Session 4. National agricultural research systems

Session guide: National agricultural research systems: Organization and management
Reading note: NARS: Organization and management

DATE
TIME
FORMAT	Plenary participatory lecture
TRAINER

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this session, participants should be able to:

1. Understand the development, organization and management of national agricultural research systems (NARS).

2. Compare the relative potential of NARS and their governance functions, and the effectiveness of research functions.

3. Appreciate the linkage between IARCs and NARS.

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Exhibit 1	Why NARS?
Exhibit 2	What are NARS?
Exhibit 3	Organizational models of NARS
Exhibit 4	Agricultural Research Council model (1)
Exhibit 5	Agricultural Research Council model (2)
Exhibit 6	Agricultural Research Council model (Case example)
Exhibit 7	National Research Institute model
Exhibit 8	National Research Institute model (Case example)
Exhibit 9	Organization of agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa
Exhibit 10	University of Agriculture model
Exhibit 11	Organization of research
Exhibit 12	Effectiveness and efficiency of NARS organizations
Exhibit 13	NARS: Governance functions
Exhibit 14	NARS: Research functions
Exhibit 15	Comparing IARC and NARS systems
Exhibit 16	Future needs of NARS

BACKGROUND READING

Reading note: National agricultural research systems: Organization and management

RECOMMENDED READING

None.

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT AND AIDS

Overhead projector and chalkboard

Session guide: National agricultural research systems: Organization and management

Show EXHIBIT 1 and initiate discussion with "Why are national agricultural research systems (NARS) necessary?" List the reasons given by the participants. The need for NARS and their strengthening in developing countries over the last three decades was stimulated by the need to increase food production by making science and technology available for transformation of traditional agriculture. The green revolution is primarily the result of NARS and the emergence of international agricultural research centres (IARCs) as instruments of change. The 'miracle' seeds and packages of technology developed through IARCs catalysed NARS to adapt the technology and reap the full benefits. Thus, the first phase of the revolution in production came through 'seeds of change,' and fertilizer and irrigation interaction. Ask the participants to contribute their views and make a comprehensive list of why NARS are necessary.

Show EXHIBIT 2 and discuss "What do NARS consist of?" and "What do they do?" Discuss the organizational structure of NARS, as influenced by:

· the number and type of organizations performing research;
· the mandates of NARS and their internal characteristics;
· the patterns they follow in communicating with each other; and
· their governance and resource acquisition mechanism.

Agricultural research is normally supported by government either through the ministry responsible, usually the Ministry of Agriculture or of Rural Development. Sometimes agricultural universities are entrusted with responsibility for agricultural research, while private industry may support it in some cases.

Show EXHIBIT 3 on organizational models of NARS. These are basically:

· the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) model;
· the National Research Institute (NRI) model;
· the University model; or
· the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture model. Each of these organizational models should be discussed individually.

Now move to EXHIBIT 4 and initiate discussion on the ARC model. Discuss the main features of the ARC model. It consists of managing, coordinating or funding councils (EXHIBIT 5). Discuss each of these councils. Experience has shown that managing councils are quite effective because they have responsibility for coordinating, funding and managing research programmes. Managing councils provide complete autonomy for planning and executing research, optimizing use of available resources. The coordinating councils merely coordinate. They lack both resources and administrative powers and are thus least effective. The funding councils influence prioritization and direction of research through allocation of funds but neither inspire nor catalyse research.

The ARC model can be illustrated with the case example of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Show EXHIBIT 6. Discuss the features of ICAR, particularly its wide span of control. ICAR has several bodies for management of various functions. At the level of a research institute, management is by committee, although the institutes are organized by discipline or division.

Internal and external reviews constitute an important feature of the ICAR system. While policy planning, review and funding functions could be centralized, it is necessary to de-centralize programme execution and administration. Quote the examples of ICAR, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC) and Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD).

Move to the NRI model (EXHIBIT 7). This is common in Latin American countries, where agricultural research is conducted only at national level. The national institutes enjoy comparatively great freedom and autonomy. They invariably control, direct and manage all publicly funded agricultural research. They may be autonomous or semi-autonomous, with corresponding management patterns. Discuss the advantages of autonomous versus semi-autonomous models in the context of budgetary support, recruitment of scientists, financial norms and disciplines, and responsibility for technology transfer. Quote the examples of the national institutes of Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

Using EXHIBIT 8, discuss the governance of the National Institute of Agriculture (INTA), Argentina. It has a governing committee responsible for overall governance, a national directorate, a directorate of research, and directorate of extension. Provoke participants by making observations that such institutes are monolithic organizations, with central control and direction, and have low local and regional orientation and interaction. Discuss further whether improvements have been taking place in recent years. Ask participants

· "Who makes policy decisions and counsels the director general (DG) in these institutes?"
· "How is research organized?"
· "What is the usual organization at project and programme levels?"
· "What arrangements exist for technology transfer?"

In this context, elicit observations on structures in different countries or regions.

