Assessing the FNS impacts of technological
and institutional innovations and future innovation
trends
.
Evita Pangaribowo (ZEF-UBO), Nicolas Gerber (ZEFUBO) and Pascal Tillie (JRC)
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH PROJECT
TO EXPLORE THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL
FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY
FOODSECURE Working paper no. 11
September 2013
Assessing the FNS impacts of technological and institutional
innovations and future innovation trends
Evita Pangaribowo 1, Nicolas Gerber (ZEF-UBO) and Pascal Tillie (JRC)
Reviewed by: S. Mahendra Dev, Alan Matthews, Willis Oluoch-Kosura (May 2013)
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework
Programme FP7/2007-2011 under Grant Agreement n° 290693 FOODSECURE.
This paper is work in progress; comments are welcome. The authors only are responsible for any omissions or
deficiencies. Neither the FOODSECURE project and any of its partner organizations, nor any organization of the
European Union or European Commission are accountable for the content of papers in this series.
1
Corresponding author: evita.pangaribowo@uni-bonn.de
1
Acknowledgements
The authors are very thankfull for the comments received from the three reviewers. Hopefully our
revisions have answered their concerns.
We would also like to thank Keith Fuglie, USDA, who kindly shared his data on TFP growth.
Any remaining mistakes are the sole responsibility of the authors.
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Conceptual Framework of Technological and Institutional Innovations and their Impacts on FNS 5
3.
4.
5.
2.1
Frame of Innovations in Fostering FNS ................................................................................... 5
2.2
Innovation and Total Factor Productivity (TFP) in the Agricultural Sector ............................. 9
Types of Innovation Fostering Food and Nutrition Security ......................................................... 11
3.1
Summary of Innovation Database ......................................................................................... 11
3.2
The Main Features of Innovations for FNS ............................................................................ 15
3.2.1
Conventional technologies ............................................................................................ 16
3.2.2
Traditional technologies ................................................................................................ 17
3.2.3
Intermediate technologies ............................................................................................ 19
3.2.4
New platforms technologies ......................................................................................... 19
3.2.5
Institutional innovations................................................................................................ 25
Meta analysis of Innovations’ Impact Assessments ...................................................................... 27
4.1.
Methods ................................................................................................................................ 27
4.2
The Impacts of Innovations on the Dimensions of FNS......................................................... 28
4.2.1
Availability ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2
Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.3
Utilization ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.4
Results of the Stakeholder Survey ................................................................................. 30
Informing Innovation Scenarios for FNS........................................................................................ 33
5.1
Current Innovation and FNS Situation................................................................................... 33
5.2
Innovation Policy Designs and Priority Actions ..................................................................... 38
5.2.1
Policy designs ................................................................................................................ 38
5.2.2
Conclusions: Priority Actions for FNS ............................................................................ 42
5.2.3
Concluding comments ................................................................................................... 44
Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 46
List Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 61
References ............................................................................................................................................. 63
3
Assessing the FNS impacts of technological and institutional
innovations and future innovation trends
1. Introduction
Achieving food and nutrition security (FNS) is a priority in developing countries. Donors and funding
agencies also give priority to FNS as one of their main funding activity, including the EU. Under the
EU FP7 Program, the Foodsecure project is aiming to contribute to a more resilient global food
system by providing tools to analyze and mitigate the risks and uncertainties inherent to the food
system. For instance, uncertain and volatile food prices affect both food producers and consumers.
For food producers, they increase production risks, are a disincentive to invest toward more
production, and thus tend to decrease food availability. For consumers, volatile prices affect food
accessibility directly and through the impacts of the aforementioned supply responses on price
levels. Indeed, several studies reported that during the episode of high and volatile food price in
2007-08, malnutrition and poverty rate increased (Webb, 2010; von Braun and Tadesse, 2012).
One of the key routes to achieve a resilient global food system and improved FNS requires a
reorientation of relevant policies, in particular policies associated with the use of technology,
knowledge and related institutional adjustments (Juma and Yee-Cheong, 2005). Both developed and
developing countries need to recognize the FNS benefits of innovation creation, adoption and
adaptation. Access to technology and innovation is a key to counter the complex and evolving
challenges of the global food system.
In line with this notion, part of Work Package 3 investigates the role of technological and institutional
innovation for improving FNS. This paper is one of the products delivered under WP3 is a metaanalysis of impact assessments of both institutional and technological innovations on FNS. Impact
assessments have been undertaken by various organizations. It is widely acknowledged that
innovations in agriculture and other sectors have a remarkable impact on FNS. While the impact
assessments of such innovations mostly focus on a specific type of innovation and FNS outcome, our
meta-analysis expands the assessment to several types of innovations and their multiple impacts,
including on agricultural production and distribution, environmental aspects and nutrition outcomes.
The value added of our overview of different impact assessments is to place the review of impact
assessments in the frame of a typology of innovations for FNS and to draw general guidelines about
the processes by which different categories (e.g. on which dimensions of FNS) and magnitudes of
impacts can be achieved. In addition, while innovations have created immense benefits, some
innovations have generated controversy and disagreement in terms of their impacts on the people
and the environment. Hence it is necessary to give space and account for the plurality of perceptions
about the impacts of technological and institutional innovations. We do this by means of a
stakeholder consultation process, in which selected FNS innovation groups are evaluated in terms of
their different impacts. Overall, the typology of innovations, the review of their impacts and the
stakeholder consultation aim at providing an information base for the adaptation of existing
innovation and technological change scenarios by the FoodSecure modeling teams.2
The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 2 outlines the conceptual framework of the impacts
of technological and institutional innovations on FNS. A brief summary of the types of innovations
2
See van Dijk, 2012, for a discussion of the main global scenarios for food security analysis.
4
follows in section 3. Section 4 discusses the impacts of innovations on FNS. Science scenarios and a
review of priorities for action against food and nutrition insecurity are presented in Section 5. The
last section provides recommendations for the modeling of technological change and innovations in
FoodSecure and some conclusions.
2. Conceptual Framework of Technological and Institutional Innovations
and their Impacts on FNS
2.1
Frame of Innovations in Fostering FNS
Innovations play a key role in enhancing human welfare, reducing poverty, and promoting economic
growth in developing countries. Many studies have defined innovation in different ways and each of
the definitions is relevant for FNS. Spielman (2005) defined innovation as any new knowledge
introduced into and utilized in an economic and social process. Further, Spielman (2005) stated that
innovation is a process in which knowledge is accumulated and applied by heterogeneous agents
through complex interactions conditioned by social and economic institutions. Hall et al. (2002) also
defined innovation as a process of generating knowledge and applying it in a productive way. In a
similar context, Oyelaran-Oyeyinka (2005) defined innovation as a social process of knowledge
creation and exchange formed by the institutional structures of the process. In a slightly different
way, Ekboir and Parellada (2002) defined innovation as the ability to create knowledge in a creative
manner driven from market opportunities and other social needs. As many studies defined
innovation as a process, it is important to focus on the factors that enable the “knowledge flow”3 and
“innovative potential” rather than on factors directly linked to specific innovations (IFAD, 2007;
IAASTD, 2008).
In the agricultural sector, innovation leads to improved engineering and communication, which
supports food production, develops biotechnology, and sets new platforms and institutional
arrangements for farmers. Moreover, FNS is a cross-cutting concept for society at large as well as
agricultural systems. Hence, to identify the impact of innovations on FNS, it is important to set a
conceptual framework that lays out the relationship between innovation and FNS.
Figure 1 presents such a framework. Generally, an innovation is developed to reduce the barriers in
achieving FNS or to improve the current FNS status. The FNS problems in developing countries are
classified into two states: short-term and long-term FNS problems. While the latter problems are
more likely associated with structural problems, the short-term FNS problems have become the
focus of attention recently. The dramatic spike of food prices in 2007-20008 has brought short and
long term impacts. The short-term impacts of 2007-2008 were indicated by an important reduction
in calorie intake, an increase in poverty rates (Webb, 2010) and a slowed down progress in terms of
decreased malnutrition (von Braun and Tadesse, 2012). Further studies have indicated that shortterm shocks can have long-term consequences on human capital (Victora et al., 2008).
The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1 outlines that in many developing countries, food
and nutrition insecurity are driven from four main constraints. They include the lack of access to
natural resources, including land and water resources, other productive assets, knowledge and
3
Nonaka (1994) elaborates the dynamic theory of knowledge creation and distinguishes knowledge into two forms: explicit
and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to the knowledge that can be expressed and transmitted in formal
systematic language while tacit knowledge refers to the knowledge that cannot be expressed easily as it is rooted in action,
commitment, and involvement in a specific context.
5
information, input and output markets as well as social and political capital (Herbel et al. 2012).
Based on the UNICEF, the environmental capital through the availability of safe water, sanitation and
hygiene conditions play a significant role to FNS. Improved drinking-water and sanitation facility as
well as hygiene behavior have a significant impact on reducing FNS-related diseases such as diarrhea
and intestinal helminthes. Using 172 Demographic and Health Surveys, Günther and Fink (2010)
reported that water and sanitation infrastructure reduces the odds of children suffering from
diarrhea by 7-17 per cent and lowers the mortality risk for children under five years by 5-20 percent.
Through the new ideas, techniques, products and processes generated from innovations (Conway
and Waage 2010), the barriers to access natural resources and financial as well as social capital will
be reduced. Innovation in agricultural sectors can be driven from “push factors” or a response to
“pull factors” (Berdegue 2005). Most innovations in agriculture are a response to the negative
incentives (the push factors) resulting from unfavorable endowments, such as low soil quality,
inability to compete in the global market, drought, lack of labor input due to migration and lack of
power. The pull factors of innovation are associated with the new opportunities created by the
change of local, national, and international context, such as new infrastructures or the creation of
new markets. Nagayets (2005) argued that small-scale farmers will continue to dominate the
agricultural sectors in developing countries, warranting policy attention on the emergence of marketled innovations for small-holder farmers, as the latter are often considered as a barrier to
(investments in) agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST). The World Bank (2012)
indeed emphasizes the role of collective action, a form of social capital, to support, sustain and
develop the agricultural innovation system (AIS), as most innovations occur not through the isolation
of actors but through their interactions. The report by the World Bank (2012) provides several
concrete examples of collective action at the root of successful innovations with FNS impacts and
describes the requirements for increased collective actions are different levels of the food value
chain (World Bank 2012, Module1).
The actors of innovation are defined as individuals or organizations who introduce or use knowledge
in a serial process of acquiring information from various sources and integrating multiple elements of
the information into social and economic practices that change the behaviors and practices of
individuals, organizations or society (Spielman et al., 2011). Therefore, innovation involves a
multitude of actors. In many countries, the information and knowledge systems supporting FNS
innovations are linked with research, extension and educational organizations in development
agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations, as well as farmers’ organizations. In addition,
governments play an important role in governing and structuring the innovation system through
policies. However, FNS innovation in developing countries should focus on small-holder farmers and
farm laborers as the main actors (developers and users) of innovation. Most of them are
characterized with limited access to external resources and education but equipped with rich
traditional and local knowledge. They can participate in innovation through indigenous, technical
knowledge relevant to their (and similar) context(s). Importantly, there exists gender disparities in
the access to technological resources, natural resources, human resources, and social and political
capital (Peterman et al., 2010). Furthermore, Peterman et al. (2010) stressed the issues of gender
disparity in terms of access to and use of inorganic fertilizer, improved seed varieties, insecticides,
and mechanical power. In Nigeria, Sanginga et al. (2007) found that female farmers are less likely to
use improved soy bean seed. On the other hand, empirical studies found that women play a
significant role in institutional innovation, for instance through microfinance (Ngo and Wahhaj, 2012;
Boehe and Cruz, 2013). Reducing the gender gap is a critical task to address in enhancing women
6
participation in innovation. International development agencies such as the World Bank, CGIAR, ILRI,
and FAO are key international actors affecting the development and diffusion of innovations for FNS
in the developing world, with their sets of priorities, perspectives and agenda. As innovation is
rooted from the flow, exchange and use of knowledge, the interactions among actors is an important
consideration in agricultural innovation systems. The multitude of actors involved in agricultural
innovation offers opportunities to supporting research and development programs from various
sources. On the other hand, the plurality and fragmentation of the (groups of) actors of FNS
innovation might lead to coordination deficiencies in the diffusion of innovation, particularly in
developing countries that lack synergies across actors and sectors.
Specifically, critical future challenges lie in the institutional and organizational arrangements required
to involve small-holder farmers in the global agricultural innovation system for FNS (Nagayets, 2005).
Farmers are both consumers and producers of knowledge and information as well as agricultural
goods and services (Spielman and Birner, 2008). Herbel et al. (2012) suggest that successful
institutional innovations should cover three types of actions based on the farmers’ social capital:
strengthening collective action among farmers at the grassroots level (intra-group relations), bridging
between small-holder farmers and the upper organization (inter-group relations), linking between
small-holder farmer, upper institutions and organizations, public and private enterprises, as well as
policy-makers (extra-group relations). The intra-group relations may enable small-holder farmers to
enhance their skills and exchange knowledge while the inter-group arrangements will collectively
increase market power. With the vertical extra-group relationship, small-holder farmers are
connected with other types of organization with different interests and perspectives as well as levels
of power. This arrangement should enable the small-holder farmers to access resources, knowledge,
and technologies which are not provided at the local or even national level. As for economic actors
and policy makers, the involvement of small-holder farmers in designing more inclusive rural
development plan and national FNS guidance should improve FNS status and outcomes.
7
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Innovation System for FNS
Current state
Desired state
Lack of access to productive
land,
Lack of access to productive
assets and markets,
Lack of access to knowledge
and information,
Socially excluded and lack of
voice in decision making,
Insufficient intake of dietary
energy,
Micronutrient deficiencies,
…
Increased yields,
Improved access to inputs
(natural resources, land,
productive, assets, markets,
knowledge and
information),
Increased social and political
capital,
Improved human capital,
…
Outcomes /Push factors
Actions
Technological innovation:
innovation which focuses
on product and
agricultural yield, i.e.
animal and seed breeding
Institutional innovation:
innovation which focuses
on process and improved
access to inputs,
productive assets,
knowledge and
information, markets
Low agricultural
production,
Undernutrition.
Outcomes / Pull factors
Improved agricultural
production, distribution
(access), and consumption,
Improved food and
nutrition security.
Actors of Innovation
NGOs,
Governments,
Communities,
Companies (input suppliers, food processors),
Social enterprises,
International development agencies,
…
Source: Authors’ design, adapted from Herbel et al. 2012 and Center for Health Market Innovation.
8
2.2
Innovation and Total Factor Productivity (TFP) in the Agricultural Sector
Incomes per capita have increased significantly over the past two centuries reflecting the changes in
living standard. Notwithstanding, it is unavoidable that the increase of income is still unequal across
time and the globe. Economic growth theory is a tool for understanding this phenomenon and has
strongly influenced current policymaking in developing countries. Economic growth theory in
particular discusses the role of diminishing returns and its relation to the physical and human capital
accumulation, the interaction between income per capita and the rate of population growth, the
effects of technological progress through labor specialization and discoveries of new goods and
methods of production, and the role of monopoly power to incentivize technological advancement
(Baro and Sala-i-Martin, 1999). One important contribution of the modern growth theory is proposed
by Solow (1956) and Swan (1956) highlighting the importance of continuing improvements in
technology on per capita growth. The recent growth theories (Romer, 1987; 1990; Rivera-Batiz and
Romer, 1991) underscore the endogeneity of technical change particularly in explaining the roles of
increasing return, R&D activity, human capital, and the technology diffusion.
Motivated by the recent growth theories, the global agricultural economy has been widely assessed.
It is revealed that the productivity growth of agricultural sectors has been slowing down in the last
two decades (Fuglie, 2010). Nevertheless, some emerging countries like Brazil (Avila, 2007; Gasquez
et al., 2008) and China (Xu, 2012) have experienced successful productivity growth though the speed
is rather slow in China. Productivity growth in the agricultural sector is essential to fostering
development and for reducing poverty and hunger (Conway and Waage, 2010; Avila and Evenson,
2010; Spielman and Birner, 2011)4. Irz et al. (2001) argued that agricultural growth is particularly
impacting rural poverty through the changes in poverty rates and in poverty depth. Agricultural
growth enhances the farm economy through higher farmers’ incomes. As most agricultural growth is
driven by inovation (see Figure 2, where the impact of innovation is approximated by the share of
total factor productivity growth in the growth of total agricultural output - although one could argue
this is underestimated as the impact of some institutional innovations are captured in the impact of
irrigation and input intensification), the ability and acceptance of the farmers to participate in
innovations and adopt improved technologies is crucial. Agricultural growth will also promote the
rural economy in general through more job opportunities in agriculture as well as improvements in
the agricultural supply chain.
The simplest ways to measure agricultural productivity is through the yield and the average product
of labour (Piesse and Thirtle, 2010). The achievement of high yield and labour productivity is
positively correlated with the expenditure on R&D, as illustrated by empirical studies in the US
(Huffman and Evenson, 1992) and in the UK (Thirtle et al, 1997). Evenson (2001) also found a similar
pattern for developing countries and showed that agricultural productivity gains require large and
sustained expenditures in R&D. Avila and Evenson (2010) also argued that investment in
technological capital require long-term financial commitment and support this as the viable pathway
to alleviate poverty. Avila and Evenson (2010) introduce two components to measure technological
capital: invention-innovation capital and technology mastery. The invention-innovation capital aims
to measure the capacity to invent and innovate, including adaptive inventions as well as the capacity
to commercialize an invention through the production of goods embedded in the invention. The
4
In the case of Africa, Hazell (2010) found high poverty reduction elasticities for agricultural productivity growth. In Asia, a
1% increase of crop productivity is associated with 0.48% reduction of poverty (Thirtle et al., 2003).
9
technology mastery measures how a producer has the capacity to become skilled or proficient with
the production techniques developed by others.
Figure 2: Sources of growth in global agricultural production
Source: Fuglie, 2012
A TFP decomposition framework is outlined to suggest a viable future for innovation policy. Following
Avila and Evenson (2010), the TFP from a production function is derived as follow:
( )(
- -
)
(1)
where:
Y is aggregate production
A(t) is a shifter of the production function
L is unadjusted labour
QL is a labour quality index
H is land
K is machine and animal capital
Transforming the equation into TFP form, the production function yields the following:
-
(
)-
-
-
(2)
where G represents the rate of growth of each variables, CH is the cost share of input H (land) in total
cost, CL is the cost share of input L (labour) in total cost, and SK is the cost share of input K (Machine
and animal capital). The actual TFP growth is the difference between the rate of change in aggregate
output and the rate of change in aggregate input (labour, land, and machine and animal capital).
is the ‘unadjusted’ TFP, with labour quality (GQL) and other shifters of the production function
(GA) left oput. CK is equal with SK which is the cost share of input K (Machine and animal capital).
-
-
-
(3)
10
Taking the difference between the two TFP yields:
-
(4)
Equation 4 verifies that TFP growth can be promoted through the change in the variables
representing labour quality and the change in A. Labour quality is represented through the human
capital of the workforce. Avila and Evenson (2010) used two measures of labour quality: average
schooling of adult males in the workforce and nutritional status of the workforce. In addition to
labour quality, Avila and Evenson (2010) pointed out that GA is a measure of the adoption of
improved technology. In this case, they took the Green Revolution high yield varieties adoption. The
authors conclude that the direction to improve TFP growth should go along the improvement of
technologies adoption, increased schooling and improved nutrition. The TFP decomposition outlined
by Avila and Evenson (2010) is paralleled in the pilot activities of AgResults5 Innovation in Research
and Delivery through increasing yields and improved nutrition. One important component in the
areas of increasing yield is via incentivizing the use and adoption of alternative technologies (i.e
improved and healthy planting materials, green manure legumes). In terms of improved nutrition,
improved varieties of indigenous vegetables and fruits and making the micro-nutrients (i.e iron, zinc)
bio-available in the diet of the poorest population are among the essential technological solutions.
Empirical studies (Strauss 1986, Hoddinott et al. 2008) found that nutrition enhances labour
productivity, which is mirrored by the interconnection between nutrition and TFP growth. This fact
motivates our study to put adoption of alternative technologies to improve yields and nutrition
amongst our focus areas of innovation.
