Search

PR, IFPRI5; ASTI, Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies, This report presents a comprehensive analysis of public agricultural research and development (R&D) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), focusing on the contextual factors influencing agricultural R&D investment and their implications for agricultural productivity growth. The analysis combines new data for ten LAC countries collected by the International Food Policy Research Institute's (IFPRI's) Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) program with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with existing ASTI and other datasets. By integrating these various datasets, the report provides an in-depth examination of recent trends in public agricultural research spending, capacity, and outputs across the LAC region. Despite the demonstrated high returns on agricultural R&D investments, LAC countries continue to lag in allocating sufficient resources to this critical area. The traditional agricultural research model faces major challenges in keeping pace with the evolving agricultural landscape and food system more broadly.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies, Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies, Low- and middle-income countries worldwide share the common challenge of achieving sustainable economic development while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This challenge is complex due to the interconnectedness of economic activities, where policies targeting one industry can have ripple effects on others. Therefore, it is crucial to understand integrated GHG emissions and their relationships across industries within an economy to inform effective policy formulation. Kenya, as a middle-income country experiencing rapid economic growth, faces an urgent need to address this challenge. This study analyzes the economic relationships between agricultural production, the food industry, and other sectors of the economy in Kenya to identify key drivers of national GHG emissions from the food system. To accomplish this, an environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) table is employed to calculate both direct and indirect emissions for 38 activities of Kenya’s economy, as well as emissions embodied in final goods. Direct emissions refer to those generated during the production process of an activity, while indirect emissions are produced by other activities that provide inputs to the activity of interest. The findings reveal that agriculture is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Kenya, with the majority of emissions stemming from direct sources such as enteric fermentation and manure management in livestock production. Additionally, the study finds that total emission intensity in the manufacturing sector is considerably higher than in most agricultural activities, except for livestock production, primarily due to the significant level of indirect emissions associated with manufacturing processes. Within the agricultural sector, cereals and livestock production exhibit high levels of direct emissions, while export crops like coffee and tea, as well as vegetable cultivation, show relatively higher indirect emissions. Addressing GHG emissions from the livestoc

PR, IFPRI4; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies, Development Strategies and Governance (DSG); Transformation Strategies, Agriculture is key to economic growth and poverty reduction in Kenya as it plays a pivotal role in employment creation, food security, exports, and sustainable development. In 2019, it directly contributed 22.7 percent of GDP, accounted for 20.9 percent of total exports, and generated 43.3 percent of employment (Chapter 2). The sector is thus not only an important driver of Kenya’s economy but also the means of livelihood for many Kenyan people. Given the economic and social importance of agriculture in Kenya, policies have revolved around the main goal of increasing productivity and incomes, especially for smallholders, to enhance food security and equity, with an emphasis on production intensification, commercialization, and environmental sustainability (Alila and Atieno 2006). In this context, the declining perfor mance of the sector measured in terms of its growth has been a major concern for policymakers.

PR, IFPRI3; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies, Foresight and Policy Modeling (FPM); Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies, Research is essential for improvement of agricultural productivity, resource use and resilience, and for food systems transformation more broadly. This article analyzes the drivers of past agricultural productivity growth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and argues that productivity is not growing fast enough to meet the needs of a global population of 10 billion by 2050. A sustainable transformation of agri-food systems in LMICs will need greater and faster technical change. Higher investment in agri-food R&D is therefore needed to accelerate productivity growth and address the social, economic, nutritional and environmental challenges facing LMICs. Greater and better-targeted investment in sustainable technologies and climate change mitigation and adaptation will be particularly important to reducing the climate change impacts on agriculture and food security in the coming decades. However, LMICs with small research systems and limited innovation capacity lack the scale and resources to effectively tackle the challenges ahead. Better coordination and a clear articulation of roles and responsibilities among national, subregional, regional and global R&D actors (both from the public and private sectors) are essential to ensuring that scarce financial, human, and infrastructure resources are optimized, duplications minimized, and synergies and complementarities enhanced.