EXHIBIT 9 deals with the organization of agricultural research systems in sub-Saharan Africa, where little in the way of agricultural research systems existed before independence. Over time, NARS have been organized using three different models, representing combinations of the NRI and ARC models.

Through EXHIBIT 10, discuss the University of Agriculture model, patterned after the Land Grant Universities of the USA. While the universities are autonomous, their dependence on state as well as national (federal) councils for funds influences the direction of research conducted by them. Agricultural universities are usually not responsible for extension, which is the responsibility of the state department of agriculture.

Ask "What is the basis for research organizations?" Answer: Experiment stations. The number of experiment stations, their size, and organizational pattern would vary from country to country. They may be dedicated to one commodity or a number of commodities, and with multidisciplinary or single-discipline orientation. In some cases, they may be designated as national research stations and conduct basic and strategic research. In other cases, they may be regional or commodity research stations. They may be coordinated from headquarters.

Commodity research stations are well focused and integrated research organizations, with a holistic approach to commodity improvement research. They are characterized by cross-disciplinary research and greater orientation towards systems research. However, they have a weak disciplinary research base. In contrast, disciplinary research stations have disciplinary research as their base, and are thus more effective for basic and strategic research. They tend to specialize.

Discuss the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization and structure of NARS (EXHIBITS 11 and 12) and observe the importance of organization. The success of an organization depends on whether the structure promotes or retards research functions and whether it is compatible with resources and goals.

Now discuss;

· governance functions (budgetary support, personnel policies, infrastructure for research, etc.);

· research functions, which determine relevance, quality and importance of research programmes; and

· funding mechanisms, which affect autonomy (EXHIBITS 13 and 14).

The discussion would perhaps conclude that the NRI and ARC (management type) models are most efficient.

EXHIBIT 15 compares IARCs with NARS. Observe that they have a symbiotic relationship and create synergic effects, despite many dissimilarities.

Conclude the session by discussing EXHIBIT 16 on the future needs of NARS. Emphasize their changing role in the context of newly emerging research problems. NARS need to:

· create effective planning capacities;
· emphasize de-centralization;
· evolve a system of responsibility with accountability; and
· link with the private sector.

EXHIBIT 1

WHY NARS?

List here the reasons given by the participants

1____________________________

2____________________________

3____________________________

4____________________________

5____________________________

6____________________________

EXHIBIT 2

WHAT ARE NARS?

· NARS encompass a wide range of institutions and activities

· in a given country, all institutions and organizations actually or potentially involved in agricultural research and technology development together constitute the NARS of that country.

· Strong linkages are necessary between NARIs and specialized commodity research institutes, universities, industrial research laboratories, development organizations and the extension services. They are all involved in agriculture-related development activities.

· Linkages among these entities are often very weak, even though such linkages are especially critical for the interfaces between technology generation, education and technology transfer.

EXHIBIT 3

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS OF NARS

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL MODEL

NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE MODEL

UNIVERSITY MODEL

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE/DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MODEL

EXHIBIT 4

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL MODEL - (1)

Autonomous research organizations, responsible for

- policy making,
- managing or administering
- coordinating, and
- funding research councils.

May or may not include responsibility for extension

EXHIBIT 5

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL MODEL - (2)

THE COUNCILS

1. Managing Council
2. Coordinating Council
3. Funding Council

EXHIBIT 6

ARC Model (Case example)

INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (ICAR)

· Span of control

· Management at the Council level:

General Body
Governing Body
Finance Committee
Regional Committee

· Management at the research institute level:

Director General
Organization by disciplinary divisions
Management by committees

· Review system

EXHIBIT 7

NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (NRI) MODEL

Features:

Comparatively great freedom and autonomy

Autonomy:

Fully or semi-autonomous

Direction:

From a board of governors

Extension:

Responsible for agricultural extension as well

EXHIBIT 8

NRI Model (Case example)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE (INTA), ARGENTINA

Governance:

Governing Committee
National Directorate
Directorate of Research
Directorate of Extension

EXHIBIT 9

ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

· Prior to independence, research organizations followed the agricultural research pattern of the respective colonial power

MODELS OF RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS

· Semi-autonomous research councils
· Semi-autonomous research institutes
· Advisory and coordinating councils

EXHIBIT 10

THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MODEL

Pattern:

USA Land Grant Universities

Funding:

State as well as national (federal) research councils

Governance:

Board

Autonomy:

High

Extension:

Usually not responsible, but linkage with the state Directorate of Agriculture

EXHIBIT 11

ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH

GOAL	ORGANIZATION
1. Pure research	Individual scientist
2. Highly mission-focused structure	Multidisciplinary programme structure or Research station with disciplinary departmental structure
3. Commodity development	Multidisciplinary programme
4. Commodity development and discipline growth	Research station with disciplinary department structure
5. Growth of discipline	Disciplinary institute
6. Farming systems research	Multidisciplinary programme with a coordinating unit

Source: ISNAR

EXHIBIT 12

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF NARS' ORGANIZATIONS

Factors affecting effectiveness and efficiency of NARS

· Policy content of agricultural research - interaction between national development policy and agricultural research - formulation of agricultural research policy, priority setting, resource allocation, and long-term goal setting

· Structure and organization of agricultural research - structure and organization of research system - linkage between NARS and policy-makers - linkage between NARS, technology transfer systems and users - linkage between NARS and external sources of knowledge and collaboration

· Management of agricultural research - programme formulation and programme budgeting - monitoring and evaluation - information management - development and management of physical resources - development and management of human resources - acquisition and management of financial resources

Source: ISNAR. 1987.

