Technology Uptake and the Rationalization of ASARECA
An Assessment ofthe Technology Transfer Project
John Disney
NR International
Park House, Bradbourne Lane
Aylesford, Kent ME206SN, U.K.
October, 2002
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out as a consultancy for the International Potato Center (CIP),
which has been implementing the Technology Transfer Project on behalfof
ASARECA, supported by a Cooperative Agreement with the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), Regional Economic Development Services
Office (REDSO). The author would like to thank Dr. Berhane Kiflewahid,
Coordinator ofthe Technology Transfer Project, for his collaboration and insights. He
would also like to thank Dr. Seyfu Ketema, Executive Secretary of ASARECA, Dr.
Adiel Mbabu and the rest ofthe ASARECA team, Dr. Peter Ewell, Regional
Representative ofCIP, Dr. Diana Putman ofUSAIDIREDSO, and Melanie Bride of
NR International. The author is solely responsible for the content.
Executive Summary
The original purpose of the consultancy was to assist in the fonnulation of a
technology transfer strategy for the Networks, Projects and Programmes (NPPs) of
ASARECA. However, the TOR were subsequently amended to include a review of
the functions, mandate and organizational structure of ASARECA (in effect an
examination of efficiency and effectiveness within the organisation). The work plan
consisted of eight stages to be carried out between May and October 2002. Stages one
and two consisted of establishing contacts with key stakeholders, visiting relevant
donors etc in Europe and carrying out a review ofrelevant literature; an interim report
was presented on this preliminary work.
The third stage consisted of a visit to Africa and discussion of the interim report
with a wide range of interested parties. This final report represents stage eight of the
exercise and includes comments made on the draft report by members of the
Secretariat and other interested parties.
Because of the diverse nature of the review the report is presented in four parts. Part
A deals with the lessons learned from the literature and series of visits, Part B deals
with the technology transfer elements of the TOR and Part C covers the review of
ASAREGA. Part D presents a list of the issues arising from the review for
consideration by the CD and the conclusions and recommendations. It also considers
linkages between the different parts ofthe report.
Part A is divided into sections that deal with the lessons learned from Phases I and 2
of the Technology Transfer Project (TTP), recent ASARECA meetings, lessons from
the literature and visits to donors etc. and concludes with a section dealing with the
implications and "messages" for ASARECA arising from the work ofstages one and
two. Donor funded research programmes (including TTP) have spent considerable
time and effort designed to understand and improve the uptake (transfer) of the
outputs of agricultural research. This' effort has been driven by tm desire of
governments, regional bodies such as the Forum for African Agricultural Research
(FARA) and donors to increase the impact of agricultural research in tenns of
economic growth and poverty reduction. There is no doubt that the pressures to
deliver impact are growing and the "new thinking" arising from research on uptake
mechanisms calls for a more holistic approach in which all of the factors needed to
support successful uptake are in place from the outset. In practice this means that
more effort should be directed towards the application of knowledge rather than the
generation of new knowledge and researchers must ensure that the skills and expertise
associated with successful uptake are in place. In practice this calls for a greater
involvement ofpartners than has previously been the case.
ASARECA has made considerable progress in tenns of agricultural research and
these new approaches are understood and appreciated but the application has been
patchy (most have been the subject of discussion in various meetings). What has
perhaps been lacking is the concerted application ofthe new thinking. It is noteworthy
that the various visits revealed strong support for ASARECA and the progress made
to date but a number of suggestions emerged which could improve efficiency and
effectiveness and these have been incorporated into the report
I
Part B which draws upon the examination of Phases 1 and 2 of the TfP and the
conclusions of Part A, concentrates on a strategy for improved uptake of research
outputs or impact and the design of a new project that would foster uptake (or
transfer). Emphasis is placed upon the need to improve uptake and the means and
mechanisms that might foster the process. An outline strategy is presented and the
tools available to ASARECA with which to implement the strategy are examined.
Improved efficiency and effectiveness measures, as considered in Part C, are
important together with the use of the EU/RSP funding for competitive grants; the
latter can be an effective tool for introducing and managing change. Alternative
project support mechanisms are also considered including the use of funds allocated
under the EUIRSP for technology transfer. A proposal is presented for the use ofthese
funds and possibly future funds from other donors. The proposal includes the
provision of a Facilitator in the Secretariat whose main task will be to mainstream
technology transfer/uptake needs across all Networks. A description of the proposed
activity is presented as Appendix 7. .
Part C concentrates on the lessons learned from Parts A and B and how they might be
applied within ASARECA in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ofthe
operation. Much of the early success of ASARECA as an Association can be
attributed to the nature of the Constitution but with the substantial expansion of
activities and funding it is argued that changes are desirable in order to improve
effectiveness and deliver impact. Proposed changes include greater participation by
stakeholders, rationalization of the networks, a greater management role for the
Secretariat, improved reporting and accountability and a clarification of roles and
responsibilities. Specific changes are also proposed to amend the function, mandate
and structure of the organisation and it is argued that ASARECA is perceived
externally as an institution rather than a loose Association and changes to the
Constitution, Bye-laws and the Memorandum of Agreement should be considered.
Part D presents the overall conclusions and recommendations of the review and a list
of the issues for consideration by the CD. An attempt is also made to link the
conclusions of the different parts of the review and illustrate how the proposed
changes should add to the effectiveness of ASARECA and its contribution to
agricultural development in the region.
2
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A-ARRNET
AFRENA
Am
AKIS
ARS(s)
ASARECA
BARNESA
CABI
CD
CG/CGIAR
CGS
CIAT
CIMMYT
CIP
COMESA
CORNET
DFID
EAC
EAPGREN
EARO
EARRNET
EC
ECART
EDF
ECARSAM
ECABREN
ECAMAW
ECAPAPA
ECSARRN
EU
FOODNET
FARA
IARC
ICRAF
ICRISAT
IDRC
IFPRI
IGAD
UTA
ILRI
ISNAR
IVA
KARl
M&E
NAO
NARI(s)
NARS(s)
ASARECA Animal Agriculture Research Network
Agroforestry Research Network for Eastern and Central Africa
African Highlands Initiative
Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems
Agricultural Research System(s)
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in E. and C.Africa
Banana Research Network for Eastern and Southern Africa
CAB International
Committee ofDirectors (of ASARECA)
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
Competitive Grant System
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maie y Trigo
Centro Internacional de la Papa
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
Coffee Research Network
Department for International Development
East African Co-operation (based in Arusha, Tanzania)
Eastern Africa Plant Genetic Resources Network
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organisation
East Africa Root Crops Research Network
European Commission
European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics
European Development Fund
Eastern and Central Africa Regional Sorghum and Millet Network
Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network
Eastern and Central Africa Maize and Wheat Research Network
Eastern and Central Africa Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis
Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Rice Research Network
European Union
Postharvest and Marketing Research Network for E and C Africa
Forum for African Agricultural Research
International Agricultural Research Centre
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
International Development Research Centre
International Food Policy Research Institute
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
International Livestock Research Institute
International Service for National Agricultural Research
Institutional Viability Index
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Monitoring and evaluation
National Authorising Officer
National Agricultural Research Institution(s)
National Agricultural Research System(s)
3
NEPAD
NFM
NGO(s)
NPP(s)
NR(M)
ODI
PRAPACE
PRMP
RAIN
RAO
RSP
RSU
SFI
SPAAR
SRO
SWN-net
TOR
IT
UNDP
USAID
US/REDSO
WB
New Partnership for African Development
Network Familiarisation Meeting
Non-GovernmentaIOrganisation(s)
Network(s), Programme(s) and Project(s) [of ASARECA's portfolio]
Natural Resources (Management)
Overseas Development Institute, UK
Potato and Sweet Potato Improvement Programme in E. and C. Africa
Programme Review and Monitoring Panel
Regional Agricultural Information Network
Regional Authorising Officer
Regional Support Programme (under 8th EDF)
Regional Support Unit
Sustainable Funding Initiative
Special Programme for African Agricultural Research
Sub-Regional Research Organisation
Soil and Water Management Network
Terms ofReference
Technology Transfer
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development
USAID/Regional Economic Development Support Office
World Bank
4
Contents Page No.
INTRODUCTION 7
PART A Literature and Visits: Lessons Learned •.....•.••.•...•.•. 9
A.l Lessons learned from Phases 1 and 2 ofTTP .10
A.2 The Third NPP Consultation Meeting, Nairobi 13
A.3 Lessons from visits 21
A.4 Implications for ASARECA
PART B Technology Transfer 23
B.l Background 24
B.2 Allocation ofResources 26
B.3 Considerations for the future 27
B.4 Strategy for the promotion ofresearch uptake 28
B.4.1 Stakeholders Symposium, September 2002 31
B.4.2 Management by the Secretariat and NPP Coordinators.32
B.4.3 Competitive Grants System 33
B.4.4 Project Support 33
B.5 External Support to Promote Research Uptake 33
B.5.1 Background _ 33
B.5.2 Conceptual approach 34
B.6 Conclusions
_
35
PART C Review of ASARECA 36
C 1. Introduction 37
C 2 Challenges facing ASARECA 38
C.3 Possible changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness. 41
C. 3.1 Stakeholder participation A1
C. 3.2 Delegation of authority 42
C 3.3 Reporting/accountability A2
C.3.4 Rationalization ofNetworks A3
C.3.5 Linkages and partnerships A5
C 3.6 Clarity ofroles and responsibilities. 45
C.4 Institutional reform issues .45
C 4.1 The evolution of ASARECA. A5
C 4.2 The mandate of ASARECA A5
C 4.3 Structure A1
C 4.4 The role ofNARIs 48
C 5. Further actions 50
5
PART D Conclusions and Recommendations
0.1. Overall conc1usions 53
D.2 List ofissues. 5.7
0.3. Recommendations. 57
0.4. Further suggestions 57
APPENDICES 58
1. Terms ofReference 5.9
2. Documents Consulted 62
3. Conclusions and recommendations ofASARECA meetings 67
4. Record of visits 69
5. PRAPACE Steering Committee meeting 75
6. Consolidated Conceptual Framework 16
7. Project Proposal- Promotion ofResearch Uptake 77
8. Function statements 83
9. Structure as presented in the Memorandum of Agreement... 88
10. Current structure &9
11. Proposed Structure 90
6
INTRODUCTION
The original purpose of the consultancy was to assist in the fonnulation of a
technology transfer strategy for the Networks, Projects and Programmes (NPP) of
ASARECA. However, following early discussion with USAID, the ASARECA
Secretariat and the ASARECAICIP Technology Transfer Project (TIP) the original
Tenns of Reference (TOR) were substantially expanded to include a review of the
functions, mandate and organizational structure of ASARECA. The amended TOR,
that place considerable emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness, are presented in
Appendix 1.
The Work Plan called for the consultancy to be carried out in 8 stages between May
and the end of September 2002. Stage 1 comprised the development of contacts, the
collection of documentation and initial discussion with key stakeholders. Stage 2
consisted of a search of relevant literature and contact/meetings with relevant
organizations in Europe and elsewhere. The TOR also included the preparation of an
analysis ofthe lessons learned fonn Phases 1 and 2 of TIP and reporting on relevant
experience from other countries and organizations in relation to technology transfer
(TI). An Interim Report was submitted at the end of Stage 2.
Stage 3 took place from 2 to 17 July 2002 and consisted of meetings with the
Secretariat, NPPs, CG Centres etc; based upon the findings of stages 1 and 2 and the
response to the Interim Report. A draft final report was submitted by the end of
August 2002 (Stage 4) and amendments were discussed with members of the
Secretariat during a short visit to Entebbe. Further amendments were received during
the CD Retreat in Kigali at the end of September and these have been incorporated
into this, the final report.
From previous work with ASARECA and organizations in East and Central Africa the
consultant is familiar with developments in agricultural research including the
increasing pressure to deliver impact, the need for institutional refonn and the issues
surrounding sustainable financing. Attendance at the Third ASARECA NPP Meeting
in Nairobi 13 to 17 May provided a very good background to the review and began
the process of collecting relevant literature and meeting with key individuals. In
addition to many meetings with staff associated with the Secretariat useful contact
was made with more than half of the Network Coordinators and most of the CG
Centres involved during several visits made to Uganda and Kenya.
Visits made during Stages 1 and 2 included the European Commission in Brussels,
ISNAR in The Hague and DFID in London. Contact was also made with USAID in
Washington, GTZ in Gennany and ODI in London. Direct contact was also made
with a number of DFID research managers who have been subjected to considerable
change and pressure to improve the uptake of research outputs in recent years.
Various other individuals and organizations were conlacted by telephone or e-mail in
the process of collecting relevant experience. Relevant literature has also been
collected by searches on the internet.
7
There is a wealth of literature of relevance to the TOR and individuals and
organizations have supplied many references to add to those already familiar to the
consultant. As a result a growing list ofreference material has been accumulated- see
Appendix 2. While all of the documents listed are relevant several key papers have
stood out as being particularly informative in relation to the TOR. These are the
following:
1. Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional
Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor.
World Development. Vol. 29, No.5 2001.
2. S!1staining Change: Proceedings of a workshop on the factors affecting uptake
and adoption ofresearch outputs. NR International. 2000. ISBN 0-9539274-0-
7.
3. Public-private Sector Interaction in the Indian Agricultural Research System:
An Innovation Systems Perspective on Institutional Reform. In Byerlee, D and
R.G. Echiverria (eds) 2001. Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of
Privatization: Experience from the Developing World, CABI, Wallingford,
UK.
4. ISNAR. Ten Tools for Managing Change in National Agricultural Research
Organisations. 1999.
5. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems and Poverty Reduction.
AKIS Discussion Paper. I.A. Berbegue and G Escobar. 2001.
The "messages" ofrelevance to ASARECA arising from these documents and contact
with other organizations, are considered in the following report. Because of the
diverse nature ofthe TOR the report is presented in four parts as follows:
• Part A Literature and Visits: Lessons Learned
• Part B Technology Transfer
• Part C Review ofASARECA
• Part D Conclusions and Recommendations
8
PART A Literature and Visits: Lessons Learned
9
PART A Literature and Visits: Lessons Learned
AI. Lessons Learned from Phases I and 2 ofTTP
The first element of the TOR refers to " lessons learned from the work carried out
under the Technology Transfer Project (TIP) to date ". Before referring to the lessons
it is important to indicate the original climate surrounding the project and its
objectives. In the mid 1990s there was a strong perception that technologies
developed by research organisations may have been tested with farmers but the
overall impact had been limited. Explanations for the limited impact varied from the
lack of effective linkages, declining level of support from traditional extension
services, inadequate availability of credit and investment, increasing costs etc.
Opinions were also expressed that researchers had taken too little responsibility for
the next steps in the chain. Means of addressing these constraints were discussed at
the original stakeholders meeting for TIP in1997 (and again for Phase 2 in 2001).
Following the conclusions ofthe meeting the design ofthe project was based upon the
premise that given the funding (in the form of small grants) researchers would have
the means and incentives to form the effective partnerships needed to promote the
technologies they have developed to a much wider range of farmers. Both Phases 1
and 2 ofTIP were based upon this broad premise.
The present exercise is concerned with the lessons learned from TIP rather than the
achievements (but see below) and the main source of information was the Report by
Muturi et at dated November 2001 (Agricultural Technology Transfer Processes and
Adoption in Eastern and Central Africa). This consultancy was commissioned by
ASARECA/CIP/TIP to identify the key issues in technology transfer in the region
based upon the experiences gained from the two phases of TIP (Phase 1 lasted 18
months and funded 16 projects under a USAID/SD grant ofUS$ 300,000 and Phase 2,
which ended in September 2002, has funded 32 projects through a
USAIDIREDSO/ESA grant of US$ 1.5 million). More specific objectives of the
consultancy were to:
Identify, understand and document the major technology transfer processes,
achievements, technology uptake pathways used by collaborating partners,
problems encountered and lessons learned based on an in-depth analysis ofthe
sub-projects funded by TIP and other similar projects funded in ASARECA
member countries;
Produce an analysis of lessons learned from the past successful transfer and
dissemination that can be used as guidelines and recommendations for similar
projects in the future; and
Evaluate the adoption of the technologies that have been promoted, through
case studies offunded projects.
Another document that was useful in this regard was the report by TIP for the Third
Annual NPP Consultative Meeting held in Nairobi 13-17 May, 2002. The content of
these reports was supplemented by discussions with the Project Coordinator and the
CIP Regional Representative.
10
The Muturi report is a substantial document that attempts to answer a number of
questions based upon limited information from two projects that were not really
designed to address the questions being posed. A key paragraph in the summary ofthe
report reads, quote:
" So far TTP has concentrated on technology transfer per se rather than
focussing on the development of innovative transfer mechanisms. In addition TIP
has concentrated on a single technology approach which does not encourage joint
participation by NPPs. Similarly, marketing, which is an important factor influencing
adoption was not addressed in most projects. From the foregoing, therefore, it can be
concluded that the project has not found the right balance between learning about the
process oftechnology transfer and the transfer ofspecific technologies."
The report also comments on the fact that the selection criteria placed greater
emphasis on partnerships than on innovative and experimental approaches and uptake
pathways. This may be true but at the time the emphasis was upon the development of
partnerships as a means ofpromoting technology transfer.
In reality, the two phases ofTPP were more about the transfer of technologies seen to
be available "on the shelf' than about the processes and methodologies associated
with successful technology transfer. In effect the report "fell between two stools" and
was consequently criticized for drawing incomplete conclusions concerning processes
and methodologies. In fact, based upon the two phases of TPP, which were largely
technology driven, it was unrealistic to expect substantial conclusions about processes
and methodologies despite this being part ofthe stated TOR.
This is not to say that the two phases of TPP and the report were without value. On
the contrary, both can justifiably claim significant achievements some of which are
particularly relevant to the current consultancy. The main achievement ofTIP was to
raise the profile and importance of technology transfer within ASARECA especially
among the NPPs, their Coordinators and the various stakeholders. The level of
success depended upon the Network but from comments made to the consultant
several Networks found the project to be of considerable value. In addition, the two
phases ofTPP can claim the following as significant achievements:
)- Demonstrating that a competitive grant scheme (CaS) can operate
successfully in the region and that there is adequate research capacity upon
which to base this approach. (This was seriously questioned during the
ECART workshops of 1999. It is interesting to note that a similar competitive
scheme operated by DFID in Uganda more recently received 407 bids on the
first call-of which only 11 were funded; but a second, more targeted call,
received 87 bids ofwhich 13 subsequently received funding).
)- Successfully funded 32 projects in Phase 2 (from 291 applicants) in six
thematic areas covering 10 countries (many of which were judged to have
been very successful in terms of uptake of the technology). Sixteen projects
were also funded from a separate competition in Phase 1.
)- Demonstrated that by bringing together multiple partners the chances of
successful technology transfer are significantly improved.
11
};> Shown that if the approach to technology transfer is not holistic then the
process is less likely to be successful (this valuable lesson refers especially to
the previous lack of attention to marketing needs).
Secondly, the report could have been more definitive in its recommendations and
made specific suggestions about changes needed within ASARECA and the NPPs in
order to achieve greater uptake of research results. Although not a firm conclusion of
the study all of the ingredients were present to show the limitations of the IT
approach and the need to move towards a more holistic and integrated approach in
order to foster the uptake of the research outputs. Many of the comments under
conclusions and recommendations are very relevant to the present study and the more
important ones are summarised below:
};> Projects that had relatively more partners and with capacities to perform
different technology transfer functions were more effective;
};> The vertical linkages were strong but horizontal linkages tended to be week or
poorly developed (technology and information being passed from research
institutions to beneficiaries through a series ofintermediaries);
};> Projects funded in the future should adopt a more holistic approach including
addressing constraints such as the lack of capacity and marketing
requirements;
};> Future IT activities should have access to specialist expertise in promotion
and dissemination methods;
};> The poor representation ofthe private sector in all aspects ofIT;
};> Overall effort should be shifted towards technology transfer or the "uptake of
research outputs" rather than technology generation;
};> The need for greater cooperation/collaboration between NPPs in terms ofIT.
