SCARDA

A Pilot Study on Institutional and Organisational Changes in Selected National Agricultural Research and Education Institutes in Sub-Saharan Africa

i

A Pilot Study on Institutional and Organisational Changes in Selected National Agricultural Research and Education Institutes in Sub-Saharan Africa Annor-Frempong, I, Roseboom, J and Ojijo, N K O

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa 12 Anmeda Street, Roman Ridge, PMB CT 173, Accra, Ghana 2012

Citation: Annor-Frempong, I, Roseboom, J and Ojijo, N K O. 2012. A Pilot Study on Institutional and Organisational Changes in Selected National Agricultural Research and Education Institutes in SubSaharan Africa. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Accra, Ghana.

FARA encourages fair use of this material. Proper citation is requested.

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) 12 Anmeda Street, Roman Ridge PMB CT 173, Accra, Ghana Tel: +233 302 772823 / 302 779421 Fax: +233 302 773676 Email: info@fara-africa.org Website: www.fara-africa.org ISBN 978-9988-1-8631-X (print) ISBN 978-9988-1-8631-0 (pdf)

Editing and design: www.bluepencil.in / Print: www.pragati.com

ii

Contents

Acknowledgements Foreword Summary 1. Introduction 2. The methodology 3. An overview of the reported SWOT factors 3.1 Strengths 3.2 Weaknesses 3.3 Opportunities 3.4 Threats 3.5 Conclusions 4. Synthesis of case study results 4.1. Change in the SWOT factors 4.2. Contribution of SCARDA to the reported change 4.3. Updated SWOT tables 5. Lessons learned 5.1. Lessons learned regarding the contribution by SCARDA to

institutional and organisational change 5.2. Lessons learned regarding the methodology employed 6. Conclusions Annex A: SWOT tables of the focal institutes (2008) Annex B: Updated SWOT tables of the focal institutes (December 2011) Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change References Acronyms and abbreviations

iv 1 3 5 6 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 13 16 18 18 18 20 22 29 33 54 71 72

iii

Acknowledgements

T

his synthesis is based on a series of case studies which were conducted by Josaphat Mugabo – Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU) and Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER); Nelson Ojijo and Abayomi Oloruntoba – Natural Resources Development College (NRDC) and School of Agricultural Sciences – University of Zambia (SoAS-UNZA); and Johannes Roseboom – Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA), Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Crops Research Institute – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRI-CSIR), and Faculty of Agriculture – National University of Lesotho (FA-NUL). These case studies have benefited greatly from the input and support provided by the regional and local SCARDA representatives as well as the management and staff of the SCARDA FIs that participated in the interviews and group discussions. Overall coordination of the study rested with Irene Annor Frempong and Nelson Ojijo.

iv

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Foreword

F

or nearly a decade, Africa has championed a continent level agenda under the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) framework with a view to achieving a 6% growth in agricultural production mainly from sustained productivity gains arising, for example, from technical innovations in the sector. However, chronic human and institutional incapacity in Africa’s national agricultural innovation systems may prove to be the proverbial Achilles’ heel in realising the CAADP target and alleviating regional food security concerns.

FARA and key regional partners initiated the SCARDA programme in 2007 in response to the capacity strengthening needs identified in a report of the African National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) assessment study of 2006. SCARDA was funded by the Department for International Development, UK (DFID), coordinated by FARA, and piloted by the three Sub-regional Organisations (SROs) in sub-Sahara Africa for two and a half years in 12 FIs spread out in the following countries: Burundi, Rwanda, and Sudan (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, ASARECA); Congo, Gambia, Ghana, and Mali (Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development, CORAF/WECARD); and Botswana, Lesotho, and Zambia (Southern African Development Community/Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate, SADC/FANR).

The purpose of SCARDA was to improve the capacity and performance of participating FIs in key areas of their agricultural research for development (AR4D) functions, chiefly by strengthening agricultural research management capacity and the ability to conduct quality research to meet the needs of the poor. The approach adopted by SCARDA was ‘holistic’ in the sense that it concurrently addressed the human, organisational and institutional aspects of the FIs capacity. It also differed from standard capacity building projects by embedding the capacity strengthening interventions in a change management process, which starts with a rigorous institutional analysis of target institutions, identifying their weaknesses and capacity strengthening needs and then channelling specific interventions to address the identified needs.

Under SCARDA, the human capacity component was addressed by refresher training of technicians, MSc training of junior staff, and retooling of senior researchers in key areas

Foreword

1

identified by prior institutional analyses. The organisational and institutional components were addressed by developing and implementing Change management Action Plans (CMAPs) through a series of agricultural research management workshops for management and senior staff, individual mentoring of junior staff, and organisational mentoring of the FI. SCARDA’s pilot phase ended in June 2010. Subsequent up and out-scaling of activities and coordination were ‘off-loaded’ to the SROs and other regional partners like Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM). However, in line with its oversight mandate, FARA still exercises an M&E responsibility for tracking the higher order gains from implementation of continent level projects and encouraging spill overs and positive contagion of lessons learned thereof.

After nearly 3 ½ years of SCARDA implementation, FARA commissioned a series of case studies to determine the dispositions of selected FIs upon completion of project activities as well as a longitudinal analysis of the change processes registered in the organisations. The assignment consisted of developing a methodology for tracking project-induced changes and using the methodology to determine the changes registered by the participating FIs. This report is a synthesis of findings from the individual FI case studies and posits the utility of SWOT analysis, aside from its traditional role in strategic planning, as a potential tool for tracking projectinduced institutional changes. As clearly shown in the write-up, majority of the FIs indicate overall positive institutional changes attributable to SCARDA implementation. The SWOTbased methodology still needs some standardisation; yet – endeared by its sheer simplicity – it is a welcome addition to the arsenal of traditional organisational assessment tools.

We congratulate FARA’s Networking Support Function 4 (Capacity Strengthening) Unit and the team of consultants for conceiving and undertaking this invaluable M&E exercise.

Prof Monty P. Jones, Executive Director, FARA & Chair, Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)

2

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Summary

T

his report summarises the results of a pilot study commissioned by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) to test a methodology for monitoring institutional and organisational change in selected agricultural research and education institutes across subSaharan Africa currently implementing the Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa (SCARDA) programme. The methodology uses Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) tables (which summarise the principal positive and negative factors affecting the overall performance of an institute towards its objective) to monitor institutional and organisational change over time and across institutes.

The methodology has been tested in eight of the 12 Focal Institutes (FIs) that have participated in the SCARDA programme since 2008. Key outcomes of this pilot study are that: 1. Nearly half of the 282 SWOT factors identified by the eight FIs did not change between 2008 and 2011. Of those that changed, 82% were in a positive direction and 18% in a negative direction. This aggregate picture of positive change outweighing negative change holds for seven of the eight FIs. Only in one instance, the negative and positive changes in SWOT factors were more-or-less in balance; 2. Changes attributable to SCARDA intervention were recorded for 76 out of the 282 SWOT factors. Of these 76 changes, 79% were classified by the FIs as “moderate contribution” and 21% as “substantial contribution” by SCARDA. Moreover, 26% of the SCARDA interventions did not lead to an improvement in the SWOT factor, 59% to a moderate change in the SWOT factor, and only 15% to a substantial change in the SWOT factor.

The overall conclusion that one can distil from the eight case studies is that it is still too early to assess SCARDA’s full impact in terms of institutional and organisational change. Only a few SCARDA interventions can be linked to a substantial improvement of the targeted SWOT factor. The large majority of SCARDA’s interventions are still rather fragile and will require continued attention and consolidation in order to reap the benefits in terms of better performing organisations.

Important lessons learned from using the methodology are: 1. The usefulness of the methodology depends strongly on the quality of the effort that is being put into it.

2. The comparability of the SWOT tables can be improved significantly by introducing a standard toolkit and protocol for the institutional analysis (including a SWOT analysis) that can be used by both consultants and local counterparts.

3. A stricter adherence to the SWOT methodology is required. Most institutional analyses, conducted at the onset of SCARDA, only made an inventory of the SWOT factors, but did

Summary

3

not systematically formulate strategies of how to use strengths, stop weaknesses, exploit opportunities and defend against threats.

4. In the case that such strategies are developed for each SWOT factor, one could refine the institutional change methodology considerably to help interrogate how the FIs successfully implemented the proposed strategies. This will give a more detailed insight into the institutional change process of an FI. 5. The change captured by the survey instrument for the different SWOT factors requires careful interpretation. It is less straightforward than may be originally perceived.

6. Standardisation of the labels used to identify SWOT factors is needed in order to facilitate comparisons across institutes and over time.

7. Some form of scoring or weighting of the SWOT factors would substantially improve the information that can be extracted from the cross-sectional and temporal comparison.

However, it requires the discipline to do so at the time of the SWOT analysis.

8. The scale used – by the questionnaire – to record change requires some more explanation in order to make sure that the scores are comparable across institutes. It looks as if some evaluations have been stricter than others when scoring change.

In conclusion, the methodology to monitor institutional change based on SWOT tables is attractive because of its simplicity and flexibility – it can be used by any organisation. However, like any Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tool, it requires the discipline of collecting information upfront as a baseline against which change can be measured. If implemented correctly, the methodology can help institutes to stay committed to improvement of their performance.

Moreover, it offers donors a framework within which they can invest in improving organisations.

Lastly, widespread adoption of the tool would create a permanent pool of information that can be used for meta-analysis.

4

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

1. Introduction

T

he CAADP initiative, Africa’s roadmap for agricultural development, aims at a very ambitious agricultural growth target of 6% per annum. Since the possible expansion of agricultural land is limited, a great deal of that growth has to come from increased agricultural productivity – i.e., higher output per unit of land, while keeping the costs per unit output in check.

CAADP recognises the important role that Science and Technology (S&T) will have to play in order to develop and generate the knowledge and technologies that are needed to raise the productivity of African agriculture. However, important bottlenecks on the road towards higher agricultural productivity in Africa are that: 1) there is widespread underinvestment in agricultural research and extension; and 2) the performance of the institutions and organisations responsible for generating and diffusing new agricultural knowledge and technologies in Africa is suboptimal.

In this context, the SCARDA programme aims at improving the performance of agricultural research organisations in Africa through human and institutional capacity strengthening. As a starting point, some 12 FIs across Africa were selected to participate in the programme. For the past 3-4 years, these FIs have been the focus of a series of capacity strengthening activities (including change management trainings, various short courses on specific topics, as well as enrolment in MSc-degree programmes). The basis for these capacity strengthening interventions was an in-depth institutional analysis of the FIs at the beginning of the programme.

The present study aimed at developing and testing a methodology to monitor institutional and organisational change in the targeted FIs. In addition, it sought to document SCARDA’s contribution to such change.

The study was structured as follows: 1. Development of a methodology to monitor institutional and organisational change; 2. Testing of the methodology in the different FIs, resulting in a series of case studies; and 3. Synthesis of the case studies including conclusions and lessons, suggestions for improvement, and next steps.

The last step of the study (synthesis of the case studies) is the focus of this paper. The individual case studies are reported elsewhere.

Introduction

5

2. The methodology

T

he methodology for monitoring institutional and organisational change in the SCARDA focal institutes was mainly based on SWOT analysis conducted in focus group discussions with key personnel from the targeted FIs. SWOT analysis, which is a widely known management tool, aims to: 1. Identify the internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats of an organisation or business in order to achieve a particular objective (e.g. raising agricultural productivity); and 2. Formulate strategies on how to use strengths, stop weaknesses, exploit opportunities and defend against threats so that the chances of an organisation or business to achieve its objective(s) are improved.

An important output of Step (1) is the so-called SWOT table, which summarises the most critical SWOT factors that influence the performance of an organisation. Normally these SWOT tables are only used within the context of a specific SWOT analysis. What the present study proposes to do is to use SWOT tables to make comparisons across institutes (i.e. cross-sectional) and through time (i.e. temporal).

An important and practical reason to opt for using SWOT tables as the principle vehicle to monitor institutional and organisational change at the FIs is that most of the institutional analyses conducted by SCARDA at the beginning of the programme included a SWOT analysis.

However, at that time (in 2008) it was not foreseen that these SWOT tables would also be used to make cross-sectional and temporal comparisons. Hence, no attempt was made to standardise SWOT labels across FIs. This exercise had to be performed retrospectively, which implied clustering the various SWOT labels under more generic headings. Only in this way, a more aggregate picture of the SWOT factors for all FIs combined could be generated (see chapter 3). For future SWOT analyses, however, it is recommended to employ a standard set of SWOT labels from the beginning.

In most SWOT tables (including the SWOT tables of the FIs constructed by SCARDA in 2008), SWOT factors are just listed but not ranked or weighted. This limits the information that can be extracted from cross-sectional and temporal comparisons. Just a simple ranking of the SWOT factors would already help considerably in extracting more relevant information from such comparisons. Weighting of the SWOT factors looks even more attractive but is also considerably more complicated. This is an option to be considered for future exploration.

To capture institutional and organisational change through time, this study asked the FI respondents (usually in a group discussion setting) to score the change in each SWOT

6

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

factor since 2008. A very simple 5-point scale has been used, ranging from double minus to double plus. In addition, a short description of the change was requested and if possible any quantitative information that would support the reported change. By aggregating all these scores, an overall picture was constructed on whether changes in the reported SWOT factors were predominantly positive or negative (see chapter 4).

The next step was to ask the FIs, to what extent SCARDA interventions had contributed to the reported change on a scale running from none (=), to moderate (+), to substantial (++). In addition, a short description of the SCARDA contribution to the change was requested and, if relevant, the contribution by other major external actors. The last step was to ask the FIs to update their SWOT tables – eliminate those SWOT factors that are no longer critical and add new ones. If time permitted, the FIs were also asked to rank the SWOT factors.

This study was set out to cover all 12 FIs that participated in the original SCARDA programme; but, in the end, four of them had to be dropped from the analysis for various reasons. In two instances [Centre de Recherche Agronomique de Loudima (CRAL) in Congo and Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR) in Rwanda], the FIs underwent such major reorganisations during the period under study that the 2008 SWOT tables had lost their relevance as a reference point in time. Other FIs were inaccessible due to logistical and time constraints. Thus, the following FIs were included in the present analysis: • • • • • • • •

Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA), Botswana Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Botswana Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU), Burundi Crops Research Institute – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRI-CSIR), Ghana Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Lesotho (FA-NUL), Lesotho Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), Mali Natural Resources Development College (NRDC), Zambia School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia (SoAS-UNZA), Zambia

The methodology

7

3. An overview of the reported SWOT factors

O

ne of the problems with the SWOT tables as reported by the different institutional analyses conducted in 2008 (see Annex A) is that each used its own peculiar list of SWOT factors.

This makes comparison of SWOT factors across the different institutes difficult. In order to resolve this, the different lists or entrants in the SWOT quadrants have been pooled together and clustered into more generic categories. This gives a consolidated overview of the SWOT factors as well as their relative importance to the particular FI. Before presenting the results of this exercise a few remarks regarding some problems with the original SWOT tables are in order, namely: 1. In some instances, an external factor has been presented as an internal factor and vice versa. When it was an obvious mistake, we have taken the liberty to move the factor from one quadrant to the other. In some instances, however, a specific factor could qualify as internal and external at the same time. For example, the issue of staff retention is attributable not only to low salaries (an internal weakness), but also to strong competition in the labour market for qualified staff (an external threat).

2. Sometimes the same factor is mentioned as both strength and weakness (or as opportunity and threat) in the same SWOT table. While not impossible, it is important to explain why a factor appears at both sides.

3. Opportunities may provide solutions for weaknesses, but it is not that every solution to a weakness classifies automatically as an opportunity. Factors in each of the four SWOT categories should be defined independently of each other.

