the world bank cultivating knowledge and skills to grow...

Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African AgricultureA Synthesis of an Institutional, Regional, and International Review

THE World Bank

rEPorT no. 40997-aFr

THE WORLD BANK

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

AFRICA REGION HUMAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Cultivating Knowledgeand Skills to GrowAfrican Agriculture

A Synthesis of an Institutional, Regional,and International Review

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page i

© 2007 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433Telephone 202-473-1000Internet www.worldbank.org/ruralE-mail [email protected]

All rights reserved.

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressedin this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The WorldBank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accu-racy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and otherinformation shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part ofThe World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or accept-ance of such boundaries.

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions orall of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. TheInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encouragesdissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions ofthe work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a requestwith complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 RosewoodDrive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470,http://www.copyright.com/.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressedto the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433,USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail [email protected].

Cover design by Bill Pragluski of Critical Stages

Copyediting and Typesetting by ICC Macmillan Inc.

Cover photos clockwise from top left: Curt Carnemark, Kenya; Jonathan Agwe, Facultyof Agriculture and Soil Sciences, Dschang University, Cameroon; Men in field, CurtCarnemark, Kenya; Woman in lab with flowers, University of Swaziland PublicationsOffice (appeared on UNISWA’s 2007 calendar); Cattle in a corral, Francois Le Gall,Central African Republic; Two women in a science laboratory of the Faculty ofAgriculture, University of Swaziland Publications Office; Eric Miller, Machava ADPPTeachers Training College, Mozambique.

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page ii

iii

A C R O N Y M S vii

F O R E W O R D ix

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S xi

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY xiii

The Context for Agricultural Education and Training in Africa 1Introduction 1Why Is Agricultural Education Important for Africa? 3Regional and Bank Strategies 5Agricultural Innovation Systems and AET 6Research Objectives, Scope, and Audience 7

Agricultural Education Is Vital for African Development 9Agriculture Development Is Necessary for Overall

Growth 9Strong Agricultural Education and Training Systems Underpin

Productivity Increases 10

African Agricultural Education and Training in Perspective 13The Colonial Era 13Post-Independence 14Agricultural Education in Africa Today 14Donor Assistance to African Agriculture Has Declined

Sharply 15

3

2

1

Contents

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page iii

Support for Agricultural Education and Training in Africa HasDisappeared 16

Underfinancing of Africa’s Agriculture Sector Appears Poised to Change 19

Constraints on Building AET Capacity 21AET Enrollments Are Distorted and Declining 21AET Institutions Are Isolated and Fragmented 29AET Curricula Tend to be Obsolete and Disassociated from

the Economy 31Numerous Countries Face Crises in AET Staffing 32Teaching Methods and Facilities Are Often Inadequate 34

What Guidance Can Global Experience Provide? 37Mobilize Political Support 37Public Investment in AET Is Essential 38Reforms Need Sustained Commitment Over Decades to

Produce Returns 38Integrated Administrative Structures Are Desirable 38Massive Campaigns to Develop Human Capital Have Worked 39Incentives Are Necessary to Retain Staff 39

Priorities for Modernizing Agricultural Education and Training 41Generate Political Will to Support Agriculture 41Bring AET Institutions into the National Agricultural

Innovation System by Establishing Better Institutional and MarketLinkages 42

Assess and Rebalance AET Enrollment Profiles 46Reorient Curricula and Modernize Teaching Methods 47Replenish Human Capital Through Local Postgraduate

Programs 51Manage Finances Proactively 52Achieve Better Gender Balance in AET Graduates 55

Approaches Vary by AET Level 57AET at the Secondary Level 57AET at the Tertiary Level 58AET at the Postgraduate Level 59

7

6

5

4

iv Contents

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page iv

Contents v

The Time to Act Is Now 65Toward an AET Strategic Framework 65The Role of National Political Leaders 67The Role of AET Institutional Managers 67The Role of Development Partners 68Conclusion 68

A N N E X E SAnnex 1. NARS and AKIS Frameworks in Relation to Agricultural

Innovation Systems 71Annex 2. The Landscape of Agricultural Education and Training

Institutions Included in This Study 73Annex 3. Percentage of Total Employment in Agriculture 77Annex 4. Summary of Donor Support for Agricultural Education

and Training 79Annex 5. Suggested Actions That Would Help Tertiary Institutions

to Recruit, Retain, and Promote Professional Women 83Annex 6. Distribution of Highly Skilled Human Resources for

Agricultural Research and Education Within and AmongCountries of Sub-Saharan Africa 85

P R I N C I PA L R E S E A R C H W O R K S 8 7

N O T E S 8 9

R E F E R E N C E S 9 3

Boxes3.1 World Bank Assistance for Agricultural Education Has Been Minimal 174.1 Agricultural Education and Gender Inequities in Ethiopia 256.1 Mali Agribusiness Incubator 466.2 Creating an Agricultural Education System in Mozambique 466.3 Interdisciplinary Food Security Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal,

South Africa 496.4 Innovations in Teaching at Baraka Agricultural College in Kenya 496.5 The Challenge of Changing Organizational Culture 537.1 Joint MSc Degree in Rural Development Delivered by University College

Cork (Ireland) and Mekelle University (Ethiopia) 627.2 Master’s Program in Agricultural Information and Communications

Management 64

Figure1.1 Conceptualization of a National Agricultural Innovation System 2

Charts3.1 Establishment of Universities with Faculties of Agriculture or Veterinary

Sciences in SSA by Decade 143.2 Bilateral Assistance for Agriculture, 1980–2003 153.3 World Bank Lending for Agriculture in SSA, 1990–2006 15

8

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page v

3.4 Investments in Research, Extension and AET as a % of ODAfor African Agriculture, 1990–2004 16

3.5 ODA to AET, Research and Extension in SSA, 1990–2004 163.6 Trend in Agricultural Expenditure as a Percentage of Total Government

Expenditure for 14 Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980–2004 194.1 Technical Education Pyramid for 4 Most Competitive Countries and

15 Sub-Saharan Africa Countries 234.2 Technical Education Pyramids for Francophone and Anglophone Countries

in Africa 244.3 Agriculture Enrollments as a % of Total Enrollments by Level, Early 1980s

and 1990s 274.4 Graduates from Forestry Technician Training (Certificate and Diploma)

1993–2002 274.5 Kenya: Agriculture Enrollments in Public Universities as a % of Total BSc,

1996–2004 284.6 Forestry Graduates with MSc and PhD, 1997–2002 294.7 Ghana: Sources of Financing in Various Tertiary AET Institutions, 2005

(% of Total) 357.1 Estimated Total Cost of MSc. Degrees in Agricultural Economics, Various

Countries (US$ Thousands) 617.2 Estimated Total Cost of PhD Degrees in Agricultural Economics in Various

Countries, 2006 62

Tables3.1 Agricultural Expenditure as a Percentage of Total Government Expenditure,

1980–2004 184.1 Percent of Technical Education Enrollments in Total National Enrollments,

ISCED Levels 4–6, 2004 or Closest Year 226.1 Percentage Distribution of Sokoine University of Agriculture Graduate

Employment, 2005 436.2 Projected Employment Area Trends for Agricultural Graduates in Tanzania,

2005 446.3 Staff-Student Ratio, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences (FASA),

University of Dschang, Cameroon 548.1 Matrix of Key Actions and Responsibilities 66

A2.1 Types and Dimensions of Secondary Level AET, Selected Countries 74A2.2 Tertiary AET Institutions Included in Background Study 74A2.3 Regional Postgraduate Programs in Agriculture 75

vi Contents

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/14/07 5:39 PM Page vi

vii

ACCI African Center for Crop Improvement (University of KwaZulu-Natal)

ACTAEPA African Consortium for Training in Applied Economics and Policy Analysis

AERC African Economic Research Consortium

AET Agricultural education and training

AGORA Access to Global On-line Research for Agriculture

AIS Agricultural Innovation System

AKIS Agricultural knowledge and information system

ANAFE African Network for Agricultural and Forestry Education

ATVET Agricultural, Technical Vocational Education and Training (Ethiopia)

BASIC Building Africa’s Scientific and Institutional Capacity in Agriculture

CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Plan

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CMAAE Collaborative MSc Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics

DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)

EASTA École d’Application des Sciences et Techniques Agricoles, Madagascar

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Organization

FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FASA Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, Cameroon

GDP Gross domestic product

GO-FAU Global Open Agricultural and Food University (CGIAR)

IAC InterAcademy Council

ICIPE International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology

ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry

ICT Information and communications technology

IDA International Development Association

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

ILO International Labor Organization

IRR Internal rate of return

Acronyms

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page vii

viii Acronyms

MAPP Multi-Country Agricultural Productivity Program (NEPAD)

MSc Master of Science

NARS National agricultural research systems

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non-government organization

ODA Overseas development assistance

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

PSRP Poverty Reduction Strategy Program

RUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture

SACCAR Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural and NaturalResources Research and Training

SAFE Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension Education

SAU State Agricultural University (India)

SEMCIT Sustainability, Education and the Management of Change in the Tropics

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

TEEAL The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USHEPiA University Science, Humanities and Engineering Partnerships in Africa

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page viii

ix

For more than a decade, formal agricultural education andtraining (AET) has been largely abandoned by governmentsand donors in Africa. This might seem surprising in view ofthe agricultural sector’s sizable contributions to GDP, employ-ment, and exports in Sub-Saharan Africa. Multiple factorshave combined to bring AET into its present orphaned state.Among them are: a belief that the battle for food supply hadbeen won with the Green Revolution of the 1980s; doubtsregarding the efficacy of publicly provided technical and vo-cational education and training (of which AET is a part) con-tained in the World Bank’s 1991 policy paper on this topic; thegrowing concentration of donor and government effort on theuniversal provision of basic education; and the high priorityplaced on poverty reduction contained in the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

But the “lean years” for agriculture in Africa may now be athing of the past. Several recent international initiatives havebrought both agriculture and technically focused educationback into the work plans and budgets of African governmentsand development assistance agencies alike. First, the AfricanUnion and the New Partnership for African Development is-sued on behalf of African governments its Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Program in 2002 that proposed strate-gies to boost agricultural output on the continent by 6 per-cent a year over the next 20 years. Second, the internationalCommission for Africa, chaired by then British Prime MinisterTony Blair, argued in March 2005 for greater attention to boost-ing economic growth in Africa and recommended higher in-vestments in human resource capacities linked to agriculture,science and technology, and tertiary education. Shortly there-after, participants at the G-8 meeting convened in Gleneagles,Scotland affirmed this report and committed their governmentsto provide significant additional funding in support of its objec-tives. Third, the World Bank reinforced these two initiatives inits multisectoral Africa Action Plan of August 2005, which seesagriculture as the driver of regional economic growth and pur-sues this end through selected outcome-based actions. Then, inJune 2006, the African Union delivered a Framework for AfricanAgricultural Productivity that outlined a common implementa-tion plan for governments and donors alike.

Foreword

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page ix

x Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

The Bank’s Africa Action Plan quickly generatedresults, as World Bank investments in Africa’s agri-cultural sector doubled in 2006 and remainedstrong in 2007. Other donors have responded simi-larly. Notably, African governments have commit-ted themselves to investing 10 percent of GDP intotheir agricultural sectors by 2010. Human resourcedevelopment features prominently in all of theseinitiatives, with agricultural education and traininga potential beneficiary from this. Yet following somany years of neglect, priorities for interventionsin the AET subsector are not at all clear. Thus, theBank’s Human Development Department forAfrica initiated a major research undertaking in2005 designed to address the question of whatshould be done for agricultural education and howto do it. The findings of this effort are contained inthis report.

Agricultural education is a multisectoral issuethat does not fall neatly into either the education or

the agricultural sector. As a result, it may often “fallthrough the cracks” between the mainline sectorprograms. Multisector teams and cross-sector col-laboration are therefore necessary to ensure bal-anced attention to both the human developmentand agricultural knowledge aspects of AET. This isthe approach that characterized this study, and wewould like to recognize the collegial interactionand the institutional cooperation that have pro-duced this joint publication.

Jee-Peng TanEducation Adviser

Human Development DepartmentAfrica Region

Eija PehuAgricultural Adviser

Agriculture and Rural Development DepartmentSustainable Development Network

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page x

xi

This report is the product of collaboration across continents, institu-tions, and disciplines. Much of its substance and detail were con-tributed by the wonderful group of African and internationalresearchers who are recognized in the Principal Research Workslisted at the end of this book. Their commitment and professional-ism generated the empirical foundation upon which this analysisis erected.

The synthesized report presented here was written jointly byRichard K. Johanson, an international specialist on education andtraining, and by William Saint, a former Lead Education Specialist(Higher Education) in the Africa Region of the World Bank.

The research project that produced this report is the fruit of uncom-mon collaboration among three World Bank units: the HumanDevelopment Department of the Africa Region, the Agriculture andRural Development Department, and the Environmentally andSocially Sustainable Development Department of the Africa Region.Each department contributed technical expertise and financial re-sources to this investigation. Individual staff, especially Eija Pehu,Riikka Rajalahti, and Jonathan Agwe of ARD, as well as DavidNielson of ESSD, functioned as a de facto advisory team to AFTHDthroughout the two-year undertaking.

Helpful guidance was contributed at the study conceptualizationstage by external advisers Carl Eicher, John Lynam, and Arvil VanAdams, and by World Bank reviewers Derek Byerlee and Jean Delion.Additional advice was gratefully received from members of theWorking Group for International Coordination in Skills Developmentduring their annual meeting at the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) in November 2005.

Valuable critiques of early drafts of the report were provided byMalcolm Blackie and John Lynam, who served as external reviewers,and by Bank colleagues Jonathan Agwe, Stephen Mink, DavidNielson, Eija Pehu, and Riikka Rajalahti. Professional associatesNienke Beintema and David Spielman of the International FoodPolicy Research Institute and Tom Vandenbosch of the WorldAgroforestry Centre generously reviewed and commented upon aprevious draft.

Heartfelt gratitude is expressed to Carl Eicher for unflagginginterest, support, and counsel, which far surpassed his formal con-tractual obligations to this project.

Acknowledgments

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xi

xii Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

A special note of thanks is extended to MontyJones and Ralph von Kaufmann of the Forum forAgricultural Research in Africa (FARA), and toAdipala Ekwamu of the Regional UniversitiesForum for Capacity Building in Agriculture(RUForum), for their advice and feedback through-out the research process, and for their kindinvitations to the Bank research team to presentand discuss its initial findings at the respectiveFARA and RUForum regional conferences in 2007.

The visionary role of Arvil Van Adams, who ini-tiated this study, and the managerial expertise ofPeter Materu, who oversaw the report’s completion

during the final months of preparation, are ac-knowledged with appreciation.

The entire research team recognizes Lisa Li XiLau for her careful management of the logistics andproduction of the report.

Without financial support from the NorwegianEducation Trust Fund, which underwrote many ofthe research expenses, this study could not havebeen carried out. A financial contribution from theDepartment for International Development in theUnited Kingdom enabled an analysis of secondarylevel agricultural education and training to beincluded in this research.

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xii

xiii

THE CONTEXT FOR AGRICULTURALEDUCATION AND TRAINING IN AFRICAUntil it learns to grow its agriculture, Africa is unlikely to register sig-nificant developmental advances. Recognizing this reality, Africangovernments adopted in 2002 a Comprehensive Africa AgricultureDevelopment Program under the auspices of their New Partnership forAfrican Development (NEPAD). This Program states that larger in-vestments in agricultural research, extension, and education systemsare required to achieve the targeted increase in agricultural output of6 percent a year over the next 20 years. In 2006 NEPAD issued aFramework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) as a guidelineto member states for attaining this production goal. These and otherrecent continental initiatives frequently recognize the general impor-tance of agricultural education and training (AET), but they offer lit-tle specificity on what should be done or how to do it. The analysiscontained in this report aims to fill this void.

To this end, the World Bank initiated a series of studies on AETin 2005. These comprised six thematic studies that in turn drewon analyses of 15 country cases, a survey of donor financing trends,an operational review of Bank investments, a survey of the literature,an annotated bibliography, and consultations with stakeholders anddonors. The purpose of this report is to synthesize the findings of thisresearch and propose a set of strategic measures for strengthening thecontribution of AET to agricultural productivity in Sub-SaharanAfrica. The target audiences are African practitioners and policymak-ers concerned with boosting food supply and agricultural output,donor representatives, and World Bank staff. This report presents acase for increased investment in AET, analyzes issues in the subsec-tor, and outlines possible options for policies and interventions tobuild skills and capacities appropriate for the changing circumstancesof African agriculture in the 21st century.

Lessons emerging from recent agricultural reform experiencesdemonstrate that a more nuanced understanding is needed of AET’srole in promoting innovation, productivity gains, and growth in agri-culture. Insight is specifically needed about how to bring AET intocloser, more productive relationships with other actors in the agricul-tural sector and wider economy, thereby sharing in the comparativeadvantages of different actors and institutions to reduce transactioncosts, achieve economies of scale, exploit complementarities, and

Executive Summary

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 10:48 PM Page xiii

realize synergies in innovation. An analytical ap-proach guided by an agricultural innovation sys-tems (AIS) framework has therefore been adoptedhere in the belief that it contributes fresh perspec-tives to addressing this need.

In essence, an agricultural innovation system isa blending of institutional capacities, coordinationmechanisms, communication networks, and policyincentives that fosters innovation-led gains in agri-cultural productivity. It emphasizes the need tounderstand key actors and their roles, their behav-iors and practices, and the institutional contextwithin which they interact, all of which are keyconceptual elements in innovation systems analy-sis (World Bank 2006a).1 This in turn points to is-sues of institutional structures of governance andmanagement (for greater flexibility and respon-siveness), criteria and incentives for professionalperformance (for improved productivity), accessto information and inter-institutional communica-tion networks (for enhanced competitiveness). Allof these issues are relevant to African educationand training institutions.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATIONIS VITAL FOR AFRICANDEVELOPMENTAgriculture continues to be Sub-Saharan Africa’sdominant economic activity, accounting for 40 per-cent of GDP, 15 percent of exports, and 60 to80 percent of employment. Higher agriculturalproductivity is a precondition for growth anddevelopment in most African countries, and in-creasing yields is the key to raising incomes in ruralareas. Farmers and commercial producers maybenefit especially if they can diversify their produc-tion into higher-value, but knowledge-demanding,specialized crops. Strong agricultural educationand training systems are necessary to underpinsuch productivity gains. AET directly raises agri-cultural productivity by developing producercapacities and indirectly increases agricultural pro-ductivity by generating human capital for supportservices. Investments in AET clearly enable re-search, extension, and commercial agriculture togenerate higher payoffs. As stated by NEPAD, “Thequality of tertiary agricultural education is criticalbecause it determines the expertise and competen-cies of scientists, professionals, technicians, teach-ers, and civil service and business leaders in all

aspects of agriculture and related industries.”Higher agricultural education also contributes di-rectly to research and advisory services. Finally, thecase for improving AET systems is compelling inview of their seminal role in agricultural develop-ment elsewhere in the world. AET developmentwas an integral part of strategies of countries thatgrew agriculture successfully such as Brazil, India,and Malaysia.

AFRICAN AGRICULTURALEDUCATION AND TRAININGIN PERSPECTIVE Post-secondary AET was established in Africa asfar back as 1924. An essentially bifurcated systemof agricultural education emerged from the colo-nial period, in which post-primary vocational edu-cation was targeted at the sons of traditionalfarmers, and post-secondary agricultural educa-tion was designed to lead the sons of the middleclass into public employment. This dual legacy, andthe separate expectations associated with eachbranch of it, has hindered the development of agri-cultural education in Africa up to the present.

Extensive institutional infrastructure for agricul-tural education and training has been put in placesince the 1960s. Africa now has roughly 200 publicuniversities (compared with 20 in 1960) and abouta hundred of them teach agriculture and natural re-sources management. In addition, private universi-ties are beginning to complement these capacitieswith their own offerings.

The initial institution-building achievements ofthe 1970s and 1980s have given way to neglect sincethe 1990s. Donor assistance to African agriculturehas declined sharply and, within that total, supportfor agricultural education and training in Africahas largely disappeared. Assistance for formal AETdeclined to just 0.7 percent of agricultural sector aidbetween 2000 and 2004. Government funding hastended to follow donor priorities. The ultimate costof the government and donor pullback from AEThas been to distance African professionals fromknowledge networks, global information resources,and the cutting edge of technology transfer. This hasleft a severely depleted human resource pool inAfrican agriculture.

However, underfinancing of Africa’s agricul-ture sector appears poised to change. Recent signsmay signal an encouraging turnaround in donor

xiv Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xiv

assistance to agriculture and to agriculture train-ing, including the Commission for Africa Report,Our Common Interest, several donor initiativesfocusing on skills development for agriculture, the2003 Maputo Declaration by NEPAD, and theFramework for African Agricultural Productivityissued by NEPAD and the African Union in 2006.If additional investment in agriculture educationand training materializes, the key question is Howshould these additional funds be used?

CONSTRAINTS ON BUILDINGAET CAPACITY AET supply is often out of synch with labor marketdemands in terms of knowledge and practical com-petencies, especially agribusiness, basic manage-ment, and problem solving. AET is not realizing itspotential contribution to agricultural developmentbecause of poor linkages with research and isola-tion from knowledge sources. External problems,such as fragmented organizational responsibilitiesfor AET, and internal problems in terms of under-funding, unattractive working conditions, and con-sequent staff depletion contribute to AETunderachievement.

More specifically, (1) AET enrollment profiles aredistorted and declining. Africa’s technical educationenrollment pyramid falls short at the upper levels,especially postgraduate enrollments. Enrollmentpatterns are distorted by gender, with femalesreceiving far fewer opportunities than indicated bytheir important role in agricultural production.Student interest in AET is waning, in large meas-ure because it was directed almost exclusively togovernment employment that is now dwindling.Agriculture enrollments show declining shares atall post-secondary levels. (2) AET institutions tend tobe isolated and fragmented. AET systems lack strategicalignment to national development priorities. AETsystems suffer from weak linkages with stakehold-ers, employers, and the productive sector and there-fore make less than their expected contribution tonational agricultural innovation systems. They arealso poorly connected to international sources ofknowledge. Their isolation often results from over-centralized or divided administration. (3) AET cur-ricula tend to be obsolete and disassociated from theeconomy. Curricula are often outdated and focusnarrowly on farm production rather than encom-passing markets, agribusiness, and processing.

(4) Numerous countries face crises in AET staffing. Staffshortages are common due to brain drain, a risingtide of retirements, and the attrition of HIV/AIDS.High levels of staff turnover due to unattractiveworking conditions can be a serious issue. Rapid en-rollment expansion and the consequent need to hiremany junior staff have left staff qualifications weakat many AET institutions. (5) Teaching methods andfacilities are often inadequate. Teaching methods areoverwhelmingly traditional in their heavy use ofclassroom lectures. Practical instruction receivesinsufficient emphasis, and students have littleopportunity to develop technical competencies,problem-solving experience, or communication andorganizational skills. Learning infrastructure iswidely deficient due to insufficient budgets andoverdependence on public financing.

African universities ultimately will be responsi-ble for replenishing the stock of human capital intheir research and extension services, and for pro-viding them with the broader set of skills necessaryto grow agriculture in the 21st century. However,they are ill-prepared at present to train the conti-nent’s next generation of agricultural scientists,professionals, and technicians. As stated byNEPAD in the Framework for African AgriculturalProductivity: “. . . Urgent action must be taken to re-store the quality of graduate and postgraduateagricultural education in Africa.”

WHAT GUIDANCE CAN GLOBALEXPERIENCE PROVIDE? Global experience shows it is possible to build pro-ductive and financially sustainable AET and re-search systems. Developing countries such asIndia, Malaysia, Brazil, Chile, and the Philippineshave achieved notable successes in establishingproductive AET systems. A review of these andother experiences points to the importance of sixfactors: (1) Mobilizing and sustaining political sup-port for AET investments is simultaneously themost important and most difficult issue to addressin designing and financing a system of agriculturaldevelopment institutions. (2) Public investment incapacity building has been essential for creating thescientific leadership necessary to implement eachcountry’s strategy for agricultural development.(3) Building a system of core AET institutions isa process of capacity accumulation that takessustained commitment over multiple generations

Executive Summary xv

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xv

to produce returns. (4) The administrative separa-tion of research and higher education in manyAfrican countries cripples the development of na-tional agricultural innovation systems. (5) Massivecampaigns to develop human capital have workedin other countries. (6) Finally, incentives are neces-sary to retain staff once they are developed.

PRIORITIES FOR MODERNIZINGAGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Seven priorities are proposed for those who seek tomodernize agricultural education in Africa. First,political will must be generated in support of agri-cultural development by educating the publicabout its role in economic growth and poverty re-duction, creating capacities for lobbying, joiningforces with other stakeholders, and sustainingthese efforts over two or three decades. Second, AETinstitutions should be integrated into the nationalagricultural innovation system by establishing bet-ter institutional and market linkages. AssociatedAET reforms ought to be grounded in an analysisof agricultural priorities and market requirements,and to recognize that changes in organization andmanagement can provide opportunities and incen-tives for productive external linkages. Access tointernational knowledge sources is becoming in-creasingly easy, but it often requires external assis-tance. Third, it is desirable to assess and rebalanceAET enrollment profiles away from secondarylevel vocational training and towards diploma, de-gree, and postgraduate levels. Fourth, curricula andpedagogy should be modernized by emphasizinganalytical skills, problem solving, agribusinessprocesses, post-harvest technologies, and “soft”but essential skills such as communication andteamwork. Student interest in agriculture could besparked by recasting programs in more modernand appealing terms, such as applied sciences andtechnology, and by educating the public on the fullrange of agricultural career possibilities. Fifth, it isessential to replenish human capital by strengthen-ing and expanding national MSc programs, layingthe foundation for PhD programs, and tackling theconundrum of incentives for staff retention. Sixth,finances must be managed proactively by makingmore efficient use of existing resources, mobilizingnonpublic resources, and persuading donors to fi-nance operating costs. Seventh, much better genderbalance must be achieved among AET graduates.

APPROACHES VARY BY AET LEVELWhat can be done at the various levels to buildmomentum in the face of existing constraints?Different strategies will need to be pursued at eachlevel of agricultural education and training.

In secondary-level AET, efforts might best focuson preventing premature specialization, especiallyin lower secondary education, where a solid basiceducation remains the most important goal. Uppersecondary technical programs are most effectivewhen they emphasize the acquisition of specificcompetencies for properly selected trainees, andleast effective when they serve as an alternativepathway to university admission. Greater flexibil-ity in the length of courses would also enablesecondary-level AET to meet the training needs ofa wider range of potential students.

