By Gert-Jan Stads, ASTI Program Coordinator, International Food Policy Research Institute. Presentation given at ASTI seminar at CIAT, Cali, Colombia, August 27, 2012

1. Tracking Agricultural R&D Investment
and Staffing Trends around the World
Gert-Jan Stads
ASTI Program Coordinator | International Food Policy Research Institute
ASTI seminar at CIAT
Cali | 27 August 2012

2. Outline presentation
• Why track agricultural R&D indicators?
• A short overview of ASTI
• Some of ASTI’s key findings
• Transforming ASTI to a sustainable and
institutionalized system

3. Why Invest in Agricultural R&D?
• By 2050, the world will need to feed 9–10 billion people,
in the face of:
– Changing climate
– Competing demands for land and labor
– Competing demands for biofuels
– Co-evolving pests and diseases
• Crucial that agricultural productivity is increased
• Conduct enough of the right types of agricultural R&D
and get the resulted innovations adopted soon enough to
meet the farm productivity challenge.

4. Why Invest in Agricultural R&D?
• Extensive empirical evidence that ARD investments have
greatly contributed to agricultural development,
economic growth, and poverty reduction (World Development
Report 2008; International Assessment for Agricultural S&T for Development 2010)
• Despite the well-documented evidence that the payoffs
to ARD are considerable, many countries continue to
underinvest in agricultural research.
• The time lag between research investment and the
moment when the research rewards can be reaped is
substantial: typically decades, not years.

5. Importance of agricultural R&D indicators (1)
• Agricultural R&D is a long-term commitment requiring sufficient
and sustained funding for well-functioning R&D agencies.
• Stakeholders need to be able to identify trends in agricultural
R&D investments and capacity, as well as gaps and neglected
areas to set future investment priorities, and to better
coordinate and harmonize research.
• R&D indicators are essential to measure, monitor, and
benchmark the inputs, outputs, and performance of agricultural
R&D systems
• Key to understanding the contribution of agricultural R&D to
agricultural productivity growth and economic growth.

6. Importance of agricultural R&D indicators (2)
Monitoring,
evaluation &
priority setting
Data &
Statistics
Research
& Policy
Analysis
Deliberation,
negotiation &
policy selection
Imple-
mentation
“You can’t
manage
what you
don’t
measure.”
R&D indicators assist research
managers and policymakers in
formulating policy and making
decisions about strategic planning,
priority setting, and M&E

7. Outline presentation
• Why track agricultural R&D indicators?
• A short overview of ASTI
• Some of ASTI’s key findings
• Transforming ASTI to a sustainable and
institutionalized system

8. Objectives of the ASTI program
• ASTI compiles, processes, and publicizes data on
institutional developments, investments, and human
capacity trends in agricultural R&D in developing
countries worldwide
• Led by IFPRI
• Collaborative network consisting of a large number of
national, regional, and international partners
• First-hand data collection on institutional basis
• Covering government, higher education, nonprofit (and
private for-profit) R&D agencies
• Focus is mainly on input indicators (for now)

9. ASTI Methodology
• ASTI data collected based on internationally accepted
definitions and statistical procedures for compiling S&T
statistics (OECD’s Frascati Manual)
• This facilitates comparisons of ASTI datasets with other
relevant S&T datasets
• FAO definition of agriculture: crops, livestock, forestry,
fisheries, natural resources, etc.
• Aim is to provide:
• Trends over time
• Comparable information across countries and regions

10. Portfolio of ASTI Data at Country Level
• Institutional arrangements and changes affecting
agricultural R&D
• R&D spending time series data by cost category
• R&D funding time series data by funding source
• Time series data on researchers and support staff by
degree, gender, and age
• Research focus data by commodity and thematic area

11. Current ASTI Outputs
• Country notes
• Regional and subregional reports
• Downloadable datasets
• Analytical assessments
• Country/regional/other seminars and
presentations
• Press releases/media outreach events
• ASTI website (www.asti.cgiar.org)

12. ASTI’s Impact to Date
• National partner institutions have widely used ASTI data to
advocate for increased funding to agricultural R&D, the hiring of
(women) researchers, raising the retirement age of research
staff, etc.
• Participation in the ASTI survey has prompted improved data
collection and management of ASTI-type indicators at a large
number of institutions.
• Donors and international organizations such as the World Bank
have used ASTI data for decisionmaking in and analysis of
funding for agricultural R&D.
• ASTI data cited frequently in influential policy documents (e.g.
Report of the Secretary General on Agricultural Technology for
Development )

