Seeding new African agricultural universities
March 6, 2012
Policy attention across Africa is shifting to fostering agricultural innovation through enhanced research support and entrepreneurship. This will require radical transformation of the system of higher agricultural education. The current separation between research in national institutes and education in universities is a major obstacle to innovation.
This article proposes an alternative approach involving the creation of agricultural universities under the relevant line ministries. The seed for such universities already exist in the form of national agricultural, livestock and fisheries institutes which can be upgraded to combine research, teaching, extension and commercialization under one roof.
Unlike existing universities, the new institutions would work closely with farmers and agribusiness which would be a source of ideas on curricula, pedagogy, choice of students and location.
There are role models of such universities which operate under ministries of agriculture. One of the leading ones is the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences that was created in 1977 by upgrading existing research institutes and colleges. Such institutional innovation could form a basis for renewed cooperation between Nordic countries and Africa.
The African agricultural challenge
In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture directly contributes to 34% of gross domestic product (GDP) and 64% of employment. Growth in agriculture is at least two to four times more effective in reducing poverty than other sectors. Growth in agriculture also stimulates productivity in other sectors such as food processing. Agricultural products also compose about 20% of Africa’s exports. Given these figures, it is no surprise that agricultural research and extension services can yield a 35% rate of return, and irrigation projects a 15–20% return in sub-Saharan Africa.
Even before the global financial and fuel crises hit, hunger was increasing in Africa. In 1990, over 150 million Africans were hungry; as of 2008, the number had increased to nearly 250 million. Starting in 2004, the proportion of undernourished began increasing, reversing several decades of decline, prompting 100 million people to fall into poverty.
One-third of people in sub-Saharan Africa are chronically hungry—many of whom are smallholder farmers. High food prices in local markets price out the poorer consumers—forcing them to purchase less food and less nutritious food, as well as to divert spending from education and health and to sell their assets. This hunger-weak agricultural sector cycle is self-perpetuating.
Over the last 25 years, growth in agricultural GDP in Africa has averaged approximately 3% but has varied significantly among countries. Growth per capita, a proxy for farm income, was basically zero in the 1970s and negative from the 1980s into the 1990s. Six countries experienced negative per capita growth.
Productivity has been basically stagnant over 40 years—despite significant growth in other regions, particularly Asia, thanks to the Green Revolution. Different explanations derive from a lack of political prioritization, underinvestment, and ineffective policies. The financial crisis has exacerbated this underinvestment, as borrowing externally has become more expensive, credit is less accessible, and foreign direct investment has declined.
Only 4% of Africa’s crop area is irrigated, compared to 39% in South Asia. Much of rural Africa lacks passable roads, translating to high transportation costs and trade barriers. Cropland per agricultural population has been decreasing for decades. Soil infertility is a result of degradation: nearly 75% of the farmland is affected by the excessive extraction of soil nutrients.
Fertilizer use in Africa is less than 10% of the world average of 100 kg. Just five countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) account for about two-thirds of the fertilizer consumed in Africa. On the average, sub-Saharan African farmers use 13 kg of nutrients per hectare of arable and permanent cropland, whereas the rate in the Middle East and North Africa is 71 kg.
Part of the reason why fertilizer usage is so low is because of the high costs of imports and transportation: fertilizer in Africa is two to six times the average world price. This results in low usage of improved seed: as of 2000, about 24% of the cereal-growing area used improved varieties, compared to 85% in East Asia and the Pacific. As of 2005, 70% of wheat crop area and 40% of maize crop area used improved seeds, a significant improvement.
Addressing these challenges will require considerable investment in agricultural science, technology and engineering. The challenge for Africa is developing appropriate institutional arrangements through which existing scientific and technical knowledge can be transmitted from research facilities to farms. Such institutional innovation could form a basis for renewed cooperation between Nordic countries and Africa.
