AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016

the AIS paradigm at policy and programmatic
levels within countries is perhaps due to paucity
of concrete evidence on the transformative
advantages of one paradigm over the other.
Moreover, reconfiguration of agricultural research
systems has been sporadic and exogenously
instigated, often lacking a sense of ownership,
continuity and systematic contagion across
countries. The whole process is not aided by the
seeming lack of catalytic action—akin to the role
that ISNAR played—by external agencies with
a supranational mandate. As discussed in the
next section, this is where FARA, sub-regional
organizations(SROs), and RECs could play a
value-adding role.
Development of Institutions for AR4D
The Asian Green Revolution relied heavily on
technical support from the CGIAR (an international
public good organization exemplified by the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based
in Asia) to produce enhanced crop germplasm.
As an interesting contrast, Brazil was inspired
by international partners, but developed the local
agricultural research system capacity for technical
innovations that helped shape the agricultural
transformation agenda (see Box 9.1). Within two
decades, Brazilians used home-grown science
and sheer will to dramatically transform traditional
agriculture into a modern and strongly competitive
enterprise (Akinbamijo & Ojijo, 2014). Due to
the striking agro-ecological similarities between
the South American Cerrado and the African
Savanna, SSA countries need to bring home the
Brazilian lessons in terms of strategic institutional
development of research systems coupled with
targeted investments in AR4D to promote food
and nutrition security. In so doing, there would
be need to adapt successful experiences, as the
farming systems in Brazil and SSA may not be
roundly comparable.
In its role as the lead institution for Pillar 4—
focusing on technology generation, dissemination,
and adoption—in the first CAADP decade, FARA
elaborated the Framework for Africa’s Agricultural
Productivity (FAAP) to help advocate for: i)
evolution and reform of agricultural institutions
and services; ii) increasing the scale of Africa’s
agricultural productivity investments; and iii)
aligned and coordinated financial support (FARA,
2006). FAAP outlined guiding principles for the
evolution of Africa’s agricultural productivity
Box 9.1: Embrapa - A Success Story
The success of Brazilian agriculture hinges on the pull effects
arising from a government-led industrialization process starting
in the 1960s, giving rise to rapid urbanization, improvement
in income of urban dwellers and higher demand for food.
At the same time, lack of land for expansion (Brazil made a
green choice not to encroach into the Amazonian forestlands,
but rather reclaim the Cerrado), constrained production increase
and the only recourse was science-based production
intensification. Thus, there was imminent demand for agricultural
research and consequent pressure at the macro level to
reform public agricultural research agencies.
These circumstances conspired to “midwife” the Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation (Embrapa) in 1973, the singular
agency at the center of the Brazilian agricultural modernization.
As a successful institutional innovation, Embrapa
has the following main characteristics: a semi-autonomous
national corporation with spatially decentralized centers,
specialized research units, strong human capital base, and
unwavering vision of agriculture based on science and technology
and results orientation.
The main factors that contributed to the success of Embrapa
include: prioritized budget support by the federal government
as a result of sustained policy dialogue between Embrapa
staff and budget decision makers; huge initial investments
(over US$6 billion) in the training of human resources and
development of research infrastructure; strong human capital
base derived from a comprehensive human resources policy;
short-term research goals, dissemination of existing results,
and good public image (based on good relationship with the
media); induced innovation based on farmer–researcher interactions
(farmer–researcher interactions were promoted
based on decentralization of Embrapa units to sub-national
territories); transparency and public accountability (good media
management and corporate communication); semi-autonomous
status allowing for flexibility to administer resources
and personnel, plan, assess performance, implement the
budget, disseminate results and be transparent; non-political
interference in the operations of Embrapa; and a policy of
openness to national stakeholders and to the world.
This encouraged strategic partnerships at home and abroad
(with foreign universities, CGIAR, NARS) and creation of
technology transfer (e.g., Embrapa-Ghana) and co-innovation
units (Labex USA, Labex Europe and Labex Asia) in foreign
countries.
Adapted from Alves (2012).
204 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016