It is important to note that whilst TFP growth measures are widely used as indicators of innovation,
few studies such as Avila and Evenson (2010) are effectively analyzing the determinants of TFP
growth. Most studies provide TFP growth estimates based on the growth accounting approach and although infrastructure development, institutional reforms, human capital development are among
the known underlying causes of TFP growth and aggregate output – only focus on the proximate
causes of productivity growth (input use). Changes in the quality of inputs (e.g. land and water) are
also difficult to capture in a growth accounting approach of TFP measurement. With these caveats in
mind, we will nonetheless further refer to TFP growth estimates based on this method in this paper,
as the most widely available data source on agricultural productivity.6
3. Types of Innovation Fostering Food and Nutrition Security
3.1
Summary of Innovation Database
As part of Work Package 3, we documented 110 FNS-related innovations in a systematic database,
which consists of mixed technological, institutional, and policy innovations in developing countries7.
The database was established from several major resources including ILRI database, IFPRI, CGIAR,
5
AgResults is a development initiative focusing on the ‘pull mechanism’ through providing reward for agricultural
innovations that benefit the poor. The initiative has been developed by a core group of countries including Canada, the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and working with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the World bank,
and the global development advisory firm Dalberg (further information:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CFPEXT/Resources/AgResults_concept_note.pdf).
6
On-going work on a Food and Nutrition Security Typology of countries under FoodSecure is also based on growth
accounting estimates of TFP growth. This typology work attempts to cover FNS outcomes and their determinants, among
them TFP growth and its underlying causes.
7
The innovation database will be extended during project lifetime.
11
FAO, The World Bank, Promoting Local Innovation (PROLINNOVA), Eldis, Joint Learning un and about
Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA), Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA),
Rural Networking (Runnetwork), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Knowledge for
Development. The database only focuses on the innovations which have been implemented (and
thus misses the innovations which have been developed but not implemented) and is limited in time.
Working from a set of keywords for internet search, so far only the latest ten relevant innovations
identified by the keywords were included in the database. Throughout the project time, innovations
dating back to the late 1960s, particularly in the aspect of Green Revolution and its accompanying
policies, should be progressively added.
The historical record of innovation in the agricultural sector has shown a shift from technological
innovations to the institutional mechanisms ruling the adoption and adaptation of the technologies
(Peres, 2010). This shift depends on the specific circumstances, problems and contexts faced by the
actors and localities. In terms of innovation classification, Baregheh et al. (2012) classified
innovations based on the degree of innovation (Bessant and Tidd, 2007) and on the basis of the type
of innovation. Francis and Bessant (2005) proposed four types of innovation including position,
process, product, and paradigm innovation. Our classification is more focusing on the process and
product innovations. While the process innovations are more related to the architecture of
innovations, the product innovations in our database are focusing on the FNS dimensions addressed
by the innovations. In general, the architecture of innovations can be distinguished into five main
aspects, including goals and objectives (target of innovation), types of funding, source of innovation,
innovation developer, key actors and stakeholders. These aspects are strongly connected with
different time frames. Innovations also differ by their target: some specifically target certain
dimensions of FNS or specific actors (e.g. smallholder farmers).
Our database also records different types of innovation funding. In that sense, the innovation is
classified under “opportunity-driven” funding when the funding of innovation is driven by the market
(and in which case it typically comes from international development agencies, the private sector, or
non-governmental organizations). The innovation is classified as “orchestrated” when the innovation
is funded by a governmental intervention.
The path to strengthen the national scientific and innovation capacity may involve a dependency on
external funding in the first stage, moving to a more balanced funding in the later stage. This means
that the orchestrated type of innovation should take over from the opportunity-driven type of
innovation when the national innovation system becomes more mature and is well-established8.
According to Conway and Waage (2010) and Conway (2012), the source of innovation can be
classified into 4 categories, namely conventional, traditional, intermediate and new platform.
Another classification of innovation types is based on the developer of innovation. In this respect,
developer and funding of innovation is strongly interlinked. Our innovation database listed five major
developers of innovation including international research and development agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private sectors, national institutes (both government and research
agencies) and grass-root.
8
Taking as example of global partnership where an initial research collaboration is exclusively dependent on partners and
funders transformed into an independent local research activity taking more than 10 years of research life (Conway and
Waage, 2010).
12
The key actors and stakeholders involved in the innovation system determine the quality of agents’
interactions and the social learning that occurs during the innovation process (Woodhill, 2005).
Grass-root innovation partnerships generally bring together famers, scientists and researchers and
the private sector. It is recognized that the farmer is the innovator but the innovation process
requires an adequate environment to support and promote the active involvement of the farmer
itself in developing and sharing the innovation and technologies that they have created.
The summary of innovation types derived from the database is outlined in Figure 3. The figure
depicts that most of the innovations recorded in our database is purposed to specifically address the
availability and accessibility dimensions. At the earlier stage, the definition of FNS was driven from
the perspective of food production and agricultural activities. Later on, the structure and process in
the economy have been considered as vital elements to ensure FNS. In particular, the food price
spike of 2007-2008 and today’s climate change pressure exposed the crucial attention on the
production of and access to food. Inevitably, most innovations aim to address the above challenges.
Taking the example of the Green Revolution, which is known to have involved some of the great
technological innovations in agriculture, the main aim of innovation was to achieve higher yields. In
doing do, the scientists developed plants that were more resistant to diseases and more responsive
to plant nutrient (IFPRI, 2002).9 However, it should be noted that innovations for FNS are not only
dealing with producing and distributing food. Indeed, innovations for FNS should intervene along the
entire value chain of nutrition (Hawkes and Ruel, 2012). In addition, the limits of technological
innovation became apparent, particularly as related to the limited environmental carrying capacity.
There also exist socio-economic problems associated with the take-up and adoption of new
technology which underscore the need for institutional and policy innovations. New platforms of
technological innovation through biotechnology and other platforms currently explore broader
opportunities, which not only focus on the technology aspects but also on the sustainability of such
innovation. In addition, a specific section on GM is compiled to exclusively analyze the development
of GM and its connection to FNS.
Figure 3 reports the funding of innovation and highlights the importance of financial resources and
political support for innovation. Governments are important providers of funding for the whole
innovation process, including for scientific facilities and for the enhancement of skills necessary to
sustain the innovation system. Nevertheless, many developing countries are characterized with
limited resources and commitment for science and research development. For instance, in Ethiopia
the share of total expenditure (both public and private) on research and development was less than
0.2% of GDP between 2005 and 2007. On the other hand, emerging countries like Brazil and
Argentina devoted more than 1% of GDP for research and development over the same period10.
Figure 3 indicates that in the specific area of FNS innovation, international agencies seem to be the
main funding sources. It is also evident that agricultural innovation often appears in the form of
international collaboration between international research organizations and development agencies.
Hence, it can be concluded that the FNS innovations are still largely opportunity-driven: innovations
are more responsive to the market signals, hence more responsive to new actors. However, Brooks
and Loevinsohn (2011) argued that innovation should have an orchestrated degree, particularly
9
The Green Revolution led to the dramatic increase of agricultural production many of Asia, Middle East and Latin America
countries. In the case of Indonesia, the Green Revolution doubled the rice yields within ten years and brought the country
into rice self-sufficiency in the early 1980s. A more detailed assessment of the Green Revolution is outlined in Section 5.1.
10
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?page=1
13
when the systems supporting the innovation are prone to power and information asymmetry as well
as conflict of interest among actors.
In line with the source of innovation funding, Figure 4 reports that the stakeholder involved in the
innovation process is most likely engaged in International Research and Development Agencies such
as the FAO, the World Bank, and the international research center of the CGIAR including ILRI, ICRAF,
and IFPRI. In addition, international private foundations and regional multilateral organizations such
as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are also important innovation stakeholders. IN this context, a
challenge facing innovation systems for FNS is to improve the collaboration among stakeholders,
particularly in a way such that developing countries are empowered, recognized as true partners, and
have equal stakes in the innovation (Hall et al., 2004). Figure 4 indicates that neither the private
sector nor national governments have sufficient resources to invest in the research and development
of public goods (Pingali, 2012). Participating in public good R&D is least attractive for the private
sector as it lacks the capacity to capture the returns generated by public good R&D. Pant and Odame
(2006) provide a structural typology of partnerships in the innovation system: 1. between public and
non-profit private sector, 2. between public and for-profit private sector, 3. tripartite partnerships.
In the first type, private sector refers to NGOs and other international development agencies. The
sector includes local and provincial governments, and the agencies, departments and ministries in
the national knowledge systems. The second type of partnership is less applied in developing
countries. Our database confirms this notion, where the dominant stakeholder of agricultural
innovations in the developing countries is in the form of partnership between international research
and development organizations (Figure 5). Yet, as developed countries have followed the pattern of
public – (for-profit) private partnerships, Gray et al. (2006) argue that the developing countries might
also follow this trajectory. In the case of agricultural research in Africa, Sumberg (2005) argues that
achieving equal partnerships is problematic in the sense that some partners needs to be
strengthened while others are well advanced. This impacts the role of the ‘advanced’ partner, who
should aim to support and strengthen the developing country partners. For instance, the latter
should be able to set their own research priorities and innovation agenda.
Apart from partnerships, participatory research and innovation which involves local communities and
farmers can ensure that technologies are appropriate and hence adopted. Chambers (1992) outlines
two mainstreams of participatory approaches in agricultural innovation: the farmer participatory
research (FPR) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA)11. In the last decade, participatory innovation
development (PID) has received more attention and has been institutionalized in several developing
countries12. PID is an approach that takes local innovations as a point of entry to develop more
farmer-led and expert-supported innovations (Waters-Bayer et al., 2004; Birke et al., 2010; Birke et
al. 2011).
11
PRA is defined as ‘an approach that enables rural people to share, enhance, and analyze their knowledge of life and
conditions, to plan and to act (Chambers, 1992). FPR is an approach that engages farmers in understanding their subjective
goals and constraints, and their objective indigenous technical knowledge so that they can learn and adopt new
technologies and later on transfer the technologies to other farmers (Farrington and Martin, 1988). PID refers to the
creative interactions between farmers, extension/service providers and researchers to find new alternative technologies,
ways of collaboration, organization of labour, land tenure, and other farming related activities that work maintaining
capacity building and sustainable use of natural resources (van Veldhuizen, 2004).
12
The institutionalization of PID has been promoted widely in developing countries by PROLINOVA (Promoting Local
Innovation). PROLINOVA is an NGO based on a multi-stakeholder program aiming to promote local innovation considering
the importance of agriculture and natural resource management (www.prolinnova.net). PID has been established in 18
country platforms, among of them Ethiopia and Cambodia.
14
Our innovation database also captures the geographic scale of innovations. Figure 6 shows that most
innovations are large and open innovations with a national coverage. The features of national scale
innovations are generally focusing on rural policies and commodity competitiveness, particularly
those which are important for the poor. In addition, a national scale innovation generally is a result
from the scaling-up of the original and more local innovation. The database shows that 55% of the
national scale innovations are also implemented in other countries.
Figure 3. FNS Dimensions Addressed
by Innovation
Figure 4. Funding of Innovation
Figure 5. Stakeholder of Innovation
Figure 6. Geographic Scale of Innovation
Source: author’s compilation based on the FoodSecure innovation database – April 2013 version
(www.foodsecure.eu )
3.2
The Main Features of Innovations for FNS
This section discusses the main features of innovations in FNS-related areas. First, we focus on the
sources of technology. Following Conway and Waage (2010), the sources of technology are
categorized as conventional, traditional, intermediate and new platforms for technology. Selected
technological innovations are discussed based on each of these sources of technology in Sections
15
3.2.1 to 3.2.4. The last section (3.2.5) discusses the features of institutional innovation in FNS-related
areas.
3.2.1
Conventional technologies
“Conventional technologies” are produced by industrialized countries through the application of
modern knowhow in physics, chemistry, and biology. They are available in regional or global markets
as a packaged form. The conventional technologies were normally developed in the form of
agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer, high yielding varieties and irrigation tools, globally known as the
tools of the Green Revolution. The original aim of conventional technological innovations is to diffuse
knowledge to farmers to increase agricultural production through the transfer of knowledge
embedded in the products (Dockes et al. 2011). The Green Revolution has significantly contributed to
boost agricultural production in Asia between 1970 and 1995 (IFPRI, 2002; Pingali, 2012)13.
Nevertheless, there exist some problems with the Green Revolution particularly those related to the
social impacts and environmental degradation. In Thailand, the green revolution through the
expansion of cassava cultivation was associated with forest clearance (Trebuil, 1995). In India, the
green revolution is also linked with environmental degradation, for instance with respect to soil,
vegetation and water resources (Singh, 2000).
Unintended impacts do not reflect the failure of the technology adoption, but rather that of the
related policies used to promote the intensification of agriculture. Examples include the tendency of
the Green Revolution to lead to income inequality and inequitable asset distribution within countries
(IFPRI, 2002; Otsuka and Yamano, 2005; Rosenzweig and Munshi, 2009). Another example is the
loose regulation of input and output markets. As a specific consequence, although some developing
countries locally produce fertilizers such as urea, phosphate and potash which can meet the
domestic needs, other fertilizer requirements are entirely fulfilled through imports. This means that
the domestic supporting policies in terms of agricultural input industries contribute to the adoption
and success of Green Revolution package. Therefore, policy innovation plays a significant role in new
technologies adoption and has been acknowledged as one of the pioneers in agricultural institutional
innovations. The need for further progress in this area was evidenced during the 2007-08 food and
fuel price crisis, which put pressure on agricultural input prices including fertilizers (Hill and Cogil,
2010): fertilizer prices steeply increased during this period and further limited access for the poor
small-holder farmers.
Related to the issue of application, the Green Revolution promoted the use of inputs such as
pesticides and fertilizers and showed how judicious input application can reduce production costs. At
the same time, guidelines on fertilizer application help to preserve the environment, for instance by
increasing cultivated soil carbon reserves. Pingali (2012) argued that there is a need for a second
generation Green Revolution, also promoted by Conway and Waage (20120) and Conway (2012). This
new green revolution should focus on a sustainable agriculture, where high and stable agricultural
productivity does not affect the environmental resilience of the system or promote income
inequality.
Another example of conventional technology is food fortification. The need for food fortification,
particularly in developing countries, is driven by the less conclusive impact of the Green Revolution
on micronutrient intake (Shetty 2002). Theoretically, the Green Revolution led to an increase of
13
A more detailed assessment of the Green Revolution’s impact is presented in the section 4.2.
16
incomes and hence to positive impacts on the nutritional outcomes: saving on staple food
expenditures, households improve their access to nutrient-rich (non-staple) food (Torlesse et al.,
2003). However, in India it is found that the green revolution has increased protein and fat intake,
but that the increase of micro-nutrient intake remains uneven. The same evidence is also found in
Indonesia where the decrease of staple food expenditure is associated with increased consumption
of meat and dairy products, but not of vegetables and fruits (Pangaribowo and Tsegai, 2011).
This evidence calls for the need to extend the conventional technology of food fortification to
developing countries. Ensuring food availability is necessary but not sufficient. The returns on food
fortification have been endorsed by the Copenhagen Consensus and recognized as one of the four
priorities in development intervention along with controlling of HIV/AIDS, trade liberalization, and
combating malaria (World Bank, 2006; Copenhagen Consensus, 2008). As of 1996, 18 countries had a
food fortification program. Now, this number has doubled and a wider variety of commodities have
been fortified (Bishai and Nalubola, 2002; Samaniego-Vaesken et al. 2012). It should be noted that
the institutional settings in the form of legislation and regulations are important components of food
fortification (Nathan, 1999) and the establishing the necessary institution should be one of the first
steps of a food fortification program. In addition, Nathan (1999) emphasized the importance of
advocacy, both at the industrial and household level. Advocacy programs aim to educate and to
create awareness among industry and the consumers. Advocacy is paralleled with the acceptance of
food fortification and inducing demand of the consumers. The enabling legislation and advocacy
levels vary across countries, several countries such as Brazil, India, and China being known as the
global leader in this arena (Moench-Pfanner and van Ameringen, 2012).The detailed assessment of
the impacts of food fortification on FNS is discussed in Section 4.
3.2.2
Traditional technologies
Traditional technologies are defined as technologies which have been developed by the local
communities to meet their local needs. This type of innovation is derived from the traditional
practices, generally shaped over a period of time by communities in developing countries and proven
to be effective as complements to conventional technologies. Several traditional technologies,
particularly agricultural systems, have been promoted and recognized globally. As a traditional
technology is invented and adopted by local people, this technology is also referred to as indigenous
technical knowledge (Conway and Waage, 2010). In the farming system, a traditional technology is
characterized with low use of inputs, reflecting the (lack of) opportunities available to small-holder
farmers (Meyer, 2010). A (controversial) example of farming practice rooted in age-old agricultural
practices is the system of rice intensification (SRI). SRI has been widely adopted globally in the last
decade beyond its country of origin, Madagascar (Uphoff and Kassam, 2008).
Another example of traditional technology application globally applied is home gardens. Home
gardens represent a traditional agricultural practice that has been applied mostly in rural areas,
acting as food buffer stock for small-holders. Apart from that, home gardens provide more benefits
including wealth generation, bargaining power in labor markets, post-harvest storage, nonagricultural income generating activities, and access to credit (Hanstad et al., 2002). Recently, home
gardening has been used as a sustainable strategy that can address multiple micronutrient
deficiencies through dietary diversification (Cabalda et al., 2011). At the same time, home gardens
also serve as an integrated agro-ecosystem (Soemarwoto et al., 1985; Kahlenbeck et al., 2010;
17
Galuzzi et al., 2010). In Java14, home gardens (pekarangan) are well developed and characterized
with great diversity relative to their size15 (Soemarwoto et al., 1975; 1985; White, 2010). The
structure of home gardens in Java varies from place to place, ranging from 80 to 179 plant species
(Soemarwoto et al., 1985). More importantly, Javanese home gardens contribute primarily to vitamin
A and C provision, 12.4% and 23.6% respectively of the recommended dietary allowance (Arifin et al.,
2012), and to 20% of household income (Stoler, 1978). In Cambodia and Nepal, respectively 31 to
65% respectively of household income is derived from revenue of poultry sale raised in the home
garden (Mitchell and Hanstad, 2004). In the Philippines, a study on home gardening found that
having a home garden is positively associated with children’s diet diversity and with frequency of
vegetable consumption (Cabalda et al., 2011).
Figure 7. Benefits of Home gardens
Income,
access to
land/credit
Family status,
wealth assets
Household
activities,
dietary
needs
Home
gardens
Source: authors’ classification adapted from Mitchell and Hanstad (2004) and Arifin et al. (2012)
Another type of traditional knowledge which has been internationally acknowledged is that related
to animal health and veterinary knowledge. Existing, traditional veterinary knowledge has made
significant contributions and has been elaborated into a participatory epidemiology to control
livestock diseases. This knowledge is increasingly important in the era of declining public sector
veterinary services in developing countries (Catley and Admassu, 2003)16. As it is derived from local
knowledge, this type of disease control is found to be effective and acceptable for the various
stakeholders. The Global Rinderpest Eradication Program in Africa adopted a participatory disease
surveillance (PDS) approach to control rare and common diseases (Jost et al., 2007). In Pakistan, this
method was also applied to detect the severity of the rinderpest status of the urban buffalo
population. PDS has been adopted in the urban settings of Indonesia in controlling the H5N1 virus.
14
Java is one of the principal islands and the most densely populated in Indonesia.
2
The size of pekarangan normally takes at least 120m (Arifin et al., 2012) or covers 10-15% of the cultivable area (Mitchell
et al., 2002).
16
In the case of Indonesia, the veterinary service was “an easy target” for cutting of government expenditures in the time
of the Asian financial crisis (Normille, 2007).
15
18
3.2.3
Intermediate technologies
Intermediate technologies are a mix between conventional and traditional technologies (Conway and
Waage 2010). The application of such technologies is supported by an institutional change so that
they can provide a full range of benefits to small farmers. As examples, Polak et al. (2003) listed three
types of affordable small-plot irrigation systems which developed from the mix of conventional and
traditional technologies, including treadle pump, low cost drip irrigation, and low cost sprinkler
system. These low-cost irrigation technologies enable poor farmers to have access to water and at
the same time to reduce production costs.
The treadle pump is one of the successful intermediate technologies, developed in Bangladesh
during the 1980s (Namara et al., 2010). Before the development of the treadle pump, the extraction
of ground water in Bangladesh mainly relied on motorized pumps. In the mid-1970s, the government
of Bangladesh introduced the use of hand tube wells for irrigation systems but it was relatively
expensive for small-holder farmers. Amid a growing awareness of the need for accessible irrigation
for small-holder and marginal farmers, the treadle pump was initiated by an NGO in Bangladesh in
1979 (Orr et al., 1991). The objective of the treadle pump development was threefold: a high and
sustainable of agricultural output, low cost, technology and simplicity of production, installation and
use. In support, a variety of mass marketing actions were implemented in the 1980s by an
international non-profit organization, International Development Enterprises (IDE) (Hierli and Polak,
2000; Namara et al., 2010). Currently, the treadle pump has been adopted across Africa and Asia (Kay
and Brabben, 2000).