In tertiary-level AET, reforms in curricula andteaching methods are likely to be the most immedi-ately useful undertakings. In the medium term,modification of institutional governance structuresso as to introduce greater institutional flexibilityand increased responsiveness to stakeholderswould be a valuable complement. At the systemlevel, a review—and if necessary, a rebalancing—ofagriculture enrollments among degree, diploma,and certificate levels could ensure that adequatenumbers of competent higher-level techniciansare available to meet the increasingly complex de-mands of the labor market. Clearly, conscious ef-forts to recruit more women students are needed inorder to maintain quality within the technical andprofessional skills pool while ensuring that it pos-sesses the capacity necessary to work with the largenumbers of female farmers and traders found inthe agricultural sector. Finally, harnessing the po-tential for agricultural distance education and on-line provision of technical training will enablelifelong learning to emerge as a way of maintainingworkforce competitiveness.

At the postgraduate level, circumstances call forMSc degree programs within Africa to be strength-ened in quality and expanded in numbers, enroll-ments, and gender balance. This is becomingurgent in order to address local staffing shortagesand give impetus to local research. Collaborativeregional MSc programs offer cost-effective ways tobuild professional capacities in a range of impor-tant specialized areas but are only likely to developthrough sustained financial commitments bydonor consortia. Looking ahead, aggressive efforts

xvi Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 10:48 PM Page xvi

in staff development at the PhD level will be neces-sary to lay the foundation for an expanded numberof local PhD programs. In doing so, it should berecognized that training outside the region willcontinue to be needed because of limited regionalcapacities in doctoral-level training, especially innew scientific areas. Different modes, such as sand-wich training or use of third-country universities,could help to keep costs in check and minimizebrain drain.

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW Agricultural education and training (AET) is avital, but much-neglected, component of agricul-tural development in Africa. Continuing neglect ofAET risks limiting agricultural recovery and re-stricting the possibilities for economic growth andpoverty reduction. Consequently, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are encouraged to address theshortcomings of current approaches to human cap-ital formation in agriculture by training a new gen-eration of agricultural professionals with differentskill sets. This goal is not amenable to a quick fix.Long-term, patient support over 20 years or morewill be needed from government, AET institutions,and development partners in order to attain thisobjective.

In the short term, representative actors of the na-tional agricultural innovation system (i.e., govern-ment officials from agricultural research andextension, science and technology, and export pro-motion; private sector entrepreneurs; NGO ruraladvisory staff; AET institutional leaders; farmers’organizations) might usefully be convened for acollective exercise in national priority setting. As abasis for discussion, the following six short-termmeasures are proposed for consideration: (1) Createnetworks and associations that can champion thecause of agriculture, and learn lobbying techniquesto generate supportive political will; (2) Modernizecurricula and teaching methods at the tertiarylevel, along with the necessary teaching inputs; (3)Improve institutional linkages (e.g., strategic part-nerships, professional networks, collaboration in-centives) and knowledge access (e.g., TEEAL,AGORA, computers); (4) Persuade developmentpartners to fund essential operational and equip-ment maintenance costs; (5) Conduct labor marketstudies and establish a labor market monitoringcapacity; and (6) Work to make the agriculturalprofessions attractive employment and career

options, while recruiting many more women intothis field.

In the long term, beneficial actions would in-clude: (1) Rebalancing AET enrollments away fromsecondary AET programs in favor of tertiary-leveldiploma, degree, and postgraduate programs;(2) Strengthening and expanding a selected num-ber of MSc programs in areas of strategic impor-tance to the nation, including associated staffdevelopment, so that all major MSc programs foragriculture are available in Sub-Saharan Africawithin 10 years; (3) Broadening the foundation forregional PhD programs by launching a major pro-gram of postgraduate fellowships to train 1,000PhDs, initially abroad and eventually at home,over the next 15 years.

National political leaders could usefully considerthe following actions to strengthen capacities forskills development in support of agriculturalgrowth: (1) A renewed and sustained politicalcommitment by African governments to buildinghuman capital in agriculture; (2) Devolving greaterauthority to AET institutions while strengtheningthe relevance of their programs by increasingstakeholder participation in institutional gover-nance; (3) Avoiding proliferation, or atomization,of AET institutions and programs, which dilutesresources and drives down quality. To that end,AET institutions might be integrated beneficiallyunder a single governmental authority, whichcould allocate public financing to institutions onthe basis of their strategic goals and performancein achieving them rather than by following histor-ical precedent or principles of equitable sharing;(4) Increased female enrollment in AET institutionscould be attained through enrollment quotas, ear-marked scholarships, professional mentoring, andappropriate facilities to accommodate women;(5) The attractiveness of agricultural careers couldbe boosted by advocating their importance for na-tional development to the general public, by creat-ing new career paths that open up a wider range ofemployment opportunities, and by stimulatingstudent and parental interest in agriculture as aprofession; (6) Governmental incentives and re-wards for AET staff, together with diverse staff re-tention measures such as merit pay, transparentpromotion procedures, and administrative stream-lining, could be employed to attract better-qualitystudents and facilitate their recruitment as futurestaff; (7) A portion of public agricultural researchmight productively be outsourced to tertiary AET

Executive Summary xvii

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xvii

institutions, preferably through the mechanism ofcompetitive research grants.

AET system and institutional managers could pro-ductively give thought to: (1) Creating fora amongstakeholders for building institutional linkages,fostering information networks, and setting priori-ties in AET vis-à-vis agriculture developmentplans; (2) Improving student selection proceduresso that only those with a personal interest in agri-culture are admitted to tertiary-level studies;(3) Consulting stakeholders, particularly privatesector employers, on program definition and con-ducting periodic employer surveys and tracer stud-ies to assess the effectiveness of AET programs;(4) Linking curricula to the market for graduates, inpart by focusing on growth areas and niches incommercial agriculture; (5) Introducing, wherepossible, interdisciplinary programs at the under-graduate level, e.g., natural resource management.Training must be practical, require contact betweenstudents and a range of producers, and focus onsolving actual production problems; (6) Budgetingfor and providing periodic professional updatingof staff; (7) Creating a conducive professional envi-ronment for retaining staff, including the definitionof clear career ladders and streamlining adminis-trative procedures to reduce inefficient use of stafftime; (8) Mobilizing additional resources and usingthem for upgrading staff conditions and teachingand research.

Development partners could help to build on thenumerous positive experiences that have been gen-erated in AET by assisting in their replicationacross the continent. The resources of Africancountries alone are unlikely to be adequate forthis task. Thus, development partners are encour-aged to make long-term financing commitmentsto help interested governments replenish their

human capital and strengthen the performance oftheir agriculture innovation systems. Developmentpartner actions are recommended in seven priorityareas: (1) The most immediate task is to rebuild thehuman capital base in agriculture—to increase thequality and number of high-level agricultural pro-fessionals by means of postgraduate fellowships inorder to attain the goal of 1,000 new PhDs in agri-culture within the next 15 years. This must be pre-ceded by assessment of current supply capacityand the preparation of a feasibility study anddetailed plan with interested governments anddonors; (2) Support donor consortia for, say, adozen specialized collaborative regional PhD pro-grams; (3) Fund the operating and equipmentmaintenance costs that are essential for retainingskilled academic staff and enabling them to teachand conduct research productively; (4) Ensuregender rebalancing within the above staff develop-ment programs, and establish female scholarshipprograms at the secondary and undergraduate lev-els to attract more women into agricultural sci-ences; (5) Expand access to international sources ofinformation by funding electronic innovations(e.g., TEEAL, AGORA, etc.) at key AET institu-tions, and by financing the facilities and equipmentnecessary for increased bandwidth and improvedcomputer facilities and networks; (6) Finance com-petitive grant funds for tertiary institutions to un-dertake peer-reviewed research. A competitivefund for institutional development could also stim-ulate initiatives based on strategic plans generatedby AET institutions and faculties; (7) Finance ex-perimentation and capacity building in new modesof delivering agricultural education and trainingthat make use of information and communicationtechnologies, including online degrees and varioustypes of distance learning.

xviii Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

00_FS_FM.qxd 12/12/07 4:05 PM Page xviii

1

INTRODUCTIONTo enable their agriculture to grow, developing nations now face theneed to produce the additional knowledge and new skills. Humancapital development through agricultural education and training(AET) is an essential component of all agricultural developmentstrategies. When substantial changes take place in the context foragricultural development—such as are now occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)—the agricultural education and training sys-tem must be adjusted accordingly. In a number of African countries,such adjustments are already underway.

What changes are prompting these adjustments? First, markets,rather than production, increasingly drive development. Second,knowledge, information, and technology are generated, dissemi-nated, and applied more and more through the private sector; con-sequently, public research and extension programs no longer hold amonopoly on this process. Third, growth in information and com-munication technologies has greatly eased the process of accessingand applying agricultural knowledge developed in other continents,and in some cases transformed the structure of research and the in-teractions of research institutions. Fourth, competition and globalmarkets often determine success or failure in local production asglobalization makes economies more interdependent. As a result,the environment for the production, marketing, and consumption ofagricultural products is growing more dynamic and unpredictable.Agricultural development in the 21st century, market-led andknowledge-intensive, thus places new demands on human capabil-ities in the agricultural sector. It requires agricultural techniciansand professionals with different types of knowledge, skills, andmindsets—and educational institutions capable of producing them(World Bank 2006: xiii, 6).

Two important regional trends shape the larger context for such anundertaking and reinforce efforts to modernize agricultural educa-tion in Africa, particularly at the postsecondary level. The first isthe growing attention to, and conceptualization of, “agricultural in-novation systems.” This is an increasingly popular concept in thestudy of how societies generate, exchange, and use knowledge andinformation (Lundvall 1985, 1988; Freeman 1987, 1988; Nelson 1988;Dosi et al. 1988; Edquist 1997). It is believed to add value to previousconceptualizations of agricultural knowledge and innovation sys-tems (AKIS) by (1) drawing attention to the totality of actors needed

The Context forAgricultural Educationand Training in Africa

1

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 1

Figure 1.1 Conceptualization of a National Agricultural Innovation System

for innovation and growth; (2) consolidating therole of the private sector and the importance of in-teractions within a sector; and (3) emphasizing theoutcomes of technology generation and adoptionrather than the strengthening of research systemsand their outputs (World Bank 2006:iv). An agri-cultural innovation system (AIS) can be defined ascomprising the organizations, enterprises, and in-dividuals that interact to demand and supply agri-cultural knowledge and technology, as well as theinstitutions and policy incentives that influencetheir performance (World Bank 2006:5). The pur-pose of AIS is to accelerate the movement of ideas,create marketable products, and promote economiccompetitiveness. Figure 1.1 presents a graphic rep-resentation of an agricultural innovation system.

As shown above, an agricultural innovation sys-tem framework embeds AET within a larger, more

complex system of diverse agents whose interac-tions are conditioned by formal and informal so-cioeconomic institutions. The framework capturesnot only the influences of market forces, but alsothe impacts of organizational learning and behav-ioral change, nonmarket institutions, and publicpolicy processes (e.g., labor, regulatory, scienceand technology, environmental, energy, industrial,trade, intellectual property). An instructive com-parison of the agricultural innovation systemframework with those of the traditional nationalagricultural research system (NARS) and the morerecent agricultural knowledge and informationsystem (AKIS) is provided in Annex 1.

An important contribution of the innovationsystems framework is that it shifts the analysisfrom a conventional model of one-way informationtransfers to a more complex, process-based systems

2 Cultivating Knowledge and Skills to Grow African Agriculture

Source: Birner and Spielman 2007.

Agricultural value chainactors & organizations

Input suppliers

Agricultural producers• Different categories

Trade, processing,wholesale, retail

Consumers

Agriculturalresearch system

• Public sector• Private sector• Non-governmental

Agricultural educationsystem

• Primary/secondary• Post-secondary• Vocational training

Agriculturalextension system

• Public sector• Private sector• Non-governmental

Bridginginstitutions

Agricultural research andeducation systems

Informal institutions, practices and attitudesExamples: Learning orientation; trust; communications; practices; routines

General Agric. Policies & Investments Agricultural Innovation Policies & Investments

Integration invalue chains

Political channels

Stakeholderplatforms

Linkages to othereconomic sectors

Linkages to generalscience & technology

Linkages tointernational actors

Linkages topolitical system

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 2

The Context for Agricultural Education and Training in Africa 3

approach. This shift is appropriate for the study ofAET given that agricultural development in SSA ismore and more influenced by complex interactionsamong public, private, and civil society actors, andincreasingly conditioned by a variety of rapidlychanging institutions (Davis et al. 2007).Specifically, the AIS approach focuses analyticaland policy attention on the capacity of individualsand organizations to learn and innovate, on orga-nizational cultures and behaviors that facilitate (orimpede) this process, and on networks and deal-ings among innovation agents. These topics will berevisited in the course of this report.

The second trend is a groundswell of attention tothe relevance and organization of tertiary educationsystems on the continent. This is driven by risingawareness of the role of human capital formation inenabling national productivity and growth to im-prove within an increasingly integrated and com-petitive global economy. This awareness isgenerating a more systematic and market-orientedapproach to education sector development, whichrecognizes the backward linkages of tertiary edu-cation to secondary (and primary) education, aswell as its forward linkages to employment, em-ployers, and the general labor market.

The reform agenda associated with this en-hanced understanding of tertiary education re-volves around the visions and mandates forvarious types of tertiary institutions, their rele-vance to national development priorities, greaterstakeholder representation in their institutionalgovernance, increased autonomy (with account-ability) in institutional management, changes incurricula and teaching practices, improvements inincentive systems for academic staff, alternative fi-nancing strategies, public-private partnerships,and the realization of new opportunities arising inscience and technology (New Partnership for AfricanDevelopment 2006; Juma 2005; InterAcademy 2004;Idabacha 2003). These themes are interwovenwithin the following discussion.

One example of how these two trends may con-verge is the 2003 Jinja Consensus, which calls forthe creation of a new African agricultural univer-sity to produce a distinct generation of agriculturalgraduates who will become entrepreneurs andwealth creators rather than cogs in the wheels of ex-isting public agricultural education, research, andextension organizations. It calls for tertiary educa-tion to be grounded in student-centered learning inwhich instructors facilitate rather than direct the

learning process and infuse graduates not onlywith market-oriented skills, but also with a newstandard of morals, awareness, and ethical behavior(Idabacha 2003; Wingert 2002).

The two trends outlined above are combining tocreate a more receptive environment for modern-ization within the sphere of African agriculturaleducation and training than has existed since 1990.But why is it necessary to modernize agriculturalinstruction at this time?

WHY IS AGRICULTURALEDUCATION IMPORTANTFOR AFRICA?2

The idea that agriculture is an engine for economicgrowth within agrarian economies is well estab-lished, relatively unchallenged in the literature,and once again an important focus of developmentactivity in Africa (Mellor 1995; Schuh 1997). This“engine of growth” idea, however, is based onachieving increased efficiencies in the use of the pri-mary resources for agriculture (land, labor, andcapital), thereby releasing some of these resourcesfor use in other sectors (e.g., services, light manu-facturing, etc.) as well as for increased social in-vestments (e.g., health and education). Theseincreased efficiencies depend not only on agricul-tural public policy and private sector initiatives, butalso on the intellectual capital (the accelerator ofgrowth and development) within the agriculturalsector that is needed to realize these efficiencies atall levels (farmers, educators, private entrepre-neurs, public servants, etc.). Since 60 to 80 percentof the African population resides in rural areas, arevitalized agricultural sector would generate ruralemployment opportunities and reduce ruralpoverty. Based on this framework, we can see the rela-tionship between economic growth, poverty reduction,agricultural development, and agricultural education.

Agriculture continues to provide the legs onwhich the economies of most African countriesstand. In 2004, the agriculture sector in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) accountedfor 40 percent of GDP, 15 percent of exports,and 65 percent of all employment (Beintema andStads 2004; FARA/NEPAD 2006). Average annualgrowth in agricultural GDP within Africa rosefrom 3.3 percent in 1990–2000 to 3.6 percent in2000–2004, somewhat higher than the averages forall low-income countries over those same periods.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 3

In 2000–2004, GDP growth rates for agriculture inAfrica were much higher than those for manufac-turing and only slightly lower than those from in-dustry and services. Since economic progressdepends on shifting resources from agriculture toother productive sectors, the necessity of increasingproductivity in the agricultural sector comessharply into focus. Given the relative importance ofthe agricultural sector in the economies of mostAfrican countries, addressing economic growthand development at the national level continues torequire significant attention to rural areas and toagricultural productivity in order to enable ruralfarmers to produce sufficient surplus to grow theirlocal economies.

At the same time, considerable scope for im-provement exists in the agricultural sector.Agricultural labor productivity has increased onlymarginally (from a low base) over the past 15 years(FARA 2006). Per-capita food production in Africahas declined by 40 percent since 1970—the only re-gion in the world where this trend has been nega-tive (Chilonda and Minde 2007; Von Braun 2005:1).Roughly one-third of the African population—now more than 200 million persons—has re-mained malnourished for nearly four decades(Rosegrant et al., 2001). Clearly, getting agriculturemoving will generate enormous economic andsocial dividends for Africa.

It is intuitive to say that “education is a neces-sary, but not sufficient condition for economic de-velopment.” This implies that while education isessential, additional factors are also necessary (em-ployment opportunities, favorable business cli-mate, etc.). Other causes may intervene to negatethe benefits of education (conflict, corruption, etc.).This makes it difficult to provide clear empirical ev-idence of the relation between increased educationand economic performance or to make compar-isons between countries. However, recent researchprovides stronger justification for this relationshipthan had been found previously (OECD 2006b;Bloom et al. 2006; Carnoy 2006).

A research report from the UNESCO/OECDWorld Education Indicators entitled “FinancingEducation: Investments and Returns” (2002) com-pares data for OECD developed countries againstthose for a group of 18 lesser developed countries,using a range of statistical methods to relate yearsof schooling to GDP per capita. The report summa-rizes the results as follows: “There is now robustevidence that human capital is a key determinant

of economic growth and emerging evidence indi-cates that it is also associated with a wide range ofnon-economic benefits such as health and well-being” (p. 7). Further, “human capital plays astronger role in the [economic] growth processonce the level of human capital reaches a criticalthreshold,” such as the attainment of universal pri-mary education (2002:8). Other factors such as civilconflict or political instability may reduce the ef-fectiveness of education; e.g., as occurred in thePhilippines and Zimbabwe. This report also citesan OECD study from 2000, which “. . . concludesthat the estimated long-term effect on GDP of oneadditional year of education in the population aged15–64 is around 6 percent on average.”

Analysis in a recently published World Bankbook entitled How Universities Promote EconomicGrowth (Yusuf and Nabeshima 2007) looks at moredeveloped economies, but it makes a key point thatmay have a future bearing on Africa. In looking atnatural science and engineering degrees in “late-comer” countries of East Asia, the authors’ analysisshows that increases in the output of these degreeshave a strong relationship to GDP per capita.Because agricultural education is strongly rooted inthe natural sciences and at least a portion of it con-cerns engineering, this would suggest that a simi-lar positive economic response to increased tertiaryeducation in these areas could occur in Africa.

Other relevant research also merits recognition.Robert Evenson (2004:152), who has conductedvarious studies on rates of return to agricultural re-search, argues that “the conversion of knowledgeto economic growth production is quite locationspecific” since it is “affected by natural (soil, climate)and economic (prices, wages) conditions.” Hisstudies indicate that higher education programs inagriculture that create skills relating to science andtechnology “have a public externality value muchhigher than the private value of these skills in labormarkets.” On this basis, he believes a strong justifi-cation exists for public investment in the creation ofgraduate programs in innovation-related fields ofstudy in Africa.

Another study with findings relevant for agricul-tural education in Africa is Bloom, Canning andChan (2006). The researchers review existing re-search that analyzes the effects of higher educationon GDP and conclude that “tertiary education playsa recognizable role in promoting economic growth.”They go on to write that “investing in tertiaryeducation in Africa may accelerate technological


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 4


diffusion, which would decrease knowledge gapsand help reduce poverty.”

The above evidence demonstrates a strong con-nection between higher levels of education andeconomic development. Considering Africaagainst the backdrop of these findings, it is clearthat significant benefits can be derived from im-proving the overall quality of education in Africa,increasing enrollments in secondary and tertiaryeducational institutions, and strengthening theareas of science and technology education. Sincemost African countries remain agrarian societieswhere agriculture contributes significantly to botheconomic and social development, the need for re-newed support to agricultural education and train-ing is both obvious and necessary. Likewise, it isevident that improved agricultural performancewill underpin progress towards many of theMillennium Development Goals.

REGIONAL AND BANKSTRATEGIESAfrican governments have adopted a Compre-hensive Africa Agriculture Development Program(CAADP) under the auspices of their NewPartnership for African Development (NEPAD).Launched in November 2002, CAADP statesclearly (under its “pillar 4”) that achievement of thetargeted increase in agricultural output by 6 per-cent a year over the next 20 years will require largerinvestments in agricultural research, extension,and education systems.3 To this end, CAADP em-phasizes the need to revitalize degree programs inorder to capitalize on the rich academic resourcesin African universities (NEPAD 2002:67, 87). Topursue its CAADP objectives, NEPAD has de-signed a Framework for African AgriculturalProductivity (FAAP) (NEPAD, 2006) and asked theForum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)to assume the leadership in its implementation.The FAAP document emphasizes that “the broadincrease in agricultural productivity that is centralto food security, competitiveness, rural growth andpoverty alleviation requires increased investmentsin agricultural research, extension and education,accompanied by institutional reforms to improveefficiency throughout the technology generation,dissemination and adoption chain.” A main com-ponent of the FAAP is Building Africa’s Scientificand Institutional Capacity (BASIC) in agricultureand natural resources at the post-secondary level.

Indeed, the strengthening of African capabilitiesfor natural resource management is acquiringgreater urgency in light of growing environmentaldeterioration in some countries, and the increasedresource management challenges associated withglobal warming.

The need to invest more in building capacitiesfor agricultural education and training has been ac-knowledged in a series of World Bank strategy doc-uments. The Bank-wide policy on agriculture,Directions in Development: Agricultural Growth andthe Poor: The World Bank’s Agenda, notes that nu-merous studies have shown high economic returnsto improving farmers’ information and skills to en-able more efficient use of technologies. Rapidlychanging market conditions require a major shift inthe content of agricultural education from a pro-duction to a market orientation. This is especiallycritical given the current need to “substitutegrowth through increased input use” with “growthdriven by a more knowledge-intensive agricul-ture” (World Bank 2004b:13–14). The documenthighlights several impediments to increased in-vestment in human capital, including the absenceof AET goals in country agriculture sector devel-opment strategies. It recommends that the Bankshould “re-engage in agricultural education andcapacity building” (World Bank 2004b:14).

Within the Africa Region, the Bank’s 2000 strat-egy, Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?, calls formajor investments to accelerate agricultural growthand rural development, including an expansion ofskills and human capital (World Bank2000:195–196). The strengthening of agriculturalservices, research, and education features promi-nently in the subsequent 2002 document, FromAction to Impact: The Africa Region’s Rural Strategy,which proposes a 50 percent net increase in thenumber of agricultural scientists (World Bank2002:38). It also argues for greater attention towomen farmers and advocates new approaches toextension in order to achieve greater pluralism inthe provision of demand-driven and relevant advi-sory services to diverse client groups. To this end, itmay be necessary to decentralize resources and re-sponsibilities to local governments and communi-ties, outsource extension services to NGOs andprivate groups, and improve linkages among farm-ers, educators, researchers, and extension agents(World Bank 2002:22). Likewise, the Bank’s 2003policy statement, Reaching the Rural Poor, under-scores the importance of agricultural education and

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 5

training for rural economic growth (World Bank2003:153). Although not always explicit, all of theabove recommendations point to a central role forpost-secondary agricultural education and training.

To provide initial support for the implementa-tion of NEPAD’s Framework for African Agri-cultural Productivity, on March 29, 2007 the Bankapproved a USD 45 million investment in agricul-tural research under a West Africa AgriculturalProductivity Program (WAAPP) for Ghana, Mali,and Senegal. The WAAPP objective is to generateand disseminate improved technologies focusingon roots and tubers in Ghana, rice in Mali, and cere-als in Senegal. Similar operations for Eastern Africaand for Southern Africa are scheduled to follow. Allthese projects anticipate significant future invest-ments in post-secondary agricultural education.

The above regional capacity-building initiativesrecognize the general importance of agriculturaleducation and training, but they offer little speci-ficity on what should be done or how to do it. Theanalysis presented in the following pages aims tofill this void.

AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONSYSTEMS AND AET4

Lessons emerging from recent agricultural revital-ization efforts demonstrate that a more nuancedunderstanding is needed of AET’s role in promot-ing innovation, development, and growth in agri-culture. Greater insight is specifically needed ofhow alternative strategies might bring AET intocloser, more productive relationships with otheractors in the agricultural sector and wider econ-omy, thereby building on the comparative advan-tages of different actors and institutions to reducetransaction costs, achieve economies of scale andscope, exploit complementarities, and realize syn-ergies in innovation. An agricultural innovationsystems (AIS) approach seems to meet this need.

In essence, an agricultural innovation system is ablending of institutional capacities, coordinationmechanisms, communication networks, and policyincentives that fosters innovationled gains in agri-cultural productivity. It emphasizes the need to un-derstand key actors and their roles, their behaviorsand practices, and the institutional context withinwhich they interact, all of which are key conceptualelements in innovation systems analysis (WorldBank 2006a).5 This in turn leads to issues of institu-tional structures of governance and management

(for greater flexibility and responsiveness), criteriaand incentives for professional performance (for im-proved productivity), access to information andinter-institutional communication networks (for en-hanced competitiveness). All these issues are rele-vant to African education and training institutions.

An innovation systems perspective can help inunderstanding how best to reform AET in Africa. Itchanges the traditional conception of scientific re-search, education, and extension in developing-country agriculture. The traditional conception isbased on what might be called a linear vision of sci-ence. In this framework, knowledge flows forthfrom the classroom to inform basic scientific re-search and continues outward to strategic, applied,and adaptive research, followed by technology de-velopment, dissemination, and, eventually, adop-tion. This linear framework has oriented thetraditional agricultural extension paradigm inwhich the extension agent receives knowledge fromthe classroom or research station and imparts it tothe farmer, whose role is that of passive recipient.This tends to oversimplify the innovation processand ignore its interactive nature. Often, technologi-cal developments precede scientific understandingof the underlying phenomena (for example, thesteam engine and thermodynamics) or occurthrough the reorganization of known processes inthe absence of accompanying research (Freemanand Soete 1997; Nelson and Rosenberg 1993).

An important implication of the innovation sys-tems approach is that innovations emerge sponta-neously from the interactions of different agents.Their emergence does not necessarily depend onany government action, although these actionscan have great influence on their evolution.Consequently, an innovation system is larger thanthe national research system (NRS), and larger thanthe set of public sector organizations charged withthe creation and dissemination of new technolo-gies.6 In short, innovation can spring from multiplesources—including agricultural education andtraining institutions.

The innovation systems approach offers usefulinsights into the role of AET in agricultural sectordevelopment, such as the following:

• Innovations depend on the ability of agents(e.g., farmers, extensionists, input suppliers)to learn—on their ability to gather informationand use it creatively in response to marketopportunities or other social needs (Lundvall1999; OECD 1999).


