1. INTRODUCTION

Purpose of this study

The present study provides a preliminary response to the question: How can developing countries encourage the various systems, organizations and producers concerned with agricultural research, education and extension, and operating in the public or private sector, to behave as one system with regard to the agricultural development component of rural development? In other words: What do developing countries need to establish and maintain an Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) that targets agriculture - broadly conceived as crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry - as a main component of rural development (RD)? Cases studies on the present status and direction of AKIS/RD in ten countries are reviewed and compared with a view to providing preliminary answers to this question.

Following the publication of a joint FAO/World Bank document on AKIS/RD: Strategic vision and guiding principles (2000),^[1] the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) commissioned case studies of AKIS/RD in various countries. The case studies were based on almost identical Terms of Reference, and set out to discover the extent to which an AKIS/RD vision and principles were being pursued. The case studies were carried out over the period 2000 to 2003 by national consultants in Cameroon, Chile, Cuba,^[2] Egypt, Lithuania, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda. In addition to gathering data on interventions that have contributed to the development of AKIS/RD in these ten countries, FAO also held national workshops on AKIS/RD in four of them - Malaysia, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda. The Organization also plans to hold an international technical meeting on AKIS/RD at some later date.

The ten country case studies on AKIS/RD cover various regions: South Asia, North Africa, East Africa, West Africa, the Americas, and Eastern Europe. They also fall into three distinct economic categories as defined by the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for 2003: low-income (Cameroon, Pakistan and Uganda); lower middle-income (Cuba, Egypt and Morocco); and upper middle-income (Chile, Lithuania, Malaysia, and Trinidad and Tobago). While each consultant received almost the same Terms of Reference, every case study is distinct for the reasons already mentioned, and also because the status of AKIS/RDs and the issues that confront them differ from case to case.

The present study highlights unique or innovative steps undertaken in the countries to strengthen AKIS/RD, assesses the commonalities among the countries, compares the strengths and weaknesses that emerge in each case study, and reviews the lessons learned as underscored by the consultants. On the basis of this synthesis of experiences from the ten countries, the study puts forward a preliminary set of normative guidelines for advancing AKIS/RD.

Organization of the study

The study is organized into six main sections, beginning with the present Introduction. The second section discusses the ten country case studies in terms of their different stages of AKIS and AKIS/RD development. Its Table 2 identifies 24 criteria that are utilized to rank each country’s commitment to the advancement of AKIS/RD and/or the actions that countries have taken to promote this. These 24 criteria are organized into five main categories: 1) policy environment; 2) institutional structure for supporting innovation; 3) conditions for expressing demand for innovation; 4) partnerships and networks; and 5) financing systems for innovation. The original nine principles outlined in the FAO/World Bank document are handled under these five main categories.

The third section examines the strengths and weaknesses relevant to AKIS/RD in the ten country case studies, in line with the five main categories and the 24 criteria. It then goes on to highlight innovative features in the various country studies, and these again are organized according to the main categories. The fourth section presents lessons learned regarding AKIS/RD development in each of the countries, as expressed by the national consultants.

The fifth section provides guidelines for strengthening AKIS/RD, drawing on the case studies and their recommendations; this discussion is also based on the five main categories. Section 6, the conclusion, "from idea into action", summarizes the present study and its implications for advancing AKIS/RD in developing countries. Following the conclusion, References list the country case studies and the books and articles utilized in developing the present study. Finally, the Annexes include, among other things, condensed profiles of the ten countries whose case studies form the basis for the present study on AKIS/RD.

The AKIS/RD vision and principles

Agriculture’s challenge is to achieve the integral goal of being productive, profitable, sustainable and non-polluting. The AKIS/RD challenge is to help make this happen. The catalyst for the present review was the joint FAO/World Bank (2000) publication on developing a strategic vision and guiding principles for AKIS/RD. This brief document (20 pages) outlines a vision, strategies and guiding principles for designing AKIS/RD systems. The main purpose underlying the document is to promote rural development by reducing poverty, promoting gains in agricultural productivity, and ensuring food security and environmental sustainability in developing countries. It sets out the following four main operational purposes:

1. To set forth a shared vision for an integrated approach to agricultural education, research and extension that would respond to the technology, knowledge and information needs of millions of rural people, helping them to reach informed decisions on the better management of their farms, households and communities.

2. To facilitate dialogue with decision-makers, in both government and development organizations, ensuring that proposals for investment in AKIS/RD are well founded and receive due consideration.

3. To provide the staff of FAO and the World Bank, and their counterparts in client countries, with a common set of principles to guide their work in agricultural education, research and extension.