If there are any funds remaining when ITP comes to an end in September 2002 they
could usefully be used to publish a simple brochure outlining the successes ofthe two
phases of the project, the lessons learned, and, more importantly, point to the way
forward. From the lessons learned from ITP it can be concluded that further effort is
needed within ASARECA to promote the uptake of research outputs and this should
be the first call upon the funds allocated to TT under the EU/RSP (see PART B).
The report also comments on the selection criteria used for choosing the projects to be
funded and refers to the relatively low number of points awarded for uptake pathways
being already identified. This is an easy comment to make with the benefit of
hindsight but at the time of project design the priority in finding effective pathways to
get improved technologies to farmers was seen to be the development of effective
partnerships and some 36% of the marks were allocated to partnerships (as opposed to
6% for uptake pathways) This is a reflection of the weighting given to partnerships
and uptake pathways between 1997 (when TTP was designed) and the Review (2001).
Nevertheless, it is an important comment in terms ofthe future conduct ofASARECA
and the need to demonstrate the impact of research. This topic will be one of the
important aspects of the present study since impact and the uptake ofresearch results
are the current priority (usually at the expense of knowledge generation).
12
This point illustrates the importance of the selection criteria and the guidelines that
accompany them as a means of managing change and achieving current policy
objectives through the use of a CGS. It also illustrates the care and attention required
by the funding agency in the setting of the selection criteria and the associated
guidelines. This conclusion has important implications for the CGS under the EC
funding since the RSU, in collaboration with the ASARECA Secretariat, must
determine the policy priorities before the evaluation criteria and guidelines for the
scheme can be finalized. Furthermore, priorities in both the EU and ASARECA are
evolving and have changed since the Regional Support Programme (RSP) was
designed, and a review ofthe budget allocations could be desirable in advance of any
mid-term review. Certainly there is a strong case for accepting a high degree of
flexibility during the early stages ofRSP.
It should also be noted that considerable progress has been made with the manual and
guidelines for the CGS under USAID funding. At the SRO meeting in Brussels in
June 2002 the ASARECA guidelines were accepted as being the model for the other
SROs. As a consequence the funds allocated to prepare these guidelines under the ED
project may not be required in full but some modification will be necessary especially
in relation to the evaluation criteria and marks (to give greater prominence to the need
to have uptake pathways in place).
A.2. The Third NPP Consultation Meeting, Nairobi, May 2002
This meeting follows previous meetings held in Madagascar and Dar es Salaam in
2000 and 2001 respectively. The general objectives were stated to be:
• Harmonize and integrate the respective components of ASARECA into a
common purpose and shared vision.
• Build necessary partnerships among key stakeholders to ensure delivery of
ASARECA's strategic objectives.
In the broader context there was also a desire to harmonize activities with the CGIAR
Centres operating in Africa.
The outcome of the meeting will be presented in the formal report but there was a
consensus among the participants that the meeting was very successful especially in
developing a new Conceptual Framework for ASARECA, initiating a new
understanding about collaboration with the CG Centres and conducting an
examination of the gaps and constraints that hinder further progress. NPP
Coordinators have presented reports to all of the ASARECA Annual Meetings but on
this occasion they were presented with a standard format to follow. They all
responded but, despite being provided with guidelines, the replies varied enormously
in terms of adherence to the proposed contents and the quality of the response. This
large variation significantly reduced the value of the exercise. Nevertheless, in
support ofthe objectives of the consultancy, an analysis of the reports was conducted
to collect data and see if there were lessons to be learned from this first collective
report. The following table presents the analysis.
13
T
NETWORK SUBJECT ESTABLISHED STRAT. No. LINKAGES CG
PLAN COUNTRIES CENTRE
Commodity
PRAPACE Potato and 1982 No 10 9 CIP
sweet potato
BARNESA Bananas 1994? No 10 8 INIBAP
(two external) (UTA)
EARRNET Root crops 1986 No 6 5 UTA
AARNET Livestock 1997 Yes 10 ? ILRI
(New)
CORNET Coffee 2002 Yes 8 5 CABI
(New)
ECAMAW Maize and 1996 Yes 9 5 CIMMYT
wheat
ECSARN Rice 2002 No 9 7 Sekoine U
(New) (two external)
ECARSAM Sorghum and 2002 No 8 7 ICRISAT
Millett (New)
ECABREN Beans 1996 Yes 9 7 CIAT
NRMGroup
SWNnet Soil fertility 2001 Yes 10 4 ICRISA
(New)
Am Highlands 1995 Yes 5 7 ICRAF
Initiative
14
TOFNET Agroforestry 1988(Afrena) No 6 8 ICRAF
2001 (New)
EAPGREN Genetic 1997 No 7 5 !PGRI
Resources (New)
Strategic
RAIN (was Information 1998 Yes 8 6 CTA
Afica Link) (New) &ICRAF
FOODNET Marketing and 19981 1 1 Many IITA
Post-harvest
BIOTECH Biotechnology 1999 No 10 0 1
(New)
ECAPAPA Policy 1997 No 10 11
TIP Technology 1995 No 10 3 CIP
Transfer
Str. NARS 1998 No 10 2 ISNAR
15
Because of the variation in the reports the analysis was not especially useful but
points ofinterest include the following:
• Of 19 Networks only 7 have a developed a formal strategy. However, some
are new and several others have relevant planning documents) but it is
surprising that several ofthe well established Networks do not have a strategy
document.
• According to the analysis most Networks have linkages to several others but
the reports indicate that many of the linkages are weak and poorly developed
(planned linkages by the new Networks were included). FOODNET,
ECAPAPA and PRAPACE appear to have the strongest linkages.
• All Networks involve at least five countries.
• The gaps and weaknesses in most cases refer to marketing, poor horizontal
linkages, the need for closer collaboration and the need to move towards an
R4D approach.
• Several references are made to the need for more systems-based approaches;
• Weak links to the private sector and the need to pay greater attention to
marketing are recognized as constraints to the uptake of research outputs;
• Several references are made to the need to improve linkages between the
NPPs;
• Reference to the availability of technologies ready for uptake (or TI) is a
recognition ofthe weakness of existing mechanisms;
• Several references are made to the breakdown of traditional mechmisms for
TI (eg. extension services).
The separation into commodity group (9), NRM group (4) and Strategic Institutional
Support (6) is artificial and was chosen specifically to ease the business of the
meeting in Nairobi but it clearly illustrates the diversity and complexity of the NPPs.
There has been some debate within ASARECA about reducing the number of NPPs
on the basis of subject, geography etc. but no conclusions have been reached. This
issue is considered later in the report but possibilities include combining some of the
commodity groups into clusters (eg cereals and other crops), combining RAIN with
TIP in the future and the NARS Strengthening project to be part of the Secretariat.
CORNET is the odd man out in the commodity group while Am and FOODNET also
stand out as being different - but fulfilling a very important function (for a
consideration ofthe rationalization ofthe Networks see section C.3.4.)
As indicated above, considerable progress was made at the meeting in terms of the
future role of ASARECA, the Consolidated Conceptual Framework and the
agreement for greater cooperation with the CG system are good examples. In relation
to the TOR for this study the most relevant activity was the deliberations of the
Working Groups on Commodities, Natural Resources Management, Gaps and
Constraints and especially Strategic Institutional Support. Many of the issues about
the future mandate, structure and governance were discussed during these sessions.
Because of the value of the conclusions and recommendations of this meeting in
relation to the objectives of the study an examination of the results of ASARECA
meetings held over the previous two years was conducted. The resulting table, which
is presented in Appendix 3, indicates the progress/action taken following earlier
meetings in Madagascar, Mombasa, Dar es Salaam and the recent meeting in Nairobi.
16
A cursory examination of the table indicates that progress following these meetings
has been slow and patchy. Most of the "gaps" identified by the working groups in
Nairobi had been raised at earlier meetings but little action had followed. In effect
these meetings resulted in a number ofimportant operational and policy decisions but
implementation has been slow, ineffective or ignored. Some real progress has been
made on selective items but for most of the recommendations that were intended to
improve efficiency and effectiveness little has changed although it should be
recognised that many of the proposed changes are part of a process rather than
specific actions. Specific items include reporting format, improving horizontal
linkages between NPPs, cross-cutting issues, impact assessment, performance
monitoring, priority setting and impact orientation.
This analysis clearly illustrates the difficulties oftrying to set up planning, monitoring
and evaluation and general management arrangements for a loosely confederated set
of work programmes, each with its own work plan and governance structure. This is
one of the major challenges facing ASARECA, and especially MEAPU within the
Secretariat with their limited resources. Potential mechanisms for improving
efficiency and effectiveness are considered in PART C.
A.3. Lessons from Literature, Visits etc.
It is worth recording that all of the donors, organizations and individuals contacted
expressed support for the review and the future of ASARECA. There was
much common ground in the views expressed and a briefreview of each visit/meeting
during Stages 1 and 2 is presented in Appendix 4. In sumIIBry, the important
conclusions for ASARECA are as follows:
Donor funding in the future is likely to be linked directly to effective
uptake pathways and the ability to demonstrate impact (this has been the
case for some time but the pressure is growing and frustration at the
perceived lack of progress is leading to the diversion of funding to other
sectors such as health or education);
A shift in funding allocation from knowledge generation to uptake and
impact (ie TT) is likely (and necessary ifimpact ti to be achieved);
Research effort should be organised around the problems faced by
farmers and not restricted to artificial divisions between commodities;
Networks should adopt a more holistic, systems approach that combines
research with uptake mechanisms, market requirements and the
partnerships needed to ensure successful application;
The private sector should feature much more in future research
programmes;
Future research should be more multidisciplinary, involve far more
partnerships and uptake pathways must be clearly identified from the
outset;
Integration and collaboration between research programmes and
partners is more likely to achieve demonstrable impact.
17
As evidenced by the volume of literature there has been considerable research on the
subjects of technology transfer, uptake and impact in the last few years. Several new
approaches have been proposed that consider knowledge generation and innovation
concepts derived from other sectors (eg. Manufacturing) and apply them to
agricultural research. Interestingly, a farming systems approach which was the "new
thinking" ofthe early to mid 90's is now seen to be too limiting in terms ofsuccessful
uptake or technology transfer. The literature refers to the innovation systems
approach, production to consumption, partnerships for innovation, value chains,
livelihoods approach, impact orientation, market chains etc. This "new thinking"
about agricultural research is healthy and stems from the desire to be more effective
in terms of impact. Little is to be served here by describing each concept and
approach because there is much common ground that may be summarised as - the
need for a more holistic approach which involves all of the partners needed to
ensure effective uptake. Furthermore there is a lot in common with the changes
proposed and the views expressed by donor organizations as reported above. This all￾embracing and over- simplistic conclusion calls for some explanation.
The conclusions ofrecent studies are that scientific researchers have beenreluctant to
step outside of their traditional role and become involved in activities that foster the
application of their research efforts. Examples are the market chain approach
(commonly applied to high value crops) where innovations in production technology
need to be matched with support and knowledge about market access, quality control
from the farm to market, packaging etc. Similarly the uptake oftechnologies requires
working relationships with non-scientific groups and institutions such as NGOs,
CBOs, farmers groups and the private sector. The scientific research community must
adapt to these new roles and requirements if the outputs of their research are to have
real and lasting value.
Comparisons with other parts of the world can also be informative. The first point to
make is that the rationalization of agricultural research organisations is a global
phenomenon; it is not restricted to Africa. Restructuring of agricultural research
institutions has been underway in Latin America, Asia and Europe for the past ten or
twenty years. In Latin America, where the process began (early 1980s), government
financial crises forced NARS to open up to private, University and NGO alliances,
generate income from the sale of services and reward productive scienlists. Support
for the transition process was provided by development banks and, although the
process has been described as "a blessing in disguise" it was a slow and painful
process. In Asia, Malaysia is a good example ofthe dynamic development of an R&D
programme that developed without donor assistance and led to a major increase in
economic growth. In India, where considerable rationalization has taken place, state
research systems now provide the main benefits. However, in both Latin America and
Asia the agricultural science base was much stronger than that in Africa and it has
been argued that the organisation of agricultural research systems in Africa has been a
process of matching limited resources to the scale of the problems being faced. There
are also examples from Latin America, where the founders of organisations analogous
to ASARECA have accepted a reduction in authority by including a broader range of
actors in order to improve the relevance ofthe organisation.
Much of the "new thinking" in agricultural research is emerging from India (see the
Introduction and Appendix 1) from a combination of ICRISAT, DFID and the Indian
18
Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR); research activities and the recent papers by
Hall et al are especially relevant. The ICAR was reorganised in the late 1960s with a
strategy focusing on food security but it was only after the liberalization process
began in 1991 that it was recognised that large public sector organizations such as
ICAR must change. The shift towards privatisation, decentralization and
competitiveness were the driving force to redefine roles, reduce bureaucracy, improve
efficiency, M&E and commercialisation. This is now developing as a more holistic
approach that includes a broader range of actors including the private sector.
The "new thinking" also encapsulates the references in the literature to "knowledge
triangles" (research, extension and education) and agricultural knowledge and
information systems (AKIS). The latter concept views agricultural and
extension as necessary but, by themselves, insufficient elements in complex
innovation-orientated institutional arrangements. A quote from a recent paper by Hall
et al will serve to support the argument:
In contrast to the conventional linear notion of the relationship
between research and economic production it is observed that
innovation takes place chiefly as a result of iterative relationships
between those engaged in knowledge creation (research) and those
engaged in knowledge application (economic production). In many
countries not only have these tasks been viewed in the past as
completely separate, they have also been viewed as predominantly
the purview of public and private sector agencies respectively. In
contrast, successful innovation systems are judged to be those
where productive relationships have developed between research
and non-research organisations and between public and private
organisations. These relationships are important as they facilitate
the knowledge flows that underpin creativity.
This reference to the literature and changes in other parts of the world is important to
illustrate that the pressures on agricultural research in Africa are part of a global trend
that is now very apparent in Africa. The lessons from elsewhere would suggest that
change is inevitable and should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. The
increasing pressure on agricultural researchers to increase their contribution to
poverty reduction and economic growth are a concern for both governments and
donors. Visits and meetings held as part of the study were mainly with donor
representatives but there is growing evidence of concerns by African govenunents as
evidence by developments such as NEPAD and the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Johannesburg, August 2002). For example, the African Heads of State
involved with NEPAD have selected agriculture as one of their six priorities and the
focus of activities will be on six issues:
19
• The problem faced by ruml populations in getting access to markets and the
climate required for investment in agriculture relative to people living in urban
areas;
• Inadequate and inefficient agricultuml systems;
• Low purchasing power ofrural people;
• Climate uncertainty and lack of access to irrigation;
• Weak institutional support (eg. research and extension services);
• Inadequate attention by donors and multilateral institutions to the agricultuml
sector
A summary of the "messages" stemming from this new thinking and the possible
consequences for ASARECA are presented below:
• Without the ability to demonstrate uptake and impact, research organizations
cannot count on future funding.
• An enormous amount of effort has been directed in recent years towards
understanding the reasons behind the limited success in achieving impact
through the application of research genemted technologies (substantial
literature);
• The processes and methodologies that foster and promote uptake are better
understood and current research is throwing up a variety of approaches to
address the problem (IT, Production to Consumption, Innovative Systems,
Impact Pathways etc);
• All of these new approaches have a good deal in common, namely, that
previous poor performance is due to a linear approach (ie. primarily relying on
research! extension linkages) and the future must be more systems based and
holistic (involving more disciplines, more specialist partners and covering all
of the steps needed to determine research needs, generate technologies and
achieve uptake through the involvement of whatever skills and expertise are
needed to achieve success).
• In effect the scientific community must change and accept that they are only
one piece of the puzzle or one cog on the wheel. In future scientists must
become less demanding of the resources available and accept the crucial role
of other actors. This is not to imply that there role is less important but they
must recognise that successful application oftheir work demands the inclusion
of other skills and expertise.
These changes will have serious consequences because the funding for one part of the
puzzle, namely technology generation, will be reduced to fund the roles of the other
actors. This shift is already evident in DFID where, in the second half of the research
stmtegy, over 60% of the funds allocated for research in developing countries are
being spent on promotion, dissemination and uptake mechanisms rather than the
generation of new knowledge. However, there will be a continuing need for balance
between the generation of knowledge and its application.
20
A.4. Implications for ASARECA
Stages 1 and 2 of the study were concerned with an examination ofthe literature and
obtaining the current views of donors, organisations and individuals on the "new
thinking" about agricultural research and what the future might hold for research
organisations such as ASARECA. The "messages" for ASARECA were summarised
above; additional issues arising from the visits and discussions with donors, research
managers, NPP Coordinators and other relevant bodies, which have a direct bearing
upon the objectives ofthe consultancy, are summarised below:
• The current structure and governance is not representative of aU
stakeholders (NARS, Civil society, private sector, farmers etc). There is
need for greater external advice at both the CD and NPP levels.
• The current structure and constitution could be said to be limiting vision
and hindering the pursuit ofregional as opposed to national objectives.
• Access to specialist expertise on dissemination, promotion, and especially
marketing is needed; there may be a need to access new skills and
expertise and have greater linkages to the private sector.
• The CD should determine policy for execution by the Secretariat (more
delegated authority).
• The development of new partners by ASARECA and most NPPs.
• Action to be taken to make the research agenda more demand-led or
client orientated (as per 1997 strategy but poorly implemented to date)
• Need to perform and monitor performance (use of the CGS to implement
changes such as uptake pathways in place). The policy is in place but
implementation has been slow.
• Technology transfer (uptake of research outputs) to be given equal
priority to technology generation (also need to investigate previous supply
driven technology and extent to which this can contribute to impact).
• The rationalization of the NPPs to achieve gains in efficiency (eg. less
meetings) and effectiveness (a more holistic approach).
• The introduction of some form of systems approach as opposed to a
commodity based approach. The organization of research on a
commodity basis is logical from a research perspective but this approach
may hinder uptake and application ofthe research outputs.
In relation to the final bullet it can be argued that uptake is perfectly feasible within a
commodity-based approach provided that the commodity to consumption chain as a
whole features in the research ie.the uptake pathway is in place. Nevertheless, a
systems based approach is more compatible with the actual situation at the farmer
level. In practice both approaches are feasible given the necessary resources, good
participation and time to become effective.
None of these issues are new to ASARECA Most were discussed in the working
groups at the recent NPP meeting in Nairobi. For example, the group dealing with
strategic interventions, in the summary ofthe way forward, referred to the following:
21
» The need to redefine the role ofthe Secretariat
» The need to revise the 1997 Strategic Plan;
» Review and rationalize the roles and activities ofthe NPPs;
» Review the governance of the NPPs and the composition of the
steering committees;
» The need for greater focus on priority issues and;
» The need to broaden the skills base in order to be more effective.
The interim report of June 2002 attempted to demonstrate that ASARECA has to
introduce change in order to respond to the new climate surrounding agricultural
research in the context of economic growth and poverty reduction. Many of the
changes are already under discussion as illustrated by the meeting in Nairobi.
However, it is one thing to discuss change and quite another to agree which changes
are to be introduced and how to introduce them. These issues are considered in PART
C ofthe report.
In terms of the technology transfer element of the TOR it will be important to draw a
distinction between the previous supply driven approach and the extent of the
technologies remaining "on the shelf' that are deserving of further effort on uptake,
and the introduction of a new approach across the entire organization. The future
strategy for uptake and the use of donor funding is considered in PART B of the
report.