PR, IFPRI3; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; ISI; ASTI, Foresight and Policy Modeling (FPM); Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies, Introduction: This article contributes to a better understanding of the context in which agricultural R&D investment takes place in low- and middle-income countries, and how innovation capacity, the development of the food system, and the size of the research system affect R&D investment. Methods: A three-step methodology is proposed where the first step consists of creating an index of the development of a food system using indicators of the technological transformation of the food supply chain and the changes in diets on the demand side. The second step involves developing a measure of innovation capacity at the country level, while the final step consists of systematic comparisons of countries with large and small agricultural research systems to find the relationship between the size of a country's research system, the level of development of its food system, and its overall capacity to innovate. Results: The results reveal that there is a high and positive correlation between innovation capacity and the development of the food system and a negative correlation between these two indicators and the size of the agricultural research system in low- and middle-income countries. The lower overall quality and level of development of the education and scientific research systems in countries with small agricultural research systems are important factors contributing to reduced innovation capacity. In addition, countries with small agricultural research systems are challenged with a comparatively poor innovation environment, poor market development, a weak private sector, a lack of competition in domestic markets, and a largely rural population with poor links to markets. Discussion: The results of the analysis stress the need to increase the efficiency and productivity of agricultural research by implementing policies that get the most out of available resources while minimizing the negative effect of small-scale research operations. Increased coordination and integrat

PR, 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; IFPRI4; ASTI, Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies, This chapter looks at food system innovations and digital technologies as important drivers of productivity growth and improved food and nutrition security. The analysis emphasizes a mix of research feasibility and technology-enabling policy factors necessary to realize pro-poor benefits. Given their transformative potential and the urgency of developing the enabling R&D and policy trajectories required for impact, we highlight genome editing bio-innovations, specifically CRISPR-Cas9, to address sustainable agricultural growth; and digital technologies, including remote sensing, connected sensors, artificial intelligence, digital advisory services, digital financial services, and e-commerce, to help guide the operations and decision-making of farmers, traders, and policymakers in agricultural value chains. The analysis points to the need to close critical gaps in R&D investments, capabilities, and enabling policies and regulations to accelerate the scaling and adoption of innovations. At the global level, the engagement of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with global players should be facilitated to strengthen intellectual property (IP) access and the management of innovations; and North–South, South–South, and triangular cooperation should be promoted to strengthen LMICs’ regulatory capabilities. At the national level, countries need to invest in science-based participatory approaches to identify and adapt technologies to local conditions; close regulatory gaps through evidence-based frameworks that enable the rapid development, deployment, and safe use of innovations; close institutional and human capacity gaps by addressing limitations in institutional capacities and coordination, while training a new generation of scientists with the skills needed to develop and deliver innovations; develop an understanding of political economy factors for a nuanced knowledge of actors’ agendas to better inform communications and address technology hesitancy; close digit

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; BioRAPP, PIM; EPTD, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), An enabling, evidence-based decision-making framework is critical to support agricultural biotechnology innovation, and to ensure farmers’ access to genetically modified (GM) crops, including orphan crop varieties. A key element, and often a challenge in the decision making process, involves the balancing of identified potential risks with expected economic benefits from GM crops. The latter is particularly challenging in the case of orphan crops, for which solid economic data is scarce. To address this challenge, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in collaboration with local economists analyzed the expected economic benefits to farmers and consumers from the adoption of GM crops in 5 sub-Saharan African countries. This paper focuses on case studies involving insect resistant cowpea in Nigeria and Ghana; disease-resistant cassava in Uganda and Tanzania; and disease-resistant banana in Uganda. Estimations from these case studies show substantial economic benefits to farmers and consumers from the timely adoption and planting in farmers’ fields of GM orphan crops. Our analysis also shows how the benefits would significantly be reduced by regulatory or other delays that affect the timely release of these crops. These findings underscore the importance of having an enabling policy environment and regulatory system—covering, among other elements, biosafety and food/feed safety assessment, and varietal release registration—that is efficient, predictable, and transparent to ensure that the projected economic benefits are delivered and realized in a timely manner.

PR, IFPRI4; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply, EPTD, Food systems everywhere are facing major new challenges. Shocks caused by COVID-19 have currently seized our attention, but the pandemic has also accentuated persistent problems of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, population growth, and pressure on natural resources, notably land, water, and biodiversity. Adding to these challenges, climate change poses a serious threat to food security and livelihoods as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise. Changing temperatures, highly variable precipitation, shifting growing seasons, and extreme weather events are already making agricultural yields and prices more volatile, with rural areas across the world feeling the effects most profoundly. Yet, as the world’s population moves toward 9 or 10 billion by 2050, unprecedented increases in global food production — of at least 60 percent over 2005–2007 levels — will be needed to meet growing demand.