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 6


• Learning depends on the ability of theseagents to interact and exchange informationand knowledge. Thus, social networks and in-stitutional linkages can increase the chancesof innovation. These interactions can occur atany stage in the processes of producing, ex-changing, or applying knowledge (Fagerberg2005; Nelson and Rosenberg 1993).

• Innovation is constrained by complexity.Complexity in process, product, equipment,and instrumentation means that individualagents may not have all the resources theyneed to innovate fast enough to remain effec-tive or competitive (Powell and Grodal 2005;Rycroft and Kash 1999).

• Successful innovation systems balance thesearch for existing information with the cre-ation of original information, a balance thatwill change according to the strength of thenetworks within which agents interact, andtheir individual and collective capabilities(Renzulli 2003; Rycroft and Kash 1999).

• The economic or social performance of acountry depends on the participation of di-verse innovative agents that interact to forman innovation system. Particularly importantto this notion is effective interaction betweena country’s scientific base and its businesscommunity (Powell and Grodal 2005; OECD1999; Rycroft and Kash 1999; Nelson andRosenberg 1993).

• The economic or social performance of acountry also depends on the set of enablingconditions—market infrastructure, appropri-ate property rights, and effective governancein both input and output markets—that fosterthe emergence of innovative agents (Powelland Grodal 2005; Nelson and Rosenberg 1993;OECD 1999; Rycroft and Kash 1999).

These insights mean that a successful innovationsystem depends on several key elements: the char-acteristics of the information, the capacity of indi-viduals and organizations to learn and innovate,the nature and character of interactions among in-novation agents, the incentives that encourage suchinteractions, and the formal and informal institu-tions that mediate or regulate these interactions.

To the extent possible, the following analysis isplaced within an agricultural innovation systems(AIS) framework. In doing so, it is hoped not onlythat a contribution may be made to a better under-standing of the AIS dynamic, but that clearer

insights into the role of agricultural educationinstitutions within this framework might beachieved.

At the same time, action on AET cannot be con-sidered in isolation from the national educationsystem as a whole. It would be imprudent to ana-lyze AET issues apart from the larger systems inwhich they exist—the education sector morebroadly and the technical-vocational education andtraining subsector more specifically. For example,the quality of AET institutions is often conditionedby the academic preparation of incoming studentsfrom the systems of basic and general secondaryeducation. Similarly, many problems in the provi-sion of education and training for the agriculturalsector derive from those affecting technical educa-tion and vocational training in general (Atchoarenaand Gasperini 2003:240). Additionally, opportuni-ties for reform within faculties of agriculture maydepend in part on the extent of university manage-ment’s openness to stock-taking and strategic plan-ning. Likewise, the restructuring of staff incentivesin faculties of agriculture is usually dependentupon reforms in broader university and civil ser-vice regulations. In short, agricultural education re-form is more effective when it is accompanied bytertiary institution reform.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, SCOPE,AND AUDIENCE7

Concerned with the neglect of agricultural educa-tion and training in Africa and its potentially dam-aging consequences for long-term human capitalformation in the agricultural sector, the WorldBank initiated a series of studies on agriculturaleducation and training (AET) in 2004.8 The researchcomprised six thematic studies, which in turn drewon analyses of 15 country cases, a survey of donorfinancing trends, an operational survey of Bank in-vestments, a review of the literature, and an anno-tated bibliography. In addition, the Bank hascarried out consultations with stakeholders andseveral donors. A summary description of the AETinstitutions included in the country studies is pro-vided in Annex 2.

The purpose of this report is to synthesize thefindings of this research and suggest strategic mea-sures for strengthening the contribution of AET toagricultural productivity and natural resourcemanagement in Sub-Saharan Africa. The target au-diences are African practitioners and policymakers

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 7

concerned with boosting food supply and agricul-tural productivity, donor agency representatives,and World Bank staff. Specifically, this report pre-sents a case for increased investment in AET, ana-lyzes issues in the subsector, and identifiesappropriate policies and interventions for Africanministries of agriculture and education, the WorldBank, and other donor agencies.

The scope of the research is limited to the train-ing of agricultural researchers, educators, and advi-sory services personnel in Sub-Saharan Africathrough educational activities conducted only at thesecondary, tertiary, and postgraduate levels of education.It intentionally excludes other forms of rural educa-tion and training, such as basic education, informalfarmer training, and farmer-oriented vocational ed-ucation. This decision was based on the compara-tively greater attention that has been given in recentresearch to analysis of the educational and infor-mational needs of producers and how best to meet

them (CORAF 1999; Gallagher 2000; Alex et al. 2002;Atchoarea and Gaspirini 2003; Fauliau 2004).9

Subsequent discussion begins with an inquiryinto the relationship between agricultural educa-tion and agricultural development. It then recountsbriefly the history of agricultural education andtraining in Sub-Saharan Africa and summarizes itspresent situation. The principal constraints to thedevelopment of AET capacities are identified anddiscussed in Chapter 4. Next, global experience isreviewed for guidance in addressing these identi-fied constraints. Chapter 6 highlights action priori-ties that will modernize the practice and delivery ofagricultural education and training. Guidelines forintervention at each level of agricultural education(secondary, tertiary, postgraduate) form the basisof Chapter 7. A concluding chapter offers elementsfor a possible reform program and suggests associ-ated responsibilities for national politicians, insti-tutional leaders, and development partners.


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 8

9

AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARYFOR OVERALL GROWTHAgriculture prevails as Africa’s dominant economic activity. It accountsfor about 30–40 percent of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa, 20–30 per-cent of exports, and approximately 60–80 percent of employment (seeAnnex 3). In most African countries, two-thirds of manufacturingvalue added stems from agricultural raw materials. In some smallercountries, agriculture plays and even more imposing role, represent-ing 80 percent or more of export earnings.10 These impressive statis-tics aside, Sub-Saharan Africa, with 27 percent of its peoplemalnourished (FAO 2004) and 16 of the 18 most undernourishedcountries in the world, remains the only region where per-capita foodproduction continues to worsen year by year (Rockefeller Foundation2006:2).11 In spite of the presence of this “elephant in the living room,”agriculture has been largely overlooked by African governments anddonors alike in recent years.

World Bank research affirms the premise that enhancing agricul-tural productivity is the critical entry point in designing effectivepoverty reduction strategies in low-income countries, includingSub-Saharan Africa (Christiansen et al. 2006:35). Agriculture reducespoverty throughitsgenerationofbothagriculturalandnon-agriculturalemployment. Agricultural growth directly generates demand for rurallabor and creates employment opportunities for the poorest. Growthin agricultural production also benefits consumers by driving downfood prices, particularly helping the poor. According to the WorldBank, a 10 percent increase in crop yields leads to a 9 percent decreasein the percentage of people living on less than USD 1 per day.

The Commission for Africa report argues that the continent’s mainproductivity increases must come from higher yields, not by expand-ing arable land. Higher agricultural productivity is a precondition forgrowth and development in most African countries, and increasingyields is the key to raising incomes in rural areas (McCalla 1998:51).Technology and knowledge both make important contributions to thisprocess (World Bank 2002:9). Farmers and commercial producers maybenefit if they can diversify their production into higher value, butknowledge-demanding specialized crops (World Bank/IFPRI“Agriculture and Achieving the Millennium Development Goals,” ascited in IFPRI 2007). This is what some call “niche agriculture” andothers are beginning to call the “new agriculture” in Africa.

Agricultural EducationIs Vital for

African Development

2

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 9

STRONG AGRICULTURALEDUCATION AND TRAININGSYSTEMS UNDERPINPRODUCTIVITY INCREASESThe crucial role of agricultural education and train-ing (AET) in determining the success of efforts toboost agricultural productivity is widely recognized.“Agricultural training and education have a directimpact on agricultural productivity and on the per-formance of ancillary businesses and trade. Theyalso stimulate implementation of knowledge-driveneconomic growth strategies and poverty reduction”(FARA/NEPAD 2006:12). AET contributions takethe following four main forms.

1. AET directly raises agriculturalproductivity by developing farmercapacities.

The lack of “know-how” in the Mozambicanfarmer, as elsewhere in the continent, limits herability to grow and improve. A portrait of thesmallholder highlights a shortage of expertise inproduction methods, crop rotation, use of nutri-ents, post-harvest processing, marketing, dietaryneeds and machinery maintenance (USAID2003b:5–6). According to human capital theory,education—and by implication AET—influencesagricultural productivity in the following ways:

• The “worker effect” by which more farm out-put is realized from a given bundle of inputsthrough enhanced worker productivity;

• The “allocation effect” by which additionalyears of formal education enhance farmers’ability to choose optimum combinations offarm inputs and farm outputs;

• The “innovative effect” by which additionalschooling enhances a farmer’s ability to ac-quire and adapt new technologies, thereby re-ducing innovation time lags; and

• The “market efficiency effect” by which addi-tional years of schooling foster the capacity toexploit new market opportunities. (Idachaba1997:543; Atchoarena and Gasperini 2003:56).

FAO states that the skills of farmers in man-agement and production, and of those who pro-vide services to farmers, can be improved throughinvestment in schooling programs and agricul-tural extension programs. Investments to boosthuman capital in the farming sector can thus

produce growth in per capita food production(FAO, SOFA 2000: 3–4).

2. AET indirectly increases agriculturalproductivity by generating human capitalfor support services.

NEPAD’s Forum for Agricultural Research inAfrica states: “The quality of tertiary agriculturaleducation is critical because it determines the ex-pertise and competencies of scientists, profession-als, technicians, teachers and civil service andbusiness leaders in all aspects of agriculture and re-lated industries” (FARA/NEPAD 2006:26). “Oneof the clearest lessons of experience is that agricul-tural and rural development require well-trainedindividuals and strong local organizations to carryout research, provide services to farmers andtraders, and represent their interests” (Staatz andEicher 1998:32).

Expenditures for research are regarded as in-vestments in knowledge capital. Likewise, spend-ing on AET is an investment in the human capitalthat facilitates and enables research (knowledgeproduction) to take place (Langrock 2006:2,Beintema et al. 1998:4) An earlier review of nationalagricultural research systems stated that “. . . thequality of agricultural research is only as good asthe quality of the scientific human resource base”(Byerlee and Alex 1998). Investments in agricul-tural research have been shown to have highfavorable median internal rates of return (IRRs) ofbetween 34 and 37 percent. IRRs for agriculturaladvisory services are also high, with a median of27 percent (World Bank 2004a: 58; World Bank 2002:21; FAO 2000). Strengthening universities in bothresearch capacity and human resource develop-ment is integral to strengthening national agricul-tural research systems (Byerlee and Alex, op. cit.).

Support for AET is further justified by a pro-jected increase in the demand for agricultural re-searchers. NEPAD’s target is to increase fundingfor agricultural research from an estimated USD1 billion to USD 2 billion annually over 10 years.Correspondingly, the number of agricultural scien-tists would need to increase by a net of 50 percent(World Bank 2002:8). Based on the IFPRI/ASTI sur-vey of 2001–2003, which calculated the existence of8,609 full-time equivalent agricultural researchersin 26 Anglophone and Francophone countries, atleast 4,300 new agricultural professionals will beneeded. If attrition due to brain drain, AIDS, and


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 10

Agricultural Education Is Vital for African Development 11

retirement is taken into account, this estimate couldswell to 8,000. In short, AET is the foundation uponwhich the future of good agricultural research andadvisory service programs in Africa must beerected and staffed.

Apart from formal training, AET institutions cansupport the development of career ladders for pub-lic and private sector agriculturalists by providinginservice study options to obtain the knowledgeand qualifications necessary for professional ad-vancement. This can be done through sequencedshort courses on university campuses, distance ed-ucation, or online learning. Considerable experi-mentation and program development have takenplace in these areas in recent years (e.g., SasakawaAfrica Fund for Agricultural Extension; Haromaya[ex-Alemaya] University in Ethiopia, MethodistUniversity in Kenya, Africa University inZimbabwe, and the University of DevelopmentStudies in Ghana among others). In many cases,these new approaches may require only a full im-pact assessment in order to justify the funding in-creases necessary for scaling up and replication.

Commercial agriculture is a small but vibrantand expanding sector across the African continent.Helped by a reduction in government regulationand an improved functioning of markets, examplesof successful “niche agriculture,” often for export,are blossoming. As local production systems beginthe transition from traditional food supply to com-petitive exportation, the demand increases for agri-culturalists who are capable in the fields ofagribusiness, agricultural economics, farm man-agement, marketing, rural finance, and others.These dynamics are creating opportunities for“graduate farmers” that have not previously ex-isted. The recent surge of undergraduate and grad-uate course offerings in these disciplines attests tothis shift in employment demand.

Each aspect of the agricultural innovation sys-tem is interrelated and complementary, making itimpossible to single out completely the contribu-tion of each.12 But investments in AET clearly enableresearch, extension, and commercial agriculture togenerate higher payoffs.

3. Higher agricultural education cancontribute to research and advisory services.

Agricultural education and training institutionscontribute to productive agricultural innovationsystems in several ways. First, universities can

stimulate innovation. Through academic networks,institutional linkages, and the provision of Internetaccess, universities serve as information bridgesbetween their societies and repositories of globalknowledge, thereby accelerating the flow of newideas to agricultural organizations. In this way,they play an important role within the information-sharing networks that join the institutional playersof a country’s agricultural innovation system(Davis et al. 2007).

Second, tertiary institutions (including poly-technics) can help to adapt innovations producedelsewhere in the world to local circumstances.Agriculture is highly location-specific. Thus, avail-able technologies applicable to Africa are likely torequire substantial local adaptation and develop-ment in order to become cost-effective (Pardey etal. 2006). This requires an intimate knowledge oflocal farming systems which must be captured inthe content of agricultural training activities(Eicher 2006:3). Often such work is undertaken byuniversity researchers. For example, agricultural-ists at the University of Zimbabwe produced an ap-propriate packet of soybean seed, fertilizer and soilinoculant for small farmers and persuaded localagro-dealers to market it. The result has been toraise soybean production in Zimbabwe from 395MT in 1995 to 12,000 MT in 2004, and to prompt theMinistry of Agriculture to initiate a nationwide oilseed program based on the use of this packet(Mpepereki 2007).

Third, universities have the capacity to generatenew knowledge through research. As seen above,research produces high rates of return. About halfof the agricultural scientists in developing coun-tries work in universities13 and devote about afourth of their time to research (World Bank 2004a:78). Universities often can carry out agricultural re-search and extension at little extra cost by using ex-isting staff and faculties (e.g., libraries, laboratories,demonstration farms). Graduate student academicresearch has been shown in other countries (e.g.,Brazil, India, Denmark) to be a low cost way to ex-pand the pool of available research. Thus, greatersupport for postgraduate level AET is an effectivemeans of increasing research output in Africa(Eicher 2006:3, 32). African agricultural facultiesalso seem to house considerable latent potential foradditional research. For example, African universi-ties carried out only 19 percent of public agricul-tural research and development in the year 2000, ascompared with 43 percent in OECD countries in

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 11

1993 and two-thirds in U.S. universities in 2000(Beintema and Stads 2006, Beintema, et al. 1998).

4. AET development was a key part ofstrategies in countries that grew agriculturesuccessfully.

Agricultural education and training systemsformed an essential component of the developmentof agriculture in a wide range of advanced andmiddle income countries. These include Denmark,Japan, the Netherlands and the United States, aswell as Brazil, India, and Malaysia (Eicher 2006).Even where it was not initially a factor (e.g., fishfarming in Chile; fish processing in Uganda), agri-cultural education played a central role in main-taining competitiveness as these industriesmatured (World Bank 2006a).

Reviews of these and other international expe-riences have emphasized the importance ofcumulative investment in human capital foragriculture. “New science-based agricultural tech-nologies have flowed from and were preceded bymany decades of investment in human capital and

related institutional innovation. This has been aniterative and interactive development processwithout a clearly conceived blueprint. . . . Insti-tutional innovation seems to depend on priorhuman capital accumulation, just as technologicalinnovation does. . . . Both are embodied humancapital. . . . Anyone who does not now appreciatewhat the quality of the human agent means to pro-ductivity growth and development has missedone of the most important dimensions of the eco-nomic literature over the last 20 years” (Bonnen1998:272–274).

In summary, the case for investment in agri-cultural education and training appears com-pelling in both theory and practice. “Knowledgeand information are powerful tools in theprocesses of change. The strengthening of humancapital and the production of knowledge . . . areperhaps the most important elements in agricul-tural development strategies” (Haug 1999:271).Put succinctly, agriculture leads growth in manyparts of rural Africa, but investments in humancapital and infrastructure lead agriculture (WorldBank 2002:20).


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 12

13

Agriculture has been practiced in Sub-Saharan Africa for millennia.It provided a shared basis for community interaction and inspiredboth culture and religion. Lessons learned were incorporated intolocal wisdom and passed on from one generation to the next throughoral traditions. As a result, indigenous knowledge of agriculture inAfrica has a long, rich, and proven tradition that extensively predatesthe colonial era.

THE COLONIAL ERADuring the 20th century, colonial administrations began to shift fromtheir initially extractive methods into more production-oriented eco-nomic strategies. With this change, they began to create educationalprograms to impart to local populations the technical skills needed tosupport the establishment of productive activities. Agriculture wasamong the first sectors to benefit from this attention. Initial activitiesin agricultural training were limited to short courses for African em-ployees in colonial administrations who were responsible for the pro-mulgation of modern production practices, monitoring animalhealth, and compliance with colonial regulations. As a demand forhigher skill levels was manifested within the colonial governments,secondary-level vocational education was established. Graduallypost-secondary courses were created, beginning with the certificatecourses at Makerere College (Uganda) in 1924, which were followedby diploma courses in 1933 (Obua 2006:5). An important milestone inFrancophone Africa was the establishment in 1967 of the École inter-États de sciences et médecine vétérinaires in Senegal, which served as atraining center for the region.

As African nations gained independence, many of them adoptedsocialist orientations that emphasized state-managed productionthrough public enterprises. The newly independent governmentsthus became heavily engaged in the management of agricultural pro-duction and marketing. Capacities for the training of agriculturaltechnicians for public service employment were established underministries of agriculture. However, vocational education in agricul-ture at the secondary level was reserved largely for rural youth whohad been excluded from the educational system. In this way, an es-sentially bifurcated system of agricultural education emerged, inwhich post-primary vocational education was targeted at the sons oftraditional farmers, and post-secondary agricultural education was

African AgriculturalEducation and Training

in Perspective

3

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 13

designed to lead the sons of the middle class intopublic employment. This dual legacy, and the sep-arate expectations associated with each branch of it,has hindered the development of agricultural edu-cation in Africa to the present.

POST-INDEPENDENCEFollowing the end of the colonial period and therise of national independence in the mid-20th cen-tury, African governments sought to create educa-tional opportunities for citizens who had generallybeen given little access to education. Between the1960s and 1980s, many new universities with agri-culture faculties were created in Sub-SaharanAfrica (see Chart 3.1). Development partners, suchas USAID and the Rockefeller Foundation, stronglysupported these efforts to create high-quality edu-cational programs.

This momentum slowed in the 1980s, whenmany African economies entered a period of eco-nomic stagnation, and the availability of public re-sources for educational expansion was constrained.Efforts to restart economic growth on the continentled to the structural adjustment policies of the 1980sand 1990s, in which public expenditure was oftencurtailed and public employment was cut back inthe effort to eliminate deficit financing. Even as pub-lic demand for access to higher education wasintensifying, governments often found that theyhad created a higher education system temporarily

beyond their financial means to maintain. The solu-tion was to freeze staff salaries and cut back sharplyon nonsalary expenditures for libraries, research,laboratory equipment, and facilities maintenance.Consequently, overall spending on education inAfrica declined from 5 percent of GDP in 1990 to4.5 percent in 2002. Likewise, higher educationexpenditure per student fell from USD 6,300 in 1980to just USD 1,200 in 2002 (Darvas 2007:32).

Crisis often creates opportunities for significantreforms that would not be possible under normalconditions. This has certainly been true for Africanhigher education. During the 1990s, African univer-sities learned to carry out strategic planning, workedto diversify their sources of revenue, pursued net-working more aggressively, and began to reach outto communities and the private sector. The explosionof private universities that started in the late 1990shas introduced competition, which has sparked in-novations in academic structures, curricula, and con-tent. As economic growth returned to much of theregion in the 21st century, a useful foundation of in-stitutional reform and revitalization is emerging thatprovides opportunities on which to build.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATIONIN AFRICA TODAYSecondary-level AET. Secondary-level AET tendsto be a minuscule part of technical and vocationaleducation and training (TVET), which itself


Chart 3.1 Establishment of Universities with Faculties of Agriculture or Veterinary Sciences in SSA by Decade

0

5

10

Pre 50s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s

15

Nu

mb

er o

f un

iver

siti

es

20

25

Source: Beintema, Pardey and Roseboom 1998.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 14

African Agricultural Education and Training in Perspective 15

represents a small share (perhaps 3–5 percent) oftotal secondary enrollment. Moreover, national vo-cational training systems, themselves small andineffective, are almost everywhere focused onindustrial and service occupations, as if skills werenot of critical importance in the agricultural occu-pations that employ the vast majority of the laborforce (Atchoarena and Gasperini 2003:246).

Tertiary-level AET. Africa now houses roughly300 universities. Three-quarters of African coun-tries offer some tertiary-level training in agricul-tural sciences. At least 96 public universities teachagriculture and natural resources management. Ofthese, 26 are in Nigeria, 10 in South Africa, six inSudan, five in Kenya, and three in Ghana. Nineteenseparate faculties of veterinary science exist in 13countries, five of them in Nigeria alone (Temu et al.2003:3; Beintema and Stads 2004, Beintema et al.1998:56). In short, extensive institutional infra-structure for agricultural education and traininghas been put in place.

Postgraduate Level. Postgraduate education is anewer and less well-established aspect of Africanhigher education. In The African Experience withHigher Education (Ajayi et al. 1996), the subject isbarely mentioned until the final pages of thebook—and then largely from a forward-lookingerspective that emphasizes the need for regionalcollaboration in postgraduate training. Recently,however, it has acquired vitality and attracted at-tention as the labor market demand for postgradu-ates has begun to heat up, the costs of overseaspostgraduate programs have become prohibitive,and their content has become less relevant toAfrica. For example, Bunda College of Agriculturein Malawi now boasts 13 MSc programs and 6 PhDprograms. Regional collaboration in postgraduatetraining also seems to have reached the takeoffpoint, with various new collaborative programsunderway in Eastern, Southern, and WesternAfrica (Fine 2007; Tongoona and Mudhara 2007).

DONOR ASSISTANCE TOAFRICAN AGRICULTUREHAS DECLINED SHARPLYBetween 1992 and 2002, per capita development as-sistance to Africa fell by 22 percent, from USD 36.10in 1992 to USD 24.50 in 1997 before reboundingsomewhat to USD 28.20 in 2002 (Commission forAfrica 2005:109). Within declining total donor

assistance to Africa, aid to the agriculture sector hasdropped precipitously (Eicher 2006: 6). The share oftotal bilateral development assistance awarded toagriculture is shown in Chart 3.2. Donor supportfor agricultural development in Africa reached ahigh of USD 1,229 million in 1990, and then de-clined steadily to a low of USD 454 million in 2001.World Bank assistance for agriculture in SSA fol-lowed a similar trend (Chart 3.3), but recovered in2006 as the Bank’s Africa Action Plan began todirect more resources toward the agriculturalsector. On balance, however, agriculture received adiminishing portion of a shrinking developmentassistance pie during this period.

Chart 3.3 World Bank Lending for Agriculturein SSA, 1990–2006

0

200

FY90

FY92

FY94

FY96

FY98

FY00

FY02

FY04

FY06

400

US$

mill

ion

s

600

800

100

300

500

700

Chart 3.2 Bilateral Assistance for Agriculture,1980–2003

0

2

6

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003

10

% o

f to

tal

14

18

4

8

12

16

Source: Pardey, et al., 2006.

Source: Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 10:52 PM Page 15

Multiple factors account for the decline in donorsupport for African agriculture. First, Africa’sgrowing political constituencies tend to favor theburgeoning urban areas. Second, the 1980s shiftfrom project-based to structural adjustment lend-ing reduced donor interest in specific-sector in-vestments. Third, a false sense of complacency alsotook hold as the Green Revolution appeared tooffer limitless, science-based solutions leading toan elimination of the food production problem(Atchoarena and Gasperini 2003:29). Fourth, thedecline in support for agriculture was offset in the1990s by increased donor financing for basic socialservices—education and health—under the bannerof poverty reduction strategies (Eicher 2006:2).

However, these strategies did not give enoughattention to how these poverty-reducing interven-tions were to be sustained, or to the potential ofagriculture to contribute toward this sustainability.A development strategy based solely on expandingrural social services and food aid is unreliable be-cause it fails to stimulate agricultural growth andrural income generation (Eicher 2006:6).

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURALEDUCATION AND TRAINING INAFRICA HAS DISAPPEAREDDonor funding for the agriculture sector encom-passes a wide range of activities—pest control,fertilizer distribution, livestock development,irrigation expansion, introduction of new crops,post-harvest storage, producers’ associations, farmcredit, etc. Within this range of activities, some donorfunding has also fostered agricultural knowledgeand information systems (AKIS), or the three legs ofthe “knowledge triangle,” i.e., agricultural research,extension, and agricultural education. But invest-ments in AKIS have clearly been secondary, decreas-ing over time and averaging less than 10 percent oftotal ODA (see Chart 3.4). Moreover, this modestsupport for the knowledge triangle has become se-verely imbalanced. Since 2002, funding for researchhas risen sharply, but assistance to extension andAET remains essentially stagnant (see Chart 3.5).

Development assistance for all types (formal andnonformal) of agricultural education and training(AET) has declined over the past 15 years. These in-vestments in human capital formation averaged just4.1 percent of development assistance for agriculturefrom 1990–1994, but fell to 2.2 percent in 1995–1999and 2.1 percent from 2000–2004. Assistance for formal

AET was even a smaller percentage of donor fund-ing for African agriculture. Between 1995 and 1999,it averaged only 1.6 percent, and then declined tojust 0.7 percent between 2000 and 2004.14 In short,donor interest in agricultural education and trainingin Africa has essentially evaporated.

Donor withdrawal has been especially pro-nounced in postgraduate training for agriculture.For example, in 1985 USAID provided scholarshipsto 250 Africans for overseas training in agriculture,but had reduced it to only 8 percent of that numberin 1998—just 20 scholarships (Eicher 1999:47;InterAcademy Council 2004:171). Sadly, during the


Chart 3.5 ODA to AET, Research and Extensionin SSA, 1990–2004

0

40

1990

80

US$

mill

ion

s (c

urr

ent)

140

200

160

20

60

100

120

180

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

ResearchExtensionAET

Chart 3.4 Investments in Research, Extensionand AET as a % of ODA for AfricanAgriculture, 1990–2004

0%

5%

10%

1990

15%

20%

25%

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System Aid Activity Database.

Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System Aid Activity Database.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 16


years of donor-funded postgraduate fellowships,the emphasis was always on the training of indi-viduals rather than on building local capacities forpostgraduate training.