Another example of micro-irrigation technology is the development of the drip system, mainly used
to irrigate the off-season growing of vegetable crops on hill-terraces which lack water access (Polak
et al. 2003). This system provides benefits to small-holder farmers including a reliable water source,
higher yields and lower water use, leading to a sustainable intensification of agriculture and more
profitable crops. The dissemination and marketing of this system have also led to an increase annual
average income for the farmers.
Both examples provide evidence that new and affordable intermediate technologies enable smallholder farmers to access the village water system, have a better access to drinking water, and enjoy
the benefits of the income generated thanks to the system.
3.2.4
New platforms technologies
The new platform technologies applied in fostering FNS include information and communication
technologies (ICT) for the agricultural sector, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. ICTs have been
widely applied for enhancing better market access as well as empowering local farmer organizations.
In the application of biotechnology, food fortification is among the most cost-effective way to
improving nutritional outcomes. This section discusses selective new platform technologies, mainly
ICT, biotechnology of food fortification, biofortification, and GM crops. This section will also outline
the role of extension services through farmer field school (FFS) in accelerating the adoption of the
new platform technologies in the agricultural sector. The section also presents how the new platform
technologies impact FNS.
3.2.4.1
ICT for agriculture
ICTs cover technologies used to handle information and communication, including internet, radio,
television, video, digital cameras and other hardware and software. In the former era, ICT in
19
developing countries mainly served as an entertaining gizmo and a means of communication. The
modern application of ICTs has provided more services, through most areas of development
including agriculture, education and health. The mushrooming of ICT applications in many developing
countries provides an opportunity to transfer knowledge through the private and public information
systems (Aker, 2011). One of the ICT applications is the widespread and varied use of mobile phones.
Over the past decade, mobile phone subscriptions have increased considerably in developing
countries (ITU, 2011 as represented in Figure 8). The greatest benefits of mobile phones are the
significantly reduced communication and information costs, geographic coverage and the convenient
use of the technology (Aker and Mbiti, 2010). As more and more people, particularly the poor one,
have enjoyed the benefits of mobile phones, a number of innovators in developing countries have
taken the opportunity to use it in various aspects of local life (Conway and Waage, 2010). Since early
2007, there have been a number of applications through mobile phones for farming, health, banking,
and advocacy.
Figure 8. Mobile-cellular Suscriptions per 100 habitants, 2001-2011
Source: ITU World Telecommunication /ICT Indicators database, (ITU, 2011)
For farming activities, the expanding use of mobile phones support farmers’ access to information
access on agricultural extension services, market, financial services and livelihood support (Donner
2009), Translating in better access extension services, better market links and distribution networks,
and better access to finance (World Bank, 2011). Ultimately, the mobile phone applications for
farmers will improve farmers’ income, lower transaction and distribution costs for input supplier,
improve traceability and quality standard for buyers, and create new opportunities for financial
institutions. In more detail, Aker (2011) highlights the significance of mobile phones on agricultural
services adoption and extension in developing countries through improved access to private
information, farmer’s management of input and output supply chains, facilitation of the delivery of
20
other services, increased accountability of extension services, and increased communication linkages
with research systems. The perspective of the private sector (Vodafone Group and Accenture, 2011)
also emphasizes the potential solution offered by mobile applications in improving data visibility for
supply chain efficiency (Table 2).
Based on the review of 92 mobile applications, Baumüller (2012) found that the major service
provided by the application is information provision. It is also found that only a few of the
applications are already sustainable, while 33% of them are at the concept proof stage and 55% are
at the scaling-up phase. ICTs are also a typical example of a new vector for collective action through
increased connectedness and interactions, a crucial element for an improved agricultural innovation
system (World Bank, 2012).
Table 2. Mobile phones for Food and Agriculture
Platform
Features
Impact
Improving access to
financial services
Mobile payment system
Micro-insurance system
Micro-lending platform
Increasing access and affordability of
financial services for agricultural
purposes
Provision of
agricultural
information
Mobile information platform
Farmer helpline
Delivering information relevant to
farmers, such as agricultural techniques,
prices, and weather forecast
Improving data
visibility for supply
chain efficiency
Smart logistic
Traceability and tracking system
Mobile management of supplier
networks
Mobile management of
distribution networks
Optimizing supply chain management
across sectors
Enhancing access to
markets
Agricultural trading platform
Agricultural tendering platform
Agricultural bartering platform
Enhancing
connection
between
commodity exchanges, traders, buyers
and sellers of agricultural commodities
Source: Vodafone Group and Accenture (2011)
3.2.4.2
Biotechnology and biofortification
In the area of FNS, biotechnology plays a supportive role through the tissue culture for more
effective and beneficial traits and genetic engineering technology. Genetic engineering has been
used widely but mostly concentrated on increasing resistance to environmental stresses, pests, and
diseases. However, recent developments in biotechnology have moved to another direction: high
yield crops and more nutritious crops and animal products. In order to bring some of these benefits
to the poor, who typically lack access to nutritious foods, such as fruits, vegetables, animal source
foods (such as fish, meat, eggs, and dairy products), and rely heavily on staple foods, there is a need
for staples-related biotechnology.
One of the new platform technologies in this area is biofortification, a process of introducing
nutrients into staple foods. Biofortification can be conducted through conventional plant breeding,
agronomic practices such as the application of fertilizers to increase zinc and selenium content, or
transgenetic techniques (Bouis et al., 2011). The small-holder farmers cultivate a large variety of food
21
crops developed by national agricultural research centers with the support of the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). One of the global initiatives of biofortification is
known as HarvestPlus17. Biofortification provides a large outreach as it reaches the rural
malnourished population which less exposed to the fortified food in the markets and
supplementation programs. By design, biofortification initially targets the more remote population in
the country and is expanded later to urban populations. To be successfully implemented,
biofortification should meet several challenges: successful breeding in terms of high yields and
profitability, nutrients of the biofortified staple foods should be preserved during the processing and
cooking, the degree of adoption and acceptance by farmers and consumers and the coverage rate
(the proportion of biofortified staples in production and consumption) (Nestel et al., 2006;
Meenakshi et al., 2010; Bouis et al., 2011). The development of biofortification is outlined in Table 3.
In the case of food processing, Menakshi et al. (2010) estimated that the greatest processing losses
are in the case of cassava in Africa, where the loss of vitamin A during the cooking process is between
70% and 90%. For other staple crops such as sweet potato and rice, the processing loss can be
anticipated as both staple foods are consumed in boiled form.
Table 3. HarvestPlus Pathway to Impact
Stage
Discovery
Activity
Identifying target populations and staple food consumption profiles
Setting nutrient target levels
Screening and applied biotechnology
Development
Delivery
Crop improvement
Gene by environment (GxE) interactions on nutrient density
Nutrient retention and bioavailability
Nutritional efficacy studies in human subjects
Release biofortified crops
Facilitate dissemination, marketing, and consumer acceptance
Improved nutritional status of target populations
Source: Bouis et al., 2011.
Biofortification has been implemented in several counties of Asia and Africa (Table 4). A number of
crops are biofortified including rice, wheat, maize, cassava, pearl millet, beans, and sweet potato,
depending on the country context. Biofortification is found to be cost-effective in terms of the
moderate breeding costs which take up approximately 0.2% of the global vitamin A supplementation
(Beyer, 2010) while the benefit is far higher than the cost18. Comparing with other types of
interventions such as supplementation and food fortification, biofortification seems more costeffective19. Nevertheless, biofortification is also without limitations as it might not be viable to be
17
HarvestPlus is a part of the CGIAR research program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health under the coordination of the
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
18
See the detail example in Bouis et al. (2011).
19
HarvestPlus takes an example how much US$75 million is worth for supplementation, fortification and biofortification.
That amount of money can buy vitamin A supplementation for one year to 37.5 million pre-school children in South Asian
countries: Bangladesh, India and Pakistan; while the same amount can be used for iron fortification for one year for 365
million persons which account for 30% of population in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. On the contrary, the same amount
22
applied in all plants. In the breeding perspectives, the breeding system of some plants is very difficult
(Beyer, 2010). In Uganda, banana is a staple food and the per capita consumption per year is nearly
200 kg. The content of vitamins and mineral in banana is very low. Nevertheless, the conventional
breeding of banana is less viable and takes more process. Another limitation of biofortification is that
the potential benefits of biofortified staple food is uneven across all groups as the need for
micronutrients varies along the lifecycle (Bouis et al., 2011).
It should be recognized that the available, new varieties of biofortified food might not be effective
due to the low of willingness to adopt such technology. As local farmers have limited information and
knowledge, they are more likely to make inappropriate decision. Therefore, accompanied
intervention through community participation to ensure that ethical principles of the right to
informed choice plays an important role in promoting the adoption of biofortified staple (Johns and
Eyzaguirre, 2006).
Table 4. Target Crops, Nutrients, Countries, and Release Dates
Crop
Nutrient
Country
Bean
Cassava
Maize
Pearl millet
Rice
Sweet potato
Wheat
Iron
Vitamin A
Vitamin A
Iron
Zinc
Vitamin A
Zinc
DR Congo, Rwanda
DR Congo, Nigeria
Nigeria, Zambia
India
Bangladesh, India
Mozambique, Uganda
India, Pakistan
Year of release
2012
2011
2012
2012
2013
2007
2013
Source: http://www.harvestplus.org/content/crops
3.2.4.3
GM crops
Since their introduction in 1996, Genetically Modified (GM) crops have been extensively adopted by
farmers, both in developing and developed countries. Worldwide, more than 160 million hectares
are cultivated with GM crops, an area that represents more than 10% of the world cropped area
(James, 2012). For crops that are genetically modified, adoption levels have reached high levels, even
considering that they are still large parts of the world where their cultivation is not authorized.
Sixteen years after the first GM crop was introduced, GM maize covered more than one-third of the
world maize area, GM soybean 81% and GM canola 30% of the corresponding total cropped area
(James, 2012). In 2012, GM crops were cultivated in 28 countries, with a rather even distribution
between developed and developing countries (James, 2012). In sum, the adoption of biotechnology
in farming might have been one of the fastest adoption processes of a technical innovation in recent
agricultural history. For instance, it only took two years for GM Herbicide Tolerant sugar beet to
reach an adoption level of 95% in the US, which represents an impressive rate of diffusion for an
agricultural innovation (Dillen et al., 2013).
However, the diversity of GM crops in terms of available traits for farmers is still very low compared
to the promises. Four crops and two traits represent practically the whole biotech offer up to now.
The two traits are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR), and the four crops are soybean,
maize, cotton and canola, by order of area. The herbicide tolerance trait is intended to simplify the
of fund can finance the cost of developing and disseminating iron and zinc fortified rice and wheat for South Asia which
would be last longer year after year.
23
weed control by transforming the plant in order to make it tolerant to a large-scale herbicide
(glyphosate or glufosinate for instance) while the insect resistant trait’s purpose is to provide the
plant with the capacity of producing a toxin that is active against some insect pests. Thus both traits
are agronomic traits and are mainly aiming at improving the growing conditions of the crop.
From a FNS point of view, the impact of those GM crops currently under cultivation goes through the
channels of improved availability and/or accessibility: GM crops that would deliver higher yield
would mean an increased production, compared to conventional counterfactuals, and higher
production or reduced costs of production would translate into a reduced price for consumers.
However, there has been some controversy about the actual effect GM crops have had on yields and
prices. It is usually admitted that HT crops such as HT soybean, that represents half of the world’s GM
area, are associated with small and generally insignificant yield effects. There are however additional
profits for the farmers, but they are also largely dependent on the Property Right schemes that
determine the technology fees and that vary across countries. The high adoption of HT crops in
countries where they are available is rather better explained by the increased ease of use, flexibility
and efficiency that the HT trait confers for weed control. However, a recent meta-analysis of field
studies has shown that overall, GM crops have a higher yield than non-GM crops, this positive effect
being clearer for Bt crops (IR) than for HT crops, and in developing countries than in developed
countries (Areal et al., 2013). One the other hand, the same review shows that the cost of production
for GM crops is higher than for the conventional crops, when all traits and countries are taken into
consideration. In developing countries though, the production costs associated with the HT
production are lower than those for growing conventional crops. Overall, impacts of GM crops on
either economic or agronomic variables tend to be more marked in developing countries, which
means that the impact of GM crops on FNS is higher in countries where the needs are located. But
this impact is still rather limited with the first generation of GM crops that are available on the
market, and might increase in the future when crops dedicated to the specific needs of developing
country farmers are available. In terms of trend, growth in global area planted with biotech/GM
crops is mostly driven by developing. Since about 2004, they have been closing the gap with
industrialized countries in planted area, overtaking them for the first time in 2012 (Figure 9).
Nonetheless, there are some striking differences in the type of biotech/GM crops grown, also among
developing countries, and thus the channels of potential impacts on FNS would vary greatly.
According to James (2012), the four main producers of biotech crops in developing countries in 2012
are Brazil (36.6m ha), Argentina (23.9m ha), India (10.8m ha) and China (4m ha). Brazil and Argentina
grow biotech soybean, maize and cotton. India and China grow almost exclusively Bt cotton (James,
2012). With Bt cotton, the main impact on FNS is through increased farmers’ income (hence impact
on accessibility), possibly through more efficient cotton production and thus less input competition
with other (food) crops (debatable impact on availability). The debate about biotech food crops is
also very intense in India, where a moratorium on Bt eggplants, with consequences for biotech
research funding and development in the country (Bagla and Stone, 2013). 20
20
Finally, we must highlight the importance of the legal and policy frameworks which enabled Brazil, Argentina,
India and China to become leaders in biotech crops. In particular, which mechanisms were set up to address
public concern regarding these new technologies and the ethical issues which they raise? This is treated in this
review but will be researched specifically under further FoodSecure activities (D3.5 and D3.6).
24
Figure 9. Global area of biotech crops million hectares
Source: James, 2012
Table A1 (Appendix) provides a list of published surveys of the impacts of GM crops on yields and/or
economic margins, as represented in the FoodSecure database on innovations for and impacts on
FNS. For specific impact figures (yields, economic margin), information is available in the FoodSecure
innovation database (www.foodsecure.eu ).
3.2.5 Institutional innovations
Institutional innovations involve social and political processes in which the actors of innovation
contribute to a larger action by combining inherited practices, technologies and institutions to
address their interest (Hargrave and van De Ven, 2006). Institutions are defined as the rules of
society or organizations that support the people or members by helping them form and deal with
their expectations about each other so that they achieve common objectives (Ruttan and Hayami,
1984; World Bank, 2002). As mentioned earlier, innovation is a process involving various institutional
arrangements and inter-agent coordination. In the FNS related areas, more specifically in the
agricultural sector, institutional innovations have emerged in the form of the coordination of actions
and interests of farmers, markets, and policy makers. As mentioned above, the downsides of the
Green Revolution are mainly due to the related social policies, not to the technologies themselves.
Therefore, institutional innovation plays a substantial role to accompany technological innovation
make it beneficial for the people.
One of the innovative institutions related to FNS are the farmer field schools (FFS) (Braun et al.,
2006). Originated in Indonesia, FFS have long been recognized as an initiative to address the
challenge of pest management and the heterogeneous ecological aspects of farming activities.
Nevertheless, FFS has also been implemented in other fields, such as resource management (Nepal),
25
adoption of agricultural technologies (Kenya), and diffusion of knowledge (Mexico)21. Despite the
small amount of budget to sustain the FFS, a great number of international and national NGOs have
been involved thoroughly in FFS since the early 1990s. A good practice in FFS is the involvement of
FFS alumni in Indonesia and the Philippines as full-time FFS facilitators. Apart from pest management
and farming practices, the FFS alumni were also trained with new skills, such as computer and
entrepreneurial development (Braun et al., 2006; Braun and Duveskog, 2008).
IFAD (2010) outlines the importance of institutional innovations to facilitate access to natural
resources and local governance, access to productive assets and markets, access to information and
knowledge, and increasing political capital. The World Development Report 2008 on Agriculture for
Development (World Bank, 2008) documents several focus areas of institutional innovations
including new mechanisms to increase land tenure security for small-holders farmers, financial and
services access, risk mitigation and management, as well as efficient input markets. In Andhra Padesh
- India, an initiative for sustainable agriculture based on group of women is developed to improve the
livelihood and nutrition of the poor. The innovative element of this program is the bottom-up
planning process where the households and communities identify their needs and find the workable
solutions (World Bank, 2012). There are several benefits enjoyed by the farmers, including the
increase of savings and income, stable yields and increased diversification, increased investment in
productive assets and sustainable land and water management, new livelihood opportunities,
improved food security, and human and environmental health benefits. Our innovation database has
collected a number of institutional innovations covering those focus areas (Table 5). These
institutional innovations, by increasing access to financial resources and microcredit, or providing a
legal framework to ensure access to resources and land as well as intellectual property rights, are
important routes for enhancing livelihoods.
Finally, the reorganization of different institutional frameworks, or rather the necessity for crossdepartmental cooperation and strategies, has been identified as a key to development necessary to
address food and nutrition insecurity. Arising from the multi-dimensional nature of FNS issues, the
need for “policy convergence” on FNS was identified early as a pillar in the terms of references of the
Committee for World Food Security (CFS) and was re-emphasized after its reform. CFS (2012)
identifies the promotion of policy convergence as one of its main roles and highlights avenues for
policy convergence in the specific case of FNS crisis (linking FNS action with social protection - item
36), in general policy on responsible agricultural investment (item 41), biofuel policy (item 45), food
reserves – including the management of emergency humanitarian food reserves (item 46), gender
issues (item 49), sustainable agricultural growth (item 54), nutrition policy and social protection (item
57), countries in protracted crisis (item 68). Concretely, in this context policy convergence points to
increased cooperation and consultation between government sectors in order to harmonize their
goals and understand their interdependencies with respect to FNS. The CFS supports the use of
voluntary guidelines, in particular on nutritional indicators, as a step in this direction. Indeed, several
food and nutrition security indicators reviewed in Pangaribowo et al. (2013) make reference to such
guidelines, national plans or strategies. One could add the need for policy convergence with
education policy and capacity strengthening programs at all levels of the food value chain (World
Bank, 2012). Investments in capacity building for agricultural innovation, as a typical example of the
21
Table A2 in the Appendix presents the list of countries that implement FFS approach.
26
convergence of different sectors, may require investing more broadly in (economic) development
programs, and (World Bank, 2012).
Table 5. Selected Institutional Innovation
No
Innovation
Financial and services access
1
Innovative financing for agriculture
Risk management
2
Market-based risk management schemes
Access to social capital and partnership
3
Awareness building about local innovations
4
Promoting innovations at grassroots level through innovation portal
5
Building learning alliances
6
Institutional building
7
Transforming the institutional system for fostering innovations
8
Innovative triangular partnership
9
Innovation system governance and policies
10
Assessment of innovation competitiveness
11
Community mobilisation projects
12
Institutions for food security
13
Enabling policies for reducing poverty and improving food security
14
Inclusion of smallholders in agricultural research
15
Multiple-stakeholder approaches to agricultural innovation
16
Innovation and smallholder partnership
Access to information and knowledge
17
Database of Eldis (IDS, UK)
18
Agricultural research and innovation
19
Mechanism to Share Innovations
Access to assets and market
20
Integrating farmers into dynamic supply chains
21
Indigenous food plants
22
Food aid to support local production
23
Enhancing value chains to benefit farmers
24
Food security observatory
25
Farm aid rather than food aid
Developer
ADB
WB and DFID
NIF
Techpedia
CIAT
ForestAction, Nepal
USAID
JICA, WB
IFPRI
WB
MercyCrops
FAO, IFAD, WFP
ILRI
INSARD
FARA
GCARD
IFPRI
IPS
NGO
Catholic Relief Services
African Innovation Institute
Inter-American Institute
USAID
Source: FoodSecure Database – Version April 2013 (www.foodsecure.eu )
4. Meta analysis of Innovations’ Impact Assessments
4.1.
