Agricultural research and technology transfer to rural communities in CEEC, CIS and other Countries in Transition - Karol W. Duczmal

ACRONYMS

1. STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

The role of agriculture research and technology transfer to rural communities in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Countries in Transition (CT) derives from the critical importance of agriculture in their overall economy, and large resource base. The overall agro-industrial complex is large and accounts for about 25-50% of GDP and for about 30-40% of employment in these countries. Population in all CT is over 400 million, of which the rural population accounts for about 33% and the agro-industrial sector employs over 32 million people. Only the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia have parameters close to those of the EU, where its share of GDP is 1.7% and employment 5.1% (Table 1).

Cereals are the largest crops in most of the countries, so they are a good indication of plant production productivity, occupying 42-60% of arable land, with wheat the most important crop, grown on 25-50% of the total cereal area.

In general, 16 countries are net importers of agricultural products and the other 8 are net exporters (Table 2). However, agriculture on these areas has a large export potential and considerable importance for import substitution. At present, agricultural resources in most of these countries are not used efficiently. Agriculture research is vital to increase productivity and efficacy in the sector and convert the CT to a market economy. It is long-term in nature, but should not be used as a justification for inaction or low priority. Agricultural research capacity is a strategic resource that can be justified from a number of perspectives.

Extensive literature on agricultural economics convincingly demonstrates that investment in agricultural research fields yields a high pay off. For public sector agricultural research, average returns were 48% for developed countries and 80% for developing ones. However, the size of the rate of return varies from one crop to another, between sectors (crops vs livestock) or aggregate agricultural production, and from one country to another. The rate of return to investments in research varies from 22-42% for potatoes in Peru and is 19% for maize in South America (Table 3). The nature of agricultural technology, the level of agricultural productivity and appropriateness of agricultural policies greatly influences returns on investment in agricultural research. Careful and informed research management and public investment are essential and must take place within a set of constraints defined by national resources and policies.

Positive and higher rates of return mean that the stream of societal benefits from research outweigh the cost over a planning horizon of several years. The costs of these investments are repaid because the economy grows as a consequence of the reduced food and fibre costs, with benefit to both the consumer and the producers, the relocation of physical and human capital into higher and better uses, and increased economic activity, including trade.

Table 1. Basic Data of CEEC, CIS and CT (most data refer to 1996)

SOURCE: Agrar markte in zahlen Mittel und Osteuropa, A.Schwierz, ZMP Zentrale Markt und Preisberichstelle, Bonn

Public support for agricultural research can also be an important action to increase the competitiveness of the national agricultural sector, whether through direct public investment or through public action to foster private research. Operationally, increased competitiveness means that the agricultural sector is better able to sell products abroad or to produce substitutes for products being imported.

Food security is relevant to CT in two important ways. First, CT can go a long way forward in realizing waste potential in agricultural production and in meeting future food needs, in increasing efficiency and quality in agricultural processing and distribution. Second, there is an important domestic need for food security. The transition to a democratic and civil society is significantly influenced by the price of sausages and bread. Agricultural research place an important role in improving productivity, increasing competitiveness and also standards of living for rural as well as urban people and supporting democratization, so it should be a priority investment.

Table 2. Basic agriculture data of CEEC, CIS and CT (most data are 1996)

SOURCE: Agrar markte in zahlen Mittel und Osteuropa, A.Schwierz, ZMP Zentrale Markt und Preisberichstelle, Bonn

Table 3. Rate of return to agricultural research in OECD and some developing countries

SOURCE: Mudahar et al., 1998

2. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The size of investments in research and development (R&D) in CT is much lower than the average in the EU; in Poland it is 7 times lower and in Czech Republic 3 times less. Investment in research as a share of GDP is significantly lower than that observed in the EU (1.84%), reaching 0.76% in Poland, 0.66% in Hungary and 1.07% in the Czech Republic. It is primarily financed from state budgets, which is typical for less-developed countries, in contrast to industrial countries, where this is financed through non-treasury resources. Most costs in R&D are for biological and engineering sciences, including agricultural disciplines. Hungary allocated 82.6%; Poland, 94.0%; and Czech Republic, 95.8% of R&D budgets to this sector. In Poland and Hungary, most is spent on basic research, with only 66.7% on applied R&D, which is the lowest rate among all OECD countries. Czech Republic allocated as much as 83% to this sector, which is similar to the USA (83.5%). Applied R&D in Poland is mainly through higher education units (43%) and specialized R&D (86%) units (Wanke-Jakubowska and Wanke-Jerie, 1999).