Functions of new agricultural universities
The challenges facing African agriculture will require fundamental changes in the way universities train their students. It is notable that most African universities do not specifically train agriculture students to work on farms in the same way medical schools train students to work in hospitals. Part of the problem arises from the traditional separation between research and teaching—the former is carried out in national research institutes and the latter in universities.
National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) operate a large number of research programs that provide a strong basis for building new initiatives aimed at upgrading their innovative capabilities. In effect, what is needed is to strengthen the educational, commercialization, and extension functions of the NARIs.
More specifically, clustering these functions would result in dedicated research universities whose curriculum would be modeled along full value chains of specific commodities. For example, innovation universities located in proximity to coffee production sites should develop expertise in the entire value chain of the industry.
This could be applied to other crops as well as to livestock and fisheries. Such dedicated universities would not have a monopoly over specific crops but should serve as opportunities for learning how to connect higher education to the productive sector.
The new universities need to improve their curricula to make them relevant to the communities in which they are located. More important, they should serve as critical hubs in local innovation systems or clusters.
The recent decision by Moi University in western Kenya to acquire an abandoned textile mill and revive it for teaching purposes is an example of such an opportunity. Such connections can be fostered without owning the facilities.
Many of the NARIs are located in the proximity of a wide range of productive facilities with which they can foster long-term working relations. They can also branch into new knowledge-based fields. For example, NARIs located close to breweries can build up expertise in biotechnology using fermentation knowledge as a foundation. Similar arrangements can be created with other agro-based industries such as sugar mills and fish factories.
Roadmap for implementation
Many models show how to focus on agricultural training as a way to improve practical farming activities. Ministries of agriculture and farming enterprises in African countries should create entrepreneurial universities, polytechnics, and vocational schools that address agricultural challenges. Such institutions could link up with counterparts in developed or emerging economies as well as institutions providing venture capital and start to serve as incubators of rural enterprises.
Establishing such institutions will require reforming the curriculum, improving pedagogy, and granting greater management autonomy. They should be guided by the curiosity, creativity, and risk-taking inclination of farmers.
The tasks laid out above will take considerable dedication, courage and commitment. Such efforts need to be recognized and rewarded. One way to do so is to institute Agricultural Innovation Prizes for outstanding contributions to strengthening agricultural research in African countries. The prizes would recognize achievements in research, teaching, commercialization and extension.
Conclusion
Over the last decade considerable work has been done to redefine the role of government in agricultural research, decentralize research activities, increase stakeholder participation, identify new financial instruments, and strengthen system-wide linkages. These measures have been purposed on an incremental basis. They have indeed yielded commendable results.
The next challenge, however, is to build on these achievements and pursue bold steps aimed at upgrading the status and performance of agricultural institutes by creating genuine innovation systems that involve research, training, extension, and commercialization.
This process will be nontrivial and will require bold political action involving high-level leaders. The efforts will come with political risks and debate. Maintaining the status quo, however, is riskier than experimenting with new models. Mistakes will be made. But as Albert Einstein said, “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
1 The full text of The New Harvest can be downloaded for free at
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20504/new_harvest.html
Calestous Jumas article, based on his optimistic book about African agriculture, The New Harvest (reviewed in NATURE last year by Camilla Toulmin) comes very timely in several ways. When African finance- agricultural and education ministers assembled in Kampala in November 2010 in the so called CHEA Conference, they agreed to the need to rehabilitate and improve Tertiary Agricultural Education. This work is now led by the African NEPAD institutions FARA, RUFORUM and ANAFE. A working group to support these efforts has been organized with possible donors, sister universities in OECD countries and with the World Bank has an an important partner, willing to support these efforts with an IDA loan in the size of 100 m USD over a 3-5 year period. The ambition from all parties concerned is that this must become a real African process.The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, referred to by Calestous Juma in the article takes part in these discussions as collegues from the other Nordic fellow universities as well as their aid agencies. There is of course a hope that also the Swedish govenrment should take part, through Sida, especially as the need for higher education in Africa seems to get high priority by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (see report Higher Education in Development Cooperation, Ds 2011:3).