PR, 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; CRP2; IFPRI5, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Agricultural research and development (R&D) investment is positively associated with high returns, but these returns take time—often decades—to develop. Consequently, the inherent lag from the inception of research to the adoption of new technologies calls for sustained and stable R&D funding. In 2016, Africa invested just 0.39 percent of its agricultural GDP (AgGDP) in agricultural R&D, down from 0.54 percent in 2000. Even though in absolute terms total R&D investment has increased since the turn of the millennium—after a period of stagnation—most of the funds have been directed toward research staff expansion, salary increases, and rehabilitation of derelict research infrastructure and equipment, rather than actual research programs. In fact, in a large number of African countries, the national government funds the salaries of researchers and support staff, but little else, leaving nonsalary-related expenses highly dependent on donors and other funding sources.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This study is a first attempt to estimate the impact of a red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) feed additive on total emissions from cattle and the feasibility of scaling up farmed seaweed production to meet projected demand from the livestock sector. The approach used for the analysis combines projections of supply and demand of beef and milk production to 2050 with a cattle herd model that allows calculation of animal categories by age and sex, animal weight and production, and feed intake and methane emissions from cattle. At the time of this study, the seaweed additive showed limited applicability in grazing systems as it has been used experimentally, mostly incorporated in mix rations for each treatment animal, with not enough evidence available at present to determine the time of decay of the active component in seaweed after consumption by animals with limited access to the additive. Given these limitations, this study assumes that the applicability of the seaweed additive could be extended in the future to most dairy systems via slow-release formulations that have already been developed for other CH4 inhibitors and that can be fed daily during milking time. Based on this assumption, the maximum potential reduction of enteric methane emissions of the new technology is analyzed by projecting a scenario where the seaweed additive is supplied globally to dairy cows. Results show that the seaweed additive could result in a reduction of up to 10 percent in total methane emissions from cattle compared to a No-Seaweed scenario. Most of this reduction was driven by decreased emissions in Latin America, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. The estimated reduction in feed intake associated with the seaweed additive was equivalent to an annual reduction in grain consumption of approximately 50 kgs per cow, or US$5 billion in global cost savings per year. The total amount of dry seaweed needed to supply dairy cows in 2050 was estimated at 5 million metric tons per year

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), The 2019 report of the Global Commission on Adaptation for accelerated action to adapt to climate change included a call for increased allocation of resources to international agricultural research. The production and adaptation challenges faced by agriculture will be most acutely felt in Africa and South Asia, focus regions of the CGIAR, the world’s largest public food systems research network. These challenges come at a time when the CGIAR is undergoing a transformation of its partnerships, knowledge, assets and global presence, emerging as One CGIAR, aimed at sharpening its mission and impact focus to 2030 and beyond, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence on the impacts of CGIAR research since the 1980s have consistently found high rates of return to investment. How could this evidence on the performance of the CGIAR and its partnership with NARS in developing regions be used to inform investment priority setting and to achieve the One CGIAR goals in the coming years? We used detailed R&D investment data from the CGIAR, NARS (ASTI) and evidence from the literature on returns to CGIAR investment by crop and region to develop and calibrate a model of R&D investment that allows us to conduct priority-setting analysis of alternative CGIAR investment across research activities and regions. The model developed can be linked to global partial equilibrium and economy-wide forward-looking models to analyze the effect of different CGIAR investment options under alternative future scenarios. We checked the plausibility of the results obtained by the model calculating the Benefit-Cost ratio of historical CGIAR investments and found that each dollar invested by the CGIAR between 1971 and 2018 returned almost 10 dollars in output as the result of increased productivity, which is within the range of returns found by most recent meta-analyses impact of CGIAR investment. An application of the model to SSA shows that the best results for the CGIAR are obtained f

