2. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE AKIS/RD CASE STUDIES

Background to the case studies

AKIS/RD is a relatively new concept that goes beyond the notion of merely linking public sector agricultural institutions. Linkage between public sector agricultural research and extension has been an important concern since the 1970s. Back then, some scholars went further by starting to argue for the importance of "the integration of research and education with governance, with supply, with production, and with marketing" (Axinn and Thorat, 1972).

National policy-makers and donor organizations soon identified weak links between extension and research as a major factor limiting technological change, and sought to improve these links through policy changes and institutional reorganizations (Crawford, 1982; World Bank, 1985). By the end of the 1980s, the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) had produced numerous studies on linking on-farm research and extension (e.g. Merrill-Sands and Kaimowitz, 1980; Ewell, 1989; Merrill-Sands and MacAlister, 1989; Kaimowitz et al., 1989). Other attempts to link research with extension over the last four decades include putting both under the same directorate, creating small extension sections in research institutes, and creating research-extension committees. Efforts to promote AKIS were already being popularized in the 1980s (Röling, 1986; 1988; Blum, Röling and Engel, 1990), and were being put into practice by the late 1980s (Van Beek, 1990). The linkages issue has been widely addressed (e.g. Axinn and Thorat, 1972; Nagel, 1979; Cummings, 1981; Compton, 1984; Kaimowitz, 1990; Pray and Echeverría, 1990; Wheeler, 1990; Epanou, 1993; and Crowder and Anderson, 1997).

The AKIS/RD concept can be illustrated by the United States’ Land Grant System. In 1862, the United States Federal Government granted land to the existing states so that they could establish higher education opportunities for the study of agricultural and mechanical arts. Agricultural research and extension were integrated into the Land Grant framework in 1887 and 1914, respectively. The resultant system had built-in linkage, partly because all three functions existed within one institution. The extension component was called the "Cooperative Extension System" because of its system of overlapping authority and shared financial responsibility among federal, state and local governments.

Concern for agricultural linkages is well documented. What distinguishes AKIS/RD is its range of institutional inclusiveness and its expectations, which reach beyond earlier notions of linkages. Indeed, AKIS/RD embraces all those who are concerned with agricultural knowledge and information systems: institutions, organizations, providers and users. It especially emphasizes the importance of agricultural producers as participants in the AKIS process as the recipients, as well as the originators, of knowledge and information for the purposes of agricultural development. Previously, stakeholder or producer participation was discussed mainly in terms of one or two organizations, usually research or extension (Biggs, 1989; Byerlee and Alex, 1998). AKIS/RD presumes joint planning among AKIS agencies and organizations and is broadly concerned with fostering practical knowledge in an agriculturally organized rural learning society, with a view to developing a rural knowledge society.

The FAO/World Bank Strategic vision and guiding principles (2000) came at a time of major worldwide agricultural change and reform. To a large extent, the role of government has been redefined. There has been a shift towards greater privatization of research and extension delivery. Administrative and fiscal decentralization, while not a panacea, can work for the purposes of agricultural and rural development when undertaken deliberately, consistently and carefully (Binswanger, 1998). The importance of stakeholder participation in decision-making is being promoted, although simply "consulting the poor is not enough to empower them for their own development" (Binswanger, 1998). A number of new funding mechanisms have become prominent, such as contracting for service delivery, competitive grants to institutions, and community project funding.

Various specialists have touched on the basic elements of AKIS/RD; for example Bunting (1986) in discussing agricultural extension states that the agricultural knowledge system has five essential components: 1) the existing stock of knowledge (i.e. memory); 2) the means of increasing knowledge (e.g. experience, surveys, research); 3) the means of testing and developing knowledge (R&D); 4) the practical application of knowledge (to increase output, lessen the costs of production and adjust the production system); and 5) the dissemination of knowledge (education, training and extension). Early efforts to advocate and popularize the AKIS concept (Nagel, 1979; Röling, 1986; 1988; Blum, Röling and Engel, 1990) set the stage for the present development of AKIS/RD.