3.1 Strengths Table 3.1 summarises how frequently a particular strength category was mentioned across the SWOT tables for the eight FIs. Table 3.1: Frequency distribution of strength factors Strengths Management practices Human resources Infrastructure Output and impact Research approach Visibility and recognition External linkages Financial resources Others Total

8

BCA 3 2 2 2

DAR 2 1 1

ISABU 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 12

CRI

FA-NUL

2 1 1 2 1

3 1 1

IER 7 1 1

NRDC 1 3

SoAS-UNZA 2 4 1Â

1

1 2

3 8

10

1 1 6

2 6

7

2 7

1 10

Total 15 14 11 5 4 4 2 2 9 66

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

The three categories mentioned most frequently as strength were management practices (such as administrative autonomy and planning processes), human resources (capacity, capability and management), and infrastructure. The high score of management practices as strength is caused primarily by Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), which reported seven strengths in this category. The least frequently mentioned strength categories are financial resources and external linkages.

3.2 Weaknesses Table 3.2 summarises how frequently a particular weakness category was mentioned across the eight SWOT tables. The human resources category stands out as the most frequently mentioned weakness factor, which is not surprising given SCARDA’s focus on capacity strengthening.

Within the human resources category, the following subcategories of HR weaknesses were identified: (a) HR capacity (15 times); (b) HR management issues (10 times); (c) age distribution of staff (4 times); (d) capacity building (3 times); and (e) staff remuneration (3 times). Among the management practices identified as weakness, the lack of proper M&E is the one that stands out most clearly (4 times). Weaknesses regarding financial resources included funding (7 times), financial resource management (4 times) and resource mobilisation (2 times).

Table 3.2: Frequency distribution of weakness factors Weaknesses Human resources Management practices Output and impact Financial resources Infrastructure External linkages Teaching issues Research approach Access to information Others Total

BCA 7 4 1 1

DAR 4 5 2

1 3

2

ISABU 4 1 2 2 1 2

CRI 4 2 3 3 2

2

17

15

1 1 14

FA-NUL 5 4 2 3 1 2 2 1

IER 5 1 2 1 2

NRDC 2 1 1 1

SoAS-UNZA 4 1 2 2 1 1

1 14

20

12

5

1 12

Total 35 18 15 13 8 8 5 3 2 2 109

The output and impact category captures weaknesses regarding linking up with extension services and getting technology and knowledge out to farmers (7 times), producing scientific publications (5 times), documenting and measuring impact (2 times), and commercialisation of research results (1 time).

3.3 Opportunities Table 3.3 summarises how frequently a particular opportunity category has been mentioned across the eight SWOT tables. The rest category ‘others’ is quite large because it also includes various entries that are not really external ‘opportunities’ but rather solutions for noted weaknesses.

Better collaboration at the national, regional and international level is seen as an important factor to enhance the output and impact of agricultural research. While collaboration at the

An overview of the reported SWOT factors

9

regional and international level is mainly limited to research, that at the national level comprises other research organisations, extension agencies (including NGOs), farmer organisations, commodity boards, etc.

Table 3.3: Frequency distribution of opportunity factors Opportunities Collaboration Fund raising Growth potential Economic opportunity Others Total

BCA 1 2 2 1 6

DAR 1

ISABU 3 1

3 2 6

1 1 6

CRI 2 3

FA-NUL 2 2 2

NRDC 1 1 1

1 1 4

3 9

5

IER 2

SoAS-UNZA Total 12 1 10 3 8 5 4 15 8 50

3 6

The opportunity category of ‘fund raising’ comprises income generating activities (6 times) and to a lesser extent mobilising donor funding (3 times) and government funding (1 time).

Attracting more government funding was mentioned only once as an opportunity. Back in 2008, none of the FIs mentioned the CAADP initiative as an opportunity to leverage more funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) from the government. The category ‘growth potential’ deals with activities of the FIs (such as teaching, advisory services or a particular area of research) that have the potential to grow, while economic opportunity deals with potential growth in agricultural production due to growing local or foreign demand. In turn, this will affect the research agenda.

3.4 Threats Table 3.4 summarises how frequently a particular threat category was mentioned across the eight SWOT tables. The most frequently mentioned threat by the FIs is that of fierce competition for qualified and experienced staff. Other competitors in the labour market (inside as well as outside of the country) offer more attractive remuneration. Decline in donor and government funding came second as a potential threat in 2008. Economic threats affecting agriculture include issues such as price fluctuation, increased competition and soaring food prices.

Table 3.4: Frequency distribution of threat factors Threats Competition for qualified and experienced staff Decline in funding Government policies Unreliable suppliers Economic threats affecting agriculture Environmental risks Lack of collaboration and coordination Competition by other research agencies Encroachment by urban development HIV/AIDS Lack of farmer organisations Other Total

10

BCA DAR ISABU 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

FANUL 2

IER

2 2

1

1 1 3 1

1 1

1 1 1 7

CRI 1 1

NRDC 1 1 1 1

1 1

SoASUNZA 1 1

1

1 3 9

1 7

6

1 1 7

1 1 8

7

2 5

Total 10 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 9 56

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

3.5 Conclusions The SWOT factors as reported by the FIs are quite diverse at first sight, but can be clustered in more generic categories. By comparing the SWOT factors across different FIs, one starts to realise that when a particular factor is not mentioned in a SWOT table it can mean two things: 1) the factor was not considered relevant by this particular FI; or 2) the factor was overlooked during the institutional analysis. To give an example, HIV/AIDS was mentioned as an external threat by only two of the eight FIs. In the case of Botswana, for example, BCA reports it as a threat, while DAR does not.

It is probably better not to influence the SWOT analysis with external examples (because SWOT tables may be blindly copied from one institute to another), but it may be helpful to provide some checklist of issues to be considered. This will not only help to improve the SWOT analysis for a particular FI, but will also help to improve the consistency of the cross-sectional analysis.

In some instances the ‘opportunities’ listed in the SWOT table, very much mirror the ‘weaknesses’. It gives the impression that the step ‘to look at how opportunities can be used to repair weaknesses’ has been taken too literally. The brainstorming about opportunities should be kept separate from the ‘solutions for weaknesses’.

Four of the eight FIs are educational establishments with a dual objective, namely education and research. During the institutional analysis, both objectives were covered simultaneously.

Consequently, the SWOT tables of these FIs include both ‘education’ and ‘research’ related SWOT factors. This complicates the cross-sectional comparison. In the future it may be better to keep both objectives separated and produce two SWOT tables – one for education and one for research. This will enhance the comparability in the cross-sectional analysis.

By default, all reported SWOT factors have the same weight. However, more information could be extracted from the SWOT factors if (in one way or another) we could weight them. There are examples in similar scientific literature where this has been done,1 but it is not a common practice. It requires a considerable amount of work, while it often only confirms what insiders in a given situation already know. Hence, weighting of the factors is usually not considered as essential in a stand-alone SWOT analysis. However, weighting of the SWOT factors can add considerable information to the analysis when the aim is to compare SWOT factors across institutes and through time.

A considerably easier method than weighting is to simply rank the factors in each quadrant.

Over time this information can be used to track changes in the relative position of the factor in a particular quadrant. However, during the SWOT analysis in 2008 no ranking (or weighting) of factors took place. It is recommended that at least ranking should be adopted as a standard practice in all future SWOT analyses of FIs.

1.

See for example the internal factor evaluation (IFE) and external factor evaluation (EFE) technique as explained on www.maxi-pedia.com.

An overview of the reported SWOT factors

11

4. Synthesis of case study results

S

ufficient information was collected for eight out of the 12 FIs that participated in SCARDA to merit their inclusion in the final analysis and synthesis.

4.1. Change in the SWOT factors Each of the FIs was asked to score whether a certain SWOT factor had changed, positively or negatively, from when the SWOT table was initially produced (sometime in 2008) and when the institutional change assessment was undertaken (December 2011). The results of this exercise (see Annex C) are summarised in Table 4.1. For nearly half of the SWOT factors, no positive or negative change was reported. Across the FIs, this percentage of no change in SWOT factors varied quite widely from 28.1% for CRI to 73.5% for IER, which may characterise the difference between a ‘dynamic’ and a ‘stagnant’ situation in terms of institutional and organisational change.

Table 4.1: Reported change in SWOT factors Reported change Country

Institute

--

-

=

+

++

Total

4 1 1 6 2 3 3 1 21

41 37 33 32 44 34 27 34 282

9.8 2.7 3.0 18.8 4.5 8.8 11.1 2.9 7.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(number) Botswana Botswana Burundi Ghana Lesotho Mali Zambia Zambia Total

BCA DAR ISABU CRI FA-NUL IER NRDC SoAS-UNZA

1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

6 5 1 4 5 1 2 0 24

Botswana Botswana Burundi Ghana Lesotho Mali Zambia Zambia Average

BCA DAR ISABU CRI FA-NUL IER NRDC SoAS-UNZA

2.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

14.6 13.5 3.0 12.5 11.4 2.9 7.4 0.0 8.5

17 13 24 6 16 15 9 13 23 13 25 5 10 12 12 21 136 98 (percentages) 41.5 31.7 64.9 16.2 48.5 45.5 28.1 40.6 52.3 29.5 73.5 14.7 37.0 44.4 35.3 61.8 48.2 34.8

Key : -- is substantial negative change, - is moderate negative change, = is no change, + is moderate positive change, and ++ is substantial positive change.

12

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

For those SWOT factors that reported any change, the number of positive changes surpassed negative changes in the ratio 4:1. Under the assumption that each SWOT factor carries the same weight, it is fair to conclude that on average the FIs are in a better shape and in a better position to achieve their objectives today than 3 years ago. This average picture holds for seven out of eight FIs. Only in the case of DAR the overall picture is neutral – the number of negative changes is roughly in balance with the number of positive changes.

Looking at the more negative scores (those with double minus) – all three FIs reported a serious deterioration of the funding situation. The more positive scores (those with a double plus) cover a wide range of SWOT factors, ranging from improved external linkages to the existence of an up-to-date research strategy. There is no particular SWOT factor that stands out as an area where progress has been widespread across all FIs. In the analysis above, all SWOT factors have been lumped together. Table 4.2 differentiates the scores per SWOT factor. It reveals that the reported change in threats differs from the other SWOT factors quite substantially. For two-thirds of the threat factors, no change was reported (against half on average) and positive and negative changes regarding threats were more or less in balance (against 4:1 on average).

Table 4.2: Reported change per SWOT factor Reported change --

-

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Total

1 1 1 0 3

8 6 1 9 24

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Average

1.5 0.9 2.0 0.0 1.1

12.1 5.5 2.0 16.1 8.5

= (number) 29 47 22 38 136 (percentage) 43.9 42.7 44.0 67.9 48.2

+

++

22 48 22 6 98

6 8 4 3 21

33.3 43.6 44.0 10.7 34.8

9.1 7.3 8.0 5.4 7.4

Key: see Table 4.1.

4.2. Contribution of SCARDA to the reported change The follow-up question asked in our assessment is, to what extent the reported change could be contributed by a specific SCARDA intervention (see Annex D). The results of this exercise are summarised in Table 4.3. A SCARDA contribution was recorded in the changes for 76 out of 282 SWOT factors. For nearly three-quarters of the SWOT factors no SCARDA-induced change was reported. However, if these factors do not improve simultaneously with the others, they may hold back the potential impact of SCARDA´s interventions. For example, improving the educational profile of staff will not yield much if they have to work under poor conditions.

Synthesis of case study results

13

Table 4.3: Contribution of SCARDA to the change in SWOT factors Country

Institute

=

Botswana Botswana Burundi Ghana Lesotho Mali Zambia Zambia

BCA DAR ISABU CRI-CSIR FA-NUL IER NDRC SoAS-UNZA

Total

Reported contribution

Total

=

25 25 31 26 23 32 19 25

+ ++ (numbers) 15 1 11 1 0 2 5 1 16 5 2 0 5 3 6 3

41 37 33 32 44 34 27 34

61.0 67.6 93.9 81.3 52.3 94.1 70.4 73.5

206

60

282

73.0

16

Reported contribution + ++ (percentage share) 36.6 2.4 29.7 2.7 0.0 6.1 15.6 3.1 36.4 11.4 5.9 0.0 18.5 11.1 17.6 8.8 21.3

5.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Key: = is no contribution, + is a moderate contribution, and ++ is a substantial contribution.

Across the FIs the percentage of SWOT factors not affected by SCARDA ranged from 52.3% (FA-NUL) to 94.1% (IER). In section 4.2, IER was also identified as the least dynamic FI in terms of institutional and organisational change. Interestingly enough, the most dynamic FI (CRI-CSIR) does not score particularly high on the percentage of SWOT factors affected by SCARDA. In this case, other actors (in particular the World Bank funded WAAPP) made important contributions to alleviating critical constraints such as infrastructure and funding. What is somewhat puzzling is that both CRI and IER have been beneficiaries of WAAPP and SCARDA, but report quite different outcomes.

Of the 282 SWOT factors reported by the eight FIs, only 76 (or 27%) reported an intervention by SCARDA. Moreover, the large majority of these interventions (79%) were classified as moderate and only 21% as substantial (see Table 4.4).

As can be seen in Table 4.4, the SWOT factors benefiting from a SCARDA intervention have on average a substantially better change profile than those not benefitting from a SCARDA Table 4.4: Matching the change in SWOT factors with SCARDA interventions -All SWOT factors (282) No SCARDA intervention (206) Moderate SCARDA intervention (60) Substantial SCARDA intervention (16)

3 3 0 0

All SWOT factors (282) No SCARDA intervention (206) Moderate SCARDA intervention (60) Substantial SCARDA intervention (16)

1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0

Reported change in SWOT factors = + ++ (numbers) 24 136 98 21 23 127 53 10 1 18 35 6 0 1 10 5 (percentage) 8.5 48.2 34.8 7.4 11.2 61.7 25.7 4.9 1.7 30.0 58.3 10.0 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3

Total 282 206 60 16 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Key: -- is substantial negative change, - is moderate negative change, = is no change, + is moderate positive change, and ++ is substantial positive change.

14

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

intervention. Other actors that were mentioned frequently to have contributed to a positive change in SWOT factors are the national government (in nearly all cases), WAAPP in the case of CRI and IER, and the Belgium Technical Cooperation in the case of ISABU. For 20 SWOT factors, the FIs reported a SCARDA intervention; but this had not yet materialised in a positive change of the SWOT factor. In the case of Lesotho, for example, SCARDA contributed very substantially to the idea of creating a NARS coordinating agency (several consultations were held and a business plan for the new agency was developed), but the agency itself did not yet exist at the time of the assessment in December 2011. The creation of this agency was mentioned as an opportunity in the 2008 SWOT table.

There are also cases where SCARDA activities targeted problems that were not explicitly listed in the SWOT table. For example, all eight FIs received training in M&E, but only four explicitly mentioned it as a weakness in their SWOT table. If a topic is not mentioned in the SWOT table, no contribution by SCARDA can be recorded by the present methodology. This illustrates two things: 1) during the SWOT analysis, certain factors may have been overlooked by the FIs; and 2) theory (SCARDA activities focus on weaknesses as identified by the FIs) and practice do not always match.

Table 4.5 summarises – for each FI – the areas (beyond the mere fact of better-trained staff) that were identified as having been affected most positively by SCARDA’s capacity strengthening activities.

Table 4.5: The impact of SCARDA on institutional and organisational change in the FIs Country Botswana

FI BCA

Botswana

DAR

Burundi

ISABU

Ghana

CRI

Most important areas of SCARDA impact “There are three areas where the SCARDA capacity building activities have made an important (and most likely lasting) contribution: (1) The introduction of the innovation platform concept (and related to it, the importance of strengthening the links between the various stakeholders along the value chain); (2) Improving the skills of staff in writing business-winning project proposals; and (3) Raising the awareness of staff of the importance of M&E.” “The biggest impact of SCARDA’s capacity building activities has been on the adoption of a new research paradigm by DAR that emphasises the complexity of innovation processes (including the development of markets) and hence the need to bring all stakeholders along a value chain together on an innovation platform to formulate innovation needs and to discuss, experiment and validate innovation solutions.”