IFPRI5; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies, EPTD; PIM, 38 pages, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Los sistemas agrícolas han jugado un papel crítico en la seguridad alimentaria de la humanidad. A lo largo de la historia, se han logrado avances significativos en la seguridad alimentaria, incluyendo reducir la proporción de personas que padecen de hambre, la desnutrición, y la prevalencia en los retrasos en el crecimiento infantil. Sin embargo, hay evidencia que estos logros están revirtiendo debido a desaceleraciones en la producción y la productividad agrícola, y las interacciones con las crisis existenciales de salud, sostenibilidad y gobernanza.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; ASTI; CRP2, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Agricultural research and development (R&D) investment is positively associated with high returns, but these returns take time—often decades—to develop. Consequently, the inherent lag from the inception of research to the adoption of new technologies calls for sustained and stable R&D funding. In 2016, Africa invested just 0.39 percent of its agricultural GDP (AgGDP) in agricultural R&D, down from 0.54 percent in 2000. Even though in absolute terms total R&D investment has increased since the turn of the millennium—after a period of stagnation—most of the funds have been directed toward research staff expansion, salary increases, and rehabilitation of derelict research infrastructure and equipment, rather than actual research programs. In fact, in a large number of African countries, the national government funds the salaries of researchers and support staff, but little else, leaving nonsalary-related expenses highly dependent on donors and other funding sources.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This analysis explores the relationship between agricultural R&D investments and rural poverty reduction, and the prevalence of undernourishment in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It uses a panel data set of internationally comparable poverty dis-aggregated by urban and rural areas, country level undernourishment, and ASTI data on R&D investments and derived indicators. The study uses agricultural R&D knowledge stocks (KS) to account for the lagged effects of research through depreciation and gestation period of investments, and applies causal mediation analysis to assess the impact of KS on poverty and hunger and measure the relative contribution of KS-induced agricultural productivity growth on those outcomes. Evidence suggests that, while SSA growth in KS has been relatively slow, it helped reduce rural poverty and undernourishment – the percentage point reduction in rural extreme and moderate poverty of a 1% annual increase in KS is 0.218 and 0.146 percentage points per year, respectively. Mediation analysis indicates that a fifth of the KS effect on extreme rural poverty, and a quarter of the KS effect on moderate rural poverty, can be attributed to KS driven gains in agricultural labor productivity. Likewise, KS growth reduces undernourishment – a 1% annual increase in KS leads to a drop of 0.132 percentage points per year in the prevalence of undernourishment, with about 40% of that effect mediated through gains in agricultural land productivity. These results indicate that KS supports poverty and hunger reduction through benefits on-farm and beyond it. They also suggest that there is room for strengthening the role of R&D KS productivity enhancing innovations. Given the current low levels of investments in R&D and resulting KS, increasing its levels will be critical, but that alone is not sufficient. Policy makers will have to rethink the way the innovations from R&D get scaled up and pay attention to the necessary complementary policies and investments that enabl

Non-PR, IFPRI5; UNFSS; CRP2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance, EPTD; PIM, 19 pages, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This brief looks at food system innovations and digital technologies as important drivers of productivity growth and improved food and nutrition security. The analysis emphasizes a mix of research feasibility and technology-enabling policy factors necessary to realize pro-poor benefits. Given their transformative potential and the urgency of developing the enabling R&D and policy trajectories required for impact, we highlight genome editing bio-innovations, specifically CRISPR-Cas9, to address sustainable agricultural growth; and digital technologies, including remote sensing, connected sensors, artificial intelligence, digital advisory services, digital financial services, and e-commerce, to help guide the operations and decision-making of farmers, traders, and policymakers in agricultural value chains. The analysis points to the need to close critical gaps in R&D investments, capabilities, and enabling policies as well as regulations to accelerate the scaling and adoption of innovations. At the global level, the engagement of low- and middle income countries with global players should be facilitated so as to strengthen intellectual property (IP) access and management of innovations; and North– South, South–South, and triangular cooperation should be promoted to strengthen LMICs’ regulatory capabilities. At the national level, countries need to invest in science-based participatory approaches to identify and adapt technologies to local conditions; close regulatory gaps through evidence-based frameworks that enable the rapid development, employment, and safe use of innovations; close institutional and human capacity gaps by addressing limitations in institutional capacities and coordination, while training a new generation of scientists with the skills needed to develop and deliver innovations; develop an understanding of political economy factors for a nuanced knowledge of actors’ agendas to better inform communications and address technology hesitancy; close digit

