The Roles for Agricultural Research Systems, Advisory Services and Capacity Development and Knowledge Transfer

Full text

200 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Nelson Ojijo
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)
Steven Franzel
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Franklin Simtowe
International maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)
Rufaro Madakadze
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)
Apollo Nkwake
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD)
Lerato Moleko
Lesotho Millennium Development Agency (LMDA)
The Roles for Agricultural Research Systems,
Advisory Services and Capacity Development
and Knowledge Transfer
CHAPTER 9

201
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
KEY MESSAGES
A guided evolution or reform of agricultural research systems from a technology- to system-
oriented conguration for AR4D is called for, and this process can benet from advocacy and
intermediation actions by supranational agricultural research organizations.
The lack of sustained funding and misalignment of research priorities hinder long-term
effectiveness and efciency of AR4D and compromise transformative growth of the agricultural
sector in SSA. Innovative ways to develop sustainable home-grown funding of AR4D
in countries in the region exist, but the policy domain must be appropriate for agricultural
research systems to leverage such funding avenues.
Since agriculture is increasingly knowledge intensive and involves many different actors,
advisory systems and staff need to play convening, brokering and coordinating roles and not
just the role of passing on information.
More evaluations of advisory system approaches (such as ICTs and farmer-to-farmer
extension) are needed to assess what types of approaches work well for particular types of
agricultural technologies, for particular target groups (e.g., women), at what cost, and how
approaches may be combined and improved.
Several capacity development frameworks have been proposed and many organizations
working in SSA have embraced various approaches for agricultural capacity development,
depending on their programmatic focus.
Undertaking and documenting capacity development impact assessments will help highlight
the key role of capacity development in AR4D, and evidence-based advocacy for capacity
development by multiple organizations.
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX

202 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
The success registered in South and East Asian
economies has been directly attributed to the
Green Revolution, starting in the 1960s, which
heralded agricultural productivity gains and ru-
ral poverty alleviation on a mass scale (Dietz,
et al., 2014). About 63 percent of the population
in SSA live in the rural areas where their live-
lihoods depend predominantly on agriculture.
Thus, it would seem appropriate to benchmark
development strategies in SSA to the Asian ex-
periences. According to the agriculture-based
development paradigm, growth in agriculture
as a primary sector is imperative for rural devel-
opment, positive structural transformation, and
broad-based economic growth (Bellu, 2011).
Indeed, CAADP, as a transformative framework
and blueprint for Africa’s agro-renaissance, is
predicated on this precept.
Amidst other factors, technical change was
at the heart of the Green Revolution (Dietz,
Foeken, Soeters, & Klaver, 2014) and it un-
derscores the central role of research and re-
search systems in spurring agricultural growth.
With mounting pressure to produce more food
to feed an explosive world population against
inexorable challenges, research can only be
expected to play a greater role in global agri-
cultural development efforts. In the African case,
the path to attaining the needed agricultural
productivity growth can only be illuminated by
sustained, broad-based, integrated, systematic
and home-grown research and innovation, rec-
ognizing the overriding premise that long-term
food and nutrition security necessarily hinges on
food self-sufciency (Akinbamijo & Ojijo, 2016).
To this end, national and regional research
systems in SSA have experienced pockets of
reforms and realignments aimed at increasing
their performance.
Innovation generates new and improved tech-
nologies that are appropriate and well-target-
ed, leading to improved productivity. Effective
innovation that is systemically transformative
requires efcient and effective agricultural re-
search and advisory systems with appropriate
research capacity and infrastructure (Beintema
& Stads, 2008). The global agricultural R&D
spending in the public and private sectors grew
steadily by 22 percent during the 2000–2008
period, indicating the increasing recognition of
the vitality of agricultural research (Beintema
& Stads, 2008). However, investments within
SSA continue to be patchy. For example, total
public agricultural R&D spending in the region
decreased at an annual average rate of 0.2
percent during the 1990s. This has dire conse-
quences for agricultural productivity and food
security.
Agricultural advisory services (AAS), also called
extension services or rural advisory services,
are the activities that provide the information
and services needed and demanded by farm-
ers and other actors in rural settings to assist
them in developing their own technical, orga-
nizational and managerial skills and practices
so as to improve their well-being (Christoplos,
2010; GFRAS, 2011). The low adoption of ag-
ricultural technologies is widely recognized as
a main contributor to low agricultural productiv-
ity in SSA. This may be due to several causes
such as discrepancy between available tech-
nologies and farmers’ needs, lack of credit,
marketing constraints and poor policies; but
farmers’ knowledge and access to these tech-
nologies are critical (Jack 2013). Inadequate
and ineffective knowledge-sharing approaches
on the supply side and lack of understanding of
farmers’ needs and information pathways they
currently use on the demand side contribute to
a mismatch of information and skills necessary
for successful adoption of technologies and ac-
cess to inputs and markets. Equally important is
assessing attitudes and other trade-offs farmers
make in choosing whether to adopt a technol-
ogy. Insights from these will help identify strat-
egies that can be used to improve technology
adoption.
Capacity, in all its dimensions, is key to effective
knowledge generation, dissemination and use
for agricultural transformation. Emerging from
the CAADP 10-year review and subsequent
forward planning, Africa’s capacity to generate
knowledge, foster learning, and enable skills
development among its workforce is recognized
as a game changer in the context of reshaping
agriculture and empowering smallholder farm-
ers. However, agricultural research actors are
not congured to collectively deliver innovative
solutions to agricultural challenges. Moreover,
public agricultural research institutions in Africa
are producing only a trickle of new technologies
that can be used by farmers (Eicher, 2006), al-
though signicant progress has been registered
over the last decade. Skills in agricultural and
No country
has ever
been able
to sustain
agricultural
growth
without
consistent
research and
development”
Calestous
Juma, Harvard
University
Professor
Introduction

203
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
agribusiness development remain a fundamental factor for
increasing productivity, protability and competitiveness of
Africa’s agriculture (Sarfo et al., 2015).
Section 1 of this chapter presents the current status of ag-
ricultural research systems in SSA at national and regional
levels against a backdrop of key policy changes and pro-
gressive elaboration of agricultural knowledge frameworks
registered in the last decade or so. The section argues for
endogenous mechanisms to encourage sustainable fund-
ing of agricultural research in the region. Section 2 discuss-
es key trends and some innovative approaches that are
helping bridge the supply and demand mismatch in AAS.
Section 3 discusses progress in the practice and delivery of
agricultural capacity development in SSA, emphasizing key
actions that have been taken to decrease the gender gap
in agricultural research and extension. The last section of
the chapter includes pertinent conclusions and recommen-
dations to ground possible policy action.
Agricultural Research Systems
For nearly two decades, reforms in African agricultural
research systems have received deserving attention
from many quarters due to the overall desire to improve
delivery and impact of agricultural research. A good
country perspective to the reform agenda was offered
by Idachaba (1997) in his treatise on the instability of the
Nigerian agricultural research system. According to Chema,
Gilbert and Roseboom (2003), the main reform themes
have involved: redenition of the role of government,
decentralization, stakeholder participation, new nancing
mechanisms, and system linkages. A review by Roseboom
(2004) further considered these principal reform areas, but
also highlighted the underlying organizing principles that
guided the reform agenda.
Subsequently, FARA commissioned an assessment of the
requirements for efcient, effective and productive agricul-
tural research systems in African countries. The assess-
ment report (FARA, 2006) gave concrete recommendations
for actions by a variety of stakeholders in the areas of gover-
nance and management, nancial status and management,
scientic capacity and management, and collaboration and
linkages. These recommendations largely provided the ba-
sis for the 1st FARA Strategic Plan and Mid-Term Opera-
tional Plan and also yielded a major regional capacity de-
velopment initiative that strengthenedagricultural research
management systems, managerial competencies,and ability
to conduct quality research in national agricultural research
institutes (NARIs) and universities of 10 countries in SSA.
Rather than a diagnostic account of the obtaining reform
dynamics, our aim in this section is merely to present the
status of agricultural research systems in SSA to identify
lessons and characteristics that could be leveraged to in-
spire transformative agricultural research for development
(AR4D) in the region. We adopt the European Commission
(2008) denition of AR4D as multi-dimensional research
that addresses agricultural challenges and provides tech-
nological, economic and institutional knowledge and inno-
vations contributing to sustainable development. Whereas
we do not presume any specic analytical framework, the
section has been tacitly guided by how changes in the ex-
ogenous circumstances (e.g., regional agricultural policy
environment) and the progressive elaboration of agricultural
knowledge frameworks have inuenced institutional devel-
opments and funding at national and regional levels.
Evolution and Conguration of Agricultural Research Sys-
tems in SSA
The evolution of agricultural research systems in the SSA
region has had a chequered history. Taylor (1991) and
Beye (2002) give good accounts of developments in African
agricultural research systems from the post-independent
formative years, through the turbulent era of structural ad-
justment programs, and to the form that largely persists in
many countries to date. By the 1990s, agricultural research
in many SSA countries was executed by designated depart-
ments or divisions of the ministries of agriculture. These had
little autonomy and functional linkages locally (with tertiary
agricultural education institutes, extension services, policy
makers, and technology recipients) and abroad.
A few countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Su-
dan) had, however, managed to confer semi-autonomous
status to the agricultural research function through legally
constituted research councils or institutes with clear distinc-
tions in regard to mandate, governance structure, opera-
tional domain, planning, and funding. Currently, most SSA
countries have adopted the semi-autonomous model with a
NARI or national agricultural research organization (NARO)
as the main executor of public agricultural research. Bein-
tema and Stads (2014) classify the SSA NARIs into four
categories: 1) as a research department within a ministry
of agriculture or equivalent (e.g., in Botswana); 2) as a
semi-autonomous government institute with the exibility to
determine key internal policies (e.g., in Kenya); 3) as mul-
tiple agencies focusing on specic agricultural subsectors
(e.g., in Sudan); and 4) as numerous institutes organized
under a council (e.g., in Ghana).
Agricultural research is, however, not an enterprise for ex-
clusive pursuit by technical departments of ministries or
semi-autonomous entities with the sole mandate of conduct-
ing research. Faculties of agriculture in tertiary agricultural
institutes, the private sector, and NGOs can equally indulge

204 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
in fruitful research. This variety of possible agricul-
tural research executors inspired the now defunct
ISNAR1 to come up with the concept of the national
agricultural research system (NARS). According to
FAO, NARS refers to “all institutions in a country,
public or private, devoting full or partial time of their
activities to agricultural research and are committed
to a national research agenda” (Beye, 2002, p. 13).
Inferred in this denition are discrete components
with no particular insinuation as to any degree of
their functional integration. As an organizing princi-
ple, NARS is perceived to focus on technology gen-
eration, and technologies thus generated are then
extended to end-users for uptake. This linear mode
of technology transfer, in which the NARI/NARO is
the main originator and epicenter of agricultural re-
search (Roseboom, 2012), persists in many coun-
tries (Ojijo et al., 2013b) and has contributed in part
to the low adoption rates of agricultural technologies
and the ailing state of Africa’s agriculture.
Lack of capacity for demand articulation by end us-
ers and inexistent policies to encourage co-innova-
tion, are possible reasons for the persistence of the
“technology push” mode. Kenya is one of the very
few countries to have elaborated a NARS Policy
in 2012, as a regulatory framework to improve the
synergies and complementarities among the various
players operating along the research–development
continuum. However, the Policy focuses on coordi-
nation and duplication of efforts and is heavy on the
supply side of things. Thus, it seemed a lost oppor-
tunity not to have addressed the confounding issues
of fragmentation and stakeholder integration in any
systematic way, borrowing from the market princi-
ples inherent in the prevailing agricultural knowl-
edge frameworks.
With the introduction of the World Bank-funded
agricultural productivity programs—starting with
the West African Agricultural Productivity Program
(WAAPP) in 2007, the East Africa Agricultural Pro-
ductivity Program (EAAPP) in 2009, and the Agri-
cultural Productivity Program for Southern Africa
(APPSA) in 2013—the Agricultural Knowledge and
Information Systems (AKIS) paradigm came into
play (World Bank, 2007). The AKIS advocated for
special information channels for technology dissem-
ination beyond technology generation and brought
the end user of agricultural technologies into per-
spective, albeit still passively. The key actors under
AKIS are largely public agencies comprising NARIs,
universities and extension departments. To some
extent, the AKIS paradigm is akin to the national ag-
ricultural and extension system (NARES) that has
also been used in the literature to incorporate the
concept of delivery.
Contemporary and expected future challenges to ag-
ricultural development defy conventional approach-
es to nding solutions. This has stimulated the elab-
oration of the agricultural innovations systems (AIS)
perspective. In 2012 the World Bank published an
authoritative guide to this concept titled: “Agricultur-
al Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook”.
The AIS adds value to the AKIS paradigm by em-
bracing the application of new knowledge and tech-
nologies (potentially emanating from a multiplicity
of actors) in addition to technology generation and
dissemination (Roseboom, 2012). The concept also
gives prominence to the role of markets and market
actors, for example, in dening the research agenda
and also recognizes the progressive evolution of ag-
ricultural sector institutions each potentially bringing
to bear unique knowledge capabilities and combina-
tions to spur transformative innovations.
A comparative account of the value added by each
sequential agricultural system concept or knowl-
edge framework (NARS, AKIS and AIS) has been
given by Rajalahti (2012). Sufce to mention here
that the AIS perspective currently supersedes the
NARS and AKIS for conguring research systems.
As a theoretical construct, the AIS isapplicable at
various scales (namely: national, regional and con-
tinental) and is useful for: i) rallying and integrating
stakeholders(from various knowledge nodes) to
jointly address agricultural challenges; ii) program-
matic design; iii) evaluation of gains to investments
in AR4D;and iv) capacity development. According to
a survey conducted by FARA in Botswana, Ghana,
Kenya and Zambia, there were indications of a grad-
ual shift in paradigm from the NARS concept toward
the AIS model at the policy level in some ofthese
countries, but gaps still existed in the downstream
domain where each stakeholder group seemed to
be operating in isolation of the other key actors in
subsector value chains (Ugbe, 2013).
The little progress in shifting from the NARS to the
AIS paradigm at policy and programmatic levels
within countries is perhaps due to paucity of con-
crete evidence on the transformative advantages
of one paradigm over the other. Moreover, recon-
guration of agricultural research systems has been
sporadic and exogenously instigated, often lacking a
sense of ownership, continuity and systematic con-
tagion across countries. The whole process is not
1 The
International
Service for
National
Agricultural
Research
(ISNAR) was
founded in
1979 as a
member of
the CGIAR
to strengthen
national
agricultural
research in
developing
countries and
bring about
sustained
improvements
in the
performance
of their national
agricultural
research
systems
(NARS) and
organizations. It
ceased to exist
on March 31,
2004.