SCARDA has contributed to alleviating two weaknesses in particular, namely: (1) The absence of training on the job; and (2) The low scientific level of researchers “The area in which SCARDA has made the most significant contribution is that of improved communication and coordination among the different divisions of CRI-CSIR. A reduction of the number of divisions from 18 to 10 was an important element in this process, as well as the introduction of regular management meetings allowing a more participatory management style. In addition, the seminar series was reinstituted. The management training workshops greatly helped to facilitate this change process as well as to equip CRI-CSIR managers with better management skills. A policy has been adopted – that new division heads will have to go through an induction programme.”

Continued...

Synthesis of case study results

15

Continued from page 13

Country Lesotho

Mali Zambia

Zambia

FI Most important areas of SCARDA impact FA-NUL “There are two areas in which SCARDA seems to have been most successful in Lesotho, namely: (1) Making NARS staff familiar with farmer participatory research, multidisciplinary research, and agricultural innovation system analysis and approaches; and (2) Making NARS partners aware about the importance of better linkages and coordination, resulting in the initiative to create a NARS coordinating mechanism in the form of the Lesotho Centre for the Coordination of Agricultural Research (LECCAR). Moreover, as a result of the joint training events informal contacts within the NARS have improved.”

IER Only in two areas some modest impact of SCARDA has been recorded, namely: (1) SCARDA management training improved the skills of staff involved in the development of a new research strategy; and (2) The management of scientific information.

NDRC SCARDA’s capacity building activities have been in particular instrumental in: (1) Creating an R&D Department at NRDC in charge of research coordination, quality oversight, and resource mobilisation; (2) Improving linkages with stakeholders through the creation of a stakeholder platform; and (3) Improved capacity in extension methodologies, including the development of extension materials.

SoAS- Through the management courses, SCARDA has helped to improve the administrative UNZA efficiency of SoAS-UNZA.

The overall conclusion that one can distil from the case studies regarding SCARDA’s impact is that it is still too early to assess SCARDA’s full impact in terms of institutional and organisational change.

Only a few changes have matured enough to be counted as substantial improvements. The large majority of the positive changes are still rather fragile and will require continued attention and consolidation in order to reap the benefits in terms of better performing organisations.

4.3. Updated SWOT tables The proposed institutional change methodology for this pilot study includes a quick update of the SWOT table and a ranking of the factors in each quadrant (see Annex B). Unfortunately, this exercise was not accomplished completely across all FIs due to time and resource constraints.

In five out of eight cases an update of the SWOT table was established and in two out of eight cases a ranking of the SWOT factors was accomplished (Table 4.6).

Ideally, the update of the SWOT tables should be based on a proper SWOT analysis. This requires the necessary resources in terms of Table 4.6: Updated and ranked SWOT tables staff time and (possibly) an external facilitator.

Institute Update Ranking Ideally, a new SWOT analysis should be done Country BCA first before comparing it with the old one. Botswana DAR Moreover, in order to secure the quality of the Botswana √ Burundi ISABU √ SWOT analyses (and hence the comparability Ghana CRI √ of SWOT tables over time and across institutes) Lesotho FA-NUL it would be useful to have a standard protocol Mali IER √ √ and guidelines for how to conduct a SWOT Zambia NDRC √ analysis.

Zambia SoAS-UNZA √

16

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Comparing the updated SWOT tables with the 2008 SWOT tables for four FIs (i.e. ISABU, CRI, IER and NRDC), the following findings emerge: 1. Of the reported strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in 2008, 94%, 89%, 95% and 96%, respectively, were still relevant in December 2011 (Table 4.7). This illustrates that SWOT tables (and hence the institutional and organisational dimensions of FIs) only change slowly through time; 2. Strengths that have eroded (and hence been eliminated from the SWOT tables) are ‘monopoly on diploma training in agriculture’ and ‘public-private partnership experience’; 3. Weaknesses that were resolved and hence been eliminated are ‘insufficient resources to interact with extension’, ‘poor communication and coordination among divisions’, ‘inefficient use of human resources’, ‘poor links with extension’, and ‘few staff trained in extension methodologies’; 4. The one opportunity and the one threat that disappeared are ‘provide outreach and extension’(accomplished, so no longer an opportunity) and ‘poor linkages with other institutes’ (substantially improved, so no longer a threat); 5. Strengths that were added include ‘up-to-date research strategy’, ‘infrastructure rehabilitated’, ‘Internet connectivity in research stations’, ‘internal communication and coordination’, etc.; 6.

Weaknesses that were added include ‘low level of staff motivation’ and ‘lack of M&E capacity’;

7. Opportunities that were added include ‘high demand for research products’, ‘participation in regional research projects’, ‘establishment of a post-graduate school’, etc.; and 8. Threats that were added include ‘emergence of new crop and animal diseases’, ‘student unrest’, etc.

Table 4.7: Change in SWOT factors As reported in 2008 Eliminated Added As reported in December 2011

Strengths 31 2 9

Weaknesses 45 5 3

Opportunities 21 1 11

Threats 28 1 4

38

43

31

31

Note: Based on the updated SWOT tables for ISABU, CRI, IER and NRDC.

The ranking of the SWOT factors was accomplished for two FIs (ISABU and IER) only. Hence, not much can be said about the aggregate picture. Nevertheless, a ranking will in due time help to make a more qualified assessment of institutional and organisational change.

Synthesis of case study results

17

5. Lessons learned 5.1. Lessons learned regarding the contribution by SCARDA to institutional and organisational change 1. Changes due to SCARDA intervention were recorded for 76 out of 282 (or 27%) SWOT factors. This illustrates that: (a) due to limited resources, SCARDA had to prioritise the SWOT factors to be addressed; and (b) not all SWOT factors could be resolved through capacity building. Other instruments (and actors) are needed as well to resolve constraints such as poor infrastructure, lack of operating budgets and poor staff retention.

2. Of the reported contribution by SCARDA to institutional and organisational change, 79% was classified as moderate and 21% as substantial. There is a trade-off between trying to cover a whole range of issues simultaneously and the depth of the intervention. By focusing on fewer issues, SCARDA could have scored higher on making a substantial difference in specific areas. However, at the same time, the full impact of such improvements may be held back by SWOT factors that were not addressed. Finding the right balance between depth and breadth is difficult.

3. The implementation of SCARDA activities has been suboptimal due to administrative problems. As a result, many of the SCARDA activities were only implemented during the last six months of the project and an extension of the project was needed in order to complete all activities.

4. More could have been learned by SCARDA, about how it affects institutional and organisational change in FIs if it had adopted a solid M&E evaluation process right from the very beginning.

5.2. Lessons learned regarding the methodology employed 1. Though it is somewhat an open door, it is important to highlight that the usefulness of the methodology depends strongly on the quality of the effort that is being put into it.

For example, the institutional analysis of the FIs that was conducted at the beginning of the SCARDA programme differed greatly in depth. In some instances, a whole team of consultants spent two weeks with the FI to conduct the institutional analysis, while in others the institutional analysis was based on just one or two brief visits by a single consultant. For the future, it is important to develop a standard protocol for how to conduct an institutional analysis.

2. The set of analytical tools used by the consultants to conduct the initial institutional analysis differed considerably. As a result, the comparability across the institutional analyses has been limited. For example, a SWOT table was never produced for several FIs or not recorded properly. It would be useful to have a standard toolkit for the institutional analysis that can be used by both consultants and local counterparts. There has been an

18

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

attempt to make one, but it was never completed nor enforced. Instead, consultants used their own sets of analytical tools.

3. Most institutional analyses only made an inventory of the SWOT factors, but did not systematically formulate strategies of how to use strengths, stop weaknesses, exploit opportunities and defend against threats. A stricter adherence to the SWOT methodology should yield a lot more useful information. Moreover, it would have helped SCARDA to expand its focus beyond weaknesses and also consider strengths, opportunities and threats more explicitly as factors shaping up the performance of an organisation.

4. In the case that such strategies are developed for each SWOT factor, one could refine the institutional and organisational change methodology considerably and ask the FIs how successful they had been in implementing the proposed strategies to use strengths, stop weaknesses, exploit opportunities and defend against threats. This will give a more detailed insight into the institutional and organisational change process of an FI. 5. The change captured by the survey instrument for the different SWOT factors requires careful interpretation. In the case of strengths and weaknesses, the measured change captures the relative improvement or deterioration of these internal factors. While a positive change in weakness falls together with the suggested SWOT strategy (i.e. stopping weaknesses), in the case of strengths this is not the case as the suggested SWOT strategy for strengths is to focus on using strengths. Opportunities and threats are external factors that are outside the direct control of the FIs. The only thing that FIs can do is to exploit opportunities and defend against threats. In the case of opportunities, the positive side of the change scale captures successful strategies to exploit opportunities as well as an increase in the opportunity itself (although the latter is not always that clear), while the negative side of the scale captures a decline of an opportunity (possibly without ever being fully exploited). In the case of threats, the positive side of the change scale captures successful strategies to defend against threats as well as a decline of the threat itself (again the latter dimension is not always that clear), while the negative side of the scale captures an increase in the threat. You can have situations, where positive change in terms of implementing a strategy to exploit an opportunity or defend against a threat is being wiped out because the opportunity has declined or the threat has become more severe.

6. Standardisation of the labels used to identify SWOT factors is needed in order to facilitate comparisons across institutes, and over time.

7. Some form of scoring or weighting of the SWOT factors would substantially improve the information that can be extracted from the cross-sectional and temporal comparison.

However, it requires the discipline to do so at the time of the SWOT analysis.

8. A comparison of SWOT tables across institutes only makes sense when these institutes have more-or-less the same objective(s). Hence, in the case of higher education establishments with a research mandate, the SWOT tables should only address the research objective (and leave out the education objective). The other option is to organise separate comparisons between higher education establishments and research institutes.

9. The scale used by the questionnaire to record change requires some more explanation in order to make sure that the scores are comparable across institutes. It looks as if some evaluations have been stricter than others when scoring change.

Lessons learned

19

6. Conclusions

T

he methodology to monitor institutional change based on SWOT tables is attractive because of its simplicity and flexibility – it can be used by any organisation. However, like any M&E tool, it requires the discipline of collecting information upfront as a baseline against which change can be measured. If implemented correctly, the methodology can help institutes to stay permanently committed to improving their performance. Moreover, it offers donors a framework within which they can invest in improving organisations. Lastly, widespread adoption of the tool would create a permanent pool of information that can be used for meta-analysis.

20

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Annexes

Annex A: SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (2008) Botswana College of Agriculture, Botswana Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Well funded

•

Lack of innovative teaching methods e.g. e-learning

•

Well qualified, competent staff

•

Poor linkage of teaching and research

•

Ample classroom space at present student levels

•

Limited practical exposure for students

•

International collaboration on educational programmes

•

Research management

•

Capacity in cutting-edge technologies, e.g. biotechnology

•

Information management and packaging for end-users

•

Technical support for research

•

Student staff ratios

•

Balancing demands of teaching and research

•

Quality control of research outputs

•

Monitoring of research and impact of outputs

•

Publication through own journal [BOJAAS]

•

Efficient accounting set-up

•

Approval process for research proposals

•

Expertise available to the community

•

Administrative autonomy

•

Good access to Information and Communication • Technology (ICT) • Capacity to offer Advisory Services • BCA includes the Centre for In-Service & • Continuing Education (CICE) •

• •

Linking research outputs to policy and national priorities No clear policy on research/teaching divide Poor linkages to extension and wider stakeholders Insufficient in-service training especially for technicians CICE had limited staff capacity to do all they wished on ‘continuing education’.

Opportunities

Threats

•

Awareness of the need to be more customer-driven

•

Lack of a functional NARS*

•

Demand for postgraduate programmes

•

Regional Competition [esp. RSA]

•

Existent drivers for improvement of university status

•

HIV/AIDS

•

Encroachment of Gaborone

•

External links for access to funding and expertise

•

Unreliable suppliers

•

Brain drain

•

Negative perception of agriculture

•

Increased Government funding

•

Income generation e.g. BCA Consult

* In the original SWOT table this factor was listed under weaknesses, but this is more an external factor and hence listed here under threats.

Department of Agricultural Research, Botswana

22

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Well funded [operational]

•

Poor external partnerships [stakeholders]

•

Commodity-based research teams

•

Inadequate performance monitoring

•

Strong internal partnerships [within DAR]

•

Inadequate rewards for good performance

•

Good facilities

•

Poor retention of best scientists and managers

•

High ratio of support staff to scientists

•

•

Vision and policy in place

No proper application of ‘commodity team approach’ to livestock research

•

Poor communication of ‘what DAR does and can do’

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

•

Capacity for packaging information for a wider audience

•

Absence of stakeholder forum

•

No clear research priority setting mechanism

•

M & E and impact assessment

•

Mechanism for linking research and policy

•

Implementation of research policy

•

Publication of research outputs

•

Exposure of research leaders to innovations in AR4D

•

Financial management and targeting of funds

•

Human resource management

Opportunities

Threats

•

Sharing research facilities with other NARS partners

•

Control by MoA*

In longer-term, declining national revenue from diamonds

•

Loss of experienced staff

•

Generally poor staff retention due to low salaries

•

Poor support for young scientists

•

Opposition to integration of research institutions

•

Opposition to multi-disciplinary approach

•

Climate change

•

Rising food costs

•

Globalisation [competition]

• •

Rising world demand for food

•

Export market for beef

•

Climate change [e.g. new approaches to drought management]

•

Globalisation [new markets]

* In the original SWOT table this factor was listed under weaknesses, but this is more an external factor and hence listed here under threats.

ISABU, Burundi Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Good structure and organisation

•

Centralisation of administration and finance

•

Current human resources (Sufficient staff)

•

Insufficient budget

•

Field and lab facilities

•

•

Good communication throughout the country (one language)

Instability of personnel due to low motivation, salaries and conditions of service

•

Absence of training on the job

•

Existence of ISABU and government support

•

Low scientific level of researchers

•

Partnership with other research institutes

•

Too few researchers and technicians

•

Lack of scientific and technical equipment

•

Poor communication with external organisations

•

Poor access to scientific and technical information –scientific publications, etc

•

Poor linkages with other organisations nationally

•

Weak contact with and transfer of technology to intermediaries and farmers

•

Poor publication of scientific results outside ISABU

•

Knowledge of English language is limited

•

Short term research funding policies Continued...

Annex A: SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (2008)

23

Continued from page 23

Opportunities

Threats

•

Increasing potential for funding from donors – increasing cooperation

•

De-motivation and further loss of staff to other organisations offering better terms and conditions

•

Improve linkages nationally, regionally and internationally

•

Risk of diminishing budget

•

‘Glass ceiling’ for technicians who cannot progress to science grades on the job

•

Financial selectivity by donors – some programmes are funded, but some are not

•

Emergence of other organisations involved in research e.g. private sector

•

Partnerships for technology transfer

•

Regional integration e.g. east Africa

•

Political and economic instability

•

Stabilised security situation

•

Loss of staff through promotion out of the organisation, e.g. to Min of Ag.