13. • Need to establish an institutionalized data collection system at
regular intervals
• Need to expand geographical coverage
• Need to improve private sector coverage
• Need to expand analysis beyond the descriptive examination of
national and regional capacity and investment trends.
• Focused on input indicators, not output, performance, and
outcome indicators; covering research not the agricultural
innovation field.
• Building the capacity to improve long-term sustainability of ASTI,
and increase the reach, advocacy, and policy relevance of the
data
ASTI’s Challenges

14. Outline presentation
• Why track agricultural R&D indicators?
• A short overview of ASTI
• Some of ASTI’s key findings
• Transforming ASTI to a sustainable and
institutionalized system

15. Spending in Brazil, China, and India, 2009

16. 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
SSAAgriculturalR&Dspending
(biilion2005PPP$)
• Growth driven by only
a few countries
• Growth not always
sustainable
• Region-wide growth
masks severe declines
in many other (mainly
francophone West
African) countries
Africa’s investment challenge: Uneven growth
20% growth in SSA public agricultural
R&D spending, 2000-08

17. Africa’s investment challenge: Underinvestment
• Common target: Allocation of at least 1 % of GDP to R&D
• In 2008, Africa spent $0.61 for every $100 of AgGDP on
agricultural R&D
• Despite an overall increase in recent years, Africa is widely
underinvesting in agricultural R&D

18. Africa’s investment challenge: volatility
0
110
220
330
440
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
0
1
2
3
4
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
0
10
20
30
40
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
0
10
20
30
40
1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
AgriculturalR&Dspending(miilion2005PPP$)
Burkina Faso
Nigeria
Gabon
Niger
• Agricultural R&D spending in
Africa has been more volatile
than in other regions
• Volatility more pronounced in
donor-dependent low-income
countries
• Stable and sustainable
government funding is key,
not just towards salaries but
also to enable necessary
nonsalary expenditures

19. 0
20
40
60
80
100
Guinea
Eritrea
Uganda
Madagascar
BurkinaFaso
Niger
Mali
Benin
Tanzania
Burundi
Senegal
Mauritania
Kenya
Gambia
Togo
Zambia
Côted'Ivoire
Namibia
Ghana
SouthAfrica
Botswana
Mauritius
Shareintotalfunding,2001-08(%)
Africa’s investment challenge: donor dependency
Average donor
share
Spread of
donor share
• Many countries are
extremely dependent
on donor funding and
development bank
loans
• Donor funding is
generally short-term
and ad-hoc, adding to
the volatility
• Increased funding
from World Bank
(loans) in recent years

20. Africa’s human capacity challenges
• Many countries face rapidly aging pools of scientists due
to public sector recruitment restrictions
• Large influx of young BSc-qualified scientists after years
of recruitment restrictions in some countries
• High staff turnover / brain drain: Many researchers have
left agencies due to low salaries and conditions of service
• Limited in-country postgraduate training opportunities
• Female scientists severely underrepresented
• Small countries lack required critical mass of agricultural
R&D capacity