Calestous Juma, wellknown by many of us working with him, when he was Director of ACTS, African Centre for technology Studies in Nairobi and as Head of the Biodiversity Convention Secretariat during a number of years, reading his book Freedom to Innovate, written together with Ismail Serageldin, should be seen as an important African voice in the need for revitalization of TAE in Africa, so important for Africas future development.
Calestous Jumas article also fits well in to the article by Olof Hesselmark, Malawi shows the way to MDG success, and my own, Africas potential to feed itself. They give two perspectives of what today´s Africa need, give immediate hope to those farmers living on more or less subsistence level, that agriculture development is possible and that the productivity potential is enormous with just small meansvand able to take them and their families out of poverty but also the absolute must that African countries must build a solid base for a modernisation of African agriculture, based on qualified research by their own researcher, probably often in cooperation with sister universities in other African countries as well on our own continent. SLU is one of those and could be even more som in the future. This is of course where also the need for a fundamentally changes agricultural training comes in, proposed by Calestous Juma.
Calestous Jumas article is most welcome and gives hope that Africa is now on its way, also in the field of agriculture. My personal hope is that the Swedish government will see this as a challenge for Swedish development cooperation. A similar challenge was also advocated by Bill Gates in his, as i see it, extremely important speech at IFADs Govening Council on 23 February well worth reading by everone interested in th question why the development of African agriculture is so important today.
Inge Gerremo
Adviser to SLU Global
Dear Inge: It is a please to reconnect through this forum after many years. My first travel overseas from my native Kenya was to Sweden. It was February 1979 and the tour involved a visit to Kiruna to meet an owner of a tool factory. It was my view then “tool aid” would be an ideal way for SIDA to spend some of its funding in Africa. No amount of hammering the idea resulted in serious consideration.
On that same trip I has the honor of visiting SLU and meeting Professor Gustaf Siren who planted in my mind the idea of biomass energy. He even gave me a few salix cuttings to bring home. The cuttings did not make it into Kenya. They were confiscated and set on fire by customs officials for phytosanitary reasons. It was during that visit that I learned about the important fact SLU was embedded in the ministry of agriculture.
I am hopeful that we will be able to find Nordic as well as African champions with sufficient courage to promote an idea whose time came long time ago as demonstrated by Sweden’s agricultural history.
I would like to add that the idea of creating universities under line ministries should not be restricted to upgrading national agricultural institutes. There are many other research-oriented institutions as well non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that can adjust their missions to perform these functions under new mandates. Many of the NGOs that offer agricultural training can be upgraded into such universities. The recently-created African Rural University for Women http://bit.ly/y8aQvw in western Uganda was incubated by an NGO so the seeds of such new universities can be found in many parts of rural Africa
Calestous,
It must have been a rather shooking experience to arrive in Kiruna in February and to a country, which agriculture later on, during the negotiations with EU in the mid 90-ties, was defined as largely consisting of so called Arctic Agriculture.
You point at a very interesting phenomena in the Swedish agricultural system, the close link between the Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences and the Ministry, recently renamned from Agriculture to Rural Development. This close link and the reasons for that, no doubt, needs more thorough analysis than on these short lines.
Let me say, being part of the first contacts between SIDA, the predecessor of Sida, in the late 60-ties, that the task then given to SIDA by the Swedish Government was to assist countries eg in Africa to promote rural development and agriculture specifically, including both the fields of crop sciences and animal husbandry as well as forestry. Focus was on small farmers development, nothing else. The way SLU and its three predecessors in agriculture, veterinary sciences and forestry, was organized in those days suited us in SIDA very well, with a university with close contacts with the farmers, the extension system, linked to the provincial levels and the farm industry. Most of the expertise we used came from these different parts with good contact with farm realities, even, as you well know, our knowledge in tropical agriculture was limited in the beginning.