•

Suspension of cooperation with donors, e.g. Belgium

Crops Research Institute-Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRI-CSIR), Ghana

24

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Ability to develop technologies

•

Inadequate funds for research from Government of Ghana

•

Multi-disciplinary team

•

Weak in commercialising research results

•

Participatory research team

•

Weak in mobilising funding through competitive bidding

•

Strategic location

•

•

Key actor in the development of crop varieties

•

Highly skilled in technology dissemination

Insufficient resources to interact with farmers and to participate effectively in the Research-Extension Linkages Committees

•

National recognition for high quality research (Gold Award, Recipient of 8 Best National Agricultural Research Awards)

•

Inadequate ICT infrastructure and support

•

Inadequate irrigation facilities and other field and laboratory equipment

•

Poor communications across divisions, lack of coordination meeting

•

Lack of key management skills at all levels

•

M&E system requires strengthening

•

Financial administration still paper based and timeconsuming / inability to provide relevant information about costs

•

Aged staff composition, which will cause high staff attrition in the coming years

•

Relative low staff remuneration undermines staff motivation and causes staff to leave

•

Inefficient use of available human resources

•

Insufficient documentation of the impact of CRI-CSIR activities

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Opportunities

Threats

•

Farmers and stakeholders willing to participate in • CRI-CSIR research activities and adopt findings

•

Good image in Donor Community for food security research activities

•

Frequent power cuts - reducing efficiency

Potential to attract other stakeholders in collaborative research activities

•

Internet connection slow and unstable

•

Government budgetary cuts

•

Encroachment on research lands

•

Competition from other research institutions, universities and NGOs for funds

• •

Generation of funds through training of students, Agricultural Extension Agents, Non-Governmental Organisations, farmers, etc.

•

Attracting additional funding from donors (e.g.

WAAPP)

Competition for qualified staff by other agencies (such as universities and private sector) offering better remuneration

Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Lesotho (FA-NUL) Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Skilled, diverse and energetic staff

•

Low pass rates

•

Balanced age and gender composition of faculty staff

•

High student staff ratio high teaching workload

•

Low research output and weak academic publication record. The prevailing research culture is not strong and doesn’t encourage staff to publish.

•

Staff retention fairly good (and definitely better than at DAR and LAC)

•

Basic infrastructure in place

•

Limited operational budgets for research

•

Diverse, good quality undergraduate and graduate programmes

•

Inadequate financial support towards laboratory consumables

•

Internationally recognised curriculum

•

•

Faculty journal

Research funding largely project based, no funding available for more long-term strategic research

•

Lack of skills to mobilise research resources and to write good research proposals

•

Inadequate research infrastructure (insufficient laboratory space and outdated equipment, insufficient land at the University for on-station research trials, limited ICT facilities)

•

Inadequate laboratory and ICT support staff – remuneration not competitive enough

•

Bureaucracy: red tape / slow processing

•

No research policy at University level

•

Poor dissemination of research outputs (information, materials and services) to extension, farmers, NGOs, policy makers and other practitioners. Lack of an outreach strategy

•

Little appreciation by administration for field work, extension and community service activities and lack of funding for such activities

Continued...

Annex A: SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (2008)

25

Continued from page 25

•

Limited leadership and change management capacity

•

Weak internal links within Faculty of Agriculture constraints multidisciplinary research approach

•

Poor linkages with other NARS partners (DAR, LAC, extension, NGOs, farmers, private sector, government)

•

Weak international linkages and exposure

•

Lack of linkage between Faculty of Agriculture and employers of graduates, leading to inadequate feedback from employers into course curricula and delivery methods

•

There is a lack of internal M&E systems and external evaluation of academic programmes and outputs leading to reflection, learning and change

•

Inability to attract high calibre staff

Opportunities

Threats

•

Prospects for staff development

•

Brain drain

•

Research potential

•

•

Income generation

Poor remuneration levels make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff

•

Better linkages with international partners

•

•

Launch of a Journal of Agricultural Sciences and the establishment of an Agricultural Sciences Society can help to create a stronger ‘research culture’ in Lesotho

Inadequate coordination of research between NARS actors leading to duplication/inefficiencies and sub-optimal use of resources.

•

Uptake of technologies constrained by adverse government policies (i.e. subsidies)

•

Low level of organisation of farmers often constraints innovation – absence of an articulated demand for innovation

•

Creation of a research coordination mechanism at FA-NUL or NARS level

•

Support farmers to form associations

•

• Expansion into post-graduate training, which should • strengthen the research profile of the Faculty

•

Ample funding for MSc students

Agriculture has low priority Faculty is not recognised as a research organisation

Sources: NUL (2008), Pound (April 2008), and SADC-SCARDA (2010).

IER, Mali

26

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Management autonomy

•

Lack of sustainable research funding

•

Decentralisation / regionalisation of research

•

Lack of capacity to prepare proposals

•

Existence of research strategy

•

•

Established research planning and evaluation cycle, involving end-users

Lack of specialist skills in certain areas (for details see Part II of report and Annex)

•

Lack of career plan for researchers and support staff

•

Existence of planning tools

•

Absence of staff retraining plan

•

Contracting of researchers and research projects

•

•

Range of technologies generated by IER staff

Age structure of IER staff (i.e. lack of young researchers due to recruitment freeze)

•

Weak access to information

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

•

Referenced data base

•

Use of certain communication and management • tools (Cahier de l’IER, SAC scientifique, website, etc) •

•

Existence of laboratories

•

•

IT related constraints (e.g. lack of hardware and software, or out-datedness ) Non-implementation of IER’s IT plan Weaknesses related to management of scientific information and publication of research results No permanent system in place to measure impact of research projects

Opportunities

• Some infrastructure is lacking or out dated Threats

•

Adoption of the Loi d’Orientation Agricole

•

•

Strong demand for agricultural and livestock products

Insufficient integration between agricultural research, training institutions, and extension services

•

•

Existence of numerous associations, APEX organisations, and NGOs in rural development, although links with NGOs are not always clear and often the latter do not draw on IER expertise

Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) procedures not adequate to release research funds

•

Fluctuation of prices for agricultural products on the international markets

•

Existence of higher education establishment

•

Certain plant and livestock diseases

•

Climatic risks

•

Loss of biodiversity

•

Poor quality inputs

•

Insufficient training of farmer groups

Natural Resources Development College (NRDC), Zambia Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Training infrastructure

•

Poor links with extension –public and private

•

Professional and experienced staff

•

Poor funding for research and outreach

•

Farm land

•

Run-down training facilities and equipment

•

Only public institution offering agricultural diploma in Zambia

•

Few trained staff in extension methodologies

•

High staff attrition due to age structure

•

Brand name – known widely

•

Security

•

Secure power supply

•

Public-private partnership experience with Zambia Export Growers Association (ZEGA), Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation (ZESCO)

Opportunities

Threats

•

•

Competitors – (e.g. Greenwood, Kwame Nkrumah)

•

Brain drain – poor conditions of service

•

Poor funding – money routed through the mother body – not direct like the University of Zambia (UNZA)

Provide outreach and extension for agricultural development and farmers through Department of Extension

•

Short courses to former graduates and farmers

•

Intensify linkages with regional bodies in agricultural development

•

Poor linkages to other institutions

Intensify college farm production as UNZA has done on its farm.

•

Unaffordable technologies – e.g. Internet

•

Lack of clear policy in agricultural training

•

Poverty – theft and vandalism

•

Staff attrition – HIV

• •

Rehabilitation of infrastructure

•

Promote specialisation and excellence

Annex A: SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (2008)

27

School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia (SAS-UNZA) Strengths

Weaknesses

•

High number of trained and skilled personnel

•

Poor funding (research)

•

Relatively good infrastructure

•

Resource mobilisation

•

Supportive Management

•

Publication

•

Good linkage with others

•

•

Goodwill from government and donors

•

Visibility

Internal linkages with other Schools and Departments – weak information flow with other actors

•

High number of technical staff

•

•

Academic Freedom

Skewed staff profile (aging, women underrepresented, few young PhDs)

•

Applied problem-solving research (linked to the post-grad program – which includes publication requirement)

•

Poor remuneration/conditions of service - low motivation

•

Quality training - under-graduates and post-graduates

•

Lack of sustained staff training and progression

•

Analysis (laboratory and biometrics).

•

Inadequate infrastructure – pilot plant for training

•

Poor extension services/information dissemination

•

Poor management training – link to administrative efficiency

•

28

Opportunities

Frequent closures – affects public image and attachments Threats

•

Inter-departmental research

•

•

Participatory research (impact-oriented)

Increased competition due to proliferation of new private universities

•

Innovative research in niche areas

•

•

In-service training/short courses for industry

Reduced funding to UNZA due to the setup of a new public university

•

Take advantage of healthy economic environment to attract funding

•

Staff attrition due to: (a) strong demand for qualified personnel; and (b) better pay by the private sector

•

Marketing of School/ Departments

•

•

Curriculum review and development for new challenges– demand identification

Moonlighting staff – teaching in other universities, over-stretched.

•

Infrastructure improvement

•

UNZA Farm – opportunity for expansion

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Annex B: Updated SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (December 2011) ISABU, Burundi Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Existence of ISABU and support of government of Burundi

•

Low scientific level of researchers

•

Strategic plan of agricultural research

•

Insufficient budget

•

Sufficient staff (existing human resources)

•

Short term research funding policies

•

Rehabilitation of infrastructures

•

Too few researchers and technicians

•

Field and lab facilities

•

Instability of personnel due to low motivation, salaries and conditions of service

•

Good structure and organisation

•

Absence of training on the job

•

Internet connectivity in research stations

•

Poor publication of scientific results outside ISABU

•

Partnership with other research institutes

•

•

Communications in country (one major language throughout)

Weak contact with transfer of technology intermediaries and farmers

•

Lack of scientific and technical equipment

•

Poor access to scientific and technical information – scientific publications, etc.

•

Poor linkages with other national organisations

•

Centralisation of administration and finance

•

Poor communication with external organisations

Opportunities

• English language knowledge is limited Threats

•

Stabilised security situation

•

Political and economic instability

•

Increasing potential for funding from donors – increasing cooperation

•

Risk of diminishing budget

•

High demand of research products

•

Reluctance of donors

•

Improve linkages nationally, regionally and internationally

•

Financial selectivity by donors – some programmes are funded, but some are not

•

Participation in regional research projects

•

•

Partnerships for technology transfer

De-motivation and further loss of staff to other organisations with better terms and conditions

•

Regional integration, e.g. East Africa

•

•

Emergence of rural development projects

‘Glass ceiling’ for technicians who cannot progress to science grades on the job

•

Emergence of other organisations involved in research, e.g. private sector

•

Loss of staff through promotion out of the organisation e.g. to Ministry of Agriculture.

•

Emergence of farmers’ organisations

Note: SWOT factors in italics are new additions.

Annex B: Updated SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (Dec 2011)

29

Crops Research Institute (CRI-CSIR), Ghana Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Ability to develop technologies

•

•

Multi-disciplinary team

Inadequate funds for research from Government of Ghana

•

Participatory research team

•

Weak in commercialising research results

•

Strategic location

•

Weak in mobilising funding through competitive bidding

•

Key actor in the development of crop varieties

•

•

Highly skilled in technology dissemination

•

National recognition for high quality research (Gold Award, Recipient of 8 Best National Agricultural Research Awards)

Insufficient resources to interact with farmers and to participate effectively in the Research-Extension Linkages Committees.1

•

Inadequate ICT infrastructure and support

•

Inadequate irrigation facilities and other field and laboratory equipment

•

Poor communications across divisions, lack of coordination meeting

•

Lack of key management skills at all levels

•

M&E system requires strengthening

•

Financial administration still paper based and timeconsuming / inability to provide relevant information about costs

•

Aged staff composition, which will cause high staff attrition in the coming years

•

Relatively low staff remuneration undermines staff motivation and causes staff to leave

•

Inefficient use of available human resource

•

Insufficient documentation of the impact of CRI-CSIR activities

•

Opportunities

Threats

•

Farmers and stakeholders willing to participate in CRI-CSIR research activities and adopt findings

•

•

Good image in Donor Community for food security research activities

Competition for qualified staff by other agencies (such as universities and private sector) offering better remuneration

•

Frequent power cuts - reducing efficiency

•

Potential to attract other stakeholders in collaborative research activities

•

Internet connection slow and unstable

Generation of funds through training of students, Agricultural Extension Agents, Non-Governmental Organisations, farmers, etc.

•

Government budgetary cuts

•

Encroachment on research lands

•

Competition from other research institutions, universities and NGOs for funds

•

•

Attracting additional funding from donors (e.g. WAAPP, …)

•

CRI-CSIR to be upgraded from National Centre of Specialisation to National Centre of Excellence

•

A Post-graduate School to be established

•

Research –Extension-Farmer Linkage Committee revived

•

Irrigation facilities being improved

1.

30

Improved internal communication

Note: Factors that have been struck out have been removed and those in italics have been added.

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

IER, Mali Strengths

Weaknesses

•

•

Lack of sustainable research funding

•

Some infrastructure is lacking or out of date

•

Low level of motivation of research staff

•

Lack of specialist skills in certain areas

•

Insufficient capacity to prepare proposals

•

Weaknesses related to management of scientific information and publication of research results

•

Non-implementation of IER’s IT plan

•

No permanent system in place to measure impact of research projects

•

Absence of staff retraining plan

•

IT related constraints (e.g. lack of hardware and software, or out datedness)

•

Weak access to information

•

Age structure of IER staff (i.e. lack of young researchers due to recruitment freeze)

•

Lack of career plan for researchers and support staff

Range of technologies generated by IER staff: e.g. pest management, harvesting, food processing, natural resources management, animal reproduction, and improved knowledge of value chains

•

Existence of laboratories

•

Decentralisation / regionalisation of research

•

Established research planning and evaluation cycle, involving end-users

•

Existence of research strategy

•

Use of certain communication and management tools (Cahier de l’IER, SAC scientifique, Website, SIG, etc)

•

Management autonomy

•

Existence of planning tools (e.g. SAC)

•

Referenced database

•

Contracting of researchers and research projects

•

Existence of an advocacy (lobbying) plan

•

Number of multi-partner projects

•

Knowledge management

Opportunities

Threats

•

Strong demand for agricultural and livestock products

•

•

Adoption of the Loi d’Orientation Agricole

• •

•

Existence of national research funds (competitive grants) • Existence of numerous associations, apex organisations, •

CNRA procedures not adequate to release research funds Emergence of new crop and animal diseases Poor quality inputs

and NGOs in rural development, although links with NGOs are not always clear and often the latter do not draw on IER expertise

•

Certain plant and livestock diseases (incl. avian influenza)

Existence of higher education establishment (e.g Univ. of Bamako) – opportunities: research collaboration; retraining; new graduates

•

Climatic risks

•

Loss of biodiversity

•

Insufficient training of farmer groups

•

Fluctuation of prices for agricultural products on the international markets

•

Insufficient integration between agricultural research, training institutions, and extension services

Annex B: Updated SWOT tables of the Focal Institutes (Dec 2011)

31

Natural Resources Development College (NRDC), Zambia

32

Strengths

Weaknesses

•

Training infrastructure

•

Poor links with extension – public and private

•

Professional and experienced staff

•

Poor funding for research and outreach

•

Farm land

•

Run-down training facilities and equipment

•

Only public institution offering agricultural diploma in Zambia

•

Few trained staff in extension methodologies

•

Brand name – known widely

•

High staff attrition due to age structure

•

Security

•

•

Secure power supply

•

Public-private partnership experience (with ZEGA)

Poor exit strategies for NRDC-Public Private Partnerships (PPP) projects (e.g. there was no mechanism for sustainability of the PPP experience with ZEGA - Zambia Export Growers Association)

•

Trained staff for extension services

•

Weak M&E capacity

•

R&D department established to coordinate research activities, mobilise resources for research activities, and control the quality of the research output

Opportunities

Threats

•

•

Competitors – (Greenwood, Kwame Nkrumah)

•

Brain drain – poor conditions of service

•

Poor funding – money routed through the mother body – not direct like UNZA

Provide outreach and extension for agricultural development and farmers through Department of Extension

•

Short courses to former graduates and farmers

•

Intensify linkages with regional bodies in agricultural development

•

Poor linkages with other institutions

•

Intensify college farm production as UNZA has done on its farm

•

Unaffordable technologies – e.g. internet

•

Lack of clear policy in agricultural training

•

Poverty – theft and vandalism

•

Staff attrition – HIV

•

Student unrest – damage to infrastructure and disruption of teaching programme

•

Policy environment not conducive to NRDC projected growth trajectory or expansion strategy;

•

Skewed remuneration due to lack of harmonisation of salaries across line ministries - causing low staff morale

•

Rehabilitation of infrastructure

•

Promote specialisation and excellence

•

Potential for upgrading to degree awarding institution (e.g. the SCARDA Change Management workshops inspired initial thoughts on this expansion strategy – through the Change Management Action Plans(CMAPs); 20%)

•

PPP – for infrastructure development (unsolicited bids from private partners for infrastructure development – tuition blocks, hostels, demonstration farm and farm equipment, access road, staff accommodation); for agribusiness development

•

Advisory services (e.g. on-site and on-farm demonstrations of conservation farming at the NRDC Farm and on farmers’ fields, respectively)

•

Value addition (e.g. diary plant, abattoir and meat processing, vegetable processing, mushroom production and packaging, simple farm implements, e.g. maize shelling, planters)

•

Resource mobilisation (e.g. consultancies)

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

33

+ ++

= = = +

=

+ +

Well qualified, competent staff

Ample classroom space at present student levels International collaboration on educational programmes Publication through own journal Efficient accounting set-up Approval process for research proposals Expertise available to the community

Administrative autonomy

Good access to ICT Capacity to offer Advisory Services BCA includes the Centre for In-Service & Continuing Education (CICE)

=

-

SWOT topic Strengths Well funded

++, +, =, -, --

Change

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

BCA has increased its consultancy work considerably. Staff can keep 80% of the revenues, which is quite high. In the way it is setup currently, BCA is most likely losing money on this activity. It all depends on whether faculty staff is doing consultancy work in their own time or in the time of BCA. BCA is a parastatal under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister appoints the Board and controls the budget. BCA’s administrative autonomy is limited, e.g. unused funds have to be returned at the end of the fiscal year. There are plans to merge BCA with a new technical university to be setup in the north of the country. A first proposal has been rejected by the Cabinet, but the Minister of Education is still pursuing the idea.