22
PART B TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
23
PART B Technology Transfer
B. 1. Background
The historical context funding for TI is impurtant in relation to the objectives of
the study. Both Phases of TIP were based upon the premise that agricultural
researchers have developed many technologies with potential impact, but that their
transfer to farmers, processors and other users has been hampered because research
organizations have not developed effective linkages with extension, NGOs and private
enterprises. The goal was to encourage the building of partnerships between research
organizations and NGOs, the private sector etc. to get proven technologies "off the
shelf' and into the hands of a wide range of farmers, processors etc. The strategy
employed was to create the opportunity for institutions to apply for competitive grants
that would provide an incentive for researchers to work together with other partners to
effect the transfer of promising technologies.
The USAID funded TIP Phase 1 started in 1995 and ended in September 1997;
funding amounted to US$300,000. Following a favourable review the project was
extended to a second phase for 3 years with a US $1.5 million grant from USAID.
This project started in 1998 and was scheduled for completion in September 2001 but
a one year, no-cost extension was granted so that the project ended on 30th September
2002 (with a final meeting planned for 9 to 11 September).
During the year 2001 there were several developments including the approval of the
EU funded RSP that includes € 420,000 for TIP (then scheduled to commence in
October 2001). A draft proposal for a Phase 3 project was prepared to include EU and
USAID/REDSO funding over 5 years up to 2006 and the consultancy review of
Phases 1 and 2 (the Muturi report) was submitted in November. An advisory group of
regional stakeholders was convened to consider the way forward on TI and they
recommended to the CD that a consultant be commissioned to undertake a
comprehensive study on the subject. TOR were prepared which led to the study
covered by this report.
During the design of the EU funded RSP it was assumed that the funds allocated to
TIP would supplement and extend the USAIDIREDSO funded Phase 2. For this
reason no funds were allocated for the Co-ordination Unit for years 1 and 2. Because
of the substantial delays in implementing the RSP the proposed phasing is now
redundant.
This background information is important in the sense that the work plan for the EU
grant has to be redesigned and it was always the intention to combine two sources of
funding for the future work ofASARECA on TI. To this redesign must now be added
the "new thinking" identified under the study and the recommendations of the
evaluation report by Muturi et al both of which have been summarised in PART Aof
the report. A combination of the lessons learned from the two exercises provides a
number of factors that have to be taken into account in the future design of a TI
project (or better described as uptake ofresearch outputs):
24
• In the future all projects by research organizations seeking donor funds must
be designed to demonstrate uptake and impact;
• Considerable effort has been directed in recent years towards understanding
the reasons behind the limited success in achieving impact through the
application of research generated technologies. In future a greater proportion
ofthe available resources should be directed towards uptake and impact rather
ulaH tHt; gc:nl:lfduun Vl- nc:w knowledge:;
• The processes and methodologies that foster and promote uptake are better
understood and current research is throwing up a variety of approaches to
address the problem (IT, Production to Consumption, Innovative Systems,
Impact Pathways etc) All of these new terms have a good deal in common
namely, that previous poor performance is due to a linear approach (research!
extension) and the future must be more systems based and holistic (involving
more disciplines, more specialist partners and covering all of the skills and
expertise needed to achieve successful uptake);
• In effect the scientific community must change and accept that they are only
one piece of the puzzle or one cog on the wheel. In future scientists must
become less demanding of the resources available and argue in favour oftheir
needs. They must also accept the crucial role of other actors ifthe application
ofresearch is to be more substantial than in the past;
• In order to achieve a more holistic approach it will be necessary to form
partnerships to obtain the skills and expertise needed to ensure successful
uptake and impact.
The review of Phases I and 2 of ITP was criticised for drawing too few conclusions
about the processes and methodologies associated with successful technology transfer.
As argued in PART A, Phases 1 and 2 were not really designed to identify successful
uptake pathways or learn lessons about what are the processes and methodologies
most likely to achieve success. It can therefore be argued that any new project dealing
with IT or uptake mechanisms should be designed to explore potentially successful
processes and methodologies. Certainly the logical framework for the ED RSP would
support this argument (Result area - establish the determinants of successful
technology transfer from an analysis of a wide range of ASARECA case studies and
disseminate findings - with verifiable indicators being set accordingly). However,
from the review ofrecent literature carried out under the study and the discussion with
a range of research managers, as summarised in Appendices 2 and 4, there is
considerable evidence that successful uptake mechanisms are now better understood.
Successful IT or uptake mechanisms will vary with the nature of the technology
resulting from research but certain critical elements are known as follows:
Uptake mechanisms must be identified from the outset;
A more holistic and systems approach is desirable;
Partnerships should be established to provide a multidisciplinary
approach;
Scientific skills and expertise are only part of those needed for success;
Marketing needs have been sadly neglected in the past;
Sources of investment finance are often important (eg in production to
consumption chains).
25
In the opinion of the author if these elements are taken into account in the design of
research projects, including those funded under the CGs, then little is to be gained by
designing a new project whose purpose is solely to identify potentially successful
processes and methodologies. What is required is a mechanism to foster the
application of these principles and assist the Networks (through advice and funding)
to incorporate them into research proposals and work plans (see the review of
ASARECA-PART C).
B 2 Allocation of Resources
One of the "messages" stemming from the discussions and meetings reported above
(PART A) is the shift in funding from knowledge generation to the dissemination and
application of that knowledge. The example given in PART A stems from DFID
where research managers are spending over 60% of the available funding on direct
and indirect support to uptake with a shrinking proportion of the funds being
committed to the generation of new knowledge. This policy could have serious long￾term consequences but the pressure to demonstrate impact is pushing ever more
firmly in this direction. What is the current position in ASARECA?
In an attempt to address this question several NPP Coordinators were approached. All
confirmed the trend towards devoting more resources to application resulting from
donor pressure but there is considerable variation For example, FOODNET argued
that 100% of the available funding is directed towards the application of research
outputs rather than the generation of technology. In ECABREN the assessment was
that 15 to 25 % offunding is directed towards IT but the comment was made that this
is much higher than was the case a year or two earlier. In the case of PRAPACE one
of the sessions during a Steering Committee Meeting was used to address the
question. Each country representative was asked to make an estimate for potato and
sweet potato separating ASARECA funding from overall funding. The results are
presented at Appendix 5.
Overall some 30 to 40% of funds were estimated as being spent on activities
associated with IT or the uptake of research results. There was some debate about
whether on-farm trials constituted research or application and it can be argued that the
figures represent an over-estimate but there was a consensus that the proportion has
increased in recent years. The marked variation between countries and donor versus
national funding arises from research managers making choices about the use of
available funding.
The list of activities being used to promote research uptake included everything from
field days to radio programmes to links with the private sector. The discussion on
future needs identified the importance of marketing, more funding to promote transfer
and the growing importance of partnerships.
26
B 3 Considerations for the Future
The review ofTIP Phases I and 2 (the Muturi report) suggested that the objectives of
any new project should be:
To develop, document and disseminate innovative methodologies for the
transfer ofspecific technologies in the region;
To facilitate establishment of effective partnership arrangements for transfer
and adoption oftechnologies;
To document lessons learned for scaling-up ofproven transfer processes;
To develop training and dissemination materials and;
To facilitate joint participation of several NPPs and foster close linkages
between the sub-project grantees and relevant networks.
The report also considered a number of options for the future institutional
arrangements for executing TIP activities within ASARECA. These included:
Continue with CIP as the executing agency;
Management by a consortium ofIARCs;
Establish a core position within the Secretariat;
Distribute the available resources across the NPPs;
Attach the project to a NARI.
These suggestions have been considered in the context of the current study paying
additional attention to the literature survey, discussion with donas etc and what might
be described as the "new thinking" in relation to the uptake ofresearch outputs. While
many of the suggestions remain valid the inescapable conclusion ofthe present study
is that changes in approach are needed if ASARECA is to achieve impact and the
successful uptake of research outputs that both donors and national governments
desire. Much has been learned about the processes and methodologies which foster
successful uptake and the emphasis for ASARECA should be to apply these lessons
rather than invest heavily in an examination of potentially successful mechanisms,
especially since some of the NPPs have begun to adopt more market orientated
partnerships in order to promote better uptake. The issues which call for particular
attention are the need for an holistic approach (defined as the whole being greater than
the sum of the parts), attention to marketing issues and the careful selection of
partners who can provide the skills and expertise required to ensure successful
application ofresearch generated technologies.
For the remaining sections of this report reference will be made to the uptake of
research outputs rather than technology transfer since this is felt to be more
compatible with current thinking and is more descriptive ofthe aims ofthe exercise.
The following two sections ofthe report will deal with a strategy for the promotion of
research uptake and external support to promote the uptake ofresearch. In both cases
the arguments presented will be closely linked to the contents ofPART C ofthe report
that deals with the future mandate, structure and organization of ASARECA. The
interaction between the conclusions reached in PARTS Band C of the report will be
presented in PART D.
27
B 4 Strategy for the Promotion ofResearch Uptake
The development of a strategy includes the following steps:
• an assessment ofthe current position,
• a projection ofthe desired position in the future and;
• an indication of how to progress to the future position over a stated period of
time (say 5 years).
The timing of this exercise is considered to be opportune partly because of the new
style of management being introduced by the Executive Secretary and partly due to
the commencement of the EU funded RSP. There is no doubt that ASARECA has
been very successful since it was set up in 1994; because of the Constitution based
upon an Association of individuals (the 10 CDs) ASARECA has been able to avoid
many of the political pitfalls that have affected other similar bodies. ASARECA has
been in a position to make decisions and, as a consequence considerable progress has
been achieved. ASARECA is now well established, is respected in the scientific
community and, most importantly, has obtained the support of major donors as
evidenced by the substantial funding now available for conducting agricultural
research in the region. The major donors are USAID and the EU but there are many
other contributors. The RSP is especially relevant because it is a five-year programme
with substantial funding (€ 29 million) and there are associated performance
indicators which will be used to assess success or failure.
ASARECA is at an important crossroads. Having become established, developed a
reputation and secured considerable funding ASARECA will be judged in the future
by the extent to which it delivers improvements in economic growth, poverty
reduction etc. To quote the overall objective ofthe RSP:
To contribute to regional economic growth and improved prosperity by developing
and disseminating agricultural and agri-business technologies which respond to
prevailing and future economic opportunities, as well as maintaining the long term
sustainability ofthe agricultural resources base.
The present study has confirmed that the pressure from donors to deliver impact,
which has been obvious for some time, is increasing to the extent that future funding
will be linked directly to the ability to demonstrate impact. The ability to demonstrate
impact is complicated by many factors not least of which is the availability of data on
the current position against which to judge progress. In strategic terms this baseline
data and the assessment of impact, is important to ASARECA and MEAPU is the
group responsible. However, the main focus of the present exercise is the uptake of
technologies generated through the research carried out by the NPPs.
In summary, the present position of ASARECA can be characterised as a body that is
well established, has a strong capability to catalyse and coordinate agricultural
research in the region and has considerable funds at its disposal. The challenge over
the next five years is to ensure that these resources are used efficiently and
28
effectively in order to achieve the level of impact now demanded by the funding
agencies (including both donors and national governments). The aim ofthe strategy is
to ensure that in five years time ASARECA is in a strong position to illustrate the
impact ofits research portfolio and thereby secure funding for future activities at both
regional and national levels. The CD and the Secretariat carry a considerable
responsibility in this respect.
Before considering the transition from the current position to the future objectives it is
necessary to examine the success of the uptake mechanisms to date including the
progress made during Phases I and 2 ofTTP. Research carried out under the auspices
of ASARECA has undoubtedly had an impact upon the agricultural sector in the
region but it is very difficult to measure. There are many examples of on-farm trials
and pilot projects that show that specific technologies can make a major difference.
The problem has been that they are not being adopted by enough farmers or
processors to meet development needs and goals. What is required is for
ASARECA to broaden the scope within which research is planned and evaluated
with technology uptake as a more prominent feature.
The two phases of TIP have also been successful in specific instances as indicated in
PART A. However, there is also no doubt that many ofthe technologies developed in
recent years have not been applied and this is the basis for the argument that greater
attention must be paid to uptake mechanisms. An illustration ofthis point is the list of
approximately 90 technologies available for "transfer" or uptake that was prepared at
the meeting in Nairobi (May, 2002) although many ofthese referred to methodologies
and policies rather than technologies.
Any strategy designed to achieve greater uptake must therefore take into account not
only the future mechanisms that might be applied to improve uptake but also those
technologies "on the shelf' that resulted from earlier research efforts. Put another
way, the outputs ofprevious research that may have been technology or supply driven
should not be ignored even though the future research programme is to be more
demand or client driven.
Before moving on to the changes that might foster and promote better uptake it is
necessary to consider the overall Strategy for ASARECA, namely the 1997 Strategic
Plan that was developed by a working group commissioned by the CD. The Plan was
a major piece of work considered by many at the time to be far sighted and making a
major contribution to the establishment and acceptance of ASARECA. The stated
strategic goals, objectives and mission were as follows:
Strategic Goal
The primary goal is to enable agricultural research in the ECA
sub-region to playa leading role in promoting market/income
generation orientated agriculture.
The secondary goal is for ASARECA to serve as the main
forum where strategies and ideas for agricultural research and
their relationship to agricultural developments in the sub￾region are conceived and exchanged.
29
Strategic Objective
Promote regional economic growth by developing,
introducing and disseminating agricultural technologies which
both create markets and respond to prevailing and future
economic opportunities for new technologies as well as
maintaining the long-term sustainability of the agricultural
resource base.
Mission
To strengthen and increase the efficiency of agricultural
research in the ECA sub-region and to facilitate the
achievement of economic growth, food security and export
competitiveness through productive and sustainable agriculture
The future strategy was intended to cover a ten-year period up to 2007 in three phases.
The first phase would be devoted to reviewing and revising existing regional research
programmes, the second would concentrate on generating market driven technologies
and the final phase will represent a shift in emphasis to dissemination and the
refinement of the technologies produced. Under this proposal by 2002 the emphasis
should be shifting towards dissemination that is very much in ine with the present
study and the need to place greater emphasis on uptake. However, since the Strategic
Plan was developed in 1997 much has changed within ASARECA, in the region and
in the donor community. For example, it is debatable whether the market orientation
that was given great prominence in the Plan has in fact been achieved over the past
five years. Some NPPs have made progress in this direction but comments from
several NPP Coordinators suggested that this goal has been diluted and the regional
remit of ASARECA has been neglected with the pressure being directed downwards
in support ofthe NARIs. More recently, through several meetings, emphasis has been
placed on impact orientation rather than market orientation. In short, there has been
considerable progress since 1997 but not necessarily in line with the priorities set by
the Plan possibly because priorities have changed in the meantime.
At the CD meeting in Mombasa in February 2001 there was a recommendation that
priority setting should be carried out on a regular and systematic basis and strategic
planning for the overall ASARECA portfolio should be conducted every five years.
This argues for a review or revision ofthe 1997 Strategic Plan at the present time but
during the recent NPP meeting in Nairobi a Consolidated Conceptual Framework for
ASARECA was agreed. This framework, which is presented in Appendix 6, is seen as
30
a major step forward in terms ofstrategic planning. The three pillars ofthe framework
are:
Demand driven technologies utilized;
Enabling Policy Environment for Agricultural Transformation in ECA
established;
Performance driven institutional arrangements in place.
The first pillar refers to technology generation and dissemination as well as an
understanding ofthe market place; the aims are directly related to the wish to improve
uptake and impact (the third pillar being directly relevant to the objectives of PART C
of this report). However, while this framework is an important step it does not
consider what actions are needed to achieve these objectives. Hopefully this document
will make a significant contribution to a strategy for improved uptake but it is not an
overall strategy for ASARECA. Bearing in mind the new Conceptual Framework it is
a recommendation of this report that ASARECA should consider a review or
revision ofthe 1997 Strategic Plan to take account ofthe changed circumstances since
1997. As inferred by the CD meeting in Mombasa there is a need to reconsider the
priority activities of ASARECA.
B.4.1 Stakeholders Symposium, September 2002.
The Symposium was held in Nairobi and the first session included a presentation of
the experiences of TIP and the conclusions of the study that is the subject of this
report. This was followed by presentations on individual projects funded by TIP
during the two phases. The proceedings were organised by a facilitator and the
conclusions reached by various working groups were presented in Plenary session
with a final session that considered the way forward for technology transfer or
research uptake within ASARECA.
The proceedings will be published but there were a number ofissues directly relevant
to this report which are summarised here. Many examples were presented of
successful technology transfer and there were clear indications of the increasing use
of multidisciplinary approaches and the value of partners to provide the skills and
expertise not available within the scientific community. It was also apparent that the
neglected areas to date have been marketing and understanding of the market place
along with a very limited involvement of the private sector. From the presentations it
was also clear that different technologies require different transfer approaches
and there are multiple uptake pathways depending upon the subject and nature
of the research.
The issues arising from the meeting of relevance to the future impact of ASARECA
and this report can be summarised as follows:
• Greater attention should be paid to marketing and market issues;
• Attempts should be made to increase the involvement ofthe private sector;
• Horizontal linkages and coordination should be strengthened;
• It is more productive to work with farming communities than with individual
farmers;
• There is a need for training in transfer/uptake skills;
31
• Greater effort is required at the project planning stage in order to foster greater
uptake and impact;
• Mechanisms are needed to fund those projects that are showing promise at the
time the initial research funding ends (ie sustainable or continuity funding).
The importance ofthese conclusions and their relevance to the review of ASARECA
are considered below. In effect more effort is needed on the uptake of research in
order to achieve impact and this must be the responsibility of ASARECA as a
whole including the Secretariat and all of the operational Networks rather than
just a project such as TTP.
Having examined the general strategic background and determined the objectives of a
strategy to improve uptake it is appropriate to examine the tools at the disposal of
ASARECA that can contribute to achieving greater impact within five years.
B 4.2 Management by the Secretariat and NPP Coordinators
As indicated earlier the ASARECA portfolio has shifted towards market orientation
and the increased allocation of resources for application and uptake activities but the
process has been slow and very variable across NPPs. The proposed strategy for
improved uptake relies heavily upon the NPP Coordinators and the members of the
Secretariat (especially MEAPU) to ensure that the new policy emerging from the
Conceptual Framework and the work on impact orientation is applied across all NPPs.
However, the ability to introduce and manage the changes needed is directly related to
the review of ASARECA that is the subject of PART C of this report. For example,
the following changes considered in PART C, which are directly related to improved
efficiency and effectiveness, have a direct bearing upon the drive to improve uptake
and impact:
Greater delegated authority for the Executive Secretary and the Secretariat;
The allocation of additional resources;
NPP Coordinators being directly accountable to the Secretariat;
Extended participation by stakeholders at both CD level and NPP level
(including the private sector and regional trade interests);
Improved horizontal linkages between Networks;
The rationalization of Networks to improve linkages and coordination
(including linkages to the CG system);
The adoption ofperformance driven approaches;
The constituent NARIs of ASARECA also need to place greater emphasis on
uptake.
Thus the best tool available to ASARECA to improve uptake and impact is the
application of better management practices by the Secretariat, especially MEAPU.
The conclusions ofthis part of the report should therefore be considered in the light of
the proposed improvements in efficiency and effectiveness that are presented in the
following review ofthe organisation (PART C).
32
B 4.3 Competitive Grants Scheme (CGS)
During the preparation of the RSP the inclusion ofsubstantial funding to be allocated
on a competitive basis was seen as a mechanism to promote change. Now that the
RSP is operational this mechanism can be implemented as a very useful tool to
stimulate change including the promotion of uptake and impact. It is strongly
recommended that the guidance notes and evaluation criteria to be applied to projects
submitted for funding be tailored towards achieving ASARECA policy objectives
especially the move towards greater uptake and impact.
In practice the RSP includes funding for a consultancy to design the operational
procedures and this exercise is scheduled to take place during the first year of the
Programme. This exercise will be heavily influenced by the considerable work
already carried out under USAID funding (ie. guidelines and a manual already exist)
and the EU consultancy should concentrate on tailoring the documents already
produced. The latter include a proposed marking system for the assessment of concept
notes which seek funding; at present these marks do not give sufficient weight to
uptake mechanisms.