205
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
aided by the seeming lack of catalytic action—akin to the
role that ISNAR played—by external agencies with a supra-
national mandate. As discussed in the next section, this is
where FARA, sub-regional organizations(SROs), and RECs
could play a value-adding role.
Development of Institutions for AR4D
The Asian Green Revolution relied heavily on technical sup-
port from the CGIAR (an international public good organiza-
tion exemplied by the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) based in Asia) to produce enhanced crop germplasm.
As an interesting contrast, Brazil was inspired by interna-
tional partners, but developed the local agricultural research
system capacity for technical innovations that helped shape
the agricultural transformation agenda (see Box 1). With-
in two decades, Brazilians used home-grown science and
sheer will to dramatically transform traditional agriculture
into a modern and strongly competitive enterprise (Akin-
bamijo & Ojijo, 2014). Due to the striking agro-ecological
similarities between the South American Cerrado and the
African Savanna, SSA countries need to bring home the
Brazilian lessons in terms of strategic institutional devel-
opment of research systems coupled with targeted invest-
ments in AR4D to promote food and nutrition security. In so
doing, there would be need to adapt successful experienc-
es, as the farming systems in Brazil and SSA may not be
roundly comparable.
In its role as the lead institution for Pillar 4—focusing on
technology generation, dissemination, and adoption—in
the rst CAADP decade, FARA elaborated the Framework
for Africa’s Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) to help advo-
cate for: i) evolution and reform of agricultural institutions
and services; ii) increasing the scale of Africa’s agricultural
productivity investments; and iii) aligned and coordinated -
nancial support (FARA, 2006). FAAP outlined guiding prin-
ciples for the evolution of Africa’s agricultural productivity
programs and called for scaling up investment in regionally
coordinated agricultural research, extension, and education
programs.
At continental level, the FAAP principles have guided sup-
port to the evolution and strengthening of key continental
agricultural institutions for AR4D, namely: research—Cen-
tre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Develop-
ment for Southern Africa (CCARDESA) and North African
Sub-regional Organization (NASRO); tertiary agricultural
education—RUFORUM and ANAFE; extension services—
African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS);
agribusiness and private sector—Pan African Agribusiness
and Agro-Industry Consortium (PanAAC); farmers—Pan Af-
rican Farmers Organization (PAFO); and civil society and
NGOs—Pan African NGOs Consortium on Agricultural Re-
search (PANGOC). These organizations were either aligned
or alignable to CAADP Pillar 4, with the common agenda
of promoting AR4D in their respective domains based on
complementarity and subsidiarity.
Thus, as it stands now, Africa has perhaps the most deni-
tive conguration of what could safely be called a continen-
tal or regional AIS. Such a conguration is well poised to
support emergence of respective national chapters or con-
stituents, strengthening of national agricultural innovation
systems (NAIS), and facilitating innovations in areas that
can benet from transboundary or supranational collabora-
tions (Roseboom, 2012). As the apex organization, FARA
has exercised its convening role, notably through the trien-
nial Africa Agriculture Science Week, to foster a common
vision and collective action for AR4D amongst the Pillar 4
institutions and allied stakeholders. Like in any innovation
system, the role of an intermediary is key to foster function-
al connectedness of the AIS components at various scales
(Howells, 2006). Intermediation in innovation systems is like
grease in tribology. Supranational agencies are well poised
to perform this role at regional level as are sector-coordinat-
ing or oversight agencies at national level and innovation
champions at sub-national level.
Within countries, FAAP has similarly helped advocate for
inclusion of various actors in AR4D towards a progressive
evolution of NARS into functional NAIS. Introduction of the
concept of integrated agricultural research for development
(IAR4D) by FARA, and popularized under the Sub-Saha-
ran Africa Challenge Program (SSA CP), has aided this
process. Basically, IAR4D provides a grounded context
for co-innovation; it brings together multiple actors around
a common theme (i.e.,a commodity value chain, natural
resource, or organizational and research management) to
jointly address challenges and identify opportunities to gen-
erate innovations (Adekunle et al., 2012). One way of imple-
menting the IAR4D concept is through innovation platforms
(IPs)—a transitory social space, often loosely-organized
and informal, whose membership is based on free entry and
free exit self-interested persons or stakeholder groups. IPs
provide space for horizontal or vertical networking with a
problem-solving objective (Ugbe, 2013), and are supposed
to inspire a change from technology- to system-oriented
conguration for AR4D. Impact studies conducted at the
SSA CP pilot learning sites indicate that IAR4D is effective
in reducing food insecurity and improving the quality of food
dietary diversity and smallholders’ coping strategies when
compared with control sites (Mango, Nyikahadzoi, Makate,
Dunjana, & Siziba, 2015; Nkonya,Kato, Oduol, Pali, & Far-
row, 2013).
Further, independent assessment by stakeholders indicate
that IPs have been successfully used in poverty-alleviating

206 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
agrotechnology dissemination and adoption ven-
tures across Africa, including orange-eshed sweet
potatoes in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanza-
nia; climbing beans in Rwanda; and quality protein
maize in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania (Kimenye & Mc-
Ewan, 2014). According to Schut et al. (2015, p.
20), the extent to which IPs have “institutionalised
demand-driven AR4D to support systemic capacity
to innovate” is still unclear. However, in countries
where IPs have been piloted, success is evident at
sub-national scales,as demonstrated by the case
of Rwanda (Box 2). Moreover, most CGIAR cen-
ters continue to promote IPs in their technology
outreach efforts, most recently under the emerging
“Technologies for African Agricultural Transforma-
tion (TAAT)” initiative. TAAT is a FARA-CGIAR part-
nership supported by AfDB for accelerated trans-
formation of rural economies of African countries
by bringing to scale proven technologies pegged
to about 23 prioritized agricultural commodity value
chains. About US$700 million is earmarked for the
initiative to be implemented over a 5-year period.
Re-organizing for a More Effective Role of Science
in SSA Agriculture
The “Sustaining the CAADP Momentum” drive
was crafted at the end of the 1st CAADP decade
to bridge the transition into the next phase of im-
plementation, building on past experiences and
lessons. It served as the basis for a new Results
Framework for CAADP and specied the need to
develop a Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa
(S3A), as a component knowledge support system
for renewed CAADP implementation. The develop-
ment of S3A has been successfully led by FARA
working with the other regional stakeholders, and
the S3A document was ratied during the Heads of
State Summit in 2014 in Malabo, Equatorial Guin-
ea.
The S3A outlines the guiding principles to help Af-
rica take charge of the science to develop its ag-
riculture and how science can play a more promi-
nent role in Africa’s agricultural transformation. Like
FAAP, the S3A advocates for institutional shared
vision based on the fact that “science for agricul-
ture in Africa is too important to be outsourced to
external actors”, and a doubling by 2030 of public
and private sector investment into AR4D. The S3A
species four thematic areas of focus: i) sustain-
able productivity in major farming systems; ii) food
systems and value chains; iii) agricultural biodiver-
The success of Brazilian agriculture hinges on the pull effects
arising from a government-led industrialization process start-
ing in the 1960s, giving rise to rapid urbanization, improve-
ment in income of urban dwellers and higher demand for food.
At the same time, lack of land for expansion (Brazil made a
green choice not to encroach into the Amazonian forestlands,
but rather reclaim the Cerrado), constrained production in-
crease and the only recourse was science-based production
intensication. Thus, there was imminent demand for agricul-
tural research and consequent pressure at the macro level to
reform public agricultural research agencies.
These circumstances conspired to “midwife” the Brazilian Ag-
ricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) in 1973, the sin-
gular agency at the center of the Brazilian agricultural mod-
ernization. As a successful institutional innovation, Embrapa
has the following main characteristics: a semi-autonomous
national corporation with spatially decentralized centers,
specialized research units, strong human capital base, and
unwavering vision of agriculture based on science and tech-
nology and results orientation.
The main factors that contributed to the success of Embrapa
include: prioritized budget support by the federal government
as a result of sustained policy dialogue between Embrapa
staff and budget decision makers; huge initial investments
(over US$6 billion) in the training of human resources and
development of research infrastructure; strong human capital
base derived from a comprehensive human resources policy;
short-term research goals, dissemination of existing results,
and good public image (based on good relationship with the
media); induced innovation based on farmer–researcher in-
teractions (farmer–researcher interactions were promoted
based on decentralization of Embrapa units to sub-national
territories); transparency and public accountability (good me-
dia management and corporate communication); semi-auton-
omous status allowing for exibility to administer resources
and personnel, plan, assess performance, implement the
budget, disseminate results and be transparent; non-political
interference in the operations of Embrapa; and a policy of
openness to national stakeholders and to the world.
This encouraged strategic partnerships at home and abroad
(with foreign universities, CGIAR, NARS) and creation of
technology transfer (e.g., Embrapa-Ghana) and co-innova-
tion units (Labex USA, Labex Europe and Labex Asia) in for-
eign countries.
Adapted from Alves (2012).
Box 1: Embrapa - A Success Story

207
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
“Rwanda’s experiences provide meaningful lessons on how a
well-performing agriculture and food sector can make a sizeable
dent in poverty,” Severin Kodderitzsch, Manager in the World
Bank Agriculture Global Practice.
The infamous massacre of 1994 caused a major dip in Rwandan
growth trajectories. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of this dark
episode, the country has been rising and statistics attest to this
celebrated resilience. Within a decade, the GDP has quadrupled,
agricultural gross production value has doubled, and funding al-
location to AR4D increased by almost 6 percent.
Previously, agricultural research in Rwanda was conducted by
the Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR).
However, the weak link between research and extension systems
necessitated the merger of ISAR, the Rwanda Agricultural Devel-
opment Authority (responsible for crop production and manage-
ment) and the Rwanda Animal Resources Development Author-
ity (responsible for animal production) into the current Rwanda
Agricultural Board (RAB), a process which started in 2008 and
was nalized in 2011. This institutional reform was inspired by
FAAP principles and innovation systems thinking (which was
nascent at the time) to bring research scientists and extension
agents together under a single entity for more effective and ef-
cient delivery of AR4D. A corresponding institutional change was
the amalgamation of all public universities to form the University
of Rwanda in 2013.
Rwanda was the rst country to sign the CAADP Compact in
2007. The ndings of an Integrated Household Living Conditions
Survey showed a 14 percent reduction in poverty between 2007
and 2011 with a million children, men and women lifted out of
poverty in Rwanda. Almost half the reduction in poverty was at-
tributed to developments in agriculture, specically an increase
in agricultural production and rural income from sale of surplus
produce in the local markets (Bizimana, 2014). In addition to insti-
tutional reforms, Rwanda’s agro-renaissance was made possible
by proactive and pro-poor policies (e.g., land use consolidation
and agri-livestock integration), good research management, stra-
tegic partnerships, agro-ecological AR4D focus, capacity devel-
opment, a strong extension program using farmer eld schools
Box 2: Rwanda - A Phoenix Rising from the Remains of Murambi2
“Rwanda’s experiences provide meaningful lessons on how a well-performing
agriculture and food sector can make a sizeable dent in poverty,”
Severin Kodderitzsch,
Manager in the World Bank Agriculture Global Practice.
Figure A

208 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
sity and natural resource management; and iv)
responses to megatrends and challenges for agri-
culture in Africa. These thematic areas are under-
pinned by cross-cutting issues on sustainable in-
tensication, modern genetics and genomics, and
foresight capabilities (FARA, 2014).
Currently, regional actors in agricultural research
are reorganizing themselves into a new institution-
al conguration in response to the readjustments
in the continental agricultural policy environment
triggered by the Malabo Declaration of 2014. The
new AR4D partnership known as the Science for
Agriculture Consortium (S4AC), comprises the
core actors (FARA, SROs3, and AFAAS) and other
supportive partners (tertiary agricultural education
networks4, PAFO, NPCA, CGIAR centers, and the
Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)).
The
S4AC seeks to better support the S3A
implementation at country level and give im-
petus to the “Accelerated Africa Agricultural
Growth and Transformation” drive based on
the post-Malabo CAADP Roadmap and Strat-
egy. Its priority work streams are: i) support-
ing implementation of the CAADP national
agricultural investment plans at country level;
and farmer promoters (MINAGRI, 2016), and account-
ability for results.
Notable AR4D features have been on the development
of improved varieties against biotic and abiotic stresses
for different crops including beans, rice, wheat, maize,
cassava, bananas, Irish potatoes, and sweet potatoes.
Specic successful technological interventions include
breeding for animal genetic improvement, crop disease
resistance, biotechnological diagnostics for livestock
diseases, development of forage germplasm and straw
feeding technology, integrated soil fertility manage-
ment techniques and GIS application in land use. Be-
tween 2008 and 2013, substantial yield increases were
achieved for key crops (Figure B) due to concerted re-
search efforts (Mbonigaba, 2014). On nutrition-sensi-
tive agriculture, specic CGIAR centers have supported
the development of various nutrient-rich crop varieties,
which have been widely adopted via IPs to combat
malnutrition. Examples are vitamin A rich cassava (In-
ternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture—IITA), high
quality protein maize (International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center—CIMMYT), biofortied beans
(International Center for Tropical Agriculture—CIAT),
orange-eshed sweet potatoes (International Potato
Center—CIP) and indigenous vegetables (RAB, 2015).
Figure B
Yield increase for key crops in Rwanda
Figure A
2 Murambi is a school where some of the grisly massacres occurred during the
Rwanda genocide. It is currently maintained as one of the major memorial sites.
3 Association for
Strengthening
Agricultural
Research in
Eastern and
Central Africa
(ASARECA),
CCARDESA and
West and Central
African Council
for Agricultural
Research and
Development
(CORAF/
WECARD).
4 ANAFE and
RUFORUM.

