness o the enterprises o the various stakeholders in thesystem o interest.

I this screening process shows that strategies have anticipated negative e ects, then these need tobe addressed through accompanying measures or the strategy should be dropped. Agreeing to someconcrete strategies may usually require compromise between di erent stakeholders. Each strategyshould be assessed in terms o their ecological, social and economic implications. These aspectsshould be considered simultaneously. The relative importance o each o these analytical perspectives

is dependent on the problem and use ulness o each in terms o nding a possible/viable solution. Thisintegrated analysis should result in the ollowing outputs.

Description o two or more alternative scenarios or utureDe nition o what changes are needed in the system o interest to address the problem under thedi erent scenariosTypology o the stakeholders a ected di erently by the problem who require di erent strategiesCollective strategy to achieve changes in the system o interest that address the problemCare ul documentation o the analysis completed.

Phase IV: Formulate plans

At this stage, it is necessary to list the development and research activities needed to realize the strategy.The contribution o each stakeholder in the implementation o the agreed upon strategy de ned in


39/176

32

Phase III is identi ed. As available resources are usually not enough to implement all activities, theremay be a need to prioritize the list o activities/options identi ed. The criteria or prioritization mustdeal with the balance between the extent to which each activity is likely to contribute to the solution o the problem, the cost and time needed or the activity as well as the risk o ailure o the activity.

The nal step is the ormulation o convincing development and research proposals or the activitieso highest priority; and mobilization o resources to implement them. The process o implementation(based on the operational plan), monitoring, evaluation and the eventual impact assessment o theintervention needs to be worked out as part o the planning process. As most participants are amiliarwith the participatory approaches to knowledge/technology development and trans er process, it maybe possible to easily integrate the missing elements rom the AR4D process described in this section.But a clear understanding o the process will certainly assist in the development o convincing/winningproject proposals.

It is important to ensure that the innovation system perspective, value chain analysis, research ordevelopment and impact orientation are e ectively integrated in the proposal.

1.4.3 Value chain

A value chain describes the ull range o activities required to bring a product or service rom conception,through the di erent phases o production, delivery to nal consumers, and nal disposal a ter use(Kaplinsky and Morris 2000). It is worth noting that production is only one o a number o value-addedlinks in the agri ood chain (Figure 6). Some people re er to this chain as rom hoe (plough) to the nger( ork). A simple value chain has our basic links.

Figure 6. Value links in the agri ood chain .

In the real world, value chains are much more complex than this simple depiction. In many circumstances,

intermediary producers in a particular value chain may eed into a number o value chains.Agricultural value chains are de ned by a particular nished product or closely related productsand includes all rms engaged in input supply, production, transport, processing and marketing o the product, and their associated activities, interactions and institutions governing the activities andinteractions. It entails the addition o value as the product progresses rom input supply to production toconsumption. It includes input suppliers, producers, itinerant collectors, assembly traders, transporters,wholesalers, processors, exporters, and retailers. The key issue addressed in value chain analysis isvertical coordination: coordinating and harmonizing the vertical stages o production, trans ormationand marketing

Design Production Marketing Consumption andrecycling

TransformationPackaging

ProcessingActual sale


40/176

33

Porter (1985) distinguished two important elements o a modern value chain analysis:

Various activities which were per ormed in particular link in the chain andMulti-linked value chain or the value system.

Both these elements are subsumed in the modern value chain descried in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Agricultural ood chain: Value adding.

In many developing countries, there is heavy emphasis on the commercialization o smallholderproduction system; and production is increasingly becoming market oriented. In order to reap theimmediate bene t, it is important to understand the nature, structure, and the dynamics o the valuechain related to the various enterprises engaged in by the smallholder armers. Given the new agriculturalinnovation system perspective, we need not only understand the dynamic but should also ocus on theenabling environment, acilitating institutions as well as services associated with a given value chain.