AKIS/RD is distinct from other contemporary linkage concepts. For example, National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) are essentially loose conglomerates of agencies or actors involved in conducting national agricultural research. According to Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003), "the idea of a pluralistic NARS is only gradually being accepted by the key players in agricultural research".

Another concept quite similar to AKIS/RD is that of National Systems for Innovation (NSIs). These differ in being national rather than rural, and are sometimes limited to promoting systems that foster research innovations (Lundvall, 1992; Edquist, 1997). Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003) note that OECD was an early proponent of this concept, although OECD is also committed to the notion of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (AKS), on which (as already mentioned) it convened two major conferences. FAO and the World Bank explicitly added the term "information" to the AKS concept, stating that knowledge is generated and information transferred; only after it has been transferred can information be transformed into beneficial innovation.

NSI, AKIS and NARS are rooted in systems theory and analysis. Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003) also note that any system is usually part of a larger system and consists of interlinked subsystems. They note that systems analysis emphasizes four dimensions for a system: 1) system elements and structure; 2) system environment; 3) system linkages; and 4) system performance. To improve the last of these (performance), either the performance of the system components or the internal and external system linkages must be improved. AKIS and NSI tend to focus on the latter of these two options.

Meanwhile, information and communications technology (ICT) specialists stress the applications of ICTs and their contribution to agricultural and rural development in terms of Agricultural Information Systems (AIS), which underscores AIS as a main characteristic of a knowledge society. One ICT paper states that research results have to feed into "Agricultural and Rural Knowledge and Information Systems" (ARKIS). ARKIS are composed of networks of researchers, extensionists, development practitioners and farmers, and aim to generate technological and social innovation on the basis of interactive learning and knowledge development processes.^[7] Although distinct, these various nomenclatures tend towards the same result, the development of a more productive and interconnected knowledge society.

A number of professionals support the advancement of AKIS/RD. One international agriculturist argues that the three pillars of this system - research, extension and agricultural higher education - can be viewed as the "agricultural knowledge triangle" (AKT), and stresses that because the three pillars involve complementary investments, they should be planned and sequenced as a system rather than as separate entities (Eicher, 2001). He notes that linking the triangle’s institutions with their mutual clientele, including farmers as well as each other, requires systematic planning. Other specialists (FAO, 2002b; Maguire, 2000) suggest that the concept and practice of agricultural education in developing countries be redesigned as education for rural development and food security. Indeed, many needs are rapidly emerging on agriculture’s agenda, such as trade-related education on agro-health (plant and animal health and food safety), value-added agroprocessing, and agromarket competitiveness.

Meanwhile, the realities of shrinking budgets and increasing complexities within agricultural systems also drive different disciplines (marketing, production technologies, natural resources) and various subsystems (research, extension, etc.) towards greater cooperation. In 2001, the World Bank’s AKIS thematic group merged with other interest groups within the Bank (livestock, fisheries, crops, gender and biotech interests), and in 2002 changed its name to Sustainable Agricultural Production and Knowledge Systems (SASKI). This realigned thematic group continues its aim, "to establish a community of practice in sustainable agricultural production and knowledge systems to identify, develop and share good practice, paying particular attention to poverty reduction and gender dimensions".

At the same time, old "hard" linear systems are being balanced with new "soft" system thinking. Systems analysis has its origin in the "hard" sciences, and is therefore relatively familiar. A soft system, on the other hand, "is a social construct that does not physically exist but is nevertheless the more relevant concept when studying social phenomena such as research, knowledge or innovation systems". Indeed, agricultural innovation is a socially constructed process (Berdegué and Escobar, 2001). AKIS/RD is a social construct and its successful development will require soft system thinking. Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003) illustrate the difference between hard and soft systems as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Hard versus soft systems

Source: Hartwich and Meijerink, 1999.

A soft system concept is clearly important in discussions of AKIS, as it can be used to describe a loose conglomerate of different agencies that perform a similar task or work towards a common goal. Chema, Gilbert and Roseboom (2003) state: "Such a system is not a real entity, although we talk about it as though it really does exist (e.g., the education system, the legal system, and the financial system)" - and also AKIS/RD.