209
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
ii) engaging the policy agenda on fertilizer, seed, agribusiness,
value chains and food markets; iii) strengthening institutional
systems for knowledge management, innovation systems and
platforms at national, regional and continental levels; and iv) de-
veloping foresight capabilities for megatrends for R&D (FARA,
2015).
Already the core partners have embraced new engagement
principles to enrich subsidiarity and minimize transaction costs
through joint programmatic planning, resource mobilization
and sharing of staff compliments. Thus, whereas agricultural
research, technology generation and dissemination may not
be a programmatic pillar in the current CAADP dispensation,
institutional reconguration around the S3A will facilitate simi-
lar reforms at national level and knowledge-driven agricultural
progress in the second decade of the CAADP. The evolving
Consortium will act as an important bridge to help cascade re-
gional policy frameworks (e.g., the S3A) to national level so as
to promote conscious investments in and application of science
in agriculture.
Indeed, the S3A will help orient the direction for agricultural
scientic inquiries in Africa, especially if the Consortium is suc-
cessful in mobilizing home-grown funding. Currently, agricultural
research in Africa is to a large extent supply driven and predom-
inantly reects the areas favored by donors. This is despite the
major principles (e.g., alignment with recipient priorities) agreed
upon at High Level International Fora on Aid Effectiveness
namely: the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), the
Accra Agenda for Action (2008), the L’Aquila Joint Statement on
Global Food Security (2009), and the Busan Partnership Agree-
ment (2011). Yet again, far-reaching commitments on the table,
little compliance in practice.
Funding for AR4D in SSA
Between 2010 and 2014, some 40 African countries were en-
gaging in the CAADP process. About 30 countries had signed
the CAADP compacts; 24 countries had nalized their invest-
ment plans; and 17 countries had leveraged US$611.5 million
from GAFSP to support implementation of the CAADP national
agricultural investment plans (NAIPs). It is unclear what propor-
tion of these funds was allocated to AR4D. However, based on
an analysis commissioned by the European Initiative for Agricul-
tural Research for Development (EIARD), donor funding alloca-
tions to AR4D in SSA in 2010 are given in Table 1.
Funding around CAADP Pillar 4, mainly through multi-donor
trust funds managed by the World Bank, amounted to nearly 32
percent of the total donor investment in agricultural research and
development (ARD) in SSA. As is traditional, the largest share
of investment allocation was in favor of the CGIAR (65 percent),
a signicant proportion of which was forwarded to national re-
search institutes on sub-contracts. The share of agricultural ODA
for Africa grew by an average of 6.3 percent in the rst decade of
Figure 1. Research funding (US$ billions)
Food production index in Kenya
Source: Personal Communications,
Director General, KALRO

210 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
CAADP, between 2003 and 2012 (Bahiigwa, Collins,
Makombe, Jemaneh, & Tefera, 2014). Corresponding-
ly, these authors also report that the African agricultural
production index grew at an annual average rate of 3.2
percent between 2003 and 2012. According to ASTI,
public (i.e., national government) agricultural research
spending in SSA increased by more than one-third in
real terms, from US$1.2 billion in 2000 to US$1.7 bil-
lion in 2011, measured in constant 2005 purchasing
power parity (PPP) dollars (Beintema & Stads, 2014).
However, nearly half of this value was due to invest-
ments made in only three countries: Kenya, Nigeria,
and South Africa.
Figure 1 shows the research funds in real dollar value
availed to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
(now Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research In-
stitute—KALRO) over the last 15 years. An increase in
research fund allocation from the Kenya Government
was indeed apparent from 2004, but this has since
tapered off to a plateau of around US$27 million per
year. Correspondingly, the food production index also
registered a marked increase from around 2004 per-
haps due to a KARI/KALRO mediated adaptation and
adoption of new technologies (e.g., developed by the
CGIAR) by farmers.
The Africa agricultural productivity programs (i.e.
WAAPP, EAAPP, and APPSA) have provided another
funding av
enue for AR4D in Africa. Administered through
the World Bank’s Adaptable Program Loan (APL), the pro-
ductivity programs—whose design is based on the FAAP
principles and the AKIS paradigm—have directly facilitated
implementation of agricultural policies of RECs (ECOWAS,
COMESA, and SADC) and, more specically, the NAIPs of
participating countries. Based on World Bank reports, nearly
20 countries in SSA have beneted from a total of US$441
million to date in support of AR4D through the WAAPP,
EAAPP and APPSA (World Bank, 2012) as shown in Table
2.
Notwithstanding the apparent growth in AR4D spending
over the last decade, the SSA AR4D intensity ratio (measure
of total public AR4D spending as a percentage of agricultur-
al GDP) has steadily declined from 0.59 percent in 2006 to
0.51 percent in 2011, far below the 1 percent recommended
by the AU (Beintema & Stads, 2014). A common feature in
many SSA countries is that the bulk of funds allocated to ag-
riculture goes into recurrent expenditure (e.g., staff salaries)
rather than research execution. Thus, the share allocation to
AR4D has not been commensurate with agricultural output.
In Ethiopia, for example, agriculture contributed nearly 45
percent of the national GDP in 2011, yet the government
allocated a paltry 0.19 percent of its agricultural GDP to
research, the lowest amongst 10 comparing countries. In
contrast, Swaziland, where agriculture contributes only 8
percent of GDP, allocated 1.43 percent of agricultural GDP
to research (Figure 2). Obviously, there are idiosyncratic
circumstances that dictate budgetary allocation in various
countries and funding of agricultural research is least de-
termined by reciprocal sector contribution to the economy.
Agricultural research can be a protracted enterprise (e.g.,
breeding programs can take decades for any returns to in-
vestments to be demonstrated) and therefore requires sus-
tained funding and some patience. However, AR4D funding
in many SSA countries has exhibited high volatility over
the last decade chiey due to high dependence on exter-
nal donors (Stads, 2012) and vacillating government priori-
ties. African partners, unable to fund their own AR4D, often
sacrice their strategic interests at the altar of donor aid.
Indeed, the multi-donor trust funds managed by the World
Bank, whilst addressing the issues of donor harmonization
and long-term funding horizons, have equally been veritable
instruments for micro-managing the programs and activities
implemented by regional agencies like AUC, NEPAD, FARA,
SROs and AFAAS.
The lack of sustained funding and misalignment of research
priorities hinders long-term effectiveness and efciency of
AR4D and compromises transformative growth of the ag-
ricultural sector. Furthermore, governmental instability, re-
source constraints, and lack of recognition of the importance
of investing in AR4D contribute to systemic underfunding of
AR4D in SSA countries. Some innovative ways for sustain-
able home-grown funding of AR4D in SSA countries include:
• Leveraging philanthropic funding nationally and
abroad. Philanthropic funding agencies are unique in
Table 1: Donor funding for AR4D
Category Funding (US$,
million)
CAADP Pillar 4 (FARA + SROs) 46
NEPAD + other CAADP Pillars 1 - 3 19
Non-CAADP Pillar 4 aligned 46
Non-CAADP Pillar 4 alignable 37
IARCs & CB/PPs 16
AGRA Funding for NARS 90
CGIAR 304
TOTAL 558

211
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Table 2: SSA AR4D funding through agricultural productivity programs
No. Adaptable Program
Loan (APL)
Amount
(US$, million)
Year Countries Commodity focus
1 APPSA 90 (51.87) 2013–2020 Malawi
Mozambique
Zambia
Maize
Rice
Food legumes
2 EAAPP 90 2010-2015 Ethiopia
Kenya
Tanzania
Wheat
Smallholder dairy farming
Rice
3 WAAPP – 1A 45 2008-2012 Ghana
Mali
Senegal
Roots & tubers
Rice
Cereals
4 WAAPP – 1B 90 (11) 2010–2016 Burkina Faso
Côte d’Ivoire
Nigeria
Fruit & vegetables
Bananas & plantains
Aquaculture
5 WAAPP – 1C 120.7 (11.8) 2012–2016 Benin, The Gambia,
Niger, Sierra Leone,
Togo, Guinea, Liberia
Livestock, maize, and
mangrove rice
6 WAAPP - 2A 180 (101) 2013-2018 Ghana
Mali
Senegal
Roots & tubers
Rice
Cereals
TOTAL 615.7(175.67) 20
Source: Adapted from gures available on the World Bank website and PAD reports (Amounts still to be disbursed as at December
2015 according to the WAAPP PAD)
that they can invest in riskier ventures than the private
or public sector. In the last decade, the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation (BMGF) has invested huge sums in
AR4D the world over and is currently one of the largest
contributors to AR4D in SSA. Growing African econ-
omies are also generating billionaires. Some of them
(e.g., Aliko Dangote of Nigeria) have indicated a sense
of philanthropic disposition and could be persuaded to
support AR4D in SSA.
• Business orientation in NARIs and universities.
NARIs and universities in the region must increasing-
ly embrace a business orientation in their mandate to
generate revenue from their knowledge products. This
is already happening in some countries (e.g., CSIR in
Ghana) where the research institutes have been con-
ditioned to explore ventures for revenue generation
over and above government capitation (Beintema &
Stads, 2014). Such ventures could include setting up
incubation centers and other client uptake streams for
own-generated technologies. Stanford University is ac-
credited with many of Silicon Valley’s most successful
start-ups because every one of its departments has a
business incubation unit.
• Private sector funding. This will only be possible
where there is sufcient incentive for prot. For exam-
ple, a seed company could fund breeding research by
a NARI or university if they will retain exclusivity to com-
mercialize the developed germplasm. Similarly, cutting
edge research in areas like biotechnology has attracted
private sector funding (e.g., Syngenta and Monsanto)
due to the inherent proprietary potential of the research
outputs. Unfortunately, the intellectual property regimes
in many SSA countries are for most part not supportive
of such ventures.
• Commodity (ad valorem) levies. The NARI in Kenya
has undergone structural changes in the recent past by
amalgamating the former Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute (KARI) with previously quasi-private research
agencies (e.g., the Coffee Research Foundation and
the Tea Research Foundation) managed by farm-
er-based organizations (FBOs). This creates opportu-

212 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
nity for appropriating pooled levies from high-value
commodity proceeds to fund research. As indicated
in Figure 1, the surge in total funding of KALRO be-
tween 2013 and 2014 was due to the appropriation of
coffee, sugarcane and tea levies.
• Public–private partnerships in agricultural re-
search. This is exemplied by the case of Golden
Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART) of Zam-
bia, a self-sustaining and autonomous public–private
partnership between the Zambia Government and
Zambia Farmers Federation. GART is self-sustaining
due to proceeds from commercial farming and con-
tract research.
• Competitive grant funding (CGF). The Association
for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and
Central Africa (ASARECA) has successfully used
this instrument to fund supranational agricultural re-
search in the member countries (Tizikara, 2005). The
same applies to the West and Central African Council
for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/
WECARD), especially under the World Bank funded
agricultural productivity program, WAAPP. Nation-
al science, technology and innovation (STI) coordi-
nating agencies (e.g., Kenya’s National Council for
Science Technology and Innovation) have used the
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Re-
search (CGIAR) to varying degrees to fund research
themes that address national development priorities.
By its nature and design, the CGF can help countries move
away from the NARS concept towards functional NAIS by
fostering strategic linkages of various actors (e.g., NARIs,
universities, NGOs, FBOs, and private sector players) to
execute strategic, high quality, and demand-driven AR4D.
Indeed, the idea of competition has been proposed even
in public funding of AR4D. Currently, SSA countries allo-
cate block funding to national research institutes based
on annual budgets. In the European Union, it has been
suggested that allocation of research funds even to public
AR4D agencies should be pegged to competition, peer
review and institutional assessment (Georghiou, 2013).
This will promote excellence and targeted competition for
resources against a set of predened priorities. Through
competition, the little funds availed by national govern-
ments to AR4D can be more efciently and effectively
used to bring about transformative agricultural innova-
tions.
Agricultural Advisory Services
Economic returns to investment in AAS are infrequently
measured but studies show such returns to be very high.
Kenya 20.4
Uganda 10.65
0.54
Uganda
Madagascar 5.63
Rwanda 4.44
Swaziland 0.48
Kenya
1.21
Madagascar
0.16
Swaziland
0.69 Rwanda
0.36
Ethiopia 44.6
0.19
Ethiopia
Tanzania 17.65
1.43
Tanzania
Mozambique 7.6
1.22
Mozambique
Malawi 5.1
1.03
Malawi
Zimbabwe 0.88
0.79
Zimbabwe
Agricultural Contribution to GDP (%)
%
Figure 2
National investment in
agricultural research
Figure 2: Agricultural GDP and contribution to
research (ASTI, 2014)