Effectiveness of research in agronomy in the period 1995-1999, assessed by the number of publications and citations in Science Citation Index, was quite large in Czech Republic and in Hungary (369 and 359 respectively), and lower in Poland and Slovakia (139 and 132 respectively). This represented 1.36-1.32% and 0.51-0.48% respectively of all such publications worldwide. The other countries of the region published only a few papers or none. In this period, on average, EU countries published 465 papers each, which was 1.71% of all publications. The relative impact factor - indicating the quality of these papers - appeared to be higher for Polish papers (0.73), and lower for Czech, Hungarian and Slovakian (0.51, 0.43 and 0.36, respectively); in the EU it was 1.34 (Table 4).

A very important reason for delays in agriculture research in CT is the anachronistic structure of the agricultural science sector, usually divided into three independent organizations: agriculture education institutions, with a large number of faculties; scientific units of academies of sciences; and specialized R&D units. This leads to difficulties in efficient use of existing research potential, and creation of large and multidisciplinary research groups, and results in waste of the limited research funds.

Table 4. Papers on agronomy published in the CEEC, CIS and CT (1995-1999)

NOTES: * Total number of publications reported worldwide (sample size) = 27 229. ** Impact base 1.15

SOURCE: University Science Indicators, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia

Agricultural education institutions, especially in the FSU, mainly prepared people for work in the academies of sciences, R&D units, and agriculture entities. Unfortunately, the relationship between agricultural science and education was very weak. The most important reason was that they were separate structures, with weak linkage between their leadership, even though the objectives of the three organizations overlapped. The education institutions prepared mainly MSc-equivalent specialists. All three organizations prepared PhD-equivalent specialists; in FSU, mostly through research institutions. Normally, the bright MSc Students would be kept after graduation in the same education institutions, as assistant professors. However, a PhD degree was required for promotion. The choice was either to enter a 3-year PhD study programme in one of the research institution, or to obtain it by distance learning and continue teaching. So, some teachers had been exposed to a research environment in the research institutions, while others were not.

Most of the teaching positions allowed only 10-20% of time to be spent on research. Since the facilities for research in educational institutions were inferior to those in the research units of the academies of sciences and more specialized R&D units, the scientific level of the teachers was far lower than that of scientists in research institutions. Only elite universities, like those in Moscow or Leningrad (now St Petersburg), maintained a high level of research for the benefit of the students. Scientists were very rarely invited to give lectures to students or to take part-time teaching positions. Furthermore, there was a low level of rotation within educational institutions and of interchange of staff between the academies of sciences and higher education institutions.

The scientific societies played a minor role in CT, in contrast to the situation in western countries. The activity, for example, of the All-Union Society of Geneticists and Breeders in FSU was limited to the organization of meetings every 4-5 years and the publication of their proceedings. There was no regular publication and communication between members and no formal linkages between these societies and the academies.

In the international arena, the highest priority was cooperation with the other socialist countries. There were several mechanisms for cooperation. First, one of the most important mechanisms was establishment of joint research programmes addressing common problems. For example, a successful programme that focused on winter wheat breeding united plant breeders from Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and other countries. This programme resulted in a number of advanced varieties. Second, cooperation at the research- and the R&D-unit level was encouraged. This involved both joint research activities and exchange of scientists. It seems that cooperation and coordination of agricultural research at this international level was much better than at the national level. Third, reciprocal membership of the academies was one of the mechanisms to maintain communication.

The relationship with the scientific community of the Western countries could be characterized as one of isolation. This isolation was determined by two major factors: the lack of language skills and very limited exchange of people, for political reasons. Very few scientists were trained abroad. The physical isolation from the West did not undermine information exchanges. The important scientific journals published globally were received by central libraries and were available to scientists. They were also abstracted - mainly in Russian - and published on a monthly basis. Journal such as Agriculture Abroad and others published monthly or quarterly consisted of literature reviews and trip reports, and could be easily obtained on subscription.