Smaller OECD countries are now the mainfunders of AET in Africa

Most of the financial support for formal AET nowcomes from smaller OECD countries. A survey ofdonor support for AET conducted for this studyshowed that 11 of 18 development assistance orga-nizations provided only minimal or no support forAET in Africa (see Annex 4 for details). Six donorstogether contributed more than 80 percent of themodest total of USD 21.5 million in developmentassistance approved for formal AET in Africabetween 2000 and 2004. Thus, an average of USD4.2 million per year supported agricultural educa-tion in that region during the first five years of thisdecade. Of these, the largest single donor wasBelgium, followed by Ireland, Germany, andPortugal (OECD CRS Database, 2006). Clearly,AET does not figure on the current agenda of themajor development assistance agencies.

Reasons for the decline in donor supportfor AET

Several factors contributed to the decline in donorsupport for AET. First, donors had good reason tobelieve that the institutional structure for AET had

been put in place, needs had been addressed, andthey could turn their attention to other seeminglymore urgent challenges (Eicher, 1999).15 This viewmay be understandable from historical perspective.The number of universities in SSA increased fromaround 20 in 1960 to 160 by 1996 (Beintema 1998 inEicher 1999:27). The output of agricultural gradu-ates quadrupled from the early 1960s to the mid1980s (World Bank 2004a:78). Multiple types ofagricultural training schools were established, suchas in Senegal in the 1960s (Atchoarena andGasperini 2003:261).

Donor fatigue, the magnitude of the institution-building task, and perceived low economic rates ofreturn to expensive higher education also con-tributed to waning donor interest in tertiary-levelagricultural education (Eicher 2006:3). However,the main reasons were the rising cost of overseaspostgraduate training, questionable relevance ofthe training received, and low returnee rates fromoverseas postgraduate training programs. Donorsbecame concerned with the high percentages ofstudents who either did not return home after de-gree completion, or emigrated soon after returninghome. By some estimates, fewer than a third ofthose who graduate return to the home country. In2004, an estimated 40,000 Africans with PhD de-grees lived outside the continent (El-Khawas 2004in Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:3). “The percep-tion of capacity building as a mere exercise of gen-erating a prescribed stock of human skills at a given

Box 3.1 World Bank Assistance for Agricultural Education Has Been Minimal

Historically, the World Bank invested heavily in agricul-tural education projects. Between 1964 and 1990, theBank financed 41 projects supporting 60 institutions in25 countries worldwide. However, the 1990s saw amajor change, and a 1998 review of World Bank lendingfor the AKIS triangle revealed severe imbalances. Post-secondary agricultural education received just 2 percentof the World Bank’s USD 4.8 billion of global investmentfrom 1987 to 1997, whereas agricultural research andextension received 98 percent of the total. Bank financ-ing for agricultural higher education was awarded to justthree African countries during that decade.

A review of 42 Bank agricultural projects in Africaconducted in 2006 showed much the same pattern.

Agricultural education and training absorbed only6 percent of Bank assistance for research, extension,and AET between 1998 and 2006, thus leaving94 percent for research and extension. All 42 pro-jects included some form of agricultural training,but only seven projects provided financing foragricultural education. Two of those (Ghana andEthiopia) accounted for 80 percent of the total lend-ing for agricultural education in Sub-Saharan Africain the period reviewed. Between 2000 and 2006,the Bank provided only USD 9.5 million for agricul-tural education in Africa, an average of just USD 1.4 million per year.

Source: Rygnestad et al. 2006:6.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 17

point in time easily leads to a “training-fallacy”trap, where one faces the striking puzzle of theparadoxical coexistence of a growing number ofunemployed national university graduates, sizableoutflows of the best qualified national brains, andsustained inflows of tens of thousands of expatriateexperts. . . . The above-mentioned paradox high-lights probably the most critical dimension of thecapacity building problem: the capacity of Africaneconomies to create opportunities for attractingand retaining high-level local skills in productiveuse” (Dione, 1997:613).

The ultimate cost of the donor pullback frompostgraduate training overseas has been to dis-tance African professionals from knowledge net-works, global information resources, and thecutting edge of technology transfer. All these arenecessary for a functioning agricultural innovationsystem, and they will need to be addressed if agri-culture is to grow in Africa.

Government funding of AET tendedto follow donor trends

African governments also cut back on their ownfunding for agriculture. The growing concentra-tion of citizens in urban areas shifted their politicalequation away from rural constituencies, and per-ceptions of agriculture as an old-fashioned occu-pation generated negative public attitudes.However, donors reinforced this shift through a

combination of incentives, conditionalities, andcounterpart contribution requirements. Togetherthese factors inevitably bent government budgetsin the direction of donor funding priorities. Forexample, the government of Kenya allocated morethan 10 percent of its budget to agriculture in the1970s, 7.5 percent in the 1980s, 3 percent in the1990s, and 3.1 percent in 2003—about 0.7 percentof GDP (World Bank 2005a:84). Likewise, in Ghanathe share of the total government budget given toagriculture fell from 12.2 percent in 1980 to 4.1 per-cent in 1990, and then to just 1.0 percent in 2002(Akroyd and Smith 2007:5).

Trends in government budgetary allocationsfor agriculture in 14 countries of Sub-SaharanAfrica are presented in Table 3.1 and aggregatedin Chart 3.6.16

The result is a human resource deficit

In summary, the initial achievements of the 1970sand 1980s in institution building gave way to ne-glect during the 1990s and beyond. This has left thelegacy of a severely depleted human resource poolin African agriculture. A study of 27 African coun-tries found that investments in agricultural re-search declined in half of these countries duringthe 1990s (IFPRI 2004). The huge potential forwomen professionals to upgrade farming systemsin which women producers play a major role re-mains largely untapped (FAO 1999), with women


Table 3.1 Agricultural Expenditure as a Percentage of Total Government Expenditure, 1980–2004

1980 1990 1998 2000 2004

Botswana 9.71 6.47 4.91 4.18 4.17Burkina Faso 5.47 5.83 5.07 6.57 6.50Cameroon 2.22 4.06 2.87 2.81 3.10Côte d’Ivoire 3.40 2.97 4.81 4.18 5.47Ethiopia 6.89 4.91 4.26 6.55 2.25Ghana 12.23 4.10 3.26 2.57 1.29Kenya 8.42 6.03 4.32 4.82 4.99Malawi 10.17 11.10 6.83 4.30 5.47Mali 8.31 2.33 4.62 4.84 9.17Nigeria 2.80 2.91 1.71 1.58 6.03Togo 7.03 3.51 1.59 1.78 1.88Uganda 6.99 3.91 1.09 4.00 4.02Zambia 22.97 2.91 4.39 3.27 2.82Zimbabwe 7.03 11.18 1.82 1.76 2.92

Source: World Development Report 2008, data annex.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 18


comprising just 18 percent of African agriculturalscientists (Stads and Beintema 2006). Only one infour African researchers currently possesses a PhDdegree.17 Fortunately, this era of disregard maynow be passing into history.

UNDERFINANCING OF AFRICA’SAGRICULTURE SECTOR APPEARSPOISED TO CHANGERecent signs may signal a turnaround in donor as-sistance to agriculture and to agriculture training.ODA to SSA increased from USD 11 billion in 2001to almost USD 20 billion in 2003 (OECD CreditorReporting System).18 Aid to agriculture jumpedfrom USD 454 million in 2001 to USD 752 millionin 2004. In 2005, the Commission for Africa Reportcalled for a doubling of international developmentassistance to Africa by 2010, with priority forscience, technology, and human resource develop-ment. In response, the Bank’s lending for agricul-ture more than doubled from USD 287 million in2004 to USD 685 million in 2006. Although donorcommitments in 2006 fell back somewhat fromtheir 2005 levels, this upward trend could regainmomentum. For example, USAID recently intro-duced a global initiative to increase postgraduatescholarships in agriculture and capacity-buildinggrants to rebuild university faculties of agriculture(USAID 2003a).

In the Maputo Declaration of 2003, Africanheads of state pledged 10 percent of their GDP foragriculture sector investments. This implies a four-fold increase in current levels of budgetary sup-port. Yet even a doubling of government fundingfor the agricultural sector would enable a range ofworthwhile initiatives.

Donors followed suit in 2005 with a renewedcommitment to Africa in general and to agricul-ture in particular. The recommendations ofthe Report of the Commission for Africa, OurCommon Interest, called for particular emphasison agriculture. The G-8 meeting in July 2005at Gleneagles, Scotland adopted the Reportand agreed to double aid to Africa. NEPAD’sFramework for African Agricultural Productivitypointed to the difficulty of maintaining humancapital in agricultural support systems and sug-gested an inadequacy of investments in humancapital. It called for a “radically new approach” torestore the quality of graduate and postgraduateagricultural education and training (NEPAD/FARA 2006:7). The Africa Commission report alsoserved as a major reference for the World Bank’sAfrica Action Plan. The Plan calls for develop-ment, in the medium term, of a base of criticalagricultural human capital through expandedinvestments in agriculture science and technol-ogy and through support for tertiary institutionsincluding agricultural education (World Bank2005b: 42–43).

Chart 3.6 Trend in Agricultural Expenditure as a Percentage of Total Government Expenditure for 14 Countriesof Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980–2004

0

2

1

4

3

1980 1990 1998 2000 2004

5

7

6

9

8

Source: Table 3.1 on previous page.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 19

In addition, seven American foundations haveformed a Partnership for Higher Education inAfrica and pledged to invest at least USD 200 mil-lion over the next five years in support of Africanuniversities that are “on the move.”19 More to thepoint, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundationsrecently formed a separate partnership, called theAlliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),to invest USD 1 billion in efforts to improve Africanagricultural productivity over the coming fiveyears. The Alliance’s first major grant providedUSD 20 million to the African Center for CropImprovement at the University of KwaZulu-Natal

in support of a regional postgraduate program inplant breeding.

However, it is not yet clear whether these addi-tional resources for agriculture in Africa will bene-fit AET. Certainly the case for rebuilding AETsystems is compelling in view of their seminal rolein agricultural development elsewhere in the worldand the neglect they have suffered in Africa. If ad-ditional investment in agriculture materializes, itwill create strong demands for improving thescope, relevance and quality of agricultural skills.The key question is: How should these additionalfunds be used?


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 20

21

At a time when different profiles of graduates are needed to lead agri-cultural development in Africa, neglect has eroded the relevance andquality of AET outputs (graduates, research, technical advice) in nu-merous countries. This neglect provides an opportunity for strategicrethinking and innovation in the process of rebuilding AET capaci-ties. The AET systems currently in place suffer from five main weak-nesses: declining enrollments, professional isolation, narrow andoutdated curricula, inadequate staffing, and insufficient pedagogicalinputs. Each is discussed in sequence below.

AET ENROLLMENTS ARE DISTORTEDAND DECLININGA new generation of agricultural professionals is needed to replenishthe pool of human resources that is being depleted by brain drain,AIDS, and retirement; to support the expansion of local postgraduateprograms; to assist the growth of commercial agriculture, to maintaintechnical independence, and to exploit the economic opportunitiesinherent in new types of agriculture. However, it is not clear fromwhat sources they will come.

This challenge may be more qualitative than quantitative. The per-centage of all tertiary-level graduates in the field of agriculture inAfrica (5.2 percent) is almost four times higher than levels prevailingin Europe (1.4 percent) and the United States (1.2 percent).20 It isalso considerably higher than the graduate shares found in the morerecent agricultural powerhouses of Brazil (1.8 percent) and Chile(3.8 percent). This suggests that perhaps Africa’s greatest need withregard to human resources for agriculture is not larger numbersof graduates, but rather a better distribution of graduates acrossthe various levels of tertiary education, with particular attention topostgraduate output. To explore this point, let us look at the techni-cal education pyramid in Africa.

Africa’s technical education enrollment pyramidis unbalanced

Agriculture forms part of—and is supported by—the science andtechnology disciplines that comprise the broad field of technicaleducation. As applied knowledge and technological innovationbecome more important for global economic competitiveness, nations

Constraints on BuildingAET Capacity4

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 21

have begun to look at their “technical educationpyramid” (Basant and Chandra 2006:13). This is thedistribution of enrollments across the various levelsof technical education, i.e., post-secondary techni-cal, non-university polytechnic-type technical, uni-versity science and technology (sciences andengineering), and postgraduate (undifferentiated).21

This composition of the supply of technical gradu-ates represents a nation’s collective capacity for uti-lizing science and technology in its development.

Data for enrollments at these four levels of tech-nical education are available for only 15 Africancountries. These are compared with other developedand developing countries in Table 4.1. Countries are


Table 4.1 Percent of Technical Education Enrollments in Total National Enrollments, ISCED Levels 4–6, 2004or Closest Year

Country Level 4 Level 5B Level 5A Level 6STE

Mozambique 31 0 69 0Jordan 26 17 49 8Sweden 43 4 48 5United States 0 47 48 5Kenya 0 49 43 8Ghana 38 19 42 0Eritrea 37 23 40 0Colombia 37 23 40 0Switzerland 47 11 37 4Ethiopia 60 0 37 3Iran 40 23 36 1Japan 32 31 34 2Korea 20 46 33 1South Africa 50 16 32 2Ireland 30 38 30 3

Sub-Saharan Africa1 50 19 29 2

United Kingdom 50 20 26 3India* 38 31 26 5Chile 54 21 25 0Turkey 54 23 23 1Australia 61 13 23 3France 55 20 22 4Mauritania 65 12 20 2Botswana 62 14 15 9Mali 84 2 14 0Uganda 37 46 13 3Mauritius 37 52 10 1Rwanda** 74 16 10 0Lesotho 10 80 9 1Burundi 41 52 7 0Congo 87 7 6 0

Sources: UNESCO Institute for Statistics; World Bank EdStats; Teferra and Altbach 2003.

Note: An entry of 0 percent indicates either that no program of this type exists in the country, or that its enrollments were less than 0.5 percent.STE = Science, Engineering, Health and Agriculture enrollments only at 5A level.

ISCED Classifications:

Level 4 = technical/vocational programs that straddle the boundary between upper secondary and post-secondary; transitional; 6 mo. – 2 yrs.

Level 5 = first stage of tertiary education:

5A is academic preparation for advanced degree with a minimum of 3 years of study;

5B is practically oriented and occupationally specific with 2 or 3 years duration.

Level 6 = leads to an advanced research qualification (i.e., a master’s or doctoral degree).1 Based on 15 Sub-Saharan African countries in this table only.

*Authors’ calculations derived from UNESCO data, Agarwal (2006) Figure 13, and Basant & Chandra (2006) Table 4.

** Authors’ calculations derived from UNESCO data with STE division based on information provided in Rwanda higher education websites.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 22

Constraints on Building AET Capacity 23

ranked by the share of their technical educationstudents who are enrolled in university-level scienceand technology fields because this is thought to bethe most critical level of the technical educationpyramid in terms of triggering increased innovationand productivity within a national economy (Yusufand Nabeshima 2007; Evenson 2004).

The African pyramids for technical educationderived from the table above differ from those thatcharacterize the most economically competitivecountries in the world. The Global CompetitivenessRanking 2006–2007 lists 127 national economiesaccording to their perceived business competitive-ness.22 Technical education pyramids were calcu-lated for four of the top 10 ranked countries(Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom, UnitedStates) for which this information was available.These are contrasted with the average for Sub-Saharan Africa in Chart 4.1. Three things stand outfrom this table. First, African countries accommo-date a much larger portion of technical educationenrollments at the lower levels of this pyramid thando the highly competitive countries. Second, thehighly competitive countries attract a much biggershare of university students into science, technol-ogy, and engineering fields than do African coun-tries. Third, the highly competitive countries alsoentice a comparatively larger portion of students to

enroll in postgraduate studies.23 Given that thetertiary-level gross enrollment ratio (GER) for thehighly competitive countries is roughly 10 timeshigher than the level prevailing in Africa, thistranslates into a substantial quantitative as well asqualitative advantage for the highly competitivecountries.

The implications for African countries seemclear. First, they should strive to increase universityenrollments in science and technology fields at thecost of university enrollments in the social sciencesand humanities. Specifically, this requires a stronggeneral secondary education that will preparegraduates for entry to higher levels of the pyramid.Second, countries need to work harder to establishand nurture local postgraduate programs.

Countries such as Kenya and Ghana have suc-ceeded in achieving a progressive balance withinthe technical education pyramids they have put inplace, although Ghana needs to give more attentionto postgraduate programs. These two countriesmatch fairly well with the average profile of thefour highly competitive countries. At this point,their primary challenge would seem to be increas-ing their tertiary-level GER without modifying theshape of their technical education pyramid.However, nations such as Burundi, Congo,Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Rwanda, and even

Chart 4.1 Technical Education Pyramid for 4 Most Competitive Countries and 15 Sub-Saharan Africa Countries

0%

20%

40%

4 competitive nations Sub-Saharan Africa

4

40

21

35

Level 6

Level 5A STE

Level 5B

Level 4

2

29

19

50

60%

80%

100%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

Source: Table 4.1.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 23

Mauritius are encouraged to find ways of shiftingtechnical education enrollments to higher levels ofthe pyramid. In general, countries are advised towork on improving the profile of their technicaleducation pyramids before they embark on aggres-sive university expansion campaigns. The issue isnot so much the quality and relevance of educationversus the quantity of students, but rather achiev-ing and maintaining the right balance between thetwo as the overall system evolves.

Within Africa, similar divergence is observedbetween Francophone and Anglophone countries(Chart 4.2).24 Anglophone nations have gone fur-ther than their Francophone peers in placing tech-nical education students into the higher levels ofuniversity science and technology and of post-graduate studies. Francophone countries are urgedto expand technical enrollments at the upper levelsof their pyramids. Greater attention to the devel-opment and expansion of national postgraduateprograms should also be a high priority for theFrancophone countries.

The pyramid specific to enrollments in agricul-tural education and training should ideally approx-imate employment opportunities in the labormarket. The wide base would correspond to train-ing of producers through nonformal and secondarylevel vocational education, the smaller middle band

of the pyramid would reflect practically skilled agri-cultural technicians at the post-secondary certificateand diploma level (e.g. extensionists, NGO special-ists, marketing representatives, and program man-agers), and the narrow apex would representagricultural professionals trained at the degree leveland above. The FAO suggests that the ratios in thispyramid should be 12 technicians and 40–100 pro-ducers trained for each university graduate (Rowat,FAO, 1980). However, in many countries this pyra-mid is top-heavy. For example, Burkina Faso pro-duces just 3.6 technicians and only 0.32 youngproducers for each university graduate (Zonon2006:46).25 Astonishingly, this implies that feweragricultural producers are trained in Burkina Fasothan university graduates in agriculture.

Enrollment patterns are especially distortedby gender

Underlying most organizational cultures and be-haviors is a gender dimension that is rarely takeninto consideration. Gender inequality is a constanttheme in any analysis of agricultural development inSub-Saharan Africa, and is thus relevant to the studyof AET systems that participate in the developmentprocess (Blackden et al. 2006; Quisumbing 2003).Although women play multiple roles in agriculture


Chart 4.2 Technical Education Pyramids for Francophone and Anglophone Countries in Africa

0%

20%

40%

Francophone Anglophone

0

11

24

65

Level 6

Level 5A STE

Level 5B

Level 4

3

29

31

37

60%

80%

100%

Source: Table 4.1.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 24


and account for more than half of agricultural out-put in the continent (and three-quarters of foodproduction), they have continuously received a less-than-proportionate share of investment in agri-culture, particularly in terms of interventions relat-ing to education, extension, capacity strengthening,empowerment, and market access (Alawy 1998;Frank 1999; Haug 1999).26 Recognition of these factsis seldom a visible component in AET institutions.Thus, women are underrepresented as students, in-structors, extension agents and researchers, whileagricultural innovation processes are hardly evertargeted to female users (Beintema 2006).

In general, women account for one out of everyfive students in the agricultural sciences. In Benin,20 percent of the students in the Colleges ofTechnical Agricultural Education and only 5 per-cent of the teachers are women (Ogoudedji 2006:2).The situation is just as challenging in Ethiopia (seeBox 4.1). At the tertiary level, in Cameroon at theFaculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences22 percent of students were female, but almost halfof these (44 percent) were concentrated in the fac-ulty of economics and sociology, not in agriculturalsciences (Fontem 2006:32). In Mozambique, women

within the Faculty of Agronomy and Forestryaccounted for 28 percent of undergraduates and35 percent of the graduates in 2005 and 2006, anda third of the teaching staff were female. Less thanone-fifth of students at the Agrarian Institute ofBoane are women (Gemo 2006:16,19, 31).

But this is not a stagnant situation. Between1991 and 2000, women’s share of enrollmentsin Ethiopian agricultural sciences rose from 14 to20 percent (Stads and Beintema 2006). SokoineUniversity of Agriculture in Tanzania provides animpressive example of what can be accomplishedin this area. It increased its graduate output ofwomen tenfold over the past decade and raisedtheir share in Sokoine enrollments from 17 to 29 per-cent (Sibunga 2007).

Gender bias has deep roots. Young women aregenerally not encouraged to focus on science—particularly biology and agricultural science—insecondary school. As a result, African female par-ticipation rates in agricultural sciences in universi-ties are roughly half of those in other fields. AUNESCO survey in 1998 found than only 8 percentof agricultural faculty members were women, com-pared with more than 50 percent in many European

Box 4.1 Agricultural Education and Gender Inequities in Ethiopia

Gender inequities persist in Ethiopia’s education sys-tem, despite recent national efforts to encourageschooling among the female population. At the primarylevel, gross enrollment rates are more than 20 percenthigher for boys than for girls, with 76 percent of boysenrolled nationwide and only 55 percent of girls as of2003 (WDI 2006). Girls who do enroll are more likelyto drop out, with the highest number of dropouts ingrade one. This enrollment problem carries over intothe formal AET system. Across the country’s 25 agricul-tural technical training centers, females accounted foronly 11 percent of the enrolled students and 9 percentof graduated students in 2005. Female instructors ac-counted for only 6 percent of the total instructors inthese centers in the same year (MoARD 2006, 2005).

Similar gender imbalances appear at the universitylevel. In Haramaya University’s School of GraduateStudies, a part of the College of Agriculture, femalegraduates accounted for fewer than 3 percent of thetotal graduates over the period 1979–2003. This un-derrepresentation of female students in graduate

studies is the result of a very low female student popu-lation in undergraduate programs—7.6 percent duringthe same period (Kassa 2004a).

But statistics reveal only half the picture. Considerthe technical education curriculum for agriculturefrom a gender perspective. The curriculum containsfew, if any, courses on issues such as household nutri-tion, sanitation, and hygiene—areas in which womenplay a vital role and which are critical to householdwelfare, as empirical evidence from across the regionhas repeatedly demonstrated. Moreover, the curricu-lum provides few gender-specific career tracks for fe-male students entering public service. Female studentsare expected to work in farmer technology centers andinteract with farmers—primarily male and often seniorto them in age—as would their male counterparts,defying the traditional conventions and norms of localcommunities. Little effort is made to use AET and fe-male AET graduates as a means of effecting changein rural livelihoods through gender-specific impactpathways (IFPRI 2007).

Source: Davis et al. 2007:49–50.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 10:52 PM Page 25

countries (InterAcademy 2004:170). The conse-quence is unused human capacities and reducedprogram effectiveness.

Student interest in agriculture is waning

Even though one-fifth of Africa’s economy andfour-fifths of its people depend on agriculture fortheir livelihoods (Commission for Africa 2005:45),this does not automatically translate into a populardemand for AET. Despite the extensive infrastruc-ture built over the past four decades, student inter-est in agriculture is waning as students seek careersassociated with urban lifestyles and a wider rangeof chances for work. For example, in Kenya only 20candidates applied for agriculture as a first choicein 2005, compared with a combined capacity to ac-cept 120 BSc students in two public universities(Ministry of Education, Kenya. 2006:265). At thesecondary level, fewer students are choosing agri-culture as an option, 40 percent compared withover 50 percent in the past. Of the students choos-ing agriculture, only one out of four (24 percent) in-tends to seek an agricultural occupation followinggraduation (Vandenbosch, et al. 2006:67).

In part, this lack of interest reflects the urbanbackground of many students. In Mozambique,the majority of students enrolled in technical agri-cultural schools come from an urban, not a farm,background (Vandenbosch 2006:99). Moreover,substantial numbers of students enroll in agricul-tural institutions because they are unable to find aplace in the regular secondary schools that providepreparation for university studies. Agriculturalsecondary education is consequently used to pro-vide them with the equivalent academic qualifica-tions needed to apply for university admission(Vandenbosch 2006:95). At the tertiary educationlevel, students often matriculate in faculties of agri-culture because they are unable to enroll in thedisciplines of their choice, and are simply waitingfor the chance to transfer into a more desirable aca-demic program (Noragric 2006:4). Even when theygraduate with degrees in agriculture, they may notseek employment in this area. In short, studentsfollow the educational pathways they believe aremost likely to lead to employment. In many cases,these paths do not lead to agriculture.

Several studies point to the need to combat thewidespread perception of agriculture as a second-rate profession (Noragric, ibid.). Both students andparents tend to equate agriculture with hand-tool

farming, and to see it as a dead end in terms of em-ployment aspirations. Thus, parents strive to equiptheir children with the educational qualificationsnecessary to leave farming. Similarly, selection foruniversity admission is generally based on a rankordering of academic qualifications, with agricul-ture well down the list of student preferences. As aresult, large numbers of university students end upassigned to agriculture without having chosen it.This creates problems of motivation and profes-sional commitment (Muir-Leresche 2003:10). Thus,a “change of attitude towards agriculture” is criti-cal, according to the Uganda National AgriculturalEducation Policy document. The reference here isin part to secondary schools that treat agriculturalwork assignments as a “punishment” for unrulystudents, thus deterring them (and their class-mates) from considering agriculture as an occupa-tion (Rivera 2006:20).

Agriculture enrollments show decliningshares at all post-secondary levels

Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, enroll-ments in agriculture as a share of total enrollmentsfell from 5.7 percent to 3.3 percent at the pre-degree(technician) level, from 5.8 to 4.6 percent at degreelevel, and from 7.6 to 3.8 percent at postgraduatelevel. The declines were thus 42 percent, 21 percent,and 50 percent for technician, degree and post-graduate levels, respectively (see Chart 4.3).

Pre-degree for technicians

Provision of tertiary agricultural education tendsto be skewed in favor of universities rather thanpolytechnics, technical institutes, and vocationalcolleges. AET investments favor university grad-uates at the expense of technical and vocationalprograms. Analysis of 20 technical colleges inforestry found that reduced government supportfor technical training has virtually eliminatedcertificate courses and substantially reduceddiploma courses. Certificate graduates averaged260 a year in 1996–1998 but fell to less than adozen annually in 1999–2002.27 Diploma graduatesaveraged 190 a year in 1996–1998, but just 150annually in 1999–2002 (see Chart 4.4) (Temu ibid.:5,10–11, 14).