Thus, a number of distinct but related concepts and terms are observed surrounding the system referred to as AKIS/RD. The present study adopts and adheres to the terminology laid down in the FAO/World Bank (2000) document, and AKIS/RD draws specifically on its strategic vision and guiding principles for AKIS/RD. In this study, AKIS/RD is considered as the larger, and therefore more inclusive, system concept. Concerned with more than research and innovation, it covers the entire gamut of agricultural agencies, organizations, stakeholders, processes and goals, while emphasizing the role of the public sector in promoting the public good.

Overview of the case studies

Today, change progresses at a gallop. The industrialization of agriculture, the systematization of the agricultural production system and the food chain, advances in information technology, the role of government services and, in particular, best practices for promoting development are all in the process of change. These socio-economic, political and technical changes inevitably have an impact on agricultural research, education and extension institutions, and bring pressure on them to change.

Agriculture and agricultural production are undergoing rapid transformation. In many countries, farms are declining in number but increasing in size. More heterogeneous farming populations have developed, with homogeneous farming populations rapidly becoming specialized into a mix of distinct agricultural producer categories. The extension services that these producers desire need to be tailor-made, and require a more pluralistic system of research and advisory services. In many developing countries, education and training, physical and institutional infrastructure and modern technology are inadequate to meet the challenge.

The concept and practice of development have also been radically altered over the past two decades, incorporating swings towards varying degrees of privatization and pluralism and, more recently, towards participatory approaches that involve the various stakeholders in the process of agricultural development, e.g. farmers, fish harvesters, foresters and livestock breeders, as well as the organizers and providers of supplies, credit and markets, and the institutional officials and non-governmental participants. These privatizing and participatory approaches to development suggest a new period of interdependency and integration and stress the need for public and private sector cooperation and the development of "mixed economies" (Kamerman and Kahn, 1994).

Governments are also in the process of changing. The end of the Cold War, the mounting debt crisis, the pressures for structural adjustment and reform, and the recognition of global environmental deterioration - these are some of the factors that have contributed to changes in government policies and structures. Most developing countries have now joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), which places renewed pressure on them to compete in the world market. At the same time, in many countries the public sector is faced with limited financial resources, skilled workforce and organizational capacity.

An information technology revolution is unfolding, with tremendous but still largely unrealized potential for rural development (Zijp, 1991). According to one World Bank official (Antholt, 1994), information is as important a production factor as the "classic" land, labour and capital. This is the context in which FAO and the World Bank published their Strategic vision and guiding principles (2000).

The demanding task of promoting AKIS/RD is evident in the ten country case studies analysed in this study. They reveal that a number of actions and conditions are necessary to develop an integrated and effective AKIS/RD, including but not limited to the nine principles identified in the seminal FAO/World Bank document.

Different stages of AKIS/RD development

The ten countries reviewed in this study do not yet appear to possess totally integrated and operative AKIS/RD, although all of them appear to want to move in that direction and most appear to be making significant progress.^[8] Agricultural research, education and extension still tend to operate as three separate systems (or subsystems), and there are varying degrees of linkage within the three public sector institutions, occasional connections with the private sector and increasing participation from agricultural producers in the individual systems. The specific (sub)systems of agricultural research, education and extension may be performing well, but lack the degree of coordination that would distinguish them as an integrated system. A few countries appear to be leading the way toward AKIS/RD development, while others are just on the road or at the threshold of AKIS/RD, at the stage of planning to encourage cooperation among institutions and sectors with the participatory involvement of agricultural producers.

The country case studies tend to be highly situation-specific, although a number of commonalities in terms of strengths and weaknesses emerge. Countries that might be categorized as on the road or at the threshold appear to have initiated a number of measures aimed at developing AKIS/RD. However, these countries still tend to need to improve: a) the performance of their agricultural research, education and extension subsystems; b) the interaction between these and the private sector; and - especially - c) connections with end-users through participatory system approaches. In some cases, such as Cameroon and Uganda (both of which have entirely adopted the philosophy and principles of AKIS/RD), the development appears to be highly dependent on donor assistance, mainly from the World Bank and FAO, but also from international NGOs.