EXHIBIT 13

Relative potential of NARS models in terms of governance functions

Components of governance	ARC model			NRI model		Min. of Agric. model	University model
	Managing model	Coordinating model	Funding	Semi-auton.	Auton.		Traditional	Agric.(1)
Exp. Sta. network	***	*	*	***	***	***	*	***
Independent and stable budget	***	*	**	**	***	**	*	***
Personnel policies	**	*	*	**	***	*	*	**
Procurement problems	**	*	**	***	***	*	**	**
Maintenance of research information	**	*	*	***	***	*	**	**
Decentralization	*	***	***	**	***	*	**	**

Note: (1) USA Land Grant type University of Agriculture.

(2) Effectiveness of research function: *** = Strong; ** = Average; * = Weak

Source: ISNAR. 1987:216-217

EXHIBIT 14

Relative potential of NARS models in terms of research functions

Effectiveness of research functions	ARC model			NRI model		Min. of Agric. model	University model
	Managing model	Coord. model	Funding	Semi-auton.	Auton.		traditional	Agric.(1)
Research priorities and resource allocation	***	**	**	**	***	**	*	***
Programme formulation	***	**	*	*	**	**	*	***
Programme implement.	**	*	*	**	***	**	*	***
Monitoring	***	*	**	**	**	*	*	***
Evaluation	***	**	***	**	**	*	*	***
Linkage with extension	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	*
Linkage with academic community	*	**	***	**	**	*	***	*
Integration of research, teaching and extension	**	*	*	**	**	**	**	***
Linkage with policy-makers	***	*	*	***	**	**	*	*
Staff development	*	*	**	*	**	**	*	**

Notes: (1) USA Land Grant type

(2) Effectiveness of research function: *** = Strong; ** = Average; * = Weak

Source: ISNAR, 1987: 216-217.

EXHIBIT 15

IARC AND NARS SYSTEMS COMPARED

Parameter	IARCs	NARS
Mandate	Global or regional	National
Research responsibilities	Sharply focused on one or a few commodities	Comprehensive responsibility for many commodities and factors of production
Form of research	Basic, strategic and applied	Basic, strategic, applied and adaptive
Location-specific research	Little	Significant
Training of scientists	Post-graduate degree level and above	Mostly up to post-graduate degree, but higher-level training in some well developed NARS
Organization	Like corporate bodies, with de-centralized administrative approach	Related to national government organizations
Multidisciplinarity in research	Very strong	Trend towards multidisciplinarity
Availability of resources and infrastructure for research	Comparatively easy	Highly constrained
Governing boards	Very effective	Less effective, but vary in effectiveness
Proportion of budget spent on research	Very high	Small, as staff costs consume most of the budget
Review function	Regular and highly valued	Usually irregular

EXHIBIT 16

NARS' FUTURE NEEDS

PLANNING CAPACITY

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION

RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

LINKAGE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Reading note: NARS: Organization and management

Developing countries are mostly dependent on traditional agriculture for food production, with some organized research system for commodities of interest to industrialized countries, i.e., for export crops. Soon after independence in the 1960s, these countries realized that the systems of agricultural research and extension they had inherited from the colonial powers were inadequate to provide technologies for accelerating staple food production. These countries felt the need to reorganize their research systems so that they could be self-sufficient in food supplies and produce surpluses of exportable commodities for earning their much needed foreign exchange.

The experiences of the early 1960s clearly established the utility of agricultural research as a powerful instrument for increasing output from scarce land resources. This stimulated reorganization of agricultural research and education, and the evolution of NARS. NARS in developing countries have grown rapidly over the last 25 years as a result of increasing investment (Figures 1 and 2). The aim has been to create highly effective and integrated research organizations, devoting special attention to food commodity research, and meeting the needs for training and backstopping agricultural extension and development agencies. The focus has also shifted, with a greater share of resources going to food crops, which were neglected in the past. Africa became the focus of attention for both international agencies and national governments because of the high rate of population growth, low growth rate in agricultural production, and widening gaps between food needs and production. Drought and famine in some countries of Africa stimulated greater interest in developing agricultural research infrastructure and in making the continent self-sufficient in food.

ORGANIZATION OF NARS

Governments - usually through either their Ministry of Agriculture or of Science and Technology - have been promoting agricultural research. The core of NARS consists of the organizations and institutions created or funded by government, or both, to generate improved production technologies and provide support for the national programme of agricultural development.