213
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Reviewing 57 studies across the world, Evenson (1997) re-
ported rates of returns were greater than 50 percent for most
cases, but also found that returns varied widely. Alston, Wy-
att, Pardey, Marra, & Chan-Kang (2000) reviewed 18 stud-
ies and found mean returns of 80 percent. Assessments of
the impact and effectiveness of AAS in Africa, either as a
whole or for particular methods and approaches, are even
rarer. A recent meta-analysis by the Initiative for Smallhold-
er Finance (2015) found robust evidence from the tropics
that agricultural extension improves crop yields and quality,
and thereby smallholder livelihoods. AGRA (2014) reported,
based on analyses in four African countries, that access to
extension services also reduces production risks. However,
little has been written on the economic returns to extension
in Africa, perhaps because of the huge measurement chal-
lenges, declining interest in rates of returns studies or other
factors (Davis, Franzel, & Spielman 2016)).
Moreover, given the diversity of AAS providers (govern-
ment, NGOs, private sector) and variations in the skills
and competencies of eld staff and management systems
across countries, it is difcult to come up with broad gen-
eralizations about the economic contribution of AAS (Even-
son, 1997). There is also little information on the returns to
particular AAS approaches and many gaps persist in our
understanding of the effectiveness and impact for both ex-
isting AAS approaches (e.g., demonstration plots) as well as
new ones (e.g., call centers and other ICT-based approach-
es). While a few approaches, such as farmer eld schools
have been analyzed in depth (see Waddington et al., 2014)
most others, particularly the newer ICT-based ones, have
hardly been assessed at all. Davis, Franzel & Spielman
(2016) note that whereas many evaluations ask whether
an AAS approach works the more important questions are
what types of AAS approaches work well for particular types
of agricultural technologies, particular target groups (e.g.,
women), at what cost and how these approaches may be
improved.
Nonetheless a review by Evenson (1997) on impact studies
of AAS in about 50 countries showed that many extension
programs have been highly effective in aiding farmers to
achieve higher productivity, although some had no effect
due to poor design and management discipline. Overall,
AAS appear to be most effective when researchers are ef-
fective in generating innovations that are demand driven
and in economies where farmers have access to schooling,
new technology, and extension.
Key Trends
As mentioned in the previous section, conventional models
of technology transfer, popular in the last century but still in
wide use, involve technology and information passing from
research to extension to farmers. The innovation systems
model, also discussed in the previous section, features
many more actors and knowledge-generating processes
and thus has important implications for advisory services.
A major implication is that extension staff need to play con-
vening, brokering and coordinating roles and not just one of
passing on information (GFRAS, 2012).
Several key trends in recent years affect the supply and de-
mand for AAS and the types of services and approaches
that would be most relevant to meet Africa’s agricultural de-
velopment challenges. First, on the supply side, agricultural
technologies and recommendations to farmers are becom-
ing more and more knowledge intensive. For example, in-
stead of recommending that farmers apply blanket fertilizer
recommendations, advisory staff recommend integrated soil
fertility management, involving advice and new skills for ap-
plying manure, compost, and micro-doses of fertilizer. While
the need for AAS to share information and train farmers is
increasing, the numbers of publicly funded extension staff
have been decreasing in most countries. Nor are other ser-
vice providers, such as private sector extension or farmer
organizations able to meet the demand, leaving farmers
in remote and marginal areas under-served. Proportions
of farmers interacting with extension staff are typically un-
der 20 percent and signicantly lower for female farmers
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011.
On the demand side, there is increasing evidence of the
importance of urban-based farmers; the proportion of ur-
ban households owning agricultural land across 6 countries
ranged from 24 percent in Ghana to 49 percent in Rwanda
(Jayne et al., 2015). Moreover, many other urban dwellers
provide advice and inputs to relatives and friends who farm.
This implies that providing urban dwellers with advice on
agriculture is an important means of inuencing agricultural
practices. A further development is that there are consider-
ably more ways for farmers to access information than there
were ve years ago. The spread of mobile phones and other
forms of ICT, such as television, radio and mobile and web
applications (Bell, 2015), present new avenues for reach-
ing and receiving feedback from farmers. It is estimated
that mobile phone penetration (the number of mobile sub-
scribers as a proportion of the population) has reached 74
percent in Kenya, 62 percent in Tanzania and 60 percent in
Ghana (The Africa Report 2015; The East African, 2016). In
Tanzania, 41 percent of the population watches television
weekly (Murthey, 2011).
Further, several issues affecting AAS have become increas-
ingly important over the last several years. First, assist-
ing farmers to access markets and improve the quality of
their produce to satisfy consumer demand has become a
more common AAS function. Targeting women and youth

214 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
and assisting farmers to adapt to climate change have also
become increasingly important. An important and positive
development was the emergence of strong global, continen-
tal and regional organizations to support AAS, promote ex-
changes of experience and advocate for greater investment
among nations and donor agencies. These organizations
include GFRAS (The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Ser-
vices), AFAAS and RESCAR-AOC (Réseau des Services
de Conseil Agricole et Rural des Pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest
et du Centre). Whereas research in Africa has long had
strong bodies to support it (e.g., FARA and CORAF), AAS
have been relatively neglected. Strong national bodies sup-
porting AAS have also become active in several countries,
such as Uganda, where the national forum assists members
to exchange experiences on extension approaches and lob-
bies the government on national agricultural extension poli-
cy (UFAAS, 2016)
Advisory Services on the Ground: Organization and Focus
Extension systems are provided by an array of different or-
ganizations, including government, NGO, farmer organiza-
tions, universities, and private sector (Ojijo et al., 2013b).
Governments and sometimes NGOs are the principal orga-
nizations serving farmers. There is considerable and grow-
ing investment in AAS by farmer organizations (GFRAS,
2015) and by the private sector (Root Capital, 2015; Zhou
& Babu, 2015), including a range of actors such as agro-vet
shops selling inputs and multi-national corporations buying
produce. However, the advisory services of these organiza-
tions only reach a small proportion of farmers and tend to
specialize in cash crops and to operate in areas with favor-
able market access.
Most countries lack national policies on AAS. Two excep-
tions are Rwanda and Kenya, which developed national ag-
ricultural extension strategies in 2009 and 2012 respective-
ly (Government of Kenya, 2012; Government of Rwanda,
2009). Both have decentralized AAS to improve efciency
and responsiveness to local needs (Ojijo et al., 2013b).
Having a national policy on extension has the potential to
improve the prole of extension in development strategies
and improve coordination of eld-level AAS.
Ratios of numbers of AAS staff to farm households are avail-
able in some countries. The ratio across SSA is estimated to
be 1 agent to 1,500 to 3,000 farmers, far more than a single
agent can visit, even when working with groups of farmers
rather than individuals (CTA, 2012). Ratios vary consider-
ably among African countries and are not generally more fa-
vorable than those prevailing in Asian countries (Table 2). In
Kenya the ratio is 1:950 whereas the government’s desired
ratio is 1:300 (Government of Kenya, 2012). Ethiopia has
the lowest ratio of farmers per agent shown in Table 2 and,
perhaps not coincidentally, has one of the highest agricul-
tural growth rates in Africa. However, these ratios typically
only include government AAS. Data on the AAS of NGOs,
producer organizations and the private sector are generally
unavailable. The extent of these other types of AAS is in-
dicated in an inventory of AAS conducted by Tsafack et al.
(2015) in Cameroon. The authors identied 151 AAS oper-
ating in the country’s seven southern-most regions, an area
with a rural population of about ve million. Over two-thirds
were managed by NGOs, particularly local and internation-
al NGOs (Table 3). Government services accounted for 17
percent of the AAS and the private sector, only 1 percent.
Table 3: Number of extension agents and farmers per agent
Country Number of agents (’000) Farmers per agent
Africa
Democratic
Republic of Congo
11 540
Ethiopia 60 480
Kenya 6 950
Malawi 2 1,800–2,514
Nigeria 5 3,330
Tanzania 7 2,500
Asia
China 800 620
India 60 5,000
Indonesia 30 1,670
Source: Adapted from Ragasa, Mazunda and Kadzamira (2015)
Table 4: Types of extension services
operating in seven regions in Cameroon
Type of service Number Percent
Local NGO 50 33
International NGO 35 23
Government* 26 17
Producer
organizations
20 13
National NGO 18 12
Private sector 2 1
Total 151 100
Note: The seven are the southern-most regions and thus
exclude North, Far North, and Adamawa.
*includes several different ministries involved in AAS and
projects that are managed as separate entities.
Source: Tsafack et al. (2014); Sygnola Tsafack (personal
communication)

215
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
A survey of 80 AAS across Cameroon, Kenya and Malawi
found that 65 to 76 percent targeted all farmers in the areas
they were working whereas 24 to 35 percent targeted spe-
cic types of farmers, such as those who were members of
a cooperative, were growing a particular crop or were mem-
bers of a particular strata, such as those affected by HIV/
AIDS (Franzel, Sinja, Simpson, 2014; Kundhlande, Fran-
zel, Simpson, & Gausi, 2014; Tsafack, Degrande, Franzel,
Simpson, 2014). Main extension methods used across the
three countries included demonstrations (28 to 72 percent),
exchange visits (23 to 36 percent) and eld days (12 to 53
percent). Farmer eld schools were used by 44 percent of
the AAS in Malawi, but by less than 10 percent in Cameroon
and Kenya. Farmer-trainers or lead farmers were used by
31 percent of AAS in Cameroon and by 78 percent in Malawi
(Masangano & Mthinda, 2012).
Ojijo et al. (2013b), in a review of extension services in
Africa, noted several weaknesses in public systems. The
policy framework was unclear in many countries and even
where strategies did exist, they did not sufciently provide
for involvement of the private sector, universities and other
tertiary agricultural education institutes. Other weaknesses
included lack of staff and resources, lack of clear dissemi-
nation approaches and inability to exploit the opportunities
offered by ICT in extension. Ragasa et al. (2015) note three
other areas where performance needs to be strengthened
in Malawi and elsewhere: ensuring that priorities are de-
mand-driven, strengthening the role of the national AAS sys-
tem in coordinating AAS interventions among a wide range
of actors, and in being accountable to stakeholders and in
particular farmers.
Novel AAS Approaches
The following are examples of three novel and cost-effec-
tive AAS approaches that show promise for helping farmers
learn new skills and information for improving their farm pro-
ductivity and protability.
Shamba Shape-Up
The Shamba Shape-Up (SSU) weekly television program in
Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda educates farmers
on basic and innovative farming practices. Broadcast in both
English and Kiswahili, a particularly innovative aspect of the
program is its combination of education and entertainment,
dubbed “edu-tainment”. SSU’s novel approach is to have
TV celebrities visit farmers experiencing problems on their
farms and discuss potential solutions and opportunities with
experts and other skilled farmers. The audience can phone
the SSU call center to ask questions or send SMSs to ask
for information leaets. The audience per show in Kenya
is about 3,500,000 households (Kiptot, Franzel, Nora, &
Steyn, 2016).
Costs of producing a show are relatively high, in terms
of absolute cost—lming ve six-minute segments costs
US$50,000—but are low in terms of the cost per household
reached: US$0.014 (Kiptot et al., 2016). The University of
Reading (2014) found that in the 25 counties in Kenya that
the show targets, 13 percent of rural households viewed
SSU and most reported specic examples of the show in-
creasing productivity and protability on their farm. SSU was
found to increase net benets accruing to 428,000 farmers
in the 25 counties by US$25.7 million. These gures do not
include benets accruing to urban households who farm
which, as mentioned above, are high. Nor do they consider
that farmers often use more than one information source
when making a decision on use of a new technology. The
importance of TV as an agricultural advisory service is like-
ly to continue to increase in response to two trends noted
above: the rapid increase in TV coverage in rural areas
and the growth of urban-based emergent investor farmers.
Shows are also broadcast over the radio and are available
for viewing on the SSU webpage. The show also has an
active Facebook page, helping involve youth more in agri-
culture; the page has 44,500 fans.
Farmer-to-Farmer Extension
Farmer-to-Farmer Extension (F2FE), the provision of train-
ing by farmers to farmers is used by many AAS. In Malawi,
for example, a survey of 37 extension services found that 78
percent used some form of F2FE (Masangano & Mthinda,
2012 Several national extension services, such as Malawi
and Rwanda have over 10,000 farmer-trainers. Surprisingly,
as pervasive as these programs are, little has been done
to assess their effectiveness or distill lessons on successful
implementation. Simpson, Franzel, Degrande, Kundhlande,
and Tsafack (2015) summarized the results of a survey of 80
organizations (government, NGO, farmer organizations and
private companies) implementing the approach across three
countries: Cameroon, Kenya and Malawi. Nearly all report-
ed that the approach was effective, with farmer-trainers typ-
ically volunteering their services and training between 17
and 37 farmers over the previous year, depending on the
country. Nevertheless, the authors found several opportuni-
ties for improving the effectiveness of the approach.
By involving the community (e.g., local administrators or
leaders of producer organizations) in selecting, monitoring
and evaluating farmer-trainers, organizations backstopping
farmer-trainers can make their programs more sustainable.
Concerning gender, some organizations were able to recruit
many more women as farmer trainers than they were able to
recruit female frontline extension staff. For example, where-
as only 5–10 percent of eld staff working with the East Afri-