Of the ten countries studied, those that appear to be most advanced in terms of developing AKIS/RD have formulated policy arrangements and operative mechanisms to ensure joint planning and implementation of their country’s AKIS linkages and programmes. The three (sub)systems and their connections with the private sector and agricultural producers appear strong, and the goals of the AKIS/RD are well understood by all stakeholders - which is a highly important factor. The countries in this category appear to be leading the way to strategically aligned, coordinated operations in which all stakeholders act together in concert in the AKIS/RD process.

Ideally, the AKIS/RD vision aims to streamline the generation and exchange of agricultural knowledge and information within and between the public and private sectors so as to promote jointly planned, practical actions that help agricultural producers improve their productivity, access to markets and quality of life, as well as contributing to increased national production. In order to integrate and streamline AKIS/RD, certain characteristics appear to be necessary, if not sufficient, for countries seeking to develop an AKIS/RD. These include:

• a policy environment in which country policies and strategies have direct and indirect impacts on the development and implementation of the AKIS/RD, emphasize targeting the public good, and pay attention to the economic efficiency of the agriculture sector and its impact on rural development;

• institutional developments including the existence of AKIS oversight and development units, central and branch supervision, initiatives to build AKIS institutional resources (especially human resource development programmes for leadership and staff), sound strategy for programme decentralization (particularly subsidiarity to the community and producer organization levels), improved agency performance, and the installation of M&E and impact assessment systems for analysing AKIS/RD programmes;

• the conditions for stimulating the expression of demand for innovation, including a demand-driven orientation in public AKIS/RD programmes, public sector investment in market supports, public sector support for input supply (especially agricultural credit and supplies), physical infrastructure support in rural areas, joint planning among AKIS/RD institutions and the private sector, and gender inclusion in all institutional planning and linkage programmes;

• the advancement of partnerships and networking among the AKIS/RD institutions to enhance effective cooperation, strong public-private partnerships and the promotion of institutional pluralism, programme participation by agricultural producers and their organizations, and the effective use of both traditional and modern communication technologies;

• the presence of financing systems for innovation, including adequate public sector funding for AKIS/RD, the institutionalization of repartition of costs for services (through fee-based or other cost-sharing methods), and investment to develop stakeholder capacities through training, updating and other avenues of agricultural knowledge and information exchange.

These characteristics form the basis for examining the ten case studies, and are categorized into five priority areas: 1) policy environment; 2) institutional structure for the support of innovation; 2) conditions for expressing demand for innovation; 4) partnership and networks; and 5) financing systems for innovation. A total of 24 indicators are organized under these five priority areas, and findings from the ten country case studies are then ranked against these 24 indicators^[9] (which include the nine basic principles as well as 15 additional ones for advancing AKIS/RD: see Table 2).

Each country is ranked with asterisks, as follows: one asterisk indicates weak commitment; two asterisks show moderate commitment or some action at the time of the case study; and three denote extensive or well-developed action at the time of the case study. Empty spaces indicate that at the time of the case study either no action had been taken or no information was available.

Note: the case studies were undertaken between 2001 and 2003 and the present study was completed in mid-2004; therefore certain information may now be outdated.

The ranking is intended to be indicative, not absolute. The rankings are generalizations, and meant to be helpful in providing an impression of each country’s stage of AKIS/RD development. Indeed, some of the indicators are broad, and the textual reference may be based on only one area of development; for example, the concept and practice of decentralization covers a wide variety of possibilities including decentralization, devolution, delegation and subsidiarity. In this case, a higher ranking is given to countries that have arrived at decentralizing to the local level, or that are progressing towards "subsidiarity".

In summary, the ranking by indicators for each individual country in the table is meant to provide a general overview of the country’s status regarding the five main criteria selected as indicative of AKIS/RD development at the time the case study was written. (See References for the case studies’ dates of completion.) In addition, although this study makes a tentative effort to differentiate countries according to whether they appeared to be "leading the way," "on the road" or "at the threshold" of AKIS/RD development, the stages of AKIS/RD development in the ten countries are too blurred to make sharp distinctions.