Priority setting, as understood in the west, i.e. consultation with the participation of stakeholders, was unknown within the agricultural scientific communities of CT. The process of priority setting was highly politicized, as one might expect, and it was top-down. The communist parties gave the general directions for societal development. Whether they were based on scientific knowledge or the personal ambitions of the leaderships is open to question. The scientific communities were often consulted, but were not always listened to.

The mechanism of transformation of the overall priorities set by the government into the priorities of particular research programmes is difficult to describe. Sometimes government regulations set up the priorities. In the case of plant breeding, for example, if the Ministry of Agriculture decided not to accept varieties susceptible to a certain diseases, the breeders had to emphasize breeding for resistance to the pathogen. However, the major factor changing priorities was selective funding for the institutions and programmes involved.

Customer identification and participation as known in western management culture was missing in CT. The uniformity of agriculture enterprises in the countries did not allow a differentiated approach. They were similar in their farming methods and level of agriculture. Currently, things have clearly changed. Each research programme had to compile a detailed plan describing what would be done, what output was expected, what would be the impact on the output for producers, and what funding would be needed to implement the objectives. However, there were no uniform criteria to judge the results of the work of the research programme and often no criteria at all. For example, a crop breeding programme that did not release a variety for a number of years would still be funded, equally to another, more successful, programme. Some authorities used the production figures in the region to evaluate the impact of a research programme, but administrations were satisfied with merely proper formal reporting. There was no formal system of research programme evaluation that could be applied to research institutions.

After the collapse of the SU, new systems of research started to develop in newly-independent countries. In most of them, they remain essentially the same as at the time of establishment. The separation between agricultural research and education has changed only a little. As a result of reduced funding, some institutions have suffered up to 50-70% staff reduction in 1997 compared to 1990. The result of the first few years of activities of new scientific organizations can be summarized as the weakest point being application of research results in practice. The extension services do not have resources to introduce new products. At the same time, producers are weak economically and are not able to pay extra for development of new technology.

Many countries have now drafted the framework for improvement of the system of research and extension to support the development of agro-industrial complexes. The concepts define the research priorities, the mechanisms of research planning, funding, management, and implementation of the results. The necessity of re-structuring and optimizing the research network is also mentioned. At the time of writing, available information indicated that in the countries of FSU, there were 363 research institutions employing in total 30 913 scientists. The highest number of research institutions are located in Russia (203, employing some 17 000 scientists), in Ukraine (51 with 7 000 scientists) and in Kazakhstan (29 units with 1 900 staff). The number of scientists per 1 000 ha of arable land ranges from 0.05 in Kazakhstan, 0.13 in Russia, 0.22 in Ukraine to as much as 1.03 in Armenia and 1.13 in Georgia (Morgounov and Zuiderma, 1998).

Poland has 37 higher education and research institutions, employing some 4 000 scientists, equivalent to 0.29 scientists per 1 000 ha of arable land (Anon., 2000). Assessing cooperation of a few Polish agriculture research units in 1990-1997, measured by number of publications, showed that, out of 259 papers authored from more than one organization, only 4 were done in cooperation with an industrial organization; none involved extension centres or grower associations. This should be seen as a lack of flow of results from research into agricultural practice. Agricultural research in most cases appeared duplicative or adaptive work, so this obscures real achievements, i.e. what might be considered original work with significance on a global scale.

2.1 Genetics research and plant breeding programmes

In almost all CT, genetic and breeding research was conducted mainly by academies of sciences, and sometimes in higher education units. In contrast, applied research and breeding programmes were done mostly by R&D units. However, in many countries, including Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, large breeding programmes were executed by state breeding establishments. Those programmes were financed directly from state budget resources. At present, in many countries, R&D units have abandoned breeding programmes, and simultaneously growing interest is observed among breeding companies, which originated from the former state breeding establishments, which are gradually being privatized. Nevertheless, the larger part of their expenses is covered still by state budgets. Those subsidies in Poland and Czech Republic reached US$ 40 million/year on average in the period 1998-2000. There are a great number of such breeding companies, but according to European criteria they fall into the category of small and very small units.

On the seed markets of CT, only those varieties can be introduced that are included in the National List of Varieties. The variety can be included into the National List after at least two years of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS), and only after tests for cultivation and use as well for crops of greater industrial importance. Previously, this required three to four years of variety testing, mainly for cultivation and use. In the National List up to 1989, there were mainly domestic varieties (54-99% of all varieties). In the last decade, the number of varieties in these lists almost doubled and the proportion of domestic varieties dropped to 50-60% of the total. A similarly trend was observed among cereals - the main crop category - in the same period, with a drop in the proportion of domestic varieties in the official lists (Table 5).