PR, IFPRI3; ISI; IFPRIOA, EPTD, The conventional wisdom that developing countries are significantly underinvesting in agricultural research and development (R&D) has been challenged by studies that found that the high rates of return in the literature result from data limitations and inadequate modeling choices. However, evidence of low research effort in developing countries as measured by the intensity ratio (IR)—the percentage of agricultural gross domestic product invested in agricultural R&D—has not been questioned. This article argues that the IR is an inadequate indicator of research effort and proposes an alternative index to measure R&D intensity. Using the proposed index, we find that the investment effort in developing countries is much higher than the one observed when the IR is used, that the contribution of low‐ and middle‐income (LMI) countries to growth in global R&D intensity was higher to that of high‐income (HI) countries in recent years, that the investment gap in LMI countries is close to 50% of R&D investment, and that the proposed development goal of a 1.0% value of the IR is beyond the possibilities of most Asian and African countries.

PR, IFPRI1; CRP2, EPTD; DGO; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This report assesses the cost of adaptation to climate change across a range of future climate scenarios and investment options. We focus on offsetting climate change impacts on hunger through investment in agricultural research, water management, and rural infrastructure in developing countries. We link climate, crop, water, and economic models to (1) analyze scenarios of future change in the agriculture sector to 2050 and (2) assess trade-offs for these investments across key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for poverty, hunger, and water. Our reference projections show that climate change slows progress toward eliminating hunger, with an additional 78 million people facing chronic hunger in 2050 relative to a no-climate-change future, over half of them in Africa south of the Sahara. Increased investments can offset these impacts. Achieving this would require that annual investment in international agricultural research increase from US$1.62 billion to US$2.77 billion per year between 2015 and 2050. Additional water and infrastructure investments are estimated to be more expensive than agricultural R&D at about US$12.7 billion and US$10.8 billion per year, respectively, but these address key gaps to support transformation toward food system resiliency. Findings on ranges of costs and trade-offs and complementarities across SDGs will help policymakers make better-informed choices between alternative investment strategies.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies, Innovation Policy and Scaling (IPS); Transformation Strategies; PIM; EPTD, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This note provides an overview of investment trends in global agricultural research to the year 2016, which revises ASTI’s prior global update (Beintema et al. 2012). Although data on agricultural research investments are outdated, irregular, or incomplete for some countries, this update was prompted by ASTI’s new datasets for Africa and Asia, newly released data for high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and additional data from various other secondary sources, particularly for Latin America, China, and United States.

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Indonesian agricultural R&D spending declined steadily in the decade leading to 2017 (in inflation-adjusted terms). The country’s agricultural research spending as a share of AgGDP also fell substantially, from 0.48 percent in 2004 to just 0.17 percent in 2017. This ratio is among the lowest in Southeast Asia.

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Despite a considerable increase in agricultural research spending in recent years, Cambodia is still grossly underinvesting. At just 0.22 percent in 2017, the country’s agricultural research intensity ratio (that is, spending as a share of AgGDP) is very low.

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Malaysia’s total agricultural research spending remained stagnant in the decade leading to 2017, averaging around 0.9 to 1.0 billion ringgit per year (in constant 2011 prices).

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme; DCA, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Southeast Asia made considerable progress in building and strengthening its agricultural R&D capacity during 2000–2017. All of the region’s countries reported higher numbers of agricultural researchers, improvements in their average qualification levels, and higher shares of women participating in agricultural R&D. In contrast, regional agricultural research spending remained stagnant, despite considerable growth in agricultural output over time. As a result, Southeast Asia’s agricultural research intensity—that is, agricultural research spending as a share of agricultural GDP—steadily declined from 0.50 percent in 2000 to just 0.33 percent in 2017. Although the extent of underinvestment in agricultural research differs across countries, all Southeast Asian countries invested below the levels deemed attainable based on the analysis summarized in this report. The region will need to increase its agricultural research investment substantially in order to address future agricultural production challenges more effectively and ensure productivity growth. Southeast Asia’s least developed agricultural research systems (Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar) are characterized by low scientific output and researcher productivity as a direct consequence of severe underfunding and lack of sufficient well-qualified research staff. While Malaysia and Thailand have significantly more developed agricultural research systems, they still report key inefficiencies and resource constraints that require attention. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam occupy intermediate positions between these two groups of high- and low-performing agricultural research systems. Growing national economies, higher disposable incomes, and changing consumption patterns will prompt considerable shifts in levels of agricultural production, consumption, imports, and exports across Southeast Asia over the next 20 to 30 years. The resource-allocation decisions that governments make today will affect agricultural prod

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; ASTI, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), This note provides an overview of investment trends in global agricultural research to the year 2016, which revises ASTI’s prior global update (Beintema et al. 2012). Although data on agricultural research investments are outdated, irregular, or incomplete for some countries, this update was prompted by ASTI’s new datasets for Africa and Asia, newly released data for high-income countries from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and additional data from various other secondary sources, particularly for Latin America, China, and United States.

