The expert workshop was chaired by Connie Bernard (SASAR; morning session) and Severin Kodderitzsch (ARD; afternoon session). During the morning session, the presenters were Andy Hall (UNU-MERIT) and Willem Janssen (SASAR) on the analytical framework for innovation systems (IS) concept and the intervention framework, respectively. The panelists were Ponniah Anandajayasekeram., Rajeswari Raina, Animesh Srivastava, and Mruthyunjaya. Most of the panelists and discussants commended the analytical work and the steps towards operationalizing and the presentations given.

Major comments/observations:

1. The challenge still remains on how to incorporate the IS concept in the main R&D system. There is a need to focus on operationalization.

2. Emphasis should be on collaboration, partnership – but how do we get stakeholders together? What is the most pragmatic way to go?

3. In terms of the implication to the World Bank, how do we do this differently?

4. Center for excellence

   1. Where do centers of excellence fit into the IS?

   2. How do we intervene?

   3. How can we (WB, research organizations) enable partnerships?

   4. There should be a continuous generation of knowledge and scientific excellence needs to be maintained

5. Deal with DISPERSE and STICKY information

   • There should be a meeting/locus of flow of information

   • One center is not efficient because as it will be confronted with an agency problem (local practitioners/developers not having complete congruence of interest/perspectives), and moving of information needed for resources

   • Stickiness changes based on the context (moving to market-driven, information is more sticky than centralized generic information)

   • Need for architecture (partnerships – either geographical partnerships, or private-public partnerships). Essential to support innovations through, for instance, toolkits (rather than do innovations ourselves)

   • Try to reduce stickiness (as it is endogenous) by transforming tacit information to formal knowledge and creating inventory of coordination

6. Emphasis on the totality of “actors” concept where the role of education, curriculum, new skills are important for complete practicality of the IS. Increase ability to absorb knowledge (skills development). More on role of social capital to foster local innovation

7. Need to revisit the different mandates of national research organizations and national extension organizations (need consolidation?) and how this will change to fit the IS

8. Need to re-think the role of extension systems and NGOs in IS framework – perhaps more social scientists in national systems to cater to market-driven approach and the need for institutional innovations

9. More on the internal dynamics of innovation and poverty in the interventions within each phase

10. Important to think of innovation as a process (development tool) and not as concrete products (e.g., seed, fertilizer). Moreover, after technical innovation, should be followed by management innovation and institutional innovation

11. TRUST – how to work on this? How to get there? Need to include examples of formal agreements and contracts

Other points:

1. Not just a question of public versus private roles, civil society should also be included

2. Need to re-think of the term “maintenance phase,” which traditionally would mean maintaining the status quo but as it appears in the IS, it means maintaining ability to evolve. Needs to articulate more on how the WB would do this

3. Different phases and interventions

   • Nascent phase (where lots of knowledge and ‘seeds’ were generated) – someone (WB or others) has to support the dynamics. Instead of waiting and seeing what comes out, need to think through what interventions can be done in support

   • “Stagnation” phase – may not be the right term, because it is not really stagnant

   • Government plays a facilitating role. In “stagnation” phase, interest groups perpetuate the situation, how do we facilitate processes of learning?

4. Production, plus market, is important to consider (not just market). Need a balance between research and market

5. Learning is situational (where you learn influences what you learn), need applied research and collaboration, and need ways to rotate people physically

6. Need to provide incentives (helping change mind sets) for researchers for participation in IS

7. What is to be done to small farmers? Too much focus on agribusiness, but the focus should be on the processes to work with small farmers

8. May need to use more economic terminologies to clarify issues (like club goods, specialization, division of labor, etc.)