If it succeeds, BCA would come under the control of the Ministry of Education.

Replacement of aging equipment has been slow due to budget freeze.

In place, but difficult to sell it.

Number of people trained has increased. Moreover, CICE is working on the accreditation of individual courses.

Continued...

About 500 people trained in 2011, against 230 in 2008.

Turnover increased from 50,000 Pula in 2008 to 1,000,000 Pula in 2011.

Decline in real terms 5-10% Academic qualifications of faculty staff have improved, due mainly to a major training Updated staff table programme funded by the government. should be able to document progress.

Three lecture halls, several laboratories, student accommodation, and a new cafeteria have been completed over the past few years.

Government has frozen the budget since 2008/09

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA), Botswana

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

34

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= +

+

Limited practical exposure for students

Research management

Capacity in cutting-edge technologies, e.g. biotechnology Information management and packaging for end-users Technical support for research High student staff ratio resulting in a high teaching workload

Poor linkages to extension and wider stakeholders

Linking research outputs to policy and national priorities No clear policy on research/teaching divide =

+

=

Balancing demands of teaching and research = Quality control of research outputs + Monitoring of research and impact of outputs +

= =

=

+

-

SWOT topic Weaknesses More on innovative teaching methods e.g. e-learning Better linking of teaching and research

Continued from previous page

++, +, =, -, --

Change

Guidelines do now exist and breakdown is included in staff contracts. PMIS system should identify those cases where the allocation of time severely deviates from the allocation agreed upon in the work contract.

The linkage between BCA and MoA’s extension services (and MoA more generally) has weakened. In part, this is due to the fact that there has been some institutional turmoil around the extension function within MoA. There was an earlier attempt to create a new Extension Department, but this never really took off. Responsibility for extension has recently been returned to the technical departments of the Ministry.

Nevertheless, linkages with other stakeholders have improved.

More staff trained at the PhD level → better quality research Widespread training in M&E through SCARDA has raised the awareness and appreciation of M&E. / BCA has not conducted/commissioned any research impact study throughout its existence.

Issue has remained the same. However, overall student staff ratio for BCA is 12, while the university norm in Botswana is 20. It is only in a few departments (e.g.

Basic Science) that the ratio is substantially above the university standard.

Nothing has happened on this front, which means that BCA is falling behind even further The growth in post-graduate training is helping to create a stronger link between teaching and research Has remained about the same or has slightly deteriorated. Practical exposure is limited to only six weeks, which is generally considered as insufficient.

CMAP objectives only very partially accomplished. A new research strategy only exists in draft form and no progress has been made on a partnership strategy.

Implementation of a Personnel Management Information System (PMIS) has not been completed yet. Lack of a dedicated research coordinator.

A new tissue culture lab has been constructed and equipped + some training

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

35

++

Income generation e.g. BCA Consult

Appreciation for agriculture by the general public has improved

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “ +” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

= = +

--

Increased Government funding

Unreliable suppliers Brain drain Negative perception of agriculture

=

External links for access to funding and expertise

Increase in the number of infections New (private) universities coming on board competing for staff and students Gaborone continues to expand and the BCA campus and facilities (including agricultural land) are at the outskirts of the capital. In the long, medium-to-long run it may be necessary to relocate.

++

Develop University status

= -

New strategy focuses on stakeholder satisfaction Pool of BSc students growing. At the moment only 1% of the BSc students go on to the MSc level. The primary bottleneck is that the government gives out only very few MSc bursaries.

Bill submitted to Parliament. Minister of Education wants to merge BCA with a new technical university to be setup in the northern part of the country. Has not been approved by the Cabinet, but the idea is still in abeyance. There is also pressure to transfer BCA to the Ministry of Education.

External funding opportunities on the rise. However, international exchange of staff under pressure due to limited budget for sabbaticals and accommodating visiting professors.

Government budgets are under pressure due to an economic slowdown and macro-economic imbalances Creation of BCA Farming – high cost structure under current government rules. As a commercial entity it should be profitable.

+ ++

Threats Lack of functional NARS HIV/AIDS Regional Competition [esp. RSA] Encroachment of Gaborone

Staff at CICE is on loan by the different departments for a few years at a time. CICE does not have its own, permanent staff.

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not More support for training of technicians available.

=

+

++, +, =, -, --

SWOT topic Insufficient in-service training especially for technicians CICE had limited staff capacity to do all they wished on ‘continuing education’.

Opportunities Aware of need to be more customer-driven Demand for postgraduate programmes

Change If possible, back up the change quantitatively

36

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

DAR has adopted a policy to seek far more publicity. Appointment of a PR officer. * Despite training, not much progress due to lack of resources Last one in 2005.

++ = = =

+

No proper application of ‘commodity team approach’ to livestock research Poor communication of ‘what DAR does and can do’ Capacity for packaging information for a wider audience Absence of stakeholder forum No clear research prioritisation mechanism

+

Weaknesses Poor external partnerships [stakeholders] = = =

Introduction of the innovation platform concept is placing more emphasis on external partnerships DAR follows government procedures A PMIS was introduced some five years ago, but does not function well A scarce skill allowance was introduced by government in April 2008, but was cancelled Scarce skills bonus can for the higher salary scales (E2 and higher) in April 2010. This is affecting (in particular) be as high as 40% of staff in managerial positions, which are now offered short-term contracts to be the basic salary. negotiated individually (Botswana Gazette). It is not clear how many DAR staff members are actually benefitting from the scarce skills allowance and hence its impact on the retention of staff. At the same time, the instrument seems to have caused quite a bit of resentment among staff members who are not getting the allowance.

Commodity teams have been established

-

Vision and policy in place

Inadequate performance monitoring Inadequate rewards for good performance Poor retention of best scientists and managers

Government budget cuts due to declining government revenues 10-20% cut since 2009 Socio-economics capacity of DAR improved and innovation system perspective adopted 2-3 economists Consultations between the different departments take place weekly Budget cuts are affecting the capital budget in particular One can question whether this is really such a good thing. It may also be seen as a sign that DAR is overstaffed. It was reported that currently support staff leaving DAR are not being replaced due to budget constraints.

The agricultural policy of the Ministry of Agriculture dates back to 1991. It is currently under review to be updated. The National Development Plan for 2009-2016 seems to be the leading policy document. There is no specific national agricultural research strategy or plan.

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

-+ = =

++, +, =, -, --

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

SWOT topic Strengths Well funded [operational] Work as commodity teams Strong internal partnerships [within DAR] Good facilities High ratio of support staff to scientists

Change

Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Botswana

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

37

However, the government has adopted a plan to merge DAR with National Veterinary Laboratory (NVL) and National Food Technology Research Centre (NFTRC) and turn it into a parastatal. The latter should give the new agency greater administrative autonomy. This institutional transformation should take effect in April 2012 Cancellation of the scarce skills allowance is making it more difficult for DAR to retain experienced staff.

See above Vacancies at DAR are filled mainly with young and inexperienced new recruits. In some divisions there is insufficient capacity to train and mentor these recruits properly.

=

Loss of experienced staff

Generally poor staff retention due to low salaries Poor support for young scientists

= =

This will affect government revenues negatively and hence the need to bring government budgets in line with a projected, shrinking revenue base.

This is good for Botswana’s export of agricultural products (mainly beef), but as a net importer of food rising world demand for food is having a negative impact on Botswana’s economy.

See above

No progress No progress Whether you publish or not, it does not make a difference in how your performance is being assessed SCARDA training + experience with Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)’s value chain approach DAR has to operate according to the administrative and financial management rules that apply across the whole government. It does not have the autonomy to make changes.

This is outside the control of DAR. Human resource decisions are taken at the level of the Ministry / Government, not that of individual departments.

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not Two staff members attended the M&E course, but have since then left DAR.

Export market for beef Climate change [e.g. new approaches to drought management] Globalisation [new markets] Threats Control by MoA

= =

=

= =

=

Human resource management

Opportunities Share campus with other NARS partners In longer-term, declining national revenue from diamonds Rising world demand for food

=

+

++, +, =, -, -= (M&E) / = (impact) = = =

Exposure of research leaders to innovations in AR4D Financial management and targeting of funds

Mechanism for linking research and policy Implementation of research policy Publication of research outputs

SWOT topic M & E and impact assessment

Change

Continued...

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

38

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= = =

++, +, =, -, -+

Change

Seems to have become more permanent

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not See plan for the merger of DAR with NVL and NFTRC (above).

(sufficient staff) Field and lab facilities Good communication throughout the country (one language) Existence of ISABU and government support Partnership with other research institutes Weaknesses Centralisation of administration and finance Insufficient budget Instability of personnel due to low motivation, salaries and conditions of service Absence of training on the job Low scientific level of researchers Too few researchers and technicians Lack of scientific and technical equipment Poor communication with external organisations

SWOT topic Strengths Good structure and organisation Current human resources

ISABU, Burundi

+ + + + =

= + +

New laboratory equipment acquired

+ = + =

Some short courses have been organised Some researchers have been trained New researchers have been recruited Some new lab equipment and computers acquired

Five priority programs funded by PAI project Slight increase of salaries

Slight increase in salary

On-going restructuring Adoption of a more ambitious strategic plan requires expansion of staff

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

+ -

++, +, =, -, --

Change

* This does not seem to apply to the website of DAR which has not been updated since 2009. The latest DAR Newsletter is from November 2005.

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+� means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

SWOT topic Opposition to integration of research institutions Opposition to multi-disciplinary approach Climate change Rising food costs Globalisation [competition]

Continued from previous page

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

39

= = ++

=

= =

+

= =

+

Bilateral cooperation resumed (PAI)

Slight improvement in salary conditions

Confederation of Agricultural Producer Associations for Development (CAPAD), Companies and Cooperatives of Seed Producers of Burundi (COPROSEBU), PADAP

On-going institutional support project Performance Assessment and improvement (PAI)

+ = =

Publications on banana, potato and beans

+ = =

au Développement Agricole de la Province (PADAP)

+ =

Signed contract with a development project Projet d'Appui

++, +, =, -, -+

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

Regional integration, e.g. east Africa Stabilised security situation Threats De-motivation and further loss of staff to other organisations with better terms and conditions Risk of diminishing budget ‘Glass ceiling’ for technicians who cannot progress to science grades on the job Financial selectivity by donors – some programmes are funded, but some are not Political and economic instability Loss of staff through promotion out of the organisation, e.g. to MoA Suspension of cooperation with donors, e.g. Belgium

Improve linkages nationally, regionally and internationally Emergence of other organisations involved in research, e.g. private sector Partnerships for technology transfer

Weak contact with and transfer of technology to intermediaries and farmers Poor publication of scientific results outside ISABU English language knowledge is limited Short term research funding policies Opportunities Increasing potential for funding from donors – increasing cooperation

SWOT topic Poor access to scientific and technical information – scientific publications, etc Poor linkages with other organisations nationally

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not Improved internet connectivity

Change

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

40

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Service grant reduced since 2008 Slight increase in internally generated funding due to a major consultancy under the Millennium Development Authority (MDA) Some improvement recorded through competitive grants won under the WAAPP WAAPP has provided some funds for that activity

+ ++

+ ++ +

+ +

Highly skilled in technology dissemination National recognition for high quality research (Gold Award, Recipient of 8 Best National Agricultural Research Awards)

Weaknesses Inadequate funds for research from Government of Ghana Weak in commercialising research results

Weak in mobilising funding through competitive bidding

Insufficient resources to interact with farmers and to participate effectively in the Research-Extension Linkages Committees.

Inadequate ICT infrastructure and support Inadequate irrigation facilities and other field and laboratory equipment Poor communications across divisions, lack of coordination meeting Lack of key management skills at all levels

M&E system requires strengthening

++

+ +

Dissemination Plan developed for root tuber crops The Director won a Presidential Gold Award as National Best Scientist.

Two other scientists won Silver and Bronze awards in the Young Scientists category at the first National Science Congress held in August 2011

= + = ++

WAAPP is helping to upgrade existing facility Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and WAAPP are supporting installation of functional irrigation facility A lot of improvement. Divisions meet at least three times a year.

Coordination has improved. Seminar series reinstituted.

Divisional Heads taken through induction programmes on assumption of office to prepare them for their new responsibility A Project Development, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (PRODIMEC) has been set up to strengthen the M&E system. An M&E officer has been appointed.

Scientists are visiting other Institutions in the sub-region [exchange programme under the West African Agricultural Productivity Programme (WAAPP)] to share ideas No change. Efforts being made to maintain staff strength and quality More farmers involved in research No change New improved crop varieties developed and released

Multi-disciplinary team Participatory research team Strategic location Key actor in the development of crop varieties

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

+

++, +, =, -, -- *

SWOT topic Strengths Ability to develop technologies

Change

Crop Research Institute-Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRI-CSIR), Ghana

Maize (4), Rice (6), Cassava (4)

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

41

Three experienced scientists have left CRI- CSIR for other Institutions No change No change No service grant. Payment of staff salaries is often delayed More land being lost despite efforts to seek redress Situation has not changed and is likely to continue like that.

_ = = =

* In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

Threats Competition for qualified staff with other agencies (such as universities and private sector) offering better remuneration Frequent power cuts - reducing efficiency Internet connection slow and unstable Government budgetary cuts Encroachment on research lands Competition from other research institutions, universities and NGOs for funds

AGRA is funding more research at CRI-CSIR. Second Phase of WAAPP about to take off.

Has not started because of lack of basic facilities

= +

Some visitors have come to propose collaborative research

+

Potential to attract other stakeholders in collaborative research activities Generation of funds through training of students, Agricultural Extension Agents, NGOs, farmers, etc Attracting additional funding from donors (e.g. WAAPP, …)

More farmers and extension workers involved in CRI-CSIR Participatory Research. Most invitees attended CRI-CSIR Open Day organised in October 2011 Scientists continually preparing research proposals to solicit for funding.

