Moving Bio-innovations

from the Laboratory to the Market

A Comparative Study of Four Bio-Innovate

Technological Clusters

BIPCEA

Ecuru J., Virgin, I., Omari J., Chuwa P., Teklehaimanot H., Alemu A.,Komen J., Nyange N., Ozor N., Opati

L., Karembu M., Nguthi F., Gasingirwa C.

First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27

February 2013

Outline

• Introduction

• Conceptual & methodological considerations

• Results

• Discussions and recommendations

Introduction

• Governments, stressing increased agricultural

production, value addition and agro-processing.

• There is evidence of bio-innovations in

universities & public R&D orgs, but they are

unable to move to the market.

• Moving bio-innovations to market need well

functioning innovation system;

The Study

Studies on four Bio-Innovate technological clusters with the aim to:

• Understand, from a technological innovation systems perspective, enabling conditions and barriers to moving bio-innovations from the laboratory to the market in eastern Africa

• Compare the different innovation systems and highlight similarities and dissimilarities between the four systems.

• Suggest actions and policy measures to improve the conditions for bioscience innovation in the region.

The Technological clusters include:

1. Crop improvement technologies (especially for cassava, sweet potato and potato)

2. Bio-energy and mushroom production from agro-industrial waste

3. Value added products from sorghum and millet

4. Industrial Enzymes for Sustainable Bio-Economy

The Conceptual framework

• Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework.

• “[…] a network or networks of agents interacting in a

specific technology area under a particular institutional

infrastructure [e.g. norms and regulation] to

generate, diffuse, and utilise technology or product.”

• TIS approach enables analysis of how different parts

of the innovation system functions.

Conceptual framework…Using seven processes to broadly map the strengths and

weaknesses of the innovation system :

1. Knowledge development and diffusion .

2. Entrepreneurial activity

3. Guidance visions, policies and strategies

4. Market creation

5. Getting legitimacy

6. Resource mobilisation

7. Positive externalities

An important part of the TIS analysis is also the

characterisation of the structural components (actors in the

system, infrastructure)

Conceptual framework…

In order to describe the strength the functions and the structural components of the innovation system, we have used a quantitative scale of 1-4,

1- Very poor. The function is fulfilled in an inadequate manner, or there are serious weaknesses.

2 - Poor. While the function is partly fulfilled, there are major weaknesses.

3 - Fair. While the function is broadly fulfilled, there are still serious weaknesses.

4 - Good. The function adequately fulfill

Study Method

Mixed methods in gathering qualitative data, based

on:

1. Review of national and regional policy

documents and institutional reports,

2. Observations

3. One focus group discussion and least five

interviews with key actors in each technological

cluster (including industry) in

Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, Rwanda

and Burundi

Results

Structural components of the

innovation system: The Actors

• From the results, it appears the actors and organizations needed to move bio-innovations to the market largely exist in the region.

• However, the actors are not interlinked to function properly.

• But, as has been seen in other related innovation systems, the number of involved actors and especially new entrants can change the dynamics of the innovation system fast.

Knowledge development

• Knowledge development in all the studied innovations

systems is at a relatively high level.

• The knowledge base is no longer a major limiting

factor in any of the four innovation systems studied.

But……

• In all the systems, marketing skills and the ability to

make assessment of economic potential of

commercialization of technologies and products is still

weak.

• Skills in developing cost effective production and

distribution regimes are also weak

Entrepreneurial activity

• The entrepreneurship skills at public R&D institutions

still limited

• Few private sector actors are investing in R&D. Close

collaboration between academia and the private sector is

not common.

• Actors in innovation consortia seldom properly

interlinked and supported to play complimentary roles.

• New entrants are making impact(especially in the case of

crop improvement/tissue culture)

Guidance/ Policies and an enabling

environment

• Science, technology and innovation(STI) policy frameworks in

place; but specific policies/regulations largely lacking.

• High taxation on imported equipment is a negative factor.

