BOX 7.3 Agriculture Extension: The Case of Embrapa Embrapa, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, is a state-owned research corporation affiliated with the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. Embrapa generates and transfers new technologies and techniques tailored to Brazil’s climate and soil conditions. The use of these technologies by Brazilian farmers for decades has facilitated the expansion of Brazilian agriculture and increased exports at internationally competitive prices: first, by expanding the supply of arable land; and second, by improving the productivity of selected crops. New techniques to improve the quality of the otherwise inhospitable Cerrado soil in the tropical savanna opened a vast tract of newly arable land, keeping marginal agricultural costs down and enabling an increase in agricultural production, while improvements in the cultivars of soybeans and cotton ultimately yielded twice-yearly harvests. Both activities increased the productivity of land. Why did Embrapa succeed while other research organizations have failed? Embrapa’s mission orientation, focusing from the outset on the improvement of agricultural productivity rather than the production of scientific work, has been a key driver of its success. Integration into the international flow of knowledge has increased research efficiency and accelerated training. An open intellectual property rights policy—and a network of offices spread throughout the country—has facilitated the dissemination of Embrapa’s discoveries. Funding has been kept at adequate levels for more than two decades. Investments in human capital have been highly prioritized. The organization has actively promoted a meritocratic culture. Research has dealt with the practical problems of agriculture, and farmers have quickly deployed technology and innovations sourced through Embrapa. By reacting to market signals and focusing on activities for which demand was increasing in international markets, Embrapa has avoided the usual challenges of purely “supply-push” technology transfer policies. Sources: Cirera and Maloney 2017, based on Correa and Schmidt 2014.
TES and BAS share similar strengths, drawbacks, and risks. Among the strengths, TES provide the opportunity for creating a clear and centralized offer of services, supplying tailored services based on diagnostics, building core competencies in production and managerial operation, and addressing the skill gaps for specific technologies. On the other hand, TES also face the risks of overcrowding the market, firms’ lack of willingness to pay for upgrading, and wrongly prioritizing some services if they are not fully integrated and coordinated with the private sector. TES interventions can be delivered to groups of SMEs, which allows SMEs to learn from and support one another in the change process. However, some individual advice and coaching should also be involved. TES also often provide “one-to-many” services such as awareness-raising events (for instance on new technological developments, business digitalization, or Industry 4.0). TES and BAS can operate with each other and with other policies aimed at supporting SMEs. BAS are generally relevant to a broader market (which includes firms that are
188
Bridging the Technological Divide