Table 5. Market for crop cultivars in CEEC, CIS and CT

NOTE: * = field crops only

SOURCES: UKZUZ of Czech Republic; J. Ratkai of Hungary; S. Polikaitis of Lithuania; H. Szurpicki and B. Witkowska of Poland; V.V. Schmal of Russia; K. Benovska of Slovakia; P. Stuhec of Slovenia; V. Volkodavot of Ukraine; and M. Milosevic of Yugoslavia.

Improved wheat varieties, which can be treated as an example, typify the quality of new tested varieties, introducing with them important yield potential. Yields of those varieties in trials in 1999 ranged from 3.41 t/ha in Russia to 6.60 t/ha in Slovakia, 7.01 t/ha in Poland and 7.0-9.0 t/ha in Slovenia. They were double the average yields obtained previously in commercial growing in those countries, and could increase the productivity and profitability of farms. Unachieved potential reached 40-50% of yields of improved varieties (Table 6). It should be borne in mind that average yearly rise in yields as a result of introduction of the new wheat varieties in the UK and France reaches 100-120 kg/ha. In Central and Eastern Europe it is lower, and in Poland reaches only 30-35 kg/ha. An interesting fact should be noted that, in 1999 in Hungary, Russia and Ukraine, new improved wheat varieties yielded less than those tested 10 years earlier.

Table 6. Wheat (winter) yield in CEEC, CIS and CT

NOTES: * = 1997-1999; ** = 1952; *** according to information from M. Milosevic

SOURCES: UKZUZ of Czech Republic; J. Ratkai of Hungary; S. Polikaitis of Lithuania; H. Szurpicki and B. Witkowska of Poland; V.V. Schmal of Russia; K. Benovska of Slovakia; P. Stuhec of Slovenia; V. Volkodavot of Ukraine; Agrarmarkte in Zahlen Mittel und Osteuropa; and M. Milosevic of Yugoslavia.

3. SEED MARKET

There are no precise data on commercial markets and international seed trade of CT. According to International Seed Federation (FIS) estimations, internal commercial markets of seed and plantlets in some CT are: CIS, US$ 2 000 million; Poland, US$ 400 million; Hungary, US$ 200 million; Czech Republic, US$ 150 million; and Slovakia, US$ 90 million. CT with significant international seed trade exports are: Hungary, US$ 36 million; Czech Republic, US$ 18 million; and Russia, US$ 13 million.

3.1 Formal seed supply

Among CT, 10 are members of OECD or affiliated to OECD seed certification schemes, namely Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania (from end of 1999), Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (Debois, 1999). Sowing material for the market in some countries has an obligatory certification requirement; in others it is only laboratory tested and has to meet national standard requirements.

Production and seed trade is mostly the domain of specialized seed companies, which originated from state seed establishments. In a few countries, the production and trade of sowing material of owned varieties is done by state R&D units. Almost all seed companies in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland have been privatized. In the other countries, the privatization process is still in progress. In many countries, the emergence of new, private seed companies can be seen. In each country, there are from a few to a few thousand seed companies, mainly small or very small. Production of sowing material is done on privately owned farms, on a contract basis, and basic seed delivered for reproduction. In many countries, like Czech Republic and Poland, use of fresh seed of cereals in command economy times was obligatory and its production allowed exchange of the entire sowing material every two to four years. In the other countries it was 20-60%. Adaptation to a market economy has led to abandonment of mandatory seed exchange, and in 1995-1999 the demand for cereal seed decreased noticeably. Exchange of cereal seed at present is only 20-40% in many countries; only in Slovenia is it 80% (Table 7).

Some cereal sowing material, mostly wheat, is not used for sowing purposes. This is due to overproduction, and supply exceeds demand. It has been estimated that, frequently, 20-30% of cereal seed has to be used for human consumption and as fodder. It seems that accessibility to new varieties with high yielding potential to a large degree satisfies the needs of agriculture in the majority of the countries. It is difficult to estimate the degree of satisfaction of the specific needs of the end users, as well as farmers operating in specific agro-climatic conditions, because the flow of information from them to plant breeders and decision-making bodies is weak, if it exists at all. The quality of seed very frequently is poor, including varietal purity; and this is seen even in the countries using the OECD certification schemes.