Methods
In conducting the meta-analysis of technological and institutional innovation impact assessments, a
systematic literature review is performed. The literature review is based on published and
unpublished studies after 2000 identified from several databases including PubMed, Eldis, and the
World Bank depending on the type of innovations. We identify the innovation impacts on FNS based
on the type of technology as described in Section 3.2., for instance the search key words include ICT,
biofortification, FNS, and impact. We also use the manual search of literatures related to the topic. In
addition to the definition of innovation discussed in the earlier section, this paper stresses that the
definition of an innovation not only covers new technologies or institutions, but also how existing
technologies and institutions are used or applied in a new context with an impact on FNS. For
instance, the impact of ICT on FNS is not the ICT per se, but how ICT has played a vital role in
providing agricultural information and improving information along the agricultural supply chain.
27
Similarly, in the area of food fortification in developing countries, it is not food fortification the
innovation per se, but the innovation is related with how food fortification requires institutional
innovation such as supportive legislation and private sector collaboration. To complement the
innovation database, this study also collects empirical studies which evaluate selected innovation
listed in the database. In searching the literature, we initially combined the key words search of
“impact evaluation”, “innovation”, and “food nutrition security” on PubMed, Googles Scholar, Eldis,
IFPRI, as well as proceedings of international conferences. The next selection of the studies is based
on the methodological characteristics. We prioritize studies which use a longitudinal data or large
scale and randomized control trials. We also include studies which utilize cross-sectional data as long
as they include matching analysis of the treatment and control groups. For the institutional
innovation, this study focuses on the analysis of the impact of farmer field schools (FFS) as it has
been widely studied and assessed (Braun et al., 2006; Braun and Duveskog, 2008). The final selection
of the studies is presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.
In assessing the impact of innovations on FNS, this paper follows the FAO FNS dimensions:
availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. Food availability refers to the physical availability of
food. The level of food production, stock levels and net trade are the fundamental determinants of
the supply side of FNS. Accessibility refers to the economic and physical access to food. Utilization
measures whether a household or individual is able to derive sufficient nutrition during a given
period of time. Stability refers to the stability of the first three dimensions of food security, at all
times and without risks. In this study, we focus on the first three dimensions of FNS as the stability
dimension is embedded in the other dimensions22. Several innovations might address multiple
dimensions at the same time and exhibit dimensional overlaps. For instance, biofortification
(discussed in this section) aims to address the availability and utilization dimensions. However, as the
original intention of biofortification is to enhance micronutrient intake and improve nutrition
outcomes for the poor, the impact assessment will be mostly discussed in reference with utilization.
Other types of innovative traditional technologies like home-gardens and ICT for agriculture might
give overlapping assessments as they address availability, accessibility, and utilization at different
levels. In terms of institutional innovation, we highlight a specific innovation, FFS as it addresses the
multiple dimensions of FNS. FFS has been recognized as an innovative, participatory and interactive
model in enhancing farmers’ knowledge and skills which has been widely applied in Asia, Africa, Latin
America, Middle East and recently in North Africa as well as Eastern and Central Europe (Braun et al.,
2006).
In addition to the meta-analysis, a stakeholder survey was conducted to collect a plurality of views on
the impacts (FNS, socio-economic and environmental) of innovations for FNS. The results of the
survey are presented in Section 4.2.4.
4.2
4.2.1
The Impacts of Innovations on the Dimensions of FNS
Availability
The initial technological breakthroughs were in the breeding of improved varieties- particularly rice
and wheat, accompanied by the use of fertilizers and other chemical inputs, and irrigation (IFPRI,
2000) which boosted agricultural production. As mentioned above, early innovations were aimed to
address the possibility of feeding growing populations. The adoption of innovations during the Green
22
Pangaribowo et al. (2013) stated that the stability dimension covers cross-cutting issues. Safety net programs and
micronutrient interventions, particularly for the most vulnerable groups, remain the most important buffer for stability.
28
Revolution occurred very quickly all over the world, thanks to the role of innovative institutions at
the local level which made the smooth technological transfer possible.
Several studies (Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995; Romani, 2003; Feder et al., 2004; Alenea and
Manyong, 2006; Conley and Udry, 2010) reported a positive impact of institutional innovation
through FFS on agricultural productivity. Those studies prove that appropriate soft-infrastructures
such as local institutions and social capital make technological investments and transfers successful
in fostering food production. Furthermore, those studies showed that institutional innovations like
FFS enhancing farmer knowledge can increase productivity and profitability. In addition, farmer
participation in FFS has also benefitted the environment. Through the IPM program introduced in the
FFS, farmers have been able to wisely apply pesticides and other chemical inputs without
compromising the production area and in many cases improving yield productivity (Braun et al.,
2006).
Nevertheless, the application of conventional technologies through high yield varieties (HYV) of the
Green Revolution has led to a gap in research and technology. In particular, there is a differential lag
in R&D across commodities (IAASTD, 2008; Pingali, 2012). A very limited effort was devoted for the
breeding of the orphan crops such as cassava, millet, sorghum and potatoes, whereas these
commodities represent a great share of staple food in many African countries23. This fact raised the
notion that the green revolution technologies were inappropriate in African countries. In spite of
lagging behind during the green revolution, Binswanger-Mkhize and McCalla (2010) reported that the
rate of improved-varieties adoption in Sub-Sahara Africa has since then been significant.
4.2.2
Accessibility
The spikes in food and energy prices in 2007-2008 have triggered the increase of input costs which
negatively affected the supply responses from the producer side. The introduction of the new
platform technologies in the agricultural sector through ICT plays a significant role for both producers
and consumers. In developing countries, most of small-holder farmers act as producers and
consumers at the same time and ICT offers a unique opportunity for rural farmers to access market
information, weather, and extension services. Several empirical studies (Table A2) reveal that ICT has
a significant impact both on producer and consumer welfare (Jensen, 2007). Arguably, there are
several potential channels for ICT to affect accessibility: by increasing farmer’s profitability thus
income, ICT can enable a farmer to improve consumption, whilst at the same time enabling them to
save and accumulate resources. Labonne and Chase (2010) assessed the positive impact of ICT on per
capita consumption. Our institutional innovation database (Table 5) provides evidence that
innovative institutions help to improve access to social capital and partnership, information and
knowledge, as well as assets and markets.
4.2.3
Utilization
The dimension of utilization in FNS is closely related with a measure of an individual’s ability to derive
sufficient nutrition during a given period. Among studies listed in Table A2 (Appendix), the
innovations in agriculture improving the utilization dimension are related with the conventional
technologies through food fortification and the new platform technologies through biofortification.
23
They are called orphan crops (i.e., crops other than rice, wheat, and maize) as the breeding of these crops was not
included in the breeding research during the green revolution, but introduced later in the post green revolution period
(Renkow and Byerlee, 2010).
29
Successful food fortification is supported by institutional innovations through the strong political will
to collaborate with the private sector, as food fortification can be implemented and diffused by the
food industry. Legal action is also needed towards universal achievement in micro-nutrient supply
(e.g. salt). As reported by The Progress of Nations 1995, in 1995 there were 19 countries known to
have iodine deficiency problems and no legislation on salt iodization (UNICEF, 1995), whilst several of
the world’s poorest countries such as Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Kenya and Nigeria have been
successful in iodizing the majority of salt consumed. In the case of Indonesia, the first Ministry of
Health’s decree on wheat flour fortification for all flour produced in Indonesia was enacted in 1998.
Table A2 in the appendix reports that food fortification and biofortification indeed have a positive
impact on micro-nutrient intake. In the case of Indonesia, micronutrient-fortified milk and noodles
were associated with the decrease of stunting probability among Indonesian children (Samba et al.,
2012). In addition, staple food fortification in Vietnam has been a potential vehicle to support the
intake of micronutrient (Laillou et al., 2012). It should be noted that the traditional technology of
home garden is also considered as a viable and effective way to improve micro-nutrient
consumption. It is evident that children from households with a home garden are more likely to
consume more vitamin A (vegetables) and have a more diverse diet (Kidala et al., 2000; Bushamuka
et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2005; Laurie et al., 2008; Cabalda et al., 2011).
Following the UNICEF framework of malnutrition, an unhealthy environment is an immediate cause
of malnutrition. Diarrheal diseases are among the nutrition-health problems which are mostly
associated with water and sanitation conditions. Humphrey (2009) pointed out that undernutrition in
developing countries is closely related with tropical enteropathy which is associated with poor water,
sanitation, and hygiene conditions. Therefore, interventions aiming at water and sanitation
improvements, in line with the changes in hygiene behavior and public health programs, might have
significant effects on a population and their health (von Braun et al. 1992, Smith and Haddad 2000;
Save the Children, 2012).
4.2.4
Results of the Stakeholder Survey
The stakeholder survey aims to collect a range of opinions, stakeholder attitudes and understandings
of the impacts of innovations on FNS, as well as of the trade-offs of innovations in terms of FNS,
socio-economic or environmental impacts. The results provide general directions that can be used in
building scenarios for FNS innovations and their impacts in the future, based on the inferred
likelihood of innovation creation and development as well as adoption. The questionnaire is designed
as a simple, non-technical survey in order to appeal to respondents with various educational and
professional backgrounds.24 The number of respondents is 42, the survey was constructed to
approach a limited number of stakeholders with a key interest in FNS, agriculture and natural
resources. The professional background of the respondents is fairly diverse: almost 40% of the
respondents are working with NGOs, 25% are from the public sector and academia, 17.1% are from
24
The online survey was addressed to two distinct groups of stakeholders: 1. participants in the conference
“Scientific Support for Food Security and Global Governance”, EC JRC, Brussels, 28 September 2011; 2.
Members of the Farming First coalition, a coalition of multi-stakeholder organizations aiming to promote
actions for sustainable agricultural development worldwide. The first group yielded a response rate of about
25%, the second group yielded about 10 responses. The response rate in the second group is thought to be
very low, although the survey team did not have access to the mailing list. This could be explained by the fact
that the invitation to the survey was sent to the representatives of the member organizations, not directly to
their members (farmers, etc.).
30
international agencies (i.e. FAO), 7.3% are from the private sector, 7.3% are farmers and the rest are
from general/public opinion. The survey was conducted online in February 2013.
4.2.4.1
General FNS Awareness
The first part of the survey assesses the general awareness of the respondents to FNS issues. The
respondents are asked whether they have heard the term of food and nutrition security (FNS) before,
what FNS means, and to list five priorities (multiple choice) to improve FNS. The majority of the
respondents (almost 95%) knew about the expression “FNS”. This high percentage is not surprising as
almost a quarter of the respondents report FNS as their field of expertise. However, it is interesting
to see how the respondents define FNS. The survey provided a closed question with six definitions,
namely:






everyone has enough food,
stable food supply in the future,
all food is safe to eat,
well-functioning food distribution,
consumption of high quality of food, and
ensuring consumption of healthy food through hygienic cooking preparation.
Ninety percent of the respondents chose ‘everyone has enough food’ and ‘stable food supply in the
future’. Around 78% of the respondents indicate that FNS should encompass the consumption of
quality food (i.e. micronutrients, calorific content). The stakeholders’ perception on FNS is paralleled
by The United Nations High Level Task Force on Global Food Security (HLTF) through their
Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA). The framework defines food and nutrition security as a
condition when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe,
and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy
life.
To understand the future priorities of FNS innovation, respondents were prompted with a list of
innovations and asked to choose five out of them. The results are as follows (% of respondents):





promoting a sustainable and diversified agricultural sector (71.8%),
improving farmer’s skill (69.2%),
empowering farmers through collective action (53.8%),
income generating programs (51.3%), and
increasing agricultural crop production (46.2%).
This result suggests that although technological innovation is important to increase agricultural
production, institutional factors through farmer’s collective action should be put forward in directing
future science policy for agriculture and FNS.
We also asked respondents to rank the relevance of FNS dimensions: availability, accessibility,
utilization and stability in the context of developing countries and how these dimensions change with
time. Around 80% of the respondents agreed that accessibility in the present and in the future is
highly relevant for developing countries. Almost 70% of the respondents reported that utilization
both in the present and in the future is highly relevant for developing countries. It is interesting that
the availability dimension was seen as less relevant. In comparison, about 58% of the respondents
stated that availability in the present and in the future is highly relevant for developing countries.
Thus stakeholders consider that the future FNS innovation should go beyond the availability
31
dimension as FNS problems in developing countries are more complex. Many developing countries
are entrenched with dual burden of malnutrition where undernutrition and overnutrition
(overweight and obesity) coexist in the same population or household (Hawkes et al., 2005; FAO,
2006). The latter problem is mainly a result of a change in information and culture, a change of
lifestyles and physical activity patterns, as well as of the globalization of trade and finance (Hawkes et
al., 2005; Popkin et al., 2012).
4.2.4.2
Agricultural Innovations and FNS
We prompt respondents with a list of agricultural innovations (generic or specific)25. First, the
respondents are asked about their familiarity with the type of innovation provided in the survey.
Among the innovations, FFS is the most familiar innovation for the respondents (75%), followed by
local farmer organization empowerment (67%), and farmer extension services (52%). The
respondents assessed GM crops as the least relevant technological innovation for FNS in developing
countries. The results are affected by and indeed are consistent with the stated future priorities for
innovations (Figure A1, Appendix).
Our survey also asked respondents to rank the innovations according to their environmental
friendliness. FFS was seen as the most likely to be environmentally friendly (80%), followed by
new/integrated water management (77%), empowering local farmer organizations and farmer
extension services (both at 46%). Around 40% of the respondents reported that adapted inputs for
small scale farming and GM crops might have a negative impact on the environment (Figure A2,
Appendix).
Perceptions of the economic sustainability of innovations was also queried. While around 71%
respondents saw that FFS is economically sustainable, the respondents were more likely to state that
empowering local farmer organization is the most economically sustainable innovation for FNS.
Similarly, this type of innovation is seen by the respondents (almost 70%) as the most widely
applicable beyond the original/experimental setting26 (Figure A3, Appendix).
The issue of trade-offs between the FNS, environmental, social, and/or economic impacts of
innovations was also examined. The respondents rated institutional innovations such as FFS and local
farmer organizations (55% and 50%, respectively) as the most likely to have trade-offs. On the other
hand, ICT, supply chain management, and food fortification (30% both, 20% respectively) were seen
as the least likely to have trade-offs between environmental, social, and/or economic aspects (Figure
A4, Appendix).
Finally, respondents were asked (closed question) about the two main barriers to the adoption of
innovation. For all types of innovations, respondents stated that limited farmer’s access, lack of
education and training are the two main barriers to adoption (Figure A5, Appendix). The
respondents’ view on the future direction of innovation and FNS is in line with other global FNS
scenarios. For example, the IAASTD scenario emphasizes the need for high agricultural knowledge,
science and technology (AKST) through high agricultural R&D, the Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture (CAWMA) emphasizes the water supply and demand scenario
25
The list of innovation includes ICT, farmer extension services, FFS, empowering local farmer organization, rural microfinance schemes, supply chain management, animal breeding programs, new/modern seed varieties, adapted inputs for
small scale farming, food fortification programs, new/integrated water management, and GM crops.
26
Please see Table A2 in the Appendix on the application of FFS all over the world.
32
through improving irrigation performance and expansion of irrigate areas (van Dijk, 2012). The
findings of stakeholder survey, as well as the discussion in the following section, provide interesting
information which should help refine and reshape the scenarios presented in van Dijk (2012).
5. Informing Innovation Scenarios for FNS
Based on the theoretical framework and on observations from the innovation database, the survey
of stakeholders, and selected empirical studies on innovations from FNS, we attempt toward the
future. The purpose is to understand what type of science systems and innovations should and are
likely to be promoted and will support FNS, and where. Understanding the current macro context of
innovations and their supporting system allows us to identify the problems and opportunity in
designing future innovations for FNS. The information base for future trends in innovation presented
in this study will discuss the technology policy designs from a policy perspective. As technology is not
a global public good, overcoming technological gaps is not easy. Further, as we have illustrated
earlier, in combating hunger and malnutrition, both technological and institutional “catch-ups” are
required. The information discussed in this section is not a collection of formulae and blueprints of
what countries should do, but a collection of ideas and a discussion about approaches for FNS
through innovation. Hopefully, this section can help guiding efforts to endogenize innovation and
change in the technical modeling for FNS
5.1
Current Innovation and FNS Situation
The World Bank has developed the Knowledge for Development initiative (K4D) to support the
capacity building of the member countries in accessing and using knowledge for promoting growth
and enhancing human welfare. This study links the country’s knowledge and innovation capacity with
the FNS status in order to understand the potential ‘to catch-up’ that can be exploited. There are
several pillars that reflect the knowledge economy of a country, namely the economic and
institutional regime, education and skills, the information and communication infrastructure, and the
innovation system. These four pillars measure a country’s preparedness for development, or rather
how the country’s investments in these pillars contribute to the level of development.
We present a graphical analysis of a basic knowledge economy to analyze the potential, similarities,
differences and weaknesses across countries. Based on the 43 pre-selected developing countries
under the Foodsecure project (Foodsecure, 2011), it is found that Brazil and China are the most
advanced in terms of innovation production, ICT, economic incentive regimes and education (Figures
A6-A8). Basically, the countries are mapped according to the scorecard of four pillars of the
knowledge economy developed by the World Bank27, relative to the mean index value for each pillar.
These pillars are (2012 KEI indices are based on “most recent data” for the various indicators):


27
An index of innovation (general innovation, not only linked to the agricultural sector), based
on indicators of: Royalty payments and receipts, US$ per person; Technical journal articles per
million people; Patents granted to nationals by the U.S.; Patent and Trademark Office per million
people.
An education index, based on: Adult literacy rate; Gross secondary enrollment rate; Gross
tertiary enrollment rate.
Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUNIKAM/Resources/KAMbooklet.pdf
33

An ICT index, based on: Telephones per 1,000 people; Computers per 1,000 people; Internet
users per 1,000 people.
 An index of economic and institutional regime, based on: Tariff and non-tariff barriers;
Regulatory quality; Rule of law.
Figure A6 reveals potential catch-up countries including Zimbabwe, Senegal, Kenya, Sri Lanka,
Pakistan, Bolivia, Indonesia and Vietnam. Those countries are characterized by relatively good
infrastructure, good educational as well as knowledge and research support. Some African countries
like Ethiopia, Madagascar, Ghana, Zambia, and Burkina Faso are lagging behind. A similar figure is
also found in the relationship between education-innovation and economic incentive regimeinnovation. In this aspect, Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, and Myanmar remain the worst
performers as the infrastructure, educational and institutional endowment.
Taking a close look at the comparison of China – the best knowledge economy performer and
Ethiopia – one of the slowest knowledge economy performers28 (Figure 10), we deduct that Ethiopia
is lagging in all four pillars of the knowledge economy, as exemplified by low economic incentive
regimes and low access to ICT. Ethiopia is relatively better positioned in the innovation pillar, as
reflected by patents granted per capita. However, this achievement is far below the performance of
China. China is relatively strong in the innovation pillar through the number of patents granted and
royalty payments received. As outlined in the earlier section, education is a key explanatory variable
of labour quality for enhancing TFP.
On the other hand, it is also indicated that a country like Ethiopia, which suffers from a weak
knowledge economy, is also weak in terms of the FNS status as represented by the percentage of
stunted children aged under five years (see Table 6). Taking an example from a more advance
economy, Indonesia has a relatively higher cereal import dependency ratio, but does not experience
a strong impact on its FNS status, particularly of the availability dimension, as long as the
fundamental institutional support (i.e. food subsidies and other social transfers) is been wellfunctioning. In terms of tariff and nontariff barriers, Indonesia is in the same class with China while in
fact, the average tariff of Indonesia was even lower than that of several countries in Asia, particularly
the East Asians (Basri and Patunru, 2012).
28
The Knowledge Economy Scorecard is developed by the World Bank and ranks the knowledge economy performance of a
country. Ethiopia and China are chosen for illustration, both are among the FoodSecure project partners and interestingly
they show have vastly different scorecards.
34
Figure 10. Knowledge Economy Scorecard for Ethiopia and China
Source: KAM, 2012
Table 6. Selected FNS Status in China, Ethiopia, and Indonesia
Cereal import dependency ratio
2002-04
2003-05
China
7.7
7.7
Ethiopia
10.6
9.8
Indonesia
13.7
12.1
2004-06
7.1
5.9
12.2
2005-07
6.3
6.0
12.6
2006-08
5.5
7.3
12.2
2007-09
5.2
10.1
10.8
Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted
2000
2004
China
17.8
11.7
Ethiopia
57.4
50.7
Indonesia
42.8
28.6
Source: SOFI, 2012
Based on the macro context of a country indicated in the pillars of knowledge economy, it can be
seen that innovations are associated with infrastructure. Access to information and communication
help bridging to the rest of the world, particularly in terms of the technology transfer process. As
mentioned earlier, education plays a vital role in explaining TFP growth. Countries with better
educational endowments are more advanced and ready to encounter new challenges and master
new technologies. A sound economic and institutional regime is a key to attract foreign direct
35
investment (FDI). Economic openness also matters and in developing countries is often impaired by
high tariffs. Further, many developing countries are characterized by inappropriate legal frameworks,
inefficient bureaucracy and poor law-enforcement, hindering the flow of knowledge and technology
to the countries. This situation is worsened by the very low national R&D expenditures.