4. To ensure synergies from complementary investments in education, research and extension, resulting in more effective and efficient systems.

The strategic vision underlying the FAO/World Bank document is focused on rural people, especially farmers, pastoralists and those who eke out a living from forestry or fishing - in the present study, these people are referred to generally as "agricultural producers". Although some current trends emphasize off-farm and other-than-farm income sources (AgREN E-Discussion 2004), most rural people depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihoods.

The FAO/World Bank document proposes a strategic vision for an AKIS/RD that: 1) accurately identifies the constraints and opportunities facing male and female farmers and herders and their wider communities, through engaging scientific methods to generate appropriate and sustainable economic, social and technological responses; 2) helps rural people, particularly farmers, to gather the social skills and technologies needed to augment their productivity, manage their natural resources sustainably, raise their incomes, collaborate effectively with one another in addressing their common problems, and become effectively involved with other stakeholders in determining the process of further technology generation and adoption; 3) enables governments to carry out activities for the public good - for example, ensuring food safety, conserving the environment, reducing poverty, and promoting education, research and extension, whether from public or private suppliers; and 4) provides education and continuous training and mutual learning opportunities for educators, researchers, extensionists and farmers alike, allowing them to work together effectively.

The FAO/World Bank document lays out nine guiding principles, which are intended to assist in achieving the AKIS/RD objectives of poverty reduction, agricultural productivity gains, food security and environmental sustainability. These guiding principles are:

• economic efficiency;

• careful matching between the comparative advantages of organizations and the functions they perform;

• subsidiary;

• clear repartition of costs;

• careful assessment and optimal mixing of funding and delivery mechanisms;

• pluralistic and participatory approaches;

• effective linkages among farmers, educators, researchers, extensionists and other AKIS/RD stakeholders;

• building human and social resources;

• sound monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The question then is how best to realize this vision and apply these principles. To respond to this question, the present study reviews the commonalities, lessons learned and recommendations put forward in the case studies. It also adds 15 other factors that appear essential to the successful development of AKIS/RD. On the basis of this examination, a number of normative guidelines are put forward for consideration.

From AKIS agencies to an AKIS to AKIS/RD

AKIS and AKIS/RD

A successful institutional system is more than the sum of its parts (Rivera and Schram, 1987b; Röling, 1989). A set of institutions becomes a "system" when its individual components are interlinked or articulated, and the separate institutions are connected so that they communicate and cooperate in action to share their human, physical and financial resources in order to achieve one or more common goals.

AKIS agencies

In most countries, modern agricultural development efforts started with the establishment of research, extension and agricultural education institutions. These were frequently stand-alone research institutes, universities and extension services that, in theory, maintained linkages with each other to promote the development and transfer of new technologies to farmers. However, linkages among the institutions were often weak, while those with the clients (e.g. farmers) were even weaker. Overall performance was far below expectations, which led to a need to move beyond independent AKIS agencies in order to promote rural innovation more efficiently and effectively.

The AKIS "knowledge triangle"

Endeavours to articulate the set of knowledge systems, or subsystems of agricultural research, extension and education, into an AKIS are not new. Indeed, the literature is replete with books and articles on linkages and linking of the three major agricultural knowledge systems. (In this study, these systems will henceforth be referred to as "subsystems", as they are considered parts of a larger AKIS framework aimed at improving agriculture within a general concern for rural development.)

In addition to the initiatives taken by FAO and the World Bank, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held a major conference in 2000,^[3] which brought together directors and representatives of agricultural research, agricultural advisory services and higher education in agriculture to discuss what is termed Agricultural Knowledge Systems (AKS). In September 2003, the World Bank held a workshop for Eastern European and Central Asian countries in Tbilsi, Georgia to discuss the overall reform of AKIS, while focusing on the sustainability of Competitive Grant Programs (World Bank, 2003b).

The original diagram to illustrate AKIS/RD^[4] (Figure 1) simply highlights the three basic institutional components of AKIS/RD and the central purpose of the system - to serve farmers, whom in this document are more aptly referred to as "agricultural producers".^[5] The illustration does not point to other entities involved, such as government, the private sector, civic society, support systems, markets, etc. nor does this simplified diagram recognize the importance of AKIS/RD to users and beneficiaries other than rural producers. In addition, it implicitly emphasizes the importance of agriculture for rural development; even though it is widely recognized that agricultural innovation is important in itself and in its support for other pathways, other pathways also contribute to the development of the rural sector (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2001; Berdegué and Escobar, 2003; FAO, 2003a).

