pablo eyzaguirreeprints.icrisat.ac.in/13281/1/rp 6944.pdfthe scale and scope of national...

THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL

.M - RESEARCH IN L Z . 1

w- -. - - ' SMALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: CONCEPTS AND METHODOLOGY

C

Pablo Eyzaguirre

h % W SMALL-COUNTRIES STUDYPAPER # 1

THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL

RESEARCH IN SMALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: CONCEPTS AND METHODOLOGY

Pablo Eyzaguirre

Eycagulnr, P. B. 1881. Theraleend sa,peofn tlonnlegrlculturplreaarch In srnallddopmg oountrlee: Conapta end methodology.&AR Small-Ccuntrlc.8 Study Papa No. 1. The Hagtic: lntmnnUinnl Gavla for ~ a ~ o n a l Agricultural Resenrch.

management: organlmtion of research; planning: research: research polldee: small counbtes

agricultural research: management: organization of research: planning: research: research pollcy; small countfies

Part I. Projemt Deeaription and Objeaftvar

I m p o r t . I l a d ~ c u l t u r a l R ~ I n S m d l ~ o p l n g C o ~ 1 1 ~ . . 3 Ddlnln# asmall Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ISNAR'O Role in Developing National A&rlcUlturll

Rc8earch Syrtcmr ia 8mall Counmm . . . . . . . . . . 6

Borrowing technolo~y: Sourca. Lhko . and Adaptatlw . . . . . . 8 Size and Structure of NAm b Small Countrla . . . . . . . . 8 Link8 toRoduan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LLcllrs to E x t d Souma of Knowledge and Agmtechnology . . . . 9 Internal Linkpeer of NARS p n d ~ w i t h Pollcymlken . . . . . . 10 ~ S p l U 0 ~ 1 ~ d t h e S c o p e 0 f 8 ~ . l l . C o u n t r y N A R 8 . . . . . 10 ~oecolo@cP1 and Agrrrirn ~ypdoglm lad the Trader

ofTechnolorda and Inform- Impllcatl0111 for the

Part 11 . Methodologyl AnaIytioal Conceptr and Frametwork

S d e Limitatlone and Type of Rcecarch . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Eaabliahlug the Approprlatc Scale for Rerearch and

M v l n g E c o n o ~ o f S c a l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . U) Setting the Scope to MPdmLrc the Emarry and Impact of Rcmrch . . 21 DerMng'Economleso f~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 IdenU&iq ExtcmaI Sourca dTechnolw and Information . . . . 29

~ t r P . l ~ ~ t . m d I n Z ~ i r m t i o o l r l o r r r . . . . . . 27 Incorporating Technology Oratliento . DefininB Arcan of

Complemmtarity, and DerMng Economlm of Scope . . . . . . 29

L L n k y a t a t r t a r r r r J ( k u r a w o f T a c h P o l o g y ~ d K n ~ . . . . . 31 Determining the NARS Capacity to Borrow Intellfgently . . . . . . 31 External Linkages and the Bufldlng of a Natlonal

Research Capadty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Organization and Structure of NARS and the

lmpllcatlons for NARS LWragm . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix

Appendin Table 1 . Ratios of Econornlc Indicators . 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appandir h b l e 2 . Agricultural Research Expendlture per Sclentlst . . . . . . . . 42

h n e d D d p t l o n of the Data B w on National Agricultural Reclarch Systenu In SXMII Countria . . . . . . . . . . . 45

I S N m Small-Country Project

Introduction

n 1989, IsNAR began a global study of a@

come d&oplngcountriw wlth populations of fnw than flvc mllllon p p l e . B m u k of rc- m u m limttatlons and the inherent constraint of size that nablct the ecale of the research effort In these muntrlw, tbelr natlonal a(pl- culhlral r-h systems (NARS) are small - often under 50 restarchas. Nonetheless. these m S have varied and complex taaks to w o r m in their respective countrlea.

The major goals of Ulla study are to Menti& thc strategic role of NARS In small counblw and to dctamlne how eesentlal r e ~ a r c h taaks can bc carried out in small rmearch systems. Several

caets are Lo be b c l n c d In depth, and for them, the study wiU a ~ e ~ thereeerrch a r p dty and remurne that are cumntly awlable or necded to conduct agrlcultnrl rcaclrch. Thla Is aamlncd In Ught of thelr mandates under the agrlcultural dmlopmcnt policy of thew napectlve countrks. a s wll as rcqulre- ments for conserving the country's natural remurn base.

The project 1s funded Largely by Ule ltallan G m r n e n t wlth addldonal support born the Rockefeller Foundation, the Danish lnterna- tlond Development AgmCy (DANION, and the c r ~ rrechnlcal Centn for A(p1cultural and Ru. ral Coopcmtlon, ACP-EC Lomt Convention).

Objectives of ISNAR's "Small-Countries" Project

To acatc and malntaln a data base on 50 small countrlee, contatnlng Information on thclr agicultural rrsearch n&ds and na. aonal agrlcultural reMarch systuns.

To dcvlac means of measuring and claaal- lying key factors related lo agrlcultural research no that the NAR3 of am& countries can be analyzed and compared. Such factors include agrmloglcal zones, the ecale of rewarch aystems k g . , human and flnandal rcaources, alzes and types of InsUtutes. type8 and quantlty of local -ch pro- pama). Internal demand for technology, a- tcrnal sources of lnforrnation on new technologlea, and llnkagca to those aaurms.

for NARS, a s wdl a s mechanisms and stra- tcgics for setthg prlorltles and allocating remurcea to rcaearch.

To evaluate natlond and regional research envlronmentn m as to help small m u n t r h cfplolt opportunltles for acqulrlng new tech- nologlcs from ou wide.

To identtfy and a- mtchanlsms that enable NARS to manage thelr llnks wltb policymakers, local producers, and external murcea of knowfedge and technology.

To identify the skills needed by small. country reeearch leadas to manage the al- trmathre strategies open to them.

Project Activities

A GlobaI Data Base on NARS in 8mall Countries

Ilty dmloplng oountrlcs arc Included In a FglobaI data b a ~ on agricultural r e a u c h needs and the s t a t e of the N m . These n)unWlen have populaUons of lean than Ovc rrillllon (1080 a n s u e ) and meet at lcaat thrce of ttlc following four a l t a i a :

a The aonomlcally actfveagrtcullural popula- don Is 20 p a a n t or Inore of thc total cco- nolnlcally actlvc pnpulaUon.

Pn raplra tncumc 1s less than US82.000 (1980 (IS constant dollars).

AI(ODP per raplla for the econon~lcally actlvc ogr lcul tural populetlon la l ros than US82.000

For rrlch cnuntry, this Inforrnatlun will be used to arwese the natlonal de~nand for rclr'uch a s urll aawrlalln$naUonalrcscarch cajxiclty Thc data b ~ a e should provide noun-country lndl- carors of ronirnon wnstralnts, optlons, and ocnda

Country Case Studiee

ondurae. Jamalea, Slcrra Leone, Togo. Htcsotho, Maurltlus, and FiJ1 have been sclectcd lor lndepth study. The studlea cova rnatfrutlonal development, rcacarch organlzatlon and structure, actanal Ilnkagca, and lnformatlon flown to the country.

Regional Studies

cgfonal st\rdlca will be conducted In parts Weat Africa, ,e Carlbb-, and the

South Paclflc The goal of the regional shldlcs I s to aascse rcacarch capadty in reglona where small muntrlcs prcdomlnatc. The rcglonal studleswlll alraldenttfLmechanlsmaand etra- tcgles by whlch nauonal systems can lncrcam thelr cffecttvcncsa and etedency and galn ac- mun to the lnfonnauon and technology they n m l The studlcs wlll conalder the dMs1on or labor between NARS In a regional wntcxt a s w l l a s the role of rcgional reaearch organlza- Uons arid wllaboratlw network6

Methods and Concepts

llr ISNAR prOJCcl will dCvClOp nicUtods lor TanillPlg r r a a r c h needs and capaclty In smaI1 counalrs. The= w!U Identify kc). tunues arid employ the following concepts

Bcrle: the lrihercnt research eapaciq of a naUonal system: the combinauon oTa Nmss human artd flnanclal resources, knowledge h.%, and U~fmstructure.

Scope: the lnsutuuonal agenda of a NmS. the %t of research roplcs and objcctlvw to whlch it la cornnilttcd. Scopc has hcodlmen-

slons: the range of research programs and the I n ~ l of eophlsUcauon of the research.

Technology Gradients and Information FI-: the varying IntenslUes and levels of complodty in technology generatlon among nallonal systems and the nehvork of Infor- maUon cxchangc. An analysls of structure and levels of technolo@ generatlon and b a n s f ~ r in a reglon la auclal for guiding the flow of lnforrnation to smaller -ch ays- tms. The study ofgradlents and flows ale3 examlnes the capaclty NARS must have in

place m ham a- to the technology and easntM far the notlonnl agrkultural rc- lnformatlon they need. acarch system. The flrst lncludesllnkagca to

pollcymakcrs and to farmer knowledge eye- llnycE llnkages to lnstltutions and ays- LCmU In the WUntrq'. The armnd lndudcs terns outaldc the NARS ~tsd f . The study wlll Unkagea to external wur r r s of knowledge. ap lo re orpo key acts of Unkagca that are ttchnology. and r ewurns .

Managing Scientific Information

n collahoratlon wlth the CTA ITcchnlcnl 'Centre far A@cultural and Rural Coopcm- Uon, ACP-EC Lome Conventlonl and aplcul- t u r d r-ch lnformatlon speclallsts from devdoplng countrlcs, a atudy Is undenvay to arplore the managuncnt of eclentlflc Inlorma. tlon In small reacarch aystcma with llmltcd ~ a o u r c c s .

A m s s toeclcntlflc Informatlon that Isrelevant

research In a country can be Increased through ellbctlve Inforn~ntlon management. Irilormatlon a n also be used to supplexncnt or replace some klnds of reaearch, rdeaslng scarce reeources to be ltacd for progralna that must be conducted loccllly.

NARS In small countries are ol'len Htnlted Lk their abllfty to Identi@ and rselve the lnlorn~a. Uon they nNd to conduct adaptlve ant1 re-

to the dcvdopment 01obJectlves and approprl- s o u r n management rcwsrch. ~ h l s study wlll ate to the condltlonsofdcveloplng countrlea Is aascsa and proposc mcchantsma for Identify. auclal lor agrlmltural r-ch iystems. It Is lng and obtalr'lng sclentlflc lnformatlon for particularly crltlcsl In small munulea becaux research programs In omdl countrlea. It will the resources to do all !.he rescsrch that larxn- then focus on mshanlsrna of managlng thla s s need arc not always available. The.acope of Informatlon.

Dissemination of Results

emlnan/Workshop.: Workshops are the 'key lo dlssemlnatlng the results of this study. The flrst workshop, held In The Haguc In January 1990, revlewd project methodology and began lmplementatlon of country and nglonal studles. When the maln phaae of the study Is complete, a global workshop of research lcaders from amall developlng~unulcs will be held. At thls mrkshop, the condualon8 of the study wlll be valldatcd and applled.

tlon with natlonal and rcglonal agrlcrlltural reeearch organlzatlons, the methods dcvcl- oped In the stlldy wlll be uacd for atrateglc plannlng and to produce improvcd management technlques lor tamall r e a c h systems.

Publ!utlons:Thedata base, c a x studles, and lsauccl papers wlll be publlahcd and made available to agrlcultural rcecarch managers. sdentlsts, and development agenclea can- cerncd with agricultural growth and auataln. abillty In dcveloplng countries.

Members of the Study Group

-0 Coat- Honduraa

Mohammed D.hntya B i o m Lone

Advisory Committee

JZxtemtd Advlrorn:

Corn Baya FA0

Lucr* -0 Dept. of Agricultural hoearch

Botswbna BIahnodaut P-ud

Commonwealth Secretariat Elon Gilbert Consultant

Paul FtJohmrdm University College. LDmQn Jackron Karunaseksnn

Cmmon wealth Secretariat

Peter Matlon WARDA

Luka Abe

N'Cuattr Boom

Robln Bourgeois

Dely Gaprsln

HuntipOton Hobbk IV

Doughs Horton

AJibola Taylor

Carlos Valvsnis

Peter Muttyns Monnger of Scientific Information in

NARS Projet

Preface

methodology for the analyla of na. tional aglcultural research systems

[M) tn smell countrim consist8 of three parts. Part one contalna the statement of the problem. the delinltion of small-country NARS, and the sample of countries that are the focus of the study. It also deflnes the objectives of the study.

Part two is the analytical methodology. It defines the concepts to be used in the study, provides common terminology, and classifies the areas ofinformation needed to conduct the analysis. The approach Is to employ concepts that allow us to match information about the demand, capacity. and objectives of national agrlcultural research wlth the broader reglonal and global environment In which it takes place.

Part three deflnes speciflc categories of tnformatlon needed to substantiate the analysis and conclusions of the study. The data flelds as deflned in part three are also used to compile a global data base on @cultural research in small countries t6at can be used in decision-making frameworks or to generate worWng hy- potheses about mmdmizing the effectiveness and emciency of small-country NARS.