Based on the ASTI data29, cross-country comparisons of public R&D expenditures show that countries
with sustainable R&D expenditure (like China and Brazil) have increased their agricultural
productivity (through innovation) above the rest of the world (Figure A9, Appendix). Figure A10
(Appendix) reports the trend of public R&D expenditures in selected countries. It is evident that
countries with an increasing trend of R&D expenditure like Brazil, Kenya, India and China, are more
likely progressive innovation countries30. China’s public expenditures on research have doubled
during 2000-2008 and it is estimated to further double in 2009-2010 (Beintema et al., 2012). On the
contrary, the limited public and private sector’s commitment on funding for agricultural innovation is
clearly evident in SSA. This is one of the key explanations for the slow agricultural productivity in the
continent.
Beintema et al. (2012) also note that R&D expenditures (and R&D expenditure shares of GDP) for
small developing economies are more volatile than those of larger ones, which they attribute for a
large part to their stronger reliance on donor programs. Notwithstanding, many developing countries
including those of SSA have made progress in the access and the use of ICT, which is an opportunity
to offering better market and information access. Hence, strategies need to address the basic pillars
of the knowledge economy: qualified human capital through education as well as sound
infrastructure and economic incentives.
Table 7 presents a crude typology of developing countries based on the variables of Figures A6 to A8
(KEI indicators, most recent observation post 2000), the somewhat more sketchy ASTI data on public
agricultural R&D expenditures (most recent observation after 2000), an FNS score based on the
factor scores for each country (following a principle component analysis on an initial set of 12 FNS
indicators, reduced to four – see FoodSecure MS4: Guide to Case study selection; the final indicators
are: Prevalence of underweight among children below the age of five, Prevalence of stunting among
children below the age of five, Prevalence of overweight male and female adults (15 years of age and
older), the most recent observation post 2000 for each indicator), and the total factor productivity
growth in agriculture between 2000 and 2009 (Fuglie 2010)31, used as an approximation
technological change and innovation in agriculture.
29
nd
Available at http://www.asti.cgiar.org/data/, accessed on May 2 2013.
It is reported that the R&D expenditure in Kenya has increased by 2.1% during 2000 to 2008, a substantial increase
compared to the stagnant R&D expenditure in the previous decade (Beintema et al., 2012).
30
31
The data used in Fuglie (2010) was kindly shared with us by the author.
36
Table 7. Country Typology based on FNS outcomes and innovation profile
Group
Country
FNS
Average
Annual
TFP
Growth,
2000-09
Innovation
Education
Economic
Incentive
Regime
ICT
R&D
Spending
per
capita
1
1
Eritrea
Burkina Faso
1
1
Cote d’Ivoire
Guinea
1
1
Madagascar
Mozambique
1
1
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
1
1
Tanzania
Uganda
1
Sudan
2
Malawi
2
2
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
2
2
Bangladesh
Cambodia
NA
2
2
Ethiopia
Laos
NA
2
2
Mali
Nepal
2
2
Yemen
Zambia
2
Niger
NA
3
3
Cameroon
India
NA
3
3
Indonesia
Kenya
3
3
Senegal
Vietnam
4
4
Ghana
Haiti
4
4
Bolivia
Nigeria
*
4
4
Zimbabwe
Tajikistan
*
5
5
Benin
Brazil
5
5
China
Guatemala
NA
*
*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Legend:
low
high
*=negative average of annual TFP growth
Note: “High” and “Low” are determined by the countries’ performance in the specific indicators, relative to the sample
mean.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on Fuglie (2010) for the TFG growth rates, the World Bank Knowledge Economy Index
(Innovation, Education, Economic Incentives and ICT, and the ASTI database for the R&D expenditures.
37
As variables depicting the innovation system are presented only for one period (unlike Figure A10),
and there are known lags in the relationships between several of these variables (most notably
between R&D investment and products), a solid typology would need to pay due attention to time
series for all indicators, as far as data allows. Nonetheless, Table 7 offers some food for thoughts
already.
Countries in Group 1 score below average in FNS outcomes, agricultural TFP growth and Innovation,
as well as several of its determinants (supply-side of innovations). Countries in Group 2 score below
average in FNS outcomes, have mixed performances in terms of innovation (either one of the other
negative sub-average score for agricultural or general innovation) and their determinants. For groups
1 and 2, increased support for agricultural R&D could potentially pay large dividends in terms of food
and nutrition security.
Group 3 showcases countries with a below average performance in FNS, despite over-average
performance in agricultural and general innovation. These countries require further analysis on the
sources and possible factors which hinder the performance of the innovation and agricultural
innovation systems seems to translate in FNS pay-offs.
Countries in Groups 4 and 5 have an above average FNS index, the former with mixed performances
in terms of innovations and the latter with good performances of the general innovation systems and
of the AIS. The next section turns to the determinants such performances.
5.2
5.2.1
Innovation Policy Designs and Priority Actions
Policy designs
Peres (2010) argued that technical change and innovation is not random, rather it depends on a
certain path and on the dynamic interconnections among innovations. Further, a successful
innovation should pursue several phases, each of them addressing FNS challenges. Adapted from
Gradl and Knobloch (2009), a scenario of innovation can be mapped into three phases: development,
implementation and growth (Figure 11). The phases are not strictly ordered but can be undertaken in
parallel, reflecting the dynamic concept of FNS. Each phase consists of several steps that should be
considered (Table 8). Referring to our conceptual framework (Figure 2), the development phase is
related with the left and right panel focusing on the identification of current and expected state. The
implementation and growth phase is related with the innovation itself, including the funding and
stakeholders and later on how the innovation will be applied widely. The most critical steps are the
identification of the financial sources and of the innovation partnership. These are necessary factors
for the success of the implementation phase, which is arguably the most crucial to the application
and diffusion of the innovation.
The funding of innovation depends on the type of innovation and whether it is orchestrated or
opportunity-driven. Yet the three major potential sources of capital include government funding,
private sectors and international agencies. The last phase of innovation is the growth phase, which
refers to the scaling-up and wider applicability of certain innovations. This process depends largely
on the successful completion of the implementation phase.
38
Figure 11. Phases of Innovation Development
Table 8. Steps of Innovation Phases
Development:
Identify problems and opportunities
Analyze the environment or
supporting systems
Find solutions
Develop products
Implementation:
Secure funding
Engage partner
Leverage local capabilities
Test the innovation
Growth:
Understand the impact
Adapt the model/innovation
Scale-up locally
Transfer to other country
Source: Adapted from Gradl and Knobloch (2009)
The phases of innovation above will not happen in the absence of appropriate domestic innovation
policy designs. Each step of the phases requires relevant supporting policies in terms of funding and
partnership/collaboration. Following Steinmueller (2010), there are four primary policy designs:
supply-side designs, designs for the supply of complementary factors, demand side designs, and
institutional change designs. We discuss them below.
5.2.1.1
Supply-side designs
To accelerate the supply-side policies, it should be recognized that finance-related technology
policies and infrastructure are the keystones. Ample infrastructure is a prerequisite to enhance the
creation and implementation of science and innovation as intermediary good in the production
process. For example, sound infrastructure in a given country might attract foreign direct investment
(Blonigen and Piger, 2011; Asiedu and Lien, 2011), which later on supports the technological process
and learning through international networks.
Steinmueller (2010) highlights that the role of supply-side designs is to stimulate the market-led
processes of innovation commercialization. There are five strategies that can be applied depending
on the context of the country, namely: horizontal measures, thematic funding, signaling strategies,
protectionist measures, and financial measures.
Horizontal measures are designed to provide subsidy in promoting productivity-improving
technological change. This policy design is offered as a solution from underinvestment problems.
Notwithstanding, similar to other types of subsidy, the horizontal designs are expensive, subject to
leakage, and prone to low accountability issues.
Thematic funding is aimed to provide funding to a specific sectorial, regional, and technology. This
design is suitable for technology to promote social welfare, particularly technologies that are well
adapted to the local context and benefit the poor. Possible leakages also exist in this design. Similarly
to thematic funding, signaling strategies aim to promote a competitive environment, for instance via
announcements that attract potential inventors or innovators to develop, adopt and diffuse new
alternative technologies.
39
Protectionist measures are more applicable to the industry side, for instance for protecting infant
industries or providing incentives for import substitution. Apart from infant industries, such
protection is also applicable for vulnerable sectors, of which agriculture for FNS is an example.
Parallel to this protectionist notion, a certain mechanism that increases the security of property
rights, particularly facilitating land access for small-holder farmers, is needed. In the private sector
side, protection of intellectual property rights might stimulate private sector investment in agrobiotechnology which can contribute to future FNS even in the context of developing countries
(Serageldin, 1999).
The last design of supply-side policies is the financial measures. It is inevitable that promoting
technology policies involve financial, particularly for the technology policies related to social welfare
and characterized with underdeveloped institutions and typically underappreciated by the private
sector.
5.2.1.2
Designs for supply of complementary factors
As outlined in the conceptual framework, labor quality is a key to promoting agricultural TFP growth.
Steimueller (2010) argues that the complementary factors of the supply side have two important
elements: labor supply and the technology acquisition policy, the two being interlinked.
The labor supply required to support the capacity to innovate refers not only to the size of the labor
force, but also to its quality. Size is represented by the number of scientists, engineers, and higher
education enrollments per 1000 population. The quality of the workforce which might help delivering
innovation refers to the actual knowhow embedded in the educated labor force (i.e. specialization
matching the needs of the sector, …)32.
For many developing countries, the aspect of the technology acquisition policy is still
underdeveloped (Steinmueller, 2010). So far, technology is often acquired informally via foreign
direct investment (FDI). FDI, particularly through multinational enterprises is an instrument to
disseminate knowledge and technologies from multinational enterprises to the host country. The
connection to actual benefits of knowledge and technologies in the host countries is by far not
systematic. For instance, one can think of many agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizer and
machinery which are produced by national and international companies, benefitting the agricultural
sector through the transfer of the technology, without benefitting the local innovation system.
5.2.1.3
Demand side designs
The demand side designs are also important as the adoption and diffusion often take long delays,
resistance and skepticism. The adoption and diffusion depends on the innate characteristics, such as
cognitive skills (Heckman, 2007; Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010) of the potential adopters, determining
the timing of the adoption decision. Further, Foster and Rosenzweig (2010) pointed that technology
choices depend on the financial and nonfinancial returns to adoption, the individual’s and social
learning, technological externalities, economies of scale, schooling, credit constraint, risk, and
insurance availability. Steinmueller (2010) proposed two schemes that can support more rapid
adoption and diffusion: adoption subsidies and sensibilization and other information diffusion
32
The German Bioeconomy Council developed recommendations on the matching of the labor force and the
demands of the bioeconomy (Bio-economy Council, 2010), a sector intensive in skilled research and innovation
workers with strong connections to the FNS innovation system, in particular for conventional and new platform
technologies.
40
policies. While the first option is associated with the scheme to promote early adoption, the second
option provides information for potential adopters that increases awareness about the potential
benefits of technological adoption. Further, providing information and marketing options are
important aspects which can influence learning behavior. It should be noted that the information and
the learning process depend on the type of technology. Some technologies are simple to learn and
adopt, while some others are more complex. For instance, at the earlier stage of the green
revolution, the HYV seeds were more sensitive to the water and soil conditions compared to the
traditional seed. Currently, many studies attempt to examine seed adoption behavior, not only based
on the new technology and the traditional seeds, but also in reference with the strategies followed to
introduce the new seeds.
5.2.1.4
Institutional change designs
EUSCAR (2010) stated (pp 87-88) that once the technological breakthrough no longer provides
profitable opportunities and leads to negative externalities, the institutional innovation will take
over. Failures of the previous stages are corrected and the institutional framework (rules, …) adapts
in order to make the new technologies more appropriate. Fagerbeg et al. (2010) present a list of
factors as a measure of institutional and social capabilities (Table 9). Therefore, the direction of
institutional changes should reflect the improvement of capabilities.
Table 9. Measuring Social and Institutional Capabilities
Dimension
Measure
Science, research, and innovation
Scientific publications, patents, R&D (total/business),
innovation counts
Trade openness, FDI, research collaboration, technology
licensing, immigration
ISO standard, total quality management (TQM), just-in-time,
food safety
Access to bank, credit, stock-market
Primary, secondary, and tertiary education, managerial, and
technical skills
Corruption, law and order, property rights, business friendly
regulation
Civic activities, trust, tolerance, learning culture, attitude
towards science and technology
Openness
Production quality/standard
Finance
Skills
Quality of governance
Social values
Source: adapted from Fagerbeg et al. (2010)
As we have stated earlier, the ultimate aim of FNS related research and action is to improve the
welfare of the neediest group, the poor and small-holder farmers. Unfortunately, the institutional
framework to support small-holder farmers in the agricultural sector is still deficient (WDR, 2008).
For instance, the institutional setting affecting most the policies for secure rights and the reallocation
of resources, financial services for the small-holder farmers, risk management, efficient markets, and
small-holder farmer organizations along the value chain to ensure production standards, are the
critical institutional innovations to be developed.
41
5.2.2
Conclusions: Priority Actions for FNS
Peres (2010) divides the technological revolution into five waves and we are currently at the fifth
wave or the age of information and telecommunications33. In this era, Peres (2010) outlines several
innovation principles or so called techno-economic paradigms including:








information-intensity, a concept related with increasing quantity of information and how it
can be handled, processed, and accessed,
network structures, which refer to the multiple agents that interact together in the
innovation system and how they can interact,
knowledge as capital, meaning that knowledge as manifested in innovation, research and
development is one of the sources of growth and welfare,
market segmentation, as a result from heterogeneity, diversity, and adaptability of
knowledge production,
scale and specialization, which refers to the characteristics of production in a complex range
of mass customization,
globalization, and the interaction between the global and local, in terms of comparative
advantages for production and innovation and adaptability of global products to local
markets,
inward and outward cooperation, i.e. cooperation within and across financial and production
capital, and lastly,
the importance of global communication, which refers to the contacts and actions in the
context of global and local interactions.
Based on these notions, FNS innovations acting as facilitators for better production, distribution and
utilization frameworks (e.g. new platform technologies, such as ICT) should be given an increasing
role. ICT is important for innovation to take place. The increasingly affordable ICT for instance,
mobile phone, radio frequency and inexpensive wireless devices are important for farmers to
prevent the damage due to climate variability, to improve the farming system, to enhance livestock
management, to monitor animal health, and to track the animal and agricultural products along the
supply chain (World Bank, 2012).
The development of food prices in the last decade, particularly the recent food price volatility in
2007-2008, should (and there are signs that it has) act as the wake-up call leading to new (types of)
investments. Therefore institutional innovations for FNS which provide an enabling environment for
production, but also for access and utilization, should be supported (for instance through the
required research to develop such innovations), as suggested by various stakeholders (Herbel et al.,
2012, see Figures A3-A5).
Further, innovations for FNS should address the various challenges posed to FNS, particularly climate
change and environmental issues, energy supply and water availability. Based on the results of the
stakeholder survey, new/integrated water management and support of integrated pest management
through FFS are recognized by several stakeholder groups as one of the most viable FNS innovation.
33
Peres (2010) classified the technological revolution into five stages, namely the first stage or the industrial revolution, the
second stage or the age of steam and railways, the third stage or the age of steel, electricity, and heavy engineering, the
fourth stage or the age of oil, automobile and mass production and lastly, the fifth stage or the age of information and
telecommunication. Peres (2002) stated that the technological-economic cycles take about 50-60 years to complete.
42
The theoretical framework presented earlier has emphasized the role that education and nutrition
can play in agricultural TFP growth. The better the nutrition status of the labor force, the higher the
quality of labor will be. Therefore, innovations which enhance the nutritional status, particularly
those of the small-holder farmer as the bottom of the agricultural pyramid should be prioritized. As
education is also one of the fundamental pillars on the supply side of innovations, strengthening the
education outcomes and education systems are among the important challenges for developing
countries. For examples, the SSA countries have a limited agricultural researchers and scientists and
only a quarter of African scientists hold Ph.D. degrees compared with all scientists in India
(Binswanger-Mkhize and McCalla, 2010). At a different level, cross-cutting between innovation
supply and demand sides, enhancing farmer’s knowledge and experimentation through FFS and
agricultural service is also part of the needed and well-perceived change in (informal) education and
should be prioritized as leading institutional innovations (in terms of impact and cost/benefit ratio for
instance).
In a situation where the agricultural sector encounters new challenges and uncertainties, it is critical
to refine the farming systems to increase the resource use efficiency. Therefore, the new
technologies for agricultural production should focus on the precision farming, new crops varieties
that have better nutritional quality, and diversified traditional crop systems for high-value
horticulture. The later notion should incorporate small-holder farmers into the value chain and
maintain their competitiveness. As earlier mentioned, Herbel et al. (2012) describe the three types of
arrangements of successful institutional innovations for small-holder farmers: intra-group relations,
inter-group relations, and extra-group relations.
Synthesizing from our discussion, the following priority actions (Table 10) are proposed as a potential
scenario that boosts agricultural productivity and address FNS. Importantly, the scenarios should
emphasize the accessibility dimension, including access to natural resources, input and output
markets, information and knowledge, and decision as well as policy making; through innovative
institutions. The country typology which will be delivered later in 2013 (D2.2) will cover further
specifics of the innovation system at country level and could be used to refine national baseline
scenarios, while the stakeholder survey and the results presented in Table 10 could provide some
direction for alternative scenarios, in an interactive process between the modeling teams oand the
teams devising the typology and the present paper.
The priority actions outlined below encourage the contribution on institutional innovation which
might provide wider impacts. Taking the example of the Green Revolution, institutional innovation
through the change of the national research and innovation system as well as institutional
mechanisms for improved agricultural input markets play an important role in sustaining the positive
impact of the Green Revolution (Evenson and Gollin, 2003; Pingali, 2012). Following Pangaribowo et
al. (2013) on the classification of FNS Indicators, this study organizes priorities for action into three
groups: short, medium, and long term. The periodicity of priority actions are modified from several
global scenarios, including IAASTD and Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and
Climate Change (FACCE – JPI). Innovation in the ICT related areas and risk mitigation aims to buffer
the short-term drivers of FNS. Innovations in the educational related areas and asset entitlement are
related with the chronic FNS, with medium to long term impacts. The long term impacts are related
with actions against the structural FNS problems which are frequently rooted in the lack of access to
natural resources and land. Innovative farming systems and integrated water management is needed
to create a sound global environment for long term food security in the face of climate change, as
43
well as land and water scarcity. The application of priority actions should account for different
context and localities. For instance, enhancing small-holder farmer’s skill should be promoted in all
regions, while new/integrated water management and weather insurance are more relevant to
semiarid areas, SSA, and South Asia.
Table 10. Priority Actions
Impact
Related technology and institution
Short term
 ICT used for efficient market in the present of recent food and fuel
volatility
 Insurance to manage risk through microfinance and weather-indexed
insurance, quality of governance in agricultural insurance
 Enhancement of formal education
 Enhancement of small-holder farmer’s skill and experimentation (i.e.
farming systems and input used) through informal education including
social network, FFS and extension services
 Precision farming system
 New/integrated water management
 Property rights for small-holder farmers
 Collaborative funding (public private partnership) for agricultural
innovation
Medium term
Long term
Source: Authors’ compilation
5.2.3
Concluding comments
This study aims to conduct meta-assessment of innovations and their impacts on FNS. The metaanalysis is akin to a literature review, where we have classified innovations features in terms of the
systems they come from and in terms of their impacts. The latter are described mostly according to
the dimensions of FNS which they affect. Evidence is also provided from sources compiled in the
FoodSecure innovation database. The discussion is further framed by the results of a stakeholder
survey on stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of innovations for FNS.
Agricultural innovations have contributed to counter the challenges to FNS from the drivers of
hunger and poverty such as rising population, environmental pressures and price fluctuations. In
many developing countries, where the small-holder farmers are the main target group many factors
hindering the achievement of FNS are related to the increasing demand for and lack of access to
food.