Table 7. Production of Seed Material in CEEC, CIS and CT

NOTE: * = through commercial channels.

SOURCES: UKZUZ of Czech Republic; J. Ratkai of Hungary; S. Polikaitis of Lithuania; H. Szurpicki and B. Witkowska of Poland; V.V. Schmal of Russia; K. Benovska of Slovakia; P. Stuhec of Slovenia; V. Volkodavot of Ukraine; and M. Milosevic of Yugoslavia.

Falling seed sales (mainly cereals) is to a large extent a result of lack of management abilities and bad marketing by breeding and seed trade companies, but is also due to poor productivity and efficiency in the seed sector. The common feeling is that state-run organizations and companies are less effective than private ones can be confirmed on the basis of many observations. Reasons include unclear breeding objectives, having to deal with many minor crops, reacting slowly to the rapid changes of a free market economy, and having high costs due to excessive employment levels and high price of inputs.

Establishing private breeding companies is hard, mainly because of financing. There is a lack of money for financing breeding programmes because very often plant breeders’ rights (PBR) have not been implemented and there is no organized royalty collection system. Privatization of state-run breeding companies is difficult because of their high nominal value (in terms of money) and for political reasons. Sometimes it is felt that they are strategic companies because they support national food security by producing varieties well adapted to regional agro-climatic conditions and introducing them more cheaply than foreign cultivars.

3.2 Informal seed supply

All CT have large informal seed markets, with farmers managing seed production and general crop production activities, based on indigenous knowledge and local diffusion mechanisms. It includes methods such as retaining seed on-farm from a previous harvest to plant them the following season, and farm-to-farm seed exchange networks (including local market places). There has been little or no attention paid to this informal seed supply sector, and little is known about its operation in the region. As a result, documentation is scarce. At present, probably from 20-30% up to sometimes 90% of seed used by farmers is supplied through this informal arrangement.

Major reasons for the existence of informal seed markets can be summarized as:

• it is difficult for the formal seed sector to reach every farmer, especially in the eastern part of FSU,

• most of the improved varieties produced by the formal seed supply sector are targeted at the better-endowed farmers, where rainfall, irrigation and other means of production are easily available, and

• the very poor financial situation of many small farmers, inefficient seed company marketing strategies, and ineffective agriculture.

4. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY TO RURAL COMMUNITIES

In a command economy, with the existence of mostly large and state-owned or quasi-cooperative farms, there was no need for organizing systems for transfer of technology (TOT) from agricultural research centres to rural communities, taken to mean farmers. This function was fulfilled by investment sections of those establishments and their management bodies. When the large establishments were disbanded and privatized, even that remnant TOT system vanished. Only in a few countries, mainly in Poland, where private farmers still owned 80% of agricultural land, did the system of linkage between science, extension and farmers survive. The flow of information in that system was in one direction only (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The information flow in the agricultural technology system (after Havelock, 1969; Kania, 1998)

Extension organizations obtained their information from agriculture research, which was then tried on a single farm and then disseminated to others. Now farmers are using many different sources of information, because knowledge is not only the domain of research centres, but also spreads from many other sources, including:

• extension centres,

• agricultural chambers,

• results of research from different disciplines of applied science, distributed by scientific centres in the form of innovation, i.e. techniques, technologies, systems of farming, etc.,

• private extension organizations and services,

• breeding and seed companies,

• companies selling fertilizers, pesticides, etc.,

• companies buying agricultural raw materials,

• banks and other agencies,

• Ministries of Agriculture, of Finance and of Environmental Protection,

• NGOs, and

• other farmers.

At present the system is undergoing change, and in the future it will develop into an Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (Kania, 1998).

It is difficult to imagine that the TOT in CT could exist without creating such systems in each of them and could take place without the involvement of public agriculture extension services. Institutions of that type played a key role in the period of modernization of the agriculture sector and change in rural environment in Western Europe and the USA. As the development of agriculture proceeds, the role of public extension should diminish, and competition among other providers of services and information should increase and private extension services should appear on the scene.