The ideas in thls document were presented for discusston at the International Workshop on Issues and Methodology for the Analysis of National Agricultural Re- starch Systems in Small Countries, held from 29 January to 2 February 1990 a t ISNAR In The Hague. A dlatinguiahed

group of external advisors, came-etudy leaders, and ISNAR staff participated tn dlscueslons on the problems of qricul- tural rwearch and the concepts that were presented. The reault of thesi d l ecu~ tons was a more concrete method to analyze the constraints and to explore the poten. tlal for effective and dndent agrlcultural research systems in the service of national development. I thank the group for their contributions, and any wcakneeees In the approach being presented are the reapon- siblllty of the author. It ls hoped that continuing work with research leaders tn developlng countries will bring us even closer to our goal of lmproved research and more appropriate technological solu- tions to the problems of poverty and low productivity in the aglcultural sectors of small developlng countries.

The value of the methodology presented here is to be meaeured in the usefulness of ita application. Are the leeucs identifled those that affect the development and organhatlon of research systems In small developing countrles? Are the concepts presented applicable for the analyela of the conditions that affect our sample NARS? Are the concepts, as delined, llkely to be understood and applled in comparable ways acrws the diverse range of countries and situations we are consider-. In@ Finally, do the categories of informa. tlon a s identlfled and classifled here correspond to the information that Is needed and available? Theae are the major areas in whlch the methodology la to be evaluated and applled.

Thl. methodology L b d q ured tn .mn country caec atudtea: Honduran. Junalu. Togo, Slcm Leone. Laotbo. Maurltlw, nnd Pift. LO any c ~ h b x a t i v e raearcbeaterpNeaUchuthlrr,thmLs a trade-on between ddlnlng the fleldn of lnqulry es narrowly an W b l e h order to enarre the wmpcrrabillty of rerult8 and to allw ntfsdeat delgeeo of &eedom to let the emplrlcal oituatlon tell the .tory. We have attempted to &ow for cornparimon m d to create a common analytlcaJ Inn- @age m d procedure.

E.eh au rrPmlned unda the oammaa ttalllc~wk ahodd W a dmacnt OtDry. m e k a o ~ . however, c h d be a Wt of reference for all the unantrlm wlth whlch we are amccrnd. When gaall scPlehasbemaconstrelnttoCpowth.W w d y mhould contrlbute new stmtegrw and a set of optlona to enable NARS to play the stratebc role that has been aeeigned to them m agricultural development.

Part I

Prqiect Description and Objectives

Background

Importanae of Agridtural Rematch in Small Developing Couatrlea

Agricultural war& ayatuns in d&- oplng counWe8 play a vltal role in

creating and adapttng improved agrIcul- tural technologlea, aa well es advialng natlonal governments on agricultural de- vdopment policy. To carry out these tasks. natlonal agricultural nsearch systems [NARSI not only need a strong ecien- tlffc base, In the form of good sdendsts and equipment, but they must also be able to plan and manage t h e organlza- tione. programs, and resources emciently and effectlvely.

Farmers and reeearchers In small, low-income countries have the same nee& and face the same range of problems that con- front farmers and rescarchela ln other developing countries. The mall sku of a country bears llttle rcflectlon an the slze and varlety of the problems it faces. Oeo- graphically, small countriee may contaln several major agroecologlcal zones. Their farming eysteme are often diver& and can lnclude estate-baaed export alpiculture, subsbtence farmlng, and commercial food production. A demographicalfy rmall country may also be ethnically and cul- turally dlveree, whlch can be an obstacle to institution bullding and communlca- Uon. The strong feellngs of national autonomy and independence and the problems these entail in promoting regional cooperation are no lean influentfal in small countries than ln larger onw.

Producur O small countrlca neod the technological bencflts that agricultural remuch generates, but the resourcu a- vailable to a amall country's NARS arc much lcss than thme available to a larger country. and thle necessarily h i t . the scope of the research effort. Near strategies must be developed 80 that NARB in small countriw can not only make the beneflts of research available to thdr own farmers, but aleo contribute to the world knowledge on a(3rIculture.

Small countries need to h d way8 to take full advantpge of the aclentlflc and development rmourcca available at regional and gobs1 levels. One Important option they have la to borrow technolo@ from outaide the country. To do thle wi.ely and efnciently, runall countrles must idcntifl their epeclflc nee&, the potential of their agricultural eectom, and the rodoeco- nomic condltio:lr, of thelr producar and consumers. However, because small countries face problems that are jwt aa complex as thme of larger counMes (if not more so), they oRen must Invmt an even h@er proportion of their resourcer Into understanding speclflc local problem. and obtalnlng and testing lntematlanally mallable technologies than larger countries. It is aleo probable that the relative allocation of resources to ~~ch and the national mope of research may be dlffcrent for small countrim.

Defining a S m d Country

SmnIl L. a relam term that can be .p- plled to a Mde range of countries. de-

pending on how It 18 defined. Any deMUon of a small a n t r y lo valld only In relation to tta Intended uec and context. For the purpoau of thin project. a particular country has been debed es amall because the abaolute 8tr.e ofthe economy and agricultural sector, as well as a d - able human and k a n d a l resources. 18 llkely to place h t t a on the size and type of agrlcultural rwearch system that can be maintained. Became of this inherent limitation In research scope and capacity. the tanka, functlotlcl, and priorities of small-country NARS may need to be qulte different fkom those of larger countries.

Ifthc tenn small Ls to be used conslatently In thb 1SNAR project. It Is Important to begln wlth objecttve crlterta. In order to identlfL small, low-Income countries in whlch aCpiculture la key to economlc development. flve criterla were applied to all independent countries in the world, using 1980 statistice.

Population

Countries that had fewer than flw mllllon lnhabltants. based on the 1880 census. meet our Urst cllterton. Ruttan has ar- gued that these countrlea pose a special case for the structuring and organfzatlon of research aysteme [Ruttan 1986. p. 32 1 I. Major international organizations that camplle etatbtical data on the problems of small dmloping countries, such as the Commonwealth Secretariat. have consistently used flve million as the cut- offpoint in deflnlng countrlea whose small aize poees a distinct problem for economic development (Commonwealth Secretariat 19891.

Per CopUa Inmrne

Countriw whue the per caplta income Is lesa than 82.000 (1980 USSI meet the

deflnftlon for low-income eounfim for our purp-. Thla level of lllcome also wmeo to dlrect attention to tho= countriw most In need of asatstance.

CountrIw that have an economld& ac- t ! ~ agricultural population that Is equal to or greater than 20 pcrocnt of the total economlcdy active population are countrim wlth relatively large agricultural pop- ulationa. ThM means that a signlflcant sector of the population will be affected by Improvements In agricultural productivity and agrlcultural income.

Agricultural ODP

Countries wlth an agricultural sector composed largely of low-Income farmers arc selected when the p a capita income of the economically active agricultural population Ls less than or equal to 82.000 (1980 US$). Thls corresponde to ISNAR's priority for assisting countries bmed on need and equity.

Agricultural Domatic Product

Counmes where the agricultural domestic product is greater than or equal to 20 percent of ODP haw signlflcant agricultural sectors. Promoting agricultural productivity through research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on na- Uonal development. Thls parameter also ellminates small but mineral-rich countries that have the financial resources to lnvcat In agricultural research and training, ehould agriculture assume importance in their development plans.

Appendix table 1 U s t s the parameters used to define the MUal category ofemall countries that the project will addnas. Appendix table 2 provides additional information on the size and cqcndituree of

the mall-Country EUWI. FOX Wme WW- mar. there were no data avlllabk on all the miteria for eelselection. Thme counmes were not excluded on thfs badebui. bmmr. Indeed, the duuth ofrellirble Inlonnatlon an anall counmes justitla the h m of the project. One of the project's lmmedlnte gopls b to gather. validate. and interpret tnfonnatfon relevant to agrfcultural devel. opment. nsearch pollcy. and organization in thwe counmea.

countlug techniguw usad tn dnnloptng countrlm. And. finally, the eceaomlc pic- hue ofamnu m u n m a can be qnu.tcant- ly bta r ted by development aid. a few hl&"nlue cxporta, or tourlet Industrla when offidally complied agpga te ntatis- tlcs baaed on national sccounb arc med.

Nonetheless. these parametem provide a us&l starting point am a re la th menmure of the 113re of small develooln~z munulea with o w c a n t agricu~WPI Lc ton . M

It should be noted that statlatlcal para- wellno providlclL(abanb for r w t h u n . meters sucb (111 those used hem nhould

- - always be used wlth cautlon. Available The end result wru a group of 80 n m d data measure only a fraction of the a@- counwlw (ace the map on the next page). cultural actlvfty in most of the emall de- Each country had a 1880 population of veloplqgcountries. FUthermore, thedata fewer than flve mUUon and met at leaat arc subject to the varying ddinftlons and three of the four runPlnlng criteria..

ISNAR'e Role in Developing National Agricultural Research Syrtemr in Small Countries

ISNAR'S mandate ia to m i s t in strength- ening the capacity of developing coun-

Mea to plan, organize, and manage their agricultural reeearch eystems. The need to strengthen NARS in amaller developing countries hae been recognized as an Im- portant part of that mandate, and the critical importance of ISNAR'a role in developing NARS ln small countrica has been wldely recognized (Ruttan 1986. p. 323).

Aa part of ISNAR's- advlsory nervlce to NARS. rcviewa to Identify reeearch eystan constraints in the areas of pollcy, organization, and management have been carried out fn Burundi. FIJI. Laos, Papua New Guinea. Solomon Islands. Weetern Samoa. Guyana, Panama, Rwanda, Leso- tho, and Botswana There hm aloo been a review wlth CARD1 (the Caribbean M-

and Oulnea-Blsclau. An a renult of both system reviews and follow-up actMUu, ISNAR continues to improve lte capaclty to %%&t NARS in small countriw.

An part of its tralnmg program, IBNAR cosponsored an international worhhop on agricultural remarch pollcy and organization In small countflea in 1884 (IBNAR 1985). Regional workshops are another valuable tool ueed by ISNAR to develop the orgenlzatlonal and management capad- tics of NARS leaders ln small countries. For example, in 1987 IRETA (lmtltute for Rcuearch. Extension and Training in Agrl- culture) and ISNAR presented a workshop on the organlzatlon and managanent of agrlculhual research In the South Paclflc reglon which waa held at the Unhrrrsity of the South Pacific. In 1988. ISNAR and

cultural Research and Development in- SACCAR (Southern Afrlca Centre for Coop- stltute). Assietancc In research pollcy and eratfon in Agricultural Research1 prwent- plannlnghae been provided to the a$cul- ed a two-week reglonal worhhop on m a 1 research aptcma in The -Ma w t u r a l research management for re-

SMAU- COUNTRIES : A GLOBAL STUDY OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS

I B e e 2 Dominica 3 ElSahrador 4 Grenada 5 Guyana 6 Honduras 7 Jamaica 8 N b u a 9 Panama 10 Paraguay 11 StLuci 12 stvncent 13 Surirame

AFRICA & INMAW OCElUl

Benin &*SVana &nnwE CaPev- C'mraIAtricarRepuMic Chad comons caoao Djiw EqugoridGuinea eamBia Gui iBissau Lesdho

27 Lbaia 28 M;lldives 29 MariLania r) Ma;.t*a 31 Namibia 32 RwPnda 33 S& Tome 6 P~incipe 34 - 35 SienaLeone 36 Somalia 37 SUlazPand 38 Toso

.eorch l a d a s &om BOtawatl~ Laeotho, end S.arlland.

To further addman the chrlluyPll and CollmtTalllts hung agc lcu lM nreuch myetaus In small devdopfne counmce. no well M to help them arplolt come d t h w lnhacmt adMnta@a. ISNAR has launched a two-yur reaurch project It lo a crrllrbo- rattve effort almed at derelopine muy(e- ment stratcgIea. toals, and orgnnlmtlooaal m e c h ~ m s that NARS maxmgcm a n w e to makc the bcncflta of agrtcultural rewarch fully PfceMible to thew Eounmca.

Donom and technlCPl aealatpnce cyp3lctca have abo had to cope wlth the high corta of 8saisUng small-country NARS In relation to the ske ofthe featarch wtan and agdculhuol acctor. The need to develop a apedal approach for work in rmnU caun- We0 Is dear (TAC Secretarllt. FAO. COUR 1985). Thls project wil l plu, produce guldelInca that will help donom acr well sa ISNAR target mwistnnce more d d e n t l y to mall-country research crystem.

Thls In Imperative. given the growIq demand for alyicultural research h the de- vtloplng world and the limited reMurcee that ISNAR, donors. and development a- gendca have to respond to the demand.

The objectlvea of the ISNAR study are

1. to create and main* a data base on SO small countrica, contalnlng inlor-

m.tlon oa their .(plculW raurcb noad. and nailmal .(giculturcll re- .eorch.Y.tenui

2. to devIot ways ofmeamring and clam- uylng kyr(lCt0m related to OgrlEultur- alrcreuchInordertoumlysemd compare N A N of rmmll countrlcr. Thw factors Include qroecoI0Ipf.I mnca, the d e ofthe reseprch .y.tmr k g . , a h a and brpce of htltutem. Linda and quantity of local rcmeuch progruns and a p ~ ) , intanal de- mmd for t~chnol~gy, U X t U x I d 00Urw of lnfarmptlon on new tcchnologlce, and llnkagea to thoee wurou:

3. to Identify rultable orgualratlonal mod* for NARS, M well rr m a - nlemr and rtrate(pca for octtlng prlorltles and allocating resources to reeearch,

4. to evaluate national and r c g l d re- war& envlronmcnta In order to help amall countriecl ~ 1 0 t t opportu~tlao for Pcqulring new tcchnologIa &om oubide:

6. to identi@ mechnnbme to enable MZB to manage their llula wlth policymnk- erm. loch producere, and &ernal murcca of knovfedgc and technobf&

6. to Iden* the s W needed by und- country research lead- to mana&p the altnnathn stratelpu wPiLble.