1.5 Emerging challenges

In the previous sections, we discussed the organizational and institutional trans ormations taking placewithin the agricultural research or development and the associated paradigm shi ts to address thebroadened agricultural agenda. In addition, the system is also con ronted with a number o emergingchallenges which shapes the priority agenda. Some o the key challenges currently acing the R&Dcommunities are as ollows:

1.5.1 Emerging ood and energy crisis

In the recent past, global ood prices are increasing at an unprecedented rate and analysts say that theywill continue to remain high or a considerable period. Both the demand side and supply side actorscontributed to the current price crisis. The demand side actors include: economic growth and the

associated changes in li e style and eating habits in many countries; diversion o ood crops (maize,

Consumer

Distribution, exporting

Marketing

Processing and packaging

On-farm production

Input

Information

Valueaddition


41/176

34

sugarcane) or making bio uels: declining world stock piles, nancial speculation in commodity markets(a collapse o the nancial derivatives market); and o course the increase in population (although ata slower rate). The supply side actors include: increased uel and ertilizer prices and the associatedincrease in cost o production (and low input use); bio uel subsidies pushing production towards bio uelrather than ood; idle crop land under a conservation program, export bans and tari s by many grain

exporting countries; production short alls rom natural disasters and the long-term e ects o climatechange; trade liberalization making many developing nations depend on ood imports (subsidized)which are cheaper; loss o crop lands due to mainly soil erosion, water depletion and urbanization and

nally declining investments in agriculture.

The continuing increase in uel prices is pushing countries towards bio uels. As a result o rising energycosts, inputs such as ertilizers become more and more una ordable or small armers who are at thecentre o response to the world ood crisis. Transport costs have become higher and higher once againresulting in higher consumer prices. Thus the rising uel prices and the emerging ood crisis are closelylinked.

1.5.2 Environment and climate change

Since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, it is generally accepted that the environmental agenda is inseparablerom the broader agenda o agriculture or development. Both intensive as well as extensive agriculture

lead to environmental consequences. To address the expected climate change challenges and impact,R&D need to play a major role in increasing the adaptive capacity o the most vulnerable groups indi erent regions. The climate change could create changes in the geographical production patterns,as well as deterioration o natural resource base due to scarcity o water and rising temperature. It willalso a ect parasites like the tsetse fy and parasitic diseases such as malaria. With the increased risk o droughts and foods due to rising temperatures, crop yield losses are imminent. World agricultural GDPis projected to decrease by 16% by 2020 by global warming.

Although SSA produces less than 4% o the world green house gases, the regions diverse climates andecological systems have already been altered by global warming and will undergo urther damagein the years ahead. Sahel and other arid and semi-arid regions are expected to become even drier. Athird o A ricas peoples already live in drought-prone regions and climate change could put the livesand livelihoods o an additional 75250 million people at risk by the end o the next decade (A ricaRenewal 2007). Climate change will create new ood insecurities in the coming decades. Low incomecountries with limited adaptive capabilities to climate variability and change are aced with signi cantthreats to ood security.

1.5.3 Trade, market liberalization and the emerging agri ood system

The global and national ood systems are increasingly being driven by consumer interests, changingconsumption patterns, quality and sa ety concerns and the infuence o transnational corporations andcivil society organizations. The changes in the emerging ood systems such as rapid rise and economicconcentration in supermarkets need or quality standards; a shi t towards non-price competition amongsupermarket chains, biosa ety issues and the development o new orms o (contractual) relationshipsbetween suppliers and buyers o er both challenges and opportunities. They can either squeeze smallproducers out o certain markets contributing greater poverty and inequality or can o er new sources

o income and market improvement in the quality and sa ety o ood.


42/176

35

1.5.4 Emerging diseases

The incidence and impacts o diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria are well documented. Additionalthreats and challenges are posed by emerging diseases. Approximately 75% o emerging diseases aretransmitted between animals and human beings; the increasing demand or meat increases this risk o

transmission. Serious socio-economic consequences occur when diseases spread widely within humanand animal populations.

1.5.5 Growing need or intersectoral linkages

One o the major constraints to getting agriculture moving in SSA is the general lack o comprehensivepolicies and weak intersectoral linkages. Now there is growing awareness that a number o sectors suchas agriculture, education, health, water and energy are very closely linked. Thus any agenda to trans ormthe smallholder agriculture should ollow a multisectoral approach and capture the synergies betweentechnologies (seeds, ertilizer, livestock breeds); sustainable water and soil management, institutionalservices (extension, insurance, nancial services) and human capital development (education andhealth)all linked with market development (World Development Report 2008).

1.5.6 Changing expectations o science and technology and innovation

Over the years, there has been a signi cant change in the expectations o science and technology andinnovations, rom increasing crop and livestock productivity to creating competitive responsive anddynamic agriculture, that directly contribute to the Millennium Developmental Goals.