Among the strengths of public extension services should be an emphasis on rural communities, whose membership extends beyond just farmers; consideration of the growing degree of important social and environmental problems, not only purely agricultural; a wide range of services; and introduction and dissemination of sustainable farming and environmental protection programmes and stimulating an ecological consciousness among farmers and rural area inhabitants. Such extension is costly for taxpayers, not always convergent with actual farmer needs and open to manipulation by political decisions of government.

Autonomous extension services are more directed to the needs and expectations of farmers and quicker to react changes in their economic conditions; always know their requirements; specialize in services satisfying needs of mainly commodity farms; and is less costly for tax-payers. Weaknesses of such extension services are high costs of extension services for farmers themselves, and exclusion of a high percentage of rural area inhabitants, who are not farmers. Another weakness is the low number of employees in these services.

In all CT, modern TOT into rural communities is currently heavily supported by external aid agencies, such as EU, USA and World Bank support in Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine. Taking into consideration the low effectiveness of agriculture and the weakness of newly established farmer associations and other NGOs, the extension services have to be based on funds from state budgets and built initially as a public system. The system should then be increasingly supported and displaced by breeding and seed companies, traders selling fertilizers and buying raw materials, banks and NGOs.

Poland has begun to organize a country network of post-registration variety trials (for the National List of Varieties). It should be seen as a system of variety trials, directed to providing information of value for cultivation and use, looking at the same time at cultivar reaction to environmental and agro-climatic conditions. On the basis of such variety trials, a Recommended List of Varieties will be created for the most important crops. In variety research, cooperation is expected to build up with governmental and local administrations, agriculture councils, extension services, breeding and seed companies, research units, food processing industry and other organizations and institutions connected to agriculture. Responsibility for creation of the basic framework for such post-registration variety research has been delegated to the Centre of Variety Testing Office (COBORU). In the future, extension should be transformed into a network of local agriculture research systems, managed by agricultural councils and grower associations, and financed by variety users (Gacek, 1998).

Existing Polish governmental and regional extension centres and extension departments of agricultural research and higher education units demonstrate, at indoor meetings during the winter, the advantage of improved varieties, simplifying the results of variety trials to make them understood more easily. Advisory officers of extension services conduct some demonstration trials on growers’ own land, sowing improved varieties alongside the varieties usually grown locally.

International seed companies, such as Pioneer, that have entered CT markets have well-organized TOT systems. Some of them established their own research stations and processing plants, but in most cases the seed companies limit their operation to production of hybrid seeds of maize, oil seed crops or vegetables. They have well-organized programmes for farmer education and for dissemination of information in relation to improved crop varieties and usage of quality seed. They also have more credibility with the growers compared to the public sector organizations and are considerably more effective than state-run entities.

In some cases, multinationals dealing with maize have contracted farmer growers to use improved seeds, and supplied necessary inputs, and have guaranteed to buy back products at an agreed price for further processing. Several other agro-processing industries have adopted this mechanism to promote improved technologies with their contract growers.

There is considerable interplay between the public and private sector in the area of seed improvement and distribution. Various public institutions and private organizations do field testing of varieties. Breeders and agronomists in both public and private sectors share knowledge on varieties and production of good seeds to encourage adoption of improved technologies and for further research.

Local variety demonstration trials are organized mostly by seed companies. They also cover improved cultural practices, and attract great interest among the rural community and advisory officers. Seed company representatives invite farmers in the area for a field day, where the trials are demonstrated and explained.

Seed exhibitions are held occasionally, or in some cases at regular intervals. This creates great interest and is given wide publicity, both in the daily and agricultural press or radio and TV. Another, and perhaps more direct, way of bringing home to the farmer the value of good seed is a so-called drill box survey. The normal procedure in such cases is to compare the quality of the farmer’s seed - determined by the seed testing station - with the quality standards for certified seed or other kind of high quality seeds. If a farmer has saved seeds from his own previous crop or he has obtained seed, likewise homegrown, from his neighbour, the comparison with standard certified seed often gives a real shock and he becomes converted to the use of only the best possible seed for the rest of his life. Such a farmer is often good local support for the advisory officer in efforts to make all farmers in the area “seed minded.”