Critical Issues for Small-Country NARS

ork at I S N ~ haa uncovered e ~ r a l Issuca h detail, so that they can develop W ~ u a that arc attical to the operation practical guidellnea to ..M NARS 1eaders of NAR~S in small devtloping countries. h plennlllg. organIzIng and m-g The project research team wlll study these thelr organlzatlono.

Bomwhg Technolm Souroem, Lhkm, and Adaptation

s ince .mall-country NAIIS depend heevt- won artemrl rourcer ofhowle4lge and

&okqy, the project will tevi& and malyzc the effcctlvcnew of the w f o u s typa dre;rwcb netwurks ln small countrim. We arpect to find a variety of network. wlth didQlne fod and ndvantpgw. depending In large m e w r e on the national and regional contats of the countrim conamed.

Then are a number of strategic &d- eratiom that muall-country NARS muet keep ln mlnd lf they art to arploit the benefit. of external Mnrrces of knowledge and technology!

1. What should thcir level of ruearch be? Should It be applled/adapUve/ tmtlng adaptive/teclUng, or twting only7

2. For whnt pupmi? are they interpretlug world sclenca and technolo@

a. I. it to keep pollcymakem better M m e d ?

b L It to help in dctumialllg choicw for borrowing technolo@?

c. L It to help wlth networking and to increase beneflte from research .pillovcm?

3. How and to what extent should they cooperate wlth the NARS of neighboring large counmer, In almilar a(po- ecological zone#? And how will this

coopcraum affect thcir own autonomy and Identity7

4. Should they work to develop a cmaar- tlum of mall-country NARS wlthin a w o n (1.e.. Padflc IslandnlCaribbe- anlladlnn OceanlWwt Ahlcal mth- em mcpn a. How are the problune of llmlted

resources handled in such a UP?

b. What kinds of problems are there with communication and admlnl- stratlon?

c. How can they organlze polltlcal cooperation? And what ldnds of prob- l e m ~ can be expected from lingubtlc. hietorical, and cultural dlfferencw?

I. What macarch capacity do ern& countrim need ln order to borrow bcchnol- m a. Can their research needs be met by

technology t r d r from lnterna- Uonal egricultural rwcarchcmtera and dweloped-country rasearch aystemll?

b. Would thdr nscarch needs be better met by local research adapted to the low-input agriculture and/or speciahd or mtrictcd markets of emall countriw?

Size and Struature of N A N in Small Couakfee

rwcarch ayetun must already be in shown that the aWty to ecreen, borrow, Aplr. hefore tecbnolo@ can be Dr- and adapt scientific knoarfedge m d tech- rowed and adapted. Experience has nology requires essentially the aame

crp.dty u it d o a to lavent new Mchnol- ogv (Ruttan 1986: Ehmon 1877). The ha that a an.ll-counby NARS dota not conduct bsdc or appned rslwch does not obviate the need for m eUkcUve re- - cry.tem to dchm the 8pproprlnte technologlcd products to faman. re- Iplrdlcam of the wurce.

Once the bake and gorb ofmall-auntry NARS have been dedned In rclatlon to t h e

malt-cumtry NhRS mwt dcvetop a

sectom and technologlea Ult la to identify spedflc needo for near technologka and appropriate methodo for twtlng and a- dapang these new tcchnolog(er.

Furthermore, collaboratton wlth local farmen, on research into adstlng ngrlcul-

.grtculw rectors and adQPll @ o m of tccbnolo(ty, the impllcatlom of t h s ~ gmbfor the d a o f t h e m w U 1 b e w. The proJcct wIU tert the hy- p O t h d S that UU.U.COUtlby NARB need to allocate 8 greater Jwe of thdr remouma t o I l n k . g a r , - w l t h ~ . l ~ u r c a r o f knowled@ and technologv at one end and wIth producua at the other and.

tural practtcm. bdtgmaum crop., m d local te~m may a h enable dantirtm to ldartq q y o to b o a t the usnormc value and producUvlty of traditional crop.. Thb, In turn, can contribute to a p ~ d l a g the #cope of a@xltural development by dl- the nrource b u e and including a wlder range of faxmero.

Links to External Sources of Knowledge and Agmfeohnology

O n c e a NARS has detamlned the need for new agricultural technology. It

muat i d e n w w u r w of the technology and evaluate its potential for adaptation to local ~0XIdltl0~. For emall countriee with llmlted potentla1 for earnLag foreign achange or highly. elaettc dunand for their agrldtural uporb, It in auclal that a new technology not connume more for. clgn exchange than it generatem or saves. regardleas of net inaeasee in production.

The following points should be oountdcred whenever the poadbllItiee of adopting near technology are belng aramintd:

1. Sourcer of low-extenul-input -0- technolo@ mp;y be more dlllllcult to IdentlPy and obtaln internationally than other forms of agrotechnologv. It may be p d b l e for small countrlw to do the ruearch on thlr klnd of technolow thuruclvw In a wet-effcctlve manna.

2. The rmall-country NARS must have the capacity to evaluate, eclcct, and adapt new technologlm. Small coun- Wee need to d-e the level and cp.b of malntalning t h a e llnlo and lnformatim ayatenu.

Internal Linkage8 of NABB and LInlrr with Policymakers

BC~PUM of thdr OXl&ll OW, N A N 0 ofrG8CW~h p r O @ % U l l s f l ~ t t U mal l countrim may have a compara- to idenufy the ~~gmlzational modela tflat

tive advantage ln eiBclency and or- maxlmlze the advan- of small-scale tional effectivenen. A comparison of institutions. various types of organlzations wlth a

Researoh Spillover and the &ope of Bmall-Country NARS

p e project will identiQ ways for small- country NARS to take advantage of re-

search spfflwem.

Generally. NARS managem should do the following:

1. Idart* the areas of reglonal and inter- natlonal research mast likely to produce splllwem that can be captured at low cost by the national system (e.g., commodity. baslc research) and en. sure that such research is not being duplicated by the NARS. In this Inter- national divlelon of labor. the needs and priorltla of the small-country NARS ahould k in harmony with those of the international agricultural remarch centen.

2. Classlfy national zones by agroecologlcal and agrarlan characteristics in such a way that typologies that promote reaearch aplllwem can be developed wlthln and across regions.

3. Determine the mlnimum leveb of research, the InsUtuUonal capadty. and the types of programs needed to borrow technology, exploit research spfl- lovers, and beneflt from research networks.

4. Evaluate the Inherent limltatlons of a research Bystem that depends on out- side sources for its applied technology.

Agroeuological and Agrarian Typologies and the Trader of Technologies and Information: Implioationa for the Size and orgadstation of N A N in Small Countries

n order for the NARS to borrow effective- and for comparable eettlngs. lwRs in 5 . national agroecologlcal and agrarian amall countrica must therefore have a zones must be properly classlfled. Once thorough knowledge of thew respective thle hes been done, the NARS wlll be able agrlcultural sectors. Thb Mormatlon to adopt technology that waa developed in should then be communicated to relevant

nmirorks, a n t a s . and other NARS. f i e project will invcmagate the type oforgaul- zauon and rcaources requlrrd for or&- country NARS to perfonn thls critical bctlon.

Successful technology transIer depends ultlmatcly upon the capacity of a country's agricultural sector to use it and benefit fiom lt. The small countries that concern this project share a common constraint: they do not have the capacity to generate the foreign exchange required to obtain and use hi@-external-input tech- nologtw.

Whlle conalderable global research on low-external-input agriculture is under way. it has yet to be determined whether this type of technology and lnformauon arc eaally transferred and adapted, and if so, under what conditlona. There are lmportant organizational Impllcatlona for the NARS lflt turns out that the products of research on low-external-input @culture are not eaafly transferred and that this research must be performed by the NARS itself.

The project will investigate the organlza- tlonal structure and resources that NARS In small countries require to conduct thls level of reaearch. The analysis will also suggest possible alternative arrangements in the event that the size and resource constralnts on small-country NARS limit the conduct of research on low-external-input agriculture.

DeueLoping and Allocating Human Resourcer In SmdGCountry NAREl

We can assume that emall, resource-poor developing countries will at best have small agricultural research systems. The

mal l scale of the NARS's component ln- stitutionn producm a partlculu net of management problemn. Thlr, prolect will Identlfl these problems and develop stra- tegim~ that exploit the advantages of small eyatema and minimize the human re. source constraints inherent ln amall NARS. The following lesues are important connlderatlons for the project:

1. What am the relative demands placed on rtscarchere by non-NARS institu. Uone and nonreeearch activities? Are these greater In small counmes?

2. Ia the human resource bane (actual and potential) too small to pennit a functional divfsion of labor within NARS?

3. What constralnts are there that would affect the ablllty to mount a viable reaearch team for aerloua work on a slngle (major) commodity within the countxy?

4. What is the best allocatlon of humau resources to ~Eectlvely interpret world science on agricultural research and advise pollcymakers on theadoptlon of technology and on where to seek ad. vice and borrow technology?

5. What la the best allocation of human resources to effectively deilne the scope. needs, and prioritlee for small- country NARS?

The following section outllnes the four mJor concepts and the methodology to be employed in analyzing these Leaues. The method can then be tested in the planning and management of small-country research systems on a national or reglonal level.

Part 11

Methodology: Analytical Concepts

and Framework

Introduction

r p e goal of the methodology fs to nnalyxc the factors that determine the ecale of

agricultural research efforts in small countxien and relate them to Wtlng and potcnttal M~PT& objectives and actlvl- Ues. The methodology begins by dtilning the analytical concepts to be used. Olvm the range of countries that concern us. the use of common termindo@ and methods to generate comparable Bel& of information is essential. The concepts will be appllcd to the structure and environment ofnational agricultural research systems.

The result will be distinct levels of information that can be broumt together under a single methodological framework. Tbie framework can then be ueed to analyze the potential for agricultural research in small countries and the constraints it faces. UsIng thls frfunework, research leaders and planners can structure their institutions and aet thelr scope to bring the beneflta of new agricultural technology to their farmers.

The procedure in applying the methodology Is to collect, analyze, and match information from several broad areas. The following will be done:

1. Information will be collected about the demand for agrotechnology and the scale of the reeearch efforts ia our sample of small countriw.

2. Information will be collected about the scale of the research Bystem and about the national rwearch objectives and activltiee that deflne the scope of the NARS.

3. The scale and ecope of the NARS will be matched with global technology flows and regtonal technology gradients.

4. The scale and llcope of the NARB's research effort6 will be matched wlth Its orgmlmtlon and structure.

6. Reeearch ectivltlee tha t operate thrOu@I t0 m ~ a l OOUTCC8 of knowledge, technology, or ruourcee will be evaluated and mntched to the organization and etructure of the NARS.

Following the dcRnlUon of concepts and mode of analysis, the methodology will Identify the specfflc categorlee of data needed to complete the analytical and comparative flelds of lnformatlon.

Thh lnformatlon is being compiled and stored in a large relational data base. whlch will be made available to es tabhh a dedslon-making framework for NARS leadera. They will be able to use it to maximize the contributions thelr agricultural research lnn t t tu t lo~ can make to agricultural development in thelr coun- me8 and regions.

One majorjustlflcatlon ofthie project and approach l.9 to bring small-country N A M into a full and active partnership in the global agricultural reeearch system, but the methodology gaes hrther. There may be nlchca of comparative advantfge that small, emcient reeearch organizations could occupy, and this methodology provides a basis for emall reaearch systems at optimal levela of effectivenees to h d these niches.

Below is a b t ofeome of the major analytl-. cal concepts to be ueed in the etudy of national agricultural research system8 In small countrlea

scale

technology gradientn and lnformation economics of ecope f l ~

Ilnkagca to knowledge systrme typology of agrotechnologles and research topics

Definition of the Scale and Scope of National Agricultural Research

Scale is a measure applled to the she of a research eytem, based on the level of

available tesources - human, flnanclal. physical - and the way they are brought together to establlsh a glven research capacity.

There arc several terms that arc linked to scale:

resource avallabillty

capaclty

potential output

The amount of flnanclal, human, physical, and managerial resources that a small country wlth limited resources can allocate to Its entire agricultural research program may not be as much as that gtwn to four or flvc important commodity pro- gram8 by larger countries. Small coun- trivs are faced with stiff competition for their llmi+xd reeources from development programs, such aa health, education, and soda1 infrastructure, that are equally as important as agricultural research.

It la thf4 small potential ecale of the NARS that la the conshalnt that deflna, our eample of countries. And thts size constraint obllges us to develop new models that wlll help NARS provide servfces to thelr cllents ln government and to the agricultural sector as effecthrely and em- dently as possible.

The project methodoloB considera the ldcntlllcation of scale as an objecetve measure, and it la the first step in the analysis. This entaile careful consldtratlon of the relevant criteria, such aa availability of resources, the structure of research institutions, and the potential contrlbutlon of agriculture to national development.