The limited evidence available also suggests thatsimilar trends may have occurred in other agri-cultural disciplines at the pre-degree level. Forexample, applied agriculture engineering in Ghana


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 26


dropped from 7 percent of total polytechnic enroll-ments in 1996–1997 to just 1 percent in 2004–2005.28

Degree level

In 19 countries (excluding Nigeria and South Africa),the share of student enrollment in agriculture out oftotal tertiary enrollments was 5.8 percent in the early

1980s and had declined to 4.6 percent in the early1990s. However, in absolute numbers agriculturalenrollments increased 49 percent, from 7,417 in early80s to 11,045 in early 1990s (Beintema, et al. 1998: 27).In Kenya, enrollment in BSc agriculture in Kenyanpublic universities declined as a share of total en-rollment from 23 percent in 1996–1997 to 14 percent

Chart 4.3 Agriculture Enrollments as a % of Total Enrollments by Level, Early 1980s and 1990s

0

1

2

Level 5(cert. diploma)

Level 7(post grad.)

Level 6(degree)

5.7

3.3

Early 1980s

Early 1990s

7.6

3.8

5.8

4.6

4

6

% o

f to

tal e

nro

llmen

ts

8

3

5

7

Source: Beintema et al., 1998. Data are for 19 countries (excluding Nigeria and South Africa).

Chart 4.4 Graduates from Forestry Technician Training (Certificate and Diploma) 1993–2002

0

200

100

300

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

400

Nu

mb

er o

f gra

du

ates

500

600

Source: Temu 2005: 6. Data are from seven reporting African institutions.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 27

in 2003/04. Over the same period enrollments inagricultural education declined from 11 percent to3 percent (see Chart 4.5) (Republic of Kenya, CentralBureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstracts, variousissues).

Data also hint at low completion rates among en-rolled students. In 19 countries, graduations as apercentage of total enrollment in agriculture sci-ences decreased from 36.2 percent in early 1980s to25.8 percent in the early 1990s (Beintima, ibid.). InNigeria between 1999–2005, federal university en-rollments in agriculture totaled 20,870 students(7 percent of total enrollment) but produced only3,090 graduates (World Bank 2006). These datasuggest that either students transferred out of agri-culture once enrolled, repeated their studies andthus delayed graduation, or dropped out dispro-portionately to other faculties. This result is not sur-prising given the prevailing practice of assigningstudents to disciplines based on their ranking in uni-versity admissions examinations, and widespreadnegative public perceptions of agricultural careers.

Postgraduate programs

A review of postgraduate education in economicsfound that “graduate training in any meaningful

sense appeared to have collapsed in most Africanuniversities. The causes were lack of funds, civildisorder, loss of good staff, deteriorating facultiesand equipment and a massive expansion of under-graduate enrollment” (Fine 1997 in InterAcademy:174 and Eicher 2006: 50–51). Only one-half ofAfrican faculties of agriculture offer postgraduatedegrees, and most of these were established in thepast decade. Thus, local capacities for producingprofessionals at the highest level are young and stilldeveloping.

In the early 1990s, 11,000 students were en-rolled in tertiary agriculture courses in 19 coun-tries, but only 3.5 percent were pursuingpostgraduate degrees (Beintema 1998:25). Tencountries reported no postgraduate agriculturestudents at all. For 19 countries, total enrollmentin postgraduate agricultural programs was 491in the early 1980s, and this fell to 387 in theearly 1990s, a decrease of 21 percent (Obwonaand David 2001:1). A similar survey showed a54 percent drop in postgraduate degrees inforestry conferred between 1997 and 2002 (Temuet al. 2005), as portrayed in Chart 4.6. Taken to-gether, these data suggest that the pipeline foragricultural professionals is shrinking.


Chart 4.5 Kenya: Agriculture Enrollments in Public Universities as a % of Total BSc, 1996–2004

0

5

10

1996/7

23

9

8

11

Agriculture

Horticulture

Engineering

Ag. education

20

30

% to

tal B

Sc e

nro

llmen

ts

35

15

25

1998/9

31

13

11

16

1999/0

19

11

8

15

2001/2

18

9

9

16

2002/3

15

8

8

3

2003/4

14

8

8

3

Source: Kenya, Statistical Abstracts, various issues.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 28


AET INSTITUTIONS ARE ISOLATEDAND FRAGMENTEDAET institutions are characterized by isolation.This isolation distances them from global knowl-edge resources and also from information and ex-perience available within their own countries. As aresult, AET institutions are unable to play the rolesenvisioned for them within the framework of agri-cultural innovation systems.

Isolation also compromises the relevance andquality of AET outputs. External linkages tend tobe weak and poorly developed. “The separationbetween government, industry and academiastands out as one of the main sources of inertia andwaste in Africa’s knowledge-based institutions”(Juma 2006). Establishing meaningful institutionallinkages—knowledge networks, public-privatepartnerships, system coordination mechanisms—constitutes one of the main challenges to AET sys-tems (Rivera 2006:41). AET also suffers fromadministrative fragmentation by its placementunder different governmental authorities, andfrom institutional fragmentation through the pro-liferation of multiple, under-resourced institutionsthat lack a systemic framework.

AET systems lack strategic alignmentto national development priorities

Agriculture is a key reference point for poverty re-duction strategies in many African countries, but

there is no notable AET strategy to generatethe leaders and managers needed to implementthe agricultural components of these nationalstrategies. This has been specifically noted inMozambique (Givá 2006:iii) and in Burkina Faso(Zonon 2006:46). In a survey of seven countries,only one had an explicit AET strategy. The excep-tion was Uganda which has developed a NationalAgricultural Education Strategy and an Agri-cultural Education and Training Policy (Rivera2006:14; Obua 2006:13, 36, 37).29 Some traininginstitutions (e.g., Bunda College in Malawi)have developed their own strategies. Notably,Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnology has a well developed strategic plan for2004–2014 (Blackie and Woomer 2005:20).

AET systems suffer from weak linkageswith stakeholders, employers, and theproductive sector

There is clearly a disconnect between AET and pri-vate sector needs. Weak articulation and analysis ofdemand means that the market for AET graduatesis not well defined (Vandenbosch 2006:106).“Linkages for creating dynamic systems of agricul-tural innovation frequently have been absent. . . .The lack of interaction results in weak articulation ofdemand for research and training . . .” (World Bank.2006a). What jeopardizes AET in Mozambique is alack of dialogue between AET institutions and theproductive sector. Employers and companies are

Chart 4.6 Forestry Graduates with MSc and PhD, 1997–2002

0

40

20

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

80N

um

ber

of g

rad

uat

es

100

120

Source: Temu, et al. 2005 (data from 13 African universities).

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/14/07 11:59 AM Page 29

only involved marginally in defining learning con-tents and quality standards (Givá 2006:iii, 9). Thesame lack of ties with producers and producer or-ganizations applies in Ghana (Kwarteng 2006:31). Agreat deal has been written about the establishmentof linkages between research, extension, and AET,yet the review of tertiary AET institutions in sevencountries found all to have poor links with researchand extension institutions (Rivera 2006:26).Cameroon reportedly lacks formal ties betweenAET institutions and research institutes, eventhough research stations are dispersed throughoutthe country near various AET institutions (Fontem2006:16). In Kenya, the isolation of secondary-levelagricultural education manifests itself in lack of in-teraction with the communities in which they are lo-cated and with the agricultural extension service(Ngesa 2006:70,73).

Key informants in the IFPRI study (Davis et al.2007) suggest that most AET organizations sufferfrom a work culture that does not promote intensivenetworking as part of common practice. The prob-lem is reflected in the traditional approach to con-ceptual and theoretical instruction that does notpromote exposure to other actors, ideas, or processeswithin the agricultural innovation system. It can alsobe observed in the weak Internet infrastructurefound throughout most AET organizations, charac-terized by poor hardware and software, insufficientresource allocations for maintenance, user restric-tions for students, and an absence of consistent in-stitutional access to online services.

Several ongoing experiments suggest the emer-gence of new mechanisms and cultures aimed at fa-cilitating greater network formation in AET. Forexample, in Mozambique the Ministry ofEducation and Culture intends to create an acade-mic credit system that will encourage students totransfer between universities and colleges (and tocarry their credits with them), thereby bringingcurricula toward a common level and possibly al-lowing students to link learning and research ac-tivities between academic staff at more than oneAET institution. Similarly, academic staff are beingencouraged to explore joint appointments, second-ments, and deputizations between AET organiza-tions as a means of meeting human resourceconstraints while also building academic networksbetween individuals and organizations. Students,in the meantime, are finding new opportunities forpractical apprenticeships in the private and NGOsectors. In the agricultural research community,

competitive grant schemes are emerging with thepotential to increase linkages with the private sec-tor and NGOs. However, most of these networksrevolve around linkages among similar organiza-tions and individuals, and do little to exploit thesynergies associated with nontraditional linkages(Davis et al. 2007).

AET systems are poorly connected tointernational sources of knowledge

One of the greatest handicaps for African scienceand education is its remoteness from global sourcesof scientific literature. As a result, students gradu-ate without knowing the most recent findings andmethods in their areas of specialization(InterAcademy Council 2003:178). AET institutionsoften lack access to international sources of knowl-edge (e.g., scientific journals), and linkages with theConsultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) system, international partners,and other international agriculture networks.Budget limitations produce an almost universallack of computers and Internet access. Frequentlyonly one or two computers can be found at agri-cultural colleges and they are usually reserved foradministrative purposes. Even if one or two com-puters were available to students and staff, no bud-get is provided for accessing the internet. “Inagricultural colleges, the so-called ‘digital divide’ ismore often a gaping chasm” (Rivera 2006:26). Thereview of agricultural tertiary education found thatfour of seven countries (Ghana, Malawi,Mozambique, and Uganda) had established someinternational linkages, mostly with overseas uni-versities. Only one country (Uganda) had report-edly established links with international researchorganizations (Rivera: ibid.).

Isolation often results from overcentralizedor divided administration

The lack of communication channels and produc-tive relationships between AET institutions, publicresearch and extension is attributable in part to thefact they frequently operate under different min-istries (Gemo 2006:7, 11–12). Some AET institutionsare placed under ministries of agriculture, whereasothers operate under ministries of education. Thismakes coordinated policies and funding difficult.Too often, agricultural education falls between thefloorboards of agricultural policy and educational


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 30


policy. In Nigeria, three federal universities of agri-culture operate under the Ministry of Education,while 16 federal colleges of agriculture functionunder the Ministry of Agriculture (World Bank2006b.) The same situation exists in Cameroon,with six universities under the Ministry of HigherEducation and 18 agricultural colleges under theMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development.(Rivera: 49–50). In Burkina Faso, five separate min-istries administratively supervise the differenttypes of agricultural training. Reportedly there isno relationship between them, and no consultationmechanism between supply and demand (Zonon2006:46, 53).

In Ghana, the three sides of the education-research-extension triangle pursue their respectiveagendas without recourse to the others’ roles in na-tional agricultural development. The Ministry ofFood and Agriculture prepares its policies withoutinvolving the Ghana Education Service, whichwould need to adapt curricula accordingly(Kwarteng 2006:29). In part, isolation occurs be-cause AET institutions are not autonomous anddo not have end-users on their governing boards.Granting AET institutions autonomy, especially atthe degree level, and placing employers, produc-ers, and other stakeholders on their curriculumcommittees and governing boards can be powerfulincentives to link training with market demand.

In short, the key to developing an agriculturalinnovation system is “. . . to figure out how to buildcountry level agricultural knowledge triangles thatare operationally linked to farmer organizations,the private sector and the regional and global sci-entific communities” (Eicher 1999:41).

AET CURRICULA TEND TO BEOBSOLETE AND DISASSOCIATEDFROM THE ECONOMYCurricula are often outdated

At the tertiary level, curricula often are likely to berigid and unchanging. In Cameroon, curricula intertiary AET institutions are inflexible, outdated,and dictated by ministries; they have not been re-vised for 20 years (Rivera 2006:49, Fontem 2006:16).Curricula at the two post-secondary agriculture in-stitutes in Senegal reportedly are conservative, the-oretical, and falling behind in new knowledge. Nointerdisciplinary studies are provided (Rivera2006:54). Curricula in tertiary institutions in

Uganda still focus on producing graduates for pub-lic service, for which there is presently little de-mand (Rivera 2006:55).

Curricula may be narrowly focusedon production

Innovation systems in agriculture require broad-ranging skills. “With respect to agricultural educa-tion, an effective innovation system requires acadre of professionals with a new skill set andmindset. Technical expertise needs to be comple-mented with functional expertise in (for example)markets, agribusiness, intellectual property law,rural institutions, and rural finance—which willplace strong demands on educational systems”(World Bank 2006a: xiii). The “new” agriculturalprofessional must be market-oriented, able to learnand adapt, able to innovate and solve problems,and able to listen and communicate. Transformingagricultural higher education requires a more gen-eralist orientation with an emphasis on problemsolving (Noragric 2006:5).

In order to make a greater impact on increasedrural productivity and growth, AET curriculashould cover more than simply production tech-nology.30 The current reality is that in parts ofAfrica, up to 42 percent of total rural income comesfrom nonfarm sources, and this trend appears to beincreasing rapidly (DFID 2005:7). In order to adaptto these changing circumstances, AET curriculashould expand to include agri-business, entrepre-neurship, rural finance, agricultural processing,food processing and marketing, post-harvest tech-nologies, distribution of agricultural products,and the sustainable use and conservation of nat-ural resources (Vandenbosch 2006:19, 50, 101).Unfortunately, recent curricula revisions often donot take this broader view into account. In tertiaryeducation, although the structure and content ofAET curricula are under discussion in many places,few institutions have so far made the majorchanges required to produce significantly differenttypes of graduates.

Premature specialization sometimes occurs

The need for problem-solving generalists is appar-ent, but most Anglophone curricula at the tertiarylevel are narrow and highly specialized (Muir-Leresche 2003:18). A greater infusion of interdis-ciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies at the

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 10:52 PM Page 31

undergraduate level would help to broaden stu-dent perspectives in order to appreciate the varietyof physical and social interactions that characterizeagriculture within a specific agro-ecological zone.In some cases, deeper specialization could be leftfor postgraduate studies.

Of particular concern are the “basic” AgriculturalSchools in Mozambique, which admit students aftergrade 7 and provide three years of training. Theschools are roughly equivalent to lower secondaryeducation. A common timetable in the first year isfollowed by two years of specialization in one offour areas: agriculture; agriculture plus livestock;agromechanics; and machinery. Few graduatesfrom the basic level are formally employed (exceptas primary teachers), yet they lack the practicalskills needed for self-employment in agriculture.31

Most graduates aspire to continue their studiesin upper secondary general education (Givá2006:13–14) but they are at a disadvantage in com-peting for places because of the specialized curricu-lum they have received (Vandenbosch 2006:55).

NUMEROUS COUNTRIES FACECRISES IN AET STAFFINGStaff qualifications are problematic at manyAET institutions

The rapid recruitment of junior lecturers to teachthe rising numbers of students, combined with theloss of better qualified academic staff to more re-warding opportunities, has eroded staff qualifica-tions at numerous AET institutions. The loweststaff qualification levels found in the country casestudies were in Rwanda (7 percent PhD) andMozambique (14 percent PhD). The proportion offaculty without advanced degrees was 47 percentin Mozambique and 51 percent in Rwanda (Rivera2006:19). In addition, several country studies notedthat teaching staff in agriculture often do not havepractical experience in skills application or busi-ness management.

Cameroon, on the other hand, appears to havewell-qualified academic staff. Almost two-thirds ofthe academic staff at the Cameroon University ofDschang Faculty of Agronomy and AgriculturalSciences hold PhDs (Rivera 2006:19, 28). Uganda(Makerere) and Ghana also have more than 40 per-cent of staff with PhDs.

A survey of agricultural researchers in 26African countries was conducted by IFPRI in

collaboration with ASARECA, CORAF, and sev-eral national agricultural research organizationsbetween 2001 and 2003. Known as ASTI(Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators),it profiled the quantity and quality of agriculturalresearchers within each country’s principal publicsector agricultural institutions. A summary of theseresults is presented in Annex 6.

The ASTI survey identifies Burkina Faso, Côted’Ivoire, and Senegal as possessing the best trainedpool of agricultural researchers, with roughly halfof all public researchers holding PhD degrees.Within national higher education systems, the besttrained agricultural staff can be found in BurkinaFaso (92 percent PhDs), Mauritania (82 percentPhDs), and Côte d’Ivoire (84 percent PhDs).Notably, Nigeria and Togo house the highest shareof total agricultural researchers within their highereducation systems, where one out of every threecan be found.32 On average for the 26 countries sur-veyed, just 29 percent of all agricultural researcherspossess PhDs, but 50 percent of all university-based agricultural researchers have PhDs. Thus,university agricultural staff excel in quality al-though they may be lacking in quantity. But the po-tential for upgrading staff qualifications within thepublic sector is visible.

Notable contrasts can be observed between thehigh-level human resources of the agricultural sec-tor in 11 Anglophone and 10 Francophone coun-tries. The Anglophone countries have a slightlyhigher share of all agricultural researchers withintheir higher education systems (21 percent versus15 percent). This is to be expected in light of theFrancophone tradition of dividing teaching and re-search among separate institutions. On the otherhand, university-based agricultural researchers inFrancophone countries are somewhat bettertrained, with 60 percent of them holding PhDsagainst 48 percent in Anglophone universities.However, the possibilities for professional net-working and institutional linkages would appear tobe better among Anglophone countries, given thatthey possess nearly four times as many total agri-cultural researchers as the Francophone countries.

Staff shortages are common

In almost all countries, qualified teaching and ad-ministrative staff are in short supply. FARA hasdocumented widespread shortages of professionalstaff in national agricultural research and extension


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 32


systems (FARA 2006). Furthermore, it estimates that60 percent of agricultural professionals currently em-ployed in the public sector will reach retirement age infive to eight years. A sizable percentage of academicpositions remains unfilled in many institutions(Rivera 2006:17). For example, a survey of agricul-tural economics programs in 11 universities foundthat only 60 percent of established academic postswere actually filled (Obwona and Norman2001:7).33 The seven country studies of tertiary-level AET undertaken for this report document asteady decrease in academic staff and a steady in-crease in student enrollments, generating a grow-ing number of students per staff. The result is asharp increase in academic workloads, which re-duces time for research, student meetings, andcourse preparation.

High levels of staff turnover can bea serious issue

In tertiary AET, only two of the seven countries re-viewed showed relative stability in their teachingforce. The average experience of instructors inGhana and Uganda was from 15–20 years. InMalawi and Rwanda, it was less than six, a sugges-tion of high turnover (Rivera 2006: 19). Since 1990there has been an exodus of senior academics inMalawi to NGOs, the private sector, and interna-tional positions. Low pay is cited as a principalcause (Harawa 2006: 9). The same applies to teach-ers at midlevel agricultural schools in Mozambique(Vandenbosch 2006:72). Ethiopia reportedly has torecruit 250 to 350 new graduates annually just to re-place those leaving their teaching posts at theATVET colleges, an astonishingly high rate ofabout 30 percent annual attrition (Vandenbosch2006:71; Merkorios 2006:33). Anticipated turnoveris implicit in an aging professorate. Many of thecurrent teaching staff were trained abroad beforethe 1980s and are now facing retirement. InMalawi, for example, most teachers in the agricul-tural colleges are over age 50. Staff retirements andthe challenge of recruiting replacement staff arecommonly voiced concerns throughout Africanhigher education (Darvas 2007).

The causes of staff loss have frequently been tiedto comparative wages and opportunities, but stud-ies in half a dozen African countries have foundthat nonwage factors are also important for staffretention. These include working conditions, classsizes, teaching loads, participation in decision

making, teaching resources, and professional ad-vancement factors, e.g., recognition, promotion,and access to inservice and further studies (Tettey2006; Vandenbosch 2006: 75). Much attrition couldbe reduced by streamlining administrative proce-dures and instituting performance-based remuner-ation (Tettey 2006: ii–iv).

Brain drain is a major part of the cause

Africa’s intellectual capital in AET is being seri-ously eroded. Existing capacity is insufficient inmany cases to reproduce itself through the trainingof a new generation of professionals. Virtually allthe faculties of agriculture and forestry in East andCentral Africa are under financial stress, and arelosing senior staff to NGOs and the private sector,undermining their capacity to offer high-qualitylocal MSc and PhD degree training (Eicher 1999:36,41). Migration of skills occurs from lower- tohigher-income countries. One country can experi-ence a human resource crisis while a neighbor be-comes well staffed. The faculty of agriculture at theUniversity of Zimbabwe has lost almost half its aca-demic staff to universities in South Africa over thepast seven years (Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:2).

Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa still loses sci-entists and teachers (especially the most productiveand experienced) as fast as they are trained, at thealarming annual rate of 7 percent for NARS re-search officers with university degrees. During theeconomic crisis of 1975–1983, an estimated 25 per-cent of the researchers employed by the GhanaianNARS left for overseas employment. Topping thisrecord, the leading agricultural research institute ofSenegal (ISRA) lost an incredible 18 percent of itsscientists in 1987 alone. The overriding cause ofsuch high loss rates of the best brains is the inabilityof African governments to create an enabling pro-fessional environment and working conditions thatreward professional excellence and pay competitivesalaries (Dione 1997:613–614). Some of this is alsodue to high levels of dependence on donor fundingand the staff crisis that occurs when this fundingends. For example, the end of a World Bank agri-cultural project in Niger in 1998 prompted an85 percent budget cut and forced a significant re-duction in research staff. (Stads, Kabaley andGandah 2004:1). Similar shocks have been reportedat the completion of World Bank agricultural pro-jects in Madagascar, Mauritania, and Togo (seeASTI Country Briefs Nos. 6, 15, and 16).

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 33

HIV/AIDS exacerbates teacher attrition

Agricultural faculty members are being lost pre-maturely owing to HIV/AIDS, and this further ex-acerbates an already inadequate staffing situation(USAID 2003a:14). A survey of ministries of agri-culture found that absenteeism due to illness andtime spent attending funerals was seriously affect-ing the ability to implement their programs(Topouzis 2000:6). The Rockefeller Foundation es-timates that as many as 20 percent of the studentstrained through the Regional Universities Forumfor Eastern and Southern Africa program havesince died from AIDS (USAID 2003a: 14). The ca-pacity of institutions, including training, to imple-ment agricultural and rural development programshas been weakened substantially by morbidity andmortality among the most productive age groups(Topouzis 2000: 6).

TEACHING METHODS ANDFACILITIES ARE OFTENINADEQUATETeaching methods are overwhelminglytraditional

In the countries studied, most teaching in agricul-tural education is comprised of “chalk and talk”presentations of theory and facts. The instructorsdeliver knowledge and information to students aspassive recipients. Students have little opportunityto develop technical competencies, problem-solvingexperience, or organizational skills (Rivera 2006:20).Adhering to the linear model of technological inno-vation, the graduates then go out to instruct farm-ers on what they should do, with the risk that theclassroom instruction may not be relevant to thespecific problems confronted by the farmers.

Fortunately, some notable exceptions exist anddemonstrate that change is possible. Among thesebright spots is the École des Cadres RurauxBanbey, Senegal, which conducts training in agri-cultural enterprise management using commercialcase studies (Rivera 2006:27). Another notable in-novation is a rescheduling of the academic calen-dar at Bunda College in Malawi to mimic the cropcycle, starting the academic year with the plantingseason and concluding at post-harvest (Harawa2006:22). A third positive example can be found atthe Centre for Distance Education of the Faculty ofAgronomy and Animal Science in Cameroon,

which offers two-year diploma programs in animaland crop production plus management of agricul-tural enterprises (Fontem 2006:20–22).

Practical instruction receives insufficientemphasis

Hands-on training for students is minimal, workplacements are limited (but receiving increasing at-tention), and no country offers job placements ser-vices to graduating students (Rivera 2006:20).Work placements are essential, not a luxury, forAfrica. They expose students to actual problems ofproduction, processing, and marketing. They con-nect classroom teaching with the real world. Butavailable school farms tend not to be used much orwell (Ghana, Kenya), and practical lessons are lim-ited (Kenya, Rwanda) (Vandenbosch 2006:79;Ndejuru and Calixti 2006:66). In addition, guide-lines are missing for assessment of practice and ex-aminations ignore practical lessons (Kenya, Ngesa2006:70,73; Rwanda, Ndejuru 2006:67). If a subjectis not examined, students and parents will tend notto take it seriously. Supervision of practical train-ing is weak. Learners are left alone without anyguidance, no demonstrations, few explanations,and farm work is not linked with academic learn-ing objectives (Vandenbosch 2006:76). However,some refreshing exceptions exist. In Ethiopia, stu-dents undertake an eight-month apprenticeship aspart of their training (Vandenbosch 2006:79). InMozambique, a substantial component of the cur-riculum at the new Polytechnic Institute of Chokweconsists of field practices during the students’ firsttwo years (Rivera 2006:27).

Learning infrastructure is deficient

Provision of adequate learning-related facilities andequipment is one of the greatest challenges thatAET systems face. When budgets are tight, the lastitem to be cut is staff salaries. Thus, budget cuts fallmost heavily on maintenance, equipment, teachingsupplies, and building programs. Several observerstell of “asset stripping” in AET institutions (Wallaceand Nilsson 1997:13). Ethiopia and Kenya reportserious shortages in instructional materials, in partbecause teachers have not been taught how to de-velop them (Merkorios 2006:34; Ngesa 2006:69,72).Laboratories tend not to be adequately equipped inRwanda (Ndejuru 2006:66) and are reportedly ob-solete in Malawi (Harawa 2006:21). In Mozambique,


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 34


the Eduardo Mondlane University Faculty of Agro-nomy has increased sharply the number of stu-dents, but its infrastructure remains the same as atindependence in 1975 (Gemo 2006:39).

Where infrastructure is expensive and highlyspecialized, sharing facilities is a promising solu-tion. In Kenya, Biosciences eastern and centralAfrica (BecA), is demonstrating the effectiveness ofthis strategy. Formed in 2005 to develop bioscienceresearch and produce technologies that improvesmall-farmer productivity, BecA consists of a com-mon biosciences research platform, with research,training, and support services located at theInternational Livestock Research Institute inNairobi. This facility serves as a hub for a regionalnetwork of laboratories and other nodes that agreeto make their facilities available for regional use.Also, attention to institutional inequalities in infra-structure through conscious resource reallocation—such as the RUForum’s program of “nurturinggrants” for its less well-endowed institutionalmembers—can serve to initiate a process of redressthat is likely to lift staff morale.

Although laboratory equipment may be anti-quated and in short supply, this is not to suggest thatit is broken or neglected. In many agricultural labo-

ratories, remarkable efforts are made to ensure thatancient equipment remains operational. Laboratorytechnicians responsible for equipment maintenancein these settings are generally motivated by reason-able career ladders, opportunities for job-relatedtraining, and a clearly defined set of responsibilities.A similar approach to the management of academicstaff might generate improved performance.