Existing general producer or seed grower associations in some countries create interest in the production of improved varieties and wider use of good seeds by direct information to their members and their friends, through lectures, meetings, etc. Such TOT is well accepted by farmers for two reasons, namely:

• farmers can see with their own eyes the benefits that can be obtained by use of improved and good seed, and

• the use of good seed provides assurance of credit and sale of produce at pre-agreed prices.

Evaluation of improved varieties by rural farming in most countries is in an early stage, and must be extended to become an important factor in increasing productivity and effectiveness of agriculture. Only an organized system of TOT, along with local agriculture extension services and wider spread of present ways of promoting improved varieties and good seed, can ensure the benefit of the full yield potential of improved varieties and good quality seed, which was lost in the past. In the end, we expect to see growth in effectiveness in agriculture.

5. HOW DOES THE RESEARCH SYSTEM MEASURE UP?

Public research systems in many industrial countries are becoming more demand driven, efficient and closely coordinated with the private sector. If these characteristics can serve as a benchmark, it is clear that most CT have a long way to go. Transformation strategies need to be based on a clear analysis of the current system’s strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats it faces at present and in the future.

5.1 Strengths and opportunities

The difficult challenges faced by most transition-economy agricultural research systems should not obscure their many strengths, assets and opportunities (Mudahar et al., 1998).

• National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) are extensive and have comparatively high levels of investment in human and physical capital.

• Research systems are distributed throughout major agro-climatic zones, so they can be decentralized and closer to stakeholders.

• The basic training of the agricultural scientists is good, with well developed fundamental skills.

• Agricultural researchers in most institutions have a long tradition of entering into joint projects or consultancies with agricultural enterprises. This can form a foundation for more effective problem recognition and technology transfer.

• Despite low salaries, dwindling operating funds and isolation from the world scientific community, many dedicated agricultural scientists continue to work their trade as best they can.

• Many national - especially Russia - stocks of agricultural research products have not been widely shared with the rest of the world. The potential for collaboration and mutual benefit in research with other scientists, public or private, around the world has scarcely been explored. This stock includes knowledge, expertise and new technologies, as well as data.

• There are reform-minded institutions and individuals in agricultural research systems, and many positive examples of institutional innovations and reforms can be seen. Many of the reforms, such as increasing contract research, are driven by financial necessity. Others, such as re-directing research away from minor crops and irrigation, toward work on improved tillage systems and erosion control practices, are driven by scientists responding to client demands. Many agricultural researchers and institutions are seeking collaborative arrangements with foreign universities, government agencies and private firms. There are new activities for many scientists, despite the novelty of these relationships, and an entrepreneurial drive to create opportunities in research is clearly evident.

• Many agricultural research institutes, especially in Russia, control extensive land holdings. These assets might form the basis for real “land grant” institutions. Well-managed farms can provide the much-needed cash flows to support research activities. Furthermore, it may be possible to sell excess land and re-invest the proceeds in needed research facilities or as an endowment for financing research.

5.2 Weaknesses and threats

The fundamental weakness of CT NARS is that they cannot be financially or politically supported and sustained as currently configured. Many of weaknesses are legacies of central planning that weakened the vitality of the agricultural research system, and these are discussed briefly below (based on Mudahar et al., 1998).

• Centralized management is still the norm in most countries. Research managers and scientists are largely accountable to the centre, rather than to the end user. Only to the extent that top administrators correctly anticipate end-user needs can the current system be viewed as demand driven.

• The organization of NARS is extremely complex. Scientific councils, boards and committees abound. The effectiveness of those systems in establishing appropriate priorities, incentives and oversight is questionable.

• The system appears to have a great deal of overlap and duplication of responsibilities and a lack of coordination among R&D units, as well with institutions of higher education with research programmes. Duplication is difficult to pinpoint in any NARS, but the sheer size, isolation and lack of local accountability would suggest that duplicated effort is likely.

• Research has focused on increasing primary agricultural production. Research objectives have tended to be quota-driven, with little regard for economic efficiency, product quality, environmental consequences or the safety of agricultural workers. This orientation is still evident throughout the system.

• Little, if any, research capability exists in agricultural economics, agribusiness management and all related social sciences. This fact remains, despite the large number of economists working in separate research units. For ideological reasons, there had been little contact between all CT, but especially little between FSU and Western agricultural economists in the past. The two groups probably share knowledge of constraint optimization. Beyond that, however, little in the training or orientation of economists allows them to tackle the problems of market-based agriculture or the necessary transition.