The evaluation criteria should be substantially amended to give greater emphasis
to uptake mechanisms and appropriate partnerships being in place from the
outset. This action will send a powerful signal to all applicants that uptake and
impact are critical performance indicators that are important to the future well￾being of research in the region.
B 4.4 Project Support
A further tool available to promote uptake of research outputs is the use of donor
funding including the € 420,000 allocated for TIP in RSP and other potential donors
including USAID/REDSO. The TOR for this study include making recommendations
on the most effective means of using the EU funds and to consider the necessity,
feasibility and description of a five year USAID funded project in support of uptake
(or the TI function). This requirement is considered in the following section.
B 5 External Support to Promote Uptake ofResearch
B 5.1 Background
A number of options including those presented in the Muturi report (see section B.3
above) were explored with the objective of promoting improved uptake throughout
ASARECA including the prospects for a third phase of TIP. A number of guiding
principles were applied as an aid to determining the support that might be most
effective; these were:
Project support has to be considered in the context of the organisational
changes proposed as a result ofthe study (see PART C);
33
The "new thinking" referred to in PART A has to be incorporated and it
should not be necessary to design a new project solely to investigate
successful processes and methodologies;
While the main objective is to introduce a new approach to uptake and impact
technologies developed to date should not be ignored (so called "on the
shelf');
The need to foster partnerships as a means ofsecuring the skills and expertise
needed to support successful uptake should feature strongly;
Technical expertise and funding should be directly accessible to NPPs with a
minimum ofbureaucracy;
The conditions applied to the TIP funding allocated within RSP;
The need to allocate more resources to uptake pathways as opposed to the
generation of new technologies.
B 5.2 Conceptual Approach
Bearing in mind the views expressed by NPP Coordinators, members of the
Secretariat and the conclusions of the TIP Stakeholders Symposium it is a
recommendation of the review that ASARECA should pay greater attention to the
uptake ofresearch outputs as a means ofimproving impact. The most effective way to
promote uptake mechanisms is debatable but all Networks should devote greater
effort to this activity and support should be provided by the Secretariat. In effect the
greater effort on planning to achieve impact and the monitoring of performance to
achieve impact are functions of MEAPU within the Secretariat. However, all
Networks must pay greater attention to uptake mechanisms and an expanded role for
the Secretariat, apart from increased planning, could be a facilitating and coordinating
role designed to foster uptake and impact. It is difficult to see how this added role
could be carried out with the existing resources and, in this sense the uptake function
should be considered in the light of the overall review of ASARECA and the
Secretariat.
Promotion ofthe uptake function should be made a responsibility of the Secretariat in
view of the growing importance to demonstrate impact but the means of achieving
this objective are open to question. Options include the continuation of TIP, the
development of a new project specifically to promote uptake and partnerships and the
provision of additional resources within the Secretariat to enable execution of this
additional function. Continuation ofTIP has been ruled out under the present funding
arrangements but funding for this activity is included in the EUIRSP project. In order
to achieve success it would be desirable to have a full-time Facilitator in the
Secretariat who would drive and own the process; such an individual would require
skills and expertise outside ofthe normal scientific expertise involved in ASARECA.
In addition it would be very beneficial, within the available funding, if this Facilitator
could assist NPPs for activities directly associated with uptake. The latter could
include any of the constraints identified in the gap analysis carried out at the Nairobi
meeting including the identification of suitable partners, marketing studies,
dissemination activities, use of the media (eg. the use of local radio), the acquisition
of new skills and expertise, links to the private sector, promotion events, the
identification ofsources offinance etc. In fact any activity that can be demonstrated to
foster greater uptake would be considered for support with the Facilitator having the
34
responsibility for deciding which proposals to fund (the Facilitator would have to
meet laid down performance criteria and he/she would need to have appropriate skills
and experience). It is relevant to note here that the inputs needed to foster uptake go
well beyond the activities taking place within FOODNET although clearly there are
important linkages and lessons.
The Facilitator would be responsible to the Executive Secretary. He/she would work
with the Networks and advise on uptake mechanisms, the identification of suitable
partners etc. and manage any available funds for which all NPPs can apply. Success
would be dependant upon the personality and experience of the Facilitator and the
changes proposed in the review of ASARECA (PART C). The latter are intended to
foster greater interaction and feed-back between the Secretariat and the NPP
Coordinators.
Subject to agreement by ASARECA, and conformity with the EU procedures under
development by the RSU (ie. the preparation of a work plan), the new facility coull
start in the near future based upon the TIP funding within RSP. The€ 420,000 would
be used to launch this new facility including the recruitment of a Facilitator and
provide some opemtional funds. However, this level of funding would be insufficient
to achieve the desired impact in terms of research uptake and additional funding
should be sought. The ECIRSP funding could be considered as bridging or seed
finance to initiate the facility but further donor funding will be needed to achieve
significant impact. The outline ofthe proposed facility and the use ofthe EC funding
is considered further in Appendix 7.
This concept is recommended to ASARECA as a means of improving the uptake of
research outputs. The proposed title of the new activity is Promotion of Research
Uptake (PRU).
This new facility will have a close affinity to RAIN that will also be based in the
Secretariat. Both projects are involved in the dissemination ofinformation and there is
merit in an early discussion to consider close cooperation between the two projects. In
the context of the rationalization of the Networks these two projects might be
combined in the future.
B.6 Conclusions
The proposed strategy and mechanisms for promoting the uptake of research outputs
as outlined in the report should provide a sound basis for the five-year work plan on
technology transfer referred to in the TOR. Acceptance of the proposals by
ASARECA should enable the organisation to become more effective and achieve the
impact that everyone involved desires.
35
PART C REVIEW OF ASARECA
36
PART C Review of ASARECA
C. 1 Introduction
PART A ofthe report dealt with the lessons learned from a review of current literature
and meetings with research managers, donor representatives etc. PART B of the
report deals with a strategy for the uptake of research and impact (or technology
transfer) and this part deals with the remainder of the TOR, namely a review of the
functions, mandate and organizational structure ofASARECA ( TOR at Appendix 1).
To set the scene for this review it is appropriate to summarise the sources of
information upon which the review is based and the "messages" derived from earlier
sections ofthe report (PARTS A and B) that have a direct bearing upon the functions,
mandate and organization of ASARECA. The sources of information included the
following:
• Interviews with members of the Secretariat, NPP Coordinators, CD members,
representatives ofCG Centres etc.
• Discussion and visits with donors and various research managers.
• Analysis of the record of various meetings held by ASARECA (eg. NPP
meetings - see Appendix 3).
• Selected minutes ofCD meetings held since 1998.
• Discussion with the consultant carrying out the PIVA on ASARECA.
Much of the earlier content of the report is very relevant to the review, especially the
views of certain donors and the shifts in emphasis occurring in the conduct of
agricultural research. The main points ofrelevance are summarised below:
• The "new thinking" about agricultural research and the growing pressure from
governments and donors to demonstrate impact;
• The need to improve representation and participation by stakeholders (eg.
Civil society and the private sector);
• The need for a more holistic and systems approach if uptake and impact are to
be improved, this will involve new partnerships and skills beyond the
scientific community;
• ASARECA is an Association ofNARI Directors but is perceived externally as
a regional institution;
• Because of its success and expansion (eg. the EU/RSP) the Secretariat has
increasing difficulty in servicing the demands placed upon it with the current
structure and resources available.
The TOR refer to the need to review the Memorandum of Agreement, the
Constitution and the Bye-laws of ASARECA but following a discussion with the
Executive Secretary it was agreed that the review would concentrate on the changes
needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ASARECA. Where these
changes had implications for the Memorandum of Agreement, Constitution etc. they
would be addressed and suggested changes would be presented as an Addendum to
the report (Appendix 8). An examination of the minutes of CD meetings was very
valuable in revealing the significant amendments that had been made to the Bye-laws
37
since 1998. The author was provided with a copy ofthe Memorandum of Agreement,
Constitution and Bye-laws that supposedly included all changes made up to August
2001. However, it soon became apparent that this is not the ClEe and changes
approved by the CD have not yet been incorporated into Constitution or the BYG-Iaws.
It is also relevant that a review ofthe Constitution was proposed at the tenth meeting
ofthe CD in 1998.
One further point is worthy of emphasis. Appreciation of the need for change is not
new in ASARECA. Most, if not all, of the various NPP and CD meetings have
considered possible changes as a means of improving efficiency and effectiveness
although these may not have been the terms used. This review has sought to assemble
the issues considered by various internal meetings and added others derived from
external sources and presented them collectively for consideration by the Secretariat
and the CD.
C 2. Challenges facing ASARECA
The need for change should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat and many of
the issues and challenges facing ASARECA stem from the success of the association
over recent years, especially the success in attracting donor funding and the
consequences in terms of resources, facilities etc. The need for change and the
challenges facing ASARECA, as perceived by the review, are presented below:
I. The "new thinking" about development and the contribution of agriculture.
This includes the continuum from research to impact, the need for a more
holistic approach (holism- the theory that certain wholes are greater than the
sum of their parts), the greater role of civil society and the private sector and
the frustration of donors in terms of limited impact. A related aspect is the
growing importance of enterprise development and trade issues by donors as a
means of achieving development goals such as economic growth and poverty
reduction.
2. Physical factors such as drought and the need to protect the environment and
manage the natural resources more effectively are imposing additional burdens
on the research community. Climate change and the likely effects upon the
region are also of growing concern.
3. The ability of science to deliver the needs of society. On the one hand new
topics such as biotechnology offer considerable promise but on the other hand
society is becoming more demanding and suspicious (eg. the debate over
genetically modified crops).
4. Political changes in the region such as the EAC and COMESA could have
beneficial effects but the decline in Government funding for research and
especially extension are having serious consequences. For example, in marked
contrast to the past many of the extension services in the region are
dysfunctional while others are still receiving considerable government support.
This situation argues in favour of the transition from a research association to
an organization involved in R4D (as discussed at the recent meeting in
Nairobi)
38
5. The views expressed by Coordinators, members of CG institutions and staff
within the Secretariat were revealing. NPP Coordinators expressed frustration
at the lack of any feed-back on reports, too many meetings, lack of clarity on
respective roles and responsibilities and the subjugation of the regional role of
ASARECA compared to national interests. Views and opinions emerging from
within the Secretariat included frustration at the lack of authority, inadequate
resources to complete effectively the assigned tasks, lack of clarity concerning
respective roles and a serious lack of administrative capacity.
6. ASARECA according to the constitution is an Association (definition - an
organized body of persons) but it is widely perceived (both internally and
externally) as an institution (definition - established law, custom or practice of
persons). Formally the Secretariat includes two posts (Executive Secretary and
Finance Officer) but in pmctice more than 20 people occupy three buildings in
Entebbe. In addition, ASARECA is acting as an implementing agency for
substantial funds provided by a range of donors. In effect the Constitution no
longer represents the actual situation and ASARECA is accepted as a legal
entity by bodies such as FARA and the African Union (formerly the OAU);
one of the criteria for defining an institution. Documentation concerning the
legal status of ASARECA includes the MOU with the Scientific, Technical
and Research Commission ofthe OAU (paper CD/0l/17.4) and the Trust Deed
that registers ASARECA as an NGO in Uganda and allows the organisation to
enter into contracts and agreements in its own right (CD 00/14/5).
7. In addition to the review under report there are other exercises underway all of
which have organizational implications. These are the Institutional Viability
Assessment (IVA) study by USAID, the ISNAR study on NARS and the
IFPRI work on Impact Assessment. The outcome of these exercises need to be
coordinated in terms of the CD Retreat but more importantly the implications
for ASARECA as an organization need to be considered collectively.
8. Other challenges are associated with global and regional political issues
including globalization, follow-up to the World Summit in Johannesburg, the
progress ofNEPAD and FARA and the developing collabomtive arrangements
with the CG system.
9. Above all is the need for ASARECA to deliver (ie. demonstrate impact)
following the very successful period of attracting donor support
Arising from the arguments presented above the review must address some of the
guiding principles of ASARECA that form part of the Constitution and have been
reconfirmed on several subsequent occasions. These principles must be re-assessed if
ASARECA is to respond to the issues presented above and become more efficient and
effective. The principles referred to are:
• For the association to be "lean and mean";
• Decentralised management is effective;
• The core business is technology generation.
39
During the early years of ASARECA the "lean and mean" argument was very sound
but problems have arisen with every step of expansion and growth. The princple
cannot be challenged but a redefinition would be more appropriate in the current
situation; there is a need for the organisation to be efficient but it is also important that
the resources are provided to carry out the tasks assigned in an effective manner. In
other words the role and responsibilities of the Secretariat should determine the level
of physical and human resources required. In recent years various financial devices
have been used to cover the cost ofthe expansion and at present the source of finance
for personnel, vehicles, rent, drivers, gardeners etc is complicated to say the least.
This is not to trivialise the importance of containing operational costs or the
importance of longer-term financial sustainability (a major issue) but in terms of
effective management the current structure, roles and relationships leave much to be
desired. A conclusion ofthis review is that efficiency and effectiveness would benefit
from the recognition that ASARECA is an established institution and should be
structured and staffed in line with the responsibilities being placed upon it. In terms of
core financing and long-term sustainability, attention should be paid to securing donor
and other funding (such as the EU endowment fund) and expanding the principe of
generating income from the provision of services (including services provided to the
Networks). Because ofthe high standing of ASARECA, donor funding in the short to
medium term should be assured, and a strategy for long-term sustainability should be
pursued vigorously.
Decentralised management is related to the lean and mean concept but as the review
has concluded the relationship between the Networks and the Secretariat is neither
efficient nor effective. Athough NPPs submit reports on a regular basis they all,
without exception, referred to the lack of any feed-back from the Secretariat or the
CD, either on policy issues or reported progress. In similar vein MEAPU has made
progress with selected NPPs but only on the basis of goodwill and they believe the
application of policy would be far more effective with a degree of authority over the
Networks. Most telling of all is the fact that with the implementation of the EU/RSP
the number of Networks will increase to 19, this will dramatically expand the calls
upon the Secretariat (including ECAPAPA). In effect ASARECA has a distinct
responsibility to manage the government and donor funds being used for agricultural
research and this responsibility increased substantially with the implementation of
EU/RSP (which in practice turns ASARECA into an implementing agency). In
summary accountability ofthe Networks to the Secretariat is an important issue that is
now being addressed (see section C.3.3).
In terms of the conclusions of the review the statement that the core business of
ASARECA is technology generation is too limiting. The new thinking about
development and the need for more holistic and systematic approaches argues
strongly for ASARECA to address the research to impact continuum if it is to secure
donor funding in the future. This is also compatible with the debate in Nairobi about
R4D and the whole ofthe discussion surrounding IT/uptake in this report (PART B).
The uptake of research outputs and achieving impact is dependant upon ASARECA
devoting more attention and resources to the application of research, promotion of
uptake and the development of the partnerships needed to provide the skills and
expertise required to ensure successful uptake.
40
C 3 Possible changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness
Section A.4 of PART A summarised the implications for ASARECA of the literature
review and meetings with donors and other organizations. Additional issues have been
raised in the preceding section when considering the challenges faced by ASARECA
This section will examine these issues and make recommendations about changes in
the methods of operation in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
ASARECA.
C.3.1 Stakeholder participation
At the foundation of ASARECA it was recognized tmt the Association of NARl
Directors did not effectively represent the NARS in the ten countries and for this
reason the eleventh member of the CD was introduced as a Dean of Agriculture from
the region. Other institutions and the private sector are not adequately represented and
this arrangement needs to be considered further and means found to involve NARS in
a more meaningful way.
The 1997 Strategic Plan and all subsequent ASARECA meetings have supported the
argument for greater representation at both the CD and NPP levels. This view has
certainly been supported strongly by the findings of the current review and it is
recommended that changes be considered that will extend stakeholder participation.
At the NPP level considerable progress has been made and many Steering
Committees already include a broad spread of interests but some could go further
especially in terms of participation by trade and private sector interests (the latter is
difficult but has been achieved in some cases and is almost mandatory for research
managers in some countries). However, there is a need to consider client
representation at the CD level as a means of stimulating uptake and impact
orientation. This could also be used as a mechanism for promoting the regional role of
research in relation to trade (a subject of growing importance to both governments and
donors). For example, the inclusion of a representative from the East African
Community (EAC) or COMESA could have considerable benefit.
The aims and objectives of COMESA are to facilitate the removal of structural and
institutional weaknesses ofmember states so that they are able to attain collective and
sustained development. In practice the important aspects are the free movement of
goods and tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. One ofthe complications is that there is
no common membership between the various regional bodies, for example
ASARECA has to members, the EAC has 3, COMESA has 20 and IGAD has 7.
It is recommended that the CD changes its name to Board of Direct<rs, which is
more in tune with modem thinking and the external perceptions of ASARECA, and
establish an Advisory Body to include representatives of NARS, NGOs, regional
trade, the private sector and donors. This body could be loose and flexible rather that
fixed and cater for co-opting specific individuals as required although it is envisaged
that permanent representatives could include COMESA, the EAC, IGAD the EU and
USAID. Article 29 of the Bylaws indicates that - "The ASARECA Advisory
Committee shall be formed in accordance with article 18 of the Constitution of the
Association. It shall be a consulting organ for medium and long-term planning". It is
41
understood that this Advisory Committee was not fonned but it is catered for in the
Constitution.
This change would not affect the authority ofthe CD nor dilute the importance ofthe
national institutes but would respond to external pressures and improve the
effectiveness of ASARECA as an organization.
C.3.2 Delegation of authority
Closely related to the argument above in favour of greater stakeholder participation is
the case for increasing the delegated authority ofthe Executive Secretary. Ifthe CD is
to act as a Board of Directors that detennines policy then the Executive Secretary
should be given greater responsibility for implementation of the work programme. It
is recommended that this delegation of authority be agreed by the CD since it is a
logical step and is a direct response to the comments received during the review that
NPPs never receive any feed-back from the CD. In future the Executive Secretary
would have a management responsibility and with the other staff, such as MEAPU,
would be seen to have the authority to make management decisions that will improve
efficiency and effectiveness.
From the various meetings of ASARECA (that are summarised in Appendix 3) a
range of policy decisions have been agreed but implementation has been relatively
poor. The announcement of the changed role of the Executive Secretary could have a
significant impact upon effectiveness since there will be a mechanism for applying
policy with inbuilt penalties and means of assessing perfonnance. Such an
announcement would also confinn the management role of the Secretariat, as already
perceived by many, and indicate that the constitution of the association is no longer
valid and should be amended.
The Executive Secretary is the Regional Authorizing Officer (RAO) for the RSP and
this will add to his duties. Working with the RSU team there is the need to respond to
the perfonnance indicators of the project (objectively identifiable indicators - or
OVIs) as indicated in the logical framework. Each of the twelve results identified
under the Programme have OVIs many ofwhich relate to improved uptake and impact
and are therefore compatible with the recommendations ofthis report.
C.3.3 Reporting!Accountability ofthe Networks
During one interview the comment was made that the Networks act as free agents and
more accountability is needed. This is an exaggeration but accountability is an
important issue and the relationship between the Networks, the Steering Committees
and the Secretariat are the cause of much tension especially in tenns of the balance
between building strong regional programmes on the one hand and the pressures to fill
the gaps in national funding on the other. The Coordinators report to ASARECA, their
own Steering Committees, the principal donor and to the IARC where they are based.
The new NPPs to be funded under the EUIRSP will be covered by agreements bat
make them accountable to the Secretariat. It is recommended that all NPPs should be
accountable to the Secretariat by instituting similar agreements to those prepared by
42
the RSU for the new Networks. NPPs such as ECAPAPA, RAIN and TIP are already
associated with the Secretariat and it is understood that the USAIDIREDSO funded
Networks (PRAPACE, ECABREN, EARRNET and FOODNET) will be made
accountable to the Secretariat by October 2003. This accountability will reinforce the
management role of the Secretariat and provide the authority needed to improve
effectiveness in terms of planning and performance indicators as desired by the
Secretariat. Having a uniform accountability regime across the Networks would also
foster the reporting arrangements in terms of uniformity as proposed at several
meetings ofASARECA.