216 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
ca Dairy Development (EADD) Project in Kenya and Ugan-
da were women, over 30 percent of the volunteer farmer
trainers were women. Since women train more women than
men, farmer-to-farmer extension in EADD serves both to
empower women as trainers and to improve their access to
AAS (Franzel et al., 2015b)).
These ndings show that AAS can make their volunteer
farmer-trainer programs more effective and sustainable
through understanding what motivates volunteer trainers
and providing low-cost incentives for keeping them motivat-
ed. For trainers interested in altruism and social benets,
means of recognition (certicates, T-shirts and public rec-
ognition from local leaders) are important. Training, litera-
ture and visits with researchers and innovative farmers are
important for those interested in early access to information.
For those interested in earning income from associated ser-
vices, for example, selling seed from their demonstration
plots, helping link farmer trainers to clients interested in buy-
ing their services is important (Franzel et al., 2015a).
Management Advice for Family Farms
Management Advice for Family Farms (MAFF) is an advi-
sory approach based on learning and decision-making pro-
cesses aimed at strengthening farm families’ entrepreneurial
skills and capacity to manage resources. Participatory meth-
ods are used to enable participants to conduct self-analysis
of their enterprises, keep records or analyze their techni-
cal and economic results and use decision-support tools to
plan, implement and evaluate their performance. Typically,
farmers receive both technical training (e.g., fertilization of
maize and cotton pest control) and management training
(e.g., cash ow planning and gross margin analysis) (Faure
et al., 2015). MAFF differs from the farmer eld school ap-
proach in that it deals with the whole farm whereas the eld
schools typically focuses on a single enterprise.
Advisors typically work with farmer groups and group mem-
bers share results and learn from each other. As a result,
producers gain a new understanding of their farming sys-
tems and are able to improve their practices and develop
new projects that improve their well-being. In Benin, for ex-
ample, a dozen organizations, including NGOs and the Min-
istry of Agriculture, employ MAFF advisers that work with 7
to 9 farmer groups each, thus reaching over 20,000 farmers
throughout the country.
Literacy is not required to participate. In fact, MAFF spe-
cialists have created management tools specically tar-
geted for illiterate farmers. Advisory costs are high, about
US$20–80 per year per farmer. But some MAFF programs
have successfully used farmer facilitators to take on some
of the tasks of advisers, reducing advisory costs to between
US$2 and US$20 per year per farmer. About 100,000 farm-
ers have been reached by MAFF, in Mali, Benin, Burkina
Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Malawi.
Low
22 countries = 52.4%
Very Low
6 countries = 14.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 High
1 country = 2.4%
Medium
13 countries = 31.0%
Very High
No country 0%
Figure 3: Capacity indicators for agricultural transformation (ACBF, 2012)
Angola, Djibouti, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius
Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, Congo(DRC), Congo(Rep. of),
Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania,
Togo
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria,
Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Ghana
Source: Computed from ACI Database 2012

217
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Capacity Development
The African Capacity Indicator Initiative
Agricultural information if fuelled by knowledge that comes
from all levels of capacity building. Unblocking capacity
gaps across the value chain is therefore critical to effect
not only knowledge generation but also dissemination and
scaling out. Despite substantial donor support over a long
period, capacity remains a binding constraint to agricultural
development in SSA Africa. Indeed, all the High Level Fora
on Aid Effectiveness have successively pegged aid effec-
tiveness to developed capacity of recipients. This led Afri-
can governments and their development partners to set up
the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF), chiey to
help build sustainable multi-sectoral human and institution-
al capacity for development management. In 2011, ACBF
launched its rst Africa Capacity Indicators Report (ACIR)
that measures and empirically assesses capacity in relation
to the development agenda in African countries. The ACIR
classies progress made by African countries based on the
Africa Capacity Index (ACI), a thematic composite index
computed from four sub-indices: i) policy environment; ii)
processes for implementation; iii) development results at
country level; and iv) capacity development outcomes.
The thematic focus for the ACIR for 2012 was “Capacity
Development for Agricultural Transformation and Food Se-
curity”, realizing that agriculture is key to economic trans-
formation in Africa. In computing the capacity indicators
for agricultural transformation, the report used the above
four sub-indices and the three core capacity dimensions
(enabling environment, organizational level, and individu-
al level) to generate a set of sub-indices and a composite
index of capacity that allows linkage to strategies and ac-
tions aimed at improving capacity. Using cluster analysis,
four clusters of agricultural capacity were identied in the
ACIR for 2012: (i) the ability to have a good strategy for the
agricultural sector; (ii) the investment in dynamic capacity,
including the skills, knowledge and innovation needed to
get results in the agricultural sector; (iii) the explicit role of
the private sector in the agricultural value chain and the
capacity of this sector to contribute to the process of trans-
formation; and (iv) the information system that supports
farmers, buyers and sellers and other stakeholders in the
value chain, including making research relevant for farm-
ers. The ACI for agricultural transformation was then cal-
culated from the harmonic mean of scores based on these
four clusters (ACBF, 2012).
Progress under Cluster 1 on strategy development has
been inspired in many SSA countries over the last decade
mainly by the CAADP Country Roundtable Process. Re-
cently—and in tandem with Cluster 2 of ACIR 2012—the
elaboration of the Science, Technology & Innovation Strat-
egy for Africa (STISA-2024) and its consequent adoption
by African Heads of State and Government in 2014 her-
alded an overarching policy framework for developing STI
capacity in the continent. The STISA-2024 identies six
priority areas with Priority I being dedicated to “Eradication
of Hunger and Achieving Food Security”. S3A has been
adopted as the implementation framework for Priority I of
the STISA-2024. Information systems support to farmers
and stakeholders has been aided by continental institution-
al developments (i.e., AFAAS), which have had an impact
on the national fronts through the country forums. In sum,
the idea of an ACI index for ranking countries on their pre-
paredness to transform the agricultural sector is likely to
inspire a competitive spirit that will favor the ongoing re-
forms in the national research systems. Sufce to mention
here, that S3A also provides for the development of a “sci-
ence-readiness” index that the S4AC will use to support
countries in identied areas of need.
A Plethora of Frameworks on Capacity Development
Perhaps due to the inherent ambiguity in meaning of capac-
ity and the intractability of capacity development in practice,
several agencies and practitioners—in an effort to forge
some common point of reference—have crafted their own
frameworks for capacity development. Most of the time,
such agencies and practitioners are convinced of the need
for existent or local capacity for development effectiveness,
yet bafed by the arbitrary and sheer lack of agreement
on how to conduct capacity development in practice. This
stems partly from the implicit divergence in initially having to
contend with the answers (which can be as diverse and the
intervention domain) to the twin questions: capacity for what
and for whom? On the whole, frameworks serve to dene
the bounds and scope of practice in capacity development;
but their specic purposes differ depending on the agency
or practitioner. A few examples will be illustrated.
The UNDP framework is process based and identies ve
key stages for capacity development, viz: engage stake-
holders; assess capacity assets and needs; formulate
capacity development program; implement capacity de-
velopment response; and evaluate capacity development.
A Framework for Capacity Development by the Centre for
Development Innovation, The Netherlands, is also process
based and identies six stages: capacity assessment and
analysis; crafting a vision for capacity development; elabo-
ration of a capacity development strategy and action plan;
implementing the plan; evaluating capacity development re-
sults; and facilitation, reective monitoring and adaptation.
The NEPAD Capacity Development Strategic Framework
outlines a set of principles and cornerstones for success-

218 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
ful capacity development and identies six cornerstones for
effective capacity development: 1) leadership transforma-
tion; 2) citizenship transformation; 3) knowledge and evi-
dence-based innovation; 4) utilizing African potential, skills
and resources; 5) developing capacity of capacity develop-
ers; and 6) integrated planning and implementation for re-
sults. It offers little on process.
The FAO Capacity Development Framework outlines the
specic areas of focus in capacity development including
the three dimensions—human, organizational and enabling
environment—as well as technical and functional capaci-
ties. The CGIAR Capacity Development Framework (CDF)
intends to foster dialogue that enables the CGIAR Centers
and CRPs to incorporate capacity development into their
planning. Based on a systems approach to capacity devel-
opment, the CGIAR CDF is a mix model identifying both the
process and the specic areas of focus on capacity devel-
opment.
Finally, the World Bank’s Capacity Development Results
Framework promotes a common and systematic approach
to the identication, design, and M&E of learning for capac-
ity development. It has four main elements: a clearly spec-
ied development goal or set of goals that motivates the
capacity development effort; three capacity factors that de-
termine the extent of local ownership of the effort to achieve
the stated development goal(s)—conduciveness of the so-
ciopolitical environment, efciency of policy instruments,
and effectiveness of the organizationa-l arrangements; a
change process that leads to improvements in the target-
ed capacity factors at the hands of agents of change em-
powered through learning; and activities and instruments
designed to achieve the necessary learning outcomes for
the agents of change.
As such, there is considerable variability in the existing ca-
pacity development frameworks and we are nowhere near
a unied framework for capacity development. Agencies like
the Learning Network on Capacity Development (Len CD)
have been promoting change for better capacity develop-
ment practices on all levels, with little progress in forging a
unied approach. As discussed below, the FAO, under the
Tropical Agriculture Initiative (TAP), has recently advanced
a framework that proposes a practical approach to capacity
development for agricultural innovation aimed at harmoniz-
ing the diversity of existing strategies through an AIS per-
spective.
Organizations Involved in Capacity Development
As demonstrated by the success of the Green Revolution
in South and East Asian countries and by the Brazilian ag-
ricultural renaissance, high quality human capital, appropri-
ate institutions and supportive policies and infrastructure are
central to agricultural transformation. Further, a key lesson
that underpinned the Results Framework for the post-Ma-
labo CAADP Roadmap and Strategy was that lack of sys-
temic capacity hampered country progress with CAADP
during its 1st decade of implementation (NEPAD, 2013). It is
therefore instructive that capacity development should be a
key investment priority in Africa’s agricultural transformation
agenda.
Agricultural capacity development in SSA, like in many other
regions of the world, has been equated with training of per-
sonnel without due consideration to the other dimensions of
capacity. Moreover, experiences with farming systems re-
search and innovation systems perspectives are gradually
changing this limited view. Practitioners and development
agencies are progressively of the view that capacity refers
to the ability to deliver, that is, to realize intended develop-
ment results. From an AIS perspective, whilst the capacity
of individual actors is crucial, what matters is the aggre-
gate functionality of the system to deliver on the agricultural
transformation agenda.
Baser and Morgan (2008) have identied three approaches
to capacity development: planned, incremental and emer-
gent. In the planned approach, the change in capacity of an
organization or system from one state to the other is a linear,
planned and directed process. In the incremental approach,
organizational or system change is effected through small
experimental steps (trial and error), especially in unstable
contexts where the choice of an overarching strategy is dif-
cult to clarify. The emergence approach lends itself well to
complex adaptive systems, which characterize most of the
real world situations. In this approach, the driving forces for
change are not control, centralized direction or adaptive-
ness; but rather relationships, interactions and system en-
ergy. Capacity then emerges and forms out of the multiple
interdependencies and the multiple causal connections that
are operating and being encouraged within the system (Bas-
er & Morgan, 2008).
Thus, just like the progressive elaboration of agricultural
knowledge frameworks (or system concepts) for organizing
agricultural research, capacity development for agricultur-
al transformation has correspondingly mirrored the shift in
approach from linear to an innovation systems perspective.
This change has reected to varying degrees in the agricul-
tural capacity development interventions in SSA by several
regional (AGRA, African Institute for Capacity Development
(AICAD), ANAFE, AWARD, FARA, and RUFORUM) and in-
ternational (e.g., CTA, FAO and CGIAR,) agencies over the
last decade. A few examples are discussed in the following
subsections.