21. Latin America: Declining role of INIAs

22. Cross-country diversity in LAC: R&D intensity

23. Cross-country diversity in LAC: Qualifications

24. Cross-country diversity in LAC: R&D funding

25. Colombia: 2007/08 ASTI study
7 government agencies/units: the Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (CORPOICA), the
Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM), the Instituto de Investigaciones Ambientales del Pacifico
(IIAP), the Instituto de Investigaciones de Recursos Biológicos “Alexander von Humboldt” (IIBG), the Instituto de Investigaciones
Marinas y Costeras “José Benito Vives de Andréis” (INVEMAR), the Subgerencia de Pesca y Acuicultura of the Instituto
Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural (INCODER), and the Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas “SINCHI” (SINCHI);
13 nonprofit agencies: Centro de Innovación de la Floricultura Colombiana (CENIFLORES), the Centro de
Investigación de la Acuicultura de Colombia (CENIACUA), the Centro de Investigaciones del Banano (CENIBANANO), the Centro
Nacional de Investigaciones de Café (CENICAFE), the Centro de Investigación de la Caña de Azúcar de Colombia (CENICAÑA), the
Centro de Investigación en Palma Aceite (CENIPALMA), the Corporación Nacional de Investigación y Fomento Forestal (CONIF),
the Federación Nacional de Arroceros (FEDEARROZ), the Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros (FEDECACAO), the Centro de
Desarrollo Tecnológico de la Cadena Agroalimentaria de la Papa (CEVIPAPA), the Federación Nacional de Cultivadores de
Cereales (FENALCE), the Empresa Colombiana de Productos Veterinarios S.A. (VECOL), and the Centro para la Investigación en
Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria (CIPAV);
18 higher-education agencies/units: the Facultad de Agronomía, the Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria
y de Zootecnia, and the Instituto de Biotecnología under the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNC); the Facultad de Ciencias
Agropecuarias of UNC-Medellín; the Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias of UNC-Palmira; the Centro de Investigaciones y
Asesorías Agroindustriales of the Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano (UJTL), the Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas and the Facultad de
Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia under the Universidad de Córdoba; the Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, the
Facultad de Ingeniería Forestal, and the Facultad de Ingeniería Agronómica under the Universidad de Tolima; the Facultad de
Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia of the Fundación Universitaría San Martín; the Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Recursos
Naturales of the Universidad Tecnológica de Los Llanos, the Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria, the Facultad de Administración de
Empresas Agropecuarias, and the Facultad de Zootecnia under the Universidad de la Salle; the Departamento de Biología of the
Facultad de Ciencias of the Universidad del Valle; and the Facultad de Ingeniería Agro-Industrial of the Universidad Pontificia
Bolivariana.

26. Colombia: Results from 2007/08 ASTI study
• Stable R&D capacity
• Relative role of CORPOICA
declining
• Gradual decline in R&D
spending
• Intensity ratio of 0.50% in
2006
• Private sector plays
important role in financing
R&D

27. Colombia: (In)congruence between R&D and
production value, 2006

28. Colombia: Macro-study July 2012
• To estimate the trend of Colombian agricultural R&D
staffing and expenditures for GCARD2012
• Surveyed 4 government/nonprofit agencies
• Surveyed 5 university faculties
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CORPOICA 57.362 55.267 66.109 84.501 82.735 68.973
CENICAFE 17.521 17.784 9.967 13.007 12.269 12.659
CENIPALMA 5.901 6.351 7.459 11.247 12.654 12.448
INVEMAR 10.835 13.388 6.573 6.666 7.937 7.197
Total (4 institutes) 91.620 92.789 90.107 115.421 115.595 101.276
(in million 2005 PPP dollars)

29. Colombia: Macro-study July 2012
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CORPOICA 298 273 250 265 261 278
CENICAFE 161 170 85 88 91 92
CENIPALMA 43 49 46 58 74 101
INVEMAR 67 72 75 76 79 78
FA - Bogotá 11 12 13 13 13 13
FMVZ - Bogotá 16 16 16 17 17 17
Instituto de Biotecnología - Bogotá 5 5 5 5 5 5
FA – Medellin 13 13 15 16 15 16
FA – Palmira 10 12 11 12 12 12
Total (9) 624 622 515 550 567 612
(in full-time equivalents)

30. Outline presentation
• Why track agricultural R&D indicators?
• A short overview of ASTI
• Some of ASTI’s key findings
• Transforming ASTI to a sustainable and
institutionalized system

31. 2012—2014: Expansion of activities in Sub-
Saharan Africa and South Asia
Increased BMGF funding for ASTI
activities in Sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia to:
• Monitor investment and capacity
trends at frequent intervals
• Allow for a more decentralized
and institutional approach of data
collection and analysis
• Enhance the use of ASTI datasets
and outputs for analytical
purposes
• Achieve increased impact

32. Enhance country participation and ownership
• Establish longer term
partnerships with national
institutions
• Develop a network of national
focal points
• Organize implementation and
training workshops
• Develop an online data
management portal
• Prepare manuals for survey
respondents, data collectors,
and output disseminators

33. Expansion of ASTI’s core set of indicators
• Adapt surveys to cater
for specific needs at
country level
• ASTI’s core activities will
not be compromised
horizontal expansion?
performance/output
indicators, beyond R&D
vertical expansion?
(deepening input indicators)
combination?
ASTI now:
input indicators

34. Similar plans for LAC
• Move from an ad-hoc data collection to a sustainable
and institutionalized monitoring system with frequent
updates
• Enhance data ownership and stimulate further advocacy
and analysis at the national level
• Intensify analysis of trends to make information more
relevant for policymakers and other stakeholders
• Address the demand to measure the effectiveness of
agricultural R&D institutions as well
• ASTI coordination office at CIAT
• Funding constraints

35. THANK YOU