The project data base on small-country NARS will contain these basic data, which can then be analyzed to determine the &sting research capacity of a country. The principal output of the data collection and analysis will be a realistic detennlna- tlon of the scale of the national research dfort, based on resource allocations that are sustainable over the long term.

Scope Is the range and lntaalty of rc- march actMtice that can be sustatnad

by the NARS wlth the resources it ham available to meet epedflc objectives of the ayetern (Colllon 1969: Dagg and Eyza- qulrre 1989). Thh B normally meaaurcd ae the number and type of commodltlea and rec~arch toplw that are cowfed.

Terms that are linked to scope:

what types of mearch to conduct, which technologlee and programs to focue on. ctc. Scale denotes relatively k d capacity or parametem and primarily c o n m e the availability of adeMng resource8 that can be allocated to a vartety of objectivea. Scope, on the other hand. in alwaym defined by objectlvcs and by the actlvltles required to meet those objectivea. The lmportant thing about the determlnatlon of scope la that it In done aRer ecale or capaclty ha8 been identifled.

coverage An ucaminatlon of the choice of research goals 1s the met step In deflnlng the ecope

focus of a research eyetem. A realistic ecope ehould d d n e an area where relatlvely

program orientation unhampered actlvlties take place to achleve planned objectives. The acope

The question of scope is somewhat more should ale0 be consistent with the man- mbjectlve than the queetlon of ecale, and date and role that government hae as- it requlres informed judgment by research elgned to research. managers on how to set the scope. 1.e..

Identifying the Scale, Setting the Scope, and

Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Research

A major constraint on the scale of research capacity Is flnance. Several for-

mulas have been developed for determining a eustaInable level of resource allocation to agricultural research. The most widely used ia expressed as a percentage of the agricultural domestic product (A~GDP). The World Bank has asserted that annual expenditure for research should be on the order of 2% of A~GDP World Bank 1981 ). Whlle the con- ceptual and empirical ba&ea for euch

recommendations are not clearly eatab- Ilahed. It la nonetheless clear from applying this formula that low-income countries for whom lncreasiag agrlcultural productivity is an lmportant goal spend considerably less than 2% of their AgODP on research. Thls level is in marked contrast to that epent by developed counmu, (Pardey ct al. 1986). The problem of the ecale llmltation for mall counmee Is that for many of them, their level of AgWP ie so low that even Lf they

were spending the recommended 2% on research, it would mtlll not be enough. Even wlth 2% of AQODP, moat of the Nms in our mample would not be able t4 eustaln a research system capable of llnldng to world sourcar of knowledge and identlfl- ing appropriate technologlea for thcir agri. cultural sectors.

For other countries In our sample. where agricultural earnings are greater and account for more than half of the ODP. 2% of AgODP may not be a reallsttc target for investment In research. Thio is because of

the relnmty large oi the a@mltural sector and the limited fbcal capadty of the country ao a whole.

In general, it io not r&Uc to apect maJor inma8ca in the hauciP1 mupport for research to came from the publlc sector in developing counmca (Elllott and Pardey 19881. Thia places an Inherent limitation on rcaearch -one that muat be taken into account in determlnlng a sustainable scope and re&Uc lntcnatty for a national research effort.

&ale Limitations and Type of Reeearch

Small develophg countries are not likely to have the scale of resources neccasary to conduct baaic research. Globally, moat basic research is concentrated ln larger. more industrialized countries. and even in thoee countries, baaic reeearch proJ- ecte tend to be concentrated ln a few institutions that can assemble the neces- aary resources and expertise. Thio leads us to conclude that the limited capacity

and level of rvlources available in smaller developing countrica lmposca a rather flxed constraint on the typee of rvlearch they can conduct. Most of their agrlculturd research will Involve the adaptation and testlng of technology. In some cases, applied research may be poeslble, particularly in are= of natural resource management.

APPLIED SCREENING 6

* Fllmmrb W

- I I I Mhldbb MI.IUbp CYlbldone Idealtfshould Mud8d0fw

0- Spec& kcalb or May requke Cnn be obtained M n m b

T highly (mm uysource could bedonelo M a l h M order on-farm In taiga

mhp mema N

Sourre: Maptcd Rom ISNAR 11981).

Figure 1. Phanw of agrioulral rewarah wlthin a global agridtural r e d By.tem

~ g o ~ ~ ( i 9 8 8 ) COuQtry 01 loo0 US)

Bellcc 41,020 Benin 653.0 17 Botswsnn 44.919 Burundi 638,543 Bhutan 107.100 Cape Vwde 27,930 Cenkal AMc. Rep. 37 1,643 Chad 388.400 Comorw 63,840 Con@ 1 14.660 Domlnlcp 19.380 Djiboutl 13,760 El Salvador 807.400 Equatorial Oulnea 37,720 mi 226,3 10 Gambia 27.790 Oulnea-Bleaau 74.720 Guyana 110.300 Honduras 876.725 Jamaica 149.270 Ktribati 5.670 Lam 1,836,000 Lesotho 48,300 Liberia 388.000 Maldivts 11.310 Mauritanh 253,630 Mauritius 177.800 Nicaragua 668,133 Panama 478,600 Papua New Guinea 862,683 Paraguay 904,617 Rwanda 737.888 Sao Tom6 & Prfnclpe 1 1.880 Sierra Leone 48 1.400 St. Lucla . 22,636 St. Vincent 18,100 SuNLam 93,260 Swaziland 97,080 Togo 317,643 Vanuatu 23.480 Weetern Samoa 33.480

2% 4 ODP [X 1000 Usel

Sam: World T n b b (owwced from LCU to US6 ulng (ha owvenlcm factor gwm In the Wntd Mb).

Tabls 2. Penmen- of Brtrsrnrl Funding for AOrloaltprrl &crsuab 1884 a ktomt AvaLlPbls Year

Ruuarch Budget ExtanalFundtng Country (loo0 US81 (% 1

Benin 1.583 21. Bhutan 350 80a Burundi 4,300 75b.C Cape Verde 120 8sa C.A.R. 4.200 90P Chad 762 8Sa Congo 5.500 6za Pifi 5.830 ~5~ Ktribatl 980 46' Lesotho 1,451 8 1 b.c Llberla 1,650 75 PNO 6.096 2zC Slma Leone 1.393 71 Solomon Islands 1,154 79' Togo 2,777 39 Tonga 280 30' Vanuatu 020 l0oC Western Samoa 300 44'

So-: West Ahla Agriculhrnl R c ~ u c h Rcvlew. World Bank. 1987. Agrlcultur.1 Rtvuch In the AsUn and Paclk Rcglon. bun Dmlopmmt Bank. 1988. r 198CIP19.5. b. ISNAR Review. c. 1087-1988.

Eatabliehing the Appropriate Scale for Rasearch and Deriving Economiee of &ale

ISNAR's project on small-country NARs ahould allow research managere to es-

tablish the upper l d of research capa. dty in a given country. Emclency and savings ln the operation of reeearch can then be calculated in relation to scale.

Effldency of scale lmplles uUlizlng dose to the full capacity, elnce capacity is normally baaed on fixed or recurrent costs that must be paid whether they are being used or not. UnderutiUzaUon is therefore costly and inefficient.

Attempting to conduct operations on a scale that goes beyond the adsting

capaclty of available facilities and in- stftutiona is also lnefflcient When thls is done. the objectlves of the system are not likely to be met and the resources expended will be largely m t e d .

Many of the small countries in our sample do not have universities wlth faculties of agriculture capable of producing agrlculturd scientists with postgraduate de- grees. Dmloplng the req&d sclenttnc manpower therefore depends on donor inputs to train nationals. In many countries, a large percentage. if not the bulk. of operating costs for research is already borne by external donors, and much of the

tntkstructw for PCpiculturPl maarch In One way the male tlmlUCeUon can be wa- m a l l countrlw haa been created wlth come la througb a pooling o f r e a o ~ mt slgniflcant conmbuuom h uternal the reglonal level - through c~llaboratlve donora. Some muntrica aha have re- reeearch acthrltles and regional networlu =arch fadlltles that were tnherited ihm and the establishment of regional re- the colonial period, arben theee instltu- ecarch mtltutlons. The effect ivcn~ and tlons also had a larger regional mandate. feaeibillty of such an approach deservee

c lwa m t i n v . howew. anrtlcularlv In Matchlng the external resources awllable regions where-there are se&e llmltaa'onr to the NARS wlth a scale of effort and on the rmourcerr avellable to rwenrch infrastructure that the country can eus- among all the collaborating countrtes, an tain L8 a malor task for NARS. and It in the caee of the South PacUlc. Another remains a central aspect of strateglc plan- problem of aggregating natlond effort# at ningefforts In amall developing countrlw. the regional level concerns the aroblma ISNAR'~ project on smal1:co;ntry NARS of prl~rlty-scttQ and d ~ i & of lobor will provlde an analytical framework that among NARs wlthln the regional context. can be used to ldentlfL the relevant areas of Information needed to set the approprl- These types ofcollaborative actlvltlespome ate scale or upper planned capacity of apedflc problwne for the management of national agricultural reeearch. NARS in small-countries.

Setting the Scope to Maximize the Efficiency and Impact of Research

Setting the scope operates on two dimen- slons. One la the type of research,

whether it is baalc, strateglc, applled. a- daptive, or testing. The other !B the range of poseible programs and dlacipllnes that can be covered by the glven research capadty (scale). Important factors that must be considered In choosing among the range ofprograms are the actual technologies to be developed and the adsting flowa of information, resources. and technology that are available for the particular program or focus.

While scale places &ued Umltn on the level of research, there Is a wide range of choice a s to where the research operations should be focused and how they should be organized. These are dedsionn that research managers must make In consul- tation with policymakern, stakeholdere. and &enta. It involves selecting among a range ofposalble research programs and objectives, orgaaizing them, and then

making the appropriate Unk. (to components In gonnunent, to the qrlcultural induetry, and to dlrect cllent.1 in order to achleve thelr goals. Just as there are emnomlm of ecale based on rnaklng all use of adsting capacity, there are ewn- omlw of scope that Involve eelectlng areas of research in which the NAR8 la llkely to achieve itn g&. make the best use of linkages and technolo@ flm, and have the greatest lmpact.

The cholce of scope will always be llmlted by scale. Howeva, even at a mall rcale. 20 to 40 researchers, the aystem can work efnciently and provide many new agrotechnologies, depending on how the acope la set. Semng the scope, therefore, .in- vohns selecting and grouping rmearch activities - programs - in order to maximize the cffecUvcnm~ and efilcfency of the reatarch 8yutem.

We can conaiba a dmple matrix of pos- This ma= schematlcaUy demonotxmtca elbler~chobjecHvw-intheformof thatatnnyPny~orrwearchcapa- program. and lypw ofnsearch: applled. city, the ~ w r p e of dtccUvc macar& nnr- adapave. te8Ut.q. roum an MARS en&* fn Wa-level work.

For aample, let uo eay that two breedas,

Program far cenab (maize. sorghum, wheat)

and one sol1 adentist, plant pathologlot. entomologist, and saciaconomist are a- vailable for work on cereals. With the same level of resources. the team can maintain wide scope or cwerage at the twtlng l m l .

At the adaptive lwel, coverage would be leaa wide. And at the applled lwel, only narrow coverage could be maintained. In other words, a t the applied l m l , priority may have to be glvm to only one of the three cueale that are crucial to the na- tlon'a food security.

Even at the level of the individual commodity progmm, the question of scope must be conaidered when research is planned. Consider the example of a single. maize research program that is targetted for more than one agroecologlcal zone. In addltlon to the scicntlflc team for

screening and adapting appropriate vari- etles, this program will requln soil and water management teams, plur agronom- ic and socioeconomic reeearch to addresa the dhnrse conditions of the target zones. AU of thla entalla additional resources (auch as techniciana to supervlee the trl- ale, transportation, fuel, land. etc.) to run multdocatlonal mala.

If these resourns are bcyond the scale of the udeting research capaclQ. the activities will be hampered and the objectlvea will not be met. If thh is the case, we must conclude that multllocatlonal trials in diverse agroecologtcal zone8 are beyond the scope of thla NARS. By carefully considering the potential d e of opera- dons, baaed on available resources. we can determine a realistic acope. one where the resources are available to allow the program to achieve ite aet goals.

Deriving "Economiee of Scope"

Understanding how the concept of acopt beyond ite level of capability, but also to operates is important, not only to anploy it to derive 'economies of scope."

avoid overodmdlng the research effort TO arplaln this concept, we may model the

problem ID a dlghtly b181ucnt way. Con- account of potcntW. spillover bendta be. tlnuing wlth our arnmple d the catals tween comrnodlty programs. program, we can aet the ecopc to W e

By setting the scope of the program to cover two commodities with related requirements, such as make and sorghum, the same resources ln sou adences. socio- economlca, pest management and even breedlng could be used to mver the tcst- ing level in both commodities and could also engage in some adaptive research. However, attempting to cwcr two com- moditiea wlth wldely different requlre- menta. such as maize and rice, at this same level would go beyond the scale capacity of the system. ThI8 option Is ffluskated In model 2, which would have to maintain two separate teams of researchera to meet the tesHng and main- tenance needs of malze and rice. Thls is because the technical requirements of research and production are qulte difIerent for these two commodlti~.