+ +

Inadequate funding to support research activities No funds for impact studies since the last one (done in 1997) to assess the impact of maize research in Ghana

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not SCALA, an accounting software, has been introduced to enhance financial administration Young scientists employed to replace the aged staff and those who have left to beef up and maintain staff quality Government recently (2011) increased workers’ salaries by 20%

= =

+

++

++, +, =, -, -- * +

Good image in Donor Community for food security research activities

SWOT topic Financial administration still paper based and time-consuming Aged staff composition, which will cause high staff attrition in the coming years Relatively low staff remuneration undermines staff motivation and causes staff to leave Inefficient use of available human resource Insufficient documentation of the impact of CRI-CSIR activities Opportunities Farmers and stakeholders willing to participate in CRI-CSIR research activities and adopt findings

Change

One new international project (AusAID Farming Systems project) won

8 young scientists employed.

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

42

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= -

= = = + = -

=

Basic infrastructure in place Diverse, good quality undergraduate and graduate programmes Internationally recognised curriculum Faculty Journal Weaknesses Low pass rates

High student staff ratio → high teaching workload

Low research output and weak academic publication record. The prevailing research culture is not strong and doesn’t encourage staff to publish.

+

++, +, =, -, -- *

Balanced age and gender composition of faculty staff Staff retention fairly good (and definitely better than at DAR and LAC)

SWOT topic Strengths Skilled, diverse and energetic staff

Change

Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Lesotho (FA-NUL)

Average student staff ratio of about 20, which is not unreasonable. High teaching workload is only an acute problem in some departments.

Still no clear improvement, despite the launch of a faculty journal in 2007 (most articles in the first two issues are from outsiders). Number of manuscripts is on the rise, but lack of research funding is constraining the volume of research. In addition, the university’s premium system for publishing has been abolished for the time being due to budget constraints.

Nevertheless, publication record plays a role when applying for a promotion.

Closure of NUL due to a labour dispute during OctoberDecember 2011 will negatively affect the productivity of the Faculty of Agriculture Difficulties to recruit new staff due to low salaries.

Launched, but still not financially stable

Government budget freeze/decrease is undermining NUL’s competitive position in the (regional) market for qualified staff and has resulted in labour disputes over salary increases.

Moreover, NUL’s management is considering laying off staff in order to free up resources for operating costs.

Still okay, but may deteriorate if budget problems continue

New management skills acquired through the agricultural research management (ARM) workshops (attended by FA-NUL only); specific courses open to all NARS partners (farmer participatory research, agricultural innovation system ideas and analysis, team building & leadership, proposal writing, developing extension materials, and laboratory skills) have improved the skills of those that attended.

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not SCAIN case study provides some positive testimonials by participants.

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

43

Weak internal links within FA-NUL constraint on multidisciplinary research approach Lack of incentives/motivation for innovation systems research

Little appreciation by administration for field work, extension and community service activities and lack of funding for such activities Limited leadership and change management capacity

Inadequate laboratory and ICT support staff -- remuneration not competitive enough Bureaucracy: red tape / slow processing No research policy at University level Poor dissemination of research outputs (information, materials and services) to extension, farmers, NGOs, policy makers and other practitioners. Lack of an outreach strategy.

Inadequate financial support towards laboratory consumables Research funding largely project based, no funding for more long-term strategic research Lack of skills to mobilise resources and to write good research proposals Inadequate research infrastructure (insufficient laboratory space and outdated equipment, insufficient land at the University for on-station research trials, limited ICT facilities)

SWOT topic Limited operational budgets for research

Due to financial difficulties, there have been little or no investments in new infrastructure. (The exception is establishment of a tissue culture lab – but this took place before 2008 and with external funding)

=

+ at DAR

=

+

Particularly through the ARM workshops SCARDA has highlighted the importance of leadership and change management.

Some improvement

+

=

= = =

Despite being an explicit objective of the CMAP, FA-NUL still does not have an outreach strategy. Moreover, the course on developing extension material was only attended by the Department of Field Services and LAC – not by FA-NUL or DAR.

Slight improvement due to training by SCARDA

+

=

See above Problem has remained the same.

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not Government forced to squeeze budget due to a decline in government income (particularly custom revenues). Budget problems at DAR even more acute than at FA-NUL (e.g., electricity has been cut off in some DAR offices due to lack of funds).

=

++, +, =, -, -- * --

Change

Continued

If possible, back up the change quantitatively Annual government contribution to FA-NUL’s research budget reduced to P 90.000.

High dependence on external research funding.

44

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

+

++, +, =, -, -- * ++

Change

=

Expansion into post-graduate training, which should strengthen the research profile of the Faculty Ample funding for MSc students

-

+

Support farmers to form associations

Lack of linkage between FA-NUL and employers of graduates, + leading to inadequate feedback from employers into course curricula and delivery methods.

There is a lack of internal M&E systems and external evaluation of = (M&E) / + external evaluation academic programmes and outputs leading to reflection, learning and change.

Inability to attract high calibre staff Opportunities Prospects for staff development = Research potential = Income generation = Better linkages with international partners + Launch of a Journal of Agricultural Sciences and the + establishment of an Agricultural Sciences Society can help to create a stronger ‘research culture’ in Lesotho Creation of a research coordination mechanism at FA-NUL or = NARS level

Weak international linkages and exposure

SWOT topic Poor linkages with other NARS partners (DAR, LAC, extension, NGOs, farmers, private sector, government)

Continued from previous page

Government has frozen student fees.

Membership of RUFORUM Lesotho Journal of Agricultural Sciences launched and Lesotho Agricultural Sciences Society established. Too early to assess whether they have truly taken off.

Over time the idea of a research coordination mechanism has shifted from covering just FA-NUL to all NARS partners.

Meetings have been held to create the Lesotho Centre for the Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development (LECCAR), which has resulted in a business plan. There seems to be a broad consensus for the need of such an agency. But no concrete government commitment has been secured yet in the form of a budget allocation.

Awareness among NARS partners of the importance of farmer associations as partners in agricultural innovation has increased.

Student numbers in post-graduate programmes still low.

Salary squeeze

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not Informal contacts have improved strongly. SCARDA has been instrumental in putting the NARS linkages and coordination issue on the agenda NARS partners have agreed on the need to create a formal coordination mechanism [Lesotho Centre for Agricultural Research for Development (LECARD)] FA-NUL has started to collaborate more closely with RUFORUM and ANAFE Demand study

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

45

Established research planning and evaluation cycle, involving end-users Existence of planning tools (e.g. SAC) Contracting of researchers and research projects Range of technologies generated by IER staff Referenced database Use of certain communication and management tools (Cahier de l’IER, SAC scientifique, Website, SIG, etc) Existence of laboratories Management autonomy

SWOT topic Strengths Management autonomy Decentralisation / regionalisation of research Existence of research strategy

IER, Mali

= ++

+

=

+

=

=

++, +, =, -, -- *

* In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

Poor remuneration levels make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff Inadequate coordination of research between NARS actors leading to duplication/inefficiencies and sub-optimal use of resources Uptake of technologies constrained by adverse government policies (i.e. subsidies) Low level of organisation of farmers often constraints innovation – absence of an articulated demand for innovation Agriculture has low priority Faculty is not recognised as a research organisation

SWOT topic Threats Brain drain

Change

++ =

= = = = = ++

= = ++

++, +, =, -, --

Change

Three new laboratories

Website more operational

An improved revised strategic plan since early this year

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

FA-NUL now widely recognised as a research organisation

Lesotho National Farmers’ Union (LENAFU) inaugurated in June 2011.

In particular to South Africa because of better remuneration, working conditions and career opportunities In particular a problem for DAR as it cannot compete with FA-NUL SCARDA has helped to pull off more interaction between the different NARS actors

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

Continued ...

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

46

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

SWOT topic Weaknesses Lack of sustainable research funding Lack of capacity to prepare proposals Lack of specialist skills in certain areas (for details see Part II of report and Annex) Lack of career plan for researchers and support staff Absence of staff retraining plan Age structure of IER staff (i.e. lack of young researchers due to recruitment freeze) Weak access to information IT related constraints (e.g. lack of hardware and software, or out-datedness) Non-implementation of IER’s IT plan Weaknesses related to management of scientific information and publication of research results No permanent system in place to measure impact of research projects Some infrastructure is lacking or out dated Opportunities Adoption of the Loi d’Orientation Agricole Strong demand for agricultural and livestock products Existence of numerous associations, apex organisations, and NGOs in rural development, although links with NGOs are not always clear and often the latter do not draw on IER expertise Existence of higher education establishment Threats Insufficient integration between agricultural research, training institutions, and extension services CNRA procedures not adequate to release research funds Fluctuation of prices for agricultural products on the international markets Certain plant and livestock diseases Climatic risks Loss of biodiversity Poor quality inputs Insufficient training of farmer groups

Continued from previous page

Worsening of the situation

Collaboration improved because MoUs

= = = +

= = = = = = =

=

=

SCARDA trainings

Access to online journals

Fifty young scientists recruited two years ago

National research funds

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

+ = = +

= = +

+ = =

++, +, =, -, --

Change If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

47

+ = + + -

Farm land

Only public institution offering agricultural diploma level training in Zambia

Brand name – known widely Security Secure power supply

Public-private partnership experience (with ZEGA)

++

+

Professional and experienced staff

Weaknesses Poor links with extension-public and private

+

++, +, =, -, --

SWOT topic Strengths Training infrastructure

Change

Creation of an NRDC stakeholder platform; NRDC-Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI)-Farmer groups have been created. Farmers now attend demonstration plots at NRDC established by ZARI; NRDC partnership with the Poultry Association of Zambia with the aim to establish a centre of excellence in poultry production

Perimeter Fencing + Police Post Purchased new generator set to complement ZESCO power supply to the college Infrastructure dilapidated at the expiration of ZEGA funded project. No mechanism to sustain activity after project ended.

Still a leading institution in terms of enrolment but no longer the only institution providing diploma level training in agriculture

Thirteen staff members upgraded their education, at the same time five staff members retired. In addition, staff attended short courses on agricultural research management, proposal writing, etc.

New rangeland acquired in Mumbwa District

Modest upgrading of the training infrastructure through investments

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not

Natural Resources Development College, Zambia

Approx USD 200,000 funded by Govt.

USD 35,000

Continued ...

Rangeland increased from 700ha in 2008 to 1750ha now 3 new institutions have been established (Zambia College of Agriculture at Monze, Bika and Palabamna)

Four new classrooms built, new books procured, subscriptions to Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) and Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) three new LCDs purchased, expansion of livestock from 130 to 170 at the teaching and research farm.

Ten by SCARDA, three by others

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

48

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

+

=

Promote specialisation and excellence

+

=

Short courses to former graduates and farmers Intensify linkages with regional bodies in agricultural development Intensify college farm production as UNZA has done on its farm Rehabilitation of infrastructure

+

NRDC has started a Distant Learning programme and now engages in advisory services / consultancies on land and water evaluation planning in the mining areas; certified commodity value chains for export (organic crops); aquaculture; and medicinal plants (ethnobotanicals).

++

Opportunities Provide outreach and extension for agricultural development and farmers through Dept of Extension

In 2011, nine staff members retired. As a result, the age distribution of staff became more balanced (i.e. bell-shaped).

+

High staff attrition due to age structure

New classrooms built; PPP – for infrastructure development (unsolicited bids from private partners for infrastructure development – tuition blocks, hostels, demonstration farm and farm equipment, access road, staff accommodation); for agribusiness development

Staff trained in extension methodology

Short course on extension materials – 8 staff; MSc – 1 staff

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not If possible, back up the change quantitatively Improved resource mobilisation efforts through formation of the R&D Department within NRDC – a coordination unit for resource mobilisation for research; also oversees quality of research at NRDC. As a result of acquiring better proposal writing skills NRDC is now part of the Mango Agribusiness Incubator Consortium for Zambia funded

by Universities, Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation (UniBRAIN).

= ++

++, +, =, -, -+

Change

Run-down training facilities and equipment Few trained staff in extension methodologies

SWOT topic Poor funding for research and outreach

Continued from previous page

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

49

Change

= = + =

Unaffordable technologies – internet Lack of clear policy in agricultural training

Poverty-theft and vandalism

Staff attrition-HIV

Policy environment not conducive to NRDC projected growth trajectory or expansion strategy; Perimeter fencing and Police Post reduced theft and vandalism

Improved linkages with the private sector has led to the provision of improved seeds, fertiliser and establishment of demonstration plots from seed companies

Skewed remuneration due to lack of harmonisation of salaries across line ministries - causing low staff morale

Explain in a few words why the change has taken place or not If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat. In the case of threats, we had to reverse the “+” and “– “signs in order to make them consistent with the additional info provided.

++

=

= =

++, +, =, -, --

Poor funding-money routed through the parent Ministry not directly like UNZA Poor linkages with other institutions

SWOT topic Threats Competitors-(Greenwood, Kwame Nkrumah) Brain drain and poor quality of service

50

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

+

Weaknesses Poor funding (research)

Since 2009, research funding of US$4000 / School / term allocated

Due to Laboratory technician capacity improvement

+

Initiated the Journal of Agric. And Bio-medical Sciences

Increased staff capacity, improved quality of training

= = =

New demand-led programmes (B. Sc. in Human Nutrition, Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Extension, Masters in Agric. Economics, Integrated Soil Fertility Management);

+

+

Visibility

Due to involvement by various Departments in Bean and Cow Pea Valuation; global mechanism under FAO of the UN on Land Management – Economic valuation of land for various purposes and IAEA funding Animal, Soil –irrigation, and Plant Science Depts. – in-vitro mutagenesis and mutation breeding of maize with training visits and equipment; Soil Science Dept. is the CAADP Pillar 1 Lead Institutions Improved visibility (e.g. the Dept. of Soil Science is hosting the SADC Land and Water Management Programme);

Re-tooling of older staff through Research Management Workshops / short courses and postgraduate training [MSC/ PhD] for young academics.

High number of technical staff Academic freedom Applied problem-solving research (linked to the post-grad programme – which includes publication requirement) Quality Training - under-graduates and post-graduates Analysis (laboratory and biometrics).

= = =

+

Change Explain in a few words why the change ++, +, =, -, -- has taken place or not

Relatively good infrastructure Supportive Management Goodwill from government and donors

SWOT topic Strengths High number of trained and skilled personnel

School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia (SoAS-UNZA)

6 on Field techniques; 6 on Data collection; 3 on Instrumentation

Laboratory technicians trained: 7 on Lab techniques;

Staff under training: Soil Sc [1 PhD, 2 MSc], Plant Sc [4PhDS], Animal Sc [2PhDs], Agric.Econs [3 PhDs, 1 MSc], Food Science [5 PhDs]

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

51

Inadequate infrastructure – pilot plant for training,

Poor remuneration/conditions of service - Low motivation Lack of sustained staff training and progression

Internal linkages with other Schools and Departments – weak information flow with other actors Skewed staff profile (aging, women under-represented, few young PhDs)

External linkages with others*

Publication

SWOT topic Resource mobilisation

More staff have been trained. Since 2008, progression depends on publications and the rules are laid out. Not much has been achieved.

Although half of the planned building for the school has been constructed since 1980, the university has approved a new computer building for the school and funding is been raised from companies.

+ +

+

Since 2008, employed sixteen new staff members younger than 40 years, of which five are women. Thirteen staff members are currently working on their PhDs. Student mentorship helped improve morale

+

Continued ...