The proposed changes would also place the responsibility upon the Secretariat to
respond! comment on the annual reports submitted by NPPs to which the latter
complain that there is never any feed-back. Comments by the Secretariat in their role
as managers would contribute to improved effectiveness especially if they were
critical in cases where uptake and impact issue have been neglected. It is also a
suggestion of the review that NPPs in the future be asked to submit quarterly or even
monthly progress reports. This is standard practice for most research managers many
of which are responsible for far less funding than NPP Coordinators. Such reports can
be limited to a single page but they force research managers to concentrate on their
objectives and the extent to which their objectives are being met.
C.3.4 Rationalization ofNetworks
One of the consequences of the rapid growth of ASARECA is the proliferation of
Networks many of which are commodity rather than system based. Possibly the
greatest consensus of views received during the review was the need to rationalize the
number of Networks; this point was made by all stakeholders but probably most
strongly by donors since the 19 Networks are perceived as being far too many for an
effective operation. More importantly, MEAPU indicated that they currently work
with a selection of existing Networks but when all 19 become operational the task will
be impossible. The need to reduce the number of Networks and increasing demands
upon the Secretariat were recognized in the 1997 Strategic Plan but no action has been
taken and the problem has increased. Furthermore, the problem is not limited to the
number of Networks; consideration should also be directed towards governance,
linkages and the opportunities for efficiency gains.
Another very common view expressed was that there are far too many meetings
involving Coordinators and the number can only increase when the EU/RSP funded
Networks become operational. Leaving aside the cost in valuable time for all of the
meetings the transaction costs are enormous and represent an ineffective mode of
operation. The greater use of electronic communication is needed to improve
efficiency.
But how to reduce the number ofNetworks? Firstly it can be argued that there is little
evidence that the increasing number of Networks leads to reduced efficiency or
effectiveness but this is a common perception and careful monitoring would be
advisable. Advocates of a reduced number suggest a maximum of ten Networks but
can provide little advice on how to proceed with what would be a complex exercise.
43
Various approaches (eg. clustering) have been considered based upon geographic or
technical criteria but little action has taken place. The Networks such as
AHI and FOODNET have made progress in tenns oflinkages between Networks and
the introduction of new partners but most of the commodity Networks have made
slower progress (all Coordinators referred to the need to improve horizontal linkages
between Networks). Radical or revolutionary changes are unlikely to succeed and
evolutionary mechanisms are needed to merge or combine Networks over a period of
time. For example, a radical solution would be to merge the two cereals based
Networks (ECAMAWand ECARSAM) with one Coordinator and one Steering
Committee but with separate programme leaders. An even more radical option would
be to combine the grains Networks, namely, ECAMAW, ECARSAM, ECABREN
and ECSARRN. Another option would be to fonn a "super commodity" Network
combining several NPPs. These changes could reduce transaction costs, reduce the
number of meetings and improve linkages but they are impractical and unacceptable
on technical grounds at least in the short tenn. However, it is recommended that
infonnal working groups be set up involving Coordinators and a representative from
the Secretariat to explore means of closer cooperation, avoidance of duplication and
improved linkages with a view to much better integration of activities in the future.
Alternatively, a separate study could be commissioned to examine the options for
rationalization. In the light ofthe views accumulated during this review doing nothing
should not be considered as an option.
Another vital area where integration is essential for success is crop/livestock
interactions. A-AARNET is already operational but with the EU/RSP funding about
to commence there are considerable opportunities for linkages to other Networks.
This opportunity must not be squandered and it is recommended that a working group
be set up immediately to ensure that project proposals are geared towards a systematic
approach (this could include learning from UTA experience in West Africa where the
Ecoregional Program for the Humid and Sub-humid Tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa￾EPHTA- is researching a variety of agricultural production systems).
Rationalization ofthe Networks will be difficult but is essential for effective working.
When all nineteen NPPs are fully operational the efficimcy and effectiveness
arguments presented in the report will be magnified substantially. For example, the
Secretariat has been stretched working with the existing Networks and will be unable
to work effectively with all of the new Networks. Potential solutions include the
following:
• greater priority setting for the Secretariat,
• the allocation of additional resources and;
• some movement towards clustering ofthe Networks.
In the opinion of the author all three will be necessary and it is a recommendation
that all three approaches need exploration in order to improve efficiency and
effectiveness. It is recommended that the Executive Secretary convene a working
group which, over the course of the coming year, will make recommendations on
reducing the number ofNetworks to a more manageable arrangement.
44
C.3.5 Linkages and Partnerships
Improved linkages and the greater use of partnerships can make a substantial
contribution to improved efficiency and effectiveness. The argument was made in
PART A of the report and the main aim - the promotion of research uptake and
impact - was argued in PART B. A strategy for improved uptake was presented in
PART B and the tools to be employed to improve effectiveness were stated to be, the
role ofthe Secretariat, the use ofthe CGS and a new facility within the Secretariat (to
receive EU and hopefully other donor funding) called the Promotion of Research
Uptake (PRU).
C 3.6 Clarity on roles and responsibilities
As indicated in the first chapter of the report (PART A) many comments were
received by the consultant about the uncertainty of the respective roles of various
stakeholders including members of the Secretariat and the associated Networks. It is
recommended that a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities could, of itself,
contribute towards greater efficiency and effectiveness. At present the Constitution
and Bye-laws of ASARECA refer to the functions of the CD and Secretariat and
provide a brief description of the duties of the Executive Secretary and the Finance
Officer. There is "also reference to Task Forces and Task Force Leaders with a list of
responsibilities (it is assumed that this refers to what are now called Network
Coordinators). There is no reference to the functions and responsibilities of any ofthe
other personnel now associated with the Secretariat. In the case of MEAPU the
individual officers have job descriptions but the unit does not.
It is recommended that the functions of each group be revised in the light of the
changes proposed in this report (including the revised mandate and structure
considered below) and function statements for each group are suggested in Appendix
8. Should this recommendation be accepted by the CD there is a strong case for a
revision and update ofthe Constitution and Bye-laws ofthe Association (Appendix 8
also refers to other changes and amendments, some arising from the review, that
should be incorporated into the Memorandum of Agreement, the Constitution or the
Bye-laws if a revision is authorised by the CD).
C 4 Institutional Reform Issues
C 4.1 The Evolution of ASARECA
The Foreword to the 1997 Strategic Plan states that" the establishment ofASARECA
was a direct result ofthe persistent desire ofthe NARIs (and indeed the wider NARS)
in the region to collaborate in agricultural research in order to foster effectiveness,
efficiency, responsiveness, complementarity and economies of scale and scope, as
well as to strengthen each other". ASARECA has made substantial progress but the
need to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the main aim of this review, is more
important than ever.
The considerable success of ASARECA is due in no small part to the Constitution
that allowed freedom of action and avoidance of the political and bureaucratic
45
problems that befell similar organizations elsewhere in Africa. However, it was also
argued earlier in the report (PART A) that ASARECA is now perceived as an
institution both internally and externally and changes are needed to ensure future
success through achieving uptake and impact. Improved efficiency and effectiveness,
the subject of this review, are essential if further success is to be achieved in the
current environment.
The evolution of ASARECA as an organization is an essential part of this review but
two other current exercises are also very relevant. The first is the Institutional
Viability Index (IVA) being conducted on behalf of USAID and the second is the
study of NARS being carried out by ISNAR. It is inappropriate at this moment to
comment but a few general observations will serve to illustrate the importance of
linking the recommendations of the three exercises. These observations are based
upon the findings of the other two exercises as understood by the consultant at the
time ofwriting.
The IVA index is a snapshot of an organization at a given moment and the analysis
attempts to place the organization in one of four categories; start-up, developing,
consolidating and mature. The analysis is based upon an assessment of institutional
competencies in the areas of governance, operations and management, human
resource development, financial resources, service delivery and external relations and
advocacy. All organizations evolve differently but a simplistIc conclusion for
ASARECA is that it would be classed as a developing organization - quote "
characterized by rapid growth, high energy and much activity. Much time spent
developing the delivery side of the organization and usually lagging behind in
administrative functions. High level of learning necessitated by rapid growth". The
consolidation phase is when the lessons of the development phase are incorporated
into the organization and emphasis is placed on operations and management,
governance, HRD and external relations.
Consequently the development of ASARECA as an organization, as assessed by the
IVA tool, supports the argument for change and addressing issues such as governance,
mode of operation etc.
A quote from the ISNAR proposal- Restructuring Africa's NARS: A Critical Review
of Key issues and Recent Experience - which was submitted to the Rockefeller
Foundation in May 2002, is very relevant to the argument in favour of ASARECA
adopting a series of changes at the present time.
" The demand for agricultural research is changing because society and, above all the
agricultural sector, are changing. Urbanization, resource degradation, market
liberalization and several other factors are increasing demand for better management
of natural resources and for technologies that permit producers to have greateraccess
to growing consumer markets. New, powerful research technologies are becoming
more widely available, bringing with them fresh opportunities and challenges in
research policy and management. Traditional frontiers between disciplines are
becoming less clear. Accepted sectoral divisions are declining in validity. Public
sectors continue to dominate NARS in Africa, but with declining abilities to deliver
the desired impacts. Efforts to reorganize, rejuvenate, and rationalize these sectors,
and especially their roles vis-a-vis private sectors, carry through to NARS".
46
It is understood that this review has analysed changes that have taken place by epoch
since the 1970s and a summary of the overall conclusions is that scientists were too
concerned with status during the 80s and early 90s and they were less interested in
their clients and market orientated research. Under pressure from governments and
donors changes have been introduced but the pressures are growing, especially from
donors, to the extent that changes are being imposed (eg. Uganda and the Ivory
Coast). It may be preferable for research organizations to manage change from within
and respond to the external pressures in a positive way.
The purpose of referring to the parallel exercises currently taking place is to
emphasize that changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness are not only desirable
but essential. Furthermore, the overall conclusions of the three exercises point to the
need for ASARECA to re-examine its mandate, structure and mode of operation. It is
important that the CD consider the implications of all three studies in terms of
changes in the mode of operation ofASARECA.
C 4.2 The Mandate ofASARECA
The Memorandum of Agreement refers to the mandates of the CD, Secretariat and
Task Forces; there is also reference to a Conference of Ministers that will provide
overall guidance to, and legal authority and a political umbrella for the CD. It is
understood that this body has not been convened to date and, as indicated elsewhere
the avoidance of political complications is one of the reasons for the success of
ASARECA. On the other hand the growing importance and recognition of
ASARECA as a regional body would support the case for a closer dialogue with
Ministers especially considering issues of regional and international trade. It is
suggested that in the light ofthe changes proposed by this (and other) reviews and the
broader remit inferred by the Consolidated Conceptual Framework, the CD should
consider possible mechanisms for increasing the contact with national governments
(at PS or Ministerial level) and regional bodies such as the EAC and COMESA.
The Constitution refers to the goals ofthe Association as follows:
• Developing and implementing a regional strategy for research in the fields of
food, agriculture and natural resource management;
• Providing an enabling environment including a policy for agricultural
research;
• Recognizing and responding to the socio-economic needs of end-users, and
• Promoting initiatives to access funds for agricultural research on a sustainable
basis.
These goals (and statements elsewhere in the Constitution and Bye-laws) need to be
reconciled with the Consolidated Conceptual Framework that was discussed and
agreed at the NPP Meeting in Nairobi in May 2002 (see Appendix 6). The central aim
is to achieve impact and the three strands ofthe Framework indicate an expanded role
for ASARECA especially the reference to R&D as opposed to research. At the
meeting there was considerable discussion about ASARECA becoming an R4D
organization in view of the disintegration of the extension services in some member
47
countries. In the context of this review the increased emphasis on uptake and impact.
and the activities ofNPPs such as FOODNET. support the case for movng away from
activities solely concerned with research and the generation of knowledge. Such a
fundamental change in the mandate of ASARECA could have serious political
implications in the member countries but in terms of skills and the need to promote
uptake this change could have considerable benefits. It is recommended that the CD
consider a formal shift in remit for all NPPs to conduct Rand D and consider
amending the Constitution accordingly.
One of the considerations if this change is to be formali2ed is the considerable
variation in the member countries. When ASARECA was set up each country had a
functioning publicly funded extension service whose role included the dissemination
of research outputs. Today the situation is very different with some countries (eg.
Sudan and Ethiopia having retained substantial extension capability whilst in others
(eg. Uganda and Kenya) the service has either been radically decentralized or replaced
in large measure by the private sector. In some countries researchers \\ill have to take
on additional roles. either directly or through partnerships. if uptake and impact is to
be improved.
C 4.3 Structure
The review has drawn attention to the distinction between ASARECA as an
Association. the formal position. and ASARECA as institution. the operational and
perceived position. The Memorandum of Agreement under Governance presents a
diagram of the structure of ASARECA (see Appendix 9) but the inclusion of the
Conference of Ministers and Task Forces. as well as Technical committees reporting
to the CD. illustrates the divergence between this structure and the actual mode of
operation. A more' representative diagram of the current position is presented in
Appendix 10 while a diagram including the changes proposed in this review B
presented in Appendix 11. The latter diagram is intended to illustrate:
• the proposed changes at the apex ofthe organization particularly the increased
participation of stakeholders by introducing an Advisory Body to the CD
(Board of Directors).
• the inclusion of new Networks associated with the Secretariat (RAIN.
EAPGREN and Biotechnology) that will add to the problems of
accommodation and administration ( and responsibility for other Networks
from October 2003).
• the inclusion ofthe new facility on uptake proposed in PART B (Promotion of
research uptake) and;
• the two arms of the Secretariat divided between Management and Finance and
Administration and the need for additional resources.
This proposed structure incorporates the findings of the review and is more
representative of the actual position and the current mode of operation. It is also
conducive with the role of ASARECA as an institution rather than an Association and
is recommended for consideration by the CD. Should the CD accept and implement
this recommendation it would be logical to make appropriate amendments to the
Constitution. Bye-laws etc.
48
Additional considerations arising from the proposed structure include the need for
additional resources to cope with the tasks being assigned to the Secretariat. There is
also the need to consider the trade-off between additional resources to improve
effectiveness and the cost implications (both short term and longer term
sustainability). For the management arm (see Appendix 11) a case can be made for a
head ofthis group who would be responsible for the operational programme assuming
that the Executive Secretary is more committed to policy, funding and political issues
(including his duties as RAO for the EU/RSP). In future MEAPU will be responsible
for this programme management role with separate arms being responsible for
planning and M&E. The Finance and Administration arm, presumably to be headed
by the Finance Officer, should separate the financial and administrative functions and
an administrative officer should be appointed at an appropriate level.
There are also implications for the smooth and efficient operation of the Networks.
For example, the Secretariat based Networks could have a combined Steering
Committee and it is understood that an Internal Programme Committee has been
proposed to replace several existing Steering Committees. This would certainly be a
more efficient mechanism but serious issues of technical competence arise and further
consideration is required.
The proposed structure is based upon the conclusions of the review and the drive to
improve efficiency and effectiveness especially bearing in mind the major increase in
NPPs arising from the RSP and the new networks to be based at ASARECA in
Entebbe. Sources of funding for the additional resources need to be explored but it is
understood that USAIDIREDSO is prepared to consider core funding for the
Secretariat and in view ofthe high standing of ASARECA with the donor community
this is more a problem in terms oflong term sustainability than short term funding.
C 4.4 The Role ofNARIs
Consideration of efficiency and effectiveness cannot be complete without an
examination ofthe constituent NARIs of ASARECA. The national institutions are the
foundation of ASARECA and strengthening of national capacity is one of the prime
objectives. Continued support through ASARECA funding is critical and other
measures include priority setting and the securing of donor funding at the national
level but attention to regional priorities and specialization should also be considered.
A powerful argument can be made for selected NARIs to specialise on commodities
or topics in which they have comparative advantage for reasons of capacity or
geography; examples quoted are for Uganda to take responsibility for research on say
bananas and cassava and Kenya to specialise on maize research. Clearly, for this
approach to be successful all 10 NARIs must agree and there must be reliable
mechanisms for the dissemination of research findings. The difficulties in adopting
such an arrangement are the issue of sovereignty, trust, local politics and the
understandable concerns ofthe smaller NARIs that they would ultimately suffer under
this type of arrangement. Nevertheless, the potential benefits are so obvious e>pecially
in the current climate that it is recommended that the CD reconsider this issue in the
light of the drive to improve effectiveness and the better use of available financial
resources. One possible mechanism might be for the country with comparative
49
advantage to conduct the more strategic research while the other countries confine the
research to the more applied end of the spectrum. Alternatively the smaller NARIs
might specialise on niche crops. This type of arrangement could have tremendous
benefits provided the parties, and the respective governments (who would have to
consent), could agree on the modalities.
The EU/RSP performance indicators refer to the transfer of leadership of some NPPs
from CG Centres to NARIs. During the visit to the EC in Brussels the view was
expressed that African scientists should be in charge of the NPP work programmes
while the supporting CG Centres should act as service providers. This shift to local
leadership is also supported in the 1997 Strategic Plan. This issue is not strictly within
the TOR for the study but ifthe management role ofthe Secretariat is to be accepted
by the CD then there is a good argument for the management of selected NPPs
becoming the responsibility of the Secretariat rather than a specific NARI. This is
especially the case bearing in mind the international status of the Secretariat and the
ability to operate throughout he region including experience with the transfer offunds.
This arrangement could also be a mechanism for obtaining management funds as
income for the Secretariat.
An examination of the comparative advantages between management by the
Secretariat as opposed to a specific NARI should be considered.
C 5. Further Actions
Arising from the previous sections, and depending upon the response ofthe CD to the
recommendations made in the report, further work might be needed on the following:
Sustainability of funding; building upon the work carried out under the SFI exploring
means of providing long term finance in addition to the EU endowment fund.
Attention should focus on charging for services such as management, planning etc
that can be paid for from the NPP budgets including government and donor funding.
Alternative sources of funding should also be explored including the private sector,
especially multinational companies.
Strategic planning; the 1997 Plan has proved to be valuable but, as recognized at
various meetings (including the CD retreat) there is a need to update the Strategic
Plan and assign priorities for the future bearing in mind the challenges facing
ASARECA and the need for greater efficiency and effectiveness (uptake and impact)
as indicated in this review.
Depending upon the response to the recommendations ofthis review there could be a
need to revise the Memorandum of Association, the Constitution and the Bye-laws of
the Association (some items are referred to in Appendix 8).
The EU/RSP has only commenced recently and any changes to the objectives or
overall work plan would normally take place at the Mid Term Review (ie. after two
years) but because of the delay in launching the project and the changes that have
taken place in the meantime it may be desirable to amend some aspects of the work
50
(including the performance indicators of the logical framework) much earlier, even
before the first visit ofthe PRMP.
51

PART D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
52
PART D Conclusions and Recommendations
This final part of the report brings together the findings of the literature review and
visits to donors, research managers etc (PART A), the chapter that covered the
technology transfer (research uptake) aspects of the TOR (PART B) and the chapter
that dealt with the review of ASARECA as an organization in terms of improved
efficiency and effectiveness (PART C). Clearly there are linkages between the three
aspects of the report and the conclusions and recommendations, as presented below,
should be considered collectively by the CD.
D 1 Overall Conclusions
The review of current literature and meetings concerning the latest thinking about
agricultural research was very valuable and provided a solid basis for the review.
Considerable effort has been directed towards understanding the reasons for the
relatively poor impact of agricultural research in the past and the changes needed to
improve uptake and impact. This work has been driven by governments and donors
aiming to increase value for money in terms of economic growth and poverty
reduction. There is no doubt that the pressure to deliver impact is increasing to the
extent that future funding for organizations such as ASARECA will be dependent
upon the ability to demonstrate impact. Additional challenges arising from the World
Summit for Sustainable Development and NEPAD include a recognition from African
countries themselves that greater progress is needed in terms of poverty reduction and
economic growth. The scientific community must change to meet these challenges.