1.5.7 Underinvestment in agriculture and agricultural research

Public spending on agricultural research as a proportion o agricultural GDP in A rica declined rom0.93 to 0.69% between 1980s and 1990s (ECA-OECD Review 2005). The current average level o public expenditure to support agriculture is around 4%. CAADP reports estimate that i the MDGs areto be met, 10% o the national budget should go to the agricultural sector and at least 2% o the GDPshould go to national agricultural research and development by 2010.

1.5.8 Technological advances in biotechnology and ICT

Conventional biotechnologies have been around or a very long time, while genetic modi cation (GM)technologies have emerged more recently. GM technologies are making rapid progress worldwide.Biosa ety is a highly technical eld, which typically requires high initial investments or building thenecessary human resource capacity and institutional in rastructure (including laboratories and greenhouses or risk assessment or testing and identi cation o genetically modi ed organisms).

The revolution in ICT technologies and increased access to them in developing countries is enablinga variety o new approaches to capacity building and knowledge sharing and exploitation o theseopportunities require additional investments.

1.5.9 Globalization o private agricultural research and innovation

In the recent past, there is a trend towards globalization o private agricultural research. Drivers o

globalization o R&D are growing markets or agricultural products and agricultural inputs (reducedrestrictions on trade in agricultural inputs), new technological opportunities due to breakthrough in


43/176

36

biotechnology; improved ability to appropriate the gains rom innovations, improved policy environmentor oreign investments and technology trans er (tax breaks); and growth in demand due to increased

income and policy changes (Pray 2008). I care ully nurtured and managed, this may o er additionalopportunities or publicprivate partnership to mobilize additional resources and to move the povertyreduction agenda orward.

1.5.10 Meeting commitments and targets

Over the last several years, countries in the regions are committed to a number o targets and goals.Under the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, targets are set or: reducing hunger andpoverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, improving maternalhealth and nutrition, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and ensuring conservationand the enhancement o basic li e-support systems including land, water, orests, biodiversity andthe atmosphere. There is increasing evidence to show that we will not meet any o the targets set or2015.

In 2001, A rican heads o state adopted the strategic ramework to develop integrated socio-economicdevelopment ramework or A ricathe New Partnership or A ricas Development (NEPAD) under theauspices o the A rican Union (AU). The agricultural agenda o NEPAD is driven by the comprehensiveA rican Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). This strategy calls or an annual growth rate o 6.5%. At least 10% o the national budget as de ned in the Maputo Declaration (February 2003)should be allocated to agriculture.

1.5.11 Global nancial crisis

The current nancial crisis is contributing signi cantly to the slow down o many countries resulting

in reduction in the capital availability at a time when accelerated investment is urgently needed in theagricultural research and development arena. Although the current ood and nancial crisis developed

rom di erent causes, these two crises have ed into each other and could have signi cant impact onnancial and economic stability and, political security (von Braun 2008).

The projected low economic growth is likely to have negative second-round e ects or investment andproductivity with direct rami cations or ood prices and ood security around the globe. IFPRI (2008)has projected that under slow growth and declines in agricultural investment, the prices o majorcereals increase signi cantly. According to projections in SSA, per capita consumption would be 10%lower in 2020 and its share o the number o malnourished children will increase rom one th in 2005

to one ourth in 2020. The study concluded that i the developing countries and investors can maintainagricultural productivity and investment under recession, they can avoid many o the negative e ectso slower growth.

To sum up, there is a need or agriculturalists to grow intellectually and operationally rom a narrowocus on agriculture and technological research and dissemination to a better understanding o rural

societies and their needs. There is a need to seek greater understanding o alternative pathways orrural economic development, placing the role o agriculture in perspective, and rede ning the role,mission, and strategy o the agricultural institutes and agents as acilitators o rural economic growth.This calls or change in the mind-sets o the change agents and greater fexibility and creativity in

de ning the agenda as well as in de ning new publicprivatecivil society partnerships on the basis o whatever is necessary to improve opportunities, productivity and income generation capacity o poorrural households.


44/176

37

Re erencesAnandajayasekeram P and Dixon J. 1998. Evolving methodological considerations, empowerment and capacity

building in the arming systems approach. An invited paper presented at the 6 th annual con erence o theSouthern A rican Association o Farming System Research and Extension, Lusaka, Zambia, 24 February1998.