Figure 1 Agricultural research: Public sector expenditure and staffing by region (From: Anderson, Herdt and Scobie, 1988)

Figure 2 Agricultural research and extension: Public sector expenditure as percentage of the value of agricultural production. (From: Anderson, Herdt and Scobie, 1988)

This model - the Ministry of Agriculture model - has been particularly preferred by countries with small-sized agricultural research organizations. The ministry system is centralized in terms of authority and bureaucratic in practice, but in recent years new organizational patterns have emerged which provide higher authority and greater flexibility in administration and programme implementation, either in universities in the faculty of agriculture or in agricultural universities specially established on the pattern of American Land Grant colleges or, in some cases, with support from private industry, especially for industrial and export commodities such as tea, coffee, rubber, cotton, jute and sugar.

Funding sources also vary, according to how agricultural research is organized at the national level. NARS may be funded by:

· government budgets, provided either directly or through the appropriate ministry;

· revenues from levies on export commodities;

· external or foreign aid;

· privately sponsored research grants for which the national agricultural research organization serves as the contractor; or

· income from the sale of produce or consultancy services.

Three models for organization of NARS have evolved over time:

· the Agricultural Research Council model (ARC);
· the National Research Institute model (NRI); and
· the University of Agriculture model.

THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL MODEL

The ARC model represents a variant of an autonomous research organization, playing the roles of policy making, managing or administering, coordinating and funding through respective research councils. The distinguishing feature of this model is the full managerial responsibility and freedom from bureaucracy given to scientists. Research organizations in the ARC model enjoy autonomy in conducting, directing and coordinating research. They are, however, responsible for implementing government policies for agricultural growth and for providing necessary technical support. The ARC model may or may not include responsibility for agricultural education. In many cases, agricultural universities are responsible for education.

Councils

The ARC may be organized as a managing council, a coordinating council, or a funding council.

Managing Councils

The Managing Councils plan, organize, manage and direct most of the government-funded research station network. They carry out some research through their own research institutes and some in collaboration with other organizations. They administer the activities of experimental stations, institutions, programmes and scientists. Their number would vary according to the size of the research system. In large countries, where agricultural research is organized at both federal and provincial levels under different administrative set-ups, the council links the federal and regional experimental stations through a series of national programmes. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), and the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD) are examples of managing councils in their respective countries.

The managing council model is considered quite effective. It has responsibility for coordination, funding and management of research programmes, and enjoys autonomy in planning and executing research so as to best utilize the available resources. Experience with the ARC model shows that:

· while the function of policy planning, reviewing, and funding should be centralized, the process of programme execution, administration and authority for use of resources should be de-centralized so as to make the individual units efficient but responsible;

· the review process and a system of incentives and deterrents encourages efficiency and should be built into the system;

· a system of external programme and management reviews is useful in toning up research and management;

· comparatively greater autonomy with accountability is needed in administrative and financial matters; and

· where the ARC is also responsible for partially funding, strengthening and coordinating research, education and extension, it should ensure that universities have a healthy balance of basic, strategic, applied and adaptive research.

Coordinating Councils

The primary responsibility of Coordinating Councils is the coordination of research for the country as a whole, but the experiment stations and institutions that they coordinate maintain their own administrative and budgetary independence and are not linked to the council hierarchically. Coordination councils:

· develop national research plans based on strategic and economic considerations, thus influencing the research programme of different experimental stations in the country; and

· periodically review the work of experimental stations.

Coordination councils are the least effective of the three ARC models because they lack both resources and administrative powers. Persuasion and motivation alone cannot effectively influence the course of research without proper planning, adequate resource mobilization and efficient management.

The Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) is an example of this type. Sri Lanka is also developing a similar council for agricultural research coordination.

Funding Councils

Even though Funding Councils do not have any research stations under their administrative control, they influence the direction of research through control over the disbursement of government funds. Thus, in prioritizing research they give a sense of direction to and shape research programmes. To a large extent, financial control can influence the course of research, without inspiring or catalysing it. In addition, Funding Councils tend to become highly bureaucratic because of their financial powers. The Philippine Council for Agricultural and Resource Research and Development (PCARRD) is an example of this type.

Case example: The ICAR Model

ICAR is a registered autonomous research society, with the Minister of Agriculture as its president. It has responsibility for all agricultural, horticultural, animal science, fisheries, home science, soil science, engineering, plant protection, plant breeding and agronomic research, which is carried out through its federal research institutes, centres and coordinated and ad hoc research programmes. As of 1995, ICAR managed and coordinated the activities of 46 federal research institutes, 25 national research centres, 26 agricultural universities, 76 nationally coordinated research projects, a large number of nationally funded ad hoc research projects, and 9 project directorates.

Management at the Council level

ICAR is assisted by a number of bodies, which provide direction and guidance on policy, technical, administrative, financial and other matters concerned with the national agricultural research and education effort.

· General Body As a registered society, ICAR has a General Body, with the Minister of Agriculture as its president and the DG, ICAR, as its vice-president. It has representatives from various organizations and related ministries. It is the supreme policy making body in the ICAR organizational set-up.

