The workshop was chaired by Kevin Cleaver (Director, ARD). After Kevin introduced the participants (see attached list of participants), Kees van der Heijden begun the series of presentations by discussing the scenario analysis approach and emphasized that the workshop is consultative in nature. Presentations of the scenarios followed given by Suresh Pal and Rajeswari Raina. Implications of the scenario analysis for the National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) were then discussed by Willem Janssen and implications for the World Bank were presented by Eija Pehu (see attached presentations). Discussion was opened by Dr. Mruthyunjaya and Connie Bernard. Wrapping up and concluding comments were provided by Parmesh Shah and Gajanand Pathmanathan.

Most discussants explicitly mentioned scenario analysis being a fascinating, important, and innovative exercise. The scenario analysis was commended as it looks more at the inter-sectoral and societal perspective in developing the agricultural sector and the role of innovation in that process. Willem indicated that the scenario process did influence the NAIP team’s thinking and guided the project design process. Many of the insights from the scenario analysis were used in the processes of developing NAIP.

Major comments/observations:

(1) More on IMPLICATIONS

• “What does it mean?”

• “What do we do now?”; “What direction should we take?”

(2) More discussion on the growth-equity trade-off

• Land consolidation was not defined clearly

• Implications on land consolidation and people who will lose from this process

• Implications on agricultural growth on equity and inclusion

• More on implications to equity and efficiency of the high informal land tenure situation in India

• There is not necessarily a trade-off as we can have both growth and equity, but the issue is “what are the processes to negate this trade-off?”

(3) Role of private and public sectors

• Discuss more the role of government (regulatory, monitoring or providing cushion) especially in unfolding the scenarios.

• Throughout the scenarios, little discussion on the role of rural institutions, both public and private, for the development of agriculture. One of the lessons we are learning is that policy prescriptions which assume the public and private actors will leap to take on their ‘new’ roles frequently have been disappointing (example given: Dismantling of African Marketing Boards, private sector did not move in as expected). Are there limits to the use of public/private theoretical frameworks when we are working at the local level?

• Need to think more of the nexus between government and smallholders and what institutions to build the bridge.

• How do we build sustainable capacity at the local level? At the local level, too much focus on institutions. In the villages of India capacity is the major constraint for all of the stakeholders and needs to be built for all of them. Finding where the capacity is and building on the capacity and empower people at the local level is perhaps the best way to go about this.

(4) Rural versus urban trade-off

• Essential to discuss more on how innovative approaches can support growth in peripheral growth centers

• The future is likely to be driven by agribusiness and rural entrepreneurship, thus it is essential for innovation systems to deal with this

• Need to think about regional development approaches and different realities in each region in India (for example, in the context of major issues like water management)

• Emphasize the role of education and building skills in bridging the surplus labor in agriculture to other sectors

• Need to see the synergy and linkages between the agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors, which are considered the three legs of India’s development

• Need for combination models to accommodate realities in India where household members build livelihoods from participating in all three sectors services, agriculture, and manufacturing and not only from one sector

(5) Clarity on the definition and focus on “scale”

• Scale has to be looked differently - from consolidation to aggregation: new models of aggregation, new institutions that not necessarily exclude smallholders like franchising, producer clusters, contracting, price signals to small farmers so that they can make better decisions, greater role of context relevant technology. Emphasize scale through aggregation not in terms of consolidation

• Scale may not be the immediate solution, and it would be asserted in the next several years, it may be institutional solutions like contract farming. Scale will be in terms of institutional innovations. Are there ways of consolidating production, without consolidating land through re-structuring ownership?

• On scale of economies, what is the empirical basis of land consolidation, maybe no difference in large and smallholdings, maybe the efficiency gains are derived from other areas like technology adoption, input delivery services, or in marketing or processing.

(6) Assumptions on regulation and structural change

• Has to incorporate the fact that people are not easy to change. Elements in the scenarios like size of holding, proportion of rural population in agriculture, agricultural employment are structural variables. Structural variables take time to change. In building the scenarios, many explanations beyond economics have to be understood to attempt to change the structure

• The scenarios are burdened with regulatory assumptions. Deregulation or regulation is not the culprit of the problem of the time. Deregulation per se cannot solve this problem

Other points:

1. What is ultimate objective of agricultural innovation in India – how will the agricultural innovation system measure its success? In many countries, agricultural research institutions are not very visible, even when working on controversial and far-reaching issues. What responsibility does the agricultural research system have to inform and shape public opinion on matters like GM, water management, and natural resource degradation, rural-urban migration? It is important for these institutions to be NOISY and VISIBLE

2. Rural-urban migration – Many men are leaving rural areas for many years, leaving family land to be managed by women. How widespread is this feminization of agriculture, which tends to be masked because land is usually owned in the name of men? If it is a growing trend, what does that mean for agricultural innovation? Does that require rethinking of how to listen to and reach out to farmers?

3. Should include more technological details into the scenario analysis. The scenario analysis should look at more signs and details of how scientific and technological details will be unfolding in the scenarios

4. When thinking more about good projects important not to be limited to those that have high internal rate of return (IRR), but do emphasize the intangible benefits (which can be substantial) and sustainability of agriculture (examples given are IPM and household food and nutrition projects supported in NAIP)

5. Clarification about why globalization, not only of markets, but also of information was not included at the broader conceptual level of the presentation

6. Clarification about the assumption on mechanical technology in driving productivity, which is counterintuitive based on Hayami and Ruttan, where India is abundant with labor

7. Question on cost, time line, and if scenario analysis did really improve the project design process in comparison with other methods of consultation

8. All are outcome and not choice variables in both axes (for example, level of government control, inequality, etc.)

9. More concrete connection with policy issues in unfolding the scenarios

10. More quantification of relationships in different scenarios

11. Need to look also at the consumers, consumer awareness, domestic demand is huge and should not only look at the export markets