Figure 1
Agricultural Knowledge and Information System for Rural Development

Figure 1 was originally intended to suggest that agricultural information systems for rural development link institutions with people (the end-users of knowledge and information, who are agricultural producers) to promote learning. AKIS/RD: Strategic vision and guiding principles (FAO/World Bank, 2000) proposes generating, sharing and utilizing agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information in a strategically aligned system. Such a system integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers and extensionists to harness knowledge and information from various sources for better farming and improved livelihoods, as well as regional and national stability and growth. This integration is needed now more than ever, as countries confront the challenges of competing in a globalized economy and building competitive advantages aimed at global agricultural market opportunities.

AKIS/RD development

Other ideal models of AKIS/RD that have been put forward are more inclusive of the contextual and environmental systems involved. One such model, which was used by the consultant for the Pakistan case study, illustrates four major subsystems and their idealized information flows: 1) the knowledge creation subsystem; 2) the knowledge diffusion subsystem; 3) the knowledge utilization subsystem; and 4) the agricultural support subsystem involved in credit, input and market functions. Given the inclusiveness of the AKIS/RD vision, if both public and private entities are assumed to operate within the four subsystems, the Pakistan model (adapted to place agricultural producers at its centre) offers a more comprehensive model that includes agricultural support systems, such as credit institutions, supplies and markets (Figure 2).

Figure 2
An idealized AKIS/RD model

The Pakistan model might be further shaped to include relevant non-system components, such as government policy, institutional commitment, communication systems other than those assisting extension, and other relevant physical and human resources, as shown in Figure 3. This model, which illustrates the various components surrounding and influencing an AKIS/RD, is a more comprehensive rendering of the idealized AKIS/RD model, bringing together the various main actors with an impact on AKIS/RD and the specific subsystems that comprise the system. Although the addition of these components (policy, physical and human resources, communications, and institutional commitment) may render the model slightly messy, Figure 3 nonetheless suggests the numerous elements in AKIS/RD. In fact, it could be made messier in that the policy, physical and human resources, communications and institutional elements should be connected to each of the four main sets of institutions - research, extension, education and support systems - which themselves should include both public and private sector entities. In reality Figure 3, would more likely look like a web of crisscrossing connections.

Rural development

Rural development includes, but is broader than, agriculture and its development. Indeed, nonagricultural activities such as micro-enterprise development are priorities within the rural development strategies of international agencies, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (Echeverría, 1998). However, agriculture remains central to rural development. Most rural populations are engaged in some form of agricultural development, and although agricultural pursuits may not comprise the majority of all endeavours undertaken by rural people, they represent a plurality among the income-generating activities pursued by rural populations.

Figure 3
A comprehensive AKIS/RD model

International publications suggest that productivity gains in agriculture are essential for reducing poverty (World Bank, 2002). Agriculture is the main source of income for large numbers of people, and provides the basic food subsistence needs for the majority of the population in these countries, as well as being a main source of income for governments that export food and fibre products (FAO, 1990). In the Malaysia case study, as with other upper middle-income developing countries, the agriculture sector is currently regarded as a strategic sector. For many low-income countries, agriculture is - and will remain for the foreseeable future - the main sector producing exportable goods. Agriculture will also remain crucial for trade in many middle- and high-income countries (Brown, 1994). Some two-thirds of the people in sub-Saharan Africa depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (Eicher, 2004).

In order to advance agricultural development, governments - with the assistance of international organizations - are beginning to promote decentralized programmes, including subsidiarity approaches that provide communities and rural producer organizations with the potential to develop their own programmes for local development (Mercoiret et al., 2001). The World Bank promotes projects that empower rural people via community-driven development (CDD),^[6] which encourages communities to move towards self-determination. These CDD projects assist communities to formulate proposals that are then reviewed and, if accepted, funded.

Figure 4
The multifaceted advantages of producer and community organization

Source: Chipeta (forthcoming)

In Denmark, experience confirms that small-scale producers can gain tremendously from organizing and working together to identify their needs and consolidate their demands. Producer organizations that are owned and controlled by the producers themselves have the potential to empower farmers and facilitate the delivery of services that respond to their needs and fulfil the required standards of quality. Figure 4 shows a sample of the multifaceted advantages that producer organizations and community institutions can offer their members.

In some cases, governments have initiated efforts to establish nationally integrated and multisectoral extension networks to combat food insecurity. These incipient national system networks include public and private for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, as well as international projects aimed at food security goals. Some governments have created partnerships with other sectors of society, including multisectoral providers of extension and information services, in order to foster the conditions to end hunger. These governments expect a food security strategy to increase domestic food security and, eventually, to facilitate inter- and intraregional trade in food items. They understand that, when organized, poor farmers (i.e. agricultural producers who are underprivileged) can produce beyond their own needs and enter the export market.