Proceedings  06.05.2015 – 10.06.2015
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central
Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more
sustainable food security and nutrition
Proceedings of Online Discussion
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
2
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
TABLE OF CONTENT
Topic introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Contributions received .................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.
Guram Aleksidze CACAARI, the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia .......... 7
2.
Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan .............................................................................................. 8
3.
Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Аssociation "Кыргыз-Эт", Kyrgyzstan ................................................... 10
4.
Subhash Mehta, DST, India ......................................................................................................................... 11
5.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan..................................................................... 11
6.
Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada ........................................................................... 12
7. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
8.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan..................................................................... 13
9.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan..................................................................... 13
10.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 14
11.
Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada....................................................................... 14
12.
Ырысбек Абдурасулов Ассоциация "Кыргыз-Эт", Kyrgyzstan ........................................ 15
13.
Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan .................................... 15
14.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 16
15.
Rustam Ibragimov, Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Association of Agriculture
Research Institutions, Uzbekistan .................................................................................................................... 17
16.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 18
17.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 18
18.
Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds under
the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, Armenia ....................................................................................... 19
19.
Sherzod Kosimov, ICARDA, Uzbekistan ........................................................................................... 21
20.
Vugar Babayev, Ganja Agribusiness Association, Azerbaijan ................................................. 21
21.
Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan
22
22.
Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan
22
23.
Yagub Guliyev, Agrarian Science and Information Advisory Center, Azerbaijan............ 22
24.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 23
25.
Anastasiya Lebedeva, ASC, Spain ........................................................................................................ 23
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
3
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
26.
Muratbek Karabaev, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, CIMMYT,
Kazakhstan ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
27.
Jamshid Fayziev, Tajikistan ................................................................................................................... 28
28.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 28
29.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 29
30.
Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan ..................................... 30
31.
Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan ............................ 32
32.
Elena Kan, Uzbekistan ............................................................................................................................. 32
33.
Elena Kan, Uzbekistan ............................................................................................................................. 32
34.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 33
35.
Subhash Mehta, DST, India .................................................................................................................... 34
36.
Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan ...................................... 35
37.
Natalie Ernst, Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Switzerland .............................. 35
38.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 36
39.
Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................................................................................................. 36
40.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 37
41.
Mark Holderness, Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Italy .......................................... 37
42.
Eren Taskin, YPARD Turkey, Italy ...................................................................................................... 38
43.
Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan ...................... 39
44.
Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................................................................................................. 39
45.
Hongchun Xue Division of Science & Technology Extension,Northwest A & F
University, China ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
46.
Maria Losova, Canada .............................................................................................................................. 40
47.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 41
48.
Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan ..................................... 41
49.
Elena Kan, Uzbekistan ............................................................................................................................. 42
50.
Ирина Церетели, министерство сельского хозяйства РА, Армения ........................... 43
51.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 44
52.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 45
53.
Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China .................................................. 46
54.
Metin Güven, Renta LTD, Тurkey ........................................................................................................ 50
55.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 50
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
4
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
56.
Tatatiana Yusupova, Freelance consultant, Russia ..................................................................... 50
57.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 51
58.
Maria Losova, Canada .............................................................................................................................. 52
59.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 52
60.
Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Singapore . 52
61.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 53
62.
Alexander Makeev, Eurasian Center for Food Security, Russia.............................................. 54
63.
Hongyan Zhang China Agricultutre University, China ............................................................... 55
64.
Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kirgizstan ................................ 57
65.
Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan ................................................................... 57
66.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 58
67.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 58
68.
Maria Losova, China ................................................................................................................................. 59
69.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 60
70.
Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China .................................................. 61
71.
Hongyan Zhang, China Agricultutre University, China .............................................................. 62
72.
Ovezdurdy Dzhumadurdyev, Project Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan ............................. 62
73.
Youguo Tian, National agritech extension and service center, Ministry of Agriculture,
China 63
74.
Nabira Jumabaeva, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Uzbekistan ...................................... 64
75.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 66
76.
Karin Reinprecht, CGIAR CRP Dryland Systems, Jordan .......................................................... 66
77.
Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kirgizstan ........................................................... 67
78.
Courtney Paisley YPARD, Italy ............................................................................................................. 68
79.
Guljahan Kurbanova, FAO, Russia ...................................................................................................... 68
80.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan ................................................................ 69
81.
Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China......................................................................... 69
82.
Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan ...................... 70
83.
Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman, Georgia ............................................................................ 71
Digest No1 (18.05.2015) ........................................................................................................................................... 73
Digest No2 (28.05.2015) ........................................................................................................................................... 76
Closure message (10.06.2015)................................................................................................................................ 78
Online Discussion Summary .................................................................................................................................... 82
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
5
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Topic introduction
This online discussion is initiated by the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural
Research Institutions (CACAARI) in close collaboration with the Northwest Agriculture & Forest
University (NAFU) from China and supported by FAO’s Global Forum on Food Security and
Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia (FSN Forum in ECA).
The purpose of this cross-regional online discussion is to offer stakeholders an opportunity to
share their experience, knowledge and regional good practices on strengthening Agricultural
Innovation Systems (AIS) in the Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) countries and China.
The poor linkages among farmers, especially women farmers, the public sector, the private sector,
policy makers, and academia are a common problem in the CAC countries and China. Many
farmers in the CAC countries and China are encountering difficulties in accessing advanced
knowledge and information on agricultural technologies and emerging markets. This deprives
them of innovation-based opportunities to improve their productivity, profitability and their
livelihoods.
To tackle these problems many countries have established Rural Advisory Service (RAS) Systems,
which however, substantially differ from country to country and are still not playing a big enough
role in assisting farmers for increasing productivity and profitability. In some countries RAS
systems are largely a government domain or are being donor-driven, while in others they include
participation of the private sector and non-governmental organizations. Notwithstanding these
differences, most countries are facing the common challenge to make the RAS system more
efficient and sustainable.
Considering such challenges, CACAARI in 2012 adopted the Regional Strategy for transforming
and strengthening agricultural research and innovation systems. The strategy advocates an
integrated approach towards more sustainable food and nutrition by strengthening cooperation
among various stakeholders of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) such as research
institutions, rural advisory services, academia, input providers, farmers, government
organizations, in order to facilitate actions for development along agricultural food chains.
AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural research and extension systems by
strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector. This is considered
an important factor for connecting farmers in CAC countries and China and providing
opportunities for better access to markets and income diversification that ultimately will benefit
food security and better nutrition.
The main objective of this online-discussion is a wider inclusion of stakeholders into a
constructive dialogue for contributing to: a) identifying challenges, opportunities and collective
actions towards strengthening AIS; b) identifying roles of various stakeholders; c) gathering
insights and views on consistent actions needed to enhance the capacities of existing regional
platforms to promote communication and collaborations on agricultural innovations ; (d)
promoting regional cooperation (through initiatives such as “One Road One Belt”) for improved
policies to enhance market liberalization, environment sustainability, and regional development.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
6
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
This discussion is open to everyone interested in the subject; and we are inviting experts from the
governments, civil society organizations, private sector, research and education organizations to
take part in a constructive dialogue on opportunities and challenges for AIS contributing to
sustainable food security and better nutrition in CAC countries and China.
We would like to propose discussing the following issues:

What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC
countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
 What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively
support farmers in for improving their livelihood?
 What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and
make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
 What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and
education organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership
modalities be between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations,
farmer organizations and rural communities? What are the existing innovative
institutions? And what are the major constraints?
The outcomes of the online-discussions will feed into face-to-face consultation on the Roadmap to
enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual
Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GRAS).
We wish to thank you in advance for participating in this discussion. We do believe that your
participation and comments will prove to be very valuable and that both you and your
organization will benefit from the e-interaction with other experts regionally and globally.
We look forward to an interesting and rich discussion!
Respectfully Yours,
Guram Aleksidze (Georgia)
Chairman, CACAARI, Academician
and
co-facilitators:
Dr. Botir Dosov (Uzbekistan)
Technical Adviser, CACAARI
Innovation Platform Coordinator,
CGIAR-ICARDA; Focal point, CAC-FRAS-GFRAS
Prof. Xiangping JIA (China)
Professor,
Northwest Agriculture & Forest University
(NAFU)
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
7
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Contributions received
1. Guram Aleksidze CACAARI, the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia
Dear participants,
As you know, food security can be provided and maintained by creating enabling environment for
sustained provision of availability and access to all types of food and nutrition to the entire
population in quality and quantity that is required for their healthy life with the greatest possible
independence from external sources of food provision.
Ensuring food security is an important socio-economic problem for the countries of Central Asia,
South Caucasus and China. Covering a wide range of national, economic, social, demographic and
environmental factors, food security policy is implemented by means of development and
implementation of comprehensive measures aimed at increasing the production of domestic food
products, creating the necessary social, institutional, and industrial infrastructure to provide the
population with food.
The particularly important areas are: development of agricultural sector, further development of
agricultural innovation systems, introduction and production of advanced scientific developments
and new technologies, improvement of productivity and crop yields.
The main common objectives of national food security in the region are:
1. expansion of domestic food production, that enables provisioning of reliable stock of food and
raw materials to ensure food security through domestic sources, which is of a particular
importance in terms of basic foodstuffs price increase in the world markets;
2. achieving and maintaining availability and access to safe food in quantities and assortments
that meet the standards for nutrition required for active and healthy lifestyle;
3. assurance of food quality and safety.
Mechanisms to ensure national food security in the countries of the region are subject to the
regulatory acts of the countries, which set up terms for operation of national economy sectors and
intersectorial economic regulation. They are sustained by the financial resources of the state
budget; by the funds, which support various industries and sectors of economy; by the local
authorities; commercial banks loans; own funds of organizations and businesses and other
private sector actors.
Development strategies in the field of food security in the countries of the region are aimed at:







increase in yield and production of agricultural products;
development of transport and communication infrastructure;
development of processing of agricultural products;
improvement of the monetary and credit system in agriculture;
social welfare, and subsidies to the population;
improving the insurance and tax system;
support and development of food industry, etc.
However, the following questions should be given consideration to:

improving efficiency of mechanism of provision of safe and balanced nutrition to the
population;
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
8
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition

increasing the level of solvent demand for food of the individual groups of the population;

smoothing of price distortions in the markets of agricultural products, raw materials and food
on the one hand, and input resources on the other hand;

increase in the level of innovation and investment activity in production of agricultural and
fishery products, raw materials and food;

enhancement of regulatory and legal framework in regard to GMO in the countries;

paying special attention to reduction of national genetic resources of plants and animals;

capacity building and support to workers involved in agricultural research, education and
advisory services;

development of competitive advantages of domestic food products;

further development of regional partnerships in order to create and implement innovative
programs aimed at improving the sustainability of food security in the region.
I hope that during this discussion the participants will not only recognize existing problems, but
also suggest coordinated actions aimed to enhance the role and contribution of agricultural
research systems, education and advisory services, and other stakeholders from agricultural
innovation systems to the development and improvement of sustainability of food security in
Central Asia, Caucasus and China.
Sincerely yours,
Guram Aleksidze
Chairman of the Coordination Council of CACAARI
the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia
2. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan
National research and educational institutions play an important role in food security
research.
Agricultural research institutes, centres and associations, as well as their employees, are
considered as a single National System of Agricultural Research. National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS) involve scientific research institutes, which in some countries are a part of a
structure of Ministries of agriculture; but in other countries they are included in a higher
educational institutions structure, which are involved in training of high university degree
specialists for work in agriculture, as well as highly-qualified scientific and academic personnel.
While countries of Central Asia and South Caucasus have inherited a system of high quality
agricultural research and education of the Soviet period, following independence of the republics
links between national systems has significantly weakened. Also, there was an outflow of welltrained scientists, as they migrated to their historic homeland. Similarly, the connection, which
provided a possibility for agricultural research to contribute to ensuring food safety, innovation,
well being of producers and population, has been lost. In the context of new economic conditions,
institutions of national agricultural research systems are underfunded from the state budget. As
the analysis of the national agricultural research systems in the countries of Central Asia and the
Caucasus has shown, that the average share of expenditures on agriculture in the gross
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
9
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
agricultural output is 0.1%, while the average volume of investments in agricultural research as a
percentage of agricultural GDP in developing countries is 0.58%, compared with 2.4% in
developed countries. This indicator reflects to what extent ARD are provided with funds to
address their activities to current problems in agriculture.
Therefore national systems of agricultural research have been transformed in order to address
new goals of agricultural development and food security challenges. However, functional
connections between the systems of agricultural education, research and rural advisory services
are still not developed. Another weakness is that there is no mechanism for coordination of
national agricultural research separately for each sector of agriculture, food niches and
disciplines at regional level. This does not guarantee good planning, monitoring, achievement and
division of labor, but also leads to duplication of activities of various organizations at the cost of
scarce resources availability.
Agricultural Universities that have qualified teaching staff, direct most of the activity to education,
and do not conduct cross-disciplinary research.
Countries of the region provide funding to agricultural research through:




allocation of state budget funds to different trends of agricultural research;
the mechanism of attraction of private investments, financial means of institutes of
development, grants of the international organizations;
focus of scientific research on priority areas of agrarian and industrial complex according
to social and economic development of the region, and world science trends;
modernization of research infrastructure of scientific organizations in order to carry out
scientific research in accordance with international standards.
The further measures of strengthening of Agricultural Innovation Systems at national and
regional level could be the following:







development of institute of farming as a basic form of the organization of agricultural
production;
introduction of new advanced agro-technologies of cultivation of agricultural crops and
modern resource saving and water saving technologies, as well as breeding and seedgrowing methods;
securing intensive growth of volumes of production by means of an increase in
productivity of agricultural crops and efficiency of animal industries, other than by means
of a pressure on natural resources;
further renovation and expansion of agricultural machinery park and improvement of
quality of maintenance service;
accomplishment of measures on radical improvement of an ameliorative condition, and
increasing efficiency of irrigated lands;
modernization of material-technical base and intellectual potential of research institutes
and universities;
development of extension / rural advisory services.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
10
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Taking this into account, an increase in investments aimed at improving the existing
infrastructure, as well as at the development of infrastructure of agricultural research, education
and rural advisory services is an important factor of development of agricultural research.
To achieve this goal, it is important for coordinated actions to be effective and sustainable in
influencing socio-economic development of rural regions in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Dr. Alisher Tashmatov
CACAARI-executive secretary, Uzbekistan
3. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, Аssociation "Кыргыз-Эт", Kyrgyzstan
What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and
China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
Lack of communication between them that is required for collaborative work, lack of a single
coordinated structure, lack of joint pilot projects, finance, and therefore other problems, and they
are legion.
What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support
farmers in for improving their livelihood?
First of all, special attention should be paid to the formation of a national policy, legislative and
regulatory framework and institutional development in the field of agricultural innovation
systems (AIS), establishing of a unified information system in the AIS, improvement of soil
fertility, energy-saving technology, ensuring water resources, genetic progress of plants and
animals (and micro-organisms), provision of training and advisory services to farmers, scientific
support, advanced processing systems and technologies, relevant marketing and management of
AIS, etc.
What kind of actions is needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make
them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
Establishing of a unified information system, adequate funding, improvement of material and
technical base, better contact between countries’ profile research institutes. The most important
is to establish a better contact between research institutions and farmers...
What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education
organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be
between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and
rural communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major
constraints?
All activities of RAS within RAS systems should be based on the results provided by recent
agricultural research and educational institutions (universities). The most preferable partnership
modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders (i.e. farmers, rural
communities, RAS staff, farmers associations) are direct and corporate forms of cooperation. In
fact there is no innovation agricultural institutes in Kyrgyzstan. I believe that in other countries of
the region their presence is unlikely as well. Major obstacles between innovation institutions and
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
11
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
farmers - the main consumers of their products - are organizational, informational, financial and
many other problems.
4. Subhash Mehta, DST, India
The major challenges faced by AIS in CAC countries and China is the fact that the producer
communities in the CAC countries and China are following the high cost high risk mono
crop agricultural technologies, thrust on them by their research institutes and Government
development programmes. This has deprived them of access to their own requirements of low
cost low risk safe, nutritious food, increased debt, poverty, malnutrition, effects of climate change
whilst reducing net income/ purchasing.
To tackle these problems these countries require to assist/ facilitate producers to establish their
org/ company (PC) but managed by professionals, contract CSO/ NGOs and successful farmers
following their agro ecology to assist/ train producer communities with low cost low risk
innovative research and development, season after season, to increase farm production and net
profit/ purchasing power. The inclusion of and identifying roles of all stakeholders, contributing
to the PC’s plan and budget, enhance the human and institutional capacities of the producer
communities’ long term sustainability and for improved policies to enhance investments and
environment sustainability, thus contributing to food and nutrition security through agro
ecology, in CAC countries and China, case study link,www.navajyoti.org .
Attached manual on community producer org FYA
5. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Dr. Tashmatov,
Indeed, the Agriculture in the CAC region faces problems, and some of them are implications and
legacy of past decades, while others were caused by the unstable situation of the global economy
and of the environment. Concerns about these problems are compounded by countries’
understanding that increasing food prices and over-exploitation of natural resources are
primarily a threat to smallholders and vulnerable population groups. It should be mentioned that
population growth that will lead to increased food consumption and use of even more natural
resources requires a comprehensive approach to solve the problems, as such Academician
Aleksidze mentioned in his introduction.
It is critical, that development of an efficient agricultural research and extension systems to
address the needs of farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector is considered as an
important factor for the reorientation of CAC region smallholder farmers towards markets, their
income diversification, contribution sustainable development and adaptation to climate change.
The development of innovation systems in the region is considered as a necessary condition for
protection from crisis situations and enhancing agricultural productivity. I agree with you that
comprehensive measures towards fostering innovations in the agricultural sector will enhance
not only the value-chain, but also significantly improve the investment climate in agriculture.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
12
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
6. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
My doctoral research about China's ecological agricultural sector really made me think that the
Chinese government's claim to support the development of more sustainable agricultural
production is superficial. Chinese farmers got stuck in the vicious circle of being dependent on
excessive use of chemicals (often accompanies the vigorous promotion of industrialized modern
agriculture) to sustain the yield and their livelihood while the ecosystem is increasingly
deteriorated. Peasants have been complaining that they have to use more chemicals per hector to
sustain the yield. Food produced in this way is cheap, which constrains the livelihood of peasants.
This unsustainable agriculture also generates the food safety problem, which is one of the biggest
threats for food security in China. It is urgently needed for China to switch from a productivityoriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system, or at least support
the development of sustainable agriculture.
However, transforming into organic, “green” or “hazard-free” productions bares high risk that
peasants would not be able to take. The decline of yield in the first few transitional years to
organic farming and the high initial inputs prevent peasants from conducting ecological farming
approaches. Knowledge about sustainable ways of farming has been lost among peasants.
Marketing is another problem in the social environment that remarkably lacks of trust. All these
problems make external supports necessary.
These dilemmas make the priority areas for AIS in China clear. More peasants, rather than big
agrifood companies which currently received most of the subsidies from local governments,
should be supported to take ecological farming approaches. A knowledge sharing network needs
to be established to facilitate the dissemination of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Innovative
ways of marketing of organic, “green food” or “hazard-free food” should be encouraged and
supported. These include what agrifood scholars usually call, “alternative food networks”, or
“short food supply chains”, which builds trust between producers and consumers effectively. Yet,
the problems of the current food system in China extend far beyond the agricultural sector. There
are so much more to do to achieve sustainability.
7. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan
Our CAC region has a lot of opportunities for developing and implementing innovative
technologies, due to the importance of its agricultural sector in the economy. Large agricultural
research and education systems exist and operates in the region, which incorporate science and
skilled work forces for agriculture. There is a tendency that Agricultural Universities will be
transformed into or will incorporate national agricultural research institutions centres. Having a
legacy of big agricultural research systems from the past the CAC countries has tremendous
research potential and capacity. However, there is a gap in age distribution among scientist, and
therefore improving the capacity of young professionals is very urgent today. And the last, but not
least opportunity for integration of innovation in agriculture is the big share of the agricultural
population. Thus, the region is open for strengthening the AIS, but it is expected that this demand
will be supplied by strengthening of interaction between all actors, where the state should play
the biggest role as a trigger of innovation system. I support Dr. Tashamov's view that CAC region
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
13
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
experience a notable lack of investments in agricultural research and innovations. However, it
would be wrong if we consider the under-sourcing of ARD as the only factor that hinders
agricultural innovations. Indeed, low investment in research system affects not only the research
quality, but also transferring research outputs to farmers, i.e. production system. Thus, the
agricultural innovations systems is suffers from poor linkages between research and productions.
Under such circumstances, rural advisory services could play a critical role in bridging those gaps
or strengthening the linkages between researchers and producers by transferring knowledge and
technologies, and communicating the needs/demand and opportunities/potential supply. In
resource-constrained economies, such as in CAC, investments in agricultural research, and
extension systems should be identified at breakout points of “supply and demand” and be
prioritized according to current and future challenges to ensure the development impacts. And
here, the innovation system concept should lay a framework for integrating innovation capacities
in the rapidly changing market, technological, social and institutional environments of the
agriculture.
8.
Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Mr Yrysbek Abdurasulov,
Thank you for your constructive suggestions and for highlighting the causes and the
consequences of the constraining factors of agricultural innovation processes. In fact poor
communication and coordination between members of AIS are due to the lack of a unified
coordination structure and the lack of pilot joint projects and funding. I would like to agree with
you that national policy-making, establishing of a legislative and regulatory framework and
institutional development in the field of agricultural innovation systems (AIS), establishing of a
unified information system in AIS are the priorities. I would like to emphasize the value of your
point of view that in order to improve agricultural research and extension services it is important
to establish a unified information system and to provide it with adequate funding, to improve
material and technical base, to establish a better contact between countries’ profile research
institutes, as well as between research institutions and farmers. I would like to ask your opinion
on how to create a unified information system and what form it should have? Were you talking of
a unified system at the national level or at the regional level?
9. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Subhash Mehta,
Thank you for your contribution and sharing with the manual to develop community enterprise
system and link to Nava Jyoti PC Community Enterprise System. Do you think that it would be
applicable to tackle challenges that Zhenzhong Si mentioned above?
and
Dear Zhenzhong Si,
Do you think that community enterprise system combined with advocacy and dissemination of
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” would facilitate switching
from a productivity-oriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
14
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
at least at community level? Could you give some examples of what Good Agricultural Practices
(GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” could be?
10. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Academician Guram Aleksidze,
I would like to thank you for introduction to the online-discussions and quote from the Regional
Strategy for Transforming and Strengthening of Agricultural Research and Innovation Systems for
Development in the Central Asia and Southern Caucasus region:
"Transformation of extension systems should be a priority in the short term development of
AR4D. Enhanced extension systems will assist farmers in making economic and innovative
decisions on improving productivity, introducing new technologies, and enhance resilience to
food and economic crises and climate change impacts through improved information
management, application of R&Ds." P.18, 2012
11. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Dear Dr. Botir Dosov,
Thanks very much for the note! The "community enterprise system" looks very much like the
ecological farmers' cooperatives that China has been promoting in the past few years.
Unfortunately, the development of farmers' cooperatives has been confronting a lot of challenges
in China. It has been very much captured by the elite group as an approach to acquire
government fundings while real peasants haven't really benefit much from it. Matthew Hale has
documented some of the challenges facing peasant organizations in China in his doctoral thesis:
(https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/23389/Hale_washi
ngton_0250E_12050.pdf?sequence=1).
I believe more advocacy is necessary. However, it might be difficult to conduct in Chinese
political context. Although there are civil society initiatives (such as the New Rural
Reconstruction Movement) that are taking the lead in promoting sustainable agriculture in
China, their influences and resources are very limited.
Regarding the second question, "green food" and "hazard-free food" are certified food labels in
China (in parallel with "organic" certification) for food that is produced in ecological ways. One
of the publications of our research team (see attachment) have documented these labels and
what they mean (see table 1):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001061
Right now, ecological agriculture (organic, green and hazard-free foods) still takes up a minimal
share of the food production in China but they are expanding rapidly. However, most of this
expansion are attributed to the governments' subsidies to big agrifood companies while the
majority of producers (small peasants) are excluded from this field. Unfortunately, this is the
critical way for the whole food system to be more sustainable.
Regarding the GAP, I think the FAO provides clear and concise
standards: http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/
For Chinese producers, some of the most urgent practices are reducing the usage of synthetic
fertilizer and pesticides, and taking more sustainable approaches to take care of the soil.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
15
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Potential approaches are: growing green manures, using organic fertilizer, crop rotation,
growing cover crops in winter to reduce soil erosion, etc.
Thanks for organizing this interesting and very relevant discussion. I hope I can contribute more
to it.
Best regards
12. Ырысбек Абдурасулов Ассоциация "Кыргыз-Эт", Kyrgyzstan
Dear Botir,
You posed a very good question. You’re certainly very much aware of the importance and role of a
modern information system (IS) in any sphere of human activities. Its’ role in agriculture, given
the complexity of the industry and its dependence on a number of factors (such as weather, which
is an act of God), is obviously very big. But unfortunately many people in our countries overlook
the importance of IS, therefore we are where we are. Of course, initially information systems
should be established at the national level, and only then at the regional level, with further
integration into the World Wide Web or network. The hierarchy here, as you know, is very strong.
All of these should be done together, jointly. Thank you.
13. Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan
Global distribution and insufficient level of resource endowment of the government innovation
processes, education and advisory services, as well as poor linkages with general development
processes, farmers, non-commercial non-governmental organisations and the private sector is the
main bottleneck, which reduce the value and impact of agricultural innovations on lives and
livelihoods of rural population.
Despite the huge potential of agriculture, wide experience in farming, functioning of agricultural
system and phased implementation of institutional reforms in the sector, there are a number of
problems that do not allow agriculture to fulfill its full potential. These issues relate to various
areas of the agricultural sector, such as agriculture and water management; crop production;
livestock; forestry; transboundary diseases; impact of climate change, etc.
Problems due to the climate and environmental change exacerbate the loss of valuable genetic
stock of crops for use in breeding. Droughts in the region will only increase; early establishment
and introduction of drought-resistant crops and moisture-, soil- and resource-saving technologies
of their cultivation are crucial.
Due to geographical and climatic conditions of Uzbekistan, it is subject to desertification and bear
loss caused by land degradation, impoverishment of biodiversity and biological resources and, as
a consequence, social deprivation of population.
Therefore, halting desertification in the region is the task of a strategic importance; alleviation
and prevention of this problem will guarantee the sustainable development of the country.
In order to solve these problems it is necessary to strengthen the role of rural advisory services,
which provide the main channel for conducting innovation in production, as well as the real
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
16
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
feedback between agricultural producers and research institutions, and practical cooperation
between science and production.
Dr Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan
14. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Adapting from the World bank concept, e.g. Andy Hall (“Enhancing Agricultural Innovation:
Framework and Principles”) and Willem Janssen (“Towards an Intervention Framework for
Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity”) I can say that Agricultural innovation system
can be defined as the network or include organizations, enterprises, farmers' associations and
individuals, involved in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organization
into economic use in agriculture, with the institutional and policy support favorable to
sustainability and productivity of the system.
AIS facilitates creating knowledge, access to knowledge, share knowledge, and fostering learning.
The innovation systems concept embraces not only the science suppliers, but the totality and
interaction of actors involved in innovation.
Thus to my view, involving and interactions between AIS actors (individuals and organizations),
including producers, processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services,
universities, input providers, government bodies, market and other players are required for
ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of AIS. As results of those interactions
economic/production, social, institutional, market, cultural and other values are produced.
At the same time, I would like to emphasize that it is not necessary that all of those actors and all
the time participated in the AIS, but necessarily the ones that can directly or indirectly produce or
foster the creation of values.
Taking into account that the knowledge and technology are of great importance in AIS, we discuss
the scope, challenges and opportunities of agricultural research systems, RAS and academia.
However, knowledge and technologies do exist and do not function by themselves. It is necessary
to create them, transfer them, out-scale, specifically, where there is a demand for them.
Finally, I would like to give you a food for thinking, the quote by Steve Jobs: "people don’t know
what they want until you show it to them”. In other words, I think that our discussions should not
only be formal. Perhaps we need to propose, discuss and agree more practical steps forwards.
I am sure that the problems and their solutions that we are discussing, will be delivered and taken
into account in the global meetings of: Global Forum on Agricultural Research and the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the Global Forum of rural advisory
services, and many other international organizations, as our the region is an integral part of the
global community.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
17
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
15. Rustam Ibragimov, Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Association of
Agriculture Research Institutions, Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues, stakeholders! Dear friends,
First of all, let me express a word of gratitude to the organizers and facilitators of the ediscussions which is extremely important and provide the background for the new way of
exchanging opinions and as a consequence taking appropriate actions based on the results of the
discussions for which I feel confident.
Thank you!
Concerning the role of AIS in improving food security and nutrition, it should be pointed out that
the relevance of agricultural education and training is high in this context, especially among youth
and women farmers. Sustainable productivity growth in agriculture represents a knowledge
intensive undertaking, the success of which hinges on the development of the capabilities of the
actors primarily involved. Fostering the education and development of the ability of both gender
farmers and young people to innovate, to solve new problems as they emerge in a volatile
environment, and to engage with other stakeholders ― from researchers and policy makers to
retail buyers — is at the heart of agriculture development in the CAC region and China. In many
countries of the region agricultural education and training has been neglected. Low levels of
general education in the farming population of developing countries can also be an obstacle to
adaptation. A broader approach to, and a new emphasis on, agricultural education and training is
required for two reasons. First, there is a need to provide farmers and rural small and medium
enterprises (SME) with the skills, understanding and innovative capacity that they require to
practice sustainable agricultural intensification and market oriented activities. Strengthening
individual capabilities is important for all aspects of farm and business management.
Furthermore, human capital development, including health, nutrition, education, and skills
development, is essential to increase farmers ‘productivity in agriculture, as well as their ability to
seize decent non-farm employment opportunities. In many developing countries, access and
quality of education in rural areas need to be urgently improved. Rural-urban gaps remain wide
in education enrolment and attainment rates basic education is frequently biased against
agriculture and, in general, fails to teach young people and women farmers about agriculture in
the context of sustainable development or to appreciate how it is linked to the communities’
development aspirations.
Sustainable agricultural intensification and Agricultural Innovation System must be recognized
and presented as modern and profitable, so that the aspirations of rural youth ― young men and
women — can converge around this. Second, there is a need to train a new generation of
agricultural specialists, scientists and service providers who can work with smallholders in new
ways to develop the skills needed to make sustainable agricultural intensification work.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
18
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
16. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Alisher Tashmatov,
Thanks for elaborating the challenges and potential role of agricultural universities in AIS. I hope
to extend bit more on the basis of Alisher’s insights. Agricultural universities have some born
advantages in extension (when comparing with other institutions such as agribusiness companies
and government-related extension stations). First, infrastructure. The practices of agricultural
extension is built on and being guided by comprehensive knowledge. Agricultural universities are
better invested in infrastructure of equipment and materials. Second, scientific staffs and
researchers. Working on agricultural research of various discipline and teaching on a daily base,
university researchers master both fundamental and frontier knowledge of science and
technology in agriculture (and related), making it possible to guide extension people to deliver
and disseminate of the knowledge in field. Third, institutional stability. Compared with
government extension institutions, universities (and academia) are relatively less affected by
political and administrative changes, especially in a context where agricultural policies (or more
precisely agricultural extension policies) do not evolve and change in a consistent direction (but
on a swing that causes segmented interests). In other words, the formation and accumulation of
knowledge are relatively better maintained and deposited in universities through established
curriculum, trained lectures, and set-up network. Nevertheless, there are generic drawback or
constraints for agricultural universities to overcome in playing an active role in AIS and extension.
First, incentives. In reality, the number and influence of publications become the rule of thumb in
evaluating researchers. The efforts and time engaged in extension are often not recognized,
especially when extension work demands massive inputs of time, making the opportunity costs of
extension prohibitive for researchers. Unless there are additional benefits (such as direct revenue
relating to extension or reputational reward), it is difficult to incentivize university researchers to
engage themselves into extension. Second, lack of cross-disciplinary collaboration. When
technologies are being applied in field by farmers, different lines of scientific field are being
united. In other words, it is an integrated knowledge that is applied in field instead of a simple
‘combination’ of various advice. Unfortunately, most of university researchers are specialized in
their own topic and do not have sufficient opportunities to collaborate with others in especially
production. Third, insufficient involvement of social & economic scientists. Extension in
agricultural universities are often wrongly considered as an application of ‘hard science’.
However, in fact, it is an interaction between scientific knowledge and human behavior. As a
consequence, the knowledge of rural society, psychology and human behavior, and economics
eventually help understand and ensure the innovations of ‘last-mile’.
17. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Mr. Yrysbek Abdurasulov
Thanks for your response point-by-point according to the guideline of the Launching Message. I
hope to take the opportunity to facilitate discussions regarding to “Modalities between scientific
communities and other stakeholders (i.e. farmers, rural communities, RAS staff, farmer
associations)”. The modalities or the organizational forms of extension is based on the nature of
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
19
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
agricultural information (but being affected also by market structure and political institutions).
When extension information are classified into a public good or a private good, the organizational
forms of extension are therefore divided into public and private financing (Umali and Schwartz,
1994). When food security and over-exploited resources are a public problem, the technology and
information related are therefore of the nature of a public good. The key issue being discussed AT
THIS FORUM is that “Who provides extension information of a public good (for sustainable food
security)? Will agricultural universities be a candidate? What are the relationship between
universities and other stakeholders, such as the government RAS staffs, the private sector and
rural communities? In some CAC countries and China, agriculture extension was administered
and delivered mainly through the public-sector hierarchies with state authority, suffering from
changing attitudes, insufficient support, segmented interest, and thus a low accountability. The
role of the private sector has not been fully realized and the negatives are not regulated;
sometimes extension staffs in the public sector indirectly engage themselves into the private
sector for profit, causing biased interests of the delivery of public extension that is supposed to be
a public good. This was the case in China during the late 1990s and 2000s. As a result, the Chinese
government revised the law of agricultural extension in 2012 and clearly states that the public
sector is legally providing only public services of non-for-profit. While the modalities of
agricultural extension can have many forms (Training & Visiting, decentralization, fee-forservices, which were piloted by the World Bank throughout 1970-1990, and farmer-field-school
by FAO since 1990s), the ‘modalities’ that we hope to discuss at this FSN forum are innovations
through which agricultural universities are interlinked with stakeholders (mainly government
and the private sector). The relations of ‘partnership’ is very vague and does not sort out the
problem of incentive within the system. To be specific, a few specific questions are raised to
moderate further discussion: First, who pays universities for extension? Government, private, or
self-finance? Is the funding a missionary donation or a real ‘sub-contract’ with clear obligation?
Second, what are the relationship between universities and the public RAS staffs at the local level?
“Partnering” will cause weak commitment and high transaction costs. Will the public RAS staffs
working for the universities as in hierarchies or simply be ‘agent’ from contracting? What are the
incentives for local RAS staffs to engage in university-led extension mode? Third, one generic
problem for public extension system is the difficulties of evaluating extension work at the local
level and justify the value. How do agricultural universities overcome the problem? Lastly, it will
be valuable if people can share case studies of government’s buy-in extension services from
agricultural universities or others. In addition, cases of innovative relationship between
agricultural universities and local RAS staffs, local communities and the private sector will be
welcome and valuable.
18. Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds
under the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, Armenia
Reforms in agriculture contribute to economic growth through increased efficiency of agricultural
production in the region. However, there is still a range of issues that should be solved. General
efficiency has improved, but unaccomplished reforms and other factors hold back agricultural
growth rather than promote it. The key challenges for agricultural development in the region
have been specified in accordance with the provisions of the First Global Conference on
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
20
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Agricultural Research for Development (2010). Considering that the third Global Conference on
Agricultural Research for Development will be held soon, I suggest we specify the following
challenges that are still to be solved:
Challenges associated with food security and nutrition:


The need for effective funding to support small farmers;
The need to improve sustainable cultivation of crops in irrigated and rain-fed areas, as
well as in remote and mountainous regions;
 The need to improve management of cattle breeding, pasture and agro-pastoral farming;
 The need to bring attention to horticulture;
 The need to emphasize on fisheries;
 The need to reduce risks and residues of transboundary diseases of animals and plants, as
well as pests;
 The need to develop special mechanisms for newly-established smallholders.
Challenges associated with improvement of the quality of life and livelihoods of farmers:

The need to diversify agricultural production, development and maintenance of
processing plants and establishing of smallholder farms;
 The need to find specific solutions to improve livelihoods in mountainous areas;
 The need to establish and provide support to the role of rural women and youth in
agriculture, research and development.
Challenges associated with environmental protection:
 The need to halt land and water degradation;
 The need to halt forest degradation and implementation of agroforestry programs;
 The need to increase efforts to protect biodiversity.
Challenges associated with social reforms:
 The need to improve legal framework for land tenure, access and property rights;
 The need to improve / restore structures of irrigation and drainage.
Challenges associated with specific issues in the region:

The need for comprehensive measures to address the problems of global warming and
climate change;
 The need to address the problem of desertification;
 The need to address the problem of water logging, preventive measures to protect against
landslides and other problems of alpine husbandry.
Challenges related to strengthening national research systems and agricultural extension:



The need to increase investments in agricultural innovations to address the needs and
problems of agricultural development;
The need for reformation of agricultural education in accordance with the objectives of
agricultural research and development, as well as the needs of the market;
The need to establish effective innovation agricultural extension systems, forge linkages
between farmers, researchers, and civil society organisations, as well as to support
technology transfer;
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
21

The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
The need for enhanced cooperation in the field of agricultural innovations at national,
regional, and international levels to effectively address issues of food security, improve
livelihoods of rural population and provide environmental protection.
Development of agricultural innovation systems, strengthening of relations between farmers and
other actors of agricultural sector will provide assistance to producers and agribusiness in
addressing the aforementioned issues, in improving access to the markets, in developing
integrated production systems and further adaptation of agriculture to climate change. It is
necessary to analyze strengths and weaknesses of agricultural innovation systems, of their needs,
challenges, and opportunities, to make a cross-country synthesis of these challenges and
opportunities, as well as to elaborate recommendations for further actions to improve innovation
systems at national and subregional levels.
I would like to emphasize that exchange of experience, knowledge and discussion of key issues
between the countries of CAC and China, will be very useful in further design, planning and
implementation of regional programs.
Dr Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds under the
Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia
19. Sherzod Kosimov, ICARDA, Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues and friends!
I also would like to say big thanks to organizers for giving us a chance to exchange our ideas and
knowledge.
I would like to open a discussion on Data Management in Agricultural Research. How it should be
organized, how can we share our data easily and prevent to make a double (sometimes triple or
even more) research on similar topics. Waiting for your comments.
With best regards.
20. Vugar Babayev, Ganja Agribusiness Association, Azerbaijan
Overcoming and eliminating the existing "Soviet" stereotype thinking in relation to economy
management is the most serious obstacle to development and expansion of use of agricultural
innovation systems in agriculture. This situation requires targeted outreach program for "new
farmers" and officials of various levels of government through numerous workshops, seminars,
conferences, demonstration fields, and other events that will involve all staff, information and
resource potential, as well as directly create practical examples (pilot farms) in the form of
demonstration sites.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
22
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
21. Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern,
Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues and friends!
A big thanks for the organizers of this dialogue platform! The questions which are raised very
important and challenging.
Personally, I would like to share my view on question: what is the current and what should be the
future role of agricultural research and education organizations in the RAS sytems?
Current situation: from the experience in the region, there is often absent the link between
education and real field experiments. Majority of education institutions are lack of laboratory
equipments and conditions to link theory with practice. Science and research cannot be successful
and viable without linking its results with the field uptake. Therefore, research and education
should be closely linked with the people in the places. In majority cased, it is considered that
innovation and technology could solve the problem in the places however it is people in the end of
the day who will use it. Human factor as well as local conditions and culture plays important role.
Role of agricultural research and education organization is to make sure the research and
education linked from bottom to up.
Hope it contributes to discussion. Rgrds, Oyture Anarbekov
22. Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern,
Uzbekistan
Dear Sherzod Kosimov,
Thank you for raising a good topic on Data sharing in Agricultural research.
In my opinion, to make sure that data is constantly shared or sent, there is need to organize
economic incentives to our partners so they themselves will be willing to do it.
People respond to incentives. But this is not easy.
With best regards.
23. Yagub Guliyev, Agrarian Science and Information Advisory Center,
Azerbaijan
At first I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues for organisation of this online
discussion. Agriculture in the CAC faces problems which are legacy of past decades, and others
caused by unstable situation in global economy end the environment. National agricultural
innovation system at each country needs first to define priorities to actively contribute to
improvement of agricultural productivity, improvement of the quality and quantity of food
through intensification and diversification of sustainable agriculture and mitigation of adverse
impacts of climate changes. Concerns about mitigating and adapting to climate change are
emerging as additional innovation priorities. AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
23
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
research and extension systems by strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of
agricultural sector. Today there is very poor linkage among different actors in AIS which needs to
be strengthen.
24. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Sherzod, Vugar and Oyture,
Thank you for raising and sharing your views, which I would like to comment to. Incentives and
motivations are two of key drivers of the progress, while obsolescent mind-sets are deterrent
force of the development to my view. I would like to use the term "deterrent force" not a "factor",
because mind-set is really a "tremendous force": it is power. Thus, it can be 'driving' or 'deterring'.
Some people thinks that having holding data, information and knowledge gives themselves
advantages to being competetive in securing their progress, while others see that sharing and
communicating their resources (knowledge and information) give them additional dynamics. The
latters are more progressive and more adaptive, as they share, obtain feedbacks, and refine the
knowledge and intellectual products, making them more attractive, productive and user-friendly.
Non-research examples could be the posts on social media. And we can judge the overall values of
posts by number of 'clicks' and 'likes'. Because any post is carrying a message, i.e. information,
whether it is specific, local, global, cultural, economic, useful, useless, etc.
We collect and have "data", that can be further transformed into "information". We use
information for generation "knowledge". And our "wisdom" is based on that knowledge.
Eventually, our actions are based on/driven by knowledge and wisdom.
Commitments and economic incentives are powerful drivers, and progressive mindset is a light
that helps us to be oriented in existing and future scenarios of pathways to the goals we set up,
like food security and nutrition in our region.
Mindset needs to be nurtured and shaped with sharing and discussing diversity of views, as we do
here in our discussions. Maybe people, who are working in development intervention, should be
led not only by economic incentives, but also commitments and believes to contribute, because
demand-driven inputs have higher probability of higher returns.
25. Anastasiya Lebedeva, ASC, Spain
Dear Dr Tashmatov,
Thank you for the invitation to take part in the consultations on Agricultural Innovation System. I
would like to specify the advantages and disadvantages of Agricultural Innovation System.
The advantages of Agricultural Innovation System are:
1. Production, investment and human resources efficiency, as well as the ability and
flexibility to attract qualified managerial, scientific and production personnel;
2. Avoidance of duplication of activities in innovation system, allocation of roles and
responsibilities, allocation of organizational and production risks;
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
24
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
3. System operations management in separate fields, for example, production and
processing of agricultural production;
4. Centralized resource and capacity management, which can be effectively allocated
between segments of the innovation system, in accordance with the intended use;
5. Capability for production diversification in order to reduce organizational risk and ensure
specialization of certain types of activities;
6. Consolidation of production capacities, technical expertise and research and development
with the ability to integrate science and production;
7. The possibility of a coordinated financial, investment and credit policy.
The disadvantages of Agricultural Innovation System are:
8. It is difficult to transform the organizational and production system, which has become
effective in the new economic context, and which therefore reduces cost-effectiveness;
9. The complexity of system management, which involves a variety of actors that represent
different sectors and activities, for example, researchers, input suppliers, local
communities, customers, etc .;
10. Low standard of wages of government employees, as well as scientific institutes and
academia, that reduces motivation and innovative capital;
11. A large number of target groups with different interests, abilities and potential and a lack
of flexibility and mobility when choosing organizational-legal forms of cooperation with
target groups;
12. The complexity of reorganization and reorientation of a system, focus on a specific
segment of the market.
Anastasiya Lebedeva
26. Muratbek Karabaev, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center,
CIMMYT, Kazakhstan
AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural research and extension systems by
strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector. This is considered
an important factor for connecting farmers in CAC countries and China and providing
opportunities for better access to markets and income diversification that ultimately will benefit
food security and better nutrition.
This discussion is open to everyone interested in the subject; and we are inviting experts from the
governments, civil society organizations, private sector, research and education organizations to
take part in a constructive dialogue on opportunities and challenges for AIS contributing to
sustainable food security and better nutrition in CAC countries and China.
We would like to propose discussing the following issues:
 What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries
and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
 What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively
support farmers in for improving their livelihood?
 What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and
make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
25
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition

What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and
education organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership
modalities be between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations,
farmer organizations and rural communities? What are the existing innovative
institutions? And what are the major constraints?
About the role of innovation systems in CAC countries in regards to increasing Food
security (some thoughts, insights and proposals)
1) Innovation in the agricultural sector is a new technology (innovation approach, the
decision), significantly improving the quality of life of the rural population and farmers,
reducing the cost of access at this quality when compared with the existing technology. In
other words, innovation is a new product that gives a tangible growth in the agricultural
sector, the effect compared to the old one.
2) In the countries of the CAC the development and implementation of innovations in the
agricultural sector are constrained by an underdeveloped system of incentives and
support to innovations, a weak research base, insufficient skills of agricultural producers
and farmers, shortages in skilled professionals. The key issue of the agricultural
innovations is peopleware. With the support of international institutions we need to
educate and prepare the innovators - people with new thinking, approach, creativity.
Agricultural universities in the CAC should undertake much of this. Universities should
become a kind of educational and research institutions (for example similarly to leading
foreign research universities). Of great importance are the popularization and promote
innovation in the agricultural sector, in this domain there are still much to be done. A
major role in provision of assistance in this direction could play governmental, nongovernmental organizations, such as the Union of Farmers of Kazakhstan.
3) The share of the investments to agricultural and biological science in the GDP of CAC
countries in comparison with the highly developed countries is ten and dozens times less.
Still growth in spending on agricultural science is not accompanied by an increase in
technological innovation. Funds are allocated for science, however science works rather
on itself.
4) In spite of the progress achieved and the level of agricultural science evolution in the
countries of the CAC, its modern trends have not yet found a proper use and potential
opportunities of agricultural science, agrobiology are still not sufficiently implemented.
This is because for many years the link between science and industry has been weak.
Moreover, to date the system has not been formed and the appropriate infrastructure for
the commercialization and implementation of new technologies and scientific
developments; there are practically no experts in this field. Existing interdepartmental
inter-sectorial barriers also hinder participation in cross-sectorial programs and the
practical implementation of the results. Big World breakthrough in the production of
major crops, called "green revolution", has been made possible through not only science
and technology, but also by the creation of well-functioning extension services, promotion
and dissemination of knowledge.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
26
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
5) Following most important abiotic factors limiting agricultural production in Kazakhstan
and the CAC countries can be highlighted:





Drought (lack of rainfall in rainfed areas, the lack of water in irrigated areas);
High temperatures (damaging effect enhancing by dry winds);
Low temperatures in winter, especially in the northern regions of Central Asia, which
complicates the cultivation of winter crops;
Salinity;
Soil degradation.
6) On the territory of the CAC, there are almost all the major abiotic and biotic stress factors
of the environment, and further increase agricultural production in the conditions of
pressure requires the wide use of modern technologies and approaches. This task is
complicated by the more visible effects of climate change and the emergence of
increasingly dangerous plant diseases. One good example is the recent emergence and
spread over the world of a dangerous race of wheat stem rust SR Ug99. It first discovered
in Uganda in 1999, this race has spread through Africa and reached the Asian continent
(particularly Iran). Ug99 peculiarity is that it is constantly mutating, and currently seven
varieties of this race are identified, which can affect upo to 90% of commercial wheat
varieties. Rust spores carried by the wind, and if proactive measures to combat the
disease, primarily through the creation of resistant varieties are not undertaken, it would
threaten food security on a global scale. Naturally, the preventive measures are not
affordable for a separate country, and to prevent this threat an international "Global
Initiative on behalf of Norman Borlaug rust» (Borlaug Global Rust Initiative - BGRI) is
currently organized. And Kazakhstan, as world wheat producer must be prepared to
confront this dangerous disease.
7) The share of international programs and projects, innovation and investment funds in the
total amount of financing of agricultural science and development projects in the
agricultural sector is still insufficient. In fact, these works do not receive financial support
from agricultural production, domestic and foreign companies. This underpins the fact
that domestic research and developments continue to be weakly demanded by economy .
The principle of programs formation from the "final consumer" is not working.
Unfortunately, many research areas are functioning without close interaction, sometimes
duplicating each other, due to the presence of inter-sectorial and inter-departmental
barriers, the absence of (in many CAC countries) single body that could coordinate the
entire research systems, designing and coordinating major multidisciplinary projects.
Many ministries de and agencies have their own research agenda/programs, financed
from the state budget, and each agency is implementing its own "scientific" policy. Most of
the innovative projects are just initiatives, rather than driven by regional, scientific and
technical demand, i.e. developers invent a product and then subsequently forced to seek
his application. Applied science management and financing models is largely scientific
(interest) driven, but not oriented to (addressing) technological issues . In particular,
conducted by CIMMYT the analysis of financing research on biotechnology, breeding and
exploration has shown that today there is practically no major multidisciplinary projects
combining the efforts of these areas to solve specific practical problems. According to
scientists, the main reason is interdepartmental dissociation of institutions. Even within a
single research organization it is difficult to create interdisciplinary projects.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
27
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
8) The current legislation of the CAC is based on the provisions of the national Constitutions
and is a system of legal institutions, norms and regulations, as well as a number of laws
and decrees of the president of the country, a government decree-laws relating to the
problems of preservation and use of natural resources, protection of selection
achievements, and biosafety other regulatory tasks in the field of agricultural science and
production. However, existing legal mechanisms of regulation in these areas have a lot of
gaps and contradictions. Further efforts are needed to make changes and additions to the
existing legislation and purposeful work to create new areas of legislative policy to
support innovation in the agricultural sector. The most important task is the development
of the legislation on intellectual property, access to genetic resources, technology and
receive equal benefits from their use.
9) Particular attention is given to the seed system and variety trials in the region. Here we
need to pay attention to bringing advanced systems and approaches, innovations
developed and existing in the world to the countries. Weak seed system is a missed
opportunity for selection and breeding, unmet costs of the country and the work of
scientists on the development of new varieties, ultimately it is a decline in the
competitiveness of agricultural products.
10) In the countries of the CAC, it is necessary to provide favorable conditions for
international and foreign scientific organizations, highly qualified professionals.
Experience of CGIAR Research Centers and affiliates in CAC demonstrates the
effectiveness of cooperation between national agrarian programs with leading
international research centers, which attract international experience, a wealth of global
gene pool, modern methods and methodologies, new technologies, assist in training and
through this contribute to the rapid integration of countries in the region into the current
global scientific and technical process. A good illustration is an example of Uzbekistan,
actively supporting international cooperation to create favorable conditions for this
cooperation, which agriculture and science show rapid development in the last decade.
11) Although there are objective (external) and subjective (internal) difficulties and
challenges in the development and promotion agricultural innovations, the CAC countries
in recent years have enhanced public research and innovation policies fostering
agricultural science and innovation. International cooperation in the scientific field,
assistance and cooperation of international institutions and research and innovations
forums particularly is actively carried out in Uzbekistan. CAC countries possessing rich
land resources, high scientific potential and developed structure of the economy, have
huge potential for increasing agricultural production and become the leading
manufacturers and exporters of high quality, competitive agricultural products. CAC is
now considered as the most important region of the world food security of the population
of the Earth. According to the official analytical data in 2025, 3 billion tons of grains
should be produced to feed 8-billion world population. For example, to achieve this, the
annual growth of important food crops - wheat, should be 2% (compared to the current
annual growth rate of 1.3%). And, it must occur/happen against the backdrop of the rise
of influence of adverse factors, such as: reduction of water availability, drought,
temperature rise, land degradation, the emergence of new races are very dangerous
pathogens, increase the use of food crop to biofuel, and livestock needs. There is no doubt
that overcoming these negative factors and sustainable development of agricultural
production in the CAC region and globally largely depends on the development of new
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
28
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
technologies and scientific domain. In today's world the technologies and innovation are
key to the country's competitiveness and food security.
27. Jamshid Fayziev, Tajikistan
In the economies like CAC and China where rural advisory service are operating in a diversity
models and scales, any sources of investments supporting their day-to-day activity could be
considered favorable at certain extent. Of course, in terms of sustainability, national rural
advisory service systems should reduce the dependency on donors support, and be rather
pluralistic. On the other hand, programs and projects under development agencies support bring
innovative approaches, good practices, models of operations and partnership to emerging RAS
systems. Therefore, both public and private investments to RAS is conducive. In addition, more
considerations are needed to answer how to make governments play a more pro-active role in
creation of a favorable environment, while those transition economies in many countries are
experiencing the lack of both public and private investments in rural advisory services.
28. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
1. Significance of AIS
The importance of training and education.
Agricultural education and training (ATE) on especially the youth and women has been neglected
in CAC region and China. ATE enhances the capacity of farmers and rural SME for sustainable
intensification and access to markets.
Second, ATE facilitates rural transformation and reduce rural-urban inequality by empowering
rural people with the ability of engaging in off-farm employment opportunities (Г-н Rustam
Ibragimov).
The definition and principle of Agricultural Innovation System (AIS).
AIS is a network that unites multiple stakeholders (enterprises, government, academia, farmers)
in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organizations into agricultural
production. AIS is not to supply ‘science’ but promote interactions among stakeholders, and
eventually produce economic, social, institutional, and cultural values (Botir Dosov).
2. Challenges in CAC region and China, and prioritized actions
The challenges and problems in agriculture in CAC region are partly legacy of history. However, it
is critical to overcome the problems by taking new opportunities such as being more marketoriented, income diversification, and adaptation to climate change. AIS is important to facilitate
such a transformation (Botir Dosov).
In the Chinese context, ecological agriculture and certification to quality and safety are emerging
in recent years. However, the market structure is biased towards large state-subsidized agrofood
companies and small farmers are excluded. Institutional innovations are needed for being
inclusive (Zhenzhong Si).
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
29
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Lack for communications and collaborations in a coordinated framework for the AIS programs.
The existing actions are fragmented. As such, a united and integrated framework of institutions
(including regulations and legislation) is prioritized. Second, reaching the ‘last mile’ and
establishing a better framework between farmers and researchers becomes highly important
(Yrysbek Abdurasulov).
3. The role and constraints of agricultural universities in AIS, and institutional innovations
In CAC region, the national agricultural research system faces challenges of capacity building on
young professionals. AIS is underfunded in CAC region. In additional to this major constraints, the
poor linkage between resource and production greatly undermines the value of knowledge and
technologies (Shaibek Karasartov).
Research and production are disconnected and research institutes “thrust” their knowledge to
farmers without meeting multiple needs (such as risk, poverty, malnutrition, and income
(Subhash Mehta).
There is little innovative modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders and
the major obstacles are organizational, informational, financial (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).
In CAC and Central Asia, the national agricultural research and agriculture system has been
weakened, such as outflow of quality scientists and underfinancing. The problems are
exacerbated further by poorly coordinated and implemented research and actions (ranging from
planning to monitoring). Agricultural universities also have the constraints of not being crossdisciplinary (Alisher Tashmatov).
29. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Given the current and emerging challenges for further sustainable development population
growth, climate change, their implications for agriculture and food security system on one hand,
and specific current constrains in region: such as land degradation, over-exploitation of natural
resources, irrigation, wind and soil erosions, price volatility, and etc. on the other hand require
the reorientation of agricultural livelihoods systems towards sustainable and efficient
development "producing more with less".
In this regards, the role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries
and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition and improved livelihoods is
critical.
Endeavours towards only focusing agricultural science on farmers' needs and addressing yields
gap is not enough, as agricultural system has not only the economic dimension, but also social
one. Therefore, Agricultural innovation system is effectively functioning when producers,
processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services, universities, input
providers, government bodies, market and other players are interacting to produce additional
value through new organizational forms of production, new products, new approaches and
innovative mind-set.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
30
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Participants of the online-discussion have been highlighting wide range of challenges and priority
areas for enhancing and promoting AIS:















Food security elements: availability, accessibility and utilization.
Capacity: education and training, innovative capacity.
Social groups: women, youth, smallholders, vulnerable groups, marginal.
Socio-economic: livelihoods and well-being.
Health: nutrition, synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.
Institutional: low interactions, poor linkages of intervention with national development
goals and trends, institutional constraints, poor coordination within AIS.
Production and productivity: livestock, crop systems, forestry, land and water use, organic
agriculture, yield gaps, undeveloped processing and marketing infrastructure.
Ecosystems: land degradation (salinity, soil and water erosions).
Regulatory framework: equitable land and water use and rights, conducive institutional
and regulatory framework supporting AIS.
System elements and components: research, extension, education, government support,
markets.
System unsustainability and inefficiency: low investments to research and RAS system,
productivity-oriented food system, absence or poor planning system, obsolete materialtechnical (logistic) base of research institutions and academia.
Knowledge platform: absence of or unripe agro-information systems, low engagement of
universities in RAS and FSN issues.
Approaches, models, best practices, good practices: farm schools, community enterprise
system, green food" and "hazard-free food", more sustainable and ecologically friendly
system, “short food supply chains”.
Particular issues: synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.
Extending (regional, global, non-agricultural) issues: "problems of the current food system
is far beyond the agricultural sector", Climate change, trans-boundary diseases, foreign
trades distortions and price disparity, transition process implications, poor transport and
communication infrastructure at national and regional level, poor insurance systems, low
efficiency of trade-offs between production and consumptions.
It should be noted that those challenges and ways to address them are isolated and need
comprehensive, cohesive and perhaps stepwise approach.
30. Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan
Dear Botir,
Thank you for raising such an important question.
Food security is an important driver of sustainable development of the republic. It involves
physical availability of food in sufficient quantities, access to these foodstuffs for households, as
well as consumption of food in quantities required to meet their needs.
The forum has raised some very important questions about food security, which is an important
socio-economic challenge for the countries of Central Asia, South Caucasus and China. I would also
like to share my point of view about food security in the context of my country.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
31
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
According to the state statistics bodies in the last five years consumption of certain types of food is
low in relation to the physiological dietary intake in Tajikistan. The most critical situation is
created in consumption of meat and meat products, eggs, milk and dairy products. Consumption of
these products per capita in relation to the standard rate of consumption is less than 30%. In
particular, consumption of meat and meat products per capita in 2012 was 4.5 times less than
standard rate of consumption, consumption of eggs - 3.6 times less, milk and dairy products - 3
times less. Consumption of fruits per capita relative to the recommended standard is less than
50%.
The main priorities for achieving food security in the country is to ensure:
1. Availability of food
Availability refers to physical presence of food as a result of domestic production, or by means of
the market. At the country level availability of food is determined by combination of food stocks,
commercial imports, food aid and domestic production.
2. Access to food – means that all members of households have sufficient amount of
resources to produce foodstuffs, that satisfy their need for adequate nutrition for healthy
and active lifestyle. Access can be maintained through in-house production, market
purchases and donations.
3. Sustainable agricultural development is the basis.
4. Food security and adequate nutrition – in case of vulnerable social groups is maintained
through safety management and ensuring a healthy diet.
5. Food stability – through adjustment of seasonal and annual variations in food security
and resistance to crises.
These priorities can be achieved through promotion of private sector development.
6. Availability of food is based on:
7. agricultural productivity growth
8. opportunity to produce food products, crop and livestock development
9. producer prices analysis
10. basic food trade
11. availability of food per capita
Failure to meet any of these parameters leads to low level or lack of food security. Food insecurity
is a situation when population doesn’t have a guaranteed access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food necessary for normal growth, development, and active and healthy lifestyle. Low level of food
security leads to malnutrition among the population, which, in turn, entails negative consequences
for individuals, families and entire nations.
Within the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative, USAID has implemented Farmer
Advisory Services in Tajikistan project. It was aimed at improving food security of smallholders
through improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers in the 12 districts of the Southern
Tajikistan.
Despite being their own bosses or small commercial farms, small dehkan farms are the basic source
of the means of subsistence and cash income for a large part of the population of Tajikistan. Small
dehkan farms need free access to markets, improved inputs in agriculture, including land,
guaranteed supply of irrigation water and better access to knowledge, for more efficient
performance and promotion of their welfare.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
32
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
At the request of farmers and together with the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of Jamoats
and Mahallas, the project has organized trainings and workshops on agricultural technologies of
cultivation of agricultural crops for mahallas. The results have shown that although all farmers
have certain skills in agricultural production, their knowledge require improvement. Therefore
further improvement of knowledge is required in order to ensure stable food base for each
household and farmer.
It is necessary to carry out:
12. Structural reforms of land-use pattern and production
13. Monitoring and ensuring food security in the country
14. Advisory services to small dehkan farms and households
15. Introduction and development of the latest agro techniques, where they are required
16. Engagement of NGOs and state institutions in agricultural development
17. Attracting foreign consultants in the field of agriculture to meet with households and small
dehkan farms to share experiences
18. To arrange and conduct regional conferences aimed at introduction of advanced forms of
training on crops cultivation
19. Conduct regional workshops in each area individually in order to increase agricultural
knowledge capacity of staff, which will promote new mind-sets related to crop production,
its processing and marketing.
31. Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan
Food security cannot be achieved without the introduction of innovative technologies in a large
scale. This will require significant amount of financial resources that the stands out in the region
is not enough. Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan
32. Elena Kan, Uzbekistan
to Dr.Botir Dosov on his comment of May 18
Small comment: Sharing of both - information and knowledge, formal and informal- depends on
personal aspirations, skills and economic incentives. Someone’s strategy is being competitive with
better access to ‘knowledge/information=power’; another is committed to enjoying the shared
benefits. The first mode might be as one of the typical behaviors, especially in academia. I don’t
argue whether it is good or bad, since many things are influenced by the existent formal,
organizational and cultural values and ethics. The network connections as capital (that is being
formed sometimes during years), is an important element of sharing in any environment, be it
research or farming community.
33. Elena Kan, Uzbekistan
Dear Prof. Xiangping JIA,
Thanks, for your concise summary of existing advantages and drawbacks of university-led
extension system. In your comments (to Dr.Tashmatov, May 15 and later to Mr. Yrysbek
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
33
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Abdurasulov) you’ve brought the accent on Advisory services/extension as critical and central
element in the entire AIS environment.
My comment on that. In Uzbekistan, the modality of delivering the extension and ‘partnering’ for
extension is centralized (funding, institutional setting) on one hand, but on the other – the
university specialists seem to have established relationships with e.g. government RAS workers
or rural communities, since both come from the rural area (esp. in a town with one high
institution only). If teachers perform as extensionists, their present role seems to be of more
transferring (than communicating) the technology to
1) their students (who are rural dwellers, from the farmer’s family);
2) a bit larger farming community at specific educational, training or propaganda events;
3) to RAS workers or other agricultural experts at specific educational events organized by the
government or within donor-driven activities.
Still, teachers or scientists are respected people in the community, and therefore are the sources
of advise, information or new technology. At the same time, on the contrary, farmers consider
them as having more book knowledge than practical help they need in the field. Though, the
example might be similar to rural areas elsewhere, this is one of the modalities that can be traced.
34. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear participants of the online discussion!
Let me highlight that within this discussion, we are actively discussing the problem, objectives,
priorities, and possible actions to improve the systems of rural advisory services, extension,
aimed at improving the welfare and food security and nutrition.
To structure and systemize the outputs of our discussions and add more practical value /
applicability to them, and taking into account your proposals, I suggest "7 steps (of the Roadmap)
for the enhancing RAS systems in the region."
Of course, it is not necessary that our discussions and actions are strictly followed these 7 stages,
as we are discussing both problems solutions. However, to have a systemic vision in defining our
goals and objectives and consistency in achieving them, I think it will not hurt, and probably it will
help to determine the scope, priorities and gaps that we may have overlooked.
Here is 7 steps of the Roadmap for the enhancing RAS systems in the region (they presented as
diagram in the attached files):
1. Identifying problems, constraints in RAS system
 Socio-economic issues
 Institutional and management issues
 Technological issues
 Environmental issues
 Economic issues (value chain)
 Policy issues
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
34
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
2. Structuring problems, constraints in RAS system
3. Transferring problems into objectives / Setting priorities
4. Formulating activities that need to address problems/produce outputs; Identifying roles and
actors to implement the activities identified;
5. Formulating the Roadmap (Strategy) to enhance RAS system in the region
6. Formulating Action plan to implement the Roadmap to enhance RAS system
7. Implementation, M&E of the Action plan/Roadmap
35. Subhash Mehta, DST, India
To the question of Mr Dosov dated 12.05.2015
Dear Dosov,
Yes it will apply to you provided you follow the agro ecology of the area being worked:
Debt, despair and suicide as farm crisis deepens


High cost high risk Green Revolution Technologies Wheat Cause of Deep Distress
The damage to wheat crop this 2015 rabi season due to untimely rain and hailstorm,
followed by delayed payments, has further stressed Punjab’s farmers. With the cost of
external farm inputs rising manifold over the past few years, the net profit is reducing,
thus making farming unviable. Unable to bear losses/ debt, several farmers have
committed suicide in recent months/ years.
Major problems





High cost high risk green revolution technologies (GRT), supported by Government
policies, is unviable in the wake of rising external input costs, climate change and falling
net profits
The production has reached saturation point, requiring increased quantities of agro
chemicals and water each year
Climate change increases costs and risk with reducing productivity, making GRT unviable
for producer communities
Producer communities mostly depend on dealers of external inputs (money lenders) who
exploit them
No long term policy to compensate producer communites in case of loss of crop due to
varied reasons
The way out


There is a need to shift Government policy to support/ assist producers follow their low
cost low risk agro ecology
MSP fixed on the basis of cost plus 50% at the time of sowing, contracting producers for
the quantity required
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
35