It is interesting to remember that the education and training systems we met in the African countries we were supposed to work in were often the opposite, a much more academic world with rather little contact with the farmer etc. As an example from the 70-ties Mpika agricultural college set up with Swedish resources, requested by the Zambian Government, gave a much more practical training to zambian extension workers than the one earlier set up within the British system. However very little of that seems to have followed, but I might be wrong and would welcome to hear about other experiences.
Things have changed considerably in Sweden. What took 250 manhours moving 1 ton of wheat from field to sack can a combine harvester today do in 5 minutes.Our 2 million milking cows in those days are now only 300 000 but producing about 10 000 kg milk/cow instead of 1000 kg etc. In order to be in the front line of agricultural research including all the other needs and worries to take care of within the green sector and the only natural rersources we have, has also led to a discussion where SLU should be located in the Swedish system. I have my personal views, but maybe we should keep that to a separate discussion.
As to what is needed when it comes to many African universities in order to boost today´s African agriculture, I very much see your point. There is definitely a need for close links with the responsible line ministries as with the farmers, not at least the needs of the vast majority of female farmers, with the farmers associations, often to be created, etc.
Finally, you have pointed at a very important issue, which I hope will be discussed further. I see this as a very important subject for the forthcoming disussions of improving TAE in Africa within NEPAD as I described in my previous remarks.
Inge Gerremo
Juma’s article as much of his work is inspiring and thought-provoking. It is interesting that agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa takes place in National Agricultural Research Institutes rather than in universities that have a much greater potential to link to a broader knowledge base. To make higher education more applied and relevant for pressing issues at stake, such as agricultural development, makes sense. What Juma does not tell the reader is why this separation has emerged. This leaves room for speculation. It is no secret that most African universities are heavily underfunded. At the same time, universities engage in critical discourses and are at times seen as breeding grounds for anti-government protests. It is maybe due to political reasons to keep research, and hence funding, tight to institutions that are politically loyal.
Christian Webersik: Thank you for your comment. You raise two important questions. The first is the roots of the separation between research and the second has to do with the underfunding of university research. The last question is true and has a lot to do with the separation since the little research funding that is available goes to research institutes.
Let us return to the separation question. There are two main reasons for this separation and the associated fragmentation. Africa established colonial research institutes before it created universities. The main function of the research institutes was to serve colonial agricultural objectives and not to build local scientific and technological capabilities or foster local entrepreneurship.
The first generation of African universities were designed to prepare young Africans for public service and as a result focused largely on the social sciences and humanities. By the time universities were being established, the common European tradition of separating research from education was already in place. This separation found expression in distinct laws as well as in ministries. This approach, also expressed in ministerial separation in most African countries, is more evident in former British colonies than in Francophone countries.
The second reason for the separation is legislative continuity and emulation. ECA countries continued the same tradition partly because their economic structures did not create much demand for locally generated knowledge except in fields such agriculture. African countries continued to reproduce the structure despite the fact that it did not appear to reflect local realities. For example, much of the research cooperation between foreign universities is conducted through national research institutes. This hampers the ability of African countries to foster stronger international university-to-university partnerships.
The fragmentation was worsened by two additional factors. First, agricultural extension services that used to exist in agricultural ministries collapsed in the 1980s largely because of cut-backs in public expenditure. Second, there are no major efforts aimed at commercializing local research results. The absence of extension support and lack of mechanisms that foster commercialization have left NARIs considerably isolated, and undermined their ability to promote agricultural innovation.
I should also add another historical detail. During the World War II Britain initiated a series of technical schools in its colonies. The focus was to help make the colonies self-sufficient in certain products and services. However, when the demand for independence arose, these technical schools were converted into social science and humanities colleges to train the new generation of African civil servants. East African universities such as Makerere and Nairobi started as technical schools. The outcome of this shift has been the neglect of technical education that is linked to the productive sector.
I hope this short historical account explains the origin of the separation.
[...] Seeding New African Agricultral Universities (Nordiska Afrikainstitutet) [...]