219
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Transforming smallholder agriculture into a highly pro-
ductive, efcient, competitive and sustainable system
that assures food security and lifts millions out of poverty
requires a cadre of scientists, technicians, agribusiness
personnel and farmers with various capacities to ensure
success. The AGRA capacity development initiatives
aim to address the capacity gaps for increasing produc-
tivity and incomes of smallholder farmers and develop
the skills sets and capabilities required to promote a
value-chain driven transformation. The emphasis is on
postgraduate training (MSc and PhD), and short-term
courses for scientists, technicians and other key stake-
holders (including agro-dealers, seed company person-
nel, eld and laboratory technicians and farmers).
To date, over 750 postgraduate students specialized in
various disciplines such as seed systems, soils and ap-
plied agricultural economics have benetted from AGRA
scholarships. A special feature is that research for a PhD
thesis is done in the student’s home institution and in-
cludes an initial participatory rural appraisal for research
problem co-identication with farmers. In addition, vo-
cational training has been conducted for over 20,000
personnel from the seed industry (over 800), grain ag-
gregators, research support staff (eld and laboratory
technicians 300), extension workers (over 3,000), fertil-
izer inspectors, agro-dealers (over 16,000) and farmer
organizations.
The capacity development activities also focus on facili-
tating linkages between research, private sector and uni-
versities as well as building infrastructure in universities
and rural areas. Due to lack of adequate academic staff
(in terms of both numbers and qualications) in univer-
sities, arrangements for co-supervision of postgraduate
students’ research work has been fostered with the other
public national research agencies and the CGIAR. In ad-
dition, all training grants for universities include 40 per-
cent funding for infrastructure development, for example,
cold rooms, computers, laboratory equipment, irrigation
facilities, transport and seed processing plants. In rural
areas, AGRA has funded the construction of warehouses
for storing produce and market stalls.
Theses capacity development initiatives have had signif-
icant impacts in farmers’ elds and agri-businesses, and
on academia. For example, trained researchers have
released over 130 improved varieties of maize, rice,
beans, cassava, groundnuts, nger millet, sorghum, and
cowpea that are already widely adopted by farmers in 13
countries. A signicant contribution to the global knowl-
edge pool has been made through over 300 scientic
publications on priority African crops. Businesses and
farmers have also benetted from over 120,000 tons of
seeds produced.
Between 2008 and 2010, FARA, SROs (ASARECA,
CORAF/WECARD, and the then SADC/Food Agricul-
ture Natural Resources and national partners jointly im-
plemented the “Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural
Research and Development in Africa” (SCARDA) pro-
gram in 12 research and tertiary agricultural education
institutes located in 10 SSA countries. The program was
based on the ndings of a capacity needs assessment of
the NARS in SSA conducted in 2005 and had three sa-
lient design features: (i) the combination of training with
organizational development and change management;
(ii) mentoring and the use of team-based approaches to
solving problems; (iii) structured lesson learning—medi-
ated through specic learning platforms—that provided
“space” for reection thereby promoting a more open
and frequent communication amongst the project imple-
menting partners.
Due to these unique features, the SCARDA design was
ground-breaking in the region and was necessarily in-
formed by innovation systems thinking. The training as-
pect of the program was also holistic in that it targeted
the simultaneous strengthening of the knowledge-gen-
erating tripod of the focal institutes, namely: senior re-
searchers (managerial and technical courses), junior
researchers (MSc studies) and technicians (refresher
courses). The MSc component intended in its design
to instill both technical (training in selected professional
disciplines) and soft skills (through mentoring, coach-
ing and exposure) competencies in the graduates. This
was a signicant departure from prevailing postgraduate
training programs in the region. Other than serving to ll
existing capacity decits, the reintegrated MSc gradu-
ates would necessarily be the implicit change champions
in their respective institutes, working with senior men-
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY

220 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
tors and leveraging on their (youthful) enthusiasm and
learning outcomes to drive the change process toward
more effective research delivery. Reviews conducted
by FARA have since indicated key changes in regard
to management, quality and conduct of agricultural re-
search attributable to SCARDA implementation in the
targeted research and tertiary educational institutes
(Ojijo, et al., 2013a )
FARA launched a ground-breaking agribusiness capaci-
ty development initiative in 2010: “Universities, Business
and Research for Agricultural Innovation (UniBRAIN)”
program in 2010. The intended impacts of UniBRAIN
are jobs created and incomes increased through sus-
tainable agribusiness development. The program devel-
opment objective was to create mutually benecial part-
nerships between universities, research organizations
and the private sector for protable agribusinesses and
improvement in tertiary agribusiness education. So far,
UniBRAIN has created thriving agribusiness incubators
in specic value chains in Ghana (animal products val-
ue chains), Kenya (sorghum value chain), Uganda (ba-
nana and coffee value chains), Mali (non-timber forest
products value chain), and Zambia (horticultural value
chains). The program has also developed agribusiness
curricula that have been adopted by several universities
in many countries; commercialized near-market tech-
nologies; mentored incubatees and interns; and created
jobs. A collaborative venture between Agri-Business In-
cubation-International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ABI-ICRISAT) and the six UniBRAIN
incubators has produced a compendium of near-mar-
ket agribusiness technologies (Ariho, Karuppanchetty,
& Kumar, 2014). This will facilitate access to scalable
technologies by budding entrepreneurs through the
UniBRAIN agribusiness incubators. The success of the
UniBRAIN model has endeared it to several stakeholder
agencies and development partners including the AU,
AfDB, AGRA, and Africa-India Fund, which have ex-
pressed interest in up-scaling the model in their respec-
tive areas of interventions in Africa and Asia.
Currently, FARA is undertaking a comprehensive review
of human and institutional capacity endowment to im-
plement CAADP and S3A in over 20 countries across
Africa. The results will outline, inter alia, the existing
proportion of staff in different disciplines (e.g., plant
breeding, agronomy, soil science, social science, and
post-harvest technology) across value chains. This lev-
el of aggregation by discipline is not currently reported
on by ASTI/IFPRI data. Furthermore, the FARA review
will also provide the anticipated future demand for hu-
man capital in key competencies identied by the labor
market.
The Forum on Agricultural Resource Husbandry (FO-
RUM) was initially a Makerere University project funded
by the Rockefeller Foundation to strengthen MSc train-
ing in agriculture in Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Ugan-
da and Zimbabwe. In 2004, it became a corporate entity
adopting the name RUFORUM and has since demon-
strated phenomenal institutional growth with an increas-
ingly continental outlook. Between 2009 and 2010, RU-
FORUM served as an implementing partner responsible
for placing MSc students and ensuring quality control of
the MSc studies under the FARA SCARDA program in
the ASARECA sub-region. This role helped RUFORUM
garner critical social capital and visibility amongst key
stakeholders and partners that it has leveraged to: (i)
increase the number and regional span of member uni-
versities to over 60 in 25 countries; (ii) evolve in opera-
tional scope; and (iii) redene its business orientation.
The main thrusts of the RUFORUM business are three-
fold: regional postgraduate training in agriculture (MSc
and PhD); collaborative research administered through
CGSs; and fostering collaboration in research and train-
ing facilities to achieve economies of scale and scope.
To date, the RUFORUM regional programs have trained
over 381 PhD and 1,373 MSc students in various agri-
cultural disciplines. Of special note is that, RUFORUM
alumni have demonstrated a remarkable retention rate
of 94 percent in their countries of origin. Other key
achievements from RUFORUM interventions include:
focused faculties produce more relevant and user-ori-
ented research as well as proactive and skilled gradu-
ates; alumni are proactive and dynamic change-makers
in the agricultural sector; and member universities have
increased collaboration and also institutionalized en-
abling policies, principles and practices.
Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Africa
CASE STUDY

221
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
As a network of around 134 African colleges and uni-
versities, ANAFE focuses on review and reform of cur-
ricula; improving context relevance of learning materials
through content development and enhanced delivery;
improvement of institutional governance and leader-
ship; and creation of enabling policy and institutional en-
vironment through networking. Other areas include im-
proving agribusiness programs, enhancing the interest
of women and youth in taking up agricultural careers,
and developing capacity to tackle management of risks
and uncertainties.
In the recent past, ANAFE has clearly distinguished it-
self as a unique facilitator of curricula development for
uptake by member universities, especially on “agribusi-
ness” under the UniBRAIN program. Further, the ANAFE
emphasis on agroforestry has tended to focus on “ne-
glected and underutilized plant species” in collabora-
tion with Bioversity International. The Network has also
administered research grants to students, convened
thematic knowledge management symposia, facilitated
tracer studies of agricultural graduates, and promoted
linkages of member universities with the private sector
to foster job creation and income generation.
African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry
and Natural Resources Education
DAI is a private company that works on the frontlines
of international development transforming ideas into
action—action into impact. One of the projects of DAI,
“Africa Leadership Training and Capacity Building Pro-
gram” (Africa Lead), focusses on training African lead-
ers. Africa Lead is operated in partnership with the U.S.
Government’s Feed the Future (FTF) initiative and tar-
gets the capacity development of Africa’s emerging food
security leaders to devise and manage their country’s
CAADP investment plans. Africa Lead contributes to
institutional strengthening and leadership development,
two key challenging areas with few interventions across
Africa.
The Africa Lead approach involves assessment of ca-
pacity needs to understand the roles that people and
training institutions play in meeting FTF goals; tie those
roles to the capacity development activities; train Afri-
can food security leaders on the skills and knowledge
needed to scale-up activities in agriculture and food se-
curity; and create an interactive, easily-updated training
database that serves as a matchmaking tool for institu-
tions that seek to develop appropriate training materi-
als for their own use. To date, the program has trained
more than 1,600 CAADP champions from 29 countries
in leadership, change management, and strategic plan-
ning. It has also facilitated the participation of about 553
members of NGOs and the private sector to CAADP
workshops and created a database featuring 650 short-
course offerings relevant to African agricultural profes-
sionals.
Development Alternatives Inc.
The dearth of women in AR4D, has necessitated the
emphasis of women participation in most capacity de-
velopment interventions in SSA. Many programs cur-
rently have intentional targets to admit women in their
programs. For example the SCARDA program exacted
a 30 percent target for women participation in the agri-
cultural research management and MSc training. Fur-
ther, AGRA programs require 40 percent female stu-
dent’s admissions into the funded programs. ANAFE
has reported 42 percent female participants in funded
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY

222 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
students in one of its programs.
However, nothing has epitomized women empower-
ment in African AR4D more than the AWARD program.
AWARD invests in supporting African women scien-
tists and institutions to deliver innovative gender-re-
sponsive ARD solutions to tackle the biggest challeng-
es facing African smallholder farmers. Since 2008,
the tailored career-development fellowships offered
by AWARD have equipped top women agricultural
scientists across SSA to accelerate agricultural gains
through the strengthening of their science and lead-
ership skills. More than 1,000 scientists (465 fellows,
397 mentors and 366 mentees) from 16 countries—
Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozam-
bique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,
Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Senegal, and Burkina
Faso—have participated in the program since its in-
ception.
AWARD empowers women scientists or fellows
through three cornerstone interventions (mentoring,
science and leadership) to help them gain skills and
access resources and networks to ensure gender-re-
sponsiveness, innovations and visibility within the ag-
ricultural sector. Furthermore, the AWARD approach
believes that if these changes in fellows take place,
their academic research, entrepreneurial activities or
scientic work will be increasingly reputable, visible,
well-resourced and relevant to development in Africa.
As a result of these changes, it is expected that the
AWARD fellows will display commitment to organiza-
tional and societal change; exploit career and leader-
ship opportunities, and attain better career and lead-
ership achievements.
AWARD has created several components of leader-
ship that aim to assist fellows navigate organizational
gender issues, leverage team talents, manage con-
icts and use inuence appropriately. The leadership
courses include the AWARD Leadership Skills Course,
AWARD Women’s Leadership and Management
Course and AWARD Enhancing Negotiation Skills
for Women Course. As a way of applying their new-
ly gained leadership skills, AWARD requests fellows
to practice their new leadership skills by organizing a
role modeling event which is used to inspire students
to consider careers in agricultural science. The role
modeling experience also offers the AWARD Fellow
an opportunity to show case their newly acquired skills
to colleagues within their respective institutions.
Mentoring is a proven and powerful driver for career
development and particularly, for retaining women in
science. AWARD pairs each fellow with a mentor—a
respected female or male senior science profession-
al—who is chosen to match the fellow’s area of ex-
pertise and career goals, but also her personality and
style. Every fellow is mentored for the rst year of her
fellowship and in the second year, “shares forward” by
taking a female junior scientist who she herself men-
tors. Building science skills, one of the pillars of the
fellowship, offers each fellow a range of courses de-
signed to improve her ability to share her knowledge,
through science and proposal writing courses and to
improve her presentation skills through AWARD spon-
sored travel to scientic conferences and member-
ships in scientic organizations. This allows fellows to
connect with latest debates, methods and ndings rel-
evant to their research, and fellows do report that this
access increases their professional networks, visibility
and job opportunities.
The AWARD African Women in Science Empower-
ment Model (AWSEM) which examines expansion in
agency (power within, to do, over, with, and to empow-
er), is used to measure program success. Data for 249
fellows in the rst four rounds (2008–2011) were re-
cently analyzed and indicate: i) increased self-knowl-
edge, condence, motivation, vision and direction
(power from within) in over 70 percent of the fellows; ii)
increased scientic skills, leadership capabilities and
access to opportunities (power to do) in over 90 per-
cent of the fellows; iii) increased professional achieve-
ments and recognition (power over) in over 85 percent
of the fellows; iv) increased professional collaboration
(power with) in over 65 percent of the fellows; and v)
increased ability to inuence and inspire others into
gender responsive agricultural research (power to em-
power).