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Agricultural research spending in Vietnam has increased steadily since 2000. Nonetheless, as of 2017, Vietnam only invested 0.20 percent of its AgGDP in agricultural research, which is insufficient to address the multitude of challenges the agricultural sector is facing. The country has made considerable progress in building its agricultural research capacity. Average degree levels of scientists have improved markedly over time. Recent growth in agricultural research spending and staffing is likely to be reversed in the coming years because the Vietnamese government plans to reduce public research staffing and take steps to stimulate private research and funding.

Non-PR, IFPRI2; ASTI; DCA; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Agricultural research investment in Thailand rose gradually during 2013–2017, largely driven by increased spending by the country’s livestock, forestry, and rice departments.

Non-PR, IFPRI1; CRP2; PBS; DCA; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; BioRAPP, EPTD; PIM, CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), Ethiopian economy has grown at an average rate that surpasses that of almost any other economy in the region over the last two decades. At the center of this development is the high priority placed on accelerating agricultural growth and achieving food security and poverty alleviation. Over the years, maize has become a main food security crop, widely produced and consumed by smallholder farmers, second only to teff in terms of area. Despite the sustained growth of maize production over the years, its yields continue to be lower than the world’s average. Of the many abiotic and biotic constraints that maize faces, insect attacks and droughts are two critical ones. The genetically modified TELA maize can help address these constraints. This paper estimates the economic benefits of adopting this new technology and the opportunity cost that Ethiopia will incur if its adoption is delayed. The analysis is conducted using an economic surplus partial equilibrium model run with the newly developed DREAMpy software, data drawn from the Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey, Wave 3 2015-2016, econometric estimations using these survey data, and other local data and sources. The estimations show that if the drought tolerant and insect resistant TELA maize is planted in 2023 the net present-value of benefits for producers and consumers would be around $850 million. Producers from the mid-altitude maize zone will be the main beneficiaries, given the targeted area of TELA maize. Consumers from all areas will benefit from the projected reduction in price. If the adoption of this new technology is delayed by 5 years, the estimated net present value of benefits will fall by 30 percent. These costs underscore the importance of having a regulatory system that is efficient, predictable, and transparent and ensures that the projected economic benefits are realized.

Non-PR, IFPRI5; SA-TIED, EPTD, 22 pages, This paper seeks to address the following questions: (a) How productive is South Africa’s agricultural sector? (b) How does it compare to other countries in terms of productivity? The approach taken uses neoclassical growth accounting in defining total factor productivity (TFP) growth as the ratio of output and input growth. There are three distinctive periods in the performance of South Africa’s agricultural sector. The first period, from 1961 to 1980-1981, is one of sustained growth in output driven by growth in input. TFP remains stagnant during this period. The second period, between 1981 and 1994 is characterized by a decreased trend in the use of inputs and by a large drop in output in 1982 followed by a period of output growth and recovery. In 1991, and after almost ten years of growth, however, output was only reaching its 1981 level. During this period, output growth and recovery is driven by TFP. The last period, starting in 1995–1996 is one of accelerated growth in output and TFP and the end of decline in aggregated input, which reverts the trend of the previous two decades and started a period of growth. Relative to other countries, growth in TFP was rapid in South Africa from 1995–2004 (3.4 percent, which was fastest of all comparator countries). After 2005, it has been relatively slow (1.5 percent) compared to other countries and compared to the previous period. Relative to the global production possibilities frontier (PPF), South African agriculture has been approaching the global PPF. Efficiency, as measured by proximity to the global PPF, improved from 0.66 from 1981 to 1994 to 0.81 in 1995-2004 and to 0.88 in 2005-2014. Overall, South African agriculture is reasonably productive in terms of TFP and has been approaching the global PPF. However, productivity growth slowed in the most recent period, 2005-2014, pointing to a need for efforts to identify the sources of the slowdown and address them.