• Agricultural scientists have had almost no exposure to concepts of agricultural economics or farm management. Limited economic literacy makes it difficult for them to understand incentives for farmers to adopt new technologies. Consequently, the design attributes of new production technologies do not reflect the realities of decentralized, profit-oriented farm management. Research capacity in utilization, food science, storage, transportation, logistics and marketing is rudimentary at best. It is found mainly in specialized research units with little contact with agriculture scientists and end users.

• The integration of production research with environmental disciplines is extremely limited. To some degree this reflects the limited scientific development of agro-ecology. This concerns mostly the FSU. However, some environmentally relevant research capacity does exist, e.g. in soil conservation and land reclamation. Again, the vertical, discipline-based structure of agricultural research system limits opportunities for multidisciplinary research. This working environment is essential if integrated production systems are to be developed and successfully transferred.

• Laws governing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are being developed but will be extremely difficult to enforce in most CT. As a consequence, publicly funded intellectual property - often in the form of crop varieties - can end up in private hands without payment of royalties to the institutions that developed it. Along similar lines, the lack of strong and enforceable intellectual property laws inhibits the growth of privately-funded research and technology transfer.

• Central planning has determined the location and structure of many agricultural enterprises. These decisions have in turn influenced the structure and orientation of agricultural research. Economic reforms and price liberalization will change the scope, scale and location of many country’s agriculture to some, largely unknown, extent. The current configuration of agriculture research systems in many countries does not necessarily reflect emerging changes in agriculture.

5.3 Productivity of agricultural research systems

The productivity of a public agricultural research system is determined by several interrelated factors. Among the most important are:

• the management of the research enterprise itself, including priority setting, problem focus, scientist training and motivation;

• the level of support and investment for scientists;

• the efficacy of public education and technology transfer systems;

• the ability and incentives for the private sector to commercialize research funding; and

• the efficiency and profitability of the agricultural sector.

In most CT, the public NARS appears unproductive because many of these conditions are not met. Private national agricultural research institutes are just emerging, and seem more efficient and customer driven.

5.4 Conclusions

NARS in CT were previously highly organized, fully funded and overcapitalized. The CEEC and newly independent countries of FSU inherited from this system a number of agricultural research institutions designed to serve a country with a command economy. The CEEC and the new Republics were then left with the daunting task of creating effective and sustainable systems to serve national needs. In many countries, the dominant strategy for dealing with agricultural research institutions was one that in effect maintained the status quo, i.e. system preservationist. This strategy reflects the forces in the existing scientific communities, which seek to maintain the current agriculture research and technology development system. Due to lack of finances, the probable outcome of the strategy was mainly downsizing of existing research institutions. This appears true, despite the very strong desire to optimize NARS by both scientists and government agencies. However, the importance of a scientific and systematic approach to this optimization has been underestimated. The future development of these research systems will largely depend on the political will of the NARS leadership to take bold steps in reforming their NARS and in developing a sound strategy for this process. This strategy must take into account future demand for agricultural research - as reflected in emerging local and international markets - and be conditioned by the optimal utilization of the limited resources available.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. 2000. Agriculture and Food Economy in Poland. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Debois, J.M. 1999. The OECD Schemes. p.185-190, in: Proc. of the World Seed Conference, Cambridge.

Gacek, E. 1998. Program porejestrowego doswiadczalnictwa odmianowego w Polsce [The post-registration variety trials system in Poland]. Hod. Roslin i Nas., 3: 32-34.

Kania, J. 1998. Rola sluzb doradztwa rolniczego w Systemie Wiedzy i Informacji Rolniczej [The role of extension services in Agricultural Knowledge and Information System]. Biul. Regionalny Zakladu Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 318. AR im. H. Kollataja w Krakowie.

Morgounov, A., & Zuiderma, L. 1998. The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the Republics of Central Asia and Caucasus (unpublished manuscript).

Mudahar, M.S., Jolly, R.W., & Srivastara, J.P. 1998. Transforming Agricultural Research Systems in Transition Economies: The case of Russia. World Bank Discussion Paper, No. 396.

Wanke-Jakubowska, M., & Wanke-Jerie, M. (ed). 1999. Stan nauki i techniki w Polsce [The status of science and technology in Poland]. Komitet Badan Naukowych, Warszawa.