· Governing Body The Governing Body, with the DG, ICAR, as chairperson, is the executive and decision making authority which manages, administers, directs and controls the funds of ICAR. It is composed of scientists and representatives of scientific interests.

· The Standing Finance Committee This committee advises ICAR on financial matters, including budgeting.

· Scientific Panels and the Norms and Accreditation Committee They advise ICAR on research- and education-related matters.

· Regional Committees ICAR has a number of regional committees which advise on matters regarding research priorities, the relevance of and needs for research for different ecological regions.

The DG is the chief executive of the organization, and is also designated as Secretary to the Government of India for the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE). This establishes ICAR's linkage with the central government. The DG is assisted by deputy directors-general in technical matters, a secretary in all administrative matters, and financial advisors in financial matters. The technical divisions are under deputy directors-general, assisted by assistant directors-general. The administrative divisions are under the secretary.

Management at the research institute level

ICAR has several research institutes, each headed by a director who is responsible for carrying out the mandate of the institute. The institutes are organized in a number of divisions or units, and are administered and guided by scientists. For every institute, there is a management committee which oversees the management of the institute and advises the director on administrative and technical matters. The director reports to the DG, ICAR, through the appropriate deputy director-general.

The Coordinated Research Projects are controlled by project coordinators or directors, who also report to the appropriate deputy director-general.

A deputy director-general for education coordinates the activities of agricultural universities and acts as a liaison officer for ICAR. The ICAR model covers agricultural education as well as extension education organized in agricultural universities. The agricultural universities are under the administrative control of the state governments, which provide finance, but that is not adequate for all their activities. ICAR provides large grants to universities for ICAR-sponsored research, training and extension activities. These grants constitute an important source of funds for the agricultural universities.

Review system

ICAR has a number of scientists' panels for reviewing various ad hoc research projects. It has developed a system for quinquennial reviews of research of the institutes and of the coordinated projects, on the CGIAR/IARC pattern.

THE NRI MODEL

In Latin American countries, agricultural research is, in general, nationally organized and provincial governments have no role. Autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions organized on the pattern of private enterprises have become the instruments for coordinating research. In many ways, these institutions are analogous to the ARCs of Asia, but they enjoy greater freedom and autonomy. They invariably control, direct and manage all the publicly funded agricultural research.

The autonomous institutions receive directions for their research policy and management from a governing board. The DG of the institution is also the president of the governing board, which has wide powers. The board is appointed by the responsible Ministry - usually that of Agriculture - and represents the interests of the users of agricultural research, particularly producers. This ensures the necessary support for the development programmes of the government and of the producers.

The boards of semi-autonomous national institutions generally have an advisory role, and are usually closely linked to the relevant Ministry. The DGs of these institutions have greater access to and dependence on the relevant Ministry compared to the autonomous institutions.

The autonomous institutions have complete control over their budget and can operate within the policies laid down by their board, whereas the semi-autonomous institutions are dependent on the Ministry for their budgetary support. However, both follow the financial norms and disciplines laid down by the government for publicly funded institutions. They have also to conform to audit requirements.

An important feature of the national institutions, whether autonomous or semi-autonomous, is their responsibility for extension. This contrasts with the ARC model, which generally excludes extension.

The NRIs are monolithic organizations, with central control and direction and with less regional and local orientation and interaction. However, in recent years, the need for reorganization of research has been increasingly recognized. The linkage of extension with research has improved, and more regionalization in research and extension has been introduced.

The National Institute of Agriculture (INTA), Argentina, and the National Institute of Agriculture (INIA), Chile, both have responsibility for extension. INIA has a strong Department of Technology Transfer.

The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) combines the good features of Asian ARCs and the Latin America autonomous NRIs.

Case example: The INTA model

INTA, Argentina, can be considered as a model of an autonomous national institute with a DG as its head. It has four entities of governance, indicating different functions as well as levels of hierarchy:

· Governing Committee;
· National Directorate;
· Directorate of Research; and
· Directorate of Extension.

The Governing Committee is the policy making body and counsels the DG on administrative, organizational and financial matters, and includes representatives of the government (president, vice-president and one ordinary member), four representatives of major producer agencies, and three representatives of the universities or academic interests. The National Directorate is the second entity of governance, consisting of the DG, deputy director-general, and assistant directors. It represents a highly centralized system of governance. The Directorate of Research is the third entity of governance, responsible for individual research stations. The fourth entity is the Directorate of Extension, which reports direct to the assistant director of extension.

Case example: Organization of agricultural research systems in sub-Saharan Africa

Before independence, most of the sub-Saharan African countries followed the agricultural research system created by the colonial powers, which was more suited to the development of export commodities such as coffee, tea, palm-oil, cocoa, etc. The francophone countries - under the influence of the French colonial system - had developed linkages for basic research with specialized research institutes in metropolitan France. In contrast, in the anglophone countries, agricultural research organizations were more commodity-oriented, though there were some regional agricultural research institutions and organizations, such as the East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization (EAFRO) and the Empire Cotton Growers' Association.