As one mwes farther out the b t ofpotcn- Hal programs. there are fewer pomlbffltlen for economies of scope ftom shnrlng resources and spilloven between programs. The models illustrate where and how researchers and managers can dedde on the appropriate scope and level of research, glvm the available rmourcw, In order to take advantage of these economtes and increase the effective coverage of the research sy tem. Thls study of national agricultural research sy tems In small counMes puts forward a decision-making framework tha t operates on the banla of economies of ecope that are determined at the national program level - 1.e.. determlnlng where spfflwera between programs can lncrease research capadty a t the same level of resources.

Identifying External Sourcee of Technology and Information

avtng accecls to external sources of and numerous [B* 1990). IdmtlfLing Hknowleds and tcchnologvia crucial to these rources and the m e c h a n i ~ m s the development of mall-country re- needed to evaluate their relevance and search eystems. Sourcca of technology gain access to them are key functions of and information for research are varied small NARS. Research leadera a n d

managers need to c o ~ i d a wayl, that repna l flows of new technology and information may expand the ecale or alter the scope of thelr research darts. For example. if there b a reglonal international center produchg technology for cnvi- ronments similar to thme in country A, then the planned level of research ln

country A may be reduced to a testing level, provlded that good Ilnkfigcb are malntalned wlth the aourcea of technology. Thls may permlt the NARS In country A to allocate greater rerources to problems that are specific to the country but that are bypeseed by &Ung ilows of agrlcultural technolo@.

Classification of Research Topics and Agrotechnologies

complete the model for determining the ecope of NARS, we must include

reglonal and global sources of agrotechnology and knowledge. The flret step la to deflne and group agrotechnologies according to the odstlng network of technology sources, flows, availability, and dietribution. In addition. the claselfica- Uon coneidem the proceases that are in- trinsic to the various research subjects, 1.e.. crops, natural resources management, socioeconomics, etc.

The rationale for this typology is based on eimllarlties in the density and distrlbu- tlon of technology generation and transfer with respect to a set of agricultural com- modltiw. Other noncommodity-based research them- or topics are also grouped according to the criteria of density and distribution of research activltles and the tranefcrabillty of research outputs. A diverse set of cammodlUes may thus be included within a single category based on the fact that a8 a group, research on those commodities Is either more or less available and widely dlffused than it would be for another grouping.

Below la a list that groups and cla8sLfies agrlcultural research topics and commodities~ in order to idcntU'y the technology gradient8 and Information llowe that in-

fluence the ecope of national research (see table 3).

O l 0 W mtapla Global staples are major food crops with a global distribution, both in terms of production and in the distribution of sources and transfer of new technology. Typically, these crops are the focus of work by the international agricultural research centers. UARS and the private sector are ale0 significant rources of technology informitlon on these commodities. Information for research on these commodities is intensive and widely available to NARS.

TmdltlOMl srports This category includes flbre. gum. and oll crops. stimulants, medicinal plants. and spices. These crops are historically produced for the global market, and research is distributed worldwide, with important contributions from the private sector. Within a more restricted channel. information on these commodities is widely and quickly available.

Minor food crop. These are c r o p that are locally Lmpor- tant to the food producing sector withln a country and are not a major com-

ponent of a counby'r agricultural a- ports. New technology on thew mope le either leee rend@ available or la not specifically targetted to developing countries. Oftm, small countrim have dimculty obtaining relevant information on these crops or flnd W e information to be complete& unavailable.

nigh-input noatrditioarl expo* These are c r o p that are grown primarily for aport to coneurnas in developed countries. The major emphasis in production Is on quallty, uniformity, and timing, which necusitates a high level of Inputs, controlled conditions, and special handling. Post-harvest conaid- erationn are particularly Important. The private sector play a major role in the generation and tramfer of technology for these crop. Small-scale production may be economic. provided the diatri- bution and marketing aytem is present. The private sector is a major source of new technoloay for thin group of commodities.

fJ.tW4l~umenunrgsmsnt Thie category includes research topics that are not commodity based but are concerned with managing an udsting resource, such as soil, water, plant, and fish stocke. with the aim of increasing. atendIng, or conserving the produc- tivlty of that resource. There Is an In- herent logic in conducting this type of research within the country. but it can be complex, wen at what can be con- eidued an adaptive level. Nongwem- ment organizations have played an important role in thia type of research. with recent involvement of international agricultural research centers.

Livc*tOck Livestock research includes all topics related to anlmal productlon, 1.e.. zoo- technology, animal diseases, fodder, nutrition, llveetock management, etc. Principal sources of technology are international agricultural research

centm and the vaainary euvlaa fn more-developed coun-.

B o d ~ o m i c a / M J , ~ Thls category includes restard, topics deallng with the management and d o - catlon of rcsourceo to farm entaprlws. It coven sodoeconomic studim of farmer's choices and preferences, production, constraints. farming syatems research, marketing research, storage, and farm structure. TWa rmwrch is country-rpeclflc and employs widely applicable methodololpes.

We can fflustrate the use of #la clessittca- tion scheme by considering the flrst group, which we call major aobal staples. These are the basic palm and foods that are the staples of rural peoples in many par* of the world, and the international network of agricultural research centers provides substantial coverage of them. Because of the global market. for these staples, the private eector also playa an important role in the applied and adaptive research on theee commodltlts. In addi- tlon, most NARS in the dweloplng world devote a major share of their resources to these crops. Consequently. tbe flow of technologies for the major global staples is vast, with gradients reaching nearly all dweloping countries.

In addition to the work of the CGIAR network, there are other centers of technology generation and diffusion (including many in the private sector1 that conduct important work in edible oila. coffee, cocoa, tobacco, cotton and fibers. spices, and latex.

Each of the other types of agrotechnology la likely to have its specific sources and flows. New technology for high-value, nontraditional exports wlll probably have a more narrow range of sources. with greater partlcfpatlon from private-sector research. This means that a NARS may have to invest considerably more in estab- lishing the linkages required to galn ac- ccas to this technology and adapt it. In

0th- -, such aa In the rrmPllu mum- tries of Central America that export h@- value vqctabIes. the private aector Is able to provide an enWe technologtcal package -one that n& Uttle or no adaptation.

The cmuage ofthis gobal system of technology generation Is vast but what h m yet to be mapped are the flaws of new technology and the impedimenta to them flows. This knowledge Is essential if na-

tlonal mearch 6yutcmr are to develop the resenrch polldcs and capability that can maximize the UK of spillover &om global eourca of technology. What thb methodology wlll provide to planner8 and man- agvs In NARS Is a basis for estimating the type of effort rcqulrcd to focus on and gain acneo to particular typcs of technology baaed on the structure of global eourcea and supply.

Agricultural Technology Gradients and Information Flows

A techno log^/ gmdlent refers to the dl¶- ferent intensitlee in the generatlon and

transfer of new agrlcultural technology from one country to another wtthin the same region. In order for a natlonal a p - tem to set the scope of its research, it should take into account the source8 and flow of agrotechnology and lnformatlon in the region. The techndogy gmdlent la deflncd in terms of those wuntrtcs In a region that are foci for generaung or intro- ducing new technology and those countries or zonca to which that technology can be easily transferred. For example. there are eome counmee that have a sizable capadty to introduce new tcchnol- ogy to meet a strong demand from their agricultural sector, and they may have neighboring countries who could beneflt from sharing thls capacity. This flow from countries and centers where technology is generated to areas where technology use is less intensive is referred to aa the gmdfent.

The approach taken In thta etudy is to identify the factors that determine the gradient and govern the flow of S P ~ C ~ C

technologies. The principal factor la the udstence of technology-generamg insti- tutione withln the region. Thaw may be

national or International in character. publlc or private. Their research focus may be general or conilned to a aingle commodity or topic. And they may be. and oRcn arc, located in larger countriea, where there la a greater research capacity and stronger demand for new technologl- cal Inputs.

Zlmbabwe In the Southern Africa region la a good example. It la a country that has a greater capacity to generate and introduce agrotechnology In m&e than ita smaller nelghbors. There Is ale0 a hl@ rate of adoption and dlffuslon of the new technologlea it generates. We could say. therefore. that there L a steep gradient in make technolow between Zlmbabwe - a high-intensity generator and user - and its neighbors in the reglon.

We employ the term gradlent because it implles that agrlcultural technologlea and informatlon flow from countriea where technology use and generation are hlghly , lntcneive to those countriea where it lo leas intensive, but there are oertaln conditions that must also be present:

1. The presence of mstitutlona that generate elfrlcultura\ technology among countrice of the reglon with dflerlng intensltiw of technolo@ generation and use:

2. The klndn of agricultural technology being generated and its global and reglonal distribution;

3. Slmllarltlee in the agroecologlcal conditions and agrarian structure of the countries involved.

1. Slmllar institutional arrangements and traditiolm in the organization of natlonal inetltutlons of science and technology, including the NARS;

2. Common language and similar socio- cultural environments:

3. Political compatibility, especially among counflee in a region.

The example of Zimbabwe wae glven above, and we can apply these conditions to it8 situation. A common language and baditlone of science and technology are shared between Zimbabwe and the emallu countries of the region. The udstence of theSouthern African Development Coordlnatlng Conference (SADCCI creates a favorable political and lnetitutlonal cli- mate for the flow of technology. And the countries lnvolved haw roughly similar envlronmente for producing food palns.

InsuiBcient attention hae been paid to epeciqrlng the inetitutional and historical factors that promote and faciutate the nowe of t e ~ o l o g l e s within a region and those action8 that research planners or leadus may take to improw the flow. For example, it is often aseumed that because ofagroecologlcal homologles and similari-

ties in the warlnn oy8tcmo and .odocul- turd practice offann oommunUtee In the sahel, technology wlll flow ealay fhm march centers In nosthan Nutria to research centem end adenaim in Niger or Chad - the neighborlug franwphone counmur. We may flnd, however, that the results of aglcultural research in north- em Nigeria flow more easily to The Oam- bia and Slerra Leone because of the eimilar institutional backgrounds and common language of the NARS in those countrles.

Where the technology gradient la very steep, we may flnd that there are few lnstltutional factors or llttle culture or hlstory to Impede the flow. For example. the wallability and use of agricultural technology in the Republic of South Africa le much hlghcr than it la in the small countriea that surround it. Deepite the political cleavages and lack ofinetitutlon- al framework for collaboration in agricultural reeearch and development, a great deal of new technology le informally intro- duced from the Republic of South Africa into the smaller SADCC countries.

The socioeconomic conditions of agriculture in the Republic of South Africa ie markedly diaercnt from that in the SADCC countries, so the NABS of these countries must still play an active role in monitoring the flow of new technolo@es. If it is not adequately monitored, farmers might a- dopt new technolo@ea that could prwe inappropriate and wastef'ul, with grave consequences for the long-term productivity of the resource baee (see lSNAR 19891.

Regional technology gradients need to be taken into account when countries are plannlng the& natlonal research. For example, Botswana Lesotho, and Swazi- land do not need to do any major restructuring of their systems in order to take advantage of new food-grain technology from Zimbabwe. This ie because of their pcwitton on the gradient in the reglon. Because a gradient erdets, the flow of technology will tend towards the

aauntrlm wlth less technology ~~. all that are needed to direct the flow and Ltsotho. and Swaziland1 M their demand then teat and adapt the technologles. grown. RclaUvdy minor adJuatmenta arc

Incorporating Technology Gradients, Defining Areas of Complementarity, and Deriving Economiee of Saope

PC methodology we are presenting pro- vldes analytical concept8 along wlth a

reglonal focus. Thls wlll enable ua to un- derstand the conditions that deflne the gradients for specfflc technologles that are the focus of research. There are several ways in which economies ofscope can be reallzed. Theae include [ 1 I understanding technology gradlcnta in ordu to take ad. vantage of research spfflovera, (2) group- lng researchers into commodity or systems programs, and (3) networking. NARS managers in small countries must be able to maxlmlze these beneflts in order to conduct efficient adaptive research. They should be able to uee this framework for analyzing reglonal technology gradients aa well aa the requlred organizational llnkagea and lnetltutional factors. And our prlnclpal areas of concern here are primarily policy. organization, and management.

Economic studlea have mrphaslzed the lmportance of a n international and reglonal perspecttve and the ldentlflcation of beneflta from research spillovers (Davis et al. 1987: Evenson 1989). The methodology for lncorporatlng intercountry or international spillover effects lnto analyses for setting priorities has been developed and tested in various con-. There is, however, considerable varlatlon in the intensity and efficiency of research efforts between countries and among cornmoditlea or research topiccl. In order to have a workable approach to priority setting. we need to do the f o l l o w : (1) carefilly map the specinc technology flows and gradients between countfles according to the commodities and topics

that are the focus of research, (2) match thls informatlon wlth the scale and scope of natlonal research systems in a region. and (3) consider the organlzatlon and structure of the research ayatema involved in order to waluate the eiTectlve. ness of the llnkagea bet;ween technology-generating lnstttuuona.