The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Diversification and following the low cost low risk agro ecology of each area ensures
producer communities’ access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash in
contrast to the high cost high risk GRT wheat-paddy mono crops
Government support/ assist the producer communities to set up their org/ company (PC)
but staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAS in agriculture) taking
over risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities
PC to value add for increasing shelf life of produce/ product for storage and mitigating
post harvest losses
PC group insurance covering its members should be implemented as cover for facilities
from financial institutions.
36. Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan
Given the current challenges, the primary task today is to provide maximum assistance in
addressing issues aimed at improvement of agricultural productivity, increasing quality and
quantity of food security through intensification and diversification of agriculture, and developing
of mechanisms for effective use of natural resources, and minimization of the negative impact of
climate change.
Further development of rural advisory services is an important requirement for addressing these
issues. Transformation of extension systems shall be a priority in a short-term period of
transformation of agricultural research and development. Strengthening of extension services will
be reflected in assistance to agricultural producers in adoption of adequate economic decisions on
intensification of production, application of new technologies, as well as in adapting to
fundamental changes due to current crisis in the agricultural sector in the region through
improvement of information support, use of scientific potential of researchers and introduction of
research and development.
Processes of formation of different modalities of cooperation among educational-and-research
institutions (especially universities), sectorial research and production are being implemented in
Uzbekistan these days.
There are entire systems of relations, which include operations under separate contracts with
educational and production structures, making industrial and academic research agreements,
conducting joint research funded by grants, organizing joint research centres, and university
research centres.
Dr Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan
37. Natalie Ernst, Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Switzerland
Dear colleagues and moderators,
First of all, let me thank the organisers for launching this discussion and everyone that provided
an input for your interesting thoughts. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS - see
www.g-fras.org ) is pleased to see this discussion ongoing and the CAC region and China proactively start to engage in these imporant discussions.
GFRAS is particularly pleased to see this discussion happening now, as it is organising its 6th
GFRAS Annual Meeting in your very region. It takes place from 14-17 September 2015 in Issky
Kul, Kyrgyzstan, co-organised by GFRAS, CACAARI, the Kyrgyz Republic and RAS Chui-Talas.
Focusing on Global Good Practices in RAS, it will indeed tackle many of the issues you raised so far
in this discussion. See the GFRAS website for more information and registration.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
36
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
It is interesting - and confirmative - to see that actually many of your main discussion points and
issues, are shared worldwide. Regions like Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, or even the
Pacific struggle with the same questions.
I see you discussing on the different actors in the AIS. Whereas we should come away from the
discussion "who is better or who does it better", we should look on what are the comparative
advantages of each of these actors, and how can we use and put together all of these advantages
to make the AIS more efficient and effective. Reality often poses many challenges, but
stakeholders worldwide put a lot of efforts into this.
I see you discussing how to deal with pluralistic RAS systems and how to deal best with external
conditional and agenda-driven activities of RAS actors versus the needs of smallholders and rural
actors. Many new RAS approaches try to include this issue, but it is clear that even within RAS,
actors often do not cooperate and/or work together, and are often organised top-down.
I see you discussing what Innovation is and how it can be generated. Innovation, in GFRAS point
of view, is more than just a new technology. It is a new approach, a new tool, a new mind-set or
even a new attitude. Innovation can be triggered by anyone but usually needs to be stimulated
with different ideas. Which leads us to the Information and knowledge exchange discussion,
which you have also started, including the role of ICTs in RAS.
I see you discussing about gender and youth, and how to include vulnerable groups, a very
prominent topic and challenge worldwide (see GFRAS publications on these issues).
So whereas the core of the challenges are often very similar worldwide, of course they differ
widely depending on the regional and cultural contexts. GFRAS is looking forward to learn more
from your region and your particular lessons learned.
Please visit the GFRAS website for information and resources, but also to link with other people
from other regions, which might be able to help tackle these issues. Given that you want to take
this discussion forward in a pro-active way, which should lead to an action plan, you might also
want to consider to hold a Face 2 Face meeting as a side event at the GFRAS Annual Meeting, in
order to take this discussion forward.
I attach the GFRAS New Extensionist Posistion Paper for those interested. Look forward to
read/learn more from you and hope that many of you will register for the Annual Meeting.
38. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear professor Xiangping,
I found out that participants and addressees/recipients of the online-discussions are reading with
great interest the contributions and comments. I just thought, that your view on how “One road
one belt” would be or is relevant to RAS, Education system or any other thoughts would also be
interesting, because within the current established arrangement there is still a margin for
enhancing cooperation between CAC and China supporting innovation systems towards improved
and more sustainable food security and nutrition in the region. Thank you and best regards.
39. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan
Dear Botir,
I also wanted to share my view on rural advisory services during this online-discussion, but
everything I wanted to mention was included in your message. I totally agree with you on these
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
37
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
matters. I find that the questions you address are global, but there are minor issues as well.
Therefore personally I have nothing else to add, everything was very well written and explained.
Now we only have to define objectives and carry them out. Best regards, Shaibek Karasartov
40. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dr. Botir Dosov ,
thanks for your inquiry.
There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC and China
through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The ones related to RAS emerge through three
windows, in my views. First, government regional projects. A variety of ministerial programs are
directed under the OBOR initiative, including rural infrastructure investment, "demonstration
park" of agricultural technology, and agricultural production and trading programs (such as
cotton), information and telecommunication programs, etc. All these have direct linkage and
reference to RAS. Second, private investments. Private sector become active in agricultural
investment in CAC from China. This ranges from agro-chemical inputs to agro-food supply chain.
Recently, the private sector moves gradually into factor markets such as land and forestry. This
might introduce external factors on the existing farm system and affect the knowledge &
information system at the local level. Such a process is meeting with a mixture of cooperation and
conflicts, depending on how the private & public investments are adapting to the local context for
a synergistic embeddedness and be inclusive . Third, academic society. This might be the most
active and liberal window so far. It is also an important stepstone for a continued and deepened
cooperation between CAC and China. However, the communication and collaboration within the
academia has not been integrated with the above two windows, thus greatly undermining the
capacity of decision-making for public and private sector. China and CAC share similarities in RAS
system from the history. In addition, 21.1% of land in China are in arid area and most of them are
in western China. The nexus of resource-environment-development is by no means at the national
level but potentially generate benefits at the regional level.
41. Mark Holderness, Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Italy
I am very pleased to see this consultation underway and commend CACAARI, NAFU and the FAO
FSN Forum on bringing it about. The Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) works to
transform and strengthen agricultural research and development systems to improve lives and
livelihoods in the development world. The Global Forum – which includes CACAARI in its
collective partnership, works to shape the future of agricultural research and innovation through
multi-stakeholder actions and dialogues through the Global Conference on Agricultural Research
for Development (GCARD). The GCARD is a unique dialogue process aimed at fostering real
system changes in agricultural research and innovation. Working to the GCARD Roadmap,
partners come together to discuss and agree the reforms required of agricultural innovation and
research systems worldwide.
This e-discussion forms an important and extremely valuable contribution to the GCARD process.
It is regional dialogues like this that help put the GCARD Road Map into practice. The discussion
on strengthening agricultural innovations systems in the Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China is highly topical, relevant and useful in promoting regional cooperation. This is precisely
what the GCARD process is all about – it helps to refine regional and global agricultural research
priorities in an inclusive way, as identified by different stakeholder groups and representatives in
the region.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
38
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
We are now well underway in the third GCARD cycle, which is running through 2015 and 2016.
On behalf of the GCARD3 Organizing Committee, we welcome this e-consultation and look
forward to taking the results into wider discussion and planning through the GCARD3 process in
2015 and 2016. There will be a number of consultation events linked to GCARD3 throughout the
next 18 months and we welcome the opportunities offered by this e-discussion to build and share
more ideas that will positively influence the direction, activities and resourcing of international
research, the needs for strengthening and investment in national agricultural innovation systems,
and effective measures that will create real change in farmers lives in the region.
This requires also a real rethinking of partnerships between public, private and producer sectors,
so that producers and their innovations become central to actions, not regarded as the end of a
chain. Moreover, we need to move away from the historical ‘walls’ between sectors and
institutions that often constrain development. We need to recognize that agriculture is a fastchanging environment; that rural livelihoods, economic growth, and issues such as nutrition, go
well beyond agricultural productivity considerations alone and there is an associated need to
rethink and reshape the roles of institutions. Massive changes such as the growth of ICTs,
urbanization and climate change require our knowledge and innovation systems to be far more
responsive, flexible and forward thinking than before and to be driven by system realities on the
ground, linking public, private and producer organizations in new and exciting partnerships that
deliver real change.
Good luck with the consultation and I look forward to reading more of the comments and ideas as
they are posted!
42. Eren Taskin, YPARD Turkey, Italy
What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China
to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
Lenghty approval/permit process of innovations that are designed to support agricultural
production. Any sort of innovative solution such as machinery to provide better harvest with less
losses, or a plant production product that might be a quick solution to the issues faced should be
first approved and tested by a competent body (e.g. universities), following approval from first
part the innovation again should be taken to the related ministries for other approvals for
commercial purposes etc. Process usually seen by owners of innovation as lengthy, tiring and
having lots of paperwork to be done. Those are factors that eventually may delay innovation's
immediate term benefits and demotivate the owners of approval request.
What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support farmers
in for improving their livelihood?
Focusing small scale farmers more than multinationals or big scales. Although there are subsidies
and other supports available to, eventually the road maps drawn seems like it won't be
supporting small scales that much. If thought that global security will be eventually at the hands
of small scale farmers or smaller family farming that road map may not contributing for any sort
of improvisation when small scale farmers eventually sell or leave their lands and practices.
What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them
conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
For extension to be more conducive i think promotion of farming among youth is highly needed.
Older the farmers are harder the communication. Our country's population is relatively young
and extension services also has young graduates working for them, therefore farmers usually are
not very keen to people younger than them about their choices in their own field. Besides
communication there is also a distance between farmers and technology. Traditional practices
should be studied and if needed improved so they years of years experience won't be lost. But if
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
39
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
average age of farmers can be reduced, those experiences innovations, good practices can be
transferred easier.
What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education
organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between
academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and rural
communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?
I assume that the communication gap between academia and rural areas are almost visible in
everywhere and not limited to our country only. However, there are also lots of researchers and
professors with will volunterily to help farmers as well as conducting research and there are also
farmers visiting them for advices. Examples of direct personal cooperation for research that
eventually teach farmers in the area of field trials new methods exist and that kind of voluntarily
cooperations + good personal communication skills of individuals are more needed in future.
There are state cooperatives with strategy development departments to better communicate
innovations and information for farmers that can use so-called smart devices and internet.
Sharing of weather data with cooperative members, for preventative measures against frost or
molds etc is also a practice that are currently being used. Events like state fairs, meetings or local
newspapers with sections dedicated for extension are also useful for partnerships and
communication of innovations. Agricultural policies that are being followed without actually
listening to all stakeholders are greatest contstraints for both farmers and existing institutions.
43. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan
Dear Botir,
Thank you for taking the initiative about 7 steps towards enhancing RAS/extension systems in the
Central Asia &Caucasus and China. CACAARI Secretariat is supporting that Roadmap and would
like to ask you to take a lead on facilitation of that process.
In 2012 CAC NARSs adopted the Regional Strategy for or transforming and strengthening
agricultural research and innovation systems. Some efforts have been done to implement that
strategy, but I believe we need to develop the coordinated (more comprehensive and coherent)
Action plan to effectively and efficiently implement the statements of the regional strategy. But,
this could not be realized with only with efforts of few experts. CG and non-CG centers those
operate in the region, should be actively involved in that process in close cooperation with NARSs,
universities and RAS systems. Reforms in CGIAR should underlay a real base and commitments
for close cooperation of GC centers with NARSs. Still those interactions between GC centers with
NARSs are very weak, fragmented and not sustainable.
Ultimately, the strengthening interaction between Global, Regional and National systems will
increase the impact of the research, education, extension and innovation activities to the
overarching goals such as food security and nutrition. Best regards
44. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ),
Kyrgyzstan
Dear colleagues,
I would like to share some information on problems that rural advisory service providers are
facing today:
1.
Lack of the government support. The government pays very little or no attention to rural
advisory service providers, often considering them being non-governmental organizations, which
only fulfill orders of donors. In each region there are government organizations operating in
agricultural sector, representatives of the ministry of agriculture and water resources. They are
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
40
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
mainly engaged in collecting statistics, although one of their main task is to provide advisory
services and information to farmers. The government shall allocate some part of the funds of the
Ministry of agriculture to advisory service providers and assign them with directions for
consultations, trainings and other activities that are of the most priority for the government and
farmers.
2. Inability of farmers to pay for advisory services. Most of the farmers (about 90%) refuse to
pay for the provided advisory services due to lack of money, as well as believing that it should be
donor organizations paying for it. Because they are used to. Besides the effect of a
consultation/training cannot be seen immediately. Moreover, farmers as well do not keep records
or research on what was the main factor of good or bad yields. Therefore, they need to improve
their knowledge.
3. Insufficient linkages between advisory services and research institutes. There are good new
varieties of crops, innovative technologies and recent developments being developed by research
institutions, but due to limited budget they cannot be widely extended. Therefore, extension
services and research institutions should be in closely interrelated.
There are still lots of problems and issues within extension systems, but I fully support Botir
Dosov and his idea to define priorities, strategy and solution of these problems.
Best regards, Shaibek Karasartov
45. Hongchun Xue Division of Science & Technology Extension,Northwest A & F
University, China
Dear FSN Forum,
NAFU has been developing its university system of agricultural extension since 2005. The major
finance resources are from Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education and the Province of Shaanxi
government. Being practiced for ten years, NAFU has piloted several programs of agricultural
extension such as a) establishing demonstration stations in rural areas; b) establishing multilayer training system; c) establishing agricultural service system that is accessible to farmers; d)
reforming the institution arrangement within the university by highlighting the provision of
agricultural extension services; e) enhancing the cooperation between the university and local
government.
The NAFU extension programs has yielded some benefits. For example, it promotes agribusiness
and introduces capacity building at the local level. For the university, through agricultural
extension, new varieties are able to be applied in production. Large number of graduate students
are able to conduct their experiment research in field.
NAFU’s agricultural extension programs are meeting several difficulties. First, the program is
focusing on regions of limited coverage and hard to be scaled up. The majority of products are
cash crops; the program is meeting difficulties in transferring technologies of grain production.
Second, the extension staffs are getting old and few young professionals have interests and
motivation in the position. Third, capacity building within the system has been neglected in the
program. Finally, the funding resources are limited.
46. Maria Losova, Canada
I would like to add a few points to this discussion:
The efforts to introduce and develop RAS were made by donors through NGOs over the past
15 years in almost all the ex-Soviet countries. Up to now, there is no a national RAS system
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
41
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
working in none of those countries (except Kaz). Donors and NGOs have done a great job to
implement all kind of RAS related projects; nevertheless donors and NGOs cannot substitute the
government in this process. Thus, the main reason why RAS is not properly functioning is
unfortunately a lack of interest from the side of the governments of the ex-Soviet countries. And
as long as there is no green light from the national governments (like in Kazakhstan, recently in
Armenia and Azerbaijan), RAS will not flourish in those countries. To tackle this, there is a need in
lobbying this question. Lobby can be done by the experts and international community on the
national level. It does not mean that the government has to do the entire job related to RAS, but it
should provide the minimum, that is legislation for RAS, for small scale business, conditions of
trade, important and export, infrastructure for markets and transportation of agricultural
produce and others. Without those, RAS cannot function.
RAS should meet the needs of different farmers (small and poor, medium and big), thus RAS
should be done in a participatory manner rather than in top-down as it is usually done in these
countries. In this way it will better reflect the needs of the final recipients and not just fulfill the
plans by governments or donor/NGO's projects which do not correspond to the reality of rural
citizens.
To this end, I would like to agree with the organisers and highlight that a joint effort of the
actors involved — NGOs, donors, research institutes and the state — is crucial for RAS
development.
I hope these points are useful for this discussion.
To this end, I would like to draw your attantion to the book that will be launched in September. It
combineds 12 papers on development of extension, knowledge and innovation in the post-Sovinet
countries.
Hornidge, A.-K., Shtaltovna, A. and C. Schetter (editors) (2015, forthcoming) ‘Agricultural
Knowledge and Knowledge Systems in Post-Soviet Societies’, Peter Lang. ISBN: 978-3-0343-20061 Bern Switzerland.
For those who are interested, do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards
47. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Elena Kan,
Thanks for your discussion on the role of agricultural university in RAS and the case in
Uzbekistan. It seems that RAS in Uzbekistan is centralized and the coordination between
agricultural universities with the public extension stations at the local level is an interesting case.
May you be kind to elaborate bit more regarding the following two questions? First, what are the
incentive for teachers and academic staffs to engage themselves in agricultural extension? Second,
how the private sector is developed in RAS? Is there any gap between the partnership between
the private sector and others (such as the public sector and academia)? How are the gaps filled in
your opinion?
48. Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan
Dear Botir,
Thank you for provided Roadmap for the enhancing RAS systems in the region. There were
highlighted all key steps for enhancing RAS/extension systems in the Central Asia &Caucasus and
China.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
42
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
The capacity building must be done based on farmer situation and need button up approaches,
supporting ideas coming from the households, small commercial farmers, which will to shape RAS
services, and also implement needed new agricultural technology for improving the welfare and
food security and nutrition.
In some countries of Central Asia is the only income of rural people is agricultural products from
their back yard gardens. Household farmers consume a large part of what make and sell the
surplus to purchase additional food. Traditionally each family in rural has more than 5-10
members, who has income only from household farm. Thus, the main objective of improving food
security in Central Asia is to help household farmers produce more and better-for-sale and selfconsumption. RAS should in future support Household farmers to obtain skills and information,
and to address challenges to improve their livelihoods and well-being.
Best regards, Lola
49. Elena Kan, Uzbekistan
Dear Prof. Xiangping Jia,
To answer your questions I shall firstly emphasize that agricultural extension in Uzbekistan, and I
suppose in most of CA countries, does not exist as academic discipline and therefore as a
profession (excuses, if I’ve missed this point in someone’s discussion). Also, it is absent on the
level of adult education (so-called [re]-training program, or vocational education). This is an
important aspect for overview of how ‘extension’ is done and who is involved in it. Thus,
theoretically, I can call ‘extension workers’ those whose work is formally/non-formally related to
agriculture and knowledge/technology dissemination/generation on different levels:
1)
Formal, governmental, national: experts of the Ministry of Agriculture and water resources;
agrarian science and education
2) Non-governmental, national: specialists of the Farmers’ council
3) Non-governmental, regional: NGO, donor-based TA projects;
4) Private level, national: a) dealers of commercial firms, private agricultural shops; Grass roots:
b) the same people from the above mentioned levels, since they can consult on their own e.g.
within their home community and through network connections; c) Farmer-to-farmer and
community-based exchange;
I’ve referred to agricultural teachers as potential extensionists due to their involvement into
research projects at their universities, including Phd studies; the results of that work shall have
the practicality for agriculture. Also, initiated and supported by the state, a tradition of annual
Innovations Fair (since 2008) is now a platform for four domains: research, education, business
and agricultural production = farmers, to demonstrate available local or adapted technologies, to
make aware, to establish contacts and sign real contracts ( see comment of Mrs. Galimova of May
20).
Based on that, incentives that I see: 1) number of signed contracts with production and
remuneration; 2) scoring system that evaluates teacher’s work on various criteria, whereas
research and practical work add important share to the overall score and consequent
remuneration; 3) apart from tangible and monetary value – name, reputation and improved
skills. Here, the principles are the same, as for extension workers elsewhere in the world – One
satisfied farmer will spread the word about the effective results. Moreover, nowadays researchers
and teachers have better access to world knowledge and expertise through collaboration with
foreign science and education, so as to enrich their own capital and diversify the advice they [can]
provide.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
43
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
RAS private sector: Private dealers of seeds, equipment as an example. I can’t call it private RAS
though, but as mentioned above - their work includes elements of advisory work, though heavily
influenced by advertising and selling, rather than farm development. Yet, owing to access to
information about improved seeds, technologies, experts who can advise, etc. these agents can
communicate the alternative information from place to place, provided they gain appropriate
extension expertise (approaches, basic principles), and see the extension function as additional
asset. Perhaps, these private ‘extensionists’ can deliver the farmers’ feedback to the research
system.
Connection between the private and public sector like academia has some gaps, indeed. One of the
instances, the cases when research is implemented upon demand of farmers or private companies
are still rare. Also, the problems of funding and state support, accountability remain among the
challenges.
Best regards, Elena.
PS. If you're interested, please see attached an article with our views on extension in Uzbekistan.
50. Ирина Церетели, министерство сельского хозяйства РА, Армения
Dear colleagues,
Today food security issues that are an important socio-economic challenge in Central Asia,
Southern Caucasus and China, are largely dependent on innovative infrastructure as an
intermediary or a tool that enables interaction between academia and producers. When
developing innovative economy in the region, regulatory role of the government in innovative
development objectively comes to the forefront; it will ensure positive results only in case of a
balanced long-term development strategy.
The role of technological solutions in agriculture is maximum assistance in addressing the issues
of improvement of agricultural productivity, and increasing the quality and quantity of food
security through intensification and diversification of agriculture.
National agricultural innovation systems in each country need to identify priorities for making an
active contribution in improvement of agricultural production, and increasing quality and
quantity of food.
AIS are aimed at strengthening agricultural research through strengthening linkages with farmers
and other actors of agricultural sector.
Innovative development of agriculture requires solution of a group of problems:
20. To provide scientific and research-and-technology field with financial and material
resources;
21. To establish an institutional framework for implementation and promotion of
innovations. This institutional framework shall include an information system and a
system of methodological support.
22. To strengthen the role of actors of agrarian business in innovation process, to encourage
introduction of developments into production, to establish a system of training, retraining
and skills development needed for the implementation of specific innovation programs
and projects, to include civil servants involved in the innovation process management into
this process;
23. To develop methods of taking into account the impact of innovations on socio-economic
parameters of agricultural system.
An important condition for solving these problems is further development of extension systems,
establishment of a stable institutional framework for agricultural advisory services and
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
44
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
information transfer in such fields, as crop production, production of agricultural products,
acquisition of resources, marketing of products, attracting credit funds, research and introduction
of new technologies, etc.
51. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
1. Significance of AIS
CAC region and China are facing similar challenges in agriculture, such as agricultural
intensification and declined resource for a sustainability, diversified agriculture and challenges of
climate change (Subhash Mehta).
There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC and China
through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The ones related to RAS emerge through regional
development programs (such as rural infrastructure investment and "demonstration park" of
agricultural technology), private investments (in agro-chemical inputs, agro-food supply chain,
and land market), and academic collaborations. Being designed and implemented within a
systematic framework, OBOR potentially plays an important role in not only knowledge exchange
but also a formation of regional network in directing public and private investment in enhancing
AIS in the region (Xiangping JIA).
2. Challenges in CAC region and China, and prioritized actions
Research, education and extension are disconnected with each other in reality. For the triangle
relationship, it is important to “make sure research and education [are] linked from bottom to up”
(Oyture Anarbekov).
Being institutionalized in positive and negative way, incentive and motivation are driving and
deterrent forces. It is very important to structure incentive mechanism in AIS (Botir Dosov).
AIS faces diversified stakeholders, and ‘the target groups’ have different interests and abilities. In
consequence, the organizational forms of AIS have to be flexible and dynamic to be responsive
and adaptive (Anastasiya Lebedeva).
More considerations are needed to make government play a pro-active role in creating a
favorable environment for AIS (Jamshid Fayziev).
Community-based companies that are staffed by professionals potentially play a role in enhancing
value-adding of the agro-food chain and dealing with risks through group insurance or credit
(Subhash Mehta).
Lengthy approval/permit process of innovations hinders the quick application of technologies in
field. Prioritized areas should be smallholder centered policies and education on the youth (Eren
TASKIN).
3. The role and constraints of agricultural universities in AIS, and institutional innovations
Academic staffs and scientists in agricultural universities are respected people in the community
and therefore are the sources of advice, information or new technology. However, it is challenge
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
45
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
for university scientists to combine the “book knowledge” with the practical application in field
(Elena Kan).
Insufficient communication between academia and the rural society is pervasive. While the
academia has not been formally institutionalized into RAS, existing practices are often on the
individual base; scientists voluntarily conduct extension and give farmers advices through direct
personal cooperation. However, it is not easy because good practices of agricultural extension
requires good communication skills; this is especially challenging for scientists who work mainly
in laboratories (Eren TASKIN).
52. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for the active participation in our online discussion that day by day is
becoming more interesting.
Taking into account your comments and views, as well as the goals and objectives of this online
discussion, I have tried to portray what could be a model of efficient Agricultural Innovation
Systems in the Central Asia and the Caucasus countries, as well as China in ensuring food security
and nutrition and improving livelihoods. I have gotten a very multi-compound scheme, which you
can find in the attached file. To make this scheme friendlier I decided to add a bit of creativity.
The clouds, or threats, such as climate change and the population growth, represent the
challenges for future of rural and agricultural population, including households with low income
and vulnerable populations. By agriculture, I mean all sectors, for example, crops, livestock,
fisheries, etc.
The main components of an innovation system are:




rural advisory services,
agricultural research system
agricultural education system
agro-information system.
It is also necessary to have available resources: financial, operational, technological, natural and
human, as well as the state support, which could be compared with the importance of the sun in
life on earth. In our case, the government support is an important component for effective AIS,
including agricultural research, advisory services and education. The public and private sector as
well as donors, together play a crucial role in the development of infrastructure.
You can also see a man on the draw as the main driving force, which is necessary for the efficient
functioning of the system that ensures cooperation and coordination.
With an agricultural productivity growth across value chains, yields and profitability of the
overall system will increase and result in generation of additional capital that can be reinvested in
agriculture. This process will be accompanied by agricultural "technologization" with back up of
innovation development.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
46
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
53. Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
Response to Dr. Botir Dosov’s question to Zhenzhong Si,
Do you think that community enterprise system combined with advocacy and dissemination of
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” would facilitate switching
from a productivity-oriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system
at least at community level? Could you give some examples of what Good Agricultural Practices
(GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” could be?
I can share a case my YPARD China team is working on for nominating for the 2015 UNDP
Equator Prize. Its good practices have been extended in 28 of the 31 provinces in Mainland China.
Community Supported Agriculture-- Little Donkey Farm Exploring Innovative Ways for
Sustainable Agriculture towards Rural and Urban coordinated development
I. Backgrounds
Agriculture in China is threatened by three major challenges, namely food safety, environmental
pollution and huge disparity between the urban and the rural. Within such a context, Ecoagriculture should be developed to establish direct linkage between consumers and producers,
and encourage citizens’ participation in agriculture, so as to provide a solution to these imminent
problems.
As a producing- teaching - research base co-founded by Haidian District government and Renmin
University, Little Donkey Farm sees its launching as a response to the national development
strategy. Starting from 2003, the central government has put forward many goals, for example,
“promoting the scientific concept of development”, “building a resource-saving and
environmentally-friendly society”, “building a socialist new countryside as a huge historic
mission”, “developing an Eco society”, “prioritizing modern agriculture in building the new
countryside”. Against such backdrops, Little Donkey Farm aims at promoting mutual help
between the urban and the rural through Eco-agriculture, and embarks on a road that explores
the national strategies in real practice.
Its Good practices include:
1. Forging a direct supply chain between the communities, households and the production
base
By subscription in Little Donkey Farm, we mean that the CSA members and the farm cooperate
and share risks throughout the production and forge such relationship into a direct supply chain
between the two parties. This method can not only promote development of the community, but
also strengthen trust that used to be missing due to the lack of direct linkage between consumers
and producers so as to ease the pressure of food security.
In 2009, citizens’ farm was officially launched, but only saw a total of 37 households joining the
Little Donkey Farm subscription program; in 2010, the number grew to 280 households; in order
to meet the members’ continuous demand for vegetables from the Little Donkey Farm, a special
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
47
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
delivery service of the stored vegetables for winter was provided; in 2011, the member number
reached 460. Up till now, such a size has been well maintained.
2. Developing an urban base for agriculture leisure experiences
Citizens’ farm as one form of suburban agriculture, is highly crucial in offering a platform for
farming, leisure and entertainment. Labor-sharing subscription is the first operating business of
Little Donkey Farm and also embodies the multiple functions of agriculture, serving as a typical
example of agriculture going into the tertiary industry. At the same time, such innovation changes
the way citizens relax, with a shift from traditional sightseeing in the suburban to agriculturerelated entertainment. Members establish unique neighboring relationships through
communication and mutual help, forming an urban farming community that prospers in vegetable
planting, leisure and relaxation for the senior, education for the children as well as holiday
entertainment.
The most exciting news is that the number of subscribers to Little Donkey Farm’s labor-sharing
program have been continuously growing over the last 7 years, from the mere 17 households in
2001, to 107 in 2010 and 263 in 2011, to almost 400 in total in 2015.
3. Establishing an Eco-agriculture technology research and promotion platform
The design of Little Donkey Farm reflects the concept and thinking of Eco-agriculture and country
life. Crop farming, fish breeding and poultry raising are combined together. Farmlands, grass and
forests prosper together. Various elements are integrated for enhanced benefits and together
form a positive ecological system and an ecological cycle within the farm itself. That is, we
establish the area’s ecologic and economic system by practicing sustainable agriculture
production and living model.
In terms of production, Little Donkey Farm adheres to crop planting, fish breeding and poultry
raising in an Eco-friendly way. It makes full use of the local natural resources of light, heat, water
and earth as well as capital shallowing mechanism that replaces capital with labor to improve
quality of the earth. The farm also introduces the natural breeding technology from South Korea
to make use of the local endogenous microorganisms to break down the excrement so as to
reduce pollution, save water and enhance the body health of pigs and other animals. Based on
such achievements, Little Donkey Farm also establishes partnerships with Eco-agriculture
practicing groups from more than ten countries including the US, India, Thailand, Peru, South
Korea, and Japan. It serve as a pilot workshop which has developed a set of applicable
technologies and standards that are endogenous, effective, low-cost and suitable for our national
conditions. The production, management and quality control system for organic products is also
put in place to serve sustainable agriculture production and living, and help different kinds of
farms, rural cooperatives (rural communities) and small household production with their shift
toward more sustainable development.
In 2011, Little Donkey Farm organized a two-session training class that saw nearly 100
participants coming from Malaysia, Singapore and across the nation. The training received
guidance from the Beijing Agriculture Technology Promotion Center, Haidian Agriculture Science
Institute, etc. and generated very positive results.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
48
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
4. Training Eco-agriculture professionals
The rise of ecological farm is epitomized in the growing interest on the part of the youth in
agriculture. Every year, Little Donkey Farm launches internship programs to recruit passionate
young people interested in Eco-agriculture and CSA operation from universities, NGOs and other
social sectors. In this way, farms can become an intermediary for youth to get closer to rural areas
and know better about agriculture. At the same time, it can train talented people that can help
develop the farm itself, promote pilot Eco-agriculture programs and contribute to common
development of both the rural and the urban areas with interactive activities.
Since the launching of the internship program in 2008, altogether 8 batches of young people,
about 100 in total took part. Interns have to receive a 9-month training during which time they
can make use of their talent and interest to experience the whole production cycle and get fully
involved in every step of the farm’s operation and management. We promote the idea of
combining learning with laboring, practice with theory, and guide every intern to cultivate downto-earth, truth-seeking and hardworking characteristics and strong capabilities. In addition to
interns, we also welcome large numbers of volunteers who long to serve the farm.
Over the 7 years, Little Donkey Farm has already accumulated rich experiences in running the
intern training system that depends on “farm/agriculture” development. It helps alleviate
pressure of the job market for collage students and train a huge number of agriculture-loving
talents or at least those who have some understanding of the agriculture, farmers, and rural areas.
This system also creates a favorable environment that respects and highlights agriculture
development and advocates the philosophy of returning to homeland.
5. Promoting a sustainable way of life
The indication of sustainable life first lies in healthy consumption, especially consumption in food
and daily necessities. However in fact, as we enjoy the convenience and varieties brought about
by modernization, urbanization and industrialization, we have to live with problems like
environmental pollution and food insecurity which are generated by rapid development as well.
Therefore, helping farmers shift their farming methods, supporting healthy agriculture and opting
for healthy consumption are all highly important efforts the whole society needs for sustainable
development in the future.
Availing itself of the network of members and the communication platform of the farm, Little
Donkey Farm has thrown more than 400 events and activities and received about 30,000 visitors.
Also, it has cooperated with different institutions in carrying out non-current promotion activities
in various communities. In 2011, a very special school was built up in the fields to offer children
as well as adult citizens targeted agriculture education and provided opportunities for them to
experience a healthy way of farming life. One year later, the farming education activity kicked off
to allow households to engage in various activities like agriculture experiencing, environment
protection activities and handcrafting, etc.
6. Supporting healthy small household farming while initiating common purchase
Common purchase allows consumers to establish sound cooperation based on mutual trust and
reduce the risk of food insecurity. It not only ensures the supply of healthy food needed in daily
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
49
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
life besides those for delivery or extra share, but also supports different types of rural households
and farmers’ cooperatives.
From 2009, Little Donkey farm tried to initiate the common purchase plan with the help of its
members and the community work. In 2010, a number of moms in Huilongguan area formed a socalled “Mothers in Huilongguan” group; some parents in Zhongguancun also established Shi’an
Health Cooperative after they organized citizens for an field trip investigating into organic food. In
2011, communities in Xiaotangshan, Shaoyaoju, Wangjing and Yuetanxijie also saw a craze in
community group buy featured by common purchase.
In 2012, Little Donkey Farm established strategic cooperation with Guoren Green League and
directly sold the different kinds healthy food on behalf of the farmers’ cooperatives and small
household groups affiliated with the league.
7. Promoting the rise of new farmers’ markets nationwide
One direct form of community supporting agriculture is to build trust between producers and
consumers through face-to-face communication.
In September 2009, Little Donkey Farm hosted the first small-scale national farmers’ fair. More
than ten institutions coming from across the country gathered together to introduce to consumers
their healthy agri-products. Ever since then, such farmers’ fairs have attracted tens of thousands
citizens, providing trustworthy Eco-products with convenient delivery, facilitating
communication between consumers and producers, as well as playing a pivotal role for the
establishment of Beijing farmers’ organic agriculture fairs in 2011.
In October 2011, as Little Donkey Farm celebrated its harvest season; more than 60 institutions
related to healthy agriculture from across the country came over to the event and made it a
farmers’ fair boasting the most number of participating agencies and the richest activities.
As farmers’ fair became popular in Beijing, many other places also followed suit in organizing
local fairs. Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chengdu, Nanjing, Wuhan are all such examples. Farmers’ fair
serves as a channel for transmission and communication, not only draws producers closer to
citizens with enhanced mutual trust and transparency in production, but also allows consumers
to play a supervising role of the agriculture production as they come to know more about the
producers and the whole production process.
8. Promoting the establishment of a nationwide Eco-agriculture network
In order to promote the innovative projects across the nation, Little Donkey Farm has hosted CSA
experience sharing meetings six times in Beijing, Shanghai and Fuzhou, respectively in January
2010, November 2010, October 2011, November 2012, November 2013 and December 2014.
More than 2000 practitioners and researchers around the country attended the discussions and
contributed to its fruitful results.
To further boost development of CSA, Little Donkey Farm started a “National CSA and Family
Farm Training Class” twice a year starting from 2013. So far, 5 training sessions have been
completed with more than 200 trained members.
According to initial statistics, since 2009, about 200 CSA organizations have been established in
Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangdong, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Fujian, Liaoning, Shanxi,
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
50
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Shandong, Shaanxi, Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Neimeng, Henan, Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou (all are
either major municipalities or provinces). Among these places, Mazhuang village in Lankao,
Henan province became the focus of attention and got praise from the then Vice President Xi
Jinping as it draws upon our experiences in developing CSA.
54. Metin Güven, Renta LTD, Тurkey
Building up accredited expert database is so crucial. Technology could be put in place to setup an
information sharing platform accessible to all related parties.
55. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Mr. Metin Güven,
Thank you for an interesting comment. I would like to ask you to comment further.
Would that such a database of experts already exists in some form, or should it be built on/in one
of the existing platforms, such as universities? Should it exist at country, regional or global level?
What should be the goal and objectives of that database / platform?
Sincerely, Botir
56. Tatatiana Yusupova, Freelance consultant, Russia
Dear Mr. Botir
Firstly, I would like to share my thoughts regarding your comment on comment of Mr. Metin
Güven, if you do not mind. It seems to me that the idea of database and online platforms is not
bad. Although, possibly there is no need specifically to create it. You can use existing platforms,
e.g. the platforms of the universities or organizations that have organized this discussion. But, a
network, forum or engine, linking existing platforms or data bases through means of
communication would also be useful. By itself, the database does not need not have a certain
purpose, and they can be multi-purpose. Various projects, programs, forums, companies can
benefit from those databases, if the information they keep is supported by metadata. For example,
for my project I would able to find from that database the X experts, with qualification on Y-1, Y-2,
Y-31, and with working experience in country Z.
Secondly, I would suggest not ignoring the issues of branding and marketing of your products and
services, i.e. products and services of research, education, extension and information systems that
would have the distinctive features to attract the attention of the public sector, donors and the
private sector, as you have them depicted in their picture. By the way, I like your picture of
effective AIS models. There is an element of branding and promotion in that. In addition, it would
be important to discuss what are your goals of co-operation with various target groups. We must
pay more attention to the preferences and needs of customers and actors of the innovation
system. You emphasize the role of coordination and cooperation. Therefore, an effective model of
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
51
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
innovation systems have to envisage the effective communications that I certainly did not see in
your picture. So my question is: what means and tools of communication do you use to work with
different target groups? How effective are they? What kind of products are your target groups
expecting from you? What kind of products are you going to offer them? And, yes, I agree with you
that sometimes (it happens), "people do not know what they want until you show it to them," as
Steve Jobs were saying.
I wish success to this discussion in the application of its conclusions and recommendations,
Tatiana
57. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Elena Kan,
Thanks for your kindness to share your thoughts on agricultural extension and its organizations
in Uzbekistan. You raised a very important issue that is neglected in many developing countries,
including China. Agricultural extension, being considered simply as farmers’ behavioral changes
of technology adoption after being provided the information, has rarely been structured into a
formal educational system. In fact, the value and importance of non-formal method of education
in agriculture is neglected in pedagogy in developing countries. When scientists and extensionists
force on the “transfer of technologies”, some of the technologies were developed in research
stations under controlled and uniformed conditions. However, many of these technologies were
often found to be unsuitable in complex, diverse and risky situations. Such a variability is
enlarged and complicated by social limitations because learning leads to social action outcomes.
Therefore, agricultural extension becomes a tool and facilitator of discovery learning in a group
context whereby farmers collectively focus on real problems on their plots and figure out
solutions for their own. Unfortunately, in reality, agricultural extension and informal education
are segmented in various government lines (such as Ministry of Agriculture for the former and
Ministry of Education for the latter). Pedagogical professionals understand the transformative
process of adult education but have little knowledge in agricultural extension and its
complication. Agricultural extension staffs, having all the technical knowledge, have little
knowledge in pedagogy of informal training. The gap becomes a constraint and hurdle and the
segmentation of government bureaucracy makes such a gap insurmountable.
Global network (such as FAO) potentially plays an important and facilitating role in regional
initiatives in CAC and China for an integrated pedagogical program of agricultural extension.
Through working with the national partners, such a regional initiative and the formation of
international knowledge is able to align various government segments with each, at least at a pilot
level. This can be, in my personal view, a prioritized area of actions.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
52
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
58. Maria Losova, Canada
Dear Mr. Gueven,
The idea with the experts' database might be of use for donors or government or private sector
who is interested to hire one or another consultant. But i don't think it will be of use to small scale
farmers in the remote areas of Central Asia and Caucasus. From my fieldwork experience and
travels in whole of the Central Asia and Caucasus, i have witnessed that small scale farmers often
do not have computers (1); they often don’t know how to use computers and access databases
(2); and unexpected but regular power shut-downs take place in many parts (3).
Thus, indeed it would be good to know who is working on the region but it does not really bring
much to the actual recipients of the services, thus farmers.
Kind regards, Maria
59. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Jieying Bi,
Thanks for introducing the case of CSA under the backdrop of urbanized agriculture in China. As
the facilitator of the forum, I hope to ask additional questions. First, it seems that third-party
certification of quality & safety standards (hazard free, GAP, etc) are not required in CSA. This is
consistent with theoretical and a few empirical studies; CSA applies a different mechanism of
governing agro-food market. May you be kind to address bit more on this (as you motivate your
presentation through a response to the discussion from Botir and Zhenzhong Si. Second, could
you elaborate more on agricultural extension services in the CSA case you introduced? Probably I
miss some points but it is indeed important and the key theme of the e-discussion. To be specific,
we would like to know: a) who provide technical advisory services in CSA program? What are the
incentives? b) how does the CSA case cover the costs and be financially viable and sustainable? If
consumers (or the members of CSA) pay higher price, how much of the revenue goes to buy-in of
extension services? c) how do you think the CSA case in an urban context contributes to the eForum of food security and nutrition in CAC region and rural areas of China?
Thanks. Your contribution and discussion is indeed valuable.
60. Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies,
Singapore
To the organizers and contributors,
I've read through all previous comments, and I can say I've really learned a lot from this
discourse. From a developed country's perspective, the opportunities in China and in the CAC
countries seem to lie in the ability to draw sufficient support from the net importing countries.
The reason lies in the instabilities the Ch and CAC can cause once they start importing (rather
than producing domestically), although this depends on the kind of good traded (goods that are
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
53
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
thinly traded could be priority goods for net importing countries). Essentially, the food security of
the said countries should be a crucial concern for developed countries as well.
Another point is on employment given the current young generation's preferences. There seems
to be a bifurcation of jobs- - rural and urban being the best way of dividing them. Rural jobs seem
unattractive to the current young generation, and this has caused the continued urban migration.
With less heads focusing on how to address the future global food sufficiency issues, it is expected
that food sufficiency will continue to be a problem. In my research I find that one solution lies in
the ability to get job migration re-directed to agriculture jobs, by not framing them as unattractive
rural-type jobs. After all, we all have a basket of goods which we consume, and food should be
sufficiently prioritized as well. If the current system leads to lower attractiveness of agricultural
jobs, even when agriculture is a non-negotiable commodity (i.e. we can't not consume it
regardless of our income)- - then making agriculture-related jobs more attractive should be the
way forward.
Last, price instability is also a problem which leads to low investments. On this point, I don't think
that the non-interventionist agenda will be helpful, as this also means having more instabilities.
There has to be leeway for governments (think India) to intervene, at least when it comes to price
and supply stabilization. Without this stability, investors will always be at the stage of deciding,
and not necessarily committing, towards making the investments. This explains the low
investment rate, and the reason why we are still waiting for the second green revolution to occur.
Many thanks to the FSN organizers for setting this up! I've surely learned a lot, and I look forward
to the outcomes of these discussions as well.
Cheers,
Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Dynamic Modeller of Food Policy Issues, Associate Research Fellow,
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Singapore
61. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Jieying Bi,
I also found CSA is the really interesting good practice in China. It brought me back to 2014 when
we have organized a Regional RAS conference for CAC countries in Bishkek. Dr. Robin Bourgeois,
GFAR, was facilitating the foresight session, where participants were discussing 7 possible
transformations of the future agriculture. And some of those transformations were close to CSA
taking place and developing in China. As it is happening now in China, it would be good to study
this model more deeply, as one of the probable models of agriculture, responding to emerging
challenges in agriculture and food security to develop more robust strategies by considering not
only how to adapt to the trends but also how to adapt to ruptures and even sometimes how to
shape them (trends and ruptures). From this point of view, additionally to Xiangping's comments
below, I would like to suggest organising a Workshop or Training on a Specific Global Good
Practice, i.e. CSA and /or correlated programs, e.g. establishing direct links between producers
and consumers, urban base for agriculture leisure experiences, Eco-agriculture technology
research and promotion platform, Training Eco-agriculture professionals, etc. as side event at the
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
54
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GRAS). It is not necessarily
means that CSA model should be "copied and pasted" to other economies, but its elements can be
adapted to the local contexts.
62. Alexander Makeev, Eurasian Center for Food Security, Russia
Dear colleagues,
According to the comments, we all agree, that it is crucial for the region to use innovation systems
in agriculture. However I would like to draw attention of the members of the Forum that most of
the comments do not discuss or offer particular innovation technologies. There are not so many
comments on agricultural research development. Why is that so? A set of innovative technologies,
which are promising for introduction, is wide enough. These technologies have been tried out in
various institutions, and research farms. Analysis of economic benefits of introduction of
technologies has been carried out, and their role in improving sustainability of agricultural
production has been determined. Apparently, the key task for today is to disseminate the positive
experience of application of new technologies. Actually, these are the key points of a large part of
presentations of our forum. It is obvious that establishing an integral system of dissemination
and implementation will promote more effective development of new technologies. In my
comment I would like to focus on the issues related to establishing of an educational system,
which has its focus on students of different levels. The Eurasian Center for Food Security has
begun to establish a system of distance learning products in Russian and English. Educative
products are designed for different categories of students. These products are in compliance with
the educational standards for further education of the Lomonosov Moscow State University and
comply with the levels of skill improvement, professional retraining and second higher education.
As of today, the Center has developed more than 20 distance-learning courses on economic and
social aspects of food security, as well as on land and water use for food security. Two master’s
programs on food security have been created:
1. Land and water resources management in order to ensure food security
2. Agri-food management
Both programs are fulfilled in partnership with the World Bank, and will be presented at the
educational platform of the Center (www.edu.ecfs.msu.ru) in 2016. Two faculties - the Faculty of
Soil Science and the Faculty of Economics, will jointly carry out teaching. It is also planned to
accept students and arrange teaching of the basic disciplines on the basis of the branches of the
Moscow State University in Central Asia and Caucasus. Education will last two years. The Eurasian
Center for Food Security also designs short distance-courses. Until the end of 2016, the Center
will present 5 courses: foundations of food security, food security assessment, foundations of land
management to improve food safety, economic and environmental assessment of land, and legal
and political foundations of water management. Short courses are practice-oriented and are
designed for employees of information and consultancy services, civil servants and politicians.
The Center is also ready to develop farmers-oriented short modular courses on agricultural
innovation systems and particular technologies. These courses can be designed on the basis of
materials and requests by information and consultancy services, donor organizations, research
centers, etc. Remote educative products are complemented by the system of electronic
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
55
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
consultations and forums that are organized on the platform of the Center and its partners. We
are open to broad cooperation for development of the educational system for all aspects of food
security improving. Sincerely, Dr. Sci. Alexander Makeev, Head of knowledge management and
learning department, Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS), Lomonosov Moscow State
University, tel.: (+7-495) 9308952
63. Hongyan Zhang China Agricultutre University, China
Dear organizers and contributors,
I am a teacher in China Agricultural University, China and it is my great pleasure to have chance to
learn a lot form this discussion. I am interested in the role of agricultural university in agricultural
technology transformation and extension. Here I would like share with you our experience on
high yield and high efficiency agricultural technology research and transformation during last
year. Hopefully I can get your kind suggestion!
A brief introduction of Science and Technology Backyard (STB) Agricultural
technology and extension innovation system of China AgriculturalUniversity (CAU)
Background
Due to the increased population, decreased arable land, shortage of agricultural resources such as
water, and increased pressure to environment, study and use of high yield and high efficiency
(Double high, DH) agricultural technology become urgent in China. The success of ‘‘double high’’
agriculture is highly dependent on both DH technology and effective agricultural technology
transfer and extension. However, the poor link between researcher and farmer, and between
agricultural study and practical production limit both the usability and transformation of
agricultural technology. To resolve these problems, the scientist from China Agricultural
University (CAU) establish a so called Science and technology backyard (STB) agricultural
technology research and application platform in rural area since 2009. Professors and graduated
students from CAU, Beijing lived in STB and worked with farmers with “zero distance” to study,
optimize and transfer DH agricultural technology, and help farmer to use DH.
The work procedure of STB model
(1) Investigation of practical problems in agricultural production
The scientist and graduate student lived closely with farmer and practical agricultural practice,
thus they can easily found the real problems in the main cropping systems which limited both
yield and efficiency through field investigation and farmer discussion
(2) study and Optimize of DH technology
Based on the investigation, we introduce new technology, or carried out field experiment to study
new technologies in farm’s field with the help of farmers. After modification of traditional
management practice with these new technologies, we formulate an optimized integrate
agricultural management practices which is suitable for the practical situation, and
(3) Built demonstration field to show the effect to farmers
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
56
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
At the same time we optimize the DH technology, the demonstration field about 5-10 ha was
established near to the village where STB lies. In the demonstration field, the new DH technology
was used to compare with traditional management. We organize field days and invite farmer to
show the effect of DH and introduce our technology to them. Only after seeing the real “effect” the
farmer would like to use these technologies.
(4) Training the farmers-face to face
Before farmer use these technologies, they should be trained firstly to understand the technology.
For this purpose, students and scientists in STB organize training class for farmers both in home
and in field. We establish so call science and technology galleries along the roadside in field and
on the wall in the village to show the technology principle with cartoon, picture and less words
thus farmer can conveniently learn and easily understand the technology. Also, farmer field
schools (FFS) were established to train farmer systematically. The training class and FFS were
very welcomed by farmers. Considering women is the most important labor force for agricultural
production, STB in some villages also establish farmer field school special for women and in the
women FFS, we teach them not only agricultural technology, but also dancing and singing which
made them happy and increased their initiative to learn and use new DH technology.
(5) Organize the farmers
With training, STB successfully transfer the DH technology to farmers and enhance their
confidence to use DH technology. Transfer of DH technology to farmer, however, not always lead
to final use of technology in field. The reason is that in most area of China, farmer had very small
piece of arable land, for example only 0.1 ha per capita in Northern China Plain. Small farm not
only limit application of some agricultural technology such as deep tillage with good quality
machine, but also reduce the effect of pest and pathogen control. To resolve these problems, STB
tried to find ways to organize small farms into somewhat larger land units. For example, we
encourage and help the farmers in the village to develop farmer cooperative to organize farmers
to use the DH technology. Also, running of farmer cooperative lower the cost of agricultural
production, for example lower the fertilizer price and mechanical cost, and thus further
encourage the use of technology by farmers.
(6) Help farmer hand by hand
To make sure the correct application of DH, the students in STB go into the field to give farmer
hand by hand helping during the growing seasons. Also, the farmer can easily found the students
in the STB to find help.
With these 6 steps: Investigation-Study-Demonstration-Training- Organization and Service, STB
successfully transfer the new technology from scientist to farmer and farmer’ field, and increased
both yield and resource use efficiency of crop production. Due to the contribution of STB model
on high yield and high efficiency agricultural development, it was welcomed by farmer and local
government and finally the number of STB increased from 1 in 2009, to 55 at the end of 2014 in
China.
Future perspectives
STB supply a platform which scientist/students can live, work and communicate with farmers and
actual production with “zero distance”. These not only increase the usability of agricultural
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
57
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
technology, but also accelerate the transfer and use of agricultural new technology. CAU’s STB
experience of 6 years indicates that agricultural university can play an important role in both
agricultural technology innovation and agricultural technology extension.
64. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kirgizstan
The role of agricultural innovation systems (AIS) in developed countries is very significant and is
aimed at improving knowledge and skills of farmers and processors. The question - what is the
role of the AIS in increasing productivity of crops, livestock, processing of agricultural products –
there has been no special studies carried out in Kyrgyzstan, and apparently in Central Asia. The
only exception is a workshop conducted by CACAARI in 2014 in Bishkek, which studied out the
following: what is the situation with AIS in Central Asia, what are the weaknesses, and what are
the opportunities; the regional strategy has been developed on the basis of this information.
Rural extension services have been performing the mission of AIS in Kyrgyzstan since the time of
their establishment. RAS development in Kyrgyzstan is funded by donors and is dependant on
how much they are able to fundraise, this includes introduction of innovations.
There are other NGOs as well, that introduce innovative approaches, but the role of AIS in their
activities is limited by the TOR of the project.
The priorities for AIS shall be: innovations related to irrigation of crops, plant breeding and seed
production, animal breeding, preservation of agricultural biodiversity, use of climate change
adaptive technologies, issues related to food security and nutrition.
In addition to the state support of research, researchers should submit their projects to the
producer’s associations (associations of beet growers, processors association, etc.). Extension
services and researchers should conduct market research of their products. RAS should promote
awareness of farmers and decision-makers on food security and nutrition principles.
In Kyrgyzstan RAS and NGOs working as AIS perform separately and don’t have the country
development strategy. There is a need for a center, which will coordinate their activities, develop
methodological approaches and tools, and perform fundraising activities. It’s advisable to have
such a center based in the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, which is an educational-researchand-production system. It is necessary to involve students into this system, which is a knowledge
management system in the field of agriculture and other multi-disciplinary sectors. This system
involves many NGOs working in the field of ecology, agriculture and rural development, climate
change, food security and nutrition. It is necessary to include in the system organizations in
accordance with the food and seed chain: plant breeder – seed producer – farmer – miller – baker
– consumer (shop).
65. Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan
Innovation Platforms – Room for Partnership
When ICARDA promoted Innovation Platforms (IPs) in the inception workshop in Bishkek in
December last year, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) could see a potential for a
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
58
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
high impact joint collaboration. At the moment, IWMI’s core research portfolio includes
cultivating and promoting Liquorice plant among farmers in the areas of mid and high saline
lands. Liquorice has a vast potential to rehabilitate lands, while providing market benefits for
farmers. Its root can be utilized for pharmaceutical and other industrial purposes, while the plant
itself can be used as cattle feed. But above all, the agrochemical benefits of the plant is what
makes or should make it the most attractive means of bringing the abandoned lands in the
dryland systems back to cultivating.
IPs, as the name itself explains, could play a defining role as a facilitator for innovations, in
particular, regarding the Liquorice, disseminating knowledge generated by IWMI and partners,
while bringing potential beneficiaries of this research together for further discussions. Promotion
of this technology requires joint efforts of multiple interdependent stakeholders who operate in
complex settings, including farmers, development organizations, donors, private sector and
government agencies. There are some institutional barriers hampering development and
competition or conflict is likely to occur. That is when the role of IPs should have a defining
momentum – it should serve as a platform for result oriented discussions and innovative
solutions.
Soon, IWMI starts active promotion of its latest research results regarding the Liquorice and very
much would like to see IPs as an active partner in this process. While IPs itself is a process rather
than anything else, it could potentially be called as a partner-in-process, within the process of
linking research to policy efforts of IWMI.
Dr Jusipbek Kazbekov & Mr Firdavs Kabilov, IWMI
66. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Dr. Hongyan Zhang,
Thanks for your introduction on the STB program of CAU. It seems that the program has
energized great vigor in rural sites of China. We understand that, it is challenging to
institutionalize agricultural extension services to commercial smallholder farmers whose major
farming activity is grain production. As the price of grains is not high, farmers are dampened in
adopting high-yield-high-efficiency technologies as the increased revenue is minor given the small
size of agro-holdings. Rural transformation and emerging off-farm employment forms another
challenging for agricultural extension of grain production. We also learned from other Chinese
colleagues (such as from NAFU) that it is relatively easier to institutionalize extension in cashcrop sector. May you be kind to elaborate bit more about your insights regarding agricultural
extension in grain production in transformed agriculture?
67. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Jusipbek Kazbekov,
Thanks for your contribution to the e-discussion. Your background and experience allows for a
valuable input to the discussion about the coordination mechanism in multi-stakeholder AIS. As
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
59
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
you mentioned, “promotion of this technology requires joint efforts of multiple interdependent
stakeholders who operate in complex settings”. As a CGIAR researcher, how IWMI engages itself
with the national AIS and what are the challenges? It is very important that you addressed “there
are some institutional barriers hampering development and competition or conflict”. Could you
elaborate more about the ‘conflicts’ and possible solutions to overcome the constraints?
68. Maria Losova, China
Dear participants of the forum,
I thank you all for your valuable contributions on the discussed topic. And I agree that AIS could
potentially play a crucial role towards more sustainable food security and nutrition in the CAC.
But the question is either AIS, the way we have it now, does contribute to the food security and
nutrition CAC? And the immediate answer is NO. At the moment in unfortunately doesn’t
contribute at its fullest capacity (it of course varies per country).
Why not?
There are many problems which hinder AIS functioning. All of them were scatterly mentioned in
the forum. The main problems are linked to the changes related to the breakdown of Soviet Union
and all the structural consequences that our countries are facing since then. In particular, many of
those changes have negatively affected innovation production (that concerns research and
academia; the link between research and production); producers (that has shifted from
kolkhozes/sovkhozes towards different categories of farms); the national production priorities
have shifted; and the markets. As said, many of those problems were touched throughout the
forum so I don’t need to go in detail here.
What I am interested in hearing and discussing is the practical solutions how to overcome these
barriers as soon as possible and make AIS contribute to the sustainable food security and
nutrition in the CAC? For example, I eager to know your thoughts about the followings:

How research and education systems have to be reorganized to serve the present-day needs
of newly emerged forms of the agricultural producers, on one hand, and to be self-sufficient as
an institution, on the other hand? How to make agricultural research and education attractive
for the students?
 Given a prevailing number of under-skilled and vulnerable farmers that has emerged in the
past 25 years in CAC, how to link them to the innovations produced by the research institutes,
how to link them to AIS, to the entire food chain, to the experts databases we are discussing
here?
 Who or what institution is to lobby farmers’ interests?
 Why there is no singe example of the strong farmers’ association in any of the post-Soviet
country that would lobby the interests of the farmers on the national level? (as it was in
Netherlands or Belgium 100 years ago)
 Etc.
I would be grateful to hear your considerations in this regard! I strongly believe if we reflect on
those issues and make steps towards overcoming them, we will make AIN contribute to the food
security and nutrition in CAC. At the end of the day, we are not starting from the scretch, we have
a solid basis for it.
Thank you in advance!
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
60
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
69. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Participants,
Let me add to the comment of Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan on 01.06.2015
"Innovation Platforms – Room for Partnership"
Supporting and facilitation of interaction between different actors of innovation system can give
additional dynamic to out-scaling impacts of research and development intervention in
agriculture in Central Asia. To make it possible systems-based efforts are required to deliver
demand-driven technologies to farmers and smallholders. Innovation platform is considered as
one key elements of the CGIAR Research Program on Dryland Systems pursuing a new approach
to integrated and ‘holistic’ agricultural research, since it promotes multi-disciplinary research
through multi-stakeholders approach.
Innovation platform approach to address the issues in Agriculture in CAC region allows to engage
a range of stakeholders into collective actions to identify and alleviate the constraints to
productivity growth and the conditions that enable sustainable intensification and diversification,
and improve the access to quality seed materials, varieties, breeds, data and knowledge, advisory
services, technologies, economic incentives that are needed to enhance the resilience of
smallholder farmers, and rural communities.
This approach is based on participatory planning and multi-disciplinary research and work with
end-users and beneficiaries to test and scale out innovations, technologies, and research methods,
multi-stakeholders dialogue, and foresight mechanisms that also involve partners from the
research, policy, development, production and civil-society sectors.
Innovation Platform facilitates dialogue between the main local players in the value chain:
farmers, input suppliers, traders, transporters, processors, wholesalers, retailers, regulators, and
the research and development institutions. Innovation Platform identifies bottlenecks and
opportunities in production, marketing and the policy environment. Therefore, the Innovation
Platform is recognized by CRP DS stakeholders as an open platform for different players to pursue
technology, institutional and policy options for enhancing productivity and managing risks
through diversification sustainable intensification and integrated agro-eco-system approaches in
DS CRP Action site.
Within CRP DS In December 2014, in Bishkek, we have organized the Innovation Platform
workshop for research organisations, local governments, development partners, civil society, as
well as representatives from farmers’ community in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan) to jointly explore the possibilities of applying Agricultural Innovation Systems
perspectives and Innovation Platform approaches in their respective countries.
As results of the workshop


A common understanding of Agricultural Innovation Systems and Innovation Platforms
was created
Types of stakeholders in the Agricultural Innovation System within the research sites
were identified
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
61