Following independence during the 1960s and 1970s, many of the countries created NARS or national agricultural research institutes (NARIs). In the francophone countries, they are mostly under the Ministry of Science and Technology, while in the anglophone countries they are under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Although these institutions combine some of the features of the Asian ARCs and the Latin American NRIs, they differ in having:

· semi-autonomous status within the responsible ministry; and

· responsibility for much of the policy making and management of the system, which rests with the director of the institution and not with the boards of management.

Taylor (1988) describes three different models of research organizations in the anglophone countries. The semi-autonomous research councils resemble closely the funding and coordinating councils of Asia. Examples are the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research in Ghana and the Agricultural Research Corporation of Sudan.

The semi-autonomous research institutes have a board of management designated by the government. The board lays down guidelines for policy and research programmes, but day-to-day management is the responsibility of the DG of the institute. An example is the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI).

The advisory and coordinating councils lay down policies and ensure their reflection in research programmes. An example of this type is the National Council for Science and Technology of Nigeria.

THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MODEL

In some developing countries, specially in Asia, agricultural research and education is organized under an autonomous agricultural university established on the pattern of the Land Grant universities of the United States of America. The state agricultural universities of India, Pakistan and the Philippines are based on this model. They are autonomous organizations, with state-wide responsibility for agricultural research, education and training or extension education. The responsibility for extension rests with the Departments of Agriculture and of Animal Husbandry, which are under the Ministry of Agriculture. The agricultural universities receive core funds for research and education from the state governments and substantial grants from the national agricultural research council or national institutes. The agricultural universities are headed by a vice-chancellor, governed by a board, and advised by an advisory committee.

The governing boards of the agricultural universities have representatives from government, farmers and agro-business. Being autonomous organizations, they are able to integrate research and education and carry out their mandate more effectively than is possible as a research wing of the Department of Agriculture or the Ministry of Agriculture. The agricultural university set-up in India has become a strong arm of research under ICAR, which is one of the strongest NARS in a large developing country. Reorganization of agricultural research on similar lines is also in progress in Africa and Latin America. In some countries, universities function on European university models, with agriculture as one of the faculties of the university. They are responsible for research and education and the Departments of Agriculture of the state depend on them.

EXPERIMENT STATIONS: THE BASIS FOR RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Whatever the organizational form, the experiment station is the unit of agricultural research. Internal organization of an experiment station depends upon the nature of its mandate (Table 1).

Some general comments can be made concerning experiment stations:

· the number of experiment stations in a NARS can vary greatly, and is not necessarily related to the size of the country or its agro-ecological regions;

· the size of an experiment station can vary from a few to a few thousand hectares;

· the organizational pattern may vary around a commodity or a number of commodities, and from multidisciplinary to single-discipline-oriented research;

Table 1 Organization of research according to mandate

Mandate	Form of organization
Pure research	Individual scientist
Highly focused, mission structure	Multidisciplinary programme
Commodity development	Multidisciplinary programme structure of research station with disciplinary department structure
Commodity development and growth of discipline	Research station with disciplinary department structure
Growth of discipline	Disciplinary institute
Farming systems research	Multidisciplinary programme with a coordinating unit

Source: Jain, 1989)

· pure commodity research stations have the advantage of encouraging well focused and integrated research. Their special strong features are: a holistic approach to commodity improvement research, cross-disciplinary team-work, and greater amenability to systems research. One drawback is weakness of disciplinary research;

· in the case of disciplinary research stations, centres or institutions, while emphasis on basic as well as strategic disciplinary research is an advantage, they are not conducive to cross-disciplinary research. Their advantages are specialization, critical mass and facilities for disciplinary work, effective supervision, on-the-job training, better opportunities for career development, and unity of command, which permits better supervision and guidance;

· some experimental stations are system based, with major focus on production rather than on individual commodities; and

· the experimental station may have a national or regional focus. Regional farming systems research is often done in regional research stations, whereas basic and strategic research is usually conducted in national-level research stations.

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF NARS ORGANIZATIONS

NARS differ significantly in their effectiveness, reflecting the inherent strengths or weaknesses of their organizational systems for specific functions. Semi-autonomous research councils or institutions have full control over the selection of scientists and human resources development suitable personnel policies. In contrast, in NARS under the Ministry of Agriculture model, research services are tied to civil service rules, which in general obstruct selection of right persons for right jobs and rewarding merit. Promotion based on seniority and length of service, coupled with rigid rules, makes the system less efficient for research. Such a system is better suited for mediocrity than for excellence. However, this model has strength in transfer of technology, because of the linkage of research with extension. However, research, especially basic and strategic, does suffer in quality. The Land Grant University pattern has an advantage over the general university structure insofar as linkage of research with extension is concerned.

Ultimately, the criterion which determines the. success of an organization is whether or not the structure enhances or retards the efficient performance of a function. The organization must relate to the functions, and should be compatible with the national resources and goals (Table 2).