By classifying agrotechnologlee lnto group baaed on their global Importance and dlstrlbudon, we can begin to identify the programs that can be effective at a low testlng level llnked to udstlng technology flows. Other research programs ln areas whne the problems are c o u n ~ s p e c i n c and for whlch external sources of technology are not available will requlre a hlgher level of effort. The aream of agricultural

In applying the global framework for priority rtung tbal comldcn lntumuntry r-h e p l l b e r ~ (Daw et al. 1887). an Important rusumptlon m made lhst mrka It mnrvh.t dlElcult to apply thU framework to the smJI- wuntry NN@ ~ 8 t h whlch m ve .rorklng The current model w u m u that ruurch output pcr unlt ofupcndlture m be ly to be oomtant. Thls sasumpuon mny be dlfRcult to operatlon- alltc In NhRs that QI. In the early D t a g a of aptem bulldlng Level oltrpMng. cf~padty. nnd output wmgreatly unongmuntrla nnd m n amoog mmmodltlt. and ta nowhere near thc M of eillclency of thc Aumtr.Uur Centre for Internnt1onal Agrlculturd Reseuch. upon which the auumptlon U b d . We need lo have more spcdlc InforauUm about the rclvuch pr- and ItvUtuUorvl

resource managanent, such am soil and water maaagement. range and pauturee. agroforwtry, etc.. arc usually country- spednc. Developing appropriate technological package8 for these topics depends largely on a thorough understanding of the farming eymtems, ecology, and eodo- economics of land urn in a aepecCRc country. In practice, resource management technIquw are more dlfllcult to tramfa than new mop varieties or production inputs such aa ferUllzcrs, insecticides, and herbicides (TACI COIAR 19891.

All agricultural research systems. large or mall. need to gather and amme baeic data on the natural resource base of their own country in order to determine what technologies need to be developed or in- troduced. They must also constantly monitor their resource baae, maMy soil, water, and vegetation, so that new problems may be identlfled and the potentlal of the research system may be addreaeed. Reeearch at the national l m l on agrlculturd resource management is llkely to spill over into other programs. thus making this type of research m n more valuable.

Thorough knowledge of the agricultural resource base of the country will also contribute heavily to the success of any national research strategy baaed on borrowing and adapting udating agrotechnologies. This is because It enables researchars to select thoee technologies that are most appropriate to the agricultural envfronments and potential of the country. Inadequate knowledge of the resource base and the socioeconomics of agricultural production syetems often results in poor choices, with inapproprl- ate technology being borrowed and intro. duced to fanners.

With respect to natural rtsoura management, this project will oonslda the mid- mum and optlmum levels of effort required by a NARS. Thls etudy will also consider the poemlbllitles of cuenrvming stze constraints by c o m i d ~ the research scope according to ngracologlcal homologlw. Implanmthg a pollcy that reco@izee results produced by research teams in ecologically homologow mnee as immediate lnputs to the NARS would pennit a greater allocation of NARS resourns to prlortty areas where no readily available technology aists.

By way of fflustratlon, we may suggest that a emall-country NARS make the following hypotheticat changes in scope: ( 1) establish complementarity wlth cxtemal- ly generated technology that is suitable. accessible, and eaaily adapted to local conditions. (2) m&be epfflwcr bene- Ate . and (3) expand the scope of national research in the areas of comparative advantage.

The preliminary survey of reaearch topfca in our sample of small developing coun- Me8 ahowe that many national aystems tend to focus their efforts along lines similar to the global system in general. l.e., in breeding programs in global staplea and traditional q o r t a . There is at the same tlme a pronounced deflcit in those areas where technology is not readily available or has not been adapted to small developing countries or in those areaa where research needs to be location-speclflc. We propoee the following schematlc diagram of a national agrlculturd research system that seeks complementarity wlth technology gradients and maxmbes the comparative advantage of in-country research dforte.

I 1 I I I 1 I I ~ l o b r l l ~ n ~ ~ o c u l l U H c a p c k l wwuJ wt.1 M, m i

s8pla epxmRawrchArancr-la- Food M w g , a m e p x m C m p r ~~ UlDamhO

Figure 9. Ebhemntic dt.(lrun of the mmpa of natiod .IFLaulhud re-h in mktion to reglord and global flm of rgmtwhnol~ey

Linkages to External Sources of Technology and Knowledge

Determining the NAR8 Capacity to Borrow Intelligently

Borrowing technology has been wldely accepted as the strategy for small-

country NARS, but the criteria for determining the rmearch capacity that nctds to be in place for small countries to borrow efIectively have not yet been epedfled. What we do know ie that the capacity to make use of udating sources of new e&rf- cultural technology ts often not preaent in small-country NARS. Even collaborathre research networks tcnd to bypasa smaller countries wlth weaker research oy8tems Ruttan 1988).

The methodological approach of this project will contribute to developing workable crlteria for I d e n w g the research capacity needed for dfectlve borrawln& This will be done by matching empirical information from the following four levels:

1. the cxlatlng national acienttflc capadty in tenns of the scale of the re- =arch effort (baaed on avallabfflty of national rmurces for agricultural research):

2. the flow of technolo@es that affect the adsting and potential supply and demand for rerrearch from the agrlcultur- a1 sector. and the r e l a m compladty of the structure of that supply and demand [based on global and reglonal technology fluwe and gradients and the agroecologlcal, agrarian. and economic condltlons of agriculture In the country):

3. the structure end organlzatlon of the NARS and its internal linkages to policymakers and usere:

4. the external llnkagea that a c t the NARS (1.e.. that provide resources and influace NARS policy and program focus).

External linkages wlth world sources of technology and knowledge are extremely important for small-country NARS that concentrate on adaptive research and testlng (Gilbert and Sompo-Ceesay 1988). However, many small-country research systems are not presently set up to form or uae these llnkagea effecuvely. One

problem Il, that the ecimtlflc capad@ required haa ken u n d ~ t l r n p t e d . TWa capacity is neassary for appropriate de- dslons about borrowing technology to be made and for ntemal sources of technology to be identlBed. It re a wmmon mis- conception that since researchers in mall countries do not generate technology, most of them do not need tralnlng above the level of the BSc, 4 t h a minority of MSc holdem, and very few PhD holdem.

This mleconception icr confirmed by the prellmlnary data available In our data base, which shows that researchm in our sample of countrlee have a lower level of trainlng than those In developing countries in general. However, the lmpllcatlona of our analyals are that the complodty of the taska and declsione to be made in small-countw NllRs call for highly trained researchera vko can manege ;wide range of linkages and a broad raearch agenda. In a small system, each researcher la requlred to operate at a W e r level wlthln the national pollcy environment. aa well as serving as a link wlth the global com- munity of agricultural sclentlsts.

External Linkages and the Building of a National Rseearch Capacity

NARS in small counties participate in many collaborathre efforts. They are

llnked to reglonal research networks, networks of internattonal agricultural research centers, and commodity and subject-matter networks. Given the limited scale of small-country NARS and the demand8 of networking on their scarce resources, there are several questions that need to be answered by this study.

1. What research capacity does a a small country need In order to beneflt from a research network (wlthout risking its own scarce rcsourcea to teat technolo- @es that it will not use)?

2. What crlteria are needed for decidlng when to enter into a collaborative network and upon which subject or commodity to focus?

3. What organlzational mechaniems will allow a small country to parttcipate ae a full partner in a network InvoMng larger countries?

4. How can several emall countries with llmited NARS merge their efforts to a e - ate a regional technology-generating capacity that will meet the maor goal8 of all of them?

The methodology wtll gather lnformatim level. The study can then look at wryr, to and examine the range of linkqm and determine how a mnrch network con- networb in i a w h l c h our sample countrfm tributes to expanding the wale of the participate. The natlanal wearch capo- NARs in a manner that ~s conaletent with dty Invested in nem0rlU.q wlll then be national reatarch objectfvea - wlthout compared wlth the capaclty Invcated in expanding the scope of the NARS beyond prlorlty research pnpe at the netlonu the level of long-term suetalnabllity.

The Organization and Struoture of NAR8 and the Implicatione for NARS Linkagee

n the size llmltatlons for NARS in %all counmea. they tend to focus on the adaptive and testing level. There arc spedflc impllcationn for NARS Unkagea at this level because this kInd of research requires close collaboration between researchera, ortermion workers or dfemct agricultural officers, development prof- ecta. and farmers.

Another prembe of thb approach la that the llnkagea between the NARS and acter- nal aourcca of knowledge and technology wlll have to be strengthened.

policymakern, producere, and external aources ofknowledge and reeources. They wlll be analyzed to nejcertnln how the en- semble of organlzatlons that make up the NARS can be managed around a natlonal pollcy for developing agricultural poten- U d and malntalnlng the producuvlty of the available natural reaourca.

The llnk to pollcy Is a key factor of organizational structure in small-country research systems. Research Institutlono have a major role to play in advlslng gw- ernmenta on options for agricultural de- velo~ment. Even in those areas where

NARS in small counmes will alao need to they do not them6clvee conduct research. strengthen thelr llnkagc to cllents, gw- publlc research organlzatlom should play ern&nt. and Thls la be&use much of the technological output of the ggtem will be screened and transferred directly to users, with little transforma. tion by the reaearch Bystem. A larger share of the llmlted reeourcea of NARS In small countries may need to be allocated to organlzing and maintiinlng t h w two sets of linkages [Sompo-Ceeaay and Gll- bert 19891.

Thla study will conalder the various typea of research organlzatiom In each country. e.g.. ministerial departments, autono- moue government research ln8tltutes and parastatale, aa well an commodity boardo. uniwrsitiea, foundatlone, and research d~vhiona within ~rivate companies. Each organizational & prescn&different op- portu111tlee and conatralnts for linking

in important pnrt in setting policy -and coordinating the work of proJecta and other research components. Some organl- zatlonn are structured in ways that foster dialogue and participation In the pollcy environment and faclUtate the role of co- ordination. They are normally structured to llnk to top pollcy- and decision-making levels of government. Others are structured to maxlmlze fladblllty In rwearch management and acceas to external sources of knowledge and resources but may have weaker l lnh to the pollcy envlron- ment.

In counmea where unlversltiee play a role in the NARS, there Is a greater potenttal to acquire sdentinc lnformatlon from a wlde variety of sources, partfml8.rly In basic and applled reeearch and the arem

of natural resource management and socioeconomia. Commodity board. end paraatatah are particular& dcctlw h llnklngr-ch to production and in tap- plug the rich mure8 of technolw and information that adat for tradittonal a- port crops 8uch ao sugar, coffee, cotton. etc. Prlvate-rector research teams appear to be the beat oulted to exploit technology sourcu, for hI&-input nontraditional exports, where marketing and post-harvwt rcsearch (the sodoeconomlcs/mral en- glneerlng category) is relatively more Im- portant.

A m t trmd ha# ban to Wt&bh private fmlndationm for ~~ m c h and development. Foundatlona arc oftm charged wlth brim the lntaab of the prtvate sector and the broad ob&cWca of national development policy. By evaluat- Ing the CE- of the vnrloun of lnetltutiona and the various categorit. of research toplca. It wlll be podble to incorporate ntructural considerations that can Improve the overall effectlvcness and dndency of the NARS.

CONCLUSIONS

Thla methodology haa brought together Appllcatlon of this approach ie predicated four arean of information that arc cru- upon the categorization ofresearch topice

cinl to organidngmore emclent and cffec- and commodltles into dieaete categories. tive research qmtems in small countries. Thwe reflect the way technology genera- These areas are the scale of research in- tion and transfer ie organlted globally for stitutions and resources in the country: the various commodities and research the scone of the research efforts, their tonics. The effectiveneaa of the Unkas!es coverag; and objecttvw: the technology needed to gain access to external sour&a gradients and information flown that are depends on how the grdient for par- ;elevant to the national scope of research; ticular groups of technoio~v ia ehchrred and the linkages and organizational and the type of organization that llnh to structure that maximize the beneflts from flowa of technology, resources, and information.

The key variables for analyals of the information arc applled to each country and explained in the appendix. Applying the method should enable NARS leaders and planners to mobillze and coordinate all the available resources and organlzationa concerned wlth agricultural research in a glven country. It then becomes possible to act reallatic objectives and programs to define a scope that mmdmizm resources and the benente from udstlng flows of technology and information.

it.

We hope to achieve two major objectives by applylng this methodology. mat , the approach should assiat small countries in identifying the potential scale of thdr research efforts and set a scope of research (1.e.. objectives and programs) that ia consistent with this scale. Second, the method should allow NARS to manage and orient thelr research organizations in way8 that maximize the beneflta from global sources of knowledge and external resources.

The flnal result should aaeist small- country NARS in parttclpatlng as full partners in the global agricultural re-

.y.tem. both .S knQdul- of mmUmbUty of the world. a@latltumI adaanghr- and ma contributor0 of murmm.

References

Andamn, J. R.. 0. Antony and J. 9. Davis. 1088. Rese~rch prlorlty Kttlng In a mall devcloplng munhy: The ca& of P a p a New Outna. In Methodajor ding. ~ s l n g research mystern corubalnts and wseaslng the Lmpclct Qf agrlculturoI research Vd. I , edlted by R. 0. Echmmia. The Hague: iswit.

Blgga, S.D. 1890. A multiple source of innova- tlon modd of agricultural r-h and tahnolo@ prumotlon. Worid h e l o p menf 18(11):

Colllon. M. H. 1989. Stratypc plannlng for natlonal a@lcultural r d systems: An ovendew. Ism Wormg Papa 28. The Hague: ISNAR.

Commonwealth Smctariat. 1989. Baalc sta- tlstlcal data on eelected muntrlw (wlth ppulatlons of less than 5 mlUlon). Lon- don: Commonwealth Smetulat, Eco- nomlc AfIairs DWlon.

Commonwealth Smetarlat. 1988. Bade sin- tlstlcal data on dectcd wunmea (wlth ppulatlons of less than 5 mmlon). Lon- don: Commonwealth Secretulat, Eco- nomic Affairs DMslon.