Insufficient budgets and overdependenceon public financing result in poor facilities

Funding of higher education generally kept pacewith the growing numbers of universities and stu-dents during the 1960s and 1970s, but retrench-ment in domestic support meant that budgets havefallen well below the growth in students since the1980s (InterAcademy Council 2004:170). ForAfrican universities a whole, real spending perstudent declined from USD 6,300 in 1980 to USD1,200 in 2002 (Beintema, et al. 1998; Darvas 2007).Insufficient budgets, in turn, are often the result ofexcessive dependence on diminishing governmentand/or donor financing. In Ghana, for example,the tertiary AET institutions generate little in theway of nongovernment resources (see Chart 4.7).

Chart 4.7 Ghana: Sources of Financing in Various Tertiary AET Institutions, 2005 (% of Total)

0Govt.

84

90

93

95

U. Cape Coast

U. Ghana

Kwadaso A.C.

Ejura A.C.

40

80

100

20

60

Donors

1.5

1

6

4.5

Students

9.5

5

0.5

0.5

IGA

5

4

0.5

0

Source: Kwarteng 2006:16–18.

IGA = internal income generating activities; A.C. = agricultural college

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 35

But at the same time, all institutions except EjuraAgricultural College report a decreasing trend ingovernment financing. The resulting “cashcrunch” is self-evident.

In summary, AET supply is often out of synchwith labor market demands in terms of knowledgeand practical competencies, especially agribusiness,basic management, and problem solving. In somecountries, well qualified teachers and professionalsare available for AET, specifically at universitiesand agricultural colleges in Cameroon, Ghana, andUganda. However, these are exceptions to the pre-vailing pattern. In general, post-secondary AET isnot realizing its potential contribution to agricul-tural development because of (1) lack of linkageswith research and isolation from knowledge

sources; (2) external problems, such as fragmentedorganizational responsibilities for AET; and (3) in-ternal problems in terms of underfunding, unat-tractive working conditions, and consequent staffdepletion. African universities ultimately will be re-sponsible for replenishing the stock of human capi-tal in their research and extension services, and forproviding them with the broader set of skills neces-sary to grow agriculture in the 21st century, butthey are ill-prepared to train the continent’s nextgeneration of agricultural scientists, professionals,and technicians (Eicher 2006: 33). As stated byNEPAD in its Framework for African AgriculturalProductivity, “. . . Urgent action must be taken to re-store the quality of graduate and postgraduate agri-cultural education in Africa” (NEPAD 2006:12).


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 36

37

What does global experience tell us about development of AET sys-tems? Global experience shows it is possible to build productiveand financially sustainable AET and research systems (Eicher2006:42). 34 Both the USA and Japan established highly effective de-centralized public research and training systems that dealt withproblems of microecologies and, in effect, stimulated marketlikeforces (Ruttan 2001 in Eicher 2006:12). Denmark mounted a highlycompetitive agricultural system on public investment and therefusal to erect tariff barriers to competition. The Netherlandssystem of agriculture emphasizes public-private partnerships andthe ability to learn from experience.

More recently, developing countries such as India, Malaysia,Brazil, and the Philippines have established productive AET sys-tems. The Indian system of state agricultural universities has beenhighly successful, as is the University of the Philippines Los Banos.In addition, the agricultural research systems in Brazil and Malaysiahave been built on close linkages with higher agricultural education.A review of these and other experiences points to the importance ofsix factors.

MOBILIZE POLITICAL SUPPORTMobilizing and sustaining political support for AET investments issimultaneously the most important and most difficult issue to ad-dress in designing and financing a system of agricultural develop-ment institutions (Eicher 2006:29). Both the USA and Japandeveloped wide-based support for AET systems through decentral-ization that mirrored market forces and built strong farmer associa-tions. In addition, case studies of four developed countries point tothe importance of internally motivated and executed reforms. For ex-ample, an active 16-year lobbying effort accompanied the GreenRevolution in India (Eicher 2006:34). In West Africa, Senegal and Côted’Ivoire host vibrant farmers’ associations that have played stronglobbying roles. In Uganda, the recently established NationalUniversities Forum Uganda Ltd. states that one of its objectives is topush for a greater political commitment to agricultural development.The Forum is a legally registered organization, which brings togetherthree public universities, two private universities, the NationalAgricultural Research Organization, the National AgricultureAdvisory Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Uganda Farmers

What Guidance Can GlobalExperience Provide?5

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 37

Federation, and the Uganda Professional Agri-culturalists Association (Bekunda et al. 2007).Such a linking is an important step towards theestablishment of a national agricultural innovationsystem.

PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN AETIS ESSENTIALPublic investment in capacity building has beenessential for creating the scientific leadership nec-essary to implement each country’s strategy foragricultural development. Africa’s allocation of anaverage of just 2.4 percent of government budget isdistressing in a continent where about 60–80 per-cent of the people depend on the rural sector forjobs, food and income. (Fan and Rao 2003 in Eicher2006:30). By comparison, India spent 10–20 percentof government budget on agriculture in the 1970s,and Malaysia spent 20 percent (Jenkins and Lai1992 in Eicher 2006:30). Significant public invest-ment in higher agricultural education played animportant role in Denmark’s transformation froma grain-dependent to a diversified agribusiness ex-porter (Eicher 2006:25). One of the importantlessons of the Malaysian success story is that thegovernment can play a critical role in investingpublic funds (Eicher 2006:17). State financial sup-port was essential in India in establishing and op-erating state agricultural universities (SAU). Buttoday the states finance 80 to 85 percent of SAUbudgets (Eicher 2006:20). Public sector investmentshave been strategically important in both researchand human capital improvement in Brazil (Eicher2006:24). In spite of its huge contributions to theexpansion of agricultural exports, the BrazilianAgricultural Research Enterprise (EMBRAPA) stillreceives 97 percent of its budget from publicsources (Roseboom 2004 in Eicher 2006:24).

REFORMS NEED SUSTAINEDCOMMITMENT OVER DECADESTO PRODUCE RETURNSInternational experience shows that building a sys-tem of core AET institutions is a process of capac-ity accumulation that takes sustained commitmentover multiple generations to produce returns(Eicher 2006:30). It took Brazil, India, Japan, and theUnited States 40 to 60 years to develop a productiveand financially sustainable system (Eicher 2006:30).

India’s development of agricultural research wassupported by long-term donor assistance to build anagricultural knowledge system (Eicher 2006:21). TheUniversity of the Philippines at Los Baños–CornellUniversity academic partnership has lasted 50years (Eicher 2006:14). EMBRAPA’s success storyreminds African scientists that much depends onsustained efforts over a period of 30–40 years(Eicher 2006:24). The Rockefeller Foundation dis-covered that 20 years was too short a time to buildstrong and effective universities (Court 1993).Determined commitment throughout the ups anddowns of leadership, institutional and politicalchanges is needed (Eicher 1999:30, 43, 50). In Africa,the value of sustained commitment is visible atSokoine University in Tanzania, where a 30-yearcollaborative effort by the governments of Norwayand Tanzania has succeeded in building a solidprofessional institution. Today Sokoine boasts awell-trained complement of staff in a range of agri-cultural and natural resource fields, good facilities,and an active farmer-oriented research program.Notably, it now trains the bulk of the country’sagricultural and natural resource professionals.

INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATIVESTRUCTURES ARE DESIRABLEThe administrative separation of research andhigher education in many African countries crip-ples the development of national agricultural inno-vation systems (Eicher 2006:10). Where possible,minimizing the transaction costs of coordinationbetween research, extension and training can payhandsome dividends. Integrating oversight re-sponsibility for the agricultural innovation systemunder a single administration has worked in theUnited States and several other countries. It wouldbe counterproductive to promote a single model ofagricultural higher education, but the U.S. model ofthe land grant universities, where elements of agri-cultural education, research, and advisory servicesare subject to a common governance and manage-ment structure, has borne fruit in several cases.This approach was not successful at the Universityof Nigeria, but proved effective at Ahmadu BelloUniversity (Nigeria), in part as a result of stronglocal political commitment. (ibid.). In India, thetransfer of state extension and research to stateagricultural universities was resisted initially, butproved successful in the long run.


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 10:52 PM Page 38

What Guidance Can Global Experience Provide? 39

MASSIVE CAMPAIGNS TODEVELOP HUMAN CAPITALHAVE WORKEDThe research-extension model of agricultural de-velopment represents an incomplete and unsus-tainable model of technology generation when noconsideration is given to human capital replenish-ment from local and regional universities (Eicher2006:30). In fact, ambitious programs for the devel-opment of human capital have helped determinethe success of national agricultural research sys-tems. A major buildup of human capital was a cen-tral feature of India’s drive to forge a productiveagricultural research, extension, and education sys-tem. The Rockefeller Foundation awarded 90 short-term travel grants to Indian scientists and teachersto visit agricultural colleges and experimental sta-tions in the USA between 1959 and the early 1980s.India sent more than 1,000 Indians for advancedtraining in agriculture and natural resources to theUnited States during the 1960s and 1970s (Lele andGoldsmith 1989 in Eicher 2006:20).

In the 1960s, the Brazilian government, in part-nership with USAID, strengthened undergraduateprograms in Brazil’s agricultural universities andtrained more than 1,000 academic staff. In1970–1971, more than 900 Brazilian graduate stu-dents were studying agricultural sciences in U.S.universities (Swanson 1986 in Eicher 2006:22). Theresults of Brazil’s human capital improvementare impressive. At the University of Fortaleza inthe Northeastern State of Ceará, only 2 percent of thefaculty had advanced degrees in 1963. A decadelater, 82 percent of the faculty held advanced de-grees (Sanders et al. 1989 in Schuh 2006 in Eicher2006: 23). When EMBRAPA became operational in1973, it took the difficult strategic decision to up-grade the quality of its scientific staff by retainingonly half of the 6,700 employees in the old agri-cultural research system. EMBRAPA used a USD100 million World Bank loan plus its own funds tosend 500 agricultural researchers for PhD degrees. Itthen spent 20 percent of its total budget from1974–1982 on training programs in Brazil andabroad. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EMBRAPAhad an average of more than 300 researchers

enrolled each year in postgraduate training pro-grams. Today half of EMBRAPA scientists hold aPhD degree. These are the scientists and profession-als who have contributed significantly to the im-pressive growth and diversification of Brazilianagricultural exports over the past three decades.

Aggressive human resource development pro-grams have paid long-term dividends for Brazil,Malaysia, and India. Why not for Africa?

INCENTIVES ARE NECESSARYTO RETAIN STAFFHow to retain staff in the sector and in the countryonce they are trained? The critical issue is having aprofessionally rewarding environment as a meansof attracting postgraduates to return to Africa andstay. In Brazil the University Reform Act of 1968tied promotions to higher graduate degrees andother academic performance criteria on agricul-tural higher education (Eicher 2006:23). TheMalaysian government focused on designing an in-centive structure to mentor and retain scientistsrather than trying to attract members of theDiaspora to return home (Eicher 2006:16). Malaysiaused monetary (subsidized automobile and hous-ing loans) and nonmonetary incentives (free travelto Mecca) to reward and retain scientists. Researchofficers in Malaysia have opportunities for over-seas study after one to three years on the job (Eicher2006:31). In addition, shifting enrollment towardwomen students has helped. Now 34 percent of theagricultural researchers are female, and local fam-ily ties make them less likely to emigrate thanmales (Eicher 2006:16). Chile has also developed asystem of institutions and incentives to reward andretain agricultural scientists. Chile has 16 universi-ties with agricultural research capacity, and theyform extremely important components of thenational agricultural research system. The handfulof agricultural researchers in Chile’s four universi-ties in 1960 had grown to over 300 in seven univer-sities by 1995. Competitive research grant programsrepresent a large share of research funds for univer-sities, and they have reportedly been instrumental instaff retention (Roseboom 2004 in Eicher 2006:31).

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 39

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 40

41

Based on the foregoing analysis, seven common priorities are pro-posed for consideration by government officials, institutional man-agers, and donor representatives who desire to modernize agriculturaleducation in Africa: creating political will, establishing productiveexternal linkages, rebalancing the AET enrollment profile, adaptingcurricula to the “new agriculture,” replenishing and retaining humancapital, mobilizing finance, and achieving gender parity. Each isdiscussed in sequence below.

GENERATE POLITICAL WILL TO SUPPORTAGRICULTUREFirst and foremost, unflagging efforts are required in order to gener-ate the political will needed to elevate the priority of agricultural de-velopment on national agendas. India’s Green Revolution wasaccompanied by 16 years of active political lobbying in order to main-tain the political will required to see the effort through to a success-ful conclusion (Eicher 2006). As noted earlier, producer associationsin Japan, Brazil, and the United States have all played key roles in cre-ating and maintaining political support for agricultural developmentpolicies. How can political will be created? Three activities hold thekey to success.

Educate the public

People (and politicians) cannot support what they do not understand.The key institutional actors, both public and private, in the agricul-tural sector are the logical parties to take on the task of public educa-tion concerning the importance of agriculture in the nationaleconomy. AET institutions, particularly universities, are especiallywell-equipped to do this as the result of their above-average com-munication skills, their knowledge networks, and their research ca-pabilities. Most national newspapers contain a periodical supplementon education; AET staff should ensure that agricultural educationgets its fair share of such news coverage. Television and radio talkshows are equally appropriate channels for public education. Andthe message should not be simply that agriculture is important for thenation’s welfare, but that the study of agriculture and the pursuit ofagricultural professions is one of the main means of improving per-formance in the agricultural sector.

Priorities for ModernizingAgricultural Education

and Training

6

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 41

Create capacities for lobbying and joinforces with other stakeholders

Politicians respond to political pressure. Wheneverstakeholders can join forces, their capacity to applysuch pressure increases. Farmers’ organizations inDenmark, Japan, and the United States all playedimportant roles in keeping agricultural policy issueshighlighted in the political arena (Eicher 2006), andsimilar associations in Senegal are beginning to con-stitute a formidable lobbying presence. In somecases, networks or confederations of rural develop-ment NGOs may be able to add their voices to thoseof producer associations to strengthen their impact.At the same time, national stakeholder platforms fordialogue such as those fomented by RUForum canorchestrate the views of agricultural professionalsand technicians. Meanwhile, “top-down” efforts byNEPAD and FARA can seek to transmit similar mes-sages through the highest levels of government.

Sustain these efforts for a decade or more

As noted earlier, building agricultural capacities,generating the right innovations in technology andorganization, and ultimately achieving progress inthe agricultural sector is a multigenerationalprocess. Long-term commitment is required, andpersistence is likely to be the greatest virtue. Theimpressive accomplishments at Sokoine Universityof Agriculture in Tanzania are largely the result of30 years of determined efforts by university lead-ers, government officials, and key developmentpartners. In agriculture, quick successes are rare,but incremental progress is not unusual. The secretlies in staying the course.

BRING AET INSTITUTIONS INTOTHE NATIONAL AGRICULTURALINNOVATION SYSTEM BYESTABLISHING BETTERINSTITUTIONAL AND MARKETLINKAGESAET, as stated Chapter 3, tends to be inward look-ing and insular—isolated from markets, from re-search and extension, and from internationalknowledge sources. As a result, it falls far short offulfilling its potential to energize national agricul-tural innovation systems (Davis et al. 2007). Whatcan be done to break AET’s isolation?

AET systems should align themselves withnational agricultural priorities and marketrequirements

Such alignment requires better information aboutlabor market needs and trends in agricultural em-ployment. This information is exceedingly rare inSub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, institutions shouldconsider setting up permanent mechanisms formonitoring the job market and adapting their cur-ricula in response to changing employment oppor-tunities (e.g., as the result of major public policyinitiatives) and to shifting skill demands (e.g., dueto market opportunities and technological ad-vances) (Vandenbosch 2006:102). In particular,more systematic data are needed on graduatesthrough tracer studies to ascertain the external pro-ductivity of training.

Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzaniais one of the few AET institutions to have sur-veyed its graduates and their employers for feed-back on graduate performance in employment(Sokoine University 2005).35 In 2004, it commis-sioned tracer and employer studies for all of itsnine major academic programs. The tracer studiesfound that, although the public sector remainedan important employer, accounting for roughlyone out of every three graduate hirings over theyears, public employment opportunities wereseen to be stagnating as the result of limitations onthe government workforce, the privatization ofstate farms and parastatal industries, and plansfor the outsourcing of some extension services. Toa large extent, the bulk of public hiring in the agri-cultural sector was found at the local governmentlevel as the result of government’s decentraliza-tion policies. Reflecting strong economic growthaveraging 6.9 percent over the past six years, theprivate sector has emerged as an important sourceof agricultural jobs, absorbing 20 to 35 percent ofall graduates—with the notable exception of agri-cultural extension. The NGO sector appeared as asmaller but growing employer of 10 to 20 percentof agricultural graduates. With the exception offorestry (32 percent), unemployment rates acrossagricultural disciplines were generally in a rea-sonable range of 5 to 8 percent. On balance, the de-mand for agricultural graduates in Tanzania isexpected to remain steady over the next severalyears, with the majority of jobs involving sometype of producer advisory service (either public orprivate) at the local government level. However, inmany cases these services go beyond the traditional


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 42

Priorities for Modernizing Agricultural Education and Training 43

extension focus on farm production to embracecredit, marketing, processing, natural resourcemanagement, and other complementary activities.Sokoine’s tracer study results are summarized inTable 6.1.

Although Tanzania is but one of among 45countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, it may be takenas somewhat representative of those particularcountries—13 in total—that have averaged 5 per-cent economic growth or more over the past fiveyears.36 Many of these countries (but not all) haveadopted similar policies of downsizing and decen-tralizing government services, privatizing formergovernment enterprises, providing incentives forprivate sector development, and reducing barriersto trade and investment. In most of these strong-growth countries, anecdotal reports confirm thatlabor market demand for agricultural graduatesis rising in the areas of agribusiness, credit andmarketing, product processing, natural resourcemanagement, and rural community advisoryservices. Based on the Sokoine study, the main

areas of projected employment growth and stag-nation for agricultural graduates in Tanzania arehighlighted in Table 6.2.

The projections in Table 6.2 above reflect thegrowing diversity in labor market demand as jobprospects in the private sector increase. This trendextends beyond Tanzania into the region, whereprivate sector opportunities are stimulating the re-organization of faculties of agriculture and the de-velopment of new departments, laboratorycapacities, and curricula. For example, MakerereUniversity has created a College of Agricultureand Natural Resources Management. Within thisdynamic context, particular attention is beinggiven to agribusiness, food technology, and agri-cultural engineering. Two distinct thrusts are ob-served: (1) the incorporation of molecular biologyinto crop science, horticulture, and animal produc-tion; and (2) the emergence of natural resourcesmanagement as a combination of soil science,forestry, water resources, rangeland management,and environmental science.37

Table 6.1 Percentage Distribution of Sokoine University of Agriculture Graduate Employment, 2005

Employed by InNo. of Govt Private Teaching postgraduate

PROGRAM respondents agencies sector NGOs institutions studies Unemployed

Agricultural 137 30 37 19 6 8 —Economics &Agribusiness

Agricultural 95 36 2 8 45 3 5Education &Extension

Agricultural 93 33 36 12 10 — 8Engineering

Agriculture, 84 63 9 25 — — 4Agronomy,Horticulture

Animal Science 36 22 nr nr nr nr 17

Food Science 246 34 37 8 — — 11and Technology

Forestry & 124 32 18 12 — 4 32EnvironmentalScience

Home Economics & 151 62 11 13 4 4 6Human Nutrition

Veterinary Medicine 40 26 nr nr nr nr 8

Source: Sokoine University 2005.

nr = not reported

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 43

Employer surveys also generate important feed-back on the relevance of AET curricula and content.In the Sokoine study, employers across a range ofagricultural disciplines underscored the followingareas as needing greater emphasis within currentagricultural education and training programs inorder to generate more productive graduates:

• Entrepreneurship• Practical training for applied skills develop-

ment• Information and communications technology

literacy• Oral and written communication skills• Additional elective subjects to enable greater

graduate specialization.38

Overall, countries need to achieve better strate-gic alignment of AET curricula with national

agricultural priorities (Rivera 2006:13, 36). One wayto do this would be to create discussion platformsamong stakeholders for setting national prioritiesin AET vis-à-vis agriculture development plans ineach country. For example, RUForum has encour-aged the creation of a national forum in each of itsmember countries as a mechanism for acceleratingthe flow of information, building consensusaround strategic priorities, improving coordinationamong agricultural institutions, and lobbying forpolitical attention to agriculture.

Integrate AET institutions within nationaland regional agricultural innovationsystems

From an innovation systems perspective, the con-cern is that AET institutions are generally too


Table 6.2 Projected Employment Area Trends for Agricultural Graduates in Tanzania, 2005

PROGRAM High growth areas Moderate growth areas Stagnant

Agricultural Agribusiness. Agricultural policy; teaching;Economics & rural credit programs. Agribusiness

Agricultural Agribusiness. Local govt. extension; marketing; Ministry extension services;Education & environmental conservation; secondary-level teaching.Extension banking and credit; NGO

extension.

Agricultural Irrigation; water Local governments; Ministries; parastatals.Engineering management. mechanized agriculture;

food processing.

Agriculture, Agricultural processing; Agricultural credit; produce Ministries; parastatals.Agronomy, Horticulture flower industry; marketing; natural resources

seed industry; management.bio-technology.

Animal Science Local governments Range management Ministries; parastatals.

Food Science and Food processing; food Analysis, certification Ministries; parastatals.Technology quality control; beverage and standards.

production; food analysis;preservation.

Forestry & Natural resources management;Environmental Science government forestry. Environ-

mental education.

Home Economics & AIDS nutrition in govt. District Council development Teaching; ministries.Human Nutrition and NGO programs. officers; NGO community

health programs.

Veterinary Local governments; Private sector; self employment Ministries; parastatals.Medicine livestock production. meat inspection; artificial

insemination.

Source: Sokoine University 2005.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 44


weakly incorporated into agricultural innovationssystems for them to fulfill their potential as inno-vation agents. The current organizational struc-tures, behaviors, and beliefs have their roots in arather mechanistic application of the linear visionof science (described earlier) that does not ade-quately account for the uniqueness—the inherentdifferences in markets, institutions, history, gov-ernance, and culture—of each country. As a result,policies in both agriculture and education focusalmost exclusively on science-based strategies toboost yield and output through what amountsto simple technology package transfers to small-holders. Yet in a vibrant innovation system, effortsto promote agricultural development would bemore broadly defined as a combination of institu-tional endeavors to develop innovation clusters,value chains, contracting arrangements, informa-tion networks, and other systems that bring to-gether technological improvements in production,processing, and distribution with organizationalimprovements in how information and knowl-edge are exchanged among various actors in thesesystems, and with policy changes that create fa-vorable incentives and institutions to promotechange (Davis et al. 2007:42). In short, institutionalnetworking in all its forms allows AET institutionsto enter the innovation system and play an activepart in it.

Because innovation systems obtain their energyand ideas through interactions, networking is theglue that joins them in common endeavors.Networks in all their forms (national forums, sub-regional organizations, professional associations,institutional partnerships, and collaborative post-graduate programs) offer three specific benefits totheir participants: (1) they help to overcome scien-tific isolation; (2) they enable broader mobilizationsof capacity than would otherwise be possible; and(3) they play an important quality assurance func-tion through information sharing and peer review.Network linkages can be backward to the sec-ondary, technical, and primary education subsec-tors, forward to employers and producers, andlateral to other types of AET institutions.

The ideal management arrangement would beto have all three sides of the knowledge triangleunder one administration, as is done in theAmerican land-grant model. However, institu-tional domains are too well established in mostAfrican countries for this to be feasible. Eicher rec-ommends that the ministry of agriculture should

be given responsibility to implement at least twoof the three core components (education, research,extension) because the transaction costs are highwhen these components are managed by separateministries (Eicher 2006:38). Modified organiza-tional arrangements that put all AET institutionsunder a single authority, rather than dividedamong different authorities, could facilitate coor-dination. But on the whole, ministries of agricul-ture have proved inappropriate bodies for theadministration of education programs (Wallaceand Nilsson 1997:19; Atchoarena and Gasperini2003:26).

More importantly, governance structures ofAET institutions should be modified to providefor greater institutional autonomy and increasedparticipation by stakeholders. Granting moremanagement autonomy to AET institutions intro-duces the flexibility required to shape responsive,agile, and innovative institutions. Placing em-ployer and producer representatives on their gov-erning bodies, particularly at the tertiary level, canprovide a powerful incentive to link training withmarket demand.

Access to international knowledge sourcesis becoming increasingly easy, but oftenrequires external assistance

Access to global information resources on agri-culture, for example, can be much improved inspite of limited access to computers and/or con-nectivity through subscriptions to The EssentialElectronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL), devel-oped by Cornell University with assistance fromthe Rockefeller Foundation. This annually up-dated collection of 140 of the world’s major agri-cultural journals from 1993 to 2005 is availableeither as a local area network (LAN) mounted ona 300 GB external hard drive for USD 3,500 or asa set of 460 compact discs for USD 5,000. Whereconnectivity is available, the Access to Global On-line Research in Agriculture (AGORA) programoffers inexpensive linkages to 3,000 scientific jour-nals covering a range of agricultural fields (Eicher2006: 44–45). These services are supplementedby OARE, an online database of 1,000 journalscovering disciplines related to the environmentand its management. Launched in 2006 by theUnited Nations Environmental Program andYale University, it contains the outputs of threedozen publishers.39

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 45

The Bunda Agricultural College in Malawi hasclear policies promoting interconnections withresearch organizations (Harawa 2006:21). MakerereUniversity has forged formal links through mem-orandums of understanding with, among others,national agricultural research organizations,IFPRI, FAO, and the African Research Consortia(Obua 2006:21). In Ghana, formal ties have beenestablished between AET institutions and re-search institutions. An example is the develop-ment of new cassava varieties, in which Ghanaianuniversities have worked closely with the Councilfor Scientific and Industrial Research and theMinistry of Food and Agriculture (Kwarteng2006:31).

Better linkages to markets and end-users will goa long way toward addressing a unique challengein African AET—overcoming skepticism about thevalue of agricultural careers that distorts currentenrollments.

ASSESS AND REBALANCE AETENROLLMENT PROFILESTechnical education pyramids

In Chapter 4, the concept of a “technical educationpyramid” was introduced. The agricultural sciencescan be viewed as a constituent “slice” of this pyra-mid. Although some guidelines have been given(e.g., FAO), there is no universal prescription for howthis pyramid should be shaped. What is critical is torealize that the shape of the pyramid is a policy vari-able that can be monitored, evaluated, and modifiedto suit a nation’s needs. Governments and their min-istries should know what the shape of their pyramidis, and should have an opinion on whether thecurrent shape is appropriate for supporting futurehuman resource needs. Mozambique is one countrythat has sought to put in place a technical pyramid foragriculture that supports its local, provincial, andnational development strategies (see Box 6.2).