9. Comment on “picking winners”, which is something that should be avoided. However, Willem discussed that in smaller developing countries, unlike bigger countries like China, India and Brazil where there are more resource to be spread across sectors, “picking winners” is necessary

10. There needs to be a system to support (enabling environment) corporate business in IS

11. Include not just implications to the WB but also implication to other sectors, R&D practitioners, etc.

In the afternoon, ongoing work in IS from WB was shared by Al Watkins, who emphasized access to markets, Indira Ekanayake on electronic dialogues in LAC webspace, and Vinod Goel with focus on synergy among stakeholder/practitioners (research systems, industry, etc.).

Eija Pehu asked inputs from the participants through a brainstorming session on the next steps for the IS project (see annex 1). In terms of dissemination of the analytical IS work, further operationalization, and international community of practice in agricultural IS, several suggestions were given in terms of format and how to go about.  Eija concluded that these were very helpful suggestions, which the Bank team will consider carefully and continue dialogue with the workshop participants to check on resources and to come up with the most efficient way for a follow up.

Notes on the afternoon Brainstorming session

1. International conference on innovation systems in agriculture, WB, Washington, Nov-2006 (what, who, how?)

   • Global forum – Al, Jan 2007, cooperation

   • NGOs, national centers, Kampala, Nov

   • Who: policy makers vs. experts? Policy: permanent dialogue

   • WDR in agriculture, timing with that team? Chapter to the WDR?

   • Conference format different: Al’s suggestion on practitioners forum, could discuss the community of practitioners (link?)

   • 1st day practical problems, then discussion on emerging issues

   • Synergies: different sectors, coordination issue, sharing information

2. Other channels/fora for disseminating this work?

   • Dissemination a process

   • What to do before the conference and after?

   • What do you want to get out? Empirical evidence? Normal ways to disseminate. The meeting to explore how to apply this. Follow-up 2-3 years later.

   • Conferences OK, but important to share good and bad practices; study tours

   • Pre-conference activity; consultation with national sci councils, academies

   • Global forum: lead activities, consultations with stakeholders, donors, development banks

   • Dissemination a process. What issue(s) critical to pursue? WB system, national systems, trade-offs?

   • Organizations such as FARA, etc. embrace innovation system but how to implement?

   • Global research alliance – make the link

   • Caution: research focus. Examine investments and assess if innovation concept would fit in

3. How to continue with the analytical work?

   • Architecture of the innovation system, match between the task at hand, institutions, resources, etc. to reach effectiveness

4. Further case-studies to test the operational concept?

   • 4 countries, S&T systems analysis (Rwanda, Uganda, SA, Mozambique), some developing ag sector innovations; how to build S&T to assist the sector; link to this innovation work?

   • Case-study saturation; need to move towards action research to test the system and conditions (discovery driven planning) (Ethiopia, LA example – Javier); how to look forward, not how to examine what happened.

   • Capacity to innovate, different types of experiences, integration and institutionalization; how do these link to WB programs in countries?

   • Typology: case-studies deficient: in-depth analysis of selected case-studies could be further developed. For a few categories too few examples, could explore more; especially nascent stage.

   • Case-study element a dissemination tool; action research

   • R&D important, but need case studies to show how thinking in R&D has changed; e.g. soil science: some sub-themes very well linked and interactive, international level, these types of R&D cases could be examined further. Need to reduce the ‘threat’ perception. Positive cases can help.

   • The framework could be tested in an action research fashion

5. Need for a community of practice?

   • Essential to have a clear definition to communicate well

   • Bank? Global? The latter

   • Policy makers (public, private) involved

   • Other related communities: IPR (biodiversity, medical applications, etc.); how wide a community?

   • Important to differentiate between the related groups

   • Practitioners, information needs vary; need to map these

   • Traditional research community?

   • Forum for criticism, effectiveness etc. of innovation systems?

   • Objective of the community of practice? Need to remain open and inclusive, incentives to assure this? Networks of networks?

   • Gap: from concept to operationalizing it (policy makers, practitioners, etc.)

   • WB could provide the space, but many groups could contribute to it

   • Global donor platform?

6. Who could be a convener?

   • FAO, CGIAR? Right networks? CGIAR might be too research oriented