Dagg. M. 1989. Kinds of r-ch and the dze of roearch groups. Unpublished I B M &ecuseion papa.

Dagg, M. 1989. Small country problems: Planned allocauon ofrr&prch atdrtlmc. Unpbllahed LSNAR discussion WPer.

Dyl& M. and P. EyLlgub're. 1089. A moth- CddoLpcPI fruncwak for WNAR mnm of natlond alplculturd memcb .yl. trmr ( W l . Worklug Papa no. 23. The Hylue: I6NAR.

Davls. J. 9.. P A. Oram and J. 0. Ryan. 1987. Aweaement of q l c u l h u d rueuch orltlca: An lntunatlond pcrrpectivc. can- ACUR.

Evenmn. R. E. 1989. Splllova bcncdta of sgrlcultulrl resarch: Evidence &om U S apriurcr. Amarlcan Jownal prllgrlcul- tuml Ecommlca 71 (2): 447-462.

hrenmn, R. E. 1977. Comparative evldence on returns to Ovwtment. ln natlW.l and intanatlonll naarch inrtlhluwr. In Reaource alloccltlon and productlvw In ~ U o n a l a d hmmtbnal agr(eulhual reacarch, cdlted by T. M. Amdt. D. 0. Dalrymple and V. W. Ruttan. MLnnmpo- us: UntYQslty of h u n n ~ t a Reu.

ForstP. D. W. 1887. Development problans and prospeetn of island mlwxtates. IFco- nomlc BulleUnJor and tha Pat@ 38 (121: 38-50.

ed at BL~I~ACC~R/IBNAR i a & p 011 Agricultural Remuch Management, Naseru. Lesotho. 23 May -3 June 1888. Gaborone. Botavlure: Dep~rtment of AgrtculturPlRcaPrch.

Onkrt. E. H. and M. 8. Bompo-My. 1990. D d l q with the alul anl&aint: strrte- glw for tshnology management In amall aiglculturnl march .ystcms, lo Method# for d&agno#lng ayeten con- .mnt. and a8.e.rlng th4 mpacf Qj agrlculhuai Iwearrh Vd. I , edttod by R. 0. Echmmia. Ibe Hague: LBNAR.

HPrd.ker. J. B. md E. M. Plemlrrg. 1989. AgLcultur.1 nreatch problems In small dnrdoplug countrim CpsC studlea from the South P&3& bland nations. Agrl. Eultwal &onomla 3 (4): 279-292.

Harlrl. 0.1989.Or(pnitPtion and sbucturc of &nb n a m d agtlculturpl lCdCUCh (YO- tema. IBNAR @- note 89-9.

IDRC. 1987. R-ch In small wuntrlee. S.O~C-. Om-: IDRC.

1SN.m. 1989. Revlcwof Lesotho's ngrlcultural resarch system. The Hague: ISNAR.

ISNAR. 1988. Rocadlngo of the ADB/ACLAR/ CTA/IRETA/lSNAR workshop on The Planlllllg md ?vhMganent of Agflcul- turd Resarch in the South Padflc, Alafua. Western Samoa. September 1988. Thc Hague: I W .

ISNAR. 19.35. kcaxdingo of the L~NARIIAC workshop on Agricultural Restprch Pollcy and Organlzatlon In Small Countrla. Wymingcn. Netherlands. M.y 1985. The Hague: lt3N.m.

ISNAR. 1981. Ra4ew of P.pua New Oulnea. The Hague m.

Javler. E. 0. 1887. The small country pmb- la: A mla%on. Unpublished ISNAR m a n u a p t .

Johnmu. D. 0. 1982. A@lculturnl poky in mall d&oplng wunmw. In Managlng renewable nahval resourns Ln daualoplng counmcs, cdtted by C. W. Howc Boulder: WesMew Ress.

Klrkby, R. A. 19.38. Implemmtbgagricultural rssePrch network Some nrlnclnko and m e s . hpa presartcd i t thekaotern and SOU- AM- Netwoak Coordi- natnra' Revlew, Nairobi. Kenya. Q - 12

NWekhc. W. P.. M. Mnffl and E. M. Wileon. 1986. A@mlturrl march rrounx aaeeemncnt In the sAScc wunb?ca. Vol. 2: Country report: Leeotho. Wnshlngton, DC: Devrm. Inc

M y , P. 0.. S. Kuyl md H. EUIon 1 w . The &ucturt ofpubllc mppnt f a na- Uonal r-ch systems: A polltlcnl economy perspcthh. lsNAR M note 88-11.

Permud. B. 1988. A g M h u r l problems of mall etatea, wlth .pslnl, rdacna to Commonwtalth Clribbcau countrlcs. A g ~ ~ Admlnbbot&n and Exten- elon 29 (1): 35-51.

Rochetmu. 0. 1989. Or(pmiaptlon et &uc- hire des eyaysttmes natlonaux de rccha- che agrlcole. Etudes comparCes d'plurnathns organlmtlonnenes. Sur- MI de la aituatlon en w u c au Sud du Wlra (Pap hanwphond. ISNAR stad note 89-72f.

Ruthenberg. H. 1980. Farmlug syaema In the t r o w . Ward: Clatendon Rws.

Ruttm, V. W. 1080. Toward a Ipabal a@b& h ~ d rcamrch systan. In m e changing dynunrs of @OM agmmlrc. dtcd by E. Q. Javlcr and U. I k n h g . The w e : I~NAR.

Schnhacnskl, J. J. 1880. D N d o p m t ad- mtnlshaUon in the small developing sEpts A revlew. Pubk Admlnlatratlon and D m e I o p ~ t 10 (1): 69-80.

Sompo-Cceay. M. S. and E. Onbat. 1989. spalal issues for mal l counmca in making the Unk betwan ngrlcultural remuch andtschnologyuaas: Thecase of Oambta Papa presmtcd at the work- h o p on Maldng the Link betwan A@- cultural Research and Technology Uars. Novanbcr 1989. The Hague.

TAC/mM. 1989. SuatPfnable agricultural produetion: ImpIlcatlone for iuintana- tiollpl agrlculw rreearch. FA0 RC- starch and Technology P a p no. 4. Rome: FM.

tAC SeCmllTllt/FAO/cOlAR. 1m. Rlpm of t h e ~ ~ ~ o f l n N A R . Rome: FAO.

h y l a , T. A. 1069. Orpmatlon and auuchue of nauonrl qpiculturrl roarCh .y.- temm In anglophone aub-Srlruan M%x. LSNAR am8 note 89- 19.

Ihomle. M. 1889. Cuh cropa and doKbp mmt: Bul.nu ln the WLndwmrd la- knda m Msuubn Paper No. m. Brlghton: lnatltute of Development shrdlcr.

'Ihorrms. M. 1069.A(pleulhurl-tlon: The apcricna of the Wlndwud la- b d a IDB Mruwbn P.pr No. 257.

vdvadc C. 1w. A@%uItunrl mruch net- mrlthlg: Dewlopmeat and evrluatlon. lWMI atril note No. 86-28.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Indicator Ratlw of Eaonomic Indloaform, 1886

(hunt*. Q D P m ACODPMDP WDPlEAPA EAPA/EAP T O T P O P O

Mlam bin 816 49 600 66 B0IR.D.

4177 877 6 178 66

Burundi 1117

254 61 268 92 4864 CapVsrde 334 26 481 46 888 Central African Republic 842 41 428 87 Chad

2688 168 46 270 78 6140

E'ti 1,118 0 28 1 61 1787 966 4 106 79 860

Equatorid Oulnem 204 46 870 60 401 Oambia 287 16 94 82 187 Guinea-Biasnu 184 46 216 80 908 Lerotbo 181 17 78 82 1688 Llbada 482 84 697 72 2249 Mauritania 406 80 662 - 66 - 1814 Namlbh 660 88 1660 Rwmda 298 40 256 92 6812 Sao Tom4 & Principe 440 27 467 67 100 Sierra Leone 808 42 668 66 8766 Somalia 147 86 819 78 0628 Swaziland 818 23 496 70 688 fig0 822 32 86 1 7 1 8066

~ d r & P d n c Bhutan Fiii G*ihati lao, P.D.R Mongolia Nauru Papua New Guhm Solomon Islands Tone Tuvalu Vanuatu wertern Ikmae

C u l b b s l n & Latin Amdam Beliza 1,228 Dominica 1,826 El Salvador 821 Grenada 1,380 Guyana 636 Hondunu 798 Jamaica 1,028 Nicaragua 868 Paaama 2,900 PVY 909

CuEbkrnLhtlnAmdGu (~(gtlnrwd) Bt. Lud. 1,461 12 00 100 ;E' Bt. Vlncrmt 1,118 16 81 106 B u m 2688 # 441 17 880

&w*: Bm.I1.country Project nata &.c. ?no mu-. Note: ODPlOrar Domutlc Product.. AgQDP-Agncultunl Orau Domuuc ProducI. 'IP-TOW Pop~LUon lltl IOOCll. ~ ~ E U l M l r n l d Y Acmn PopuktlOIl (T0tdI. EhPA.Bconomlalb. AM= Popuhtlon La Agricultun.

Appendix Table 2

Agdoultural Iheamh Expenditure per f3denti.t (lQ80 US$)

Expendltum AGDP Exp.lAODP No. of Exp.1 (mill. US$) (mill. US$) (%) Scientbtr Bdentbt

1980 1980 1880 1880 (1880USO

MLa. Benin Botrrwnna Burundi Cape Verde Central AMcaa Republic Chad Congo Djiboutl Equatorial Guinea Oambia Guinea-Bku h t h o Liberia Mauritania Namibia Rwanda Sao Tom& & Priacipe S i e m Leone Somalia Swaziland %go

l%=dlbrn AODP E q J A O P N a d (mill. us) (mlll. W) (*)

lea/ SdmtLI. &durmt

1980 1860 1980 lee0 Cl860us)

- - - - - 2618 PBB 1.10 86 09.988 - - - - - - - - - -

General Description of the Data Base on National Agricultural

Research Systems in Small Countries

p e ISNAR Spcclal Project on National Agricultural Research Systems in

Small Countries has identified a aample of 50 counmcn whose efze. ecrle. a d limited resources requlre Innovative ap. proaches to NARS organlzatlon and strategy. Our goal la to provfde a decleion- making !kamework for NARS leaders and managers In those countria, so that they can structure and orient rhefr syetems to provfde crucial agrotechnologlt(l for theh agricultural sectors. The dedaion-making framework la based on infonnation In the four areas outlined below.

I. Profile

Background country infbnncrtion and boric data on the economy, agroecology, ruourco bate, and ImHtuHonal d.uclopment of each muntv

T h e proflle data baae la used to organlzc and atore information related to the

agroecology and economy of each of the 50 countrica in our eample. For andyUcal purposes, the reference year for Informa- tlon gathered withln a country must be

There l8 aleo a codlng for country ID, wfilch l6 an follow (note that thcne arc dl alpha-numeric coder):

1. Country Code: The geographic wuntry number code wed by the United Nntlonr and World Elank documenta- tlon e e w o a (AORlS);

2. Lmluryer The oflklrl language d t h e country:

3. Farmer Colony: The name of the fonner colonial power lf the country received It8 lndependena Pltu WWII (which covere both former colonlea and protcctoratcs).

consistent across ilelds. Economic stntia- tics euch an acpicultural groo domtstlc product (A80DP) and ODP are to be m- pfled from the World Bank (and/or Com- monwealth Secretariat) tables. The common base year wlll be 1986, which wlll pravide a complete set of figurw across all flelde. This will fadlltate am- country comparisons of the acpoCcology and economy of regions.

mu~uua - 1 TOW Land:

Dlwalptb. T o u l L n r r d m ~ ~ I n t h o u ~ s o I h s c t u e s

4 R ~ h I e d Land: mtnl agkulturpl land mlnus lrrigatsd Land. (PMI In thoumads of hcct.wca

Boobgiad Z o l m (Parani ofA&oulturrrl Land in Zone)

?baa - WPWT: Warm ParnnlaUy Wet Troplcs

WWR W u m Wet Tropics

Warm Humld Tmpica (equatorial)

HTH: Humld m p l d Highlands

warn W u m SemoMuy my 'rropre

m n : w u m 8eml-~rld nupica Oon@

m T L I : Warm -1-Md m p c e (short)

ClW 1: Cool Tropical Highlands, modi(led by Altitude. fkamnqy Dry

ClW2: Cool Trow H4ghlands, modified by AlUtude. SammUy Dry WATIIT: W u m Arld Tmplcsllrrig~ted mplca

wSI'. Warm Subtropics SeamnaUy Dry WElfSA. W u m Semi-kid Subboplca

WSTA: Warm Arld Subtroplcs

CST: Cool Subtropics ScamMuy Dry CSf9A: Cool Scml-Arid Subtroplcs

CSTA: Caol Arid Subtropka

C8Tli: Subtmplcal Hl@anda Rahhl l and @owlug k u o n @uUy modifled by rltltude

355 days

364430

329-270

355

268-2 10

209-160

14940

W d M l 3 e w a n d tenant

Alpand u ta te

*d state

Total Population

EA Population

Ag. Population

Dacapwm Ptran t of agricultural land u n d s mdltlonll commodl(y apwt - a t e or .~pohduetTlpl or plantation ayetan

P a a n t of qrkulturr l land u n d a srndholda tenure and production

Percent of a@%ulturrl land under medlum-sltcd mallholdings

Paccnt of P(plculturrl land u n d a large-.ired bcchold.