In the literature various descriptions have been used to describe the change in
approach needed to improve uptake and impact. These include innovation systems,
value chains, production to consumption, impact orientation etc. but they all have a
good deal in common, namely to advocate a more holistic and systems based
approach in order to foster uptake or transfer of the technology. The main changes
proposed are for the inclusion ofthe factors needed to ensure uptake; this may include
new skills, better dissemination, appreciation of the market, investment finance etc
and usually involves the greater use of partnerships to ensure success. It is important
to appreciate that these changes are not new to ASARECA as many were discussed
during the Third NPP meeting in Nairobi but the application is patchy and greater
overall effort is needed by the Secretariat and NPP Coordinators to introduce a more
systematic and client orientated approach. There is also a distinct shift in the
allocation of resources from knowledge generation towards the application of
knowledge or uptake and impact. This trend is apparent in ASARECA but is in its
early stage and the shift should be accelerated.
In PART C ofthe report the challenges facing ASARECA were summarized and the
implications and possible changes were considered. Each of the proposed changes
was considered in tum and a recommendation made for consideration by the CD.
These are presented below but an overall conclusion is the need to consider
ASARECA as an institution rather than an Association as at present.
53
Taking the results of the literature survey, meetings with donors, the lessons learned
from Phases 1 and 2 of TIP and discussion with key actors, there are several clear
"messages" for ASARECA that have to be taken into account in the consideration of a
strategy for technology transfer (uptake mechanisms) and the improved operational
efficiency and effectiveness.
• ASARECA has been very successful since it was established in 1994. The
emphasis should now be on the delivery of impact. Changes are needed to
achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness and some are presented in the
report. Conceptually ASARECA has also made good progress on such issues
as market orientation and more recently impact orientation but in practice the
application has been less apparent.
• Much greater attention should be paid to uptake mechanisms (technology
transfer) and proposals are made in the report, including a new project￾Promotion ofResearch Uptake (PRU).
• The changes needed include greater participation by stakeholders, more
delegation of authority, rationalization of the Networks and the importance of
partnerships and the acquisition of the skills and expertise required to foster
uptake and impact.
• Consideration of the structure and mandate of the organization and the
resources needed to complete the tasks in hand.
• To apply these changes in order to move towards a more holistic approach as a
means of fostering uptake including adopting R&D as opposed to research
only.
By way of an overall conclusion of the review the exercise has provided a good
illustration ofthe difficulties ofmanaging/planning/monitoring a collection of loosely
linked set of research programmes each with its own work plan and governance
structure. The NPPs have approved work plans and the "extra" requirements imposed
by the Secretariat are seen as less important. The challenge for the future is for the CD
and the Secretariat to operationalise the management measures needed to improve
efficiency and effectiveness and thereby demonstrate impact.
In an attempt to illustrate the conclusions and the specific recommendations made in
the report a diagrammatic representation of the changes proposed has been prepared.
This is presented below:
54
Clearer definition ofroles
Improved communications (RAlN)
Common procedures (reporting)
Management role ofthe Secretariat
Separate Administration and Finance
Additional resources
NPPs accountable to the Secretariat
Rationalization ofthe Networks
Promotion ofResearch Uptake (pRU)
Impact Orientation approach
Greater participation at CD and NPP
levels
Moves to a more holistic approach
Greater use ofpartnerships
Emphasis on uptake pathways (CGS as
a tool)
Addressing the needs ofclients
Prioritise the work ofECAPAPA
, .r.:r;r.:>:r.
55
D. 2. List ofIssues
One of the main outputs referred to in the TOR is to raise issues and make
recommendations for consideration by ASARECA especially the CD Retreat held in
Kigali at the end of September 2002. The issues raised have been presented in PART
C (sections C.3 and C.4) but in summary form they are presented below:
• Stakeholder Participation.
• Delegation ofAuthority.
• Accountability.
• Rationalization ofthe Networks.
• Linkages and Partnerships.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Mandate and Structure.
• Role ofthe NARIs.
These issues were presented.for consideration by the CD and detailed argument on
each can be found in the text of the report. They should be considered in conjunction
with the recommendations presented below. On the basis of the conclusions of the
review two other issues should be added:
• Regional added value.
• Uptake ofresearch and Impact.
These issues could form the basis of the preparation of a work plan for ASARECA
and the Secretariat for the next five years and be very relevant to the development of a
new Strategic Plan for ASARECA.
D.3. Recommendations￾Specific recommendations presented throughout the report are listed below:
1. cas guidance notes and evaluation criteria to be tailored towards achieving
ASARECA policy objectives, especially the move towards greater uptake and
impact (see section B.4.2).
2. Acceptance of the proposed strategy for the improved uptake of research
outputs (see section B.4.3 and B.5.2).
3. Acceptance ofthe new proposal for the Promotion of Research Uptake-PRUP
(see section B.5.2).
4. Increased participation of stakeholders at the CD level including the
establishment of an Advisory Committee (see section C.3.1).
5. The CD to change its name to Board of Directors (see section C.3.1) and
accordingly to redefine the role and delegated authority of the Executive
Secretary (see section .3.2).
56
6. All NPP Coordinators to be made accountable to the Secretariat; reporting to
be more frequent and in a standard format (see section C.3.3).
7. The rationalization ofthe NPPs to be declared policy; working groups to be set
up with a view to the clustering of Networks and to move from a commodity
to a more systematic approach.
8. The resources of the Secretariat will be overstretched when all 19 Networks
become operational under the EU/RSP; consideration should be given to
setting priorities, the rationalization of networks or the provision of additional
resources (see section C.3.4).
9. A clearer definition of the roles and responsibilities of the members of the
Secretariat and NPP Coordinators (see section C.3.6 and Appendix 8).
10. The recommendations of this review should be considered together with the
recommendations ofthe IVA and ISNAR/NARS studies (see section C.4.l).
II. Change the remit of ASARECA from research to research and development
(see section C.4.2).
12. Acceptance ofthe proposed new structure for ASARECA (see sa:tion C.4.3).
13. Consider the improved effectiveness to be achieved by the specialization of
the research roles of the constituent NARI members of ASARECA (see
section C.4.4).
D. 4. Further Suggestions
I. The CD and the Secretariat to consider mechanisms for increased contact with
government policy makers and bodies such as EAC and COMESA.
2. Consideration of ASARECA as an institution rather than an Association.
3. A review and revision ofthe Strategic Plan of 1997
4. Depending upon the acceptance of the recommendations of this review a
revision ofthe Memorandum ofAgreement, the Constitution and the Bye-laws
of the Association should be undertaken to bring them in line with the
proposed changes (including amendments already approved by the CD). Some
ofthe changes needed are considered in Appendix 8).
5. Consider the preparation of a Corporate Plan for ASARECA that will cover a
revised strategy, changes to achieve impact, financial and human resources
and the important issue ofsustainability.
57
APPENDICES
58
APPENDIX 1 Terms ofReference
BACKGROUND
The aim of the consultancy is to assist in the formulation of a technology transfer
strategy for the networks, projects and programs (NPP) of ASARECA. The work
commenced on May 15 2002 with an initial visit to Nairobi (and Entebbe) timed to
coincide with the Third ASARECA Annual NPPs Consultative Meeting (Hilton hotel,
Nairobi, 13 to 17 May 2002). This meeting provided a valuable background to the
assignment and highlighted the current debate about the future of ASARECA. As a
result of meetings with USAID and the ASARECA Secretariat the original Terms of
Reference (TOR) were substantially modified such that the could contribute
to the consideration of the functions, mandate and organisational structure of
ASARECA. During the visit a budget, timetable and expanded TOR for the
consultancy were prepared and agreed as follows:
WORK PLAN
Stage 1 : May 15 to 24, 2002
Discussion with the Coordinator ofthe TIP, CIP, USAID, the ASARECA Secretariat
and various participants at the ASARECA meeting. Collection of reports, documents,
contacts etc and preparation ofwork program.
Stage 2. Research (May - June 2002)
Digestion of documentation, identification of relevant literature and contact! meetings
with relevant organisations in Europe (eg NR International research managers, DFID,
European Commission, ISNAR, FAa). Produce an analytical summary of experience
and lessons learned from Phases 1 and 2 and the relevance of experience of other
countries and organisations in relation to technology transfer. Submit an inception
report.
Stage 3. Discussion with ASARECAlNPPs ( June/July 2002)
Time spent in Uganda based at ASARECA but also a visit to Kenya. Meetings and
exchange of views with key stakeholders in relevant NPPs, CG centres, NARs etc.
Stage 4. Draft Report (July/August 2002)
Draft report to be prepared, submitted and agreed (bye-mail).
Stage 5. Presentation to CD meeting (likely September 2002)
Presentation of findings and recommendations, discussion and feedback from CD
meeting.
59
Stage 6. Final Report
Incorporation ofcomments from the CD meeting
Stage 7. Present to ASARECA meeting (September/October 2002)
Present and discuss with a view to producing the fmal report.
Stage 8. Prepare and submit final report (September/October 2002)
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the consultancy is to facilitate and recommend the way forward for
the transfer of agricultural technology within the ASARECA sub-region in general
and within the ASARECA program ofresearch more specifically. The outputs will be
in five parts, namely:
1. Lessons learned from the work carried out under the ITP program to date and
experience from elsewhere that might usefully contribute to the ASARECA
portfolio of project activities and the future operation of the organisation. An
inception report will issue before the end ofJune 2002.
2. Make recommendations on approaches, methodologies and processes for
technology transfer (IT) that could usefully be used by ASARECA. More
specifically to:
• Develop a strategy for technology transfer and the uptake ofresearch;
• Present options on the structural organisation and placement of the
technology transfer function;
• Recommend means whereby the Competitive Grants System (CGS) of
ASARECA can accommodate and promote IT and the greater uptake
ofresearch outputs (ie. the use ofthe CGS to achieve IT objectives);
• Recommend linkages between the IT function and the evolution of
ASARECA as an organisation, considering the background documents
from the CD, the on-going PIVA analysis, and interviews with key
partners.
3. Review the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) of ASARECA (September
1994), the Constitution of ASARECA (September 1994) and the Byelaws of
ASARECA (September 1994) and make recommendations for changes to
ensure that ASARECA becomes an effective and efficient organisation in
achieving its mission. This exercise should pay careful attention to the
ASARECA Strategic Document and the newly developed and accepted
Consolidated Conceptual Framework for ASARECA adopted at the third NPP
meeting 13-17 May 2002.
This review should conclude with recommendations on the functions, mandate
and organisational structure of ASARECA covering issues such as:
• Mandate ofthe Committee of Directors (CD);
60
• Mandate ofthe Secretariat;
• Composition ofthe Secretariat;
• Governance and mandate ofthe NPPs;
• Organisational structure and governance of ASARECA as a whole;
• Post classification, salary scale and renumeration package for locally
and regionally recruited staff (ie. Executive Secretary, Finance Officer,
Administrator, MEAPU, ECAPAPA, Network Coordinators and other
staffto be included in the organisational structure).
4. To consider and make recommendations on appropriate partnerships in
agricultural research, technology transfer and development that will foster the
future evolution of ASARECA. Also to propose policy guidelines that will
promote such partnerships.
5. To make recommendations on the most effective means of using the funds
allocated to TI within the EU program of support to ASARECA; the purpose
of these funds being to promote and encourage greater transfer of technology
and the implementation of the results of the research carried out by
ASARECA. Furthermore, to consider the necessity, feasibility and description
of a five year USAID funded project in support ofthe TI function in the light
ofthe evolving situation within ASARECA.
OUTPUTS
• Concise report on lessons learned from the TIP project considered within the
wider framework ofTI and the objectives of ASARECA.
• Proposals for the revision of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, Constitution
and Bye-laws of ASARECA.
• Recommendations for the consideration of ASARECA arising from objectives
2, 3 and 4 above; these recommendations to be revised following discussion
with the Committee of Directors, the ASARECA Secretariat, the Coordinators
ofTTP, representatives ofthe EU and USAID, and key partners in the CGIAR
Centres, NGOs etc.
• A five year workplan for TI in ASARECA, to be partially funded out of the
EU fund already allocated for TI.
• Summary report ofthe consultancy as a whole.
61
· APPENDIX 2 Documents Consulted
I. Memorandum of Agreement, Constitution, HQ Agreement and Byelaws of
ASARECA. August 200 I
2. Development of a Long Term Strategic Plan for Regional Agricultural
Research in the Eastern and Central African Region. ASARECA, 1997
3. Network, Programme and Project (NPP) Executive Summaries, Submitted
May 2002. ASARECA.
4. Formulation and Appraisal of a Regional Programme to Support Agricultural
Research in Eastern Africa (Project No.7 ACP.RPR.699) Interim Report for
Phase I ofthe Study. Volumes 1 and 2 March 1999. NR International.
5. Formulation and Appraisal of a Regional Programme to Support Agricultural
Research in Eastern Africa. Report of Phase 2 - Report of the Study June
1999. NR International.
6. Financing Proposal to ASARECA- Promoting Technology Transfer through
Collaboration between Research and Partner Organisations in Eastern and
Central Africa - CIP, July 1998.
7. 2020 Global Food Outlook - Trends, Alternatives and Choices, IFPRI August
2001.
8. Workplan for Establishing a Competitive Grants System for ASARECA,
Sustainable Financing Initiative USAID/SPAAR, September 1999.
9. Proposed Action Plan for ASARECA's Competitive Grants System -
Components, Issues and Options, USAID/SPAAR, June 1998.
10. The Road to Financial Sustainability - How managers, government and donors
in Africa can create a legacy of viable public and non-profit organisations.
Sustainable Financing Initiative, USAID, June 1997.
II. Financing the Future- Options for Agricultural Research and Extension in Sub
-Saharan Africa. Johnathan Beynon, Oxford Policy Management, ISBN I
902477 00 6, 1998.
12. Competitive Agricultural Funds in Developing Countries, G Gill and Diana
Carney, Overseas Development Institute, ISBN 0 85003 4000,1999.
13. Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook, ISNAR, ISBN 929118035-
I, 1998.
14. Report of the Working Group on Research Management, Programmes and
Resourcing for the Transformation of the Agricultural Research Council,
South Africa, September 1998.
15. Commercialisation ofResearch and Technology, USAID, March 1997.
16. Competitive Agricultural Technology Funds in Developing Countries, ODI
Natural Resource Perspectives, N04I, April 1999.
17. Development of a long term Strategic plan for regional agricultural research in
Eastern and Central Africa. ASARECA, September 1997.
18. Institutionalising client-oriented participatory agricultural research through
regional competitive agricultural technology funds. DRees et al Regional
Conference for the Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension,
Nairobi, August 2001.
19. The elements of a strategy for research on natural resources management in
East and central Africa. Committee of Directors meeting ASARECA,
February 2000.
62
20. Regional Support Programme, Work-plan for start-up activities, ASARECA,
June 2001.
21. ASARECA Competitive Grant Scheme Procedures manual, Committee of
Directors paper, 2000.
22. Report on the launching ceremony of the EU funded RSP for agricultural
research in eastern Africa. Committee ofDirectors paper, February 2001.
23. Sustaining Change: Proceedings of a Workshop on the factors affecting uptake
and adoption of research outputs. Ed S.D.Hainsworth and S.J. Eden-Geen.
Natural Resources International, 2000.
24. Towards Sustainable African Agricultural Technology Generation and
Adoption Systems. M Toure and P Vialatte. Cairo Conference of African
Ministers ofAgriculture, Feb 2002.
25. DFID Livestock Production Programme. Annual Report 2001-2002.
26. DFID Crop Protection Research Programme. Annual Report 2001-2002.
27. DFID Crop Post-Harvest Research programme. Annual Report 2001-2002.
28. Integration ofCGIAR activities in Eastern and Southern Africa. Report of the
inter-centre preparatory meeting, ILRI Kenya, March 2002.
29. ASARECA Competitive Grant System Procedures Manual.
30. Dimensions ofAgricultural Value Chains. AEC Consulting, 1999.
31. ASARECA/CIP Technology Transfer Project. Phase II Project Proposal
submitted to USAIDIREDSO, 1997. (plus subsequent progress reports).
32. Agricultural extension: The Kenyan experience. An impact Evaluation.
Madhur Gautam. World Bank. 2000.
33. Improved Communication Strategies for RNR Research outputs. P Norrish et
al. AERRD, University ofReading. (Published by Natural Resources Institute)
34. Agricultural Extension - Generic Challenges and some ingredients for
solutions. Gershai Feder et al. World Bank 1999.
35. FAO Agricultural Knowledge & Infonnation Systems for Rual Development
(AKISIRD), Rome, 2000.
36. IFAD, Regional Strategy paper for Eastern and Southern Africa on Poverty
Reduction,Rome,2002.
37. Agricultural Knowledge and Infonnation Systems and Poverty Reduction.
Discussion paper by J Bedegue and G Escobar. World Bank, Jan 2001.
38. Agricultural Research in the Public and Private sectors of Ecuador. C Falconi.
1993.
39. CGIAR Mid Tenn Meeting, Durban, South Africa. 2001.
40. Successful Collaborative Partnerships: Key elements and a self-assessment
inventory. CGIAR Organisational Change Briefing Note No.5, 1999.
41. Financing Agreement. Regional programme to Support Agricultural Research
in East and Central Africa. European Commission REGI7334/000.
42. European Commission: Implementing the Commission's Strategy for the
CGIAR.2oo0
43. European Commission: Agricultural Research for Development - Strategy
Document, DG Development, 2001.
44. Agricultural Technology Development and Transfer in Africa: Impacts
achieved and Lessons learned. USAID SD Publication Series, Technical
paper, 1997.
45. ISNAR: Ten Tools for Managing Change in National Agricultural Research
Organisations. S Huntingdon Hobbs. 1999.
63
46. ISNAR: The evolution ofISNARs approach to institutional development over
the last five years. Willem Janssen, January 2002.
47. ISNAR: Methods for Planning Effective Linkages. Briefing paper 45, January
2001.
48. ISNAR: Planning Linkages between Research, Technology transfer, and
farmers Organisations. Research Report 15, December 1999.
49. ISNAR: Planning and Priority Setting for Regional Research. A practical
approach to combine Natural Resource Management and Productivity
Concerns. Willem Janssen and Ali Kissi Research Management Guidelines
No 4,1997.
50. ISNAR; Annual Reports for 1996, 1997, and 2000 containing Theme Essays
on Globalisation issues in Agriculture and Agricultural Research; Governance
of Agricultural Research and the shifting roles in Decision making; Reflecting
on the important decade for agricultural research in developing countries.
51. Coping with New Policy Agendas for Agricultural Research: the role of
institutional innovations. Indian Council for Agricultural Research Policy
BriefNo. 13.2000.
52. Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional
Arrangements and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor.
A Hall et al World Development Vo1.29, No 5,2001.
53. Institutional Learning Through Technical Projects: Horticultural Technology
R&D Systems in India. AgREN Network paper No. Ill, 2001
54. Public-private Sector Interaction in the Indian Agricultural research System:
An Innovation Systems Perspective on Institutional Reform. In Byerlee, D,
and R.G. Echeverria (eds) 2001. Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of
Privatisation: Experience form the Developing World. CABI. UK
55. The Development and Use of the Innovation Systems Framework in India:
Northern Perspective. North South Research Cooperation. Royal Netherlands
Academy ofArts and Science, December, 2001.
56. Agricultural Technology Development and Transfer in Africa: Impacts
Achieved and Lessons Learned. USAID SD Publication Series, Technical
paper, 1997.
57. IFPRI. Standing Panel on Impact Assessment on the Impact of Agricultural
Research on Poverty. 2000.