Box 6.1 Mali Agribusiness Incubator

The Mali Agribusiness Incubator is designed to assistentrepreneurs in agriculture-related efforts. Its goal isto facilitate the integration of modern technologiesinto Malian agricultural practices. The initiative is apartnership between an agricultural research organi-zation, Institut d’Économie Rurale, and a higher edu-cation institution, Institut Polytechnique Rurale. TheIncubator is staffed by seven professionals with di-verse disciplinary backgrounds who recently received

graduate training through USAID sponsorship. It isorganized into three operational sections: PlantBiotechnology, Engineering, and Innovative Outreach.Initial activities focus on improved post-harvest stor-age, disease-free seed production, soil analyses, adisease diagnostic clinic, and shea butter export. TheIncubator responds to a perceived disconnect be-tween teaching, research, and extension activities,and their general isolation from small-scale farmers.

Box 6.2 Creating an Agricultural Education System in Mozambique

The government of Mozambique is working to con-struct an appropriate technical education pyramid foragricultural education. The first building block wasthe Faculties of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicineat Eduardo Mondlane University, which date fromIndependence in 1976. They were complemented bythe introduction of diploma-level training providedby the Agrarian Institute of Chimoio (1976), theAgrarian Institute of Boane (1986), and the AgrarianInstitute of Chokwe (2004). Next, private highereducation was authorized in 1996 and led to the

establishment of the Catholic University and theMussa Bin Bique University to serve the center of thecountry, both of which offer diploma and degree pro-grams in agriculture. Then, applied programs in agri-culture were initiated at two new agriculturalpolytechnics in 2006. Finally, a Masters program inRural Development was launched at EduardoMondlane University in 2006. In this way, a geo-graphically dispersed system of public and privateinstitutions offering agricultural education at variouslevels has sequentially been put in place.

Source: Authors.

Source: Authors.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 46


REORIENT CURRICULA ANDMODERNIZE TEACHINGMETHODSAgricultural innovation requires a cadre of pro-fessionals with a new skill set and mindset (seeIntroduction). Agricultural education needs tomove away from a mere transfer of information tothe development of skills in accessing and apply-ing available information for agricultural problemsolving. As stated by the InterAcademy Council(2004:182): “The overall objective of universitiesin revising and reorienting their agricultural un-dergraduate curricula should be to produce grad-uate scientists who are able to conceptualize,implement and direct projects with producers;analyze ecological and conventional food pro-duction systems; integrate biology, economicsand ecology in food systems; use systems ap-proaches for complex problems; analyze policieson agriculture and food as they relate to sustain-ability; and process the right values towardpeople and the environment.” Multidisciplinaryapproaches are called for that address the needsof the various producers, including those in sub-sistence, market-oriented, and commercial agri-culture (Orden 2004).

In the medium term, efforts to improve AET inSub-Saharan Africa might emphasize interven-tions designed to develop further the innovativecapabilities of the region’s human capital base.Such efforts would focus on the provision of learn-ing opportunities geared to the specific needs ofdifferent actors in the innovation system, ratherthan on traditional benchmarks set by academicstandards or the public service. This would entaillinking AET training and research agendas moreclosely to the needs of different user communities(such as smallholder farmers, rural traders, agro-processors, and consumers), fostering strongerlinkages between formal AET organizations andnational extension systems (in all their plurality—public, private, and NGO), exploring new ways ofleveraging expertise and resources from interna-tional research organizations and foreign univer-sities, and working to meet the needs of privateindustry (IFPRI 2007).

Specific policies and programs would concen-trate not only on improving formal AET organiza-tions, but also on expanding post-secondarytechnical training institutes, inservice and on-the-jobprograms, distance education, and other modalitiesspecifically adapted to the needs of diverse actors

in the innovation system. Policies and programswould also need to recognize private provision ofAET as a necessary complement to the formal, pub-lic sector AET system.

Curricula

An immediate step toward improving AET sys-tems in Sub-Saharan Africa might be to realign thevisions and mandates of AET institutions withnational development aspirations by promotingnew types of educational programs that are lessencyclopedic and more strategically attuned to thedifferent needs of social and productive actors.In countries with extreme resource poverty andweak research capabilities such as Ethiopia andMozambique, the comparative institutional ad-vantages of the AET system may be strategicallymaximized by rethinking visions and mandates—and the functions and roles that follow fromthem—relative to the country’s development ob-jectives. The goal here is to move the AET systeminto closer, more productive relationships withother actors within the innovation system (Daviset al. 2007).

Curricula need to be broadened to cover notonly farm production but marketing, alternativecrops, post-harvest technologies, agribusiness,resource management for sustainability (e.g.,rainwater harvesting, conservation tillage), andpertinent soft skills. These reformed curriculashould also be framed by the government’sstrategic priorities for future agricultural de-velopment. Teaching programs are becomingdemand-responsive, as seen in some AET institu-tions, but major reorientation is still required inmost cases to address new and emerging needs.

Given the decline in public sector employmentin most African countries, curricular reorienta-tion should incorporate both market-orientedand smallholder agriculture. Students should beexposed directly to farmers’ circumstances. First,the focus needs to be on more practical “hands-on” training, with emphasis on competenciesachieved and not on time spent in class. Second,the modes of training should shift from time-based, lengthy training that mirrors the system ofgeneral education toward shorter learning mod-ules that add up to some form of certification.Third, development of training programs needsto be more participatory, involving not primarilyAET experts but those who can articulatedemands, i.e., producer organizations, NGOs,

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 47

commercial employers, researchers, and exten-sionists. Fourth, allowances must be made foradapting training content to local agro-ecologicalzones and indigenous knowledge (Vandenbosch2006:101-102; Wallace and Nilsson 1997:34).

From an innovation systems perspective, evi-dence suggests that the distribution of innovativecapabilities among individuals is highly skewed.Even though there are few methods to measuretraits such as learning ability, task commitment,and creativity, it is generally accepted that not allindividuals possess these traits together (Renzulli2003). And because the distribution of innovativecapabilities is skewed, it is often effective to designeducation and learning systems that are suffi-ciently responsive to different individuals possess-ing different combinations of different traits (Reisand Renzulli 2003).

One implication is that educational approachesand learning philosophies applied to AET inAfrica need to accommodate different types of in-dividual needs and learning styles. For example,tertiary education systems might consider diver-sifying away from well-structured degree pro-grams centered solely on traditional disciplines,and moving into a wider offering of programs.These might range from short, applied coursesto short-term professional training to long-termmultidisciplinary degree programs (Davis et al.2007:13).

Building such a menu for AET in Africa will re-quire flexible policies and practices, such as em-ployment regimes in which underperformingprofessionals can be fired and good professionalspromoted; reliance on foreign expertise only to theextent that the foreign experts build competenciesamong local instructors; and governance culturesand organizational environments that foster inno-vation (Davis et al. 2007:14).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, various AET institu-tions have moved in the direction of updated,broadened curricula. At the regional level, theAfrican Network for Agricultural, Agroforestryand Natural Resources Education (ANAFE) hasbeen assisting university faculties, particularlyin West Africa, to undertake undergraduatecurriculum reviews and develop new instruc-tional manuals. One notable effort to tackle thesedeficiencies is the professional upgrading pro-grams developed for extension workers by localuniversities with assistance from the SasakawaAfrican Fund for Extension Education. Focusing

on midcareer professionals, the program offers areformed interdisciplinary curriculum leading toBSc and MSc degrees that emphasize technologytransfer, participatory methods, and respect forlocal knowledge. To date, a dozen Anglophoneand Francophone universities have participated(Muir-Leresche 2003:6; Kwarteng 2006:7; Maguire2000:9). Similar curriculum modernization effortsare underway in Eastern and Southern Africawith encouragement from ASARECA andRUForum.

Institutional-level curricula reforms are gain-ing momentum. The Rwanda Institut Supérieurd’Agriculture et d’Élevage has adopted acompetency-based curriculum to replace itsclassical programs (Makelele 2006:32–33; Rivera2006:24). Tanzania’s Sokoine University ofAgriculture has conducted extensive tracer stud-ies and employer surveys for all of its courses asthe basis for institution-wide curricula reforms.40

All four tertiary AET institutions surveyed inGhana have made efforts to introduce more rele-vant courses, including a new degree in agribusi-ness at the University of Cape Coast, andpost-harvest technology studies, agriculturalbusiness studies, and entrepreneurship at theUniversity of Ghana. Content in nontraditionalagriculture includes beekeeping, mushroom culti-vation, and rearing grasscutters, small animals thatare a local source of meat (Kwarteng 2006:11–12,30; Rivera 2006:28). Malawi has introducedagribusiness and emphasizes self-employmentand entrepreneurship (Rivera 2006:28). TheFaculty of Agriculture at Makerere Universityhas responded to the demands of the labormarket by introducing new agricultural degreeprograms, including agribusiness management,agricultural land use and management, andhorticulture (Obua 2006:36). Kenya’s Jomo KenyattaUniversity of Agriculture and Technology hassimilarly adjusted its course offerings. Finally,the University of Pretoria has set up interdisci-plinary degree programs in natural resources bycombining the faculties of agriculture with thatof natural sciences. The University of KwaZulu-Natal has taken similar steps to create an inter-disciplinary study program in food security (seeBox 6.3).

The revision of curricula for the midlevel train-ing component of the Agricultural Technical andVocational Education (ATVET) program inEthiopia displays elements of good practice.


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 48


Practical training has been strengthened by iden-tifying the most essential skills in the professionalcourses, defining corresponding qualificationstandards, and establishing assessment methods.After one year of trial implementation, the contentwas revised based on inputs from various stake-holders. Graduate competencies were then speci-fied (Vandenbosch 2006:52–54). In Kenya,innovations in both curriculum and pedagogyhave been combined by the Baraka AgriculturalCollege (see Box 6.4).

A few agricultural institutions have demon-strated effectiveness in preparing their students forcareers in production agriculture. One compelling

example is the Songhai agricultural training centerin Porto Novo, Benin, which enables 65–70 percentof its graduates to settle into agriculture. The cen-ter is locally owned and privately managed. It hasa capacity of 225 boarding places and offers train-ing in small-scale farming, farm management, andagricultural teaching. About 20 percent of thetrainees are women, and 60 percent of the traineescome from rural areas. The instruction favors ap-plication with more than 75 percent of instructionaltime devoted to practical subjects. Innovationsin the training include creation of a business centerof agricultural products, a soybean marketingchain, and organization of a credit program to

Box 6.3 Interdisciplinary Food Security Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

The University of KwaZulu-Natal’s postgraduate FoodSecurity Programme is a unique initiative that cutsacross disciplines to train Africans actively involved infood security programs and research. Since its begin-ning in 2001, students from 10 African countries haveparticipated. Currently 23 students are enrolled.Students begin their training with an interactive two-week course facilitated by 15 disciplinary specialists.The introductory module explores the diversity, com-plexity, and interrelatedness of food security issues.Transdisciplinary course modules on food production,storage and access; nutrition; sustainable livelihoods;food security information systems; simulation

modeling; and food security research methodologiesare offered through workshops and digital learning.Compulsory coursework components include publicpolicy analysis, project design, and project evaluation.Students also take elective options from various disci-plines and conduct research on food security. Theprogram has drawn disparate academic staff togetherand strengthened their collaboration around complexfood security issues. Graduates are expected to findemployment in food and agricultural research, policyformulation, agricultural extension, teaching andtraining, and food aid monitoring. See www.ukzn.ac.za/foodsecurity.

Box 6.4 Innovations in Teaching at Baraka Agricultural College in Kenya

One private institution in Kenya incorporates innova-tions in curriculum and pedagogy on several levels.Baraka Agricultural College, a private institution oper-ated by the Fransciscan Brothers, focuses mainly onentrepreneurship and self-employment. Studentsundertake commercial operations on individual, 10-square-meter plots of land with a loan from thecollege. They keep proper records of production andexpenses, employ the appropriate husbandry prac-tices, purchase inputs, and sell the produce. The stu-dents then repay the loan and keep the net income.

The learner-based approach to practice is also re-flected in four-month field attachments for each stu-dent. The college collaborates with the ministries ofagriculture and livestock, NGOs, and community-based organizations in arranging these attachments.In recognition of its achievements, Kenya’s Ministry ofAgriculture has seconded four of its staff to the institu-tion. The college also provides learners with practicalskills needed for income generation, such as makingjam, yogurt, and bread (Ngesa 2006:65–68). See www.sustainableag.org.

Source: Authors.

Source: Authors.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 49

help trainees establish themselves after training(Ogoudedji 2006:3, 46–48). Other institutions thathave encouraged students to develop businessplans and helped them to obtain financing for busi-ness start-ups include the Botswana AgriculturalCollege, the University of Swaziland, the agricul-tural polytechnics in Mozambique, and MakerereUniversity.41

Another example of good practice is at theHargaz Agro-Technical School in Eritrea, a non-government agricultural technical school operatedby the Franciscan Brothers. Management has aclear concept of the skills required by graduates inhorticulture and animal science. Instruction has apractical orientation, with students undertakingfield projects and daily work in the field with cropsor animals. Students make daily observation andrecording of their projects. When a problem is en-countered, students are directed to ask classmates,then advanced students for help before approach-ing the teaching staff. The school also offers shortcourses for mostly illiterate farmers in irrigationtechniques and equipment.

Makerere University has also undertaken anoteworthy effort to introduce targeted, flexibleshort courses for producers. Its ContinuingAgricultural Education Center offers short-termtraining, outreach programs, workshops, andseminars to extension workers, agribusiness, andreceptive farmers (Obua 2006:11). Many view it asa model for the provision of agricultural educa-tion outside of the formal diploma and degreeprograms.

Open and distance learning (ODL) offers greatpotential for increasing flexibility in the use ofeducational resources. In Meru, Kenya, theMethodist University has put together a six-monthdistance education program for agricultural pro-fessionals and farmers that addresses specificcommodities and includes occasional hands-onworkshops.

Teaching Methods

As slow as the pace of curricular reform may be,curricula are nevertheless changing faster thanteaching methods. The techniques employed byacademic lecturers are particularly resistant tochange and are badly in need of retooling. They aregenerally assimilated by instructors through yearsof classroom lecture experience as students with“the sage on the stage” approach to teaching. More

often than not, junior lecturers are forced to learntheir craft through trial and error.

Modern pedagogy emphasizes that the teacheror professor is no longer the “font of all wisdom”but is rather a facilitator providing studentswith the inspiration to explore for themselves theever-expanding oceans of knowledge. The educa-tor’s role should be to promote analytical skills,self-esteem, a sense of personal competence,and the capacity to participate in communityand national affairs, as well as to build inter-personal trust and satisfaction (Muir-Leresche2006a). The use of case studies can help to teachthese qualities.

Regrettably, postgraduate programs do not nor-mally include training in teaching techniques, useof instructional materials, or lesson planning, andinstitutions rarely take the initiative to make up forthese oversights. One exception is Ethiopia, wherethe higher education system has set up pedagogi-cal resource centers within each university inorder to improve the effectiveness of the teachingand learning processes. With technical assistancefrom the government of the Netherlands, thesecenters offer workshops to build up teachingskills, professional development through self-paced learning, and instructional equipment foracademic staff.

Fortunately, this problem is increasingly beingrecognized and engaged. For example, MakerereUniversity and RUForum have partnered to pro-duce an inservice short course for academic staffthat emphasizes personal mastery of the “softskills” needed to facilitate interactive classroomlearning. The 12-module course covers a range ofcommunication, class management, and social-psychological skills. It has been successfully pi-loted with 26 staff, and its instructional materialsare available through RUForum for use by other in-stitutions (Kibwika and Hagmann 2007).

Another useful reference for adapting pedagogyto new labor market demands is the manual foruniversity instructors developed by ANAFE(Muir-Leresche 2006a). The manual gives educa-tors practical ideas on how to implement smallchanges in their teaching approach to classes with-out necessarily having to wait for major institu-tional reforms in support of new pedagogicalapproaches. The ideas it presents are generic andrelevant to all areas of education, but its exampleshave been developed for specifically for agricul-ture, agroforestry, and natural resources.


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 50


Spark student and public interestin agriculture

Progress in agriculture will be much slower if AETinstitutions cannot attract motivated and well-prepared students. The prevailing African view ofagriculture as the “occupation of last resort” needsto be challenged and changed. Changes to institu-tional admissions processes that would allow stu-dents to choose agricultural studies, rather than be“assigned” to them, would be a good place to start.Guest lecturers representing the spectrum of agri-cultural employment, field trips, and student at-tachments would also help. AET leaders could alsocultivate media contacts and create annual prizesto attract public attention. Concerted efforts areneeded to explain to the general public that na-tional development occurs through agriculture, notin spite of it.

Most importantly, students should be offereda menu of career options under the rubric of agri-culture so they can see the breadth of its applica-tion. Career paths might be structured aroundagricultural marketing, post-harvest storageand processing, agribusiness, natural resourcemanagement, rural finance, and others. In somecases it may be beneficial to recast agriculturaleducation in more modern and appealing terms.For example, the University of Mauritius en-hanced its agricultural curriculum with agri-business and food technology content. Likewise,a new master’s program in Agriculture Infor-mation and Communications Management spon-sored by the Association for StrengtheningAgricultural Research in Eastern and CentralAfrica (ASARECA) seeks to redefine agriculturalextension as a communications and knowledgemanagement profession. Such restructuring mayhelp to rekindle student interest in agriculturalcareers.

REPLENISH HUMAN CAPITALTHROUGH LOCALPOSTGRADUATE PROGRAMSThe capacity to generate highly trained human cap-ital for agriculture is constrained by limited oppor-tunities for postgraduate study and imbalanceddonor support for this goal (see Chapter 3).Investment in agricultural research networks hasreceived much more donor funding than postgrad-uate training (IFPRI Seminar on Capacity Building

for Agricultural Development 2006). Meanwhile,staff attrition due to brain drain, AIDS, and retire-ments is thinning the pool of AET teaching staff.Replenishing this pool through study-abroad pro-grams is a declining option, as tropical agriculturerecedes from the curricula of universities inNorthern Hemisphere countries, the cost of over-seas postgraduate studies rises, and donors remainresistant to large-scale scholarship programs.The only viable strategy is for Africa to grow itsown experts.

Strengthen and expand nationalMSc programs

The key element in this strategy is to strengthenand expand national MSc programs. This is wherethe “capacity to build capacity” resides. It enablesfuture rural advisory personnel to learn to solveproblems, and future researchers to hone their in-vestigative skills while adding to their country’sstock of knowledge. Increased numbers of highlytrained African agricultural specialists are neededto support agricultural commercialization, to staffresearch and extension systems, and to rejuvenateAET systems, especially at the tertiary level. Thesuccess of agricultural development in other de-veloping countries, noted earlier, depended in parton massive programs of staff training (e.g., Brazil,India, and Malaysia). Much of this was achievedthrough the managed growth of national MSc. pro-grams. Encouragingly, this process seems to be get-ting underway with the establishment of more than15 new MSc programs in agriculturally related sub-jects within Eastern and Southern Africa over thepast three years.

Lay the foundation for PhD programs

A large number of PhD degree holders in agricul-turally related fields will be needed—at least 1,000over the next 15 years—to staff these expandingMSc programs and to replace existing staff whowill be lost to brain drain, AIDS and the imminentwave of retirements. This sizeable undertakingshould be started immediately by using a combina-tion of (1) existing national PhD programs of goodreputation; (2) the emerging offering of collabora-tive regional PhD programs; (3) existing “sand-wich” PhD programs; and (4) strategically chosenoverseas PhD programs. As these doctoral candi-dates complete their dissertation research on local

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 51

topics, a significant addition will be made to exist-ing knowledge on African agriculture, and depen-dence on foreign technical experts will be reduced.

Tackle the conundrum of incentives forstaff retention

Expanding the supply of trained African agricul-tural scientists will not suffice by itself. It will benecessary to address also the root causes of high at-trition and low retention among academic staff.Low pay is a clearly a factor. Real faculty salariesfell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1988 and havecontinued to decline in most countries. In Nigeria,university faculty salaries in 1991 were only 10 per-cent of their level in 1978 (InterAcademy Council2004:171).

Various studies have found that a conduciveprofessional environment may be just as impor-tant as income to many academicians (Eicher2006:31; Tettey 2006). This applies particularlywhen the work environment enables a recentPhD holder to maintain the currency of the intel-lectual capital that he or she has acquired throughdoctoral studies and to put these skills to use.Measures that address this need are joint appoint-ments of recent PhDs with institutions abroad,twinning and mentoring, start-up research grants,sabbatical leaves, and rapid career advance-ment (InterAcademy Council 2005:177, 180–181).Continuing professional development opportuni-ties, such as those provided to graduates of theregional postgraduate program for UniversityScience, Humanities and Engineering Partnershipsin Africa located at the University of Cape Town,would help to keep staff engaged while maintain-ing their intellectual capital.

Incentives (in salary or in-kind) or public recog-nition for good performance in teaching and re-search can also help to retain productive staff.Internal decision making within AET institutionscould be streamlined so as to reduce staff timespent in committee deliberations and to enablequicker decisions on staff requests for appoint-ment, promotion, conference attendance, studyleave, new course approval, etc. (Tettey 2006). Inaddition, administrative systems that allow educa-tors and trainers to participate in management anddecision making contribute to better staff motiva-tion (Vandenbosch 2006:104).

Competitive funding opportunities for teachinginnovation or research often inject creative energy

and commitment into working environments byproviding staff with the means to obtain a measureof professional satisfaction through the combinedpursuit of personal and institutional interests.Competitive funds for developing postgraduatecourses and building university research capacityhave worked well in countries as diverse asArgentina, Chile, Ghana, Mexico, Tunisia, andVietnam. Senegal’s National Agricultural ResearchFund, a competitive mechanism established in 1999for funding agricultural research by public, private,NGO, and university organizations, has increasedinstitutional collaboration and made research moredemand-responsive (Stads and Sene 2004:7).RUForum’s competitive grants program for staffand postgraduate student research is generating theexcitement of intellectual discovery as it fostersfarmer-oriented, interdisciplinary, problem-solvingresearch.

African higher education institutions have tra-ditionally emphasized scientific publications as amain criterion for academic promotion. This re-quirement has created an incentive system that en-courages pure science and esoteric publicationwhile ignoring problem-solving science. For uni-versity research to contribute more directly to solv-ing the challenges of national development, thepresent incentive system for promotion will needto be modified. For example, the Jomo KenyattaUniversity of Agriculture and Technology inKenya weighs intellectual property contributions(i.e., applied science patents) highly in the consid-eration of staff merits for promotion. This has paidoff with the university registering 26 patents in thepast five years (Ng’ethe 2007).

Brazil, China, Malaysia, Chile, and India have allsucceeded in creating attractive working condi-tions, stemming brain drain, and attracting backhome professionals who emigrated (InterAcademyCouncil 2004:181; Eicher 2006:31). It is not easy, butit can be done (see Box 6.5).

MANAGE FINANCES PROACTIVELYThe grim picture painted earlier about lack of facil-ities and equipment in AET is largely the conse-quence of inadequate financing, which, in turn,results from overdependence on dwindling publicfinancing and reduced gap-filling by donors. Sincethe mid-1980s, AET institutions at all levelshave suffered sharp cuts in real budgets.Decapitalization and “asset stripping” have taken


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 52


place (Wallace and Nilsson 1997:19) AET institu-tions face the unenviable but inevitable task of try-ing to perform well within a shrinking resourceenvelope (Atchoarena and Gasperini:263). Thereare three ways to address this challenge.

Make more efficient use of existingresources

Efficiency gains enable more to be accomplishedwith the same amount of funds, or the same out-puts to be achieved at lower cost. One way to

Box 6.5 The Challenge of Changing Organizational Culture

An organizational culture can be defined as a set ofbasic assumptions that are developed by a group in theprocess of learning how to deal with external adapta-tion and internal integration (Schein 1984). The set ofassumptions is considered valid by the group if it hasworked well enough in the past (by whatever standardsthe group may choose to assess it). This organizationalculture is then taught to new members of the group asthe correct way of approaching problems within theorganization. In essence, organizational cultures definewhat an organization can and cannot do. As a result,they can either facilitate or impede innovation.

The above definition stresses that (1) an organiza-tional culture is a set of beliefs, not values or behav-iors; (2) it is invented by a group in the early days ofthe organization and is then passed on to newcomers;(3) building the culture takes time because it requiresthe repeated use of specific approaches to successfullytackle similar problems; and (4) organizational cul-tures usually change very slowly because the assump-tions are only changed after they repeatedly fail todeal with new situations and are accepted by the or-ganization as a whole (Christensen and Raynor 2003).

Organizational cultures can also change suddenly,for instance, when the organization faces a major cri-sis or a massive induction of new members. But evenwhen a large number of people are hired by an orga-nization, it is often the case that the newcomers areexpected to adapt to the prevailing culture. Onlythrough repeated failures will the organization reex-amine the assumptions and form new ones, eventhough the new assumptions will still be influenced bythe ones they replace. In short, the evolution of orga-nizational culture is a slow and path-dependentprocess. Among society’s various institutions, theuniversity is notoriously resistant to change.

A number of external and internal factors influ-ence the emergence of an organizational culture.

The external factors relate to the perception thefounding group has about the environment and abouthow to survive in it. Internal factors concern thegroup’s perception about how to organize relationsamong the organization’s members so that the organi-zation can survive while minimizing internal con-flicts. The challenges of external adaptation arerelated to the development of a consensus about theorganization’s mission, objectives, and the means toachieve them. The internal factors are related to thedevelopment of common language and concepts, theestablishment of the group’s frontier—especially thecriteria to exclude members—and the definition ofpower structures and incentives.

Understanding the nature and dynamics of organi-zational cultures is important to the design and imple-mentation of successful AET reforms. For example, ifthe culture of a university researcher’s academic de-partment is one in which colleagues are—or are ex-pected to be—highly productive, then individualresearchers tend to conform to the accepted norm. Ifoutput is regarded as less important, then their produc-tivity necessarily conforms to a different norm.Similarly, if the department’s culture is one in whichcolleagues are—or are expected to be—highly interac-tive with other researchers outside the department,then their networking behaviors will similarly conform.

Implicit in this discussion is the idea that significantchange is needed in the cultures and behaviors thatcharacterize AET institutions in Africa. This includes aneed to transform the cultures and behaviors of AETsystems from those driven by traditional sets of beliefsabout what AET can and should do—educating forscientific excellence, for example—into cultures andbehaviors that allow for greater innovation—educat-ing to create new applications of existing knowledgeand information, products and processes, and organi-zational structures and management.

Source: Davis et al. 2007:17.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 53

achieve economies would be to outsource services,such as student cafeterias, and operate them on acommercial basis. For example, the Bunda Collegefarm has been commercialized, i.e., turned into alimited liability company. It now breaks even in-stead of creating losses (Harawa 2006:12). Most re-sources in AET, as in other levels and types ofeducation, are consumed by staffing costs, andthese are the last to be cut. Consequently, makingmore efficient use of teaching time can be an effec-tive way to do more with given resources. In oneextreme illustration, an AET institution inMadagascar clearly has considerable scope foreconomizing. The EASTA (École d’Application desSciences et Techniques Agricoles) under theMinistry of Agriculture has five classrooms, threeworkshops, a plot of land for experimental workand 33 staff, including three permanent trainersplus six or seven part-time trainers, but only 20 stu-dents. On the other hand, Cameroon provides agood example of progressive improvement in mak-ing more intensive use of its teaching staff, as seenin Table 6.3 below.