Table 2 Factors affecting effectiveness and efficiency of NARS

	Policy content of agricultural research
·	interaction between national development policy and agricultural research
·	formulation of agricultural research policy, priority setting, resource allocation and long-term goal planning
	Structure and organization of agricultural research
·	structure and organization of research system
·	linkage between NARS and policy-makers
·	linkage between NARS, technology transfer systems and users
·	linkage between NARS and external sources of knowledge and collaboration
	Management of agricultural research
·	programme formulation and programme budgeting
·	monitoring and evaluation
·	information management
·	development and management of physical resources
·	development and management of human resources
·	acquisition and management of financial resources

Source: ISNAR, 1987.

Governance functions

The governance function relates to the administrative procedures and decision making process in the working of NARS (Table 3). A minimum of administration is necessary if the work of the organization is to proceed smoothly. Budgets must be made, defended and used efficiently. They must reflect a long-term perspective and continued commitment of resources for research. Results cannot be achieved if there are budget uncertainties. Procedures must be in place to monitor the efficiency of use of financial resources, following correct financial procedures and abiding by the restrictions imposed by the funding agency.

Personnel policies have to be evolved to keep scientists motivated, creative and productive. An efficient recruiting system, coupled with continuing improvement of knowledge and skills of scientists through training and interaction with peers and visits to centres of excellence, would make NARS more productive and effective. Adequate laboratory facilities and efficient procurement procedures are necessary for the success of the research system. Too often, poor performance of NARS can be attributed to inadequate laboratory facilities and constraints in procurement of equipment. Even the reorganization of NARS has not improved this situation in many cases. The same system of checks and restraints remains, based on standard government procedures, and this is not conducive to efficient research.

Whether the ARC or the NRI model prevails, there is a tendency to centralize power, authority and decision making, which is counter-productive and reduces the efficiency of research.

Table 3 Relative potential of NARS models in terms of governance functions

Components of governance	ARC model			NRI model		Min. of Agric. model	University model
	Managing model	Coordinating model	Funding	Semi-auton.	Auton.		Traditional	Agric.(1)
Exp. Sta. network	***	*	*	***	***	***	*	***
Independent and stable budget	***	*	**	**	***	**	*	***
Personnel policies	**	*	*	**	***	*	*	**
Procurement problems	**	*	**	***	***	*	**	**
Maintenance of research information	**	*	*	***	***	*	**	**
De-centralization	*	***	***	**	***	*	**	**

Notes: (1) USA Land Grant type University of Agriculture.

(2) Effectiveness of research function: *** = Strong; ** = Average; * = Weak

Source: ISNAR, 1987: 216-217

Research functions

Research functions related to management or programmes, and therefore determining their relevance, quality and impact, (see Table 4) are:

· research policy and resource allocation;
· programme formulation;
· programme implementation;
· monitoring and evaluation;
· programme coordination; and
· linkage with extension.

Although following reorganization of NARS, there should be a distinct improvement in all these aspects, the degree of improvement is related to organization, structure and perception of the research system.

Table 4 Relative potential of NARS models in terms of research functions

Effectiveness of research functions	ARC model			NRI model		Min. of Agric. model	University model
	Managing model	Coord. model	Funding	Semi-auton.	Auton.		Traditional	Agric.(1)
Research priorities and resource allocation	***	**	**	**	***	**	*	***
Programme formulation	***	**	*	*	**	**	*	***
Programme implementation	**	*	*	**	***	**	*	***
Monitoring	***	*	**	**	**	*	*	***
Evaluation	***	**	***	**	**	*	*	***
Linkage with extension	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	*
Linkage with academic community	*	**	***	**	**	*	***	*
Integration of research, teaching and extension	**	*	*	**	**	**	**	***
Linkage with policy-makers	***	*	*	***	**	**	*	*
Staff development	*	*	**	*	**	**	*	**

Notes: (1) USA Land Grant type University of Agriculture.

(2) Effectiveness of research function: *** = Strong; ** = Average; * = Weak

Source: ISNAR. 1987.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF NARS: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

From the foregoing, it is evident that no particular organizational form is suitable for all situations. Studies by ISNAR have shown that, in general, NRI (autonomous), ARC (managing type), and Land Grant university models are most efficient. NRI (semi-autonomous) and ARC (funding type) are the second best. ARC (coordinating type), Ministry of Agriculture, and traditional university types have least advantage.

While most of the Asian countries have adopted the ARC model, Latin American countries have used the NRI model, autonomous or semi-autonomous. Both systems have created impact and contributed to impressive growth of agriculture, especially in foodgrain production, in these countries. While India has been able to more than double its production of wheat and rice in the last 25 years, Argentina and Brazil have achieved similar results in the same period by using a different model of agricultural research organization.

The changes that have taken place in Asia and Latin America are examples of interactive dynamics between political and socio-economic processes. Although the socio-economic and political conditions differ, the processes that led to the establishment of NRIs in Latin America or ARCs in Asia have striking similarities. The reorganized ICAR in India and AARD in Indonesia resulted from a situation in which technology and research were seen by the relevant political system as key factors in solving the problems faced by the country. In some Latin American countries, it was shortages in foodgrain availability or declining trends in export commodities which accelerated the reorganization of agricultural research. They adopted the NRI model because many commercial organizations were used to a monolithic organization as a vehicle for change.