Change Explain in a few words why the change ++, +, =, -, -- has taken place or not If possible, back up the change quantitatively + Resource mobilisation has been in terms of new projects by the University in the areas of Bean and Cow Pea Valuation; global mechanism under FAO on Land Management – Economic valuation of land for various purposes and IAEA funding Animal, Soil – irrigation, and Plant Science Depts. – in-vitro mutagenesis and mutation breeding of maize with training visits and equipment. Soil Science Dept. is the CAADP Pillar 1 Lead Institutions. This has enabled mobilization of some resources. + Publication of research works has improved slightly with the introduction of a new policy that permits MSc students to publish their dissertation in journals in association with their supervisors + Linkages with NARS improved leading to research topics of interest, co-supervision of students and presentation of research works at ZARI. Improved linkages with other international research organisations such as Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CYMMT) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Food security projects in Soil, Plant and Agricultural Economics (poverty dynamics among smallholder farmers) Depts. =

52

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Farm expanded from 500 to 680 ha by the Chinese Government

+ +

+

Take advantage of healthy economic environment to attract funding Marketing of School/Departments

Curriculum review and development for new challenges- demand identification UNZA Farm – opportunity for expansion

+

In-service training/short courses for industry

Research into seed multiplication, food drinks, level of antioxidant in cowpeas to promote nutrition In 2009, Plant Science Department. organised short courses on Mushroom Production and Tissue culture for Crops in collaboration with Cuba Private sector now assisting in the construction of office blocks.

In 2009, symposium organised to market the school; school management presented a 45 minutes marketing programme on national TV. First Open Day is being organised.

Curriculum review completed

+ +

Participatory research (impact-oriented) Innovative research in niche areas

More collaboration between departments. For example, Plant Science / Biological Science in research and students’ supervision; Plant Science/ School of Mines in research; Plant Science / School of Engineering on biofuels

+

+

++

Administrative efficiency improved due to the training and recruitment of new school Accountant, e.g. it takes fewer days to clear cheques now and tedious process of quotation for procurement is no longer there.

No longer an issue

Re-tooling done by SCARDA through training such as Change Management course, management training on streak project

by NUFFIC.

Explain in a few words why the change ++, +, =, -, -- has taken place or not = Public-Research-Extension has been weak due to lack of funding; knowledge generated but not disseminated + Improved management training and administrative efficiency.

Change

Frequent closures – affects public image and attachments Opportunities Inter-departmental research

SWOT topic Poor extension services/information dissemination Poor management training – link to administrative efficiency

Continued from previous page

If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Annex C: Institutional and organisational change scores

53

=

=

=

=

This led to staff attrition

Change Explain in a few words why the change ++, +, =, -, -- has taken place or not If possible, back up the change quantitatively

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat. * In retrospect SAS staff qualified ‘external linkages in 2008’ as weakness rather than strength. It is only in recent years that linkages within the NARS have improved considerably.

SWOT topic Threats Increased competition due to a proliferation of new private universities Reduced funding to UNZA due to the setup of a new public university Staff attrition due to: (a) strong demand for qualified personnel; and (b) better pay by the private sector Moon-lighting staff – teaching in other universities, over-stretched.

54

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

=

+ = +

Limited practical exposure for students Research management

= +

=

= = +

= = +

-

=

=

= = + +

+

=

= + +

=

= +

+

++

++, +, =

Administrative autonomy Good access to ICT Capacity to offer Advisory Services BCA includes the Centre for In-Service & Continuing education Weaknesses More on innovative teaching methods, e.g. e-learning Better linking of teaching and research

Ample classroom space at present student levels International collaboration on educational programmes Publication through own journal [BOJAAS] Efficient accounting set-up Approval process for research proposals Expertise available to the community

SWOT topic Strengths Well funded Well qualified, competent staff

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA)

SCARDA change management training courses

Course on the development of extension materials SCARDA made use of CICE facilities and brought business

Training on the development of extension materials and on the “innovation platform” concept

SCARDA regional training events helped to establish informal contacts with counterparts in Lesotho and Zambia.

SCARDA funded the training of two MSc’s –one in biotechnology and one in instrumentation. The short term training opportunities offered by SCARDA have been relatively unique and particularly so because large numbers of staff were able to attend.

Description of SCARDA contribution

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

Growing importance of post-graduate programmes at BCA

Reported increase in activity not due to SCARDA only.

Government budget freeze

RUFORUM

Government investment programme

Far more staff members, however, have been enrolled in the regular training programme of the government receiving MSc and PhD training.

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

55

= +

+ =

+ +

=

+ ++ ++

CICE had limited staff capacity to do all they wished on ‘continuing education’.

Opportunities Aware of need to be more customer-driven Demand for postgraduate programmes

Develop University status

=

=

+

+

=

=

+

=

+ = =

= = =

+

+

=

+

++, +, = ++

++, +, =, -, -+

SCARDA contribution

Insufficient in-service training, especially to technicians

Monitoring of research and impact of outputs Linking research outputs to policy and national priorities No clear policy on research/teaching divide Poor linkages to extension and wider stakeholders

SWOT topic Capacity in cutting-edge technologies, e.g. biotechnology Information management and packaging for end-users Technical support for research Student staff ratios Balancing demands of teaching and research Quality control of research outputs

Change

BCA’s Strategic Plan includes stakeholder satisfaction as one of its performance indicators.

Demand study conducted by SCARDA  impact on BCA’s curriculum

In particular, the SCARDA courses on ‘innovation platforms’ have raised the awareness among BCA staff regarding the importance of linkages with extension and wider stakeholders SCARDA helped to reduce this weakness somewhat

Training of staff on M&E / Increased awareness of the importance to document impact

Course on the development of extension materials

Description of SCARDA contribution SCARDA trained two MSc students in high priority areas

Continued...

Only 1% of the BSc graduates move on to MSc level. There is an tremendous potential to increase this percentage.

Discussions are well under way on this topic.

BCA has its own training facilities for ‘continuing education’ (see below). Only in highly specialised areas external training may be needed.

New guidelines adopted by BCA.

Improved educational profile of academic staff mainly due to government training programme

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

56

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= = = +

Threats Lack of a functional NARS

HIV/AIDS Regional Competition [esp. RSA] Encroachment of Gaborone Unreliable suppliers Brain drain Negative perception of agriculture

= = = = = =

+

= =

++, +, = +

SCARDA contribution

SCARDA management training has raised the awareness for the need for better coordination within the NARS.

Description of SCARDA contribution Many staff members received training in writing business winning research proposals. This has already led to a better pooling of information on funding opportunities.

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+� means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

-++

++, +, =, -, -=

Change

Increased government funding Income generation e.g. BCA Consult

SWOT topic External links for access to funding and expertise

Continued from previous page

Government of Botswana In addition to its consultancy activities, BCA wants to organise its farming activities as a commercial enterprise.

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

57

= = = =

Absence of stakeholder forum No clear research prioritisation mechanism M & E and impact assessment

Mechanism for linking research and policy

= = =

Inadequate performance monitoring Inadequate rewards for good performance Poor retention of best scientists and managers

++ =

+

Weaknesses Poor external partnerships [stakeholders]

Poor communication of ‘what DAR does and can do’ Capacity for packaging information for a wider audience

= -

Good facilities High ratio of support staff to scientists Vision and policy in place

+

+

Strong internal partnerships [within DAR]

No proper application of ‘commodity team approach’ to livestock research

-+

++, +, =, -, --

Change

SWOT topic Strengths Well funded [operational] Work as commodity teams

Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Botswana

=

= = +

+ +

+

= = =

+

= = =

+

= +

Training in M&E (two staff members, but they left DAR)

Introduction of innovation platform approach → Innovation platform on small ruminants being established SCARDA training Some training provided by SCARDA, but no significant uptake

Introduction of innovation platform approach and farmer participatory research approaches

Introduction of innovation platform approach Training in team building and conflict resolution

SCARDA contribution Description of SCARDA ++, +, = contribution

Continued...

Introduction of scarce skill allowance in April 2008, but cancellation of the allowance for the higher salary scales in April 2010.

MoU’s with Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA) and Botswana Technology Centre (BOTEC)

No specific agricultural research strategy or plan in place

Government budget freeze

Government budget freeze

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

58

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= +

= = =

Generally poor staff retention due to low salaries Poor support for young scientists

Opposition to integration of research institutions

Opposition to multi-disciplinary approach Climate change Rising costs of food Globalisation [competition]

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+� means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

= =

= -

= = = =

=

= +

= = = = = =

= = = = = =

=

Human resource management

SCARDA promoted the adoption of a mentoring programme

SCARDA contribution Description of SCARDA ++, +, = contribution = + SCARDA training ++ Introduction of innovation platform approach + Topic covered by the change management workshops + Topic covered by the change management workshops

Opportunities Share campus with other NARS partners In longer-term, declining national revenue from diamonds Rising world demand for food Export market for beef Climate change [e.g. new approaches to drought management] Globalisation [new markets] Threats Control by MoA Loss of experienced staff

=

++, +, =, -, -= = +

Change

Financial management and targeting of funds

SWOT topic Implementation of research policy Publication of research outputs Exposure of research leaders to innovations in AR4D

Continued from previous page

Global markets

The idea of merging DAR, NVL and NFTRC has been floating around already for some time, but is now in its final stages of implementation.

Cancellation of the scarce skills allowance by government for the higher salary scales in April 2010 See above.

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

59

= = = ++

= = = = = = = =

= + + + + + + = + + = + = = + = =

Low scientific level of researchers

Too few researchers and technicians Lack of scientific and technical equipment Poor communication with external organisations Poor access to scientific and technical information – scientific publications etc

Poor linkages with other organisations nationally Weak contact with and transfer of technology to intermediaries and farmers Poor publication of scientific results outside ISABU English language knowledge is limited Short term research funding policies Opportunities Increasing potential for funding from donors – increasing cooperation Improve linkages nationally, regionally and internationally Emergence of other organisations involved in research, e.g. private sector

= = = =

++

= = = =

= =

+ + = + =

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

(sufficient staff) Field and lab facilities Good communication throughout the country (one language) Existence of ISABU and government support Partnership with other research institutes Weaknesses Centralisation of administration and finance Insufficient budget Instability of personnel due to low motivation, salaries and conditions of service Absence of training on the job

SWOT topic Strengths Good structure and organisation Current human resources

ISABU, Burundi

SCARDA offered various short courses SCARDA offered funding for 5 staff members to obtain their MSc degree

Description of SCARDA contribution

Continued ...

Belgium Technical Cooperation

ASARECA

Belgium Technical Cooperation

Belgium Technical Cooperation

Government Belgium Technical Cooperation

Government Government

Government

Belgium Technical Cooperation

Belgium Technical Cooperation

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

60

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

++, +, = = = = = = = = = = =

+ = = = = = ++

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, -+ = =

Change Description of SCARDA contribution

Highly skilled in technology dissemination National recognition for high quality research (Gold Award, Recipient of 8 Best National Agricultural Research Awards)

SWOT topic Strengths Ability to develop technologies Multi-disciplinary team Participatory research team Strategic location Key actor in the development of crop varieties = =

+ = = = =

+ = = = ++ + ++

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, -- *

Change

SCARDA training of staff

Description of SCARDA contribution

Crops Research Institute – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRI-CSIR), Ghana

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

SWOT topic Partnerships for technology transfer Regional integration, e.g. east Africa Stabilised security situation Threats De-motivation and further loss of staff to other organisations offering better terms and conditions Risk of diminishing budgets ‘Glass ceiling’ for technicians who cannot progress to science grades on the job Financial selectivity by donors – some programmes are funded, but some are not Political and economic instability Loss of staff through promotion out of the organisation e.g. to Ministry of Agriculture Suspension of cooperation with donors, e.g. Belgium

Continued from previous page

WAAPP and Japan International Cooperating Agency (JICA) WAAPP Award winners themselves

WAAPP

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Government

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA Belgium Technical Cooperation

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

61

= = ++

+ + + ++

Insufficient resources to interact with farmers and to participate effectively in the Research-Extension Linkages Committees.

Inadequate ICT infrastructure and support Inadequate irrigation facilities and other field and laboratory equipment Poor communications across divisions, lack of coordination meeting

Relatively low staff remuneration undermines staff motivation and causes staff to leave Inefficient use of available human resource Insufficient documentation of the impact of CRI-CSIR activities Opportunities Farmers and stakeholders willing to participate in CRI-CSIR research activities and adopt findings Good image in Donor Community for food security research activities Potential to attract other stakeholders in collaborative research activities Generation of funds through training of students, Agricultural Extension Agents, Non-Governmental Organisations, farmers, etc Attracting additional funding from donors (e.g. WAAPP, ‌)

= = = = = = = =

= = ++ + + = +

+ + = +

+

+ + + ++

=

++

Weak in mobilising funding through competitive bidding

Lack of key management skills at all levels M&E system requires strengthening Financial administration still paper based and time-consuming Aged staff composition, which will cause high staff attrition in the coming years

= =

+ +

++, +, =

++, +, =, -, -- *

SCARDA contribution

SWOT topic Weaknesses Inadequate funds for research from Government of Ghana Weak in commercialising research results

Change

SCARDA offered funding for five (one BSc and four MSc) staff members to upgrade their educational qualifications

Management training has helped division heads to understand their roles Management training workshops M&E and learning workshop

SCARDA training in writing project proposals

Description of SCARDA contribution

CRI-CSIR scientists

CRI-CSIR scientists CRI-CSIR scientists

WAAPP

Government

CRI-CSIR CRI-CSIR Government

WAAPP WAAPP and AGRA

WAAPP

Continued ...

Government Millennium Development Authority WAAPP

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

62

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= = = = = =

= = =

+

= = = + = = +

+ = = = = + = =

Balanced age and gender composition of faculty staff Staff retention fairly good (and definitely better than at DAR and LAC)

Basic infrastructure in place Diverse, good quality undergraduate and graduate programmes Internationally recognised curriculum Faculty Journal Weaknesses Low pass rates High student staff ratio → high teaching workload Low research output and weak academic publication record. The prevailing research culture is not strong and doesn’t encourage staff to publish.

= =

++,+,=

++, +, =, -, -- *

SWOT topic Strengths Skilled, diverse and energetic staff

Change

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, -- *

Change

Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Lesotho (FA-NUL)

* In the case of weaknesses and threats a + means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

SWOT topic Threats Competition for qualified staff by other agencies (such as universities and private sector) offering better remuneration Frequent power cuts - reducing efficiency Internet connection slow and unstable Government budgetary cuts Encroachment on research lands Competition from other research institutions, universities and NGOs for funds

Continued from previous page

Promotion of the Lesotho Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Promotion of the journal.

RUFORUM: course on scientific writing

Government budget squeeze

Government funding for MSc training available

Primary contributor if not SCARDA

Government Surrounding communities

Universities

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Focus has been on short courses to improve skills. Only one candidate from DAR went for MSc training to the UK.

Description of SCARDA contribution

Description of SCARDA contribution

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

63

+

=

++

Poor linkages with other NARS partners (DAR, LAC, extension, NGOs, farmers, private sector, government)

++

=

+ +

+ + =

=

=

Lack of incentives/motivation for innovation systems research

Little appreciation by administration for field work, extension and community service activities and lack of funding for such activities Limited leadership and change management capacity Weak internal links within FA-NUL constraints multidisciplinary research approach

= = =

=

=

= = =

++

+

Bureaucracy: red tape / slow processing No research policy at University level Poor dissemination of research outputs (information, materials and services) to extension, farmers, NGOs, policy makers and other practitioners. Lack of an outreach strategy.

=

=

Research funding largely project based, no funding for more long-term strategic research Lack of skills to mobilise resources and to write good research proposals Inadequate research infrastructure (insufficient laboratory space and outdated equipment, insufficient land at the University for on-station research trials, limited ICT facilities) Inadequate laboratory and ICT support staff -- remuneration not competitive enough

=

++,+,= =

-

++, +, =, -, -- * --

SCARDA contribution

Inadequate financial support towards laboratory consumables

SWOT topic Limited operational budgets for research

Change

Government budget squeeze

Primary contributor if not SCARDA Government budget squeeze Government budget squeeze

ARM workshops SCARDA training has reinforced the importance of multidisciplinary research approaches Seems to have had more of an impact on DAR staff than on FA-NUL staff.