Anandajayasekeram P, Dijkman J and Workneh S. 2005 . Innovation systems approach and its implication toagricultural research and development. Presentation made at the Southern and Eastern A rican association or

arming systems research-extension (SEAAFSRE), Lilongwe, Malawi, 1921 September 2005.

ASARECA (Association or Strengtheneing Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central A rica). 2003.Strengtheningcapapcity o NARS or managing regional networks and projects. ASREACA, Entebbe, Uganda.

Bean R and Rad ord RW. 2002. The business o innovation: Managing the corporate imagination or maximumresults. AMACOM, New York, USA.

von Braun J. 2008. Food and nancial crises: Implications or agricultural and the poor. Brie prepared or theCGIAR Annual General Meeting, Maputo, Mozambique, December 2008. CGIAR (Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research), Washington, DC, USA.

Chema S, Gilbert E and Roseboom J. 2003. A review o key issues and recent experiences in re orming agricultural research in A rica. Research Report 24. ISNAR (International Service or National Agricultural Research), theHague, the Netherlands.

Christoplos I, Farrington J and Kidd AD. 2001. Extension, poverty and vulnerability: Inception report o a study orthe Neuchtel Initiative. Working Paper 144. ODI (Overseas Development Institute), London, UK.

Clark NG. 2002 . Innovation systems, technology assessment and the new knowledge market: Implication or thethird world development. Journal o the Economics o Innovation and New Technology 11(45):353368.

Conway G. 1998. The doubly Green Revolution: Food or all in the 21 st century. Penguin Books, New York, USA.

Edquist C. (ed). 1997 . Systems o innovation, technologies, institutions and organizations. Printer Publishers,London, UK.

Freeman C. 1982. The economics o industrial innovation. Frances Printer, London, UK.

Hall A and Nahdy S. 1999. New methods and old institutions. The systems context o armer participatory researchin national agricultural research systems: The case o Uganda. AgREN Paper No. 93. Agricultural Research andExtension Network. ODI (Overseas Development Institute), London, UK.

Kaplinsky and Morris. 2000. A handbook or value chain research. Paper prepared or IDRC. IDRC (InternationalDevelopment Research Center), Ottawa, Canada.

Krebs V. and Holley J. 2002. Building sustainable communities through network building.

Lundvall BA. (ed). 1992 . National systems o innovation: Towards a theory o innovation and interactive learning.Pinter Publishers, London, UK.

Metcal e S. 1995. The economic oundations o technology policy: Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In:Stoneman P (ed), Handbook o the economics o innovation and technological change. Blackwell, Ox ord,UK.

Metcal e S and Ramlogan R. 2008. Innovation systems and the competitive process in developing economics . TheQuarterly Review o Economics and Finance 48:433446

Positive Deviance: A new paradigm or addressing todays problems today, 2005. Http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/ Barabar-Waugh/artciles/positive_deviance.html

Rling NG. 1988. Extension science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Rothwell R. 1992 . Success ul industrial innovation: Critical success actors or the 1990s. Research and Development Management , 22/3:221239.

Sulaiman VR. 2008. Extension rom an innovation systems perspective. A paper presented at the IFPRI con erenceon advancing agriculture in developing countries through knowledge and innovation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,April 7, 2008

Wol S and Zilberman D. 2001. Knowledge generation and technical change: Institutional innovation in agriculture.Springer.

Wyco J. 2004. The big ten innovation killers and how to keep your innovation system alive and well. (www.thinksmart.com ).


45/176

38


46/176

39

Trainers guideSession 2: What sort o projects do donors like?When and when not to write a ull proposal?

Session objectives By the end o this session participants will:

Be able to avoid writing projects that donors do not like Be able to decide on the right time to write a ull proposal

Training materials Flip chart White boards

Assorted chisel marker pens

Time needed 1.5 hrs

Method o acilitation

Activities Contents Time

Plenary presentation What donors want in projects and when to write a ull proposal 40 minutes

Group exercise Participants share and answer in groups o our the structuredtrue or alse question

20 minutes

Plenary presentation Trainer leads participants in discussing answers to the groupexercise

30 minutes

Break Health break 20 minutes

Handouts and re erencematerials

PPT: Introduction: What sort o projects do donors like?When and when not to write a ull proposalStructured True o False questions or group work


47/176

40

Session 2: Summary o presentation slides: What sort o projectsdo donors like? When and when not to write a ull proposal2.1

What sort of projects dodonors or funders like?