The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Opportunities and constraints to agricultural innovation and development were identified
Entry points for action for establishing Innovation Platforms in the three countries were
discussed and agreed
Intervention frameworks at country level a joint strategy and action plan were developed.
70. Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
Dear Prof.Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov,
Thank you for your questions and the idea for sharing the good practices.
I would like to also thank the organizer, especially Chairman Guram Aleksidze, and Dr. Botir
Dosov for their efforts to invite youth to have their voice been heard in this discussion, and
Prof.Jia Xiangping for his tremendous input to motive Chinese participants in this global
discussion. I was once coordinator of an online discussion in e-agriculture, I know how much we
need to do to motivate Chinese experts, researchers, students to join international digital
communication. Each time, when an online discussion is organized, the participation of Chinese
professional moves one step forward. So, thank you all.
Then response to your questions:
CSA adopted Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) accredited by International Federation of
Organic Farm Movements (IFOAM); PGS is locally focused quality assurance systems. They certify
producers based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust,
social networks and knowledge exchange.
There aren’t special public agricultural S&T extension services in eco-agriculture or CSA from the
national level. The main technical advisory services are provided by the operators who received
advanced education in agricultural universities and accumulated knowledge in learning by doing.
Another way of technical services is communication and sharing through CSA network, like the
annual CSA conference and training organized by the Little Donkey Farm. So from this aspect, we
can see the gap in AIS.
The Little Donkey Farm received an average income of 30,000 RMB per mu much higher benefits
than common farm relying on its diversified functions. In addition to production, Little Donkey
Farm also provides multiple agriculture-centered services including education, entertainment,
sightseeing, and experiencing opportunities. All in all, it is a bold try in making the suburban
agriculture a tertiary industry. There isn't statistic about the proportion of benefits used for
technical services, but the high benefit and the idea of eco-ag can motivate the operators to
improve the technics.
CSA can be a win-win model for urban and suburb area. It’s experience in linking producers with
consumers, rural tourism, filed visit and the return for rural development, can be extended. Such
exploration is of great significance to China’s efforts in solving the problems of agriculture,
farmers and rural areas and actually contributes to the social welfare in a more profound way.
I appreciate the idea to organize side event for good practice sharing as I think it’s a very practical
way to learn those successful cases which share similar background status and challenges.
There’re also some other youth innovative ways of participation in agriculture, like the
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
62
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
specialized production and modern logistics, eco-friendly agriculture and tourism in remote
areas, e-commercial agriculture, etc. We need to draw a new image for agriculture then those
excellent professionals, including youth and social capital can join and work for agriculture
towards a sustainable development.
71. Hongyan Zhang, China Agricultutre University, China
Dear Prof. Jia Xiangping,
Thanks a lot for your response and I agree with you that it is indeed a big challenge to enhance
agricultural extension efficiency in grain production area, especially the smallholder farm where
grain production only contribute small part of their income and most of farmer are part time
farmers. However, considering the challange of food security situation in China, we had no choice
to face to and resolve this problem. There are several ways, to my opinion, to resolve this
problem. Firstly, the DH technologies the researchers studied and introduced to the farmer’s
should not only can increase the yield and lower the input, but also should be easier, simple, and
timesaving. Secondly, the activities for transformation of technology to farmer, for example
training, should be free of charge and arranged at the suitable time and place, and with correct
ways which is convenient for farmer, especially the part-time farmer to take part in. Thirdly,
socialized service system or farmer cooperative should be established with the strong support of
the government to supply timely and cheaper service, such as agricultural machinery service
which can save both time and money of farmer. Finally, the establishment of the mechanism that
farmer can easily got service during the whole crop growing season is very important.
Ensuring food security is the more task of the government than the farmers, especially small
holder farmers. Therefore the government should, in future, pay more attention and give more
financial support to encourage more and more public welfare department and people such as
scientists from university and institute to think, study and work closely with farmers to enhance
the DH technology transformation and finally resolve the problems.
Thanks again for your response.
72. Ovezdurdy Dzhumadurdyev, Project Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan
Food imports by developing countries, those that have enough water and land resources, is one of
the challenges for AIS. Import means that cost of local production is much higher than of imported
products. The reason is that they don’t use agricultural scientific achievements and high
technologies.
In some cases local producers when competing with importers try to reduce production costs by
means of excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Excessive amounts of fertilizers act like solvents.
They dissolve and wash out ancient natural reserves of nitrogen in soils. When soil loses its
fertility, it becomes more dependent on chemical fertilizers. Therefore excessive use of
nitrogenous fertilizers is also a challenge for AIS. AIS should provide support for local
manufacturers in their unequal contest with competitors.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
63
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
The proposal is to establish AIS. Therefore, it requires demand. However challenges are not a
demand. We can speak of a demand, when consumers are ready to pay. Demand is born in a
certain situation. Without adequate situation there is no prerequisite to establish AIS. Situations
in the region differ, therefore the priorities for AIS in the region will not be the same. In some
areas situations are being created, and in others there is still no adequate situation for
prerequisites of AIS. Perhaps, for this reason it is needed to work out individual steps on the basis
of the 7 regional steps.
73. Youguo Tian, National agritech extension and service center, Ministry of
Agriculture, China
Hi, Dear All,
I am really happy to be here to exchange ideas about agrotech extension. I learnt alot from what
you friends have discussed.
First of all, I would like to introduce a little bit about myself and my oganization. I am Tian youguo
from China, now am working in National Agrotech Extension and Service Center（NATESC）,
Ministry of Agriculture. I am the division director of National Agrotech Extension System
Management in NATESC, MOA, China.
NATESC is a governmental organization under MOA, which has 4 main sections technically, Soil
and Fertilizer, Plant Protection, Seeds and Agronomy. Besides of propose of related policy
suggestion and its investigation and drafting, and executing of the detailed rules for law
implementation, international agrotech and scientific exchange program, the main role of NATESC
is Running technical projects pertaining to cropping management in china, mainly through
demonstration and experiments, famers day and other ways. In recent years, NATESC system has
focused on organizing and extending new varieties of grain crop, fruits and vegetables, and a large
number of advanced and applicable technologies such as throwing transplantation rice, formula
fertilization by soil testing, disease and pest monitoring and integrated management, facility
agriculture, creating high yield grain and oil crops, which made an important contribution to
promoting agricultural science and technology, improving the quality of agricultural products,
increasing production, ensuring food security, increasing farmers income and enhancing the
comprehensive agricultural production capacity.
There are about 31000 agrotech extension agencies of crop cultivation in China, of which 29 000
are at grass-roots. There are 13 people at county level on average and 8 at the township and
village level on average. The agencies at different levels organize new technology trial
demonstrate and extend and implement key projects in their respective fields.
Speaking of working system, we have 300,000 stuff in total, nationwide from central government
level to the township level. In the past several decades, they played a really important role in the
aspect of food security and farmers income increasing in China. Of course, Chinese government
made very difficulty efforts to its buildup and its maintenance, including building, working facility,
traffic tools, and training, etc.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
64
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
However, situation is changing very fast in the last 10 to 15 years. First of all, More and more
young famers are trying to work in the city and some even move to live in the urban area. Every
year there is about 8 million people shift from countryside to the city and most of them are young
men.
Secondly, Small scale famers are still in a majority place in China, but there are already 870,000
family based farms and 1.29 million co-ops nationwide. That means more and more middle scale
even large scale farmers are increasing.
Thirdly, there are hundreds of thousands individual organization are emerging, which provide
various service to farmers beside of the governmental extension system.
Therefore, how to adapt to the new situation and provide better services to farmers are a new
challenge for the public organization like NATESC. Many explore and attempt are tried and made
good success. However, there is still a long way to go on this, including learn from experts and
experience overseas.
Expect to exchange more and in deeper discussion in the sooner future. Welcome you friends visit
China someday so that we can learn from each other and then put forward the extension more
efficient and successful.
All best wishes, Tian Youguo
74. Nabira Jumabaeva, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Uzbekistan
If I understood correctly, Dr. B.Dosov in his commentary lamented the fact that discussion
participants did not mention anything about scientific achievements by scolars and farmers of
countries that took part in the online consultation.
I, as representative of the Scientific Center, would like to say something on the role of agricultural
research in innovation processes.
President of Uzbekistan Mr. Islam Karimov once said that "our main priority or main strategic
task, we understand, is achievement of clearly defined objective which is to gain our rightful place
on the global market which is determined by natural and raw, even the geographical features of the
country, its human, demographic and intellectual potential" that has been identified as main
strategic task of country development.
Without doubt, innovation and knowledge-based economy and the innovation economy play a key
role to achieve that goal. Research data shows that in developed countries innovation industry
generates 75% of GDP growth.
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan №PP-916 dated 15 July 2008 "On additional
measures to stimulate development and implementation of innovative projects and technologies in
production" had proposed a new system of national science in close relation with production,
system of views over role and importance of science in ensuring the independence and prosperity
of Uzbekistan as well as governance principles on mechanism of state regulation of innovative
activities.
After approval of that Decree and a number of other government decisions, Uzbekistan has
achieved significant progress in innovation development. It is well known that Uzbekistan has a
substantial intellectual potential, and is famous for achievements of its scientists in the field of
fundamental and applied science.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
65
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
One of the priorities of national economy is development of agriculture. Therefore, research
activities carried out by scientific institutions in agricultural sector are relevant and in demand.
Currently, there are 16 major research institutes in the country (as well as more than 100 structural
units of those institutions that are located in all regions of Uzbekistan and Karakalpakstan) that are
involved in research of all topics in the agricultural sector of Uzbekistan. The scientific potential is
represented by 58 doctors and 176 candidates of science, and 3 of them are female doctors and 33
female candidates of science.
Taking into account that today a priority task all over the world is to ensure food security of each
country, I would like to mention results achieved by our scientists in this field.
During independence years more than 30 varieties of wheat have developed, as well as
recommendations for growing and placing those crops that produce 70-80 hundredweights of
grain taking into account climatic conditions of local regions. As a result, over the years of
independence, grain yield in the country increased by an average of 2.4 times. Also, scientists of
our research institutions established selection of pome, stone fruit, nut crops. As an outcome, more
than 170 new varieties of fruit and grapes have been created. Over the past 3 years on research and
evidence-based intensive technologies intensive growing gardens on more than 22 thousand
hectares have been created.
Selection vegetable experts developed 64 varieties of vegetables, 18 melons, 9 varieties and hybrids
of potatoes, 6 varieties of tomatoes to be grown at greenhouse, 15 outdoor varieties, 4 varieties of
onions, 3 varieties of carrots. Selection work on non-traditional crops such as vegetable soybeans,
lettuce, radish and many others is underway. These varieties are very popular among farming
enterprises and are sown on an area of over 350 thousand hectares.
In addition, such breeds of cattle as Kora-ola, Qizil chul, Schwyz and Bushuyev have been
regionalized in the country. Selection scientists have created a line of longhaired breeds of goats
“Zhundor", highly productive Hissar sheep breeds "Keng Gusar"and "Hush Bahor".
For a wider implementation of research outcomes into production, in accordance with government
decisions, annually Republican fair of innovative ideas, technologies and projects has been
conducted in the country. This year, during the eighth in a row Fair, agricultural research and
educational institutions made presentations about over 80 new innovations. Among them are new
crop varieties, high technologies, machinery and many others. At the end of the fair, farmers of the
country signed more than 640 contracts worth of over 4.1 billion soums.
Of course, such work in intensive innovative mode is in need for both qualitatively and
quantitatively improvement of key factors that ensure scientific and innovative processes,
including volumes and forms of financing, organization of science and its personnel, material and
technical resources, information, technical and patent systems and their focus on market
innovation. Unfortunately, not all problems are solved successfully. As a finance specialist, I would
like to highlight following:
- Absence of a clearly structured legal framework for implementation of all stages of innovation
activities and state support, including direct (government funding) and indirect (tax preferences,
state guarantees, etc.) mechanisms, as well as legal framework regulating conditions for creation of
enterprises and relations norms between entities of innovation infrastructure;
- Undeveloped special financial mechanisms over support of specific components of innovation
infrastructure, innovation entrepreneurship and self-innovation projects, namely funds of venture
financing (venture capital funds);
- Weakness of cooperation links between research organizations, educational institutions and
industrial enterprises;
- Shortage of highly qualified personnel;
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
66
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
- Lack of development of contemporary forms of innovation management and commercialization
of innovations;
However, as practice shows, the chosen path of development of the economy is a precondition for
the country's effective innovation economy. There is still much to be achieved in this regard, and
such online discussions help to find answers on many questions, to share ideas with colleagues,
learn from someone else's experience, not to repeat mistakes.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the organizers and participants.
75. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
Dear Dr. Youguo TIAN,
As the co-facilitator of the FSN E-forum, I am thankful to your participation and contribution. The
transition of RAS in China, together with the experience and lessons, is highly relevant and
valuable to CAC countries because of the similarity of political structure in history, although the
endowment of resources and social & economic structure are distinct. This is one of the
motivation to position CAC and China together at the FSN E-forum. RAS in developing countries
evolves under a backdrop of rural transformation.
The Chinese case – aging and feminine agricultural labors and emerging large farm through
various ways of land consolidation – is not exceptional and might be happening in CAC and other
regions. Therefore, comparative studies between CAC and China on agricultural innovation
systems (AIS) are highly valuable to policymakers and international development agencies. It
seems that NATESC is experiencing a dramatic change in meeting these challenges, and the
process is discovery and open-end. We hope that the E-forum provides network for further
exchange and collaboration between NATESC and others.
76. Karin Reinprecht, CGIAR CRP Dryland Systems, Jordan
Dear discussion participants,
If given the same opportunities and support as men, women can be equally productive in
agriculture as men – this is not only common sense, but has been also shown by research (e.g.
FAO 2008). Agricultural extension is such an opportunity, which is central to enhancing
agricultural productivity, but often not equally accessible to women. In Central Asia, feminization
of agriculture can be observed (in World Bank 2012), which sees women taking a central role in
agriculture due to male labour migration. CRP Dryland Systems does research on extension
services targeting women in farming as well as men in East- and West Africa, and India, but I
wondered, if there is research in Central Asia currently done on different needs and interests of
male and female farmers, on the best aproaches for addressing women’s needs in agriculture
through extension, or on the types of services (also information about finance, markets, etc),
which would be most useful to female farmers?
Thank you very much,
Karin Reinprecht, Gender & Youth Program Coordinator in CRP Dryland Systems
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
67
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
77. Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kirgizstan
Proposals on the issues under discussion:
What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and
China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
1.
Growth of world population, and therefore the need to increase world food production;
2.
Global climate change, and therefore the need to adapt agriculture to climate change;
3.
Deterioration of food quality, due to environmental non-compliance and wide use of GMO.
What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support
farmers in for improving their livelihood?
1.
Use of innovative technologies that are available to rural producers (low-cost);
2.
Consolidation of farmers / farms (cooperatives);
3. To establish service stations to ensure mechanization of planting, application of chemicals,
chemical treatment, etc.
4.
To establish veterinary service stations;
5.
Animal identification.
What kind of actions is needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them
conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
1. Setting priorities for agricultural research. The first priority should be given to agricultural
technologies that bring high returns at little additional cost;
2. Increase amounts of state financing of agricultural research, and attraction of investment
projects;
3. Dissemination of knowledge on the use of innovative technologies to be added to the function
of the Ministry of Agriculture.
What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education
organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between
academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and rural
communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?
1.
Consolidation of education and science at the premises of agricultural universities;
2. Developing a base at agricultural universities (extension centre) for dissemination of
knowledge;
3. Strengthening the role of RAS, especially in rural areas. However, RAS consultants should be
trained to use innovative technologies in agricultural extension service centres, and subsequently
should train / advise farmers;
4. To establish research-and-production demonstration sites to demonstrate available
innovative technologies to farmers (low cost, availability of agricultural machinery);
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
68
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
5. To expand international exchange of experience on extension services and exchange of best
agricultural technologies.
Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University
78. Courtney Paisley YPARD, Italy
The importance of having youth input into new strategies for Central Asia, China and all other
countries/regions cannot be understated. To create systems whereby the youth are interested
and committed to becoming involved in agriculture, they must be involved in priority setting.
Agricultural innovation systems must make provisions for youth inclusion and input if they are to
create any sustainable change.
We know that in many countries decisions are taken by leaders at the highest level without
inclusion of other groups. These are not inclusive and can never make real revolutions in the food
system that impacts all of those who are part of it. Interesting discussion and thanks to Botir
Dosov, who has been calling upon young professionals to contribute to this discussion.
79. Guljahan Kurbanova, FAO, Russia
Dear Colleagues,
I wish to participate int he discussions on the referenced topic since it is really very important for
increasing agricultural production and improving livelihood of millions of people.
It requires more and more attention in our region and globally. The region is very diverse in
terms of economic development, the structure of agriculture, climate conditions and farming
systems. In addition it is under impact of external factors and international trends. The type agrotechnology as well as its level differs depending on financial situation, knowledge, experience and
historical traditions. Taking into account the trends, limited natural resources, environmental
issues as well as climate change there is a need to re-consider ways for improvement of farming
for increasing production, farmers and consumers. Countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA)
have enough food to meet the needs of their entire populations. However, future stable
agricultural production and provision of food security face the regional problems such as an
unequal distribution of income by countries, existence of environmental issues, vulnerability to
climate change, limited natural resources and their degradation, and volatility of economic and
financial trends. An innovative approach is required for dealing with diverse, flexible and specific
needs of technologies and their management depending on specific of locations for possible
transformation to Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA offers an opportunity and a mission to move
into next phase in the sector. It is a challenge for all stakeholders, scientific community, farmers,
extension agencies and industry to understand opportunities, and calls for strategies different
from those we have adopted over past decades in conventional agriculture.
The above said is one of topics for further knowledge and information sharing in order to extend
capacity of farmers and other stakeholders. I would suggest to have it for the workshops/
conference in near future.
Many thanks, Jahan
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
69
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
80. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan
Dear Colleagues, dear friends!
This online discussion was in itself an "innovation" for the rural advisory services in the region.
Indeed, it created a collective knowledge and basis for planning, design, implementation and
monitoring of efficiency and sustainability of new programs and initiatives on fostering
Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in the region.
This cross-regional online discussion has engaged in dialogue different stakeholders from
countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China and, even beyond that. We discussed the
major challenges and bottlenecks faced by AIS in the region of CAC and China. Participants
proposed a wide range of systemic actions to enhance agricultural research and extension
services and make them conducive to food security and improved nutrition. All your valuable
contributions will be carefully analyzed, summarized and presented to you very shortly.
The outcomes of this online-discussion will feed into face-to-face consultation on the Roadmap to
enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual
Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. Besides, the summary will be widely
circulated among stakeholders in the region.
I sincerely believe that the discussion really helped to catalyze the cooperation between CAC and
China in the field of agricultural education, science and extension. In near future we are planning
to initiate joint projects in countries of CAC and China. I think that other regional and global
initiatives will also benefit from the results of this discussion.
I would like to thank you all for your contributions and making this discussion successful! My
special thanks go to the team of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition for hosting
and moderating this online-discussion.
Sincerely, Botir Dosov
81. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China
After five weeks, the online discussion “The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC
countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition” is closing. As the cofacilitator, I am thankful to all the participants from CAC, China, and other regions.
As announcing at the beginning, the E-discussion does not aim to demystify AIS or to identify its
core aspects (as there are many resources available). Nor does the E-discussion aim to provide a
full-package of recommendation and cure-all solutions (as we suspect any one-size-fill-all
panacea). Instead, the E-discussion expects to create a community for practitioners, policymakers,
and researchers to understand and to exchange thoughts of the complexity and dynamics of AIS in
CAC and China. We hope, in the pluralistic system, each of the stakeholders is able to argue and
voice. The possible ‘confusion’ or ‘discordance’ is necessary as it is valuable to call for cautious
and integrated interventions on AIS at both the national and the global level.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
70
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
There are great similarities and distinction in RAS between CAC and China in terms of political
structure and institutional environment. The public sector plays an important role and the
government is responsible to deliver rural advisory services. Meanwhile, the public sector is
facing great challenges in rural transformation and a variety of alternatives of RAS providers are
emerging (such as the private sector and civil society). Both CAC and China should prioritize
conductive policies and an integrated framework to further decentralize planning and financing
of RAS and to frame private presence in RAS for public interests. In China, the legal framework
starts to agree with the fact that RAS becomes pluralistic and dynamic; the central role of the
public sector is to focus on services for the public interests. In addition, the value of civil society,
such as agricultural universities, is highly recognized in the legal framework and they become
more and more active.
The E-discussion indeed aims to establish a window and network for future collaboration
between CAC countries and China under the “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. First, more
public and private investment should to be directed from China to CAC in strengthening
infrastructure and AIS at the local level. Second, the establishment of agrofood chain between CAC
and China allows for agricultural producers’ accessing to an improved and expanded market.
Given the emerging demand for high-quality food and agricultural products in urbanized China,
the potentials for such a value-added chain is tremendously large. Lastly, a regional network
between CAC and China is crucial in strengthening capacities of RAS actors.
The major learning from this E-discussion is to institutionalize future innovations of RAS into
existing structure. Both CAC and China established a hierarchical authority of public RAS. Given
the institutional inertia, future innovations must be embedded within such a structure, rather
than an intended replacement of or increment onto it. In addition, where decentralized public
funding (such as buy-in services or contracting RAS with government) becomes feasible or being
practiced as pilots, regulatory framework and monitoring & evaluation should be integrated.
Finally, the role of agricultural universities was intensively discussed through this E-discussion. In
the region of CAC and China, agricultural universities become a major stakeholder in the
pluralistic system. The triangle nexus ‘Research-Education-Extension” accredits agricultural
universities natural merits. However, agricultural universities are facing great challenges in
institutionalizing themselves into the existing structure in CAC and China.
The E-discussion ends up with a wealthy knowledge of AIS and pending questions. It also inspires
great passion and seeds future collaborations. Thanks for all the participants and also FAO who
organizes this online discussion.
Prof. Dr. Xiangping JIA, Northwest A & F University, China
82. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues,
CACAARI Secretariat thanks all of you for your priceless efforts on increasing the productivity of
e-discussion from the very beginning of the event. Special words of gratitude are addressed to the
organizers and facilitators for hosting e-discussion on a high, professional level. They
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
71
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
accomplished a dazzling work the outcomes of which will undoubtedly be used for correspondent
purposes.
The founding approach on the extra attention on Agro Innovation Systems was initiated by Global
Forum of Agricultural Research (GFAR). It should be clearly stated that GFAR’s focus is on the role
of agricultural knowledge and innovation in achieving development impacts. This relates directly
to ensuring the effective governance and operation of systems of agricultural research for
development (agricultural innovation) globally. The evidence gathered for GCARD 1
demonstrates that these systems require transformation and strengthening at all levels (national,
regional, global) if they are to deliver at the scale required for their intended goals. The current
message is in the process of delivery to the stakeholders (e-consultations) which is truly relevant
not only to CAC region alone, but also to China as both of them have typically identical constraints
in using Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS).
There are some summarizing notes worth attention to made on the basis of all participants’ views
and comments on emphasizing the role of AIS in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus region and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition.




First of all, sustainable agriculture for achieving food security needs to be an explicit
component of countries’ national development strategies, including the identification of
financial resources to expand rural infrastructure and support services to small-scale
agricultural producers. A holistic, cross-sectorial approach should consider trade-offs and
build on synergies between sectors and objectives, to prioritize and promote technically
available and economically feasible win-win options that ensure food security, poverty
reduction and environmental sustainability.
Secondly, there is a need to substantially expand resources for agricultural research and
development and for the adaptation of technology to local conditions, with an explicit
focus on meeting the needs of small-scale farmers, including women in CAC region and
China.
Thirdly, new forms of public-private partnerships, including civil society organizations,
need to be identified to expand the provision of public goods in rural areas.
And fourthly, the institutions responsible for service provision in rural areas (including
education, and research and development/R&D) will need to undergo radical reform to
make them responsive to the needs of small-scale rural producers through direct
participation and consultation between small-scale producers and relevant stakeholders
with the support of AIS in CAC region and China.
In conclusion, it should be recapitulated that the event provided the background for an effective
start for further development of AIS on national and regional levels.
With kind regards,
Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI Executive Secretary
83. Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman, Georgia
Dear participants, colleagues, friends,
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
72
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
On behalf of CACAARI forum, let me express my sincere gratitude for your active participation
and involvement in the e-discussion by stressing the importance of Agricultural Innovation
Systems in ensuring food security and nutrition. Additionally, the whole process of organizing and
facilitating this event is a great merit of the organizers and facilitators respectively with the
sufficient assist of whom we can notice various number of opinions provision and an eventual
knowledge exchange within CAC region and China which was an ornamentation of the ediscussion throughout its duration.
On the basis of the discussion conducted, it should be mentioned that ensuring food security over
the longer-term requires major policy transformations to strengthen systems of agricultural
innovation and increase resources for rural development and sustainable natural resource
management for CAC region and China. This will require a radically different approach to address
the structural constraints on food production and nutrition. It would entail both the
establishment of integrated national frameworks for sustainable natural resource management,
and a harnessing of the technology and innovation needed to increase the productivity,
profitability, resilience and climate change potential mitigation of rural production systems
considering the specifics of CAC region and China. It can be concluded that governments thus have
an important role to play in expanding access to technology and information; building rural
infrastructure; improving access to credits, input and product markets; building and maintaining
storage facilities and irrigation systems; providing social safety nets; and securing property
rights, including land redistribution. In this endeavor, it is wise to summarize that Agricultural
Innovation Systems (AIS) provide a useful framework for policy making, emphasizing policies and
incentives to stimulate innovation to increase food productivity and consequently protecting the
environment. AIS recognize the dynamic nature of learning and innovation, the multiplicity of
actors engaged in the innovation process and the institutional contexts within which they
interact.
It can be firmly stated that the outcomes of this e-discussion should have a logical continuation in
the face of attempting to implement the all required suggestions and proposals for the eventual
wellbeing of the food security and nutrition with the great support of AIS within CAC region and
China.
Thank you for spending your valuable time to contribute for bring the topicality of Agricultural
Innovation Systems to a next stage of development.
I would like to express my special thanks to FSN Forum for facilitating this fruitful onlinediscussion.
With best regards,
Academ. Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
73
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Digest No1 (18.05.2015)
Dear Participants,
We would like to share with you Digest №1 of the online discussion “The role
of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition”. The discussion
was launched by the FAO Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and
Central Asia on 6 May and will be open until 31 May 2015.
It is a pleasure for us to welcome 38 new FSN Forum members from 20
countries and also to thank the contributors from Uzbekistan, China, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, India and Canada who already provided their valuable opinions and
recommendations to this topic.
It is worth mentioning that the interest in this online discussion goes beyond the region.
Many experts from various backgrounds have expressed their interest on this topic and there
have already been some 620 hits on the web-site from 65 countries all around the globe.
For this Digest, the co-facilitators of the discussion – Prof. Xiangping Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov –
have kindly provided their observations on the mid-term results of the discussion.
And indeed, we look forward to receiving more comments and actively engage with you
during the next two weeks. To post your comment or to read the comments received until
now in Russian, English or Chinese, please visit the web-site: www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
Sincerely Yours, FSN Forum Team
Prof. Xiangping Jia
1. Significance of AIS
The importance of training and education.
Agricultural education and training (ATE) on especially the youth and women
has been neglected in CAC region and China. ATE enhances the capacity of
farmers and rural SME for sustainable intensification and access to markets.
Second, ATE facilitates rural transformation and reduce rural-urban inequality
by empowering rural people with the ability of engaging in off-farm employment
opportunities (Г-н Rustam Ibragimov).
The definition and principle of Agricultural Innovation System (AIS).
AIS is a network that unites multiple stakeholders (enterprises, government, academia,
farmers) in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organizations into
agricultural production. AIS is not to supply ‘science’ but promote interactions among
stakeholders, and eventually produce economic, social, institutional, and cultural values
(Botir Dosov).
2. Challenges in CAC region and China, and prioritized actions
The challenges and problems in agriculture in CAC region are partly legacy of history.
However, it is critical to overcome the problems by taking new opportunities such as being
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
74
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
more market-oriented, income diversification, and adaptation to climate change. AIS is
important to facilitate such a transformation (Botir Dosov).
In the Chinese context, ecological agriculture and certification to quality and safety are
emerging in recent years. However, the market structure is biased towards large statesubsidized agrofood companies and small farmers are excluded. Institutional innovations are
needed for being inclusive (Zhenzhong Si).
Lack for communications and collaborations in a coordinated framework for the AIS
programs. The existing actions are fragmented. As such, a united and integrated framework of
institutions (including regulations and legislation) is prioritized. Second, reaching the ‘last
mile’ and establishing a better framework between farmers and researchers becomes highly
important (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).
3. The role and constraints of agricultural universities in AIS, and institutional
innovations
In CAC region, the national agricultural research system faces challenges of capacity building
on young professionals. AIS is underfunded in CAC region. In additional to this major
constraints, the poor linkage between resource and production greatly undermines the value
of knowledge and technologies (Shaibek Karasartov).
Research and production are disconnected and research institutes “thrust” their knowledge
to farmers without meeting multiple needs (such as risk, poverty, malnutrition, and income
(Subhash Mehta).
There is little innovative modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders
and the major obstacles are organizational, informational, financial (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).
In CAC and Central Asia, the national agricultural research and agriculture system has been
weakened, such as outflow of quality scientists and underfinancing. The problems are
exacerbated further by poorly coordinated and implemented research and actions (ranging
from planning to monitoring). Agricultural universities also have the constraints of not being
cross-disciplinary (Alisher Tashmatov).
Dr. Botir Dosov
Given the current and emerging challenges for further sustainable
development population growth, climate change, their implications for
agriculture and food security system on one hand, and specific current
constrains in region: such as land degradation, over-exploitation of natural
resources, irrigation, wind and soil erosions, price volatility, and etc. on the
other hand require the reorientation of agricultural livelihoods systems towards
sustainable and efficient development "producing more with less".
In this regards, the role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus
countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition and improved
livelihoods is critical.
Endeavors towards only focusing agricultural science on farmers' needs and addressing
yields gap is not enough, as agricultural system has not only the economic dimension, but also
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
75
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
social one. Therefore, Agricultural innovation system is effectively functioning when
producers, processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services,
universities, input providers, government bodies, market and other players are interacting to
produce additional value through new organizational forms of production, new products,
new approaches and innovative mind-set.
Participants of the online-discussion have been highlighting wide range of challenges and
priority areas for enhancing and promoting AIS:

Food security elements: availability, accessibility and utilization.

Capacity: education and training, innovative capacity.

Social groups: women, youth, smallholders, vulnerable groups, marginal.

Socio-economic: livelihoods and well-being.

Health: nutrition, synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Institutional: low interactions, poor linkages of intervention with national development
goals and trends, institutional constraints, poor coordination within AIS.

Production and productivity: livestock, crop systems, forestry, land and water use,
organic agriculture, yield gaps, undeveloped processing and marketing infrastructure.

Ecosystems: land degradation (salinity, soil and water erosions).

Regulatory framework: equitable land and water use and rights, conducive institutional
and regulatory framework supporting AIS.

System elements and components: research, extension, education, government support,
markets.

System unsustainability and inefficiency: low investments to research and RAS system,
productivity-oriented food system, absence or poor planning system, obsolete materialtechnical (logistic) base of research institutions and academia.

Knowledge platform: absence of or unripe agro-information systems, low engagement of
universities in RAS and FSN issues.

Approaches, models, best practices, good practices: farm schools, community enterprise
system, green food" and "hazard-free food", more sustainable and ecologically friendly
system, “short food supply chains”.