223
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Traditional capacity development is a directed process
focusing on an organizational entity (e.g., a research
institute) and seeks to impart technical skills to indi-
viduals within the organization, improve infrastructur-
al endowments of the organization, and inuence the
enabling environment. Based on the AIS concept, ca-
pacity development not only focuses on an entity, but
more importantly the functional inter-connectedness
between the component entities of a system. Further-
more, the AIS concept views capacity as an emergent
and dynamic property of the system, subject to constant
renewal as the various interests and motives of system
actors change with time.
TAP, a G20 initiative managed by FAO recently came
up with the Common Framework on Capacity Devel-
opment for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CF on
CDAIS). The Framework provides concepts, principles,
methodologies and tools to better understand the ar-
chitecture of AIS; assess capacity development needs;
and plan, implement, monitor and evaluate capacity de-
velopment interventions so as to lead to more sustain-
able and efcient AIS. Further, it emphasizes the crucial
role of facilitation (or intermediation), documentation
and knowledge management issues as well as that of
reection and learning for enabling agricultural innova-
tion (FAO, 2016).
The Common Framework proposes a dual pathway for
capacity development for agricultural innovation, name-
ly: the innovation niche and system levels (Figure 4).
The innovation niches are akin to the IAR4D innovation
platforms—the spaces in which small groups of actors
become part of a learning process where alternative so-
cio-technical practices can be experimented with and
developed in such a way that they subsequently inform
and inuence mainstream issues. The niche is a part of
a wider system consisting of multiple and diverse ac-
tors within the boundaries of a dened AIS. An enabling
environment for AIS emerges from interactive co-learn-
ing within and between niches. Capacity development
is aimed at enhancing capacities of individuals and or-
ganizations (actors in the innovation niche) on the one
hand, and capacities of other social, institutional and
political actors for improving enabling environment on
the other hand (Nichterlein et al., 2016). As shown in
Figure 4, the CD of individuals and organizations will
be linked to their involvement within niches or at sys-
tem level. In Africa, the Common Framework on CDAIS
is being piloted in Angola, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and
Rwanda.
FAO—Tropical Agriculture Platform
CASE STUDY
Figure 4: Dual pathway for capacity development proposed by the CF on CDAIS
System Level
Niche
Level
Niche
Level
Niche
Level
Individuals
Organizations
Enabling environment

224 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
The Impact of Capacity Development
Few studies have estimated the economic impact and
cost-effectiveness of capacity development interventions.
This lack of evidence on economic impact is a weak point
in capacity development evaluation. As reported by Post-
humus, Martin and Chancellor (2012), the reasons for the
limited number of evaluations on the impact on agricultural
development include: methodological difculties in assess-
ing impact at this level (e.g., lack of counterfactuals and
attribution gaps); the long time horizon over which capacity
development generally translates into observed outcomes
and impact; the short timescales over which capacity de-
velopment interventions sometimes operate; and the limit-
ed attention given to and resources provided for M&E and
impact assessment.
Conclusions & Policy
Recommendations
Growth in agriculture as a primary sector is imperative for
rural development, positive structural transformation, and
broad-based macro-economic economic growth. The path
to attaining the needed agricultural productivity growth can
only be illuminated by sustained and systematic home-
grown research and innovation. Positive developments
have occurred in regard to the evolution, conguration,
and funding of agricultural research systems in SSA over
the last decade or so. Focus must be on consolidating
and sustaining the gains whilst addressing new and per-
sistent challenges. AAS have also undergone considerable
changes in terms of actor array, modes of delivery and
roles in the innovation system. Capacity, in all its dimen-
sions, is a core imperative for agricultural transformation in
Africa. Regional initiatives, notably the ACBF Capacity In-
dicators, are serving to buttress this key point and thereby
justify increased investments in capacity development for
agricultural innovation. Like the progressive elaboration of
systems concepts in agricultural research, approaches to
capacity development have similarly tended to embrace a
systems perspective.
The following are some pertinent conclusions and recom-
mendations:
1. Agricultural research systems have evolved in SSA
countries to varying degrees. Currently, semi-autono-
mous agencies, especially NARI/NARO, are the main
executors of public agricultural research in most coun-
tries and the linear mode of technology generation and
transfer still persists. There is opportunity for other po-
tential actors (i.e., universities, private sector, farmers
and NGOs) to play increasing and integrated roles in
national agricultural research, for example, around the
concept of AIS. Initiatives like IAR4D based on innova-
tion platforms have served to promote the AIS concept
at sub-national national scales. The IPs have been
successful in delivering poverty-alleviating technology
along specic value chains in many SSA countries.
The CF on CDAIS elaborated under the TAP initiative
is also expected to further assist in developing the na-
tional AIS capacity.
2. At continental level, institutional developments insti-
gated by regional agencies like FARA have mirrored
the AIS perspective. Ultimately, the continental institu-
tional array needs to map onto and strengthen corre-
sponding actors at the national level where agricultural
transformation must take place. Agricultural research,
technology generation and dissemination may not be
a programmatic pillar in the current CAADP dispen-
sation, but ongoing institutional reconguration around
the S3A will ensure that agricultural progress in the
second decade of the CAADP is knowledge-driven by
conscious investments in and application of science.
The need to strengthen NARS is underscored by suc-
cess stories in emerging economies exemplied by
Brazil. Evident progress registered over the last de-
cade in countries like Rwanda is showing that such
transformative experiences can and are already taking
root in the SSA region
3. The appetite for funding AR4D by African countries is
still as depressed as ever. The outlook for suprana-
tional agencies, at least from the donor perspective,
is also not very good although there are prospects of
some signicant funding from AfDB under the TAAT
initiative. As such, funding remains a critical issue in
SSA AR4D and innovative funding mechanisms away
from the traditional donor-dependence are called for.
National governments need to prioritize and fund
AR4D if the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and
their families are to be improved. Some suggested av-
enues for sustainable home-grown funding of AR4D
in SSA countries include: leveraging philanthropic
funding nationally and abroad; encouraging business
orientation in NARIs and universities; creating suitable
regimes (e.g., IP regimes) for proprietary partnerships
with private sector players; appropriating pooled levies
from high-value commodity proceeds; setting up of re-
search trusts; and competitive grant funds.
4. Extension approaches can only be effective if the AAS
that use them: (1) have information and recommen-
dations that are relevant, appropriate for and useful
to farmers; (2) have the needed attitude and skills to
train farmers: (3) have operational budgets to imple-
ment programs: and (4) have systems to elicit feed-

225
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
back from farmers and use it to modify programs. In
fact, many extension systems have critical deciencies
in one or more of these areas. A starting point in as-
sisting AAS to improve their effectiveness is to con-
duct simple diagnostic assessments at a national or
province/district level to identify key constraints limiting
AAS performance (for examples of such assessments
see MEAS, 2016).
5. Possible innovations to improve effectiveness of
AAS could include coordinating mechanisms, policy
changes, policy implementation measures, capaci-
ty strengthening, increasing operational budgets and
measures to enhance private sector and civil society
participation in extension initiatives. More evaluations
of AAS approaches are also needed to assess what
types of advisory system approaches work well for
particular types of agricultural technologies, for partic-
ular target groups (e.g., women) at what cost and how
these approaches may be improved.
6. A unied framework for capacity development does
not exist, but recent initiatives like TAP have suggest-
ed some schema for harmonizing the diversity of prac-
tices in capacity development for agricultural innova-
tions.
7. Several institutions are contributing to capacity devel-
opment of AR4D capacity on the continent. Equally,
there is need for strong partnerships among these ac-
tors to leverage on each other’s strengths and ensure
effective capacity development for agricultural innova-
tions. An in depth situational analysis on capacity de-
velopment interventions by various actors, for exam-
ple, AGRA, FARA, RUFORUM and others is necessary
and lessons from these programs could inform policies
and shape a way for more involvement of donors, pri-
vate sector and government in capacity development.
Some work has been documented on formal training,
but very few studies have analyzed the capacity gaps
at lower levels and along the value chain.
8. Failure to demonstrate tangible impacts of capacity
development interventions partly contributes to low
investments in this area. There is need for a dened
and evidence-based advocacy for capacity develop-
ment by multiple organizations, especially based on
rigorous studies to demonstrate the long term results
of capacity development.

226 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
References
Adekunle, A. A., Ellis-Jones, J., Ajibefun, I., Nyikal, R. A., Bangali, S., Fatunbi, O., & Ange, A. (2012). Agricultural inno-
vation in sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from multiple-stakeholder approaches. Accra, Ghana: Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa.
African Capacity Building Foundation. (2012). Africa Capacity Indicators 2012: Capacity Development for Agricultural
Transformation and Food Security. . Retrieved from http://www.acbf-pact.org/what-we-do/how-we-do-it/knowledge-learn-
ing/africa-capacity-report (Accessed 29 May 2016).
Akinbamijo, O., & Ojijo, N. K. O. (2014). “The Organic Option for a Greener World.” A keynote paper presented by the
FARA Executive Director at the 18th IFOAM Organic World Congress, held 13-15 October 2014, in İstanbul, Turkey.
Akinbamijo, Y., & Ojijo, N. K. O. (2016). “Situating the grain legume agenda in African agricultural research for develop-
ment strategies.” A keynote paper presented by the FARA Executive Director at the Pan-African Grain Legume and World
Cowpea Conference, held 28 February to 4 March 2016 at the AVANI Victoria Falls Resort in Livingstone, Zambia.
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. (2014). Africa Agriculture Status Report: Climate Change and smallholder agri-
culture in sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi: AGRA.
Alston, J. M., Wyatt, T. J., Pardey, P. G., Marra, M. C., & Chan-Kang, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of rates of return to ag-
ricultural Research and Development. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Alves, E. (2012). Embrapa: a successful case of institutional innovation. In G. B. M. Junior & J. B. S. F. Filho, (Eds.),
Brazilian Agriculture Development and Changes (pp. 144–161). Brasília, DF: Brazil: Embrapa..
African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education. (2014). Annual Report 2014. Retrieved
from http://anafe-africa.org/reports/ (Accessed 4 July 2016). NOT IN TEXT
Ariho, A., Karuppanchetty, S. M., & Kumar, R. B. (2014). “Technologies for African Agribusiness Development”. Agri-Busi-
ness Incubation Program of Agribusiness and Innovation Platform, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru-502324, Telangana, India. Retrieved from http://oar.icrisat.org/9064/1/Technologies%20
for%20African%20Agri-Business%20Development.pdf (Accessed 10 July 2016).
Bahiigwa, G., Collins, J., Makombe, T., Jemaneh, S., & Tefera, W. (2014). Tracking Key CAADP Indicators and Implemen-
tation. In O. Badiane, T. Makombe, & G. Bahiigwa, (Eds.), Promoting Agricultural Trade to Enhance Resilience in Africa
(pp. 70–77). ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2013. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Baser, H., & Morgan, P. (2008). Capacity, change and performance: A study report. ECDPM Discussion Paper No. 59B.
European Centre for Development Policy Management (Centre européen de gestion des politiques de développement).
ECDPM, Maastricht. Available at: http://ecdpm.org/publications/capacity-change-performance-study-report. Accessed
12 August 2016.
Beintema, N. M., & Gert-Jan Stads, G.-J. (2008). Measuring agricultural research investments A revised global picture.
Retrieved from http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Global_revision.pdf (Accessed 11 July 2016).
Beintema, N. and Stads, J. G. (2014). Taking Stock of National Agricultural R&D Capacity in Africa South of the Sahara.
ASTI Synthesis Report. ASTI/IFPRI, Available at: http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/AfricaRegionalReport2014.pdf. (Accessed
19 May 2016).
Bell, M. (2015). ICT−Powering Behavior Change for a Brighter Agricultural Future (MEAS Technical Note). Modernizing
Extension and Advisory Services Project. Washington DC: USAID.
Bellu, L. G. (2011). Development and Development Paradigms: A (Reasoned) Review of Prevailing Visions. EASYPol
Resources for Policy Making. Module 102. Rome, Italy: FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/882/
dening_development_paradigms_102en.pdf (Accessed 16 May 2016).
Beye, G. (2002). Impact of Foreign Assistance on Institutional Development of National Agricultural Research Systems
in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO Research and Technology Paper 10). Rome, Italy: SPAAR and FAO. Retrieved from http://
www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4349E/y4349e05.htm#bm05 (Accessed 11 August 2016).
Bizimana, C. (2014). Rwanda’s Achievements under CAADP I (2008–2012). Rwanda Strategic Analysis and Knowledge
Support Systems (SAKSS), Ministry of Agriculture, Kigali, Rwanda.
CGIAR (2014). Capacity Development Framework. CGIAR Capacity Development Community of Practice. Re-