2.2

Thesis or academic proposal Competitive grants Proposal for donors To secure resources during annual planning

Whatever be the circumstance, you want yourproposal to convince the reader

Circumstances under which scientistswrite proposal

2.3

Most of the international funding for NARESresearchers and extension workers come fromdevelopment donors

There are a few donor agencies specificallyinterested in research for generating knowledge E.g., Canada-based IDRC International

Development Research Centre For the most part, development donors are only

interested in research results that can contributeto development goals and objectives i.e researchfor development (R4D)

Source of funding


48/176

41

2.4

4 4

Projects that can make a marked, measurableand rapid improvement in the living conditions

of poor or marginalized and vulnerable people Projects that can make a marked, measurableimprovement in the environment

Projects with low risks and high returns Projects that beneficiaries (end users) have

themselves claimed as priorities, i.e demand-driven and client-oriented

Development donors want togive their support to

2.5

5

Proposals that o er a team composed o strongresearch partners whose experience andquali ications give them a comparative advantageover others to carry out the project i.emultidisciplinary and multi-stakeholderinvolvement

Proposals whose level o detail indicates that theauthors have given care ul thought to the designand implementation o the project Project logic

Proposals with a modest yet realistic budget, thatis within the means o the target donor

Projects that are novel or innovative

Development unding partners want togive their support to (contd)

2.6

Over-ambitious projects that claim morethan they can possibly achieve in the timespecified and for the funds requested

Projects that call for infrastructure andcapital investment, unless the need forthese can be very clearly identified andlinked directly to the project activities

Poorly written and poorly presentedproposals i.e lack of clarity

Funders will not like .


49/176

42

2.7

7 7

When and when not to write afull proposal

Preparing a concept note takes a fraction of thetime needed to prepare a full proposal. Proceed tofull proposal when;

You are responding to a competitive grantsprogram

You have submitted an unsolicited (unasked for)concept note to a donor, who has responded byasking you to provide more information

A funding partner/donor has asked for more thana 37 page concept note, and wants you tosubmit a full proposal

The best basis for a full proposal is a good conceptnote

2.8What is a concept note?

A concept note is a short version of a proposal It has the same structure as a full proposal It has fewer details and takes far less to

prepare It is a useful format for getting your project

ideas

approved internally linked with the ideas of your partners communicated to busy donors

2.9When to prepare a concept note

You are submitting a sole source proposal You want to find out if a donor is interested Your ideas are at a primary stage


50/176

43

2.10

10 10

Differences between a concept noteand a full proposal

Annexes often requiredAnnexes minimized

Budget details required includingbudget notes

Summary budget isadequate

End users and impact described indetail

Beneficiaries, impactsummarized

Activities are written up in detailActivities summarized, intime line

Background section about 10% of total

Background section onepage or less

Begins with a summary sectionSummarized in bullets(title, budget, etc.)

10 pages minimum, average 20 pages37 pages long

Full proposalConcept note

2.11 Moving from a concept noteto a proposal

You will need to add or expand several sections You will need to reassemble your project design

team and partners to think through the additionaldetails required to write a full proposal

You now have a chance to make changes to theproject that you described in your concept note

So long as the basic concept of the projectremains the same, you should feel free to makethese changes in the light of evolving internaland external realities

2.12

Thank You!


51/176

44

Session 2: Notes or trainers: What sort o projects do donors like?When and when not to write a ull proposal2.1 IntroductionWhat sort o projects do donors like?

Most o the international unding or NARES researchers and extension workers come rom developmentdonors, such as the World Bank and the A rican Development Bank (multilateral unders) and D ID,USAID, CIDA, SIDA and NORAD (bilateral donors). There are a ew donor agencies speci callyinterested in research. One such is the Canada-based IDRCthe International Development ResearchCentre. But or the most part, development donors are only interested in research results that cancontribute to their development goals and objectives.

Development unding partners want to give their support to the ollowing:

Projects that can make a marked, measurable and rapid improvement in the living conditions o poor or marginal people. This means that to sell your project to a donor you will need to care ully

trace the path between the results o your research and how those results will make a di erenceor the end users.

Proj

Documents

Writing Convincing Research Proposals and Scientific Reports