Particular issues: synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Extending (regional, global, non-agricultural) issues: "problems of the current food
system is far beyond the agricultural sector", Climate change, trans-boundary diseases,
foreign trades distortions and price disparity, transition process implications, poor
transport and communication infrastructure at national and regional level, poor
insurance systems, low efficiency of trade-offs between production and consumptions.
It should be noted that those challenges and ways to address them are isolated and need
comprehensive, cohesive and perhaps stepwise approach.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
76
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Digest No2 (28.05.2015)
Dear Participants,
Digest №2 offers you an overview of the online discussion “The role of
Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition” for the period
from 16 to 25 of May.
We welcome new participants and thank all of you, for your contributions to this rich
discussion!
The discussion is moving towards a true inter-regional dialogue in three languages.
Knowledge and experience are shared among interested experts who would normally have
little chance to meet or talk to each other due to the distance or the language divide.
The co-facilitators of this discussion – Prof. Xiangping Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov – have prepared
their observations and proposed some ideas to discuss for the final week.
To post your comment in Russian, English or Chinese and to get know what your colleagues
from other countries shared last week we welcome you to visit the web-site:
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en.
Sincerely Yours, FSN Forum Team
Prof. Xiangping Jia
1. Significance of AIS
CAC region and China are facing similar challenges in agriculture, such as
agricultural intensification and declined resource for a sustainability,
diversified agriculture and challenges of climate change (Subhash Mehta).
There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation
between CAC and China through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The
ones related to RAS emerge through regional development programs (such as rural
infrastructure investment and "demonstration park" of agricultural technology), private
investments (in agro-chemical inputs, agro-food supply chain, and land market), and
academic collaborations. Being designed and implemented within a systematic framework,
OBOR potentially plays an important role in not only knowledge exchange but also a
formation of regional network in directing public and private investment in enhancing AIS in
the region (Xiangping JIA).
2. Challenges in CAC region and China, and prioritized actions
Research, education and extension are disconnected with each other in reality. For the
triangle relationship, it is important to “make sure research and education [are] linked from
bottom to up” (Oyture Anarbekov).
Being institutionalized in positive and negative way, incentive and motivation are driving and
deterrent forces. It is very important to structure incentive mechanism in AIS (Botir Dosov).
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
77
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
AIS faces diversified stakeholders, and ‘the target groups’ have different interests and
abilities. In consequence, the organizational forms of AIS have to be flexible and dynamic to
be responsive and adaptive (Anastasiya Lebedeva).
More considerations are needed to make government play a pro-active role in creating a
favorable environment for AIS (Jamshid Fayziev).
Community-based companies that are staffed by professionals potentially play a role in
enhancing value-adding of the agro-food chain and dealing with risks through group
insurance or credit (Subhash Mehta).
Lengthy approval/permit process of innovations hinders the quick application of
technologies in field. Prioritized areas should be smallholder centered policies and education
on the youth (Eren TASKIN).
3. The role and constraints of agricultural universities in AIS, and institutional
innovations
Academic staffs and scientists in agricultural universities are respected people in the
community and therefore are the sources of advice, information or new technology. However,
it is challenge for university scientists to combine the “book knowledge” with the practical
application in field (Elena Kan).
Insufficient communication between academia and the rural society is pervasive. While the
academia has not been formally institutionalized into RAS, existing practices are often on the
individual base; scientists voluntarily conduct extension and give farmers advices through
direct personal cooperation. However, it is not easy because good practices of agricultural
extension requires good communication skills; this is especially challenging for scientists who
work mainly in laboratories (Eren TASKIN).
Sincerely, Xiangping Jia
Dr. Botir Dosov
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for the active participation in our online discussion
that day by day is becoming more interesting.
Taking into account your comments and views, as well as the goals and
objectives of this online discussion, I have tried to portray what could be a
model of efficient Agricultural Innovation Systems in the Central Asia and the
Caucasus countries, as well as China in ensuring food security and nutrition and improving
livelihoods. I have gotten a very multi-compound scheme, which you can find in the attached
file. To make this scheme friendlier I decided to add a bit of creativity.
The clouds, or threats, such as climate change and the population growth, represent the
challenges for future of rural and agricultural population, including households with low
income and vulnerable populations. By agriculture, I mean all sectors, for example, crops,
livestock, fisheries, etc.
The main components of an innovation system are:
1. rural advisory services,
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
78
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
2. agricultural research system
3. agricultural education system
4. agro-information system.
It is also necessary to have available resources: financial, operational, technological, natural
and human, as well as the state support, which could be compared with the importance of the
sun in life on earth. In our case, the government support is an important component for
effective AIS, including agricultural research, advisory services and education. The public and
private sector as well as donors, together play a crucial role in the development of
infrastructure.
You can also see a man on the draw as the main driving force, which is necessary for the
efficient functioning of the system that ensures cooperation and coordination.
With an agricultural productivity growth across value chains, yields and profitability of the
overall system will increase and result in generation of additional capital that can be
reinvested in agriculture. This process will be accompanied by agricultural "technologization"
with back up of innovation development.
Sincerely,
Botir Dosov
Closure message (10.06.2015)
Dear Colleagues,
This is a closure message for the online discussion “The role of Agricultural
Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards
more sustainable food security and nutrition” that ran during the last five weeks
on the regional platform of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and
Nutrition.
Our sincere thanks go to all of you for the active participation and the open exchange of
views!
We are very happy to inform you that this E-discussion has been very interactive and has
harvested 83 comprehensive contributions coming from 48 experts. Views came from
participants with the most diverse affiliations such as ministries of agriculture, scientific and
research institutions, high education and post-graduate institutions, international and interregional organizations and initiatives, developing programmes, farmer’s organizations,
extension services organizations, youth organizations, associations, private companies and
individuals. The geographical scope of participants was wide, drawing from 18 countries of
different regions as well as from developed and developing economies. People from 73
countries visited the discussion’s webpage and above 10 000 people received information on
the discussion. We were pleased to see a near-perfect gender and age balance among the
participants who have taken part in the discussion; roughly 35 per cent of women and 10 per
cent of young professionals. Additionally, some participants have kindly shared several
analytical documents for further reading.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
79
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
This discussion turned out to be truly inter-regional multistakeholder dialogue, being
supported by the experts’ rich experience and countries evidence. The dialogue among
experts also went much beyond the topic. The participants brought up more issues (e.g.
gender, agricultural information systems, agricultural education, youth employment in
agriculture, climate change and regional agricultural trade among others); these need to be
explored in future discussions.
Ultimately, your comments will: (i) feed into a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services in September 2015; (ii) support an establishment
of a window for future collaborations between countries of Caucasus and Central Asia (CAC)
and China under the “One Belt One Road” initiative; (iii) help better understand the current
role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in countries of CAC and China; and (iv) contribute to
the overall inclusive dialogue on Food Security and Nutrition issues in Europe and Central
Asia.
In order to engage experts from different countries, the FSN Forum, together with its partners
from the Chinese Northwest Agriculture & Forest University and the Central Asia and the
Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions, has provided content and
communication in English, Russian and Chinese languages. The complete proceedings in
three languages are available online here: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en. We will
keep you informed on the E-discussion’s outputs through both emails and the FSN Forum
web-site, where you can get more information about the FSN Forum activities in the Europe
and Central Asia region. We will continue to be available for you through fsnmoderator@fao.org even after the closure and keep you informed on the upcoming events.
Feel free to send us messages you deem important.
In closing, we would like to share with you two concluding messages from our co-facilitators
–Dr. Xiangping JIA and Dr Botir Dosov. On the discussion web-page, you can also read the
closing messages addressed to all participants by Dr Guram Aleksidze (Chairman of
CACAARI) and Dr Alisher Tashmatov (CACAARI Executive Secretary).
Thank you!
Your FSN Forum Team
Prof. Xiangping Jia, Northwest A & F University, China
As the co-facilitator, I am thankful to all the participants from CAC, China, and
other regions.
As announced at the beginning, the E-discussion does not aim to demystify AIS
or to identify its core aspects (as there are many resources available). Nor does
the E-discussion aim to provide a full-package of recommendation and cure-all
solutions (as we suspect any one-size-fill-all panacea).
Instead, the E-discussion expects to create a community for practitioners, policymakers, and
researchers to u nderstand and to exchange thoughts of the complexity and dynamics of AIS
in CAC and China. We hope, in the pluralistic system, each of the stakeholders is able to argue
and voice. The possible ‘confusion’ or ‘discordance’ is necessary as it is valuable to call for
cautious and integrated interventions on AIS at both the national and the global level.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
80
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
There are great similarities and distinction in RAS between CAC and China in terms of
political structure and institutional environment. The public sector plays an important role
and the government is responsible to deliver rural advisory services. Meanwhile, the public
sector is facing great challenges in rural transformation and a variety of alternatives of RAS
providers are emerging (such as the private sector and civil society). Both CAC and China
should prioritize conductive policies and an integrated framework to further decentralize
planning and financing of RAS and to frame private presence in RAS for public interests. In
China, the legal framework starts to agree with the fact that RAS becomes pluralistic and
dynamic; the central role of the public sector is to focus on services for the public interests. In
addition, the value of civil society, such as agricultural universities, is highly recognized in the
legal framework and they become more and more active.
The E-discussion indeed aims to establish a window and a network for future collaboration
between CAC countries and China under the “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. First,
more public and private investment should to be directed from China to CAC in strengthening
infrastructure and AIS at the local level. Second, the establishment of agrofood chain between
CAC and China allows for agricultural producers’ accessing to an improved and expanded
market. Given the emerging demand for high-quality food and agricultural products in
urbanized China, the potentials for such a value-added chain is tremendously large. Lastly, a
regional network between CAC and China is crucial in strengthening capacities of RAS actors.
The major learning from this E-discussion is to institutionalize future innovations of RAS into
existing structure. Both CAC and China established a hierarchical authority of public RAS.
Given the institutional inertia, future innovations must be embedded within such a structure,
rather than an intended replacement of or increment onto it. In addition, where decentralized
public funding (such as buy-in services or contracting RAS with government) becomes
feasible or being practiced as pilots, regulatory framework and monitoring & evaluation
should be integrated.
Finally, the role of agricultural universities was intensively discussed through this Ediscussion. In the region of CAC and China, agricultural universities become a major
stakeholder in the pluralistic system. The triangle nexus ‘Research-Education-Extension”
accredits agricultural universities natural merits. However, agricultural universities are
facing great challenges in institutionalizing themselves into the existing structure in CAC and
China.
The E-discussion ends up with a wealthy knowledge of AIS and pending questions. It also
inspires great passion and seeds future collaborations. Thanks for all the participants and
also FAO who organizes this online discussion.
Dr. Botir Dosov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for the active participation in our online discussion
that day by day is becoming more interesting.
Dear Colleagues, dear friends!
This online discussion was in itself an "innovation" for the rural advisory
services in the region. Indeed, it created a collective knowledge and basis for
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
81
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
planning, design, implementation and monitoring of efficiency and sustainability of new
programs and initiatives on fostering Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in the region.
This cross-regional online discussion has engaged in dialogue different stakeholders from
countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China and, even beyond that. We discussed
the major challenges and bottlenecks faced by AIS in the region of CAC and China.
Participants proposed a wide range of systemic actions to enhance agricultural research and
extension services and make them conducive to food security and improved nutrition. All
your valuable contributions will be carefully analyzed, summarized and presented to you
very shortly.
The outcomes of this online-discussion will feed into face-to-face consultation on the
Roadmap to enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event
at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. Besides, the
summary will be widely circulated among stakeholders in the region.
I sincerely believe that the discussion really helped to catalyze the cooperation between CAC
and China in the field of agricultural education, science and extension. In near future we are
planning to initiate joint projects in countries of CAC and China. I think that other regional
and global initiatives will also benefit from the results of this discussion.
I would like to thank you all for your contributions and making this discussion successful! My
special thanks go to the team of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition for
hosting and moderating this online-discussion.
Sincerely, Botir Dosov
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
82
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Online Discussion Summary
“The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in countries of Central Asia and
Caucasus and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition”
1. Preamble
This online discussion ran on the regional platform of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and
Nutrition (http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/AIS-CAC-China) from the 6th of May until the 9th of
June 2015. The e-discussion was initiated by the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of
Agricultural Research Institutions (CACAARI) in close collaboration with the Northwest Agriculture &
Forest University (NAFU) from China.
The main objective of this online discussion was to offer stakeholders an opportunity to share their
experience, knowledge and regional good practices through a constructive dialogue, and to contribute to
a) identifying challenges, opportunities and collective actions towards strengthening Agricultural
Innovation Systems (AIS) in countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China; b) identifying
roles of various stakeholders; c) gathering insights and views on consistent actions needed to enhance
the capacities of existing regional platforms to promote communication and collaboration on
agricultural innovations; (d) promoting regional cooperation (through initiatives such as “One Road
One Belt”) for improved policies to enhance market liberalization, environmental sustainability, and
regional development.
Due to poor linkages among various agricultural actors in CAC countries and China, many farmers,
especially women farmers, are encountering difficulties in accessing advanced knowledge and
information on agricultural technologies and emerging markets. This deprives them of innovation-based
opportunities to improve their productivity, their profitability, and their livelihoods. Besides, increasing
food prices and poorly managed natural resources are primarily a threat to smallholders and vulnerable
population groups.
To address these problems, many countries have established Rural Advisory Service (RAS) systems,
which however are not yet playing a big enough role in assisting farmers. RAS systems differ
substantially from country to country: some are largely a government domain or donor-driven, while
others include the private sector and Non-governmental Organizations. Notwithstanding these
differences, the common challenge that most of these countries are facing is that of making RAS
systems more efficient and sustainable.
An integrated, innovative approach towards more sustainable food security and nutrition system is
required to strengthen cooperation among various stakeholders, to adapt new technologies, to develop
natural resource management strategies, and to strengthen institutions involved in Agricultural
Innovation Systems.
2. Overall outputs and outcomes
Initially targeted at the countries of Central Asia and Caucasus and China, the e-discussion grew into a
cross-regional multistakeholder dialogue, supported by the rich experience of 48 experts as well as
evidence from 18 countries. There was strong interest in the topic and a desire to exchange views with
colleagues within and outside the participants’ countries, having a chance to communicate in Chinese,
English and Russian. This made the e-discussion extremely interactive and fruitful, with 83
comprehensive contributions. The geographical scope of interest in the discussion was even wider, with
visits to the discussion’s web page coming from 73 countries across different regions and including
both developed and developing economies. This was complemented by a near-perfect gender and age
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
83
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
balance among the participants who took part in the discussion. The wide outreach of the e-discussion
was achieved thanks to the FSN Forum community of experts, the networks of regional partners (i.e.
CACAARI, CGIAR-CAC, YPARD, GFAR, GFRAS, and FAO-REU), and FAO social media channels.
The results of the online discussion call for creating and promoting equal opportunities for participation
and transparency among all stakeholders in the planning and implementation of agricultural research
and innovation for development.
3. Key issues
Thanks to the very interactive and well-facilitated discussion, the participants fairly covered all issues
proposed for this topic and more.
3.1. What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and
China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?
Participants highlighted the challenges that AIS is facing in the region, which can be grouped into the
following issues: socio-economic, institutional and management, research and technological,
environmental, production and marketing (value chain), and policy.
The discussion highlighted the lack of coordination between different AIS actors and sectors across
countries. The linkages among the key stakeholders (such as the public and private sector, or academic
and civil societies) within the national agricultural research system in CAC countries and China are
very weak, which is evident in the poor planning, poor resource and labour distribution,
defragmentation, and duplication of interventions in the agricultural sector. Existing interdepartmental
and intersectoral barriers also hinder AIS programmes from planning to implementation. In addition,
insufficient linkages constrain the application of innovation approaches for improvement of food
security and well-being of population. Functional linkages among agricultural education, research and
rural advisory services also remain weak. Having high-quality staffs, the majority of resources have
been directed at agricultural universities in teaching and researching.
Moreover, AIS in the CAC countries and China is constrained by additional problems, such as lack of
consideration of incentives at both individual and organizational level, weak research capability,
insufficient training for agricultural producers and farmers, and a shortage of skilled professionals. In
some countries the process of transferring innovations, "know-how", and new technologies is
constrained by complicated regulatory and institutional frameworks and barriers.
The participants agreed that AIS could play a crucial role in achieving more sustainable food security
and nutrition in CAC countries and China through an innovative infrastructure that enables interaction
between academia and producers. However, currently AIS is not contributing at its fullest capacity.
3.2. What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support
farmers in improving their livelihood?
The following further measures for strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems at the national and
regional level were suggested by participants:

Framing national policies, legislation, regulations, and institutions for Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) in an integrated approach;

Operationalizing AIS at the national and local level;

Implementing a unifying information system and big-data management in AIS;

Identifying farming technology and techniques which are suitable for local-level climatic,
socio-economic, and cultural environments;
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
84
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition

Supporting agricultural actors along food chains in the application of new technologies;

Promoting new, high-yield plant varieties resistant to disease and tolerant of drought, salinity,
and frost, as well as promoting new high-productivity animal breeds with a strong immunity to
disease;

Supporting modernization and diversification processes in agriculture;

Strengthening the role of gender and increasing the involvement of youth and low-income
populations in agricultural innovation and human capital development, including health,
nutrition, education, and skills;

Providing support in mitigation and adaptation to climate change;

Improving data management.
3.3. What actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them
conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?
Proposals of participants for actions were summarized and grouped as follows:

Strengthening human and institutional capacity of AIS actors is required for boosting relevant
agricultural knowledge and technologies and their application:
a) Academia should be proactive and lead the implementation of training programmes
(including short- and medium-term farm training courses); design the curriculum of methods for
participatory training; design and implement field experiments; conduct impact assessments;
and support graduate student research, workshops, farmer field schools, distance learning, and
other means;
b) Universities should support farmers and rural small and medium enterprises (SME) in
improving their skills, understanding, and innovative capacity to practice sustainable
agricultural intensification and market-oriented activities.

Enhancing linkages between research, education, and extension through interactive, dynamic
and flexible processes, along with better contact between institutions. This will help bring
knowledge, technologies, and services to rural and agricultural populations, and also improve
their capacity to innovate.

Establishing an agricultural innovation institution. This could serve as a platform of
knowledge formation and technology transfer where different actors of AIS can benefit from
knowledge sharing, coordination and innovation.

Improving access to finances, in order to obtain adequate funding for improvement of material
and technical capacities.

Marketing the products and services provided by agricultural research, education and
extension institutions. This will help attract both public and private investors.

Establishing a unified information system. ICT is a useful tool for the development, transfer,
application and dissemination of agricultural information and knowledge to increase
agricultural productivity and income. However, there is still a communication gap between
agricultural research, academia, and rural areas. Eventually, massive changes such as fast
growth in ICT, urbanization, and climate change will require our knowledge and innovation
systems to be far more responsive, flexible, and forward thinking than before.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
85

The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
Empowering women and youth in agricultural innovations should be considered in the
development agenda. The participation of women and young people in agricultural innovations
is indispensable, given their crucial role in household livelihoods and in the socio-economic and
cultural environment.
3.4. What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education
organizations (academia) in RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between
academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations, and rural
communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?
Academia: Agricultural research and education institutions play an essential role in AIS, but
institutionalizing them with other RAS providers is challenging. Although agricultural
research and education institutions have a variety of natural benefits in AIS – such as: (a)
identifying key research and capacity issues that are critical to FSN and well-being; (b)
defining interventions to increase the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural
production and the use of natural resources; (c) developing and implementing options to
manage risk and production variability; (d) promoting the use of indigenous knowledge,
creativity and ingenuity in conservation and sustainable use of natural resources; (e)
improving the productivity and profitability of agricultural production through sustainable
intensification, diversification, value-added products, and market linkages; (f) identifying
the areas that are important to the livelihoods of vulnerable populations, women, and
children; (g) addressing the challenges faced by marginal farmers; and (h) developing new
models of participatory and inclusive development interventions and partnerships.
However, they are constrained by fragmented sectors of conflicting interests and a lack of
coordination within the AIS system. Besides their role in AIS, agricultural research and
education institutions have become primary stakeholders in voicing the needs of the poor
and vulnerable, and in providing them with the means and capabilities to benefit from
these innovations.
Additionally, academia’s role in capacity building is paramount. For example, agricultural
universities deliver formal and systematic courses and training programmes to extension
staff who eventually facilitate participatory learning with farmers, especially those
vulnerable and disadvantaged groups such as women and youth, for changes and
innovation. In both the CAC countries and China, it’s becoming crucial to deliver training
to a new generation of agricultural specialists, scientists and service providers who can
work with smallholders at the local level. Agricultural universities are important not only
because they develop human resources, but also because they serve as a source of
knowledge and technology. In transition countries where the political views on RAS are
volatile, the formation and accumulation of knowledge is relatively better maintained and
secured in universities through an established curriculum, training lectures, and set-up
networks.
Government: The public sector is playing a central role in developing AIS in CAC countries and
China. Nevertheless, in many transition economies, government interventions need to be
enhanced, including the operationalization and institutionalization of national RAS
systems.
To address an important socio-economic challenge such as food security and better nutrition, “the
regulatory role of the government in innovative development objectively comes to the forefront; it will
ensure positive results only in case of a balanced long-term development strategy”.
Information and communication technologies can help to build up linkages among public and private
sectors in new and exciting partnerships that deliver real change.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
86
The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and
China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition
4. Next steps
The outputs of this e-discussion will: (i) feed into a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global
Forum for Rural Advisory Services in September 2015; (ii) support the establishment of a window for
future collaborations between countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China under the “One
Belt One Road” initiative; (iii) help better understand the current role of Agricultural Innovation
Systems in CAC countries and China; and (iv) contribute to the overall inclusive dialogue on Food
Security and Nutrition issues in Europe and Central Asia.
Given emerging issues, such as population growth and climate change, the development of innovation
systems in CAC countries and China is considered to be a necessary condition for enhancing
agricultural productivity. Comprehensive measures towards fostering innovation in the agricultural
sector should include participatory agricultural research and extension systems by strengthening
linkages to farmers and other actors in the sector. This is considered an important factor in connecting
farmers in CAC countries and China, and in providing opportunities for better access to markets and
income diversification that ultimately will benefit food security and improve nutrition.
The suggested “Seven steps towards enhancing RAS/extension systems in Central Asia & the Caucasus
and China” raised positive feedback from the participants. The CACAARI Secretariat has advised to
promote and facilitate the process. These steps will be further enriched with the outputs of this
discussion and together will feed into face-to-face consultations on the Roadmap to enhance RAS
systems in CAC countries and China, to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services.
The results of this online discussion will contribute to further discussion and planning during the third
Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development process in 2015 and 2016. They will also
influence the direction, activities and resourcing of international research, as well as highlight the need
for strengthening and investment in national Agricultural Innovation Systems and for effective
measures that will create real change in farmers’ lives in the region.
This online discussion revealed many priority areas that can be considered as entry points to be
addressed with the China initiative "One Road One Belt", which provides substantial opportunities to
enhance cooperation between CAC countries and China. Those opportunities related to RAS emerge
through regional development programmes (such as rural infrastructure investment and "demonstration
parks" of agricultural technology), private investment (in agrochemical inputs, agro-food supply chains,
and land markets), and academic collaborations.
5. Beyond the topic
The dialogue among experts also went much further beyond the topic, creating a window for further
interactions.
Due to insufficient investments, agricultural research systems are not able to realize their full potential
for contributing adequately to AIS. The average share of expenditures on agricultural research in the
gross agricultural output is 0.1 percent in CAC region, while the average value of investments in
agricultural research as a percentage of agricultural GDP in developing and developed countries is 0.58
percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. Although the investments in RAS may vary from country to
country, we can assume their value to be very low. Therefore, further discussion is needed on how to
increase investment in R&D and RAS in the regions in order to fulfil its potential to improve food
security and nutrition and to increase livelihoods.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en