58. USAID Agricultural Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa. SD Bureau for
Africa,2002.
59. Institutional Change and Effective Financing of Agricultural Research in Latin
America. World Bank Technical Paper No. 330. 1995.
60. Strengthening Linkages Between Research and Technology Users: A Training
Module. ISNAR. 1996.
61. Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability: The Scope for Policy Reform. Final
report of a study for the Neuchatel Initiative. J Farrington et at. ODI Working
paper155, March 2002.
62. Funding Development Orientated Agricultural Research and Extension.
Proceedings ofa Workshop, Feldafing, Germany, December, 2001. GTZ.
63. Integration of CGIAR Activities in Eastern and Southern Africa. Synthesis
Report ofthe Second Meeting, ICRAF, Nairobi, September,2001.
64. The Evolution of ISNAR's Approach to Institutional Development over the
last 5 years. Willem Janssen, January 2002.
64
65. Users guide to the USAIDIREDSO Regional Partner Institutional Viability
Assessment (PIVA) Index. December 2001.
66. Outreach and Partnership Initiative: A strategy for Decentralisation and
Mutual Institutional Learning. NARO, Uganda Working Paper No.1, 2001.
67. Towards a Relationship of Significance: Prospects for NARO Partnerships.
NARO, Uganda, 2001.
68. DFID Better livelihoods for poor people: the role of Agriculture. Consultation
Document, May 2002.
69. Reports on ASARECA Meetings held between 2000 and 2002 in Madagascar,
Kenya and Tanzania (First, second and third NPP Consultative Meetings and
the first CD retreat in Mombasa).
70. Building Agricultural Knowledge Triangles: Insights from the Pan African and
Global Experience. Carl Eicher, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University, August 2001.
71. Commercialisation of Research and technology. N. Kalaitzandonakes. Bureau
for Africa, USAID, 1997.
72. From agricultural extension to rural information systems. C. Garforth.
Tropical Agriculture Association Newsletter, June 2002, pIS.
65
APPENDIX 3 Conclusions and Recommendations of ASARECA
Meetings
1. First NPP Consultative meeting, Madagascar, July 2000
2. First CD Retreat, Mombasa, February, 2001
3. Second NPP Consultative Meeting, Dar es Salaam, September, 2001
4. Third NPP Consultative Meeting, Nairobi, May 2002
Conclusions/Recommendations Progress!Action Taken
MADAGASCAR
1. Areas for collaborative activities Reviewed after 6 months, convenors lack
agreed covenng NRM, post harvest, of time, resources and commitment - too
socioeconomics, training etc. Priorities many demands from their direct duties.
and convenor NPP for each cross Little real progress or action.
cutting issue.
2. Impact assessment as a planning tool Significant progress (involving IFPRI and
GTZ). Emergence of production to
consumption concept and NPPs prepared
to collect data for impact assessment but
only one network has begun process of
collecting data.
3. Performance Monitoring and Framework agreed for use by NPPs but at
evaluation. Indicators ofsuccess. their discretion. Secretariat no authority
to ensure compliance. To date only
being applied by one NPP.
4. Reporting cycle agreed and need for a Annual reports submitted but no
standard reporting format for all NPPs. standard format agreed or applied.
5. Principles for operation of the Substantial progress through Abt
Competitive Grant Scheme discussed consultants. Manual and evaluation
including the process and scheduling. criteria produced but needs revision for
EC scheme (especially on uptake
pathways).
6. Need to improve horizontal linkages Various meetings held since 1997 but
between Networks. little improvement. Few noticeable
actions, vertical linkages seen as being
more important - not seen as apriority.
MOMBASA
1. In view of the changing environment it No review carried out but current review
is necessary to hold regular reviews of and PIVA study in progress July 2002.
the organisation and structure to ensure
alignment with changing circumstances
2. Guiding principle agreed - the need to Policy agreed but not translated into
add value to the nationally implemented action. Slow progress in some NPPs but
programmes. Resource allocation to be most still struggling to operationalise this
66
based on priorities. concept.
3. Recommendation that priority setting No review since 1997. No action (but
should be done regularly and conceptual framework agreed at Nairobi
systematically. Strategic planning for the 2002)
overall portfolio every five years.
4. Reaffirmation of the principle of a No change but recognition of possible
"lean and mean" Secretariat (but change in the future.
acknowledging the need to relate to
current challenges and opportunities).
5. Need for national fora to bring NPPs ISNAR study currently in effect - to
"under one roof'. Secretariat to report to the CD retreat in September
commission a study on the way forward. 2002 (NARI in each country to convene
NARS?).
DAR es SALAAM
1. Nairobi meeting of June 2001 on Basis of conceptual framework agreed at
Impact orientation. Principles agreed and later meeting in Nairobi but application
concept accepted by NPPs (also from to date only by two or three NPPs.
2. Performance indicators agreed for all Progress delayed until Nairobi meeting.
NPPs at goal, purpose and output levels. Indicators need refinement and
application across NPPs.
3. Data collection for impact assessment. As for meeting, lack of
Recognised as expensive but important. resources. Progress patchy
Secretariat to provide a mechanism for
the way forward in data collection and to
assign responsibilities.
4. Repeat of agreement on Still on the agenda but little action.
reporting cycle and format. Agreed that
these and planning cycle would be tried
and tested.
NAIROBI
1. by NPPs towards impact Implementation patchy and only a few
orientation and strategic objectives (eg. networks. How to increase momentum?
market orientation and partnerships). (CGS)?
2. towards "production to Very few networks made real progress.
consumption" concept. (how to increase application?)
3. Technology readily available tabulated. Long list but how to achieve uptake?
(large pool of "on the shelf " What evidence that these have a ready
technologies). market?
4. Gaps analysis references to market orientation,
weak linkages, poor implementation of
strategic plan, need to prioritise etc. All
recommendations of previous
meetings. (eg. seven NPPs indicate
constraints on linkages to other NPPs).
5. Conceptual framework and eight CG
themes approved.
67
6. Core function of ASARECA is Meaning. Need to improve uptake as
a
technology generation but utilisation of means of achieving impact. Need to
technology can contribute as
a change to R4D approach.
deliverable.
68
APPENDIX 4 Reports on Visits to Donors an other Organisations
1. European Commission
The timing of the visit was fortunate in that the consultant was able to meet both DG
Development (Philippe Vialatte) to discuss research policy and Europeaid (Robert
Carreau, Yves Gillet- visiting from Kampala- and his successor, RemeNoe) who are
responsible for the EC assistance to ASARECA. The discussions were both pertinent
and valuable; documents pertaining to EC policy and strategy regarding Agricultural
Research for Development and the CGIAR were obtained.
A multi-donor meeting with the three SROs in Africa is to be held in Brussels 24 to
26 June, 2002. The purpose is to set a common platform for the three SROs and
establish the "rules ofthe game" regarding the relationship between national, regional
and global levels in terms of agricultural research. The Commission would like to see
the SROs take charge in their respective regions and not be led by the CG Centres;
the latter are seen as having a major role in international public goods research (in the
event the ASARECA guidelines for CGS were adopted by the meeting). The
Commission believes it has no comparative advantage in agricultural research at the
national level and will concentrate resources at the regional level with the policy
priorities being in line with the Cotonou Agreement, namely poverty reduction but
also the development of trade and the increasing importance of the private sector and
civil society.
The discussion on the EC funded project with ASARECA concentrated on the use of
the Competitive Grants Scheme (CGS) as a management tool, the need to expand and
develop stakeholder representation (especially the inclusion of civil society), the need
to rationalize the number of NPPs, and the need to develop partnerships as a means of
improving uptake and impact. These objectives apply to all three SROs in Africa but
ASARECA is the most developed and successful and it was argued that changes are
needed if the funds committed to research are to achieve the desired impact in terms
of increased productivity, poverty reduction and economic growth. The main
suggestions in terms ofthe current review were:
• Increased participation by civil society;
• Reduce and rationalize the number of NPPs;
• Develop partnerships that will foster the uptake of research outputs;
• Develop policy criteria and use the CGS to "steer" project proposals in
the desired direction;
However, the most interesting debate was about the approach to technology transfer,
the need for scientists to interact with other disciplines (eg social scientists), the
importance of marketing and the need for much more interaction with the private
sector. Above aU the views expressed suggested that change is needed if the
substantial investment in research was to have real impact in the region. The
terms used were technology transfer, production to consumption, innovation systems
but what they have in common is the desire to broaden participation and the inclusion
of new skills and experience as a means of achieving uptake and impact. Scientists
69
can only contribute to one portion of this process and for the knowledge generated to
be used effectively scientists have to accept the inclusion of other disciplines and
expertise. The acceptance of this need and the implementation of broad based
approaches will not be easy but must be given the highest priority.
2. UK Department for International Development (DFID)
DFID allocates some US$ 40 million per annum for natural resources research in
developing countries. The funding is divided amongst a number ofprogrammes which
are externally managed by UK institutions following a competitive tender (for
example NR International manages the crop protection, crop post-harvest, livestock
production, forestry and fisheries post-harvest programmes). The programmes are
organized on a commodity basis but following a debate about farming systems during
the 1990s there is also a Natural Resources Systems Programme that operates
independently. For historic reasons livestock production and animal health are
separate and fisheries has four programmes; agriculture is covered by four
programmes (production, protection, post-harvest and systems).
The direction of the research was determined by a Natural Resources Strategy that
was prepared in 1995 and intended to cover 10 years up to 2005 (known
affectionately as the yellow brick because of its colour and thickness). This strategic
document remains the principle policy document but because ofthe overall changes in
thinking about the UK Aid Programme (the White Paper - Eliminating World
Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, 1997 and the second White Paper￾Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, 2000) considerable changes have taken
place in the execution ofthe research programmes. A new Strategic document is also
in preparation that will have major implications for agricultural research (see below).
Because ofthe emphasis on poverty and the international poverty reduction targets set
by the development community (with a strong input by DFID) all elements of the UK
programme are under increasing pressure to deliver value for money and impact for
their respective activities. Agricultural research in particular has changed dramatically
in order to improve the uptake of research results and demonstrate impact upon
poverty - in effect future funding has been directly linked to the ability to
demonstrate impact. Considerable resources have been devoted both centrally and
within the research programmes to examine the entire research continuum covering
such issues as the identification of researchable constraints, participation,
dissemination, uptake pathways, linkage mechanisms, partnerships and the
measurement and monitoring of impact upon the poor. A recent study to be completed
at the end of June is reported to be having difficulties in linking agricultural research
to direct impact upon poverty.
In relation to the current exercise and information relevant to the future of ASARECA
the changes can be divided into strategic ie the future allocation and use of funding
and operational ie changes at the programme management level designed to improve
the uptake ofresearch outputs (ie technology transfer) and achieve impact.
70
The strategic implications are summarised below:
> Future funding will be linked directly to impact and poverty reduction criteria;
> There will be a shift in emphasis (ie. allocation of funding) from the
generation ofknowledge to dissemination and uptake (ie technology transfer);
> Participation by intended beneficiaries (be they institutions or farmers) is a
powerful tool in the drive for impact;
> The generation of knowledge is pointless unless it is applied and uptake
mechanisms must be determined prior to the approval ofthe research.
> The generation of knowledge is taking a poor second place to promotion and
uptake (in the latter part of the current strategy the bulk ofthe funds are being
directed towards promotion, dissemination and uptake with very little new
research being initiated). There is also an acceptance that additional skills are
required for activities such as dissemination and promotion;
> Commodity based research may be logical from a scientific standpoint but it is
not effective in terms of uptake and impact. Systems based! holistic
approaches will be pursued in future and resources must be allocated in a
multidisciplinary manner to achieve the desired objectives (in effect a greater
range of disciplines, especially socio-economic, will be involved in the future
probably at the expense ofscientific inputs);
> The new strategy will include a major involvement by the private A
new programme - Rural Enterprise Development Facility - is under
preparation (with links to the Rockefeller Foundation) to the tune of £lOOm
and this will be linked directly to the newly developed Natural Resources
Strategy;
> The new Strategy will encompass four equally important themes (research,
extension, institutional change and influence upon policy) to reflect the need
for a more holistic approach and in recognition ofthe fact that science working
alone has not, and cannot, achieve the desired objectives in terms of poverty
reduction.
It is ironic that many ofthe constraints imposed upon research managers by DFID in
the past (eg. funding of training, capacity building, pilot testing, links to the private
sector and above all, investment in technology transfer) have been shown to have a
severe effect upon uptake. Research managers now have more freedom to use funds
for non-scientific activities especially in relation to capacity building, promotion and
dissemination.
At the operational level the changes have been a reflection ofthe change in direction
referred to above tempered by the fact that research activities are already funded for
several years. The following list presents a collection of changes that have been
introduced by different programmes in response to the new directives from DFID:
> Funds have been increasingly shifted to dissemination/uptake activities at the
expense of the generation of new knowledge (to the extent that 50 to 60% of
available funding will be directed towards non- research activities);
> From 2002 to the end of the current strategy in 2005 the main priority will be
uptake, the assessment of uptake and the "upscaling " of successful
technologies; .
71
There has been a major increase in the collaboration between programmes in
an attempt to move towards a more multidisciplinary/systems based approach;
Contact with the private sector has increased dramatically including
representation on Steering and Advisory Committees;
Considerable effort has been directed towards the development of "tools" to
enhance poverty focus. These include the clustering of projects, development
of baskets of technology (or toolboxes) which provide options at the field
level, expansion and development of partnerships, greater use of the media,
identifying the factors which foster uptake and methodologies for upscaling
(including research);
Change in focus from commodities to people;
The appointment from research funds of specialist skills such as
communications and dissemination; also the increased use of web sites, radio
etc;
The use of research funds (or what are called programme development funds)
to research those factors which influence uptake and impact and develop novel
uptake pathways;
The development ofdissemination and uptake strategies;
The use of output to purpose reviews (log frame) to assess project progress in
terms of uptake;
Co-funding with other research programmes in order to increase impact;
A move from a linear technology generation/transfer approach to an
innovative systems approach which is seen by one programme as the key to
achieving impact;
An acceptance that technological fixes alone are not very effective,
institutional and policy contributions are also required for effective uptake.
3. ISNAR
The visit of 11 June 2002 included discussion with Doug Horton, Anna Wuyts-.
Furawo and Willem Janssen. They showed considerable interest in the exercise
including the extensive TOR and the complexity of the issues involved. The main
discussion was about the importance of linkages and partnerships in striving to
improve technology transfer. ISNAR does not use the term technology transfer
believing that innovation systems is more appropriate because it incorporates recent
thinking in terms of the importance of a more holistic approach that incorporates the
factors which have been shown to inhibit the uptake ofresearch outputs.
The most useful aspect of the visit was the collection of hard copy and references for
literature relevant to the TOR. These are reflected in the list of documents consulted
but the most relevant concerned experience in other parts of the world (eg. India and
Latin America).
The views expressed were also very relevant. Emphasis was placed upon
linkages/partnerships, client orientation and the overall innovative systems approach.
The view was expressed that client orientation is essential for the successful operation
of the innovation system. It is essential that the clients voice is heard and represented
for the uptake ofresearch to be successful and achieve imJBct - it was inferred that
this is an area where ASARECA needs to change ( ie. because of the structure of
ASARECA it is difficult for the voice of civil society, Universities and NGOs etc
72
to be heard and this could be a significant constraint upon uptake and impact). A
suggestion was made for an analysis/diagnosis of the "actors" involved with
ASARECA in order to determine if client orientation is being paid sufficient attention.
Two other issues discussed were the value of the CGS as a management tool to
introduce changes such as client orientation. dissemination and especially the need for
uptake pathways to be determined from the outset of any research proposal. There
was also some discussion of the potential for competition between the work
programme ofASARECA and those ofthe individual NARIs.
4. USAID
Information. documents and views were obtained form Diana Putman in Nairobi and
Jeff Hill in Washington. The central policy of USAID is to promote economic growth
as a means of addressing issues such as poverty. hunger etc. A Strategic Framework
for the Future is in preparation and this. together with the World Food Summit and the
G8 Meeting to take place soon will determine policy for the next few years.
One new activity - Agricultural Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa - recognizes that
hunger in Africa is one of the most important development challenges and calls for a
rapid and sustainable increase in agricultural growth and rural incomes. For maximum
impact the Initiative will have six focal themes:
• Scientific and technological applications;
• Efficient agricultural trade and market systems;
• Community and producer-based organizations;
• Developing human capital. infrastructure and institutions;
• Integrating vulnerable growth and countries in transition;
• Environmental management.
IFPRI is playing an active role in the Initiative by providing the analytical support to
help guide the process ofidentifying strategic investment options. A number ofIFPRI
publications related to this Initiative were found to be useful.
Under the scientific and technological theme emphasis is placed not just on expanding
food supplies but also on improved quality. the reduction of post-harvest losses.
response to market requirements. raising farm incomes and reducing the cost of food
to the consumer.
5. GTZ
Andreas Springer-Heinze indicated that GTZ is preparing a project - Strengthening
Impact Orientation of Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa - which is
due to commence in 2002. The purpose is to work with national partners rather than
regional networks to institutionalize impact assessment and develop linkages between
research outputs and changes occurring at the macro level. The background to the
project is the concept of Impact Pathways being promoted by Dr Springer-Heinze
(including discussion with Isaac Minde ofECAPAPA).
73
6. Others
The views ofselected personal contacts were also sought. These included members of
the original ECART team who prepared the EC proposal for funding to ASARECA,
several DFID research managers and John Farrington and Rob Tripp of ODI. The
views expressed were compatible with those referred to above.
74
APPENDIX 5
Session on Technology Transfer ,PRAPACE Steering Committee Meeting, June
21,2002
Country Potato Sweetpotato
PRAPACE All Funds PRAPACE All Funds
Burundi 60 80 30 80
DRC 50 45 35 13
Eritrea 4 40 - -
Ethiopa 53 27 70 20
Kenya 5 40 20 45
Madagascar 40 30 50 10
Rwanda 50 60 20 35
Sudan 0 22 0 10
Tanzania 30 45 - -
Uganda 40 55 33 60
Mean 33% 44% 32% 34%
Activities mentioned:
• Seed multiplication
• Farmer Field Schools
• On-farm trials? (should not automatically be categorized as technology transfer)
• Links with processors
• Field Days
• Radio programs
• Bulletins
• TV messages
• Print media
• Farmer training
• Advice/training to NGOs and extension
• T-shirts, posters, etc. (social marketing)
• Demonstration plots
• Village-level processing, demos
Needs
• Funds and methods to monitor impact
• More field demonstrations
• Clear methods to capture data from participatory M&E
• Set up system for tagged funds for technology transfer in PRAPACE
• Set up fund to promote and encourage partnerships
• Policy framework needs to be clarified
• Promote participatory research to foster technology transfer
• Market information, market chains
• Develop and apply process-based indicators
• Promote regional exchange of experiences and lessons
• Promote horizontal linkages among partners, including NGOs and CBOs, within
countries and across the region.
75
APPENDIX 6 Consolidated Conceptual Framework
Sustainable economic growth and improved social
welfare in the ECA while maintaining the quality of the
environment
I
Enhanced and sustainable productivity,
competitiveness and value added of the
regional agricultural system
I
I I I
Enabling policy environment Performance drivan Demand driven technologias for agricultural transformation institutional arrangements utilised in the ECA facilitated promoted
I I I
EfI'ectiva cD-ordination of the Improved access to inpuV Enhanced policy advocacy regional agricultural research Dutputlfinancial markets and davelopment portfolio
I I I
Sustainable financing Demand driven technologies Policy options availed arrangements for research disseminated and development established
I I I
Innovative approaches and
Demand driven technologies Enhanced capacity for policy methodologies analysed, daveloped, tested and promoted generated analysis for demand led research and
davelopment
I I I
Enhanced understanding of Comparable regional data Strategic partnerehips nliukll1 Ullllu'lunilill!i generated established Intelligence
I
Enhanced capecity of NARS
I
Enhanced information
documentation and axchange
76
APPENDIX 7
Promotion of Research Uptake (PRU).