Table 2 - AKIS/RD criteria: ranking

AP = agricultural producer; RPO = rural producer organization; HRD = human resource development.
* = weak commitment or no action at time of case study; ** = moderate commitment or some action at time of case study; *** = extensive or well-developed action at time of case study.

Overall, the ten countries are rated as to their practical (i.e. their actual, not proposed or expected) connections among the three component (sub)systems of agricultural research, education and extension, between those (sub)systems and the private sector, and with agricultural producers -especially in terms of producers’ participatory involvement in programme decision-making. Of critical importance over the long term are human resource development and management by the leaders and staff of AKIS/RD institutions; the enabling of the private sector and, in some cases, assistance with the development of its human resources; and the involvement of agricultural producers and stakeholders in the AKIS/RD process. In the final analysis, a successful and sustainable AKIS/RD will depend on financing, particularly public sector investments that promote the functional performance of the AKIS (sub)systems, but also investments that enable the private sector and stakeholders to advance their interests within the system.

In conclusion, it appears that some countries are "at the threshold" of developing an effective, integrated AKIS/RD, meaning that their three component (sub)systems function relatively autonomously and independently with few linkages among them or between them and the private sector, including agricultural producers. At best they are adapting in that they have begun to plan for increased interaction and cooperation within the context of AKIS/RD.

Other countries are considered to be "on the road" towards AKIS/RD, because their three component (sub)systems are relatively interactive and at least partially involved in joint operations at the administrative and field levels. They are adjusting to the practicalities of developing AKIS/RD in that they are already partially cooperating among themselves and beginning to seek private sector involvement, as well as encouraging the participation of agricultural producers in decision-making processes.

Finally, some countries are seen to be "leading the way", meaning that the three component (sub)systems are relatively integrated and their operations are reasonably coordinated. In short, their AKIS/RD are aligned and all stakeholders are generally acting together in concert.

Based on analyses by the national consultants, some countries - Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, Lithuania, Malaysia and Uganda - stand out because they have either significantly evolved an AKIS/RD or are rapidly moving in that direction. In both Chile and Cuba there is no specific AKIS/RD policy, although their agricultural knowledge and information (sub)systems are being, or have been, integrated. Chile recently underwent a major transformation when the government decided not to support extension arrangements with the private sector, feeling that agricultural producers have arrived at a point where they can fend for themselves. The Chile case study was written before this decision was made, however. Thus, countries appear to move ahead in fits and starts in the development of effective AKIS/RD. Political developments also influence AKIS/RD. Cuba, for example, is a special case, having moved from a strictly hierarchical AKIS to one that is demand-driven and strongly participatory.

Cameroon, Morocco and Uganda are evolving rapidly towards integrated AKIS/RD. They are reaching out to establish greater partnership and better networking in order to integrate their agricultural knowledge and information systems. However, these three countries are still confronting distinct gaps in development, and all appear to have systems that lack adequate decentralization, participation and subsidiarity.

Egypt, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago are gradually evolving and might be categorized as being "at the threshold" of AKIS/RD. The Egypt and Pakistan national consultants are hopeful that their countries will soon be "on the road" to developing integrated AKIS/RD. Although still hierarchical and top-down, Egypt and Pakistan both appear to be advancing gradually towards this category, with several innovations taking place, including greater decentralization to provinces and districts within the government system. Trinidad and Tobago is difficult to judge as the data in the case study are from 1988, and at best reflect a highly traditional system.

In sum, Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, Lithuania and Malaysia appear to be actively moving towards an AKIS/RD. Morocco and Uganda have adopted the basic AKIS/RD vision and are working towards implementation of its principles. Egypt has adopted the vision but has not yet taken the necessary steps towards realizing an effective AKIS/RD. Pakistan has yet to embrace the AKIS/RD vision and principles in practical terms. The Trinidad and Tobago case study suggests that this country of two islands will have to take determined action before it begins to move towards an effective, integrated AKIS/RD.

Again, these divisions are meant to be suggestive and helpful in reviewing the commonalities and differences among the ten countries in the case study project. If this preliminary categorization serves to foster discussion about the status of the countries involved, and if it leads to increased acknowledgement of the value of AKIS/RD, then the objective of the categorization will have been accomplished.