227
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
trieved from http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/supporting-incorporation-of-capacity-development-into-cgiar-activi-
ties-a-new-framework-now-available/ Accessed on 11 August 2016.
Chema, S., Gilbert, E., & Roseboom, J. (2003). A Review of Key Issues and Recent Experiences in Reforming Agricultural
Research in Africa. ISNAR Research Report 24. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
Christoplos, I. (2010). Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Ofce of Knowledge Exchange, Re-
search and Extension. Rome: FAO.
Davis, K., Franzel, S., Spielman, D. (2016). Extension Options for Better Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction: A Selected
Review 2012–2015. MSU International Development Paper No. 143. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Retrieved from http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/papers/idwp143.pdf
Dietz, T., Foeken, D., Soeters, S. and Klaver, W. (2014). Agricultural dynamics and food security trends in Kenya. De-
velopmental Regimes in Africa (DRA) Project, ASC-AFCA Collaborative Research Group: Agro-Food Clusters in Africa
(AFCA). Research Report 2013-ASC-4. London/Leiden.
Eicher, C. K. (2006). The evolution of agricultural education and training: Global insights of relevance for Africa. Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/sd/erp/documents2006/
globalaetinsightseicher.pdf
European Commission. (2008). European Commission Non-Paper: Guidelines on Agricultural Research for Develop-
ment. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/les/methodology-agricultur-
al-research-for-development-200806_en_2.pdf (Accessed 31 May 2016).
Evenson, R. (1997). The economic contributions of agricultural extension to agricultural and rural development. In B.
Swanson, R. Bentz & Sofranko, A. (Eds.), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp. 27–36). Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). The TAP Common Framework on Capacity Development
for Agriculture Innovation System. FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.tropagplatform.org/overview-tap-com-
mon-framework (Accessed 19 May 2016).
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2006). Agricultural Research Delivery in Africa: An Assessment of the Require-
ments for Efcient, Effective and Productive National Agricultural Research Systems in Africa. Main Report and Strategic
Recommendations. FARA, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2006). Framework for African Agricultural Productivity / Cadre pour la produc-
tivité agricole en Afrique. Accra, Ghana: FARA.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2014). Science agenda for agriculture in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to
transform agriculture in Africa. Accra, Ghana: FARA.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2015). Operationalising the ‘Science Agenda Consortium’ for CAADP Acceler-
ated Africa Agricultural Growth and Transformation (A3GT). FARA, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished.
Faure, G., Pautrizel, L., de Romémont, A., Toillier, A., Odru, M., & Havard, M. (2015). Management Advice for Family
Farms to Strengthen Entrepreneurial Skills. Note 8. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services.
GFRAS: Lindau, Switzerland.
Franzel, S., Sinja, J., & Simpson, B. (2014). Farmer-to-farmer extension in Kenya: the perspectives of organizations using
the approach. ICRAF Working Paper No. 181. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
Franzel, S., Degrande, A. Kiptot, E., Kirui, J., Kugonza, J., Preissing, J., & Simpson, B. (2015a). Farmer-to-farmer ex-
tension. Note 7. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. Global Forum for Rural Advisory
Services: Lindau, Switzerland.
Franzel, S., Degrande, A. Kiptot, E. Kundhlande, G. Tsafack, S., & Simpson, B. 2015b. Does farmer-to-farmer extension
increase women’s participation and access to advisory services? Lessons from Kenya, Cameroon and Malawi. In L.U.
Snyder (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Ed-
ucation. April 27 to May 4, 2015 Wageningen, Netherlands (pp. 86–88). AIAEE, Davie FL. Retrieved from https://www.
aiaee.org/images/stories/AIAEE/2015Conference/conf_abs.pdf
Georghiou, L. (2013). Effectiveness of National Research Systems. Discussion paper for the 2013 ERAC mutual learning
seminar on research and innovation policies. Session I. Brussels, 21 March 2013.

228 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. (2011) Rural advisory services worldwide: A synthesis of actors and issues.
GFRAS synthesis report. Lindau, Switzerland: GFRAS.
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. (2012) The new extensionist. Lindau, Switzerland: GFRAS.
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. (2015) Producer organizations in rural advisory services: evidence and expe-
riences. Lindau, Switzerland: GFRAS.
Government of Kenya. (2012). The National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy. Nairobi, Kenya.
Government of Rwanda. (2009). National Agriculture Extension Strategy. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resourc-
es, Kigali, Rwanda.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.
Idachaba, F. S. (1997). Instability of National Agricultural Research Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from Nige-
ria. ISNAR Research Report No. 13. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
Initiative for Smallholder Finance. (2015). Smallholder Impact Literature Wiki. Retrieved from http://smallholderimpactlit-
eratureglobaldevincubator.org/index.php/ Technical_assistance_to_farmers,_both_productivity-and_business-related,_
builds_more_resilient,_
Jack, B. K. (2013). Constraints on the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries. Agricultural Tech-
nology Adoption Initiative, J-PAL (MIT) and CEGA (UC Berkeley) Literature.
Jayne, T. S., Chamberlin, J., Traub, L., Sitko, N., Muyanga, M., Yeboah, F., . . . Kachule, R.(2015). Africa’s changing
farmland ownership: The rise of the emergent investor farmer. Plenary paper presented at the 29th Triennial International
Conference of Agricultural Economics, August 13, 2015, Milan Italy.
Kimenye, L., & McEwan, M. (eds). (2014). Scaling up, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies using
Innovation Platforms—Lessons from Eastern and Central Africa. Entebbe, Uganda: Association for Strengthening Agri-
cultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa.
Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., Nora, C., & Steyn, A. (2016) “Edu-tainment” television for disseminating information about agri-
cultural technology. GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. Global Forum for Rural Advisory
Services: Lindau, Switzerland
Kundhlande, G., Franzel, S., Simpson, B., & Gausi, E. (2014). Farmer-to-farmer extension approach in Malawi: a survey
of organizations. ICRAF Working Paper No. 183. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre.
Mango, N., Nyikahadzoi, K., Makate, C., Dunjana, N., & Siziba, S. (2015) The impact of integrated agricultural re-
search for development on food security among smallholder farmers of southern Africa, Agrekon, 54(3), 107–125. DOI:
10.1080/03031853.2015.1084942
Masangano, C., & Mthinda C. 2012. Pluralistic Extension System in Malawi. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01171 April 2012.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Mbonigaba, J. J. M. (2014). Science application for agriculture growth, economic and social development in Rwanda.
Retrieved from http://www.mineduc.gov.rw/innovation/IMG/pdf/12March2014_Session4_Agriculture_Muhinda.pdf (Ac-
cessed 1 July 2016).
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Wilde, V., Noordeloos, M., . . . Beintema, N.
(2011). Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, Extension. Research Monograph. Washington, DC: Interna-
tional Food Policy Research Institute.
Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. (2016). The Twigire Muhinzi Extension Model Combining the Farmer Pro-
moter and Farmer Field School Approaches. Center for Information and Communication in Agriculture. Kigali, Rwanda:
MINAGRI.
Murthey, G. 2011. Tanzanian Media Environment: Current Access, Potential for Growth and Strategies for Information
Dissemination. Intermedia. The AudienceScapes Project. London: Intermedia. Retrieved from http://www.intermedia.org/
wp-content/uploads/Tanzania-Media-Environment_0.pdf

229
AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
New Partnership for Africa’s Development. (2013). CAADP – Sustaining the Momentum into the Next Decade. Retrieved
from http://www.nepad-caadp.net/sustaining-caadp-momentum (Accessed 12 August 2016).
Nichterlein, K., Ekong, J., Chowdhury, A., Trigo, E., Grovermann, C., Sonnino, A., & Moussa, A. S. (2016, June). Develop-
ing capacity for change to enhance the potential of innovation in agriculture in support of the SDGs. Keynote Paper pre-
sented during the Capacity Strengthening Side Event held at the 7th Africa Agriculture Science Week and FARA General
Assembly, Kigali, Rwanda. FARA, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished.
Nkonya, E., Kato, E., Oduol, J., Pali, P., & Farrow, A. (2013). Initial impact of integrated agricultural research for develop-
ment in East and Central Africa. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 8(3), 172–184.
Ojijo, N. K. O., Annor-Frempong, I., Ennin, S. A., & Adu-Dapaah, H. (2013a). Monitoring of SCARDA-Induced Institu-
tional Changes at CSIR-Crops Research Institute, Ghana. Unpublished Report. Forum for Agricultural Research in Af-
rica (FARA), Accra, Ghana. Retrieved from http://faraafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Monitoring-of-SCARDA-In-
duced-institutional-changes_CSIR-CROPS-research-institute_Ghana.docx.pdf (Accessed 29 May 2016).
Ojijo, N. K. O., Jakinda, D. O., & Annor-Frempong, I. (2013b). Assessment of Current Capacities and Needs for Institu-
tional and Individual Capacity Development in Agricultural Innovations Systems in Africa – Regional Report for Africa.
Submitted to FAO as partial report for the Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP), a G20 initiative coordinated by FAO and
implemented in Africa by FARA, Asia by SEARCA and Central America by CIAT. Retrieved from http://www.tropagplat-
form.org (Accessed 29 May 2016).
Posthumus, H., Martin, A., & Chancellor, T. (2012). A systematic review on the impacts of capacity strengthening of
agricultural research systems for development and the conditions of success. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Re-
search Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Ragasa, C., Mazunda, J., & Kadzamira, M. (2015). The National Extension Policy of Malawi – Lessons from Implementa-
tion. Malawi Strategy Support Program Note 23. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.
Rajalahti, R. (2012). Sourcebook overview and user guide. In R. Rajalati, R..:( Eds.), Agricultural Innovation Systems: An
Investment Sourcebook (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Root Capital. (2015). Investing in resilience: A shared value approach to Agricultural Extension. Issue Brief No. 3. Root
Capital, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Roseboom, H. (2004). Adopting an agricultural innovation system perspective: implications for ASARECA’s strategy. En-
tebbe, Uganda: Association for the Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa.
Roseboom, J. (2012). Supranational Collaboration in Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conference Working
Paper 5. ASTI/IFPRI-FARA Conference, held in Accra, Ghana, 5–7 December 2011.
Rwanda Agricultural Board. (2015). Research Department. Retrieved from http://rab.gov.rw/departments/research/ (Ac-
cessed 17 May 2016).
Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Sartas, M., Lamers, D., Campbell, M. M., Ogbonna, I., . . . Leeuwis, C. (2015). Innovation platforms:
Experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Experimental Agriculture, 1–25,
available on CJO2015. doi:10.1017/S001447971500023X
Simpson, B., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kundhlande G., & Tsafack, S. 2015. Farmer to farmer extension: Issues in plan-
ning and implementation. MEAS Technical Note. Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services. Washington, DC: USAID.
Stads, J. G. (2012). Africa’s Agricultural R&D Funding Rollercoaster: An Analysis of the Elements of Funding Volatility.
Conference Working Paper 2. Prepared for the ASTI/IFPRI-FARA Conference entitled “Agricultural R&D: Investing in
Africa’s Future – Analyzing Trends, Challenges and Opportunities”, held 5–7 December 2011, Accra, Ghana.
Taylor, T. A. (1991). Organization and Structure of National Agricultural Research Systems in Anglophone Sub-Saharan
Africa. Working Paper No. 38. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands.
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. (2012). Agricultural extension: a time for change. Report on the
conference Innovations in Extension and Advisory Services, Linking Knowledge to Action for Food and Livelihoods, Nai-
robi, Kenya. Wageningen, Netherlands: CTA.
The Africa Report. (2015). “Ghana mobile phone boom” posted online 9 July 2015. Retrieved on http://www.theafricare-
port.com/West-Africa/ghana-mobile-phone-operators-drive-telecoms-boom.html (Accessed 20 May 2016).

230 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
The East African. (2016, 27 February–4 March). “Half of EA population now on mobile network”. Nairobi, Kenya: The East
African.
Tizikara, C. (2005). Effectiveness of Competitive Grant System in fostering research for development activities: Lessons
and experiences from ASARECA CGS. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Vol. 7, 1557–1561.
Tsafack, S., Degrande, A., Franzel, S., & Simpson, B. 2014. Farmer-to-farmer extension in Cameroon: a survey of ex-
tension organizations (ICRAF Working Paper No. 182). Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. Retrieved from http://www.
worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/PDFs/WP14383.PDF
Tsafack, S., Degrande, A., Franzel S., & Simpson, B. (2015). Farmer-to-farmer Extension: a survey of lead farmers in
Cameroon (ICRAF Working Paper No. 195). Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/down-
loads/Publications/PDFS/WP15009.pdf
UFAAS. (2016). Uganda Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services website. Retreived from www.ufaas-ugandacf.org/
(Accessed 30 May 2016).
Ugbe, U. (2013). An Assessment of National Agricultural Innovation Systems in Botswana, Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. A
consultancy report submitted to FARA. FARA, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. 2015. Industrializing through trade. Economic Report on Africa. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: UNECA.
University of Reading. (2014). Assessing the Impacts of Shamba Shape Up. Reading, UK: University of Reading.
Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., Vojtkova, M., Phillips, D., . . . White, H. (2014). Farmer eld schools for
improving farming practices and farmer outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6 Oslo, Norway:
The Campbell Collaboration.
World Bank. (2007). Project Appraisal Document on the First Phase of the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program
(WAAPP). The World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P094084/west-africa-ag-
ricultural-productivity-program-waapp?lang=en (Accessed 31 May 2016).
World Bank. (2012). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit for the First Series of Projects under the Second
Phase of the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-2A). The World Bank, Washington, DC. Re-
trieved from http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P129565/west-africa-agricultural-productivity-program-2a?lang=en (Ac-
cessed 31 May 2016).
Zhou, Y., & Babu, S. (2015). Knowledge-driven Development: Private Extension and Global Lessons. Cambridge, MA:
Academic Press.