• Strategies, priority setting regimes and specific government

programmes supporting innovation still too few.

• Limited institutional structures & policies for innovation (e.g.

inst.IP policies/ management capacities to develop effective

contractual agreements, and abilities to link with market actors)

• Slow procurement procedures delaying implementation of projects

Market Creation

• Markets for all the four innovation systems are weak and affect the

four innovation systems negatively.

• Marketing techniques, marketing skills and also resources for

marketing technologies and products are to a large extent lacking

• No active market creation. Absence of focused national

goals, targets, incentives.

• As an example, in the case of biogas production unfavorable feed-

in tariffs to sell electricity generated from biogas to national

electricity grids is a negative factor.

Getting legitimacy

• For all of the innovation systems, a strong legitimacy for the

positive impacts these new technologies and products could

have on improving food security, climate change resilience and

converting agrowaste into something beneficial.

• At the same time other factors are acting to reduce this

legitimacy, likely based on perceptions, such as;

- some of the potential products associated with poverty,

-Running biogas digesters perceived as dirty and unattractive

.

Resources

• Human resources appear to be adequate to drive the

innovation process forward.

• Financial resources for moving the innovation

process forward towards commercialization and large

scale application is a limiting factor.

• What is promising is that in countries such as

Tanzania, Ethiopia and Kenya, new funding

mechanisms for innovation are under development.

Externalities

• Advocacy groups lacking with an exception of

tissue culture buisness network.

Summary TableInnovation

case

Actors Knowledge

development

Entrepreneu

rial activity

Guidance/

Policies

Market

creation

Getting

legitimacy

Resources Externaliti

es

Avarage

score

Crop improvement

technologies 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2

Value Added products

from Sorghum and

Millet

3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2

Bioenergy & mushroom

production from

agroindustrial waste

3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2

Industrial Enzymes for a

sustainable Bioeconomy 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2

1=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good

Discussion and

Recommendations

Public institutions able to engage in

innovation and technology dissemination

Establishing a Foundation for Innovation and Linking with the Private sector.

technology transfer/dissemination capacities,

institutional IP policies and management capacities

ability to manage collaboration and networking opportunities including engaging in contractual agreements.

Rewarding & Supporting Entrepreneurship

Strengthen entrepreneurial skills at public R&D organizations,

Rules/policies/incentives for being innovative and entrepreneurial such as rewards, competitive salaries, career development opportunities, etc

Encourage the development of public R&D spin-off companies;

Creating Links

Strengthening public–private partnerships

– Supporting public and private actors to meet and discuss collaboration

opportunities, technology transfer, adaptation and commercialization of

public R&D.

Business incubation services

– Business case development, viability analysis and strategy refinement

– Market assessment and market access

– Business model validation and market testing

– Technology assessment (incl. IP assessment)

– Business plan development (feasibility; strategies)

– Assisting in finding financing sources for development and

commercialization

Policies, strategies, communication

Policies, regulations at national and regional

level should be supportive

Clear goals, sufficient incentives, and

strategies necessary

Communicating effectively

Funding R&D and Innovation

• Government innovation funds. The donor community can complement and strengthen government innovation funds.

• Venture capital.

• Attracting more philanthropic investments.

• Providing incentives for local private sector investment in research.

Conclusion• The actors and all functions in the four sub-innovations

systems and how they perform are weak. An exception to this is the case on micropropagation of disease free cassava, sweet potato and potato which is a more mature field of innovation and where many of its functions are stronger.

• A visible pattern, although not very distinctive, is that the number of actors involved in the systems and knowledge formation is improving in all the cases, with the exception of industrial enzymes.

• The Bio-Innovate programme has most probably been an important factor behind this improvement.

• Thus, need to make these innovation systems more effective, a more pronounced focus and investment on improving market potentials, policies and resources for these systems would be more effective than strengthening R&D efforts.

Acknowledgement

• Bio-Innovate/Sida

• Bio-Innovate Project Teams

Thank you