Pacent olP(plcultural land hdd unda tenant fume

Percent ofagrlcultural land held u n d a plantation or u. tate management

P-t ofagrlcultunl land held a s p u t of state f u m e or state agrkulturol enterpriu

Total population In 10000 In 108d (&om World Bank and Cammwmlth %cntprt.t Small Country Data Tablu)

on most &nt eam-at-es In World Bank Development R e p t and Commonwealth SacrrtnNt S m d Country

Agricultural population in 1000s In 1986 - persona engaged In farming, forutry. flehlng, or hunting (bucd on data &om World Bank and Commonwealth Smaar la t and lrom wuntry reports)

Principal hp- A. N- o f m p - ranked by olrler of mqnitud8 b d on total hwtarw pknted with thepartfcular crop (ern FA0 1MBproducHon f l g u ~ l

Field # Fidd Nama

40 Crop1

m n u i p d C I P p B. lbcentcrg. aHmofbn of eooh orop that i e g ~ ~ w n pr 5ubrbkme (8); Colk m i d (C) (meaning a nuh cmp that bprimorily fir Mtlond coruumption); and%porl (B). N o & ~ t h e r ~ ~ ~ ~ r v p m a y k ~ r u a r ~ , u i m u n e r - aid, or eqwd orop. bamd on the oount?y wihrrrtlon.

Irlald* MddName - lrislde Mdd- - 50 C18 85 CBS

6 1 C1C 68 C6C

62 ClE 07 CBE

53 C26 68 CIS

54 C2C 89 C7C

56 CaE 70 C7E

56 C99 71 CBS

57 c3C 73 C8C

68 c3E 79 CBE

69 C4s 74 cog

60 C4C 75 csc 61 C4E 76 CSE

62 a s 77 Clos

69 CUC 78 ClOC

64 CSE 79 ClOE

P d ~ f p d h p . C. Ofthprinclpal amp Idantiw in mid. SB18, indfaate thep-n r t o t b t i c ~ (m FA0 1984 p d u a l l o n and trade rtatlrtlcd jocrrhokr)

FilrlsldN-e Unit. - Field a Field Nune

80 Crop1 000 hectares 92 Crop7 000hectarrs

81 Crop1 000mctrlctons 93 hop7 000 metric tons

82 Crop2 OOO hectarra Q4 Crops 000hsctarcs

83 Crop2 000 mctrictons 95 Crop8 000 metric tons

a4 crop3 ooo hectare8 es rope ooo hectare8

85 Crop3 000 mehlc tons 97 Crop9 000 metric tons

86 Crop4 000 hectarrs 98 Crop10 000 hectarrs

87 Crop4 0 0 0 m c t r t tons 99 Crop10 000 metric tons

88 Crop6 000 hectares 100 Lg. Animals 000 head

88 Crop6 000 metric tons 101 Sm.Rurn11lants 000 head

so a o p s 000 hectares 102 Swine 000 head

Q1 Crop6 000 metric tons 103 Poultry 000 b W s

rw 104 &.Export1

105 &.Export2

106 Ag. E x p t 3 107 &.Export4

loa y . Export5

Fhld n- ODP

AOQDP

BOP

Extsnrl debt htl. Resems

Development Ald Export Dlvcre.

Export Concen t . CcreP) Imports

Fbod Ald cereola Avg. FoodP/Caplta

l w r memmme - 109 Ag. Impat 1 110 Ag. Impart 2

1 1 1 Ag. Import 3

112 Ag.Import4

113 Ag. Impart 5

IMt and bolus

1 0 m of 1988 Use. World h b b 1 W of 1988 US$, World hblw 1000. or 1988 use, world hbk.

1000. of 1986 Use. World Tablea lOOOs of 1988 Use, World hblw 1 W Of 1966 U99. OECD

(Lnda) (Indal

10000 of m&lc tone, OECD

1000s of metric tona, OECD (lode%). FA0

11: NARS

he NARS data base contains information on the national lnstltutlons that are Tresponslble for condu-g a@cultural research. The NAR8 tabla can be called up by the country codes under whlch they are entered. The tables begin wlth deaalptive Information of the whole NARS: lnforrnation on the governance, and on the level and range of resources avallable to It. The NARS la labeled according to BNAR's guldellnes and modela of organizational structure.

The data base then mwes to the Institutional level, wlth dacriptlve flclds on the instltutlom that comprise the NARS. A syetem wlth a alngle research mtltution will have only one record; a more complex NARS will have multiple records. The remalnlng flelda serve to give a detaUed description of each Inatltutlon. AJI statistlcsl must be based on a conamtent year, across nelde, withln a country, but not necessarily acrom countries. The year will be determined by the latent year of data that In avallable In indiddual country reports, not aggregated data aources.

Irldde FioldIl.ape - Eei?s! 1 Counby Code The code t h t llnb all the data tablea by caunhy and

contPllu the bask munby datn

2 05 naOonal Here we arc ukcd to lndkate. at the nnaolul M. (coded C . I. MIN. tvhlch of the follavlng the orgrnlzatlon and structure of U, or M) the m bcst rwanblea:

C 9 Coundl mcdd I - Instltutemodtl tmN 9 Mlnistrymcdd U = Unfvaaitymodel M = MboedWtca P = pprratata1

Idmttdes the name of the instftution wlthin the m that is cttha fully or pprtlply responsible Ior d u c t l u g patcultural rcstPrch and whlch is klnn dcaamed In thqs remrd (Thla mtry Is repeetcd for & msatuaon In the N r n . 1

4 OS INST. (coded C. D. F. A. or M)

5 Autonomy In mampng resources (coded H, M, or L1

6 AutonornyIn p r o g m (coded H. M, or L)

7 Budget

the lndlufduol component lnsnturiotu In the M s .

The internal or(taniratlon of the Institution 1s idmtltled in this field. Is Y cuganlzsd around one of the following: C - Commodltiu, D - DisdplLnca F - Factorsofproductton A = ~ g r o s ~ ~ l o g i d z o n e s M Mtxedormatrixoftheabovc

Thie fleld is lncluded to Indicate handal autonomy, dls- angulehlng be- Ngb (HI. medlum (ML or low a) (Thla Is somewhat arbitrary, and betta g'tddellnes must be established to deflne t h w three levels.)

Hae wc are t h i n k g about autonomy in terms of program - admlnirtalng rtwurcce + deslgntng ~mgrams: agaln, mtaed as hlgh (HI, medlum (M), or law (L)

The budgeted amount of currency dwtcd to agricultural reearch, expressed In 1000s of cumnt local currency unlts - year must alw be Included

Research acpcndlture flgures represent the total amount of currency spent In a glwm year on rceearch acttvltlm. orpressed in 10008 of current local currency unita - year of information ahould be mnslstent with the otha flnandal lnfmaaon for the hm.9

R m n t cxpcndltures (1.e.. support mats, owhead. salaries. etc.) and opaeatlonal cxpendltures, q x c a d as percentages of the institution's total apendltun foI the ghrtn year of the upcndlturc data

-pita1 expendlturca arc acpcnsea that do not m r . OM used in the development of the infrastructure of an insutuuon (LC.. bulldinp, machincry, other equipment, etc.). u p r d as paan- of the the lnstltutlon's total orpndlture for the ghrm year of the expndfturr data

-Type (coded a s BS. ~ p . M. o r n

7% proEntyr or the tea -dlt~m Of a NARS Wtltu- tlon that Y pmMed by natlotul wurcca

?he mt.ge Of the tow W d l t U f C by a NARS O- dtulion that arm- from atcrnrl donor wurm N u m b d PhDe or equlvrltnts wiIo u'e ~rrent ly emp!oycd wlthln the -, ulcukcal In full-time a q u ~ r n t a N u m b of M S a or equhnlento who .re cumnqy employed wlthln the -, alculatcd In full-the aqurvllentn

Number of BScs or aqulvalento who are cunmtly employed Wthln the m, calculared ln full-tlme q u M e n t a Number of erptrlntta currently employed wlthln the N A R ~ , calculared ln full-time equtvrlentn (ThY flcld haa been included to amcam dependency on cxttmll rechnl- cal support.1

A dlcltlnctlon Is to be mule betwen levdo and typtr of re- karch acuuding to the wmnp codes, WhWI wlll lndl- mte upon what u r n m Lnstltute haa cham to f a u s IU MCUCh ICtMUca: as - spalc~smtt~

Applied March % : *pm- T - Testlng

Thuc aelds have bear r u a v e d to klenw spedir cam- modluen or toplca that ham been the h a of the OeUtutlon's rrae~rch; mmmodltlu/topks are Qoupad .ccardtng to sbr scpuate cntcgorlu:

dobal rbph t r a d l t l d global DtpoN Jal&-value nontradltiolul olport UOP. mlnor food crop. rnlmd production rreoura ma~grment resarch sodaeconomlc8/rurd englnazlng

IIh LINEAGES

This data bpse h~ been developed to identify external (nonnational) l ~ t i t u t l o n s that contribute to or collaborate with the NARS lmtltutlons. ?WE typically lncludts

bllateral donor or twhulcal amletancc, rcglonal and lntcmatlonal c&tm &d lMtitu- Mona, networks. and nongovernmental organizations. Each record will represent a elngle Wdtution.

Pidda MddNama - EfsE!E 1 Country Code Counby coden wiu be able to rsall baslc bscklgound

dam common to d the country's data bnsu

2 Type of cctrmal Theac include the followtng categosled: InsUtutlon ARC - Research mundl (Poky and coordlnatlon, not

-wg M Y ) ~ D A - Btlatcraldwdopment agency mu - Resarch foundaUons (prfvate sector) FITU = French tropical rwcuch institutes nnn - Extsnal unbuslty (exbanal to the counhy In

question) oovr - Oovanment ( u d where no spdk

lnstltuUon/mcchani8m is LdcntUlcd) om - C+ovcmmeat march organizatbn (with mandate

withln agrlcultun) ORI = OWtTIlIllent -ch organlzatbn (with mandate

beyond purely agicultural neeuch) LARC = International Plplcultural rwcacb antcr lo = Intanationalorgankatlon MNAB- Multinational a p b u a l n e ~ w = Natlonala@obualneM ma - Applied to any organization identifled as part

ofaIwu, NOA - Natlonal devtlopment agcncy/lacal NO0 PARA - Parantatal rcstPrch organization / mmmodlty board< Roj - Ad hoc hamework or pmjsta wo - Rfvate voluntary organkationslfoundatlons RO - Fwgional organieaaon (not nccwwlly research) RRN - RqpOnalm-h network RRO - Regional ~ e a ~ C h Organization RUN1 Regional Ullfverslty UNI = Unfvaalty(national)

Identlflea the institution - Pull names must be entered. not acronyms

Name of the country in whlch the conmbuting or col- laboratbg external institution is baaed (lf it is not an international organization, such as the United Nations and its agencies) - country codca may be entaed

The exact duration of the formal sgrammt with the a- tcrnal institution, measured on a proJect basis (Multiple projects by a aln@e institution will be munted M separate linkages.)

3 Name

4 Location

5 Duration of collaboration

- 8 lrbldName - Dradpla 6 - 1 - 6 Typd-obhkdIhmu&-tbn.mdad

.sb8w: T Rchndcgy (I.e., axhwbOy that r to be

adapted op devofopod Br the banefit of the llluU country)

F mmlm# I Inlarmauan P m P c m a n m l PR - P h y a k d m o u r o c s t h t . r e ~ ~ C a p t P I

~ ~ d ~ b a d t o r c r a r c h r t M t l s r m m Tlulnmgolprrrslndarrcrnrtjy

7 A w q e Annual fhe value of the mnblbutlon to the mtlonal y.lrrm vtm Conblbumne a t w d hkpa mawad ln current UtN

8 A m mud Dctlaed ducrlptlon of human mwpa, srhan P i. the Prson- nsowcc donated, mmamd in full-time eguhnlmbl;

untwelty pamnnel to be msuursd u 113 ofa pwoa

LINKAGE&-EXTENSION AND TECHNOU)CIY-TIUNBPER AGWCIE8

This data b&LK contah information on the linkagw between the NlsRs ond the national e3Lteluion and technolo@ transfer agenuus. It lndlcates the lnntitutional

variety and focue of the technology t r m f e r agencies. It does not contain lnfmatlon on thew O t r m g t b or capacity.

4 Cammcdlty or topic focus of eactl technolo~transkr orgnnhtlon

DaaripUon

AD- IdmUtlcatlon number Name of orlprniLPaon

prtwtntai rqlonPI ddopment agency natlonal agribuslntss multinatlonnl sIplbuaIncse prIvute mluntnry organIration foundation donor dfszlopmmt propxt nongownmental orgmirptlon

Rdw to class3flcatlon of wmmodltlcs and ilgrfcultural re- karch topica nlevant to that country (am table)

pamanart k x l tam orr~slonal/ad hoc

6. Link to nscPrcb Thls Is a qualltatlvt and not nmssarily cnmpuable evaluation of the Unk betwan the oahnobgy traneier agency and the NARS (baaed on JnttrvieM and pubhh- al accounts):

formal Informal not prrrmt

pablo eyzaguirreeprints.icrisat.ac.in/13281/1/rp 6944.pdfthe scale and scope of national...

Documents