It is often outlined that the first effort in achieving FNS is through promoting agricultural
productivity, as exemplified by the Green Revolution when agricultural productivity increased in
several parts of the globe. Nonetheless, Sub Saharan Africa was largely by-passed by the green
revolution, arguably due to missing enabling circumstances, or institutions. Hence, the first
generation of the Green Revolution raised concerns about the importance of accompanying (social)
policies: the failure was not that of the technologies, but highlighted the need for new and innovative
institutions to support technology adoption.
Our innovation database further reveals the imbalance in stakeholder categories in the innovation
system. This affects the type of innovation collaboration between developing countries and
developed countries and points to more inclusion of developing country stakeholder in the
innovation process as partners, rather than in the agricultural system, where they are often only
44
innovation recipients. The stakeholders’ survey also raised concerns on the role of institutional
innovation that would enable developing countries in achieving FNS with lower environmental
impacts.
Innovations for FNS should not only emphasize the supply side or the accessibility of food, but also
focus on alleviating “hidden hunger”. Our database and literature review clearly show that a mix of
conventional, traditional and new-platform technologies as well as of innovative institutions can be
directed at improvements in nutrition outcomes for the population and for the poorest in particular.
Finally, we suggest a categorization of innovation types according to their lead time between
implementation and impacts, in order to frame the endogenization of innovation in FoodSecure
modeling. This categorization is based on the literature review and on the perception survey, thus
combines scientific progress as well as the likelihood the realization of the potential impacts of this
progress (innovation adoption).
45
Appendix
Table A1: Published surveys with data on impacts of biotechnological innovation on yield and/or
economic margin.
Reference
(Bennett et al., 2004a)
(Crost et al., 2007)
(Gandhi and Namboodiri, 2006)
(Kambhampati et al., 2006)
(Pemsl et al., 2004)
(Qaim, 2003)
(Qaim et al., 2006)
(Qayum and Sakkhari, 2006)
(Ramasundaram et al., 2007)
(Rao and Dev, 2009)
(Sadashivappa and Qaim, 2009)
(Subramanian and Qaim, 2009)
(Huang et al., 2002a)
(Huang et al., 2002b)
(Pray et al., 2001)
(Pray et al., 2002)
(Xu et al., 2004)
(Bennett et al., 2004b)
(Bennett et al., 2006)
(Fok et al., 2008)
(Gouse et al., 2004)
(Hofs et al., 2006)
(Ismael et al., 2002)
(Morse et al., 2006)
(Shankar et al., 2008)
(Thirtle et al., 2003)
(Qaim and de Janvry, 2003)
(Traxler and Godoy-Avila, 2004)
(Falck Zepeda et al., 2000b)
(Wossink and Denaux, 2006)
(Qaim and Traxler, 2005)
(Brookes, 2005)
(Falck Zepeda et al., 2000a)
(Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2000)
(Hategekimana and Trant, 2002)
(Yorobe and Quicoy, 2006)
(Gouse et al., 2010)
(Gouse et al., 2005)
(Diaz Osorio et al., 2004)
(Hategekimana and Trant, 2002)
(Gómez Barbero et al., 2008)
(Gouse et al., 2010)
(Diaz Osorio et al., 2004)
Year
2002
2002, 2003
2004
2002-2003
2002
2002
2003
2003-2005
2003, 2004
2004
2003, 2005, 2007
2003, 2005
1999
1999
1999
2000-2002
2003
1999-2001
2004
2003
2002
2003-2004
1999-2000
1999-2001
2000
1999-2000
2000-2001
1997-1998
1997
2000
2001
2003
1997
1997
2000-2001
2003-2004
2007
2002
2003
2000-2001
2002-2004
2007
2003
Source: Authors’ compilation
46
Country
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
China
China
China
China
China
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
Argentina
Mexico
USA
USA
Argentina
Romania
USA
USA
Canada
Philippines
South Africa
South Africa
Chili
Canada
Spain
South Africa
Chili
GM crop
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
Bt cotton
HT soybean
HT soybean
HT soybean
HT soybean
HT soybean
Bt maize
Bt maize
Bt maize
Bt maize
Bt maize
Bt maize
HT maize
HT maize
Table A2. Characteristics of Selected Empirical Studies included in the Review for Impact Assessment
FNS Dimensions
Type of technology and
innovation
Study, country
Innovation
Method of study
Impact
Availability
Traditional
Kidala et al. (2000),
Tanzania
Bushamuka et al.
(2005), Bangladesh
Home garden
RCT at cluster level
Cross-sectional
study and matching
method between
control and
treatment village
Cross-sectional
study between
control and
treatment village
Jones et al. (2005)
Positive impact on consumption of vitamin A rich food
through the channel of more availability of higheconomic-value of vitamin A plants from home
production.
Institutional
Evenson and Mwabu
(2001), Kenya
Extension services
Quantile regression
Cerdan-Infates et al.
(2008), Argentina
Extension services
Owens et al. (2003),
Zimbabwe
Extension services
Fixed effects and
matching technique
using the data from
National Institute
of Vitiniviculture
Fixed effect
approach
47
Farm yields are positively correlated with the number of
extension staff per farm. Agricultural extension has
positive effects on farm production through the human
capital acquired via education or via extension advice.
The extension services have positive impact on yield
productivity and yield quality.
Controlling for innate productivity characteristics and
farmers’ ability using household fixed effects estimation,
access to agricultural extension services measured by
receiving one or two visits per agricultural year, raises
Gautam (2000), Kenya
Extension services
Cross-sectional
analysis
Feder et al. (2004),
Indonesia
Godtland et al. (2004),
Peru
Farmer field school
Difference in
difference
Propensity Score
Matching
Bandiera and Rasul
(2006), Mozambique
Social network
Baseline regression
and discrete choice
of adoption
Conley and Udry
(2010), Ghana
Mancini et al. (2007)
Social network
Alene and Manyong
(2006), Nigeria
Farmer field school
Regression based
model
Sustainable
livelihood analysis
and parametric and
non-parametric
analysis
Stochastic frontier
Romani (2003), Côte
d'Ivoire
Social proximity and
technology adoption
Farmer field school
Farmer field school
Panel data analysis
48
the value of crop production by about 15%. Farmers with
above-average ability produce 40% to 50% higher
output.
Agricultural extension is found to have limited
institutional development, ineffective and inefficient in
delivering the services to farmers, and limited focus to
empowering farmer.
Less conclusive impact in yield and on pesticide use.
Farmers who participated in the FFS program have more
knowledge about IPM practices and the nonparticipant
control group. Controlling for observed characteristics,
the study found that improved knowledge on IPM
practice is positively associated with productivity. FFS
has the potential to increase productivity by 32%.
An inverse U shape of adoption and diffusion of new
crops as the marginal effect of having one more adopter
among the social network (family and networks) is
positive when there are few other adopters in the
network but turn to be negative when there are many.
Social learning and input use innovation
IPM FFS has been able to enhance individual and
community well-being in terms of financial and physical
assets through reduced cost of cultivation.
Seed diffusion and yield variations due to differential
adoption of the package technology not to the sources
of technology. The follower farmers are found to be less
efficient as they mostly adopted part of the package
option.
Farmers from ethnic minorities are less likely to access
and receive less benefit from extension services. Farmers
from autochthonous ethnic group are more likely to join
extension services and receive more benefits in terms of
higher yield in food crops through information exchange
among members.
Adoption and capital accumulation especially in terms of
changes of agronomic practices, input use (fertilizer,
pesticides, and physical labor), and yield level.
The survey showed that pesticide toxicity and exposure
time were positively correlated with symptoms of acute
pesticide poisoning. Educating farmers about the hazard
of pesticides use has inconclusive results.
The adoption of cold-tolerant rice varieties developed
from Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) is determined by
altitude and varieties entry time in the village.
Institutional context, bio-social environment, the goals
set-up, and the form of participation differentiate the
PPB approaches.
The trained farmers used less pesticides, spent less
money on pest control, made higher net returns, and
suffered less exposure of the poisoning pesticides.
Mancini et al. (2008)
Farmer field school
Difference in
difference
Mancini et al. (2005)
Farmer field school
Joshi and Witcombe
(2003)
Participatory plant
breeding
Sperling et al. (2001)
Participatory plant
breeding
Linear trend
analysis based on
survey data
collected in 2003.
Descriptive analysis
from village surveys
data
Framework and
case study analysis
Hrushka and Corriols
(2002)
Farmer field school - IPM
Descriptive
statistics based on
survey data
Pampolino et al. (2012),
Indonesia and the
Philippines
Nutrient Expert for
Hybrid Maize (NEHM)
Software
Fields trials
conducted in
farmers’ field in
Indonesia and the
Philippines
NEHM increased yield and economic benefits of farmers
in Indonesia and the Philippines through the provision of
information on nutrient application rate.
Fafchamps and Minten
(2012), India
Reuters Market Light
(RML) and agricultural
information
dissemination
Randomized
experiment
Small effect of RML on crop grading and no significant
impact on price received by farmers. There is also no
significant difference on crop losses resulting from
rainstorms. Small number of subscribers and slow takeup rate might play as the underlying the factor.
New platform
Accessibility
New platform
49
Aker (2010), Niger
Mobile phones and
agricultural markets
Goyal (2010), India
e-Choupal program
(Internet kiosks and
warehouses)
Mobile phones
Muto and Yamono
(2009), Uganda
Difference-indifference and
matching
techniques
Panel data
estimation
The introduction of mobile phone service
between 2001 and 2006 explains a 10 to 16 percent
reduction in
grain price dispersion.
Increase of price by 1-3%. Price dispersion decreased
after the set up of kiosks in the village.
Panel data
estimation
Positive impact on banana sales by 20%. Mobile phone
network increase the probability of banana sales in
remote areas.
Positive impact on growth of per capita consumption
from 11 to 17%. Farmers have better price deals and
better options to sell their products.
Mobile phones reduced price dispersion and waste, thus
increased fishermen’s profit and welfare.
Labonne and Chase
(2010), the Philippines
Mobile phones
Household panel
data analysis
Jensen (2007), India
Mobile phones
Difference in
difference
Samba et al. (2012),
Indonesia
Micronutrient-fortified
milk and noodles
Adu-Afarwuah et al.
(2011), Ghana
Home fortification of
complementary foods
with micronutrient
supplements and positive
effects on infant iron
status in Ghana
Sazawal et al. (2010)
Micronutrient Fortified
The study subjects
consisted of
families who
participated in the
Nutritional
Surveillance System
(NSS) in Indonesia
from 1999 to 2003.
Community-based
randomized trial
involving 3
intervention groups
and one Nonintervention (NI)
group (n=96) (total
4 groups)
RCT
Utilization
Conventional
50
The consumption of fortified milk and noodles was
found to be associated with decreased odds of stunting
among Indonesian children. In addition, in both rural and
urban families the odds of stunting were lower when a
child who consumed fortified milk also consumed
fortified noodles, or vice versa
The findings suggest that all 3 options for home
fortification of complementary foods are effective for
reducing the prevalence of iron deficiency in such
populations. All supplements were well accepted, and
the mean percentage of days that supplements were
consumed (87%) did not differ between groups.
Findings suggest that in comparison to control group,
Milk Improves Iron
Status, Anaemia and
Growth among Children
1–4
Semba et al. (2010),
Indonesia
Iron-fortified milk and
noodle consumption is
associated with lower
risk
of anaemia among
children aged 6–59 mo in
Indonesia
Laillou et al. (2012),
Vietnam
An Assessment of the
Impact of Fortification of
Staples and Condiments
on Micronutrient Intake
in Young Vietnamese
Children
Fiedler and Afidra
(2010), Uganda
Vitamin A fortification in
Uganda: Comparing the
feasibility, coverage,
costs, and cost-
51
The study subjects
consisted of
families who
participated in the
Nutritional
Surveillance System
(NSS) in Indonesia
from 1999 to 2003.
Sample of 430
children aged 6–60
months was drawn
from households
selected by a
stratified 2-stage
cluster sampling
procedure.
The paper used the
2005/6 Uganda
Household Budget
Survey to analyze
children consuming MN milk showed significant
improvement in weight gain and height gain. In addition,
they had 88% lower risk of iron deficiency anaemia
The study concludes that the delivery of critical
micronutrients especially zinc and iron via milk is a
feasible option and produces impact on growth, anaemia
and iron status.
The study reported that the proportions of children who
received fortified milk and noodles, respectively were:
30.1% and 22.6% in rural families, and 40.1% and 48.9%,
in urban families. Based on the findings, the study
concluded that Iron-fortified milk and noodles may be a
strategy that could be applied more widely as an
intervention to decrease child anaemia.
The study shows that:
-Potential fortification vehicles, such as rice, fish/soy
sauces and vegetable oil were consumed daily in
significant amounts by over 40% of the children
Other food vehicles, such as wheat flour, were
consumed by 16% of children
-Fortified rice could support the
intakes of all the other micronutrients (14%–61% for
iron, 4%–11% for zinc and 33%–49% of folate
requirements). Finally, the study concludes that:
-fortification of vegetable oil, rice and sauces would be
an effective strategy to address micronutrient gaps and
deficiencies in young children.
-fortification of other vehicles, such as wheat flour,
however would have less impact on improving the
micronutrient status of vulnerable populations
The study finds that vitamin A fortification of vegetable
oil is 4.6 times more cost-effective than vitamin A
fortification of sugar. But if sugar were to be fortified,
the study suggests that it would increase the coverage of
effectiveness of fortifying
vegetable oil and sugar
households’
apparent
consumption
levels of sugar and
vegetable oil and to
model the
additional intake of
vitamin A.
Analytical review
Lutter (2008)
Iron Deficiency (ID) in
Young Children in LowIncome Countries and
New Approaches for Its
Prevention
Rivera et al. (2011),
Mexico
Effectiveness of a largescale iron-fortified milk
distribution program on
anaemia and iron
deficiency in low-income
young children in Mexico
RCT
Kidala et al. (2000),
Tanzania
Bushamuka et al.
(2005), Bangladesh
Home garden
RCT at cluster level
vitamin A–fortified foods by 31% and reduce the
percentage of Ugandans without any coverage to 25%.
Despite lack of information on the vitamin A deficiency
status of consumers of oil and sugar to making definitive
conclusions, the study argues that the increased
coverage and cost per DALY averted due to sugar
fortification makes pursuing sugar fortification
worthwhile.
The paper argues that prevention of ID requires strong
delivery systems that enhance consumer demand and
promote compliance. These include: overarching policy
and programmatic guidance that inform decision makers
about what to do and when to do it and also address
appropriate delivery models or how to do it. This
requires addressing the multiple opportunities available
for prevention: pregnancy, at birth, the immediate
postnatal period, and during the first 24 months of life.
Findings from the randomized effectiveness trial suggest
that estimated prevalence of anaemia from baseline to 6
and 12 months decreased in both groups. The study
concludes that a large-scale iron-fortified subsidized-milk
program was effective at reducing the rates of anaemia
and iron deficiency in Mexican children during 12
months of implementation.
Traditional
Cross-sectional
study and matching
method between
control and
treatment village
Cross-sectional
study between
Jones et al. (2005)
52
Positive impact on consumption of vitamin A rich food
through the channel of more availability of higheconomic-value of vitamin A plants from home
production.
control and
treatment village
Cross-sectional
comparison of
matched
households from
treatment and
control villages
Cross-sectional
study and multiple
linear regression
Laurie et al. (2008)
South Africa
Cabalda et al. (2011),
the Philippine
Positive impact on consumption of β-carotene rich
vegetables.
Children from households with gardens were
significantly more likely to consume more frequent
vegetables. Child’s diet diversity and vegetable
consumption is positively correlated with the present of
home garden in the household.
New platform
Low et al. (2007),
Mozambique
Ensuring the supply of
and creating demand for
a biofortified crop with a
visible trait: Lessons
learned from the
introduction of orangefleshed sweet potato in
drought-prone areas of
Mozambique
Quasi-experimental
techniques
Gunaratna et al. (2010),
Ghana, Ethiopia, India,
Mexico, and Nicaragua
Bouis et al. (2011),
Global
Quality protein maize
(QPM) and nutrition
impact
Biofortification: A new
tool to reduce
Meta-analysis
Cost benefit
analysis of
53
The findings suggest that an integrated OFSP-based
approach had a positive impact on the vitamin A intake
of young children. For example, intervention children
were more likely (p < .001) than control children to have
consumed:
- OFSP (54% vs. 4%)
- dark-green leaves (60% vs. 46%)
- ripe papaya (65% vs. 42%)
Diet diversification was limited by difficult agroecological
conditions and low purchasing power. However,
-vitamin A intakes of intervention children were nearly
eight times higher (p < .001) than those of control
children
-dietary diversity was higher (p < .001) among
intervention than control children
QPM has positive effects in the rate of growth of weight
and height in infant and young children.
Biofortified crops offer a rural-based intervention that,
by design, initially reaches these more remote
micronutrient
malnutrition
biofortification in
increasing density
of minerals and
vitamins in
food staples eaten
widely by the poor
Source: Authors’ compilation
54
populations, which comprise a majority of the
undernourished in many countries, and then penetrates
to urban populations as production surpluses are
marketed. In this way, biofortification complements
fortification and supplementation programs, which work
best in centralized urban areas and then reach into rural
areas with good infrastructure.
Figure A1. How familiar are you with the following agricultural types of innovation?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
C
D
never heard
E
F
G
heard but not familiar
H
familiar
I
J
K
L
very familiar
Source: Authors’ compilation based on survey
Figure A2. In your opinion, are the following types of innovation likely to be environmentally friendly?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
C
I do not know
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
D
E
F
G
negative impact
ICT for Agriculture
Farmer extension
FFS
Empowering local farmer organization
Rural micro-finance scheme
Supply chain management
H
no impact
I
J
K
positive impact
G. Animal breeding programs
H. New/modern seed varieties
I. Adapted inputs for small scale farming
J. Food fortification
K. New/integrated water management
L. GM Crops
Source: Authors’ compilation based on survey
55
L
Figure A3. In your opinion, are the following types of innovation economically sustainable (i.e. under
market conditions, without the help of donor/public money) over the longer term, beyond the first
implementation program?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
C
D
E
I do not know
F
G
H
not sustainable
I
J
K
L
sustainable
Figure A4. Do you foresee trade-offs between environmental, social, and/or economic impacts in the
following types of innovation?
Source: Authors’ compilation based on survey
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
C
D
I do not know
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
ICT for Agriculture
Farmer extension
FFS
Empowering local farmer organization
Rural micro-finance scheme
Supply chain management
E
F
G
unlikely
likely
H
I
J
K
very likely
G. Animal breeding programs
H. New/modern seed varieties
I. Adapted inputs for small scale farming
J. Food fortification
K. New/integrated water management
L. GM Crops
56
L
Figure A5. Please state in your opinion up to two of the main barriers to fostering innovation in each
of the following areas.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Limited farmer’s access
Disinformation by interest groups
Cultural norms and practices
Legal framework
Farmer’s training and education
Low suitability or transferability of innovation
No barriers
A.
B.
C.
J.
K.
L.
L
ICT for Agriculture
Farmer extension
FFS
Empowering local farmer organization
Rural micro-finance scheme
Supply chain management
G. Animal breeding programs
H. New/modern seed varieties
I. Adapted inputs for small scale farming
J. Food fortification
K. New/integrated water management
L. GM Crops
Source: Authors’ compilation based on survey
57
Figure A6. Innovation and ICT in selected Foodsecure countries based Knowledge Economy Index 2012
6
Brazil
5
China
4
Zimbabwe
Kenya
Guatemala
3
Bolivia
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Senegal
Benin
MalawiCameroon
Nigeria
Uganda
Madagascar
Ghana
Nepal
Tajikistan
Burkina
Faso
Cambodia
Zambia
Tanzania
Yemen,
Rep.
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Mali Lesotho
Mozambique
Rwanda
Bangladesh
LaoCote
PDR
Haiti
Sierra Leone
d'Ivoire
Sudan
Myanmar Guinea
Vietnam
1
2
Innovation
India
0
2
4
6
ICT
Low Innovation - Low ICT
High Innovation - High ICT
Low Innovation - High ICT
High Innovation - Low ICT
Source: Authors’ compilation based on World Bank KEI 2012
Figure A7. Innovation and Education in selected Foodsecure countries based Knowledge Economy Index
2012
6
Brazil
5
China
4
Zimbabwe
Kenya
Guatemala
Bolivia
Indonesia
3
Sri Lanka
2
Pakistan
Senegal
Benin
Vietnam
Malawi Uganda
Cameroon
Nigeria
Madagascar
Ghana
Nepal
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Tanzania Yemen,Zambia
Rep.