1. Summary
A strategy for research uptake in ASARECA was developed as part of a review
funded under the ASARECA/CIP Technology Transfer Project (TIP). The results of
this review together with the conclusions of the TTP Stakeholders Symposium
(Nairobi, September 2002) provide a strong case for ASARECA devoting an
increased effort on the uptake of research as a means of achieving developmental
objectives. It is proposed that a Facilitator be hired for three years using theEU/RSP
funds allocated for technology transfer/uptake. The overall objective will be to
mainstream thinking on uptake approaches and mechanism across the NPPs of
ASARECA and within the constituent NARIs of ASARECA. He/she will be based in
the ASARECA Secretariat and care will be needed to ensure that he/she has the
appropriate skills and expertise required for this demanding role.
2. Background
The second phase of TTP closed at the end of September 2002 and the design of any
further activities using funds allocated under the EU/RSP (€ 420,000) was deferred
pending the completion of this consultancy study (covering a strategy for technology
and a review of the functions, mandate and structure of ASARECA) The conceptual
approach to research uptake is described in section B.5.2 ofthe report); this document
describes the scope ofthe work, the justification, the objectives and considers existing
and future funding requirements.
This proposal, which refers to the uptake of research outputs rather than techndogy
transfer, aims to bring together the lessons learned from Phases I and 2 of TIP, the
conclusions of the consultancy in relation to the "new thinking" on uptake, the
conclusions of the TIP Stakeholders Symposium and the proposed changes in
ASARECA (arising from this study and the Committee of Directors retreat) that are
directed towards improving efficiency and effectiveness. The logic behind the
proposal is that uptake has only been partially successful in the past because the
factors needed to ensure success (such as non-scientific expertise, market studies, use
of the media, private sector partners, inappropriate project design etc.) have been
lacking or inadequate. While there are many isolated examples of successful transfer
or uptake they have not had the desired impact upon the wider development goals and
objectives set by governments and donor organisations. It is likely that funding in the
future will be increasingly dependent upon the ability to demonstrate impact (eg.
economic growth, poverty reduction etc.) and ASARECA needs to change in order to
improve efficiency and effectiveness. The proposal is one ofthe activities designed to
foster this process by improving the uptake and application of research outputs from
the Networks and constituent NARIs of ASARECA.
It is important to explain the background to this consultancy and the funding allocated
to technology transfer within the EU/RSP. At the time the EU/RSP was designed
77
(1999) the second phase of TIP was fully operational under USAIDIREDSO funding
and the intention was to provide EU funding as a supplement to ensure a five-year
work programme on technology transfer. A sum of€ 420.000 was allocated over five
years with no funds being allocated for a Coordination Unit in years one and two
(assumed to be USAIDIREDSO funding) and the bulk of the funding was earmarked
for sub-projects and capacity building. In the event the EU/RSP was delayed for more
than two years and the second phase of TIP has ended (September 2002) before any
of the EU funding has been approved. Furthermore, USAIDIREDSO have indicated
that they are not prepared to consider a third phase of TIP along the lines of the
earlier work but they are supportive of the need to foster technology transfer/uptake
within ASARECA. At the present time, therefore there is a need to consider the most
effective means of utilising the EU funding and what additional funding might be
needed for this increasingly important issue.
3. Objectives
To promote the uptake of research outputs arising from the work of the ASARECA
Networks. The intention is to raise the profile of the subject with Network
Coordinators and scientists within the NARIs, persuade them to devote more effort to
uptake pathways and mechanisms in the execution of their research and provide
advice on topics such as dissemination, promotion, marketing, partnerships, sources
offinance etc that are needed to make the uptake process more successful.
4. Scope ofthe Work
As indicated in section B.5.2 responsibility for promoting uptake should rest not only
with the ASARECA Secretariat but also with each Network Coordinator (soon to be
19 in total) and the issue is how to use the available funding to best effect across the
entire organisation. The scale of the funds available (€ 420,000) is insufficiert for an
effective five-year programme as originally intended and it is suggested that the funds
be used for specific activities to promote greater uptake but, in addition, to act as a
"bridge" or seed funding until additional funds can be secured. How to best use these
funds for this purpose is complicated by the need to conform to the procedures
associated with the EU/RSP funding, namely the need to produce a Work Plan before
the funds are released. Therefore, the proposal will concentrate upon the design of a
work programme involving only the available EU/RSP funding.
There are various options that might be considered for raising the profile of research
uptake within ASARECA and fostering the uptake or application process, as opposed
to the previous activities that have funded the transfer of specific technological
innovations. These include the folIowing:
• Working directly with the Secretariat and Network Coordinators to promote
the uptake strategy within ASARECA. For example, advising and persuading
Coordinators to pay greater attention to uptake and direct more of their
available resources to activities that promote uptake (such as supporting the
policy ofmarket and impact orientation).
78
• Providing direct support to fill the gaps in skills and expertise that has been
lacking in the past. This may take the form of non-traditional inputs such as
market studies, partnerships and media promotion (including the use of local
radio) but any proposal that fosters uptake might be considered (for example,
several Network Coordinators indicated that a source of funding for direct
support to uptake mechanisms would be valuable).
• Developing approaches and methodologies that foster successful uptake. There
is now considerable evidence from the literature that there are multiple
pathways to successful uptake depending upon the nature of the research.
What is important is for the uptake pathway to be considered seriously at the
project design and approval stage. Building on lessons from TIP and lessons
learned elsewhere in the world, this would involve identifying guidelines or
criteria that should be used in developing proposals for research and uptake
activities.
• To select a few research outputs that are considered to have a strong potential
for successful uptake and concentrate the effort on a wide application to
achieve impact. This could include the selection of technologies referred to as
.. on the shelf' and/or greater effort on what has been described as
"upscaling".
• The continuation of activities similar to those funded under a small grants
scheme during Phases I and 2 of TIP. However, the current thinking is that
this mechanism has not had the desired effect across the Networks of
ASARECA.
• Two commodity Networks could be selected that can demonstrate successful
uptake or are eager to explore better uptake. The focus could then be on
working specifically with them to promote uptake both commercially and at
the farm level. Different approaches could be tried and documented in order to
identify key factors ofsuccess. Assistance could be provided to fill in any gaps
(eg. training, market analyses and the identification ofpartners).
• One weakness identified by TIP was the difficulty in finding relevant and
reliable partners for work on uptake. The focus could either be to identify
suitable NGO or private sector partners who wish to work with farmers across
a range of commodities or the focus could be to identify entrepreneurs who
want to work with researchers to produce commodities with the characteristics
they require.
With the funds available it will not be possible to conduct all of these activities and
there is merit in focussing the activities in line with the resources currently available.
It also seems likely that success will be assisted by the use of a full time Facilitator
who will be committed to the objectives of the exercise and have the skills and
expertise needed to promote uptake (many of which call for a non-scientific
background). This facilitation role, working with the Secretariat, Network
Coordinators and selected project leaders in NARIs appears to be the most effective
use of the available resources. Decisions on the role that is chosen for the Facilitator
79
will deteonine whether it makes more sense to place the post in the Secretariat
because of possible multiplier effects through working alongside others in the
Secretariat (MEAPU, ECAPAPA and RAIN) or located with a Network Coordinator.
The Facilitator appointed to the post should be allowed a degree offlexibility in terms
ofpriority activities but it will not be possible to pursue all ofthe activities referred to
above. Four result areas are suggested for the two-year work programme as follows:
1. To appoint a Facilitator and establish office facilities
2. To identify two or three Network Coordinators interested in promoting greater
uptake and advising them on appropriate uptake pathways including "upscaling "
activities on successful technologies in order to demonstrate uptake and achieve
greater impact.
3. To work with the Secretariat promoting uptake processes across the ASARECA
portfolio including the provision of advice, documenting success and lessons
learned and assisting with the approval of work plans and CGS proposals to
ensure sufficient attention is paid to uptake mechanisms. Also to assist in the
preparation ofthe new Strategic plan for ASARECA.
4. To use the available funds to best effect and seek additional funding for extending
the work plan to five years.
On this basis the duties ofthe Facilitator can be summarised as follows:
• To promote across selected Networks the greater uptake ofresearch outputs;
• To participate in the ASARECA strategy revision process and to help develop
and promote a technology transfer/uptake strategy within ASARECA;
• To assess existing technologies "on the shelf' and, where appropriate, develop
means ofpromoting uptake;
• To advise selected Network Coordinators on uptake mechanisms, pathways
etc and assist in the identification of the partnerships needed to ensure
successful uptake,
• To investigate additional funding for the promotion of uptake within
ASARECA;
For this facility to commence operations a Work Plan must be submitted to the
EU/RSU within the Secretariat for approval. Only then can the Facilitator can be
recruited. The key elements of the Work Plan will be the allocation of the budget,
project planning, the logical framework and the procedures for operation of the
imprest account. The project description (Introduction, Background, Programme
Administration and Activity sections) should be relatively straight-forward. A Work
Plan is under preparation as a separate product ofthe consultancy review covered by
this report and it will be submitted to the ASARECA Secretariat.
One of the duties of the Facilitator would be to consider future activities on uptake
and impact and monitor funding requirements. For example, some donor agencies are
adopting a more multidisciplinary approach to development and funds will be
allocated for agricultural research, institutional reform and enterprise development in
an integrated manner. There are already indications within some NPPs (eg.
80
FOODNET) that enterprise funding arrangements (eg. access to credit and investment
finance) are major constraints to uptake and future proposals should respond to
identified weaknesses in uptake pathways. One possibility is the use of EU regional
funds for enterprise development since the procedures only require a request to be
submitted by two of the NAO offices in the region. Another possible source of
funding is DFID (who are preparing a major enterprise development funding facility).
5. Governance
The Facilitator will be recruited within the region and personal qualities will be as
important as hislher technical background. The intention is to introduce some of the
skills and expertise needed to promote uptake.
The Facilitator will be responsible to the Executive Secretary and will work closely
with the Secretariat team. A Steering Committee is not considered necessary.
Financial reports will be submitted quarterly (separately for RSP and other donors)
and technical reporting will be on an annual basis.
Perfonnance indicators will be set in consultation with MEAPU with a view to
fostering both uptake and impact. Possible candidates for perfonnance indicators
include specific technologies applied, number of partnerships developed, media
activities, promotional literature etc.
6. Outline Budget (Euro)
ITEM Year 1(€) Year 2(€) Year 3(€)
Facilitator (salary and 65,000 65,000 65,000
allowances)
Vehicle and computer 30,000
Office costs ( including rent) 20,000 15,000 15,000
Operating costs (fuel, travel etc) 20,000 20,000 20,000
Support activities (meetings, 30,000 30,000 25,000
stndies, training)
Total 165,000 130,000 125,000
GRAND TOTAL 420,000
NOTES
81
a) It is assumed that the Facilitator will be based at tre Secretariat in Entebbe and
rent will be payable.
b) It is assumed that existing transport will not be available and provision is
included for both capital and running costs.
7. The way forward
The provision for TTP within the EU/RSP funding is available repending upon the
preparation and approval of the Work Plan. Recruitment of the Facilitator can then
proceed. However, the way forward will depend upon the content of the approved
Work Plan that is currently in preparation. The outcome of the CD Retreat held in
Kigali in early October 2002 on the rationalization of ASARECA is also relevant
since a review of priorities and the Strategic Plan is envisaged. Depending on the new
circumstances the proposed facility within the Secretariat should be implemented as
soon as possible in line with the intention to increase uptake and impact throughout
ASARECA.
82
APPENDIX 8 Roles and Responsibilities
NOTE
As part of the examination of potential gains in efficiency and effectiveness the
review considered the respective roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders.
This issue is reported under section C.3.6 and it was recommended that a clearer
definition of the responsibilities of the different groups would be advantageous.
Suggested amendments/definitions are presented below, and as indicated in the main
body of the report, if theses are approved by the CD there is a strong case for
incorporating these changes into the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Association. In
this event there are several other issues that should be included. These are also
referred to in the body ofthe report and include the following:
• Amendments to the Bye-laws agreed at the tenth meeting of the CD in 1998
concerning Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 (nomination of an Exewtive Sub-eommittee
and the management role ofthe Executive Secretary).
• Reference to the legal status of ASARECA following the MOU with the
OAU-STRC.
• Formation of the ASARECA Trust which provides the legal basis for the
organization to enter into contracts without recourse to the umbrella provided
by NARO (under the Headquarters Agreement).
Committee ofDirectors
Article 14 ofthe Constitution refers to the functions ofthe CD as follows:
• Act as the principle spokesman for the Association in its external
relations, notably with governments, funding agencies and partner
institutions;
• Enter into contracts and agreements with any relevant institution for support to
the planning and implementation ofregional programmes;
• Guide the implementation of collaborative research programmes in
consultation with the donors, the IARCs and any other relevant institution;
• Rationalize regional networks and programmes;
• Approve and adopt the Bye-laws of the Association;
• Determine administrative and financial management procedures;
• Supervise the work of the Executive Secretariat; Approve work plans,
budgets and their financing agreements; Mobilise the financial resources
needed to carry out the regional activities and programmes;
• Determine the mechanisms and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the
ongoing programmes; Act as a steering mechanism for all activities of the
Association;
• Mandate independent external financial audits of regional activities for funds
from all sources;
• Do anything conducive (or incidental) to the better carrying out of the
provisions ofthe Constitution.
83
According to the findings of this review these functions require substantial revision.
Those items highlighted are considered to be genuine roles for the CD; those not
highlighted should be delegated to the Secretariat. An important item to be added
would be for the CD to determine policy for the Association (bearing in mind the
views expressed by an Advisory Body that represents the interests of NARS and
regional bodies involved in trade).
Executive Secretary
The Constitution refers to the functions ofthe Executive Secretariat only but the Bye￾laws (Article 14) give the Secretaries duties as follows:
• Ensure efficient execution of all the functions of the Secretariat specified in
article 17 ofthe Constitution;
• Close liaison with the Chairperson in all matters important to the effectiveness
and image ofthe Association;
• Act as Secretariat for all CD meetings and to represent, if necessary, the
Chairperson in contacts with donors, IARCs and other relevant organizations;
• Provide the CD with quarterly financial reports, a comprehensive annual
report of activities and;
• Ensure a regular publication ofthe Association's newsletter.
The findings ofthe review have argued in favour of greater delegated authority for the
Executive Secretary to include management and supervision of the research portfolio
as well as the resources within the Secretariat. As recommended in the Strategic plan
this would include the initiation as well as the review of proposals for regional
collaborative research. Note: the formal document of the Bye-laws does not include
the amendment to Article 7 that indicates that the Executive Secretary shall manage
the affairs ofthe Association under the guidance ofthe Chairperson of the CD.
Finance Officer
The Bye-laws ofthe Association refer to the Finance Officer being responsible for the
following:
• To prepare ASARECA annual budgets;
• To prepare quarterly financial statements and cash flows of ASARECA;
• To prepare or update a detailed financial management manual for ASARECA;
• To keep proper books of account;
• To ensure accountability at all levels offinancial management;
• To facilitate training in financial management of research engaged
in ASARECA projects;
• To supervise and guide all ofthe staff under him;
• To co-sign financial transactions with the Executive Secretary.
84
Under the recommendations ansmg from the review the administrative
responsibilities should be added to these duties and the implications of the proposed
structure taken into account.
Network Coordinators
The Bye-laws refer to the responsibilities of the Task Force leaders (Network
Coordinators?) as follows:
• To chair all meetings of the Task Force and, if required, to assign secretariat
responsibilities;
• To ensure that all guidelines issued by the CD with regard to the planning,
implementation and reporting ofTask Force activities are adhered to;
• To ensure that all functions of the Task Force, as listed in Article 22 of these
Bye-laws, are carried out;
• To coordinate the research activities and scientific information-gathering
carried out under the programme, with particular emphasis on the
maintainance ofhigh standards of quality;
• To help participating scientists to obtain, exchange and disseminate
information, and to provide the same assistance in the field of technology
transfer;
• To assist participating scientists in the preparation of progress reports and in
the publication oftheir results;
• To monitor programme implementation and to compile for the Executive
Secretary and CD the halfyearly and annual progress reports;
• To facilitate external reviews of the programmes activities mandated by the
CD;
• To prepare and organise the Task Force meetings, field visits, workshops and
seminars, and training courses, as well as peer reviews of new activities, in
accordance with TF work plans and budgets approved by the CD;
• To maintain contact with relevant national institutions, IARCs, regional and
international research institutions; .
• To keep the Executive Secretary fully informed of all relevant happenings
Issues to be taken into account in any revision are reporting and accountability to the
Secretariat.
MEAPU
The two officers in MEAPU have individual TOR but there is no formal statement for
the functions ofthe Unit. However, the following has been proposed as general TOR:
• Provide assistance to planning ASARECA's research portfolio at all levels (ie
strategic, programme planning and priority setting at the NPP operational
level;
• Provide assistance in Monitoring and Evaluation of ASARECA,s research
portfolio at all operational levels;
• Provide leadership in the running ofASARECA's GCS;
85
• In collaboration with ECAPAPA and RAIN, develop and maintain appropriate
databases for research and development.
Issues to be taken into account include the accountability of the Networks, the
proposed new structure, the greater collaboration with ECAPAPA and the relationship
to the RSU.
ECAPAPA
ECAPAPA has been mandated by the CD to:
• Strengthen the capacity ofthe NARS in the region in:
• Strategic planning and priority setting that integrate the
guidelines of existing agricultural policies into their research
programmes and project planning to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of the research effort and to raise payoffs from
technology development.
• Managing, utilizing and mobilising of resources directed
towards agricultural research, including alternative funding
mechanisms and increased justification for resources from the
public sector.
• Help improve the regional capacity for agricultural policy research, analysis
and formulation by:
o Engaging agricultural researchers in collaborative work with policy
expert personnel and units both within and outside the NARS, thus,
o Encouraging and assisting the policy making systems in the countries
ofthe region to formulate agricultural policies based on sound research
and analysis, which can,
o Provide policy makers and political leaders with improved policy
options and knowledge about the implications of the options for
agricultural productivity, overall production, and sustainability of the
agricultural production systems.
• Network and coordinate from regional perspective selected policy research
and analysis that add value to those activities that can be done nationally.
Following an inconclusive Mid Term Review of ECAPAPA in 2001 a review of the
Programme is being carried out to determine priorities for the future work plan. A
report proposing that ECAPAPA should focus more on policy analysis in the future
has been prepared for consideration by the Coordinator. In effect, a review of
ECAPAPA is underway that is likely to result in changes to the future programme of
work.
RSU
For the EU/RSP the Executive Secretary has been designated as the Regional
Authorising Officer for the programme and the RSU will play a critical role in
ensuring that the Secretariat is able to perform this function to the full satisfaction of
86
all of the partners involved in the programme. Therefore, the primary function of he
two international officers will be to ensure that efficient and effective financial control
and project administration mechanisms are established and implemented within the
Secretariat and in the coordinating units for the programme. More importantly, they
will be required to ensure that the ASARECA Secretariat is able to function as the
RAG for EU funds by setting up and implementing the necessary administrative
procedures and guidelines as well as financial control mechanisms.
The two principle officers also have specific functions which attempt to draw a
distinction between the technical, administrative and financial responsibilities.
87
Executive
Secretariat
Conference of
Ministers
I
I
I
I
I
I
Task Force Leader
Tas Force
88
Technical
Committeesl ----I Working
groups
1-
Appendix9 I,)
ASARECA structure 1994
Committee of
Directors
SECRETARY
Finance Officer
NPPs
89
APPENDIX 10
Current ASARECA Structure
Advisory
Body
Board of
Directors
Executive
Secretar:y
.....
.
'
.........
...
....
"
...../
•
MEAPU
Other Networks. Projects and Programmes (NPPs)
APPENDIX 11
Proposed ASARECA Structure
90