Agricultural Research for Development: Innovations & Incentives Uppsala, Sweden, 26-27 September 2012 Innovations and incentives in agricultural research for poor countries Delia Grace and Tom Randolph
Nov 01, 2014
Agricultural Research for Development: Innovations & IncentivesUppsala, Sweden, 26-27 September 2012
Innovations and incentives in agricultural research for poor countries
Delia Grace and Tom Randolph
Outline
The livestock laboratory
CGIAR: science, evidence, or innovations?
Case studies
Community-based tsetse control
Smallholder dairy development
Innovations + incentives = impacts?
International Livestock Research Institute
700 full time staff-1000 total
100 scientists & researchers
54% from 22 developing countries
more than 30 scientific disciplines
2012 budget USD 60 million
ILRI works with a range of research & development partners
across 7 CGIAR research programs
member of the CGIAR Consortium which conducts livestock, food and environmental research
to help alleviate poverty and improve food security, health & nutrition, While protecting the natural resource base.
Mali
Nigeria
Mozambique
Kenya
Ethiopia
India
China
Laos
Vietnam
Thailand
Agriculture for Nutrition & HealthCGIAR Research Program 4
IFPRIILRIBIOVERSITY
CIAT
CIMMYT
CIP
ICARDA
ICRAF
ICRISAT
IITA
IWMI
WORLDFISH
Livestock support livelihoods
• In many developing countries, especially SSA, livestock contributes at least 40% agriculture GDP
• Around one billion poor people depend on livestock: 70% of the rural and 25% urban poor. Dependency: 12-50%
• Livestock high value and rapidly growing sector
Rosegrant et al., 2009
Projected global consumption in 2050
population (millions)
295.1
1099.2
2674
480.3
Livestock nourish billions
• Over half developing world’s food
(crops and livestock) comes from
mixed crop livestock systems -
livestock are integral• Livestock provide food for over
830 million food insecure people:
6-36% of protein and 2-12% of
calories• Small amounts of animal source
foods make a huge difference to
nutrition (cognitive development,
maternal health)
Livestock bring lethal gifts …..• Low income countries:
• Zoonoses & diseases emerged from animals 26% IDB, 10% total burden• High income countries:
• Zoonoses & emerged 0.7% IDB, 0.02% total burden
Livestock have a long shadow…• 31% of total freshwater use is for is for livestock• Livestock impact on climate change- 18%?• Livestock compete for other land uses
Additional grains1048 million tonnes
more to 2050
Humanconsumption
458 million MT
Livestock430 million MT
Monogastrics mostly
Biofuels160 million MT
Growing, urbanising, hungry populations
Photo by NYT
Impacts of the CGIAR
65% of the total area planted to the world’s 10 most important food
crops is sown to improved varieties The overall economic benefits of the CGIAR estimated at US$14 -
$120 billion For every $1 invested in CGIAR research, $9 worth of additional food
is produced in the developing world Without CGIAR research developing countries would produce 8%
less food and have converted12 million more hectares to farm land Around 80,000 students, scientists and professionals have benefited
from capacity-building
(The CGIAR at 40 and beyond, 2011)
Evolution of the CGIAR
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE
EVIDENCE
IMPACT
2 c a s e
s t u d i e s
Case study 1:Innovations that fail
Community-based tsetse control
Trypanosomosis: the most important disease of cattle wherever present
Spread by the unusual tsetse fly
Also causes sleeping sickness
Controlled initially by bush clearing, game culling, areal spraying insecticides…
What was done? Community based tsetse
Innovation Screens that kill tsetse
Science showed
Tryps the most important
disease. 10% infected.
production by 15%
Screens cheap, effective
High satisfaction
High use (until..)
15
Often triedAlways worksNever sustained
Case study 1:Innovation that succeeds
Kenya smallholder dairy
Milk: 2nd largest item of urban
household expenditure
Milk: Per capita daily
consumption of 0.2-0.4 kg
3.5% of Kenya’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP)
and 14% of the agricultural
GDP.
Smallholder farmers produce
around 80% of the total
production
What was done? Training informal milk sellers
Innovation
Training, branding, certification of
informal sector
Metal milk cans, quality checks
Science showed
Importance of smallholder dairy
Milk hazards high but health risks low
Formal milk no safer than informal
Training hawkers increases safetyRaw milk Pasteurised
100%Fail to meet standards
Impacts of training informal actors
Policy change
Informal sector recognised
Impacts
Increase in milk handled
Around 80% actors trained
Around 50% licensed
$33 million USD annual benefits
Vibrant smallholder sector
Major donor investment
Some differences between case studies
Community-based tsetse control
Novel behaviour
Collective action required
Risk averse target group
With success, motivation fades
Distant link with behaviour and
income
Innovation in a static market
Training informal sector milk sellers
Socially endorsed behaviour
Individual action required
Entrepreneurial target group
With success, motivation remains
Clearlink between behaviour and
income
Innovation in dynamic market
LESSONS AROUND INOVATION & INCENTIVE
FAILURE IS GETTING EASIER TO PREDICT – but not necessarily success
INNOVATIONS ARE THE LEVER – but often succeed in the project context but not in the real world
PICKING WINNERS IS WISE BUT PORTOFOLIO SHOULD BE WIDER– strong markets and growing sectors drive uptake
INCENTIVES ARE CENTRAL: value chain actors need to capture visible benefits
POLICY: not creating enabling policy, so much as stopping the dead hand of disabling policy and predatory policy-implementers
“think like a systemicist, act like a reductionist”
t“Thank you for your attention”