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Mali
Lesotho
Mozambique
Rwanda
Lao PDR
Sierra
Leone
Cote
d'Ivoire Bangladesh
Sudan
Guinea
Myanmar
Tajikistan
1
Innovation
India
0
2
4
Education
Low Innovation - Low Education
High Innovation - High Education
Low Innovation - High Education
High Innovation - Low Education
Source: Authors’ compilation based on World Bank KEI 2012
58
6
Figure A8. Innovation and Economic Incentive Regime in selected Foodsecure countries based Knowledge
Economy Index 2012
6
Brazil
5
China
4
Zimbabwe
Kenya
Bolivia
Guatemala
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Senegal
Uganda
Ghana Burkina Faso
Zambia
Mozambique
Rwanda
3
Innovation
India
2
Cameroon
Nigeria
Nepal
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Lao
Bangladesh
PDR
Haiti
Sierra
Leone
Cote
d'Ivoire
Vietnam Malawi
Madagascar
Tajikistan
Cambodia
Tanzania
Yemen,
Rep.
Lesotho
Mali
1
Sudan
Guinea
Myanmar
Pakistan
Benin
0
1
2
3
EconIncentiveRegime
Low Innovation - Low Incentive
High Innovation - High Incentive
4
5
Low Innovation - High Incentive
High Innovation - Low Incentive
Source: Authors’ compilation based on World Bank KEI 2012
Figure A9. Innovation and Public Agricultural R&D spending per capita (2006)
6
Brazil
5
China
4
Kenya
2
3
Sri Lanka
PakistanSenegalBenin
Nigeria
Uganda
Madagascar
Ghana
Nepal
Burkina
Faso
ZambiaTanzania
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Mali
Mozambique
Rwanda
Bangladesh
Sierra Leone
Cote d'Ivoire
Sudan
Guinea
1
Innovation
India
0
2
4
RDpercapita
Low Innovation - Low RDpercapita
High Innovation - High RDpercapita
6
8
Low Innovation - High RDpercapita
High Innovation - Low RDpercapita
Source: Authors’ compilation based on World Bank KEI 2012 and ASTI Data
59
Figure A10. Public Agricultural R&D spending per capita
Laos
Zambia
Niger
Burkina Faso
Uganda
Kenya
China
Brazil
Togo
Sierra Leone
Nigeria
Guinea
Ghana
Sri Lanka
2006
Pakistan
2005
Nepal
2004
Bangladesh
2003
India
2002
Ethiopia
0
2
4
6
8
Source: Authors’ compilation based on ASTI Data
60
List Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB
Asian Development bank
AIS
Agricultural Innovation System
AKST
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology
ASTI
Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators
Bt
Bacillus thuringiensis
CAWMA
Comprehensive Assessment for Water Management in Agriculture
CGIAR
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIAT
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical – International Center for
Tropical Agriculture
DFID
Department for International Development
EU FP 7
European Union Framework Program 7
EUSCAR
European Union Standing Committee on Agricultural Research
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FARA
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FDI
Foreign Direct Investment
FFS
Farmer Field School
FNS
Food and Nutrition Security
FPR
Farmer Participatory Research
GCARD
Global Conference on Agricultural Research and Development
GDP
Gross Domestic Products
GM
Genetically Modified
H5N1
Combination of fifth of Hemagglutinin and first of Neuraminidase proteins
(Influenza A virus)
HIV/AIDS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
HYV
High Yield Varieties
HT
Herbicide Tolerant
IAASTD
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology
for Development
ICRAF
International Center for Research in Agroforestry
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
IDE
International Development Enterprises
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
61
IFPRI
International Food Policy Research Institute
ILRI
International Livestock Research Institute
INSARD
Including Smallholders in Agricultural Research for Development
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
IPS
Inter Press Service
IR
Insect Resistant
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
ITU
International Telecommunication Union
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
K4D
Knowledge for Development
KAM
Knowledge Assessment Methodology
KEI
Knowledge Economy Index
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
NIF
National Innovation Foundation
PDS
Participatory Diseases Surveillance
PID
Participatory Innovation Development
PRA
Participatory Rural Appraisal
QPM
Quality Protein Maize
R&D
Research and Development
RCT
Randomized Control Trial
SOFI
State of Food Insecurity in the World
SRI
System of Rice Intensification
SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa
TFP
Total factor Productivity
TQM
Total Quality Management
UNICEF
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WB
World Bank
WDR
World Development Report
WFP
World Food Program
62
References
Adu-Afarwuah, S., Lartey, A., Brown, K. H., Zlotkin, S., Briend, A., and Dewey, K. G., 2011. Home
fortification of complementary foods with micronutrient supplements is well accepted and
has positive effects on infant iron status in Ghana, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87:
929-938.
Aker, J. C., 2011. Dial “A” for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies
for agricultural extension in developing countries, Agricultural Economics, 42: 631-647.
Alena, A. D., and Manyong, V. M., 2006. Farmer-to-farmer Technology Diffusion and Yield variation
among Adopters: the case of improved cowpea in northern Nigeria, Agricultural Economics,
35: 203-211.
Areal, F. J., Riesgo, L. and Rodríguez Cerezo, E. (2013) Economic and agronomic impact of
commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Agricultural Science 151, 7-33.
Arifin, H. S., Munandar, A., Schultin, K . G., and Kaswanto, R. L., 2012. The Role and Impacts of SmallScale, homestead agro-forestry systems (“pekarangan”) on household prosperity: an analysis
of agro-ecological zones of Java, Indonesia, International Journal of AgriScience, 2(10): 896914.
Asiedu, E., and Lien, D., 2011. Democracy, Foreign Direct Investment and Natural Resources, Journal
of International Economics, 84(1): 99-111.
Avila, A. F. D., 2007. Agricultural Productivity and Sources of Growth in Latin America, ERS Workshop
on Trends and Forces in International Agricultural Productivity Growth, Economic Research
Service, Washington, D. C.
Avila A. F. D., and Evenson, R. E., 2010. Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: the role of
technological capital, in P. Pingali and R. Evenson (eds)., Handbook of Agricultural Economics
Volume 4, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Bagla, P. and Stone, R., 2013. Scientists clash swords over future of GM food crops in India. Science,
340: 539-540.
Debate viewed on 5th May 2013 at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6132/539.full
Bandiera, O., and Rasul, I., 2006. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern
Mozambique, Economic Journal, 116(514): 869-902.
Baumüller, H., 2012. Facilitating Agricultural technology Adoption among the Poor: the role of
services delivery through mobile phones, ZEF Working Paper Series No. 93, Bonn.
Baro, R., and Sala-i-Martin, X., 1999. Economic Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrok, S., and Davies, D., 2012. Food Sector SMEs and Innovation Types,
British Food Journal, 114(11): 1640-1653.
Basri, M. C., and Patunru, A. A., 2012. How to Keep Trade Policy Open: the case of Indonesia, Bulletin
of Indonesian Economic Studies, 48(2): 191-208.
Beintema, N., Stads, G., Fuglie, K., and Heisey, P., 2012. ASTI Global Assessment of Agricultural R&D
Spending: developing countries accelerate investment, International Food Policy Report.
Bennett, R., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U. and Morse, S. 2004a Economic impact of genetically
modified cotton in India. AgBioForum 7, 96-100.
Bennett, R., Ismael, Y., Morse, S. and Shankar, B. 2004b Reductions in insecticide use from adoption
of Bt cotton in South Africa: impacts on economic performance and toxic load to the
environment. The Journal of Agricultural Science 142, 665-674.
Bennett, R., Morse, S. and Ismael, Y. 2006 The economic impact of genetically modified cotton on
South African smallholders: Yield, profit and health effects. Journal of Development Studies
42, 662-677.
Berdegue, J., 2005. Pro-poor Innovation Systems, Background Paper, IFAD, Rome.
Bessant, J., and Tidd, J., 2007. Innovations and Entrepreneurship, Wiley, Chichester.
63
Beyer, P., 2010. Golden Rice and ‘Golden’ Crops for Human Nutrition, New Biotechnology, 27(5): 478481.
Binswanger-Mkhize, H., and McCalla, A. F., 2010. The Changing Context and Prospects for
Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa, in P. Pingali and R. Evenson (eds)., Handbook of
Agricultural Economics Volume 4, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Bio-economy Council, 2010. Bio-economy Innovation: Research and technological development to
ensure food security, the sustainable use of resources and competitiveness, BÖR, Berlin.
http://www.biooekonomierat.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Englisch/bioeconomy_council_rep
ort_2010.pdf
Birke, F. M., van Veldhuizen, L., Vitou, S., and Srorn, N., 2010. Institutionalization of Participatory
Innovation Development: experiences of the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Takeo
Province, Cambodia, Prolinnova Working Paper 31.
Birke, F. M., Woldeselase, G., Haileselassie, L., Araya, H., and Waters-Bayer, A., 2011. Assessing the
Level of Institutionalizing Participatory Development in Tahtay Maychew District, Tigray,
Ethiopia, Prolinnova Working Paper 32.
Bishai, D., and Nalubola, R., 2002. The History of Food Fortification in the United States: its relevance
for current fortification efforts in developing countries, Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 51(1): 37-53.
Blonigen, B. A., and Piger, J., 2011. Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment, NBER Working Paper
No. 16704.
Boehe, D. M., and Cruz, L. B., 2013. Gender and Microfinance Performance: why does the
institutional context matter?, World Development, 47: 121-135.
Bouis, H. E., Hotz, C., McClafferty, B., Meenakshi, J. V., and Pfeiffer, W. H., 2011. Biofortification: a
new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32(1): S31-S40.
Braun, A., Jiggins, J., Röling, N., van den Berg, H., and Snijders, P., 2006. A Global Survey and Review
of Farmer Field School Experiences, Report Prepared for the International Livestock Research
Institute, Wageningen.
Braun, A., and Duveskog, D., 2008. The Farmer Field School Approach – History, Global Assessment
and Success Stories, Background Paper for the IFAD Rural Poverty Report 2011.
Brookes, G. 2005 The Farm-Level Impact of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in Romania. AgBioForum 8,
235-241.
Brooks, S., and Loevinsohn, M., 2011. Shaping Agricultural Innovation Systems Responsive to Food
Insecurity and Climate Change, Natural Resource Forum, 35: 185-200.
Bushamuka, V. N., de pee, S., Talukder, A., Kiess, L., Panagides, D., Taher, A., Bloem, M. M., 2005.
Impact of A Homestead Gardening Program on Household FoodSecurity and Empowerment
of Women in Bangladesh, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26: 17-25.
Cabalda, A. B., Rayco-Solon, P., Solon, J. A. A., and Solon, F. S., 2011. Home Gardening is Associated
with Filipino Preschool Children’s Dietary Diversity, Journal of American Dietetic Association,
111: 711-715.
Catley, A., and Admassu, B., 2003. Using Participatory Epidemiology to Assess the Impact of Livestock
Disease, FAO-OIE-AU/IBAR-IAEA Consultative Group Meeting on Contagious Bovine
Pleuropneumonia in Africa, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
CFS, 2012. Global strategic framework for food security and nutrition. Committee on World Food
Security, 39th session.
Chambers, R., 1992. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed, and Participatory, IDS Discussion Paper 311.
Cerdan-Infantes, P., Maffioli, A., and Ubfal, D., 2008. The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services:
the case of grape production in Argentina, Inter-American Development Bank Office of
Evaluation and Oversight Working Paper: OVE/WP-05/08.
64
Conley, T. G., and Udry, C. R., 2010. Learning about New Technology: pineapple in Ghana, American
Economic Review, 100(1): 35-69.
Conway, G., and Waage, J., 2010. Science and Innovation for Development, UK Collaborative on
Development Sciences, London.
Conway, G., 2012. One Billion Hungry: can we feed the world?, Comstock Publishing Associates,
London.
Copenhagen Consensus, 2008. Copenhagen Consensus 2008 – Results, Available at:
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/CC08_results_FINAL_0.pdf.
Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R. and Morse, S., 2007. Bias from Farmer Self-Selection in Genetically
Modified Crop Productivity Estimates: Evidence from Indian Data. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 58, 24-36.
Diaz Osorio, J., Herrera, R., Valderrama, J. and Llanos Ascencio, J. L., 2004. Potential changes in the
competitiveness of maize growers in Central Chile through the use of transgenic seed (Bt and
RR). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 145-156.
Dillen, K., Demont, M., Tillie, P. and Rodriguez Cerezo, E. (2013) Bred for Europe but grown in
America: the case of GM sugar beet. New Biotechnology 30, 131-135.
Dockes, A., Tisenkopfs, T., and Bock, B., 2011. Reflection Paper on AKIS, Collaborative Working Group
Agricultural
Knowledge
and
Innovation
Systems,
WP
1.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/akis-wp1-final.pdf
Donner, J., 2009. Mobile-based Livelihood Services in Africa: pilots and early deployments, in M.
Fernandez-Ardevol and A. R. Hijar (eds)., Communication Technologies in Latin America and
Africa: a multidisciplinary perspective, IN3, Barcelona.
EUSCAR, 2012. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition – a reflection paper,
Brussels.
Evenson, R. E., 2001. Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension, in B. Gardner and G.
Rausser (eds)., Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 1, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Evenson, R. E., and Mwabu, G., 2001. The Effect of Agricultural Extension on Farm Yields in Kenya,
African Development Review, 13: 1-23.
Evenson, R. E., and Gollin, D., 2003. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000,
Science, 300: 758-762.
Fafchamps, M., and Minten, B., 2012. Impact of SMS-Based Agricultural Information on Indian
Farmers, The World Bank Economic Review, 26(3): 383-414.
Falck Zepeda, J. B., Traxler, G. and Nelson, R. G., 2000a. Rent creation and distribution from
biotechnology innovations: The case of bt cotton and Herbicide-Tolerant soybeans in 1997.
Agribusiness 16, 21-32.
Falck Zepeda, J. B., Traxler, G. and Nelson, R. G., 2000b. Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of
a Biotechnology Innovation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 360-369.
FAO, 2006. The Double Burden of Malnutrition: case studies from six developing countries, FAO,
Rome.
Fargerberg, J., Srholec, M., and Verspagen, B., 2010. Innovation and Economic Development, in B. H.
Hall and N. Rosenberg (eds)., Handbook of the Economics of innovation Volume2, Elsevier.
Farrington, J., and Martin, A. M., 1988. Farmer Participatory Research: a review of concepts and
recent fieldwork, Agricultural Administration and Extension, 29(4): 247-264.
Feder, G., Murgai, R., and Quizon, J. B., 2004. The Acquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: the case of
pest management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia, Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 55(2): 221-243.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W. D., 2000. Genetically Engineered Crops For Pest Management
In U.S. Agriculture: Farm-Level Effects, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic
65
Report No. 786. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Fiedler, J. L., and Afidra, R.,
2010. Vitamin A Fortification in Uganda: Comparing the Feasibility, Coverage, Costs, and
Cost-effectiveness of Fortifying Vegetable Oil and Sugar, Journal of Pediatric
Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 38: 152-158.
Fok, M., Gouse, M., Hofs, J.-L. and Kirsten, J., 2008. Smallholders' use of Bt-cotton under
unfavourable context: lessons from South Africa. In: Cotton Beltwide Conferences.
FoodSecure, 2011. Annex I – “Description of Work”, FoodSecure Seventh Framework Program.
Foster, A. D., and Rosenzweig, M. R., 1995. Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: human
capital and technical change in agriculture, Journal of Political Economy, 103(6): 1176-1209.
Foster, A. D., and Rosenzweig, M. R., 2010. Microeconomics of Technology Adoption, Annual Review
of Economics, 2: 395-424.
Francis, D., and Bessant, J., 2005. Targeting Innovation and Implications for Capability Development,
Technovation, 25(3): 171-183.
Friis-Hansen, E., and Duveskog, D., 2012. The Empowerment Route to Well-being: an analysis of
farmer field schools in East Africa, World Development, 40(2): 414-427.
Fuglie, K. O., 2010. Chapter 4: Total Factor Productivity in the Global Agricultural Economy: Evidence
from FAO Data, in J. M. Alston, B. A. Babcock, and P. G. Pardey (eds)., The Shifting Patterns of
Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide, MATRIC, Iowa State University.
Fuglie, K. , 2012. Productivity growth and technology capital in the global agricultural economy, in K.
Fuglie, S. L. Wang, and V. Eldon Ball (Eds), Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International
Perspective, Oxfordshire, England: CAB International.
Gandhi, V. P. and Namboodiri, N. V., 2006. The Adoption and Economics of Bt Cotton in India:
Preliminary Results from a Study, Working Paper No. 2006-09-04. Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad, India.
Gautam, M., 2000. Agricultural Extension the Kenyan Experience: an impact evaluation, The World
Bank, Washington, D. C.
Galluzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., and Negri, V., 2010. Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity
and cultural diversity, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 3635-3654.
Gasquez, J. G., Bastos, E. T., and Bacchi, M. R. P., 2008. The Rate of productivity Growth in Brazilian
Agriculture, Applied Economic Research Institute (IPEA), Government of Brazil, Brasilia.
Godtland, E. M., Sadoulet, E., de janvry, A., Murgai, R., and Ortiz, R., 2004. The Impact of farmer Field
Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: a study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes,
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(1): 63-92.
Gómez Barbero, M., Berbel, J. and Rodríguez Cerezo, E., 2008. Bt corn in Spain—the performance of
the EU’s first GM crop. Nature Biotechnology 26, 384-386.
Gouse, M., Pray, C. E. and Schimmelpfennig, D., 2004. The Distribution of Benefits from Bt Cotton
Adoption in South Africa. AgBioForum 7, 187-194.
Gouse, M., Pray, C. E., Kirsten, J. and Schimmelpfennig, D., 2005. A GM subsistence crop in Africa: the
case of Bt white maize in South Africa. International Journal of Biotechnology 7, 84-94.
Gouse, M., Piesse, J., Thirtle, C. and Poulton, C., 2010. Assessing the Performance of GM Maize
Amongst Smallholders in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AgBioForum 12, 78-89.
Goyal, A., 2010. Information, Direct Access to Farmers, and Rural market Performance in Central
India, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2:22-45.
Gradl, C., and Knobloch, C., 2009. How to Develop Business and Fight Poverty, Endeva, Geneva.
Gray, R., Malla, S., and Phillips, P. W. B., 2006. Product Innovation in the Canadian Canola Sector,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(1): 65-74.
Gunaratna, N. S., De Groote, H., Nestel, P., Pixley, K. V., and McCabe, G. P., 2010. A Meta-analysis of
Community-based Studies on Quality Protein Maize, Food Policy, 35(3): 202-210.
66
Günther, I., and Fink, G., 2010. Water, Sanitation and Children’s Health: evidence from 172 DHS
Surveys, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5275, the World Bank, Washington,
D. C.
Hanstad, T., Brown, J., and Prosterman, R., 2002. Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?:
International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, Economic and Political Weekly, 37(29):
3053-3062.
Hargrave, T. J., and Van de Ven, A. H., 2006. A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation,
Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 864-888.
Hategekimana, B. and Trant, M., 2002. Adoption and Diffusion of New Technology in Agriculture:
Genetically Modified Corn and Soybeans. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50,
357-371.
Hawkes, C., Eckhardt, C., Ruel, M., and Minot, N., 2005. Diet Quality, Poverty, and Food Policy: a new
research agenda for obesity prevention in developing countries, SCN News, 29: 20-22.
Hawkes, C., and Ruel, M. T., 2012. Value Chains for Nutrition, in S. Fan, R. Pandya-Lorch, H. Fritschel
(eds)., Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, D. C.
Hazell, P. B. R., 2010. As Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research in South Asia since the
Green Revolution, in P. Pingali and R. Evenson (eds)., Handbook of Agricultural Economics
Volume 4, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Herbel, D., Crowley, E., Haddan, N. O., Lee, M., 2012. Innovative Rural Institution, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Heckman, J. J., 2007. The Technology, and Neuroscience of Human Capital Formation, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33): 13250-13255.
Hierli, U., and Polak, P., 2000. Poverty Alleviation as a Business, Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, Berne.
Hofs, J.-L., Fok, M. and Vaissayre, M., 2006. Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by
smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini Flats (South Africa). Crop Protection 25, 984-988.
Hrushka, A. J., and Corriols, M., 2002. The Impact of Training in Integrated Pest Management among
Nicaraguan Maize Farmers: increased net returns and reduced health risk, International
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 8(3): 191-200.
Huang, J., Hu, R., Fan, C., Pray, C. E. and Rozelle, S., 2002a. Bt Cotton Benefits, Costs, and Impacts in
China. AgBioForum 5, 153-166.
Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S., Qiao, F. and Pray, C. E.. 2002b. Transgenic varieties and productivity of
smallholder cotton farmers in China. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 46, 367-387.
Humphrey, J. H., 2009. Child Undernutrition, Tropical Enteropathy, Toilets, and Hanwashing, the
Lancet, 374(9694): 1032-1035.
IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report – International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Island Press, Washington,
D. C.
IFAD, 2007. Innovation Strategy, IFAD, Rome.
IFPRI, 2002. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing?, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D. C.
Ismael, Y., Bennett, R. and Morse, S., 2002. Farm-level economic impact of biotechnology:
smallholder Bt cotton farmers in South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 31, 107-111.
ITU, 2011. The World in 2011: ICT Facts and Figures, International Telecommunication Union,
Geneva.
67
James, C. (2012) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012, ISAAA Brief No. 44.
ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.
Jensen, R. T., 2007. The Digital provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare
in the South Indian Fisheries Sector, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3): 879-924.
Johns, T., and Eyzaguirre, P. B., 2006. Linking Biodiversity, Diet, and Health in Policy and Practice,
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 65(2): 182-189.
Jones, K. M., Specio, S. E., Shrestha, P. K., Brown, K. H., Allen, L. H., 2005. Nutrition Knowledge and
Practices, and Consumption of Vitamin A Rich Plants by Rural Nepali Participants and
Nonparticipants in A Kitchen-garden Program, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26:98-108.
Joshi, K. D., and Witcombe, J. R., 2003. The Impact of Participatory Plan Breeding (PPB) on Landrace
Diversity: a case study for high-altitude rice in Nepal, Euphytica, 134: 117-125.
Jost, C. C., Mariner, J. C., Roeder, P. L., Sawitri, E., and Macgregor-Skinner, G. J., 2007. Participatory
Epidemiology in Disease Surveillance and Research, Revue Scietifique et Technique
(International Office of Epizootics), 26(3): 537-547.
KAM, 2012. Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 2012 Rankings, Available at:
www.worldbank.org/kam
Kambhampati, U., Morse, S., Bennett, R. and Ismael, Y., 2006. Farm-level performance of genetically
modified cotton: A frontier analysis of cotton production in Maharashtra. Outlook on
Agriculture 35, 291-297.
Kay, M., and Brabben, T., 2000. Treadle Pumps for irrigation in Africa, Knowledge Synthesis Report 1,
International Program for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Rome.
Kidala, D., Greiner, T., and Gebre-Medhin, M., 2000. Five-year Follow-up of a Food-based Vitamin A
Intervention in Tanzania, Public Health Nutrition, 3: 425-431.
Labonne, J., and Chase, R. S., 2009. The Power of Information: the impact of mobile phones on
farmer’s welfare in the Philippines, Policy Research Working Paper No 4996, the World Bank.
Laillou, A., Mai, L. B., Hop, L. T., Khan, N. C., Panagides, D., Wieringa, F., Berger, J., and MoenchPfanner., R., 2012. An Assessment of the Impact of Fortification and Condiments on
Micronutrient Intake in Young Vietnamese Children, Nutrients, 4: 1151-1170.
Laurie, S. M., and Faber, M., 2008. Integrated Community-based Growth Monitoring and Vegetable
Gardens Focusing on Crops Rich in β-carotene: project evaluation in a rural community in the
Eastern Cape, South Africa, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 88(12): 2093-2102.
Low, J. W., Arimond, M., Osman, N., Cunguara, B., Zano, F., and Tschirley, D., 2007. Ensuring the
Supply of and Creating Demand for a Biofortified Crop with a Visible Trait: lessons learned
from the introduction of orange-fleshed sweet potato in drought-prone areas of
Mozambique, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 28(2): 258S-270S.
Lutter, C. K., 2008. Iron Deficiency (ID) in Young Children in Low-Income Countries and New
Approaches for Its Prevention, Journal of Nutrition, 138: 2523-2528.
Mancini, F., van Bruggen, A. H. C., and Jiggins, J. L.S., 2007. Evaluation Cotton Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Farmer Field School Outcomes Using Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in
India, Experimental Agriculture, 43(1): 97-112.
Meenakshi, J. V., Johnson, N. L., Manyong, V. M., DeGroote, H., Javelosa, J., Yanggen, D. R., naher, F.,
Gonzalez, C., Garcia, J., and Meng, E., 2010. How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in
Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An ex ante assessment, World Development, 38(1):
64-75.
Meyer, R., 2010. Low-Input Intensification in Agriculture Chances for Small-Scale Farmers in
Developing Countries, GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 19(4): 263-268.
Mitchell, R., and Hanstad, T., 2004. Small homegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor,
LSP Working Paper 11, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
68
Moench-Pfanner, R., and van Ameringen, M., 2012. The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
(GAIN): a decade of partnerships to increase access to and affordability of nutritious foods
for the poor, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 33(3): 373S-380S.
Morse, S., Bennett, R. and Ismael, Y., 2006. Environmental impact of genetically modified cotton in
South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 117, 277-289.
Munshi, K., and Rosenzweig, M., 2009. Why is Mobility in India So Low? Social insurance, inequality,
and growth, NBER Working Paper No. 14850.
Muto, M., and Yamano, T., 2009. The Impact of Mobile Phone Coverage Expansion on Market
Participation: panel data evidence from Uganda, World Development, 37(12): 1887-1896.
Nagayets, O., 2005. Small Farms: Current Status and key Trends, Future of Small Farmer Workshop,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D. C.
Namara, R. E., Hanjra, M. A., Castillo, G. E., Ravnborg, H . M., Smith, L., and van Koppen, B., 2010.
Agricultural Water Management and Poverty Linkages, Agricultural Water Management,
97(4): 520-527.
Nathan, R., 1999. Regulation of Fortified Foods to Address Micronutrient Malnutrition: legislation,
regulations and enforcement, Available at:
http://www.ffinetwork.org/documents/Legislation_Manual.pdf
Nestel, P., Bouis, H. E., Meenakshi, J. V., and Pfeiffer, W., 2006. Biofortification of Staple Food Crops,
Journal of Nutrition, 136(4): 1064-1067.
Ngo, T. M. P., and Wahhaj, Z., 2012. Microfinance and Gender Empowerment, Journal of
Development Economics, 99(1): 1-12.
Normille, D., 2007. Indonesia Taps Village Wisdom to Fight Bird-Flu, Science, 315: 30-33.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science,
5(1): 14-37.
Orr, A., Islam, A. S. M. N., Barnes, G., 1991. The Treadle Pump: manual irrigation for small farmers in
Bangladesh, Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS), Dhaka.
Otsuka, K., and Yamano, T., 2005. The Possibility of a Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa:
evidence from Kenya, Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, 2(1): 7-19.
Owens, T., Hoddinott, J., and Kinsey, B., 2003. The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farm
Production in Resettlement Areas of Zimbabwe, Economic Development and Cultural Change,
51(2): 337-357.
Pampolino, M. F., Witt, C., Pasuquin, J. M., and Johnston, A., 2012. Development Approach and
Evaluation of the Nutrient Expert Software for Nutrient Management in Cereal Crops,
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 88: 103-110.
Pangaribowo, E. H., and Tsegai, D., 2011. Food Demand Analysis of Indonesian Households with
Particular Attention to the Poorest, ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 151,
Center for Development Research, Bonn.
Pant, L. P., and Odame, H. H., 2006. Multi-stakeholder Deliberation on Dialectical Divides: an
operational principle of the systems of innovation, Knowledge Management for Development
Journal, 2(3): 60-74.
Pemsl, D., Waibel, H. and Orphal, J., 2004. A methodology to assess the profitability of Bt-cotton:
case study results from the state of Karnataka, India. Crop Protection 23, 1249-1257.
Peres, C., 2010. Technological Revolutions and Techno-economic Paradigms, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 34: 185-202.
Peterman, A., Behrman, J., and Quisumbing, A., 2010. A Review of Empirical Evidence on Gender
Differences in Nonland Agricultural Inputs, Technology, and Services in Developing Countries,
IFPRI Discussion Paper 00975, IFPRI, Washington, D. C.
69
Piesse, J., and Thirtle, C., 2010. Agricultural R&D, Technology, and Productivity, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 365: 3035-3047.
Pingali, P., 2010. Agriculture Renaissance: making “Agriculture for Development” work in the 21 st
century, in P. Pingali and R. Evenson (eds)., Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 4,
North Holland, Amsterdam.
Pingali, P., 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead, Proceeding National
Academic of Sciences, 109(31): 12202-12308.
Polak, P., Adhikari, D., Nanes, B., and Salter, D., 2003. Transforming Rural Water Access into
Profitable Business Opportunities, in J. Butterworth, P. Moriarty, and B. van Koppen (eds).,
Water, Poverty and the Productive Uses of Water at the Household Level, Proceeding of an
International Symposium, Johannesburg.
Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., and Ng, S. W., 2012. Global Nutrition Transition and the Pandemic of
Obesity in Developing Countries, Nutrition Reviews, 70(1): 3-21.
Pray, C. E., Ma, D., Huang, J. and Qiao, F., 2001. Impact of Bt Cotton in China. World Development 29,
813-825.
Pray, C. E., Huang, J., Hu, R. and Rozelle, S.. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits
continue. The Plant Journal 31, 423-430.
Qaim, M., 2003. Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections. World Development
31, 2115-2127.
Qaim, M. and de Janvry, A., 2003. Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and
Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 85, 814-828.
Qaim, M. and Traxler, G., 2005. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate
welfare effects. Agricultural Economics 32, 73-86.
Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. and Zilberman, D., 2006. Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact
Variability: Insights from India. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 28, 48-58.
Qayum, A. and Sakkhari, K., 2006. Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh - A three-year assessment, Deccan
Development Society. Booksline, Hyderabad, India.
Ramasundaram, P., Vennila, S. and Ingle, R. K., 2007. Bt cotton performance and constraints in
central India. Outlook on Agriculture 36, 175-180.
Rao, N. C. and Dev, S. M., 2009. Biotechnology and pro-poor agricultural development. Economic and
Political Weekly 44, 56-64.
Renkow, M., and Byerlee, D., 2010. The Impacts of CGIAR Research: a review of recent evidence,
Food Policy, 35: 391-402.
Rivera, J. A., Shamah, T., Villalpando, S., and Monterrubio, E., 2010. Effectiveness of a Large-scale
Iron-fortified Milk Distribution Program on Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Low-income Young
Children in Mexico, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91: 431-439.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A., and Romer, P. M., 1991. Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 106(2): 531-555.
Romani, M., 2003. Love Thy Neighbour? Evidence from Ethnic Discrimination in Information Sharing
within Villages in Côte d'Ivoire, Journal of African Economies, 12(4): 533-563.
Romer, P. M., 1987. Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization, American Economic
Review, 77(2): 56-62.
Romer, P. M., 1990. Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): S71S102.
Ruttan, V. W., and Hayami, Y., 1984. Toward a Theory of Induced Institutional Innovation, Journal of
Development Studies, 20(4): 203-223.
70
Sadashivappa, P. and Qaim, M., 2009. Bt cotton in India: development of benefits and the role of
government seed price interventions. AgBioForum 12, 172-183.
Samaniego-Vaesken, M. L., Alonso-Aperte, E., and Varela-Moreiras, G., 2012. Vitamin Food
Fortification Today, Food and Nutrition Research, 56: 5459-5467.
Sanginga, P. C-. Adesina, A. A., Manyong, V. M., Otite, O., and Dashiell, K. E., 2007. Social Impact of
Soybean in Nigeria’s Southern Guinea Savanna, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture,
Ibadan.
Save the Children, 2012. A Life Free from Hunger: tackling child malnutrition, Save the Children,
London.
Sazawal, S., Dhingra, U., Dhingra, P., Hiremath, G., Sarkar, A., Dutta, A., Menon, V. P., and Black, R. E.,
2010. Micronutrient Fortified Milk Improves Iron Status, Anemia and Growth among Children
1-4 years: a double masked randomized controlled trial, PLoSONE, 5(8).
Semba, R. D., Moench-Pfanner, R., de Pee, S., Akhter, N., Rah, J. H., Campbell, A. A., Badham, J.,
Bloem, M. W., and Kraemer, K., 2010. Iron-fortified milk and Noodle Consumption is
Associated with Lower Risk of Anemia among Children aged 6-59 mo in Indonesia, American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(1): 170-176.
Semba, R. D., Moench-Pfanner, R., de Pee, S., Akhter, N., Rah, J. H., Campbell, A. A., Badham, J.,
Bloem, M. W., and Kraemer, K., 2011. Consumption of Micronutrient-Fortified Milk and
Noodles is Associated with Lower Risk of Stunting in Preschool-aged Children in Indonesia,
Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32(4): 347-353.
Serageldin, I., 1999. Biotechnology and Food Security in the 21st Century, Science, 285(5426): 387389.
Shankar, B., Bennett, R. and Morse, S., 2008. Production risk, pesticide use and GM crop technology
in South Africa. Applied Economics 40, 2489-2500.
Shetty, P. S., 2002. Nutrition Transition in India, Public Health Nutrition, 5:175-182.
Singh, R. B., 2000. Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Development: a case study from the
Green Revolution State of Haryana, India, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 82(1-3):
97-103.
Smith, L. C., and Haddad, L., 2000. Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries: a cross
country analysis, IFPRI Research Monograph No. 111, International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, D. C.
Soemarwoto, O., Soemarwoto, I., Karyono, Soekartadireja, E. M., and Ramlan, A., 1975. The Javanese
Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-ecosystem, Proceeding of an International Congress on
the Human Environment, Science Council of Japan, Kyoto,
Available at
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food/8F073e/8F073E08.htm
Soemarwoto, O., Soemarwoto, I., karyono, Soekartadireja, E. M., and Ramlan, A., 1985. The Javanese
Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-ecosystem, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 7(3): 44.47.
Solow, R. M., 1956. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 70(1): 65-94.
Sperling, L., Ashby, J. A., Smith, M. E., and McGuire, S., 2001. A Framework for Analyzing Participatory
Plant Breeding Approaches and Results, Euphytica, 122(3): 439-450.
Steinmueller, W. E., 2010. Economics of Technology Policy, in B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (eds).,
Handbook of the Economics of innovation Volume2, Elsevier.
Stoler, A., 1978. Garden Use and Household Economy in Rural Java, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic
Studies, 14: 85-101.
Swan, T. W., 1956. Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation, Economic Record, 32: 334-361.
71
Spielman, D. J., 2005. Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing-Country Agriculture: a critical
review, ISNAR Discussion Paper 2, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
D. C.
Spielman, D. J., and Birner, R., 2008. How Innovative is your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators
and Benchmarks to Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems, Agriculture and
Development Discussion Paper 41, the World Bank, Washington, D. C.
Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., Ayele, G., 2011. Rural Innovation Systems and Networks:
findings from a study of Ethiopian Smallholders, Agriculture and Human Values, 28: 195-212.
Subramanian, A. and Qaim, M., 2009. Village-wide Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology: The Case of
Bt Cotton in India. World Development 37, 256-267.
Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y. and Piesse, J., 2003. Can GM-Technologies Help the Poor? The Impact
of Bt Cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Development 31, 717-732.
Thirtle, C., Palladino, P., and Piesse, J., 1997. On the Organization of Agricultural Research in Great
Britain, 1945-94: a quantitative description and appraisal of recent reforms, Research Policy,
26: 557-576.
Torlesse, H., Kiess, L., and Bloem, M. W., 2003. Association of Household Rice Expenditure with Child
Nutritional Status Indicates a Role for macroeconomic Food Policy in Combating
Malnutrition, Journal of Nutrition, 133: 1320-1325.
Traxler, G. and Godoy-Avila, S., 2004. Transgenic cotton in Mexico. AgBioForum 7, 57-62.
Trebuil, G., 1995. Pioneer Agriculture, Green Revolution and Environmental Degradation in Thailand,
in J. Rigg (ed)., Counting the Cost: economic growth and environmental change in Thailand,
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.
UNICEF, 1996. The Progress of Nations http://www.unicef.org/pon95/progtoc.html
Uphoff, N., and Kassam, A., 2008. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI), STOA Project “Agricultural
Technologies for Developing Countries Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome.
Urz, X., Lin, L., and Thirtle, C., 2001. Agricultural productivity Growth and Poverty Alleviation,
Development Policy Review, 19(4): 449-466.
Van Dijk, M., 2012. A Review of Global Scenario Exercises for Food Security Analysis, Foodsecure
Working Paper No. 02, Foodsecure, Wageningen.
van Veldhuizen, 2004. Moving forward with PTD: creating conditions for farmers to set the
agricultural development agenda, in A. Kolff, A. van Veldhuizen, and C. Wettasinha (eds).,
Farmer Centred Innovation Development: experiences and challenges, Proceedings and
Papers of a Regional Workshop, November 22-25, Bogra.
Victora, C. G., Adair, L., Fall, C., Hallal, P. C., and Martorell, R., 2008. Maternal and Child
Undernutrition: consequences for adult health and human capital, The Lancet, 371(9609):
340-357.
Vodafone Group and Accenture, 2011. Connected Agriculture: the role of mobile in the food and
agriculture value chain, Available at:
http://www.vodafone.com/content/dam/vodafone/about/sustainability/2011/pdf/connecte
d_agriculture.pdf
von Braun, J., Bouis, H., Kumar, S., and Pandya-Lorch, R., 1992. Improving Food Security of The Poor:
Concept, Policy, and Programs, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.
C.
von Braun, J., and Tadesse, G., 2012. Global Food Price Volatility and Spikes: An Overview of Costs,
Causes, and Solutions, ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 161, Center for
Development Research, Bonn.
72
Waters-bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wettasinha, C., and Wongtshowski, M., 2004. Developing
Partnerships to Promote Local Innovation, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,
10(3): 143-150.
Webb, P., 2010. Medium to Long-Run Implications of High Food Prices for Global nutrition, Journal of
Nutrition, 143S-147S.
Wossink, A. and Denaux, Z. S. 2006. Environmental and cost efficiency of pesticide use in transgenic
and conventional cotton production. Agricultural Systems 90, 312-328.
World Bank, 2002. World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets, the World
Bank, Washington, D. C.
World Bank, 2006. Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development: a strategy for large-scale
action, the World Bank, Washington, D. C.
World Bank, 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, the World Bank,
Washington, D. C.
World Bank, 2011. ICT in Agriculture: connecting smallholders to knowledge, networks, and
institutions, the World Bank, Washington, D. C.
World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: an investment sourcebook, the World Bank,
Washington, D. C.
Xu, Z., 2012. The Chinese Agriculture Miracle Revisited, Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(14): 5158.
Xu, J., You, Z., Wang, W. and Yang, Y. 2004. Economic analysis of Bt cotton planting in Jiangsu. Journal
of Yangzhou University, Agricultural and Life Sciences Edition 25, 65-69.
Yorobe, J. M. and Quicoy, C. B. .2006. Economic Impact of Bt Corn in the Philippines. The Philippine
Agricultural Scientist 89, 258-267.
73
The FOODSECURE project in a nutshell
Title
FOODSECURE – Exploring the future of global food and nutrition security
Funding scheme
7th framework program, theme Socioeconomic sciences and the humanities
Type of project
Large-scale collaborative research project
Project Coordinator
Hans van Meijl (LEI Wageningen UR)
Scientific Coordinator
Joachim von Braun (ZEF, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn)
Duration
2012 - 2017 (60 months)
Short description
In the future, excessively high food prices may frequently reoccur, with severe
impact on the poor and vulnerable. Given the long lead time of the social
and technological solutions for a more stable food system, a long-term policy
framework on global food and nutrition security is urgently needed.
The general objective of the FOODSECURE project is to design effective and
sustainable strategies for assessing and addressing the challenges of food and
nutrition security.
FOODSECURE provides a set of analytical instruments to experiment, analyse,
and coordinate the effects of short and long term policies related to achieving
food security.
FOODSECURE impact lies in the knowledge base to support EU policy makers
and other stakeholders in the design of consistent, coherent, long-term policy
strategies for improving food and nutrition security.
EU Contribution
€ 8 million
Research team
19 partners from 13 countries
FOODSECURE project office
LEI Wageningen UR (University & Research centre)
Alexanderveld 5
The Hague, Netherlands
This project is funded by the European Union
under the 7th Research Framework Programme
(theme SSH) Grant agreement no. 290693
T
F
E
I
+31 (0) 70 3358370
+31 (0) 70 3358196
foodsecure@wur.nl
www.foodscecure.eu