Agricultural Research for Development: Innovations & IncentivesUppsala, Sweden, 26-27 September 2012

Innovations and incentives in agricultural research for poor countries

Delia Grace and Tom Randolph

Outline

The livestock laboratory

CGIAR: science, evidence, or innovations?

Case studies

Community-based tsetse control

Smallholder dairy development

Innovations + incentives = impacts?

International Livestock Research Institute

700 full time staff-1000 total

100 scientists & researchers

54% from 22 developing countries

more than 30 scientific disciplines

2012 budget USD 60 million

ILRI works with a range of research & development partners

across 7 CGIAR research programs

member of the CGIAR Consortium which conducts livestock, food and environmental research

to help alleviate poverty and improve food security, health & nutrition, While protecting the natural resource base. 

Mali

Nigeria

Mozambique

Kenya

Ethiopia

India

China

Laos

Vietnam

Thailand

Agriculture for Nutrition & HealthCGIAR Research Program 4

IFPRIILRIBIOVERSITY

CIAT

CIMMYT

CIP

ICARDA

ICRAF

ICRISAT

IITA

IWMI

WORLDFISH

Livestock support livelihoods

• In many developing countries, especially SSA, livestock contributes at least 40% agriculture GDP

• Around one billion poor people depend on livestock: 70% of the rural and 25% urban poor. Dependency: 12-50%

• Livestock high value and rapidly growing sector

Rosegrant et al., 2009

Projected global consumption in 2050

population (millions)

295.1

1099.2

2674

480.3

Livestock nourish billions

• Over half developing world’s food

(crops and livestock) comes from

mixed crop livestock systems -

livestock are integral• Livestock provide food for over

830 million food insecure people:

6-36% of protein and 2-12% of

calories• Small amounts of animal source

foods make a huge difference to

nutrition (cognitive development,

maternal health)

Livestock bring lethal gifts …..• Low income countries:

• Zoonoses & diseases emerged from animals 26% IDB, 10% total burden• High income countries:

• Zoonoses & emerged 0.7% IDB, 0.02% total burden

Livestock have a long shadow…• 31% of total freshwater use is for is for livestock• Livestock impact on climate change- 18%?• Livestock compete for other land uses

Additional grains1048 million tonnes

more to 2050

Humanconsumption

458 million MT

Livestock430 million MT

Monogastrics mostly

Biofuels160 million MT

Growing, urbanising, hungry populations

Photo by NYT

Impacts of the CGIAR

65% of the total area planted to the world’s 10 most important food

crops is sown to improved varieties The overall economic benefits of the CGIAR estimated at US$14 -

$120 billion For every $1 invested in CGIAR research, $9 worth of additional food

is produced in the developing world Without CGIAR research developing countries would produce 8%

less food and have converted12 million more hectares to farm land Around 80,000 students, scientists and professionals have benefited

from capacity-building

(The CGIAR at 40 and beyond, 2011)

Evolution of the CGIAR

TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE

EVIDENCE

IMPACT

2 c a s e

s t u d i e s

Case study 1:Innovations that fail

Community-based tsetse control

Trypanosomosis: the most important disease of cattle wherever present

Spread by the unusual tsetse fly

Also causes sleeping sickness

Controlled initially by bush clearing, game culling, areal spraying insecticides…

What was done? Community based tsetse

Innovation Screens that kill tsetse

Science showed

Tryps the most important

disease. 10% infected.

production by 15%

Screens cheap, effective

High satisfaction

High use (until..)

15

Often triedAlways worksNever sustained

Case study 1:Innovation that succeeds

Kenya smallholder dairy

Milk: 2nd largest item of urban

household expenditure

Milk: Per capita daily

consumption of 0.2-0.4 kg

3.5% of Kenya’s Gross

Domestic Product (GDP)

and 14% of the agricultural

GDP.

Smallholder farmers produce

around 80% of the total

production

What was done? Training informal milk sellers

Innovation

Training, branding, certification of

informal sector

Metal milk cans, quality checks

Science showed

Importance of smallholder dairy

Milk hazards high but health risks low

Formal milk no safer than informal

Training hawkers increases safetyRaw milk Pasteurised

100%Fail to meet standards

Impacts of training informal actors

Policy change

Informal sector recognised

Impacts

Increase in milk handled

Around 80% actors trained

Around 50% licensed

$33 million USD annual benefits

Vibrant smallholder sector

Major donor investment

Some differences between case studies

Community-based tsetse control

Novel behaviour

Collective action required

Risk averse target group

With success, motivation fades

Distant link with behaviour and

income

Innovation in a static market

Training informal sector milk sellers

Socially endorsed behaviour

Individual action required

Entrepreneurial target group

With success, motivation remains

Clearlink between behaviour and

income

Innovation in dynamic market

LESSONS AROUND INOVATION & INCENTIVE

FAILURE IS GETTING EASIER TO PREDICT – but not necessarily success

INNOVATIONS ARE THE LEVER – but often succeed in the project context but not in the real world

PICKING WINNERS IS WISE BUT PORTOFOLIO SHOULD BE WIDER– strong markets and growing sectors drive uptake

INCENTIVES ARE CENTRAL: value chain actors need to capture visible benefits

POLICY: not creating enabling policy, so much as stopping the dead hand of disabling policy and predatory policy-implementers

“think like a systemicist, act like a reductionist”

t“Thank you for your attention”