Joint training events have helped to improve the informal linkages between the different actors.

Despite being an explicit objective of the CMAP, FA-NUL still does not have outreach strategy. Moreover, the course on developing extension material was only attended by the Department of Field Services and LAC – not by FA-NUL or DAR.

Continued ...

Some lab staff received training through Government budget SCARDA, but this did not change the shortage squeeze problem as remuneration problem continued / deteriorated

Training by SCARDA has helped staff at FA-NUL (and others) to improve their skills

Description of SCARDA contribution

64

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= + +

= =

=

+ +

Inability to attract high calibre staff Opportunities Prospects for staff development Research potential

Income generation

Better linkages with international partners

Launch of a Journal of Agricultural Sciences and the establishment of an Agricultural Sciences Society can help to create a stronger ‘research culture’ in Lesotho

+

+

+

+

+

There is a lack of internal M&E systems and external evaluation of academic programmes and outputs leading to reflection, learning and change.

+

++,+,= +

SCARDA contribution

+

++, +, =, -, -- * +

Change

Lack of linkage between Faculty of Agriculture and employers of graduates, leading to inadequate feedback from employers on course curricula and delivery methods.

SWOT topic Weak international linkages and exposure

Continued from previous page

SCARDA has tried to activate the research potential of FA-NUL, but this has been constrained by limited/declining research budgets.

SCARDA has offered training on writing winning proposals, but this has not led to a significant increase in research income at FA-NUL. (See weak international linkages and exposure) SCARDA has promoted the establishment of the journal and the society.

SCARDA’s M&E course(s) focused mainly on M&E activities related to the SCARDA programme. It does not seem to have addressed building M&E capacity more generally. SCARDA’s tracer study of agricultural graduates in Botswana, Lesotho and Zambia (conducted by ANAFE) has helped FA-NUL to identify weaknesses.

Description of SCARDA contribution Collaboration with the other FIs in the SADC region through SCARDA. Established contacts with Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) in South Africa. (It is not clear what happened with the idea of twinning FA-NUL with an international partner.)

Tracer study conducted by SADC (However, this has been an ad hoc study by an external agent. There is no permanent instrument to monitor the position of the FA-NUL graduates in the job market.)

Membership of RUFORUM

Primary contributor if not SCARDA Membership of RUFORUM and African Network for Agriculture, Agro-forestry and Natural Resources Education (ANAFE)

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

65

* In the case of weaknesses and threats a + means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

Agriculture has low priority Faculty is not recognised as a research organisation

Uptake of technologies constrained by adverse government policies (i.e. subsidies) Low level of organisation of farmers often constraints innovation – absence of an articulated demand for innovation

= ++

+

+ = ++

=

++

+

=

= =

= =

=

-

Threats Brain drain Poor remuneration levels make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff Inadequate coordination of research between NARS actors leading to duplication/inefficiencies and sub-optimal use of resources

=

=

Expansion into post-graduate training, which would strengthen the research profile of the Faculty Ample funding for MSc students

+

++,+,= ++

+

++, +, =, -, -- * =

SCARDA contribution

Support farmers to form associations

SWOT topic Creation of a research coordination mechanism at FA-NUL or NARS level

Change

SCARDA programme has very much helped FA-NUL to position itself as a leading agricultural research organisation within the NARS of Lesotho

SCARDA has raised the awareness among NARS partners about the importance of getting farmers organised

SCARDA has been instrumental in launching the idea of creating LECCARD. The actual creation of LECCARD, however, is still pending.

Description of SCARDA contribution SCARDA has been instrumental in launching the idea of creating LECCARD. The actual creation of LECCARD, however, is still pending.

SCARDA courses on agricultural innovation systems and farmer participatory approaches have raised the awareness among NARS partners of the importance of farmer associations in agricultural innovation processes.

Government budget squeeze

Primary contributor if not SCARDA

66

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Established research planning and evaluation cycle, involving end-users Existence of planning tools (e.g. SAC) Contracting of researchers and research projects Range of technologies generated by IER staff Referenced database Use of certain communication and management tools (Cahier de l’IER, SAC scientifique, site Web, SIG, etc) Existence of laboratories Weaknesses Lack of sustainable research funding Lack of capacity to prepare proposals Lack of specialist skills in certain areas (for details see Part II of report and Annex) Lack of career plan for researchers and support staff Absence of staff retraining plan Age structure of IER staff (i.e. lack of young researchers due to recruitment freeze) Weak access to information IT related constraints (e.g. lack of hardware and software, or out datedness of the same) Non-implementation of IER’s IT plan Weaknesses related to management of scientific information and publication of research results No permanent system in place to measure impact of research projects Some infrastructure is lacking or out dated Opportunities Adoption of the Loi d’Orientation Agricole Strong demand for agricultural and livestock products

SWOT topic Strengths Management autonomy Decentralisation / regionalisation of research Existence of research strategy

Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), Mali

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = + = = = =

++ + = = = = + + = = + = = =

= = +

= = ++ = = = = = ++

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

Some assistance

Description of SCARDA contribution

IER

Government USAID

Government

Government, IRD, Brazil

CNRA

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

67

=

+ + + -

= + + -

Professional and experienced staff

Farm land Only public institution offering agricultural diploma in Zambia

Brand name – known widely Security Secure power supply Public-private partnership experience (with ZEGA)

= = = =

= +

++

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

SWOT topic Strengths Training infrastructure

NRDC, Zambia

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

++, +, = = = = = = = = = = =

++, +, =, -, -+ = = = = = = = = =

SCARDA contribution Description of SCARDA contribution

SCARDA management training has triggered NRDC management to rethink its position in the education market and explore the potential for upgrading NRDC to a degree awarding institution

Upgrading of 10 staff members to MSc level; training of technicians; short courses

Description of SCARDA contribution

SWOT topic Existence of numerous associations, apex organisations, and NGOs in rural development, although links with NGOs are not always clear and often the latter do not draw on IER expertise Existence of higher education establishment Threats Insufficient integration between agricultural research, training institutions, and extension services CNRA procedures not adequate to release research funds Fluctuation of prices for agricultural products on the international markets Certain plant and livestock diseases Climatic risks Loss of biodiversity Poor quality inputs Insufficient training of farmer groups

Change

Government support Government support

Government support

Continued ...

Government support and own revenues

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Government

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA IER

68

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

Promote specialisation and excellence Threats Competitors-(Greenwood, Kwame Nkrumah)

= =

+ +

=

=

=

=

=

+

=

+

+

=

+

++

++ +

=

=

Run-down training facilities and equipment Few trained staff in extension methodologies

High staff attrition due to age structure Opportunities Provide outreach and extension for agricultural development and farmers through Dept of Extension Short courses to former graduates and farmers Intensify linkages with regional bodies in agricultural development Intensify college farm production as UNZA has done on its farm Rehabilitation of infrastructure

+

++

++

+

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

Poor funding for research and outreach

SWOT topic Weaknesses Poor links with extension-public and private

Continued from previous page

NRDC started distant learning programme; SCARDA helped to improve ‘extension skills’ of NRDC staff

Eight staff members attended a short course on extension materials organised by SCARDA and one of the MSc candidates specialised in extension.

Training of young staff members to replace retired staff.

SCARDA helped with a training workshop that resulted in the formation of the NRDC stakeholder platform, a move towards improving linkages; farmer groups have been linked with NRDC. The farmers come for demos at NRDC plots established by ZARI. This linkage was inspired by the AIS workshops under SCARDA and extension materials used for demos as a result of SCARDA training; NRDC partnership with Poultry Association of Zambia to enhance poultry production SCARDA provided training in writing winning proposals.

(Creation of an R&D department a result of the change management training)

Description of SCARDA contribution

Government funding; private sector

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Annex D: SCARDA’s contribution to institutional change

69

=

+ =

Staff attrition-HIV

Relatively good infrastructure Supportive management Goodwill from government and donors Visibility High number of technical staff Academic freedom Applied problem-solving research (linked to the post-grad programme – which includes publication requirement) Quality training - under-graduates and post-graduates Analysis (laboratory and biometrics).

SWOT topic Strengths High number of trained and skilled personnel = = = = = = = = ++

+ +

+

+ = = = + = = =

++, +, =

++, +, =, -, --

Change

SCARDA contribution

Training of laboratory staff

Training courses and MSc training

Description of SCARDA contribution

Government funding resulted in fencing and on campus Police

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

Continued ...

Other programmes helped SAS with enrolling staff in PhD programmes

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

SCARDA helped to introduce concepts such as agricultural innovation systems and innovation platforms, which highlight the need for collaboration between different actors. As a result, an NRDC stakeholder platform has been established. Collaboration with ZARI has resulted in a demonstration plot at NRDC.

Description of SCARDA contribution

School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia (SoAS-UNZA)

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

=

= =

+

++

= =

++, +, = = =

++, +, =, -, -= =

SCARDA contribution

Unaffordable technologies – internet Lack of clear policy in agricultural training Poverty-theft and vandalism

SWOT topic Brain drain and poor quality of service Poor funding-money routed through the parent Ministry not directly like UNZA Poor linkages with other institutions

Change

70

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

= = + = +

= + = = = = = ++ = = = = =

+ + + + = + ++ + + + + + + + + = = = =

Poor management training – link to administrative efficiency

Frequent closures – affects public image and attachments Opportunities Inter-departmental research Participatory research (impact-oriented) Innovative research in niche areas In-service training/short courses for industry Take advantage of healthy economic environment to attract funding Marketing of School/Departments Curriculum review and development for new challenges- demand identification UNZA Farm – opportunity for expansion Threats Increased competition due to a proliferation of new private universities Reduced funding to UNZA due to the setup of a new public university Staff attrition due to: (a) strong demand for qualified personnel; and (b) better pay by the private sector Moon-lighting staff – teaching in other universities, over-stretched.

Note: In the case of weaknesses and threats a “+” means a reduction of the weakness or threat.

= = + + =

+ + + + =

++

++, +, =

SCARDA contribution

++, +, =, -, --

Change

SWOT topic Weaknesses Poor funding (research) Resource mobilisation Publication External linkages with others Internal linkages with other schools and departments – weak information flow with other actors?

Skewed staff profile (aging, women under-represented, few young PhDs), Poor re-numeration/conditions of service - Low motivation?

Lack of sustained staff training and progression Inadequate infrastructure – pilot plant for training Poor extension services/information dissemination

Continued from previous page

SCARDA organised a demand study

Management training

Training in agricultural innovation system concept Management training by SCARDA

MSc + short courses

Description of SCARDA contribution

China

PhDs through other programmes

Primary contributor to change if not SCARDA

References

Mugabo, J. SCARDA Focal Institutions Assessment of Institutional Change: Case of the “Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi“ (ISABU) of Burundi. Draft. Accra: FARA, December 2011.

Mugabo, J. SCARDA Focal Institutions Assessment of Institutional Change: Case of the “Institut d’Economie Rurale“ (IER) of Mali. Draft. Accra: FARA, December 2011.

Oloruntoba, A. and Ojijo, N. K. O. An Assessment of Institutional Change: Natural Resources Development College, Zambia. Accra: FARA, January 2012.

Oloruntoba, A. and Ojijo, N. K. O. An Assessment of Institutional Change: University of Zambia, School of Agricultural Sciences. Accra: FARA, January 2012.

Roseboom, J. Analysis of Institutional Change in the SCARDA Focal Institutes: A Methodology. Draft.

Accra: FARA, November 2010.

Roseboom, J. An Assessment of Institutional Change: Botswana College of Agriculture. Accra: FARA, January 2012.

Roseboom, J. An Assessment of Institutional Change: Department of Agricultural Research, Botswana.

Accra: FARA, January 2012.

Roseboom, J. An Assessment of Institutional Change: Crops Research Institute (CRI-CSIR), Ghana. Accra: FARA, January 2012.

Roseboom, J. An Assessment of Institutional Change: Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Lesotho. Accra: FARA, January 2012.

References

71

Acronyms and abbreviations AGORA AGRA ANAFE AR4D ARM ASARECA BCA CAADP CAPAD CIAT CICE CMAP COPROSEBU CORAF/WECARD CRAL CRI-CSIR CYMMT DAR DFID FA-NUL FARA FI HINARI HR IER IITA ISABU ISAR LENAFU MDA NARS NRDC PADAP PMIS PRODIMEC RUFORUM S&T SADC/FANR SCAIN SCARDA SoAS-UNZA SRO SWOT UniBRAIN WAAPP ZARI ZEGA ZESCO 72

Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa African Network for Agriculture, Agro-forestry and Natural Resources Education Agricultural Research for Development Agricultural Research Management Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa Botswana College of Agriculture Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme Confederation of Agricultural Producer Associations for Development Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Centre for In-Service & Continuing Education Change Management Action Plan Companies and Cooperatives of Seed Producers of Burundi Conseil Ouest et Centre africain pour la recherche et le développement agricoles/ West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development Centre de Recherche Agronomique de Loudima Crops Research Institute – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo Department of Agricultural Research Department for International Development, UK Faculty of Agriculture – National University of Lesotho Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Focal Institute Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative Human Resources Institut d’Economie Rurale International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda Lesotho National Farmers’ Union Millennium Development Authority National Agricultural Research Systems Natural Resources Development College Projet d'Appui au Développement Agricole de la Province Personnel Management Information System Project Development, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture Science & Technology Southern African Development Community/Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Innovation Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa School of Agricultural Sciences – University of Zambia Sub-regional Organisation Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Universities, Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation West African Agricultural Productivity Programme Zambia Agricultural Research Institute Zambia Export Growers Association Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA

About FARA FARA is the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, the apex organization bringing together and forming coalitions of major stakeholders in agricultural research and development in Africa.

FARA is the technical arm of the African Union Commission (AUC) on rural economy and agricultural development and the lead agency of the AU’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to implement the fourth pillar of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), involving agricultural research, technology dissemination and uptake.

FARA’s vision: reduced poverty in Africa as a result of sustainable broad-based agricultural growth and improved livelihoods, particularly of smallholder and pastoral enterprises.

FARA’s mission: creation of broad-based improvements in agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets by supporting Africa’s sub-regional organizations (SROs) in strengthening capacity for agricultural innovation.

FARA’s Value Proposition: to provide a strategic platform to foster continental and global networking that reinforces the capacities of Africa’s national agricultural research systems and sub-regional organizations.

FARA will make this contribution by achieving its Specific Objective of sustainable improvements to broad-based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets.

Key to this is the delivery of five Results, which respond to the priorities expressed by FARA’s clients. These are: 1. Establishment of appropriate institutional and organizational arrangements for regional agricultural research and development.

2. Broad-based stakeholders provided access to the knowledge and technology necessary for innovation.

3. Development of strategic decision-making options for policy, institutions and markets.

4. Development of human and institutional capacity for innovation.

5. Support provided for platforms for agricultural innovation.

FARA will deliver these results by supporting the SROs through these Networking Support Functions (NSFs): NSF1/3. Advocacy and policy NSF2. Access to knowledge and technologies NSF4. Capacity strengthening NSF5. Partnerships and strategic alliances FARA’s donors are the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the Department for International Development (DFID), the European Commission (EC), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Syngenta Foundation, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the World Bank and the Governments of Italy and the Netherlands.

73

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa 12 Anmeda Street, Roman Ridge, PMB CT 173, Accra, Ghana Telephone: +233 302 772823 / 302 779421 Fax: +233 302 773676 / Email: info@fara-africa.org

www.fara-africa.org

74

A pilot study on institutional and organisational changes in selected national agricultural research and education institutes in SSA