IARCs AND NARS

Despite many dissimilarities, IARCs and NARS have a symbiotic relationship and do create synergic effects. Comparison between them is difficult and inadvisable, due to their differences in mandate, structure and location, infrastructural support, availability of professionals, multidisciplinarity in research, autonomy and management. However, some important observations on IARC and NARS types of organization and management can be made.

· IARCs aim to fulfil a global or regional mandate through sharply focused research on one or a few commodities or problems. NARS have responsibility for more comprehensive research on a number of commodities of national priority and economic importance, farming systems and agricultural problems relating to factors of production. They have to be concerned with all forms of agricultural research - basic, strategic, applied and adaptive - whereas IARCs do not in general have a mandate for adaptive research: their major emphasis is on applied strategic and basic research, and their role is that of a catalyst for NARS.

· NARS - by their mandate, structure and location - have a comparative advantage in location-specific applied and adaptive research because of better linkage with extension and greater orientation towards location-specific research and transfer of technology.

· NARS have a comparative advantage in training for formal university first degrees in agricultural sciences, whereas IARCs can provide specialized training and post-graduate degree training. However, for post-graduate degrees they work in collaboration with NARS.

· IARCs - by the nature of their organization - are monolithic. However, in planning and implementation of programmes, their approach is de-centralized administration, where the scientists have responsibility and accountability. NARS' organization and structure are related to the socio-political and organizational pattern of the national government. Some of them follow government rules mutatis mutandis, with an excessive number of checks and balances, thus restricting their freedom to operate. However, IARCs are influencing improvements in these areas in NARS.

· The multidisciplinary team approach is stronger in IARC than in NARS.

· Because of better laboratory and farm facilities, availability of foreign exchange and flexibility in purchase of equipment and recruitment of staff, IARCs have comparative advantages in basic and strategic research. NARS are usually more restrained and handicapped in availability of resources.

· The governing boards of IARCs are more effective and objective in policy making than the governing boards of NARS, but of course with variations between NARS.

· IARCs spend a large percentage of their budget on research, whereas a high percentage of the budget in NARS is spent on salaries of staff, leaving only a small percentage available for real research.

· Periodic critical review of research and of priorities is a regular function of IARCs, whereas in NARS the review system is rather weak.

THE FUTURE NEEDS OF NARS

The structure and organization of NARS are critical factors, which should change in response to emerging technical needs, changing socio-economic scenario and the political environment. The size and organization of the system has to be compatible with the nation's development objectives and available resources. Research in NARS has to be well focused in the context of the overall national development policy. As future research needs will be more complex, more difficult and probably increasingly expensive, the organization and structure of NARS will have to adjust to meet future challenges. Some of the areas which NARS will have to strengthen are:

· Creation of planning capacity for increasing effective use of resources.

· De-centralization instead of over-centralization, for combining authority and accountability. A healthy balance of national- and regional-level research is essential for maximizing NARS impact.

· Inter-institutional coordination for building a great deal of complementarity is essential for maximizing the efficiency of NARS.

· Commitment to development for ensuring greater relevance and excellence in respect of research. This can be achieved through appropriate administrative controls. Combining autonomy with commitment is necessary for the success of NARS.

· It is necessary to ensure that management boards are made responsible for reflecting the viewpoints of user agencies or clients in the research programmes of NARS organizations.

· Linkage with the private sector or agro-business is essential to ensure that the research of NARS remains relevant and to promote synergism.

REFERENCES

ACIAR [Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research]. 1989. An Act of Faith: Research Helps Feed the Hungry. ACIAR/ADIAB Canberra for CGIAR.

Baum, W.C. 1986. Partners Against Hunger. Washington, DC: World Bank. See p. 241.

ISNAR. 1987. Report of International Workshop on Agricultural Research Management. 7-11 September 1987, The Hague. The Hague: ISNAR. See pp. 216-217.

Jain, H.K. 1989. Organization and structure in national agricultural research systems. ISNAR Working Paper, No. 21.

Anderson, J.R., Herdt, R.W., & Scobie, G.M. 1988. Science and Food: The CGIAR and Its Partners. Washington, DC: World Bank for CGIAR. See pp. 89-90.

Taylor, A. 1988. Organization and structure of national agricultural research systems in anglophone sub-Saharan Africa. ISNAR Staff Paper, No. 88-19.

This training manual has been prepared as basic reference material to help national research trainers structure and conduct training courses on research management at the institute level. It is intended primarily for managers of agricultural research institutes in developing countries and for institutions of higher education interested in presenting in-service training courses on research management. The manual consists of ten modules, each addressing major management functions including motivation, leadership, direction, priority setting, communications and delegation. The four structural functions of management - planning, organization, monitoring and control, and evaluation - are covered in individual modules. The manual has been designed to support participatory learning through case-studies, group exercises and presentations by the participants.