In general, the ratios of staff to students in agri-cultural faculties appear to be on the low side, av-eraging between 1:8 and 1:12 (Rivera 2006:19), butmay reflect staff time devoted to nonteaching ac-tivities such as research and extension. Economiesmay be possible without sacrifice of quality.However, there is a thin line between quality andefficiency. Care must be taken not to push effi-ciency campaigns too far, as excessive class sizesare antithetical to quality instruction, particularlyin laboratory or field-oriented sciences.

Another area for achieving efficiencies is to re-verse (or avoid) fragmentation of AET institutions.The political pressure to open new universities is re-lentless. As a result, tertiary AET institutions haveproliferated across the continent. Whether there isjustification for having six public agriculture-related

faculties in Cameroon, five in Ghana, and five inKenya is an open question. Belgium, with a popula-tion of 10 million, has four universities with facultiesof agriculture while its neighbor, the Netherlands,with 16.5 million people, has only one—a world-class university of agriculture at Wageningen(Eicher 2006:34; Eicher 1999:40–41). Fragmentationin Africa dilutes available resources, compromisesquality, and prevents the achievement of scaleeconomies. Ultimately this fragmentation makes theestablishment of rewarding professional environ-ments more difficult and impedes the emergence ofstrong centers of specialization.

AET institutions can mobilize nonpublicresources

At present, most AET institutions depend over-whelmingly on government financing, which inmany cases is decreasing. Various means can beused, including income generation through feesfrom trainees, particularly where there is excesspopular demand, offering short courses for em-ployees to be paid by employers, and sale of agri-cultural products produced by students. Thereview of tertiary institutions in Mozambique con-cluded that the current low student fee structure re-sults in a high financial burden for the governmentat a time when AET institutions and enrollmentsare expected to increase. It called for a review of thefee structure and for increased income from pro-ductive activities (Gemo 2006:41–42). It is essentialin income-generating activities that the AET insti-tutions are able to keep and use the funds gener-ated or there will be no incentive to do so(Vandenbosch 2006:103–104). Senegal, in particu-lar, seems to have been successful in diversifyingits sources of funding. All post-secondary AET in-stitutions reportedly are diversifying their trainingofferings to generate increased revenues (Rivera


Table 6.3 Staff-Student Ratio, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences (FASA), Universityof Dschang, Cameroon

Teaching staff Students Students per staff

1995/96 85 373 4:12000/01 77 664 9:12005/06 58 660 11:1

Source: Rivera 2006:50.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 54


2006:54). Bunda College has started a parallel aca-demic program to admit additional qualified pri-vate students who pay a commercial tuition fee.However, the fee (USD 970) is still only 15 percentof the estimated cost per student. The semipublicNatural Resources College, on the other hand,charges USD 2,900 equivalent for its diploma pro-gram and raises 62 percent of its budget from stu-dent fees. Produce from its farm activitiescontributes another 5 percent (Harawa 2006:12–13).

Persuade donors to finance operating costs

Efforts at achieving efficiency and mobilizing non-public resources will help, but they are unlikely tobe sufficient. Donors should be prepared to fundthe operating and equipment maintenance costs thatare essential for retaining skilled staff and enablingthem to work productively. Examples of such re-current costs include Internet access, performanceincentives for staff, and laboratory maintenance.Donor financing of recurrent costs would be justi-fied for the following reasons. First, AET is an inte-gral part of strategies to develop agriculture.Second, it has a high payoff (Chapter 1), but hasbeen neglected. Third, recurrent financing in AETis actually an investment in capital formation, thehuman capital necessary to make research, exten-sion, and other high-priority activities succeed.Based on these considerations, the World Bank re-cently decided to lift its restriction on the use of itsfunds for recurrent expenses.

ACHIEVE BETTER GENDERBALANCE IN AET GRADUATESChronic underinvestment in the knowledge andskills of women is a particular handicap for Africanagriculture. Women play a dominant role inAfrican agriculture and produce more than half ofthe agricultural output in most countries. Womenhead 31 percent of rural households, make up42 percent of the agricultural workforce, and spend13 hours a day on agricultural and food prepara-tion activities (FAO 1995). Despite women’s im-portance in agricultural production, agriculturalextension and training focus almost exclusively onmales, and services are provided largely by men.42

This omission inhibits opportunities for agricul-tural investment, growth, and income. For exam-ple, Udry et al. (1995) have shown that farm

productivity is increased when women receive thesame advisory services as men. Yet FAO studiesfound that women farmers receive only a 5 percentshare of extension services, and that professionaltraining was almost exclusively directed to males(Haug 1999:268). In Ethiopia’s ATVET colleges,which are training the country’s next generation ofagricultural extension agents, just 9 percent ofgraduates and 6 percent of staff are women (Daviset al. 2007:49). Why do female researchers make upless than 10 percent of the agricultural researchstaff in twelve countries in Africa? Why do a largenumber of African countries make so little use ofthe intellectual power of women to address theirfundamental problems in science and technology?(Eicher 2006:35). Is this not relevant to MillenniumDevelopment Goal No. 1 concerning the reductionof hunger, or No. 3, regarding the equality and em-powerment of women? The answers to these ques-tions undoubtedly are complex, but includeproblems of supply resulting from underenroll-ment of women in secondary-level sciences andtertiary AET institutions.

Recognition of the bias against women is rarelyvisible in AET organizations and policies. Thus,women are underrepresented as students, instruc-tors, extension agents, and researchers, while agri-cultural innovation processes are rarely aimed atfemale users (Beintema 2006). Francis (2006:5) de-scribes this as a policy blind spot:

“It is noteworthy that the recommendationsfor improving food and nutrition security inAfrica are generally silent on empoweringwomen in science and agriculture. Wheremention is made of women, the focus is ontargeting women producers by providingtools that make their work lighter or byviewing them as passive receptors of techno-logical advances.”

Targeted recruitment policies, affirmative actioninitiatives, academic enrichment programs, andearmarked scholarships could be used to boost fe-male enrollments. Riley suggested the followingmeasures to achieve gender balance in Malawi:sensitizing curricula, aggressive recruitment poli-cies, provision of adequate accommodation for fe-male students, quota systems, recruitment of morewomen lecturers, and retention of women studentsby monitoring dropout records by gender, and in-troducing anti-sexual harassment policies (Riley1995 in Wallace and Nilsson 1997:9–10). These

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 55

measures are likely have relevance beyond Malawiand deserve to be tested systematically in order toensure that a country’s best minds are engaged inits development efforts. Muir-Leresche (2006b:59)provides a more extended list of interventions,which are summarized in Annex 5.

Several important initiatives to increase gendermainstreaming in the agricultural professions arecurrently underway in Africa. In 1990, WinrockInternational launched a program to enhance theprospects of African women agriculturalists. Todate, 37 women from nine African countries havebeen awarded scholarships to pursue degrees atthe BSc or MSc levels. As of 2004, a total of 15scholars had completed their degrees. Another in-novative project to assist women is the AfricanWomen Leaders in Agriculture and Environment(AWLAE). The project is based in WageningenUniversity and is funded by the Dutch govern-ment. It currently supports 20 women from 12African countries who are doing their PhDs atWageningen on topics related to food in Africaand the impact of HIV/AIDS on agriculture(Eicher: ibid.). The Female Scholarship Initiative,initiated by Makerere University in Uganda andfunded by the Carnegie Corporation, might serveas a model for initiatives elsewhere. It provides

full scholarships of USD 1,200 each to 19 womenof limited income to pursue studies in agriculture,so far with encouraging academic results (Obua2006:18–19). RUForum has adopted a similarapproach within Eastern and Southern Africa,awarding 40 percent of its 170 postgraduatefellowships to women.

The demand for women agriculturists alsoneeds to be stimulated through programs to recruitmany more women into agricultural extension andresearch programs (Vandenbosch 2006:103). Tworelevant initiatives are: (1) the Rockefeller fellow-ships for enhancing the Careers of East AfricanWomen Scientists43 funded by Rockefeller andSyngenta Foundations and administered by theCGIAR Gender and Diversity Program; and (2) theNormal E. Borlaug International AgriculturalScience and Technology Fellows Program44 fundedby USAID for African Women in Science and man-aged by FARA and CGIAR Gender and DiversityProgram. The new Strengthening Capacity forAgricultural Research and Development in Africa(SCARDA) program recently launched by FARA tobuttress African national agricultural research sys-tems includes the objective of raising the propor-tion of women researchers within these systems to33 percent by 2012.


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 56

57

What can be done at the various levels of agricultural education andtraining in Africa to build momentum in the face of existing con-straints? Different strategies will need to be pursued at each educa-tional level.

AET AT THE SECONDARY LEVELAgricultural secondary schools account for a minuscule proportionof students in formal secondary education across Africa. Therefore,they cannot expect to receive much attention from policymakers.Some of the institutions have excellent programs and results, partic-ularly those run by NGOs and church agencies. A good scenariowould be for them to be left to themselves to identify their own mar-kets, mobilize resources, and allocate them to their priorities. Wherepublic secondary agriculture schools cannot be adequately supportedor have consistently poor results, then perhaps their programs shouldbe converted into general secondary schools, which are less expen-sive to operate. After all, this is what parents and students seem towant most.

Prevent premature specialization, especially in lowersecondary education

Lower secondary level typically enrolls youth around age 12–15, tooyoung for specialized skills development. In fact, those who com-plete lower secondary may not even be of legal working age wheresuch regulations exist. Lower secondary is more properly part ofbasic education. Education at this level should concentrate on givingstudents a solid foundation in reading, math, and science along witha capacity for problem analysis (Johanson and Adams 2004:9).Specialized vocational training should be eschewed at this stage.With regard to vocational programs at the junior secondary levelsuch as the “Basic” Agricultural Schools in Mozambique (see para-graph 4.39), it would be preferable to convert these basic agricultureschools to general first-cycle secondary schools. This would be morecost-effective, would provide an improved foundation of basiceducation, and would correspond better to the aspirations of thestudents and parents.

Approaches Vary byAET Level7

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 57

Avoid upper secondary serving as analternative path to university and emphasizeacquisition of specific competencies forproperly selected trainees

Similarly, at the upper secondary level many stu-dents and parents choose agricultural schools as asecond choice when access is denied to academicsecondary education. They aspire to pursue furthereducation, which in the past meant access to better-paying jobs. Thus, students often are uninterestedin the agricultural content and have no intention ofpursuing careers in agriculture. This is a waste ofresources because AET—with smaller class sizes,and higher equipment and maintenance require-ments—costs more per student than general sec-ondary education. Priority in these circumstancesshould be to expand the number of places in gen-eral secondary education rather than in agricul-tural secondary schools.

Secondary-level AET institutions face a dilemma.Are they “shadow” academic secondary schools,giving an alternative second chance for generalsecondary education to those denied address to it?Or, are they training people for work in agricul-ture? This suggests that it is highly important insecondary-level AET to (1) survey labor marketdemands and opportunities; (2) trace the labormarket outcomes of past graduates; (3) and usethis information to define or refine the goals of theinstitution.

The keys to success in upper secondary AET in-stitutions seem to be clear purpose; close knowl-edge of market requirements; careful selection ofstudents to ensure interest; provision of practicaltraining that avoids “forced labor” assignmentsand emphasizes problem solving; strong, indepen-dent management; and assistance to graduates ingetting established as farmers.

Introduce greater flexibility in the lengthof courses

Instead of lengthy (e.g., three-year) time-basedprograms that parallel the general secondaryschool structure, the recommended approach forsecondary-level AET is to introduce short, modu-lar, competency-based programs that deliver skillsneeded in the market. In effect, this means the pro-vision of lifelong learning opportunities for targetpopulations of interested youth and adults, notjust those in the formal school system. Shortercourses would also help to reduce dropouts and

accommodate the training needs of diverse popu-lations, while providing learning opportunities forprogressive farmers.

AET AT THE TERTIARY LEVELTertiary AET is the principal means for replenish-ing the stock of human capital in African agricul-ture. Four actions are highlighted for priorityattention at this level.

Reforms in curriculum and teachingmethods are the most immediately usefulundertakings

Curriculum reform will be the most important ini-tial intervention. Reforms are needed within exist-ing academic departments with regard to content,as well as within institutions in terms of new de-partments and mechanisms for interdepartmentalcoordination and collaboration. Infusions of newknowledge, technologies and hands-on learningare overdue. To be most effective curriculum re-form should be linked to labor market surveys. Itmay be helpful to think of curriculum structurefrom the perspective of T-skills (Lynam, personalcommunication, May 2007). The horizontal bar rep-resents the breadth of “soft” skills that need to beconsidered: problem solving, teamwork, commu-nication skills, ICT capability, etc. The vertical barsymbolizes the depth of competence needed in adisciplinary area. Today’s graduates need skill setsthat combine both the horizontal and vertical di-mensions of the curriculum.

To help graduates get a foothold in the “newagriculture,” various African universities encour-age business development. The University ofSwaziland and the Botswana College of Agri-culture offer practical courses on entrepreneurialprojects, in which business plans are put intopractice using a revolving credit fund, with stu-dents retaining 75 percent of the profits. Projectshave consistently generated profits since 1995, andreportedly students have been more motivated tostart their own businesses after gaining confidencethrough these projects. In West Africa the ÉcoleNationale Supérieure d’Agriculture (Senegal) pro-vides three months of additional entrepreneurialtraining following graduation, during which pro-ject plans are prepared. Financing is available forimplementation of the plans for two years at 13 per-cent interest. In Mali, an agricultural research


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 58

Approaches Vary by AET Level 59

organization, Institut d’Économie Rurale, and ahigher education institution, Institut PolytechniqueRurale, have joined hands to establish the “MaliAgribusiness Incubator” (see Box 6.1) to help agri-cultural entrepreneurs integrate modern technolo-gies into local agricultural practices (Muir-Leresche2003:9). Beyond Africa, Costa Rica’s EARTHUniversity prepares graduates to start up agricul-tural enterprises. Its program contains a strongemphasis on values development, environmentalmanagement, and community service (Juma2006:13). Key elements of the EARTH Universityapproach to learning are reportedly in the processof being adapted and tested by MakerereUniversity.

Modify institutional governance structuresfor greater institutional flexibility andincreased responsiveness to stakeholders

Governance of public institutions is generally cen-tralized at the national level in Africa, which meansthat decision making and approval authority re-main with the central government (Rivera 2006:16).Centralized governance tends to slow decisions,limit flexibility, distort incentives, and stifle initia-tives. It may also mean overcontrol. At the tertiarylevel, it is appropriate to provide greater autonomyto institutions and install governing councils thatinclude representatives of all stakeholders, espe-cially end-users (e.g., agricultural businesses, re-search institutions, and extension organizations).Greater autonomy would free the institutions to raiseresources and find their markets. Accountabilitymechanisms need to be introduced simultaneouslywith greater autonomy, including transparentprocesses for decisions and clear systems for finan-cial accounting and audits. So far, of the countriesstudied, only Senegal and Uganda have moved inthe direction of decentralizing governance systemsfor tertiary AET (Rivera 2006:17).

Balance agriculture enrollmentsbetween degree, diploma, and certificateto ensure adequate numbersof competent technicians

The market for agricultural labor resembles a pyra-mid with a few theoretically trained agriculturalspecialists at the top, a sizable number of diplomaor certificate technicians in the middle, and a massof producers at the base. This suggests that there is

a need to supply the market in proportion to de-mands, specifically: more technicians than profes-sionals. Agricultural technicians are needed forpublic and NGO extension services, for agriculturalsuppliers, management and operation of compa-nies, and producer organizations. Most jobs foragricultural technicians do not require universitydegrees. In fact, a BSc in agriculture may be un-suitable for technicians, containing excessive the-ory at the expense of practical application.

The earlier analysis showed that the balance be-tween outputs at degree, diploma, and certificatelevels, in some cases, was becoming distorted (seeChapter 4). Mozambique has taken positive stepssince 2004 to address its AET system imbalance,creating two new agricultural polytechnics, one ad-ditional agricultural institute and several regionaltechnology centers (Gemo 2006:28). The polytech-nics give their students a strong dose of practicalskills training and offer them academic certificationoptions after two, three, and four years of school-ing. They also provide work attachments at therecently created regional technology centers in-tended to evaluate technologies for rural develop-ment in different parts of the country.

Recruit more women students

The reasons for having larger numbers of femaleagriculturalists, and the benefits associated withthis, were clearly stated in Chapter 6. It now re-mains to set targets for improving women’s repre-sentation among agricultural students, academicstaff, researchers, and extensionists. Efforts to makeagriculture a more attractive career option will con-tribute toward this goal, and targeted scholarshipswould accelerate the gender balancing process.

AET AT THE POSTGRADUATELEVELStrengthen the quality and expandMSc degree programs within Africa

Local training has several advantages in contrastwith overseas training. It embodies greater rele-vance to local and national agricultural problems,it strengthens local capacities, it expands theknowledge and research resources available tosupport local agricultural development, and the in-cremental buildup of local graduate programs willserve as an insurance policy if a donor discontinues

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 10:52 PM Page 59

scholarships for overseas study (InterAcademy2005:174). However, existing national postgraduateprograms usually go only to the level of master’sdegrees. And some graduate programs havesuffered an erosion in quality (see Chapter 4).Aggressive staff development programs willcontribute directly to solving this problem. Anappropriate goal would be to have all standardMSc programs operational in Africa within 10 to12 years.

Nurture regional centers of specialization

Regional centers of specialization are warranted by(1) the need to train small numbers of experts inspecialized areas that can only be justified throughsubregional collaboration; and (2) the staff devel-opment needs of small countries that cannot affordto set up and maintain a wide range of postgradu-ate programs. In these cases, such postgraduatetraining will have to take place outside nationalboundaries, at regional or international levels. As asecond choice, national institutions of high qualitycould be tapped, for example:

• African Centre for Crop Improvement,University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

• École Nationale Supérieure d’Agriculture—Senegal

• Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania

At the master’s degree level, African regionalinitiatives such as the Collaborative Masters inAgricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE)program may be appropriate. Collaborative re-gional graduate training programs are more diffi-cult to establish, but not less important. A study byCMAAE on research and training linkages amongdepartments of agricultural economics in the re-gion revealed that almost all departments had link-ages with institutions outside Africa, but only a fewhad linkages with other AET institutions in Eastand Southern Africa (Tongoona and Mudhara2007:13). Thus, regional collaboration presents it-self as a largely untapped resource, not only forstaff development but also for fostering agricul-tural innovation systems.

Regional programs make sense where fixedcosts are high and demand is clear but insufficientto reach a critical mass in each country, e.g., nar-rowly specialized technical fields, emerging newcross-disciplinary areas, small nations. Regionalprograms promise economies in assembling a

critical mass of specialists. One hub location canserve the graduate training needs of a larger re-gional watershed (InterAcademy Council 2004:174).Minimum conditions for regional undertakings are:(1) common problems and needs across regions;(2) demonstrable economies of scale; (3) insufficientnational training base, i.e. absence of duplication;(4) staff/management buy-in at the host institu-tion that may have other national priorities; and(5) availability of financing to allow participationby non-host countries. As an example, the BecAcenter in Nairobi could be used by the subregion forresearch and capacity building in biotechnology,which requires expensive facilities and equipment.It would not be efficient to duplicate such a costlyfacility in each of the countries of the region(Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:9).

Due to their cost and specialization, all AfricanPhD programs should be viewed from the outsetof the planning process as regional programs.Promising fields for regional postgraduate programsare biometrics, biogenetics, applied plant pathol-ogy, applied entomology, agricultural engineer-ing, soil science, and environmental microbiology(Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:16).

Financing is a key to success. Adequate start-upsupport is required for design, launching, and fine-tuning of the operations. Experience suggests thatsuccessful regional PhD programs will need long-term donor commitment, which best takes the formof consortia of multiple donors with complemen-tary interests. The importance of long-term donorcommitments for sustained success is demon-strated by the African Economic ResearchConsortium (AERC). Endowment funds are beingexplored to ensure sustainability in the agriculturaleconomics MSc program for Eastern and SouthernAfrica. Other key factors for success are the avail-ability of competitive scholarships to ensure qualitystudents and open, merit-based incentive systemsfor staff (Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:19, 24).

Pitfalls in regional programs have to be kept inmind. Building another layer of educational insti-tutions can be risky, divisive, and expensive.Ideally, they should evolve from existing, strongnational institutions and not be created anew(InterAcademy Council 2004:175). Civil unrest inCôte d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe highlights the dangerof concentrating capacity-building programs insome countries. Failure of the regional MSc pro-gram in agricultural economics at the University ofNairobi as a result of withdrawal of donor funding


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 60


is also instructive (InterAcademy Council: ibid.)Even through donors may underwrite a regionalAET institution for a decade or longer, nationalpolitical leaders have been reluctant to continuethe program after foreign assistance terminated(Eicher 2006: 34–35). This suggests that local own-ership needs to be nurtured from the planningstage onwards.

Lay the foundation for PhD programsthrough staff development

This report recommends a sizable investment inthe postgraduate training of Africans with a viewto replenishing the depleted human resource pool.A goal of 1,000 new agricultural PhDs over the next15 years might be appropriate (Eicher 2006: 41).This would increase by 60 percent the current num-bers of agricultural scientists in African higher edu-cation institutions (see Annex 6). This sizableincrease is necessary as a means (1) to ensure thatmost MSc training would be available in strongpostgraduate programs within Africa within adecade; (2) to lay the foundation for regional PhDprograms; and (3) to supply human resources pre-pared to contribute to emerging agricultural inno-vation systems. In doing so, upwards of half theseawards could usefully be earmarked for womenagricultural professionals.

But where and how should these 1,000 newPhDs be trained? Inevitably, the solution will in-volve a combination of national programs, regionalcenters, and training outside the continent. In termsof cost-effectiveness, the order of preference forwhere would be first in national institutions, secondin regional centers of excellence, third in more ad-vanced Third World countries, and fourth in in-dustrial countries. The costs of postgraduatetraining differ substantially according to place andmode of training, as shown in Charts 7.1 and 7.2.Thus, a wide range of choices is available to gov-ernments and donors alike.

In fact, the process of establishing collaborativeregional PhD programs has already begun. Withassistance from RUForum, four new PhD programsstarted in August 2007: (1) Biotechnology and plantbreeding at Makerere University; (2) Food Scienceand Nutrition at Jomo Kenyatta University ofAgriculture and Technology; (3) Dryland ResourceManagement at the University of Nairobi; and(4) Aquaculture and Fisheries Science at BundaCollege in Malawi. These programs will comprisecoursework during the first two years, followed bydissertation research. Programs will be based at thelead universities noted above, but will be supple-mented by staff from other member universitiesand perhaps from overseas if necessary expertise isnot available within the region. These are clearly

Chart 7.1 Estimated Total Cost of MSc. Degrees in Agricultural Economics, Various Countries (US$ Thousands)

10 20 30 40 6050

US Universities with USAIDFellowships

KwaZulu Natal, South Africa

US Sandwich

Africa AERC Economics

CMAAE- Eastern, Central andSouthern Africa

Imperical College DistanceLearning, London

Source: Eicher 2006: 53.

Note: Estimated duration two years.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 61

groundbreaking initiatives that will require sus-tained commitment and financing from universi-ties and development partners if they are to reachtheir full potential.

Creative partnerships to develop academicprograms at the MSc level are also underway in

Sub-Saharan Africa. The example of a joint MSc de-gree in Rural Development delivered by UniversityCollege, Cork, Ireland and Mekelle University inEthiopia is described in Box 7.1 Similarly, CornellUniversity will partner with Bahir Dar Universityin Ethiopia to offer a Master of Professional Studies


Chart 7.2 Estimated Total Cost of PhD Degrees in Agricultural Economics in Various Countries, 2006

0 20 40

US$ 000s

60 10080

US Universities with USAIDFellowship

Belgium (Sandwich degree)

University of Agriculture,Bangalore, India

India Agriculture ResearchInstitution

Source: Eicher 2006: ibid.

Note: Estimated duration three years, except Belgium, which is four.

Box 7.1 Joint MSc Degree in Rural Development Delivered by University College Cork (Ireland) and MekelleUniversity (Ethiopia)

Building on relationships generated through severalyears of research collaboration, University College,Cork, Ireland, and Mekelle University in Ethiopia havedeveloped an inventive joint MSc program, whichcombines characteristics of a sandwich program withthe use of distance learning. The program is providedon a part-time basis over a two-year period to mid-and senior-level rural development professionals ingovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.Students learn through a combination of workbookswritten by both universities; short periods of intensiveon-campus teaching at Mekelle delivered by staff ofboth universities; short field visits; monthly tutorialsprovided by Mekelle University staff; computer-basedlab study for subjects such as statistics, researchmethods, and geographical information systems;and jointly supervised MSc theses based primarily onfieldwork in Ethiopia. The program was developed toaddress the country’s urgent need for rural develop-ment professionals with multidisciplinary skills capa-ble of promoting rural development in the context of

pervasive poverty, persistent food insecurity, and in-creased market orientation. The program recentlycompleted its first cycle, graduating 20 students whowere awarded a joint degree conferred by both uni-versities, and a second cycle is ongoing. Plans to ex-pand the program to Haramaya and HawassaUniversities in Ethiopia are under discussion.

Key design characteristics of the program includethe mixed delivery mechanisms, the experiential na-ture of the learning process whereby learning isrooted in the daily reality of rural development is-sues, the capacity-building and quality control ele-ments imparted through the collaboration of the twouniversities, the low-cost nature of the program (al-lowing at least five students to be trained in Ethiopiafor the cost of one student studying full-time inIreland), and, crucially, the avoidance of brain drain.The program offers a model which appears widelyreplicable, including progressively greater use ofWeb-based delivery methods as technology avail-ability permits.

Source: Authors.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 62


degree program in agriculture and rural develop-ment that focuses on watershed management.Another Cornell University initiative will assist theUniversity of Ghana to launch a new PhD programin plant breeding.

Training outside the region is inevitablebecause of limited regional capacity

Support for collaborative regional programs has toface squarely the issue of absorptive capacity.Regional centers of excellence have the capacity toundertake only a fraction of the massive staffdevelopment at the PhD level recommended here.When this capacity is exhausted, preference couldbe given to Third World countries that have devel-oped high-quality AET systems, such as India,Malaysia, and Brazil. As seen in Chart 7.2, the costsof PhD training are substantially lower in IndianAET institutions of high quality than in Americanor European institutions. The last option would betraining in advanced industrial countries, prefer-ably for highly specialized skills, possibly usingmethods discussed below to reduce the costs.

Different modes such as sandwich trainingcould keep costs in check and minimizebrain drain

“Sandwich training” 45 has been used for almosttwo decades by universities in Africa in coopera-tion with overseas universities. The purpose ofsandwich training is to reduce the cost of graduateprograms, increase the percentage of students whoreturn home after degree completion, and build thecapacity of African universities to deliver some ofthe initial coursework (Eicher 2006: 36). The costs of“sandwich training” are considerably lower thanfull-time residence abroad, both at the master’s anddoctoral levels (see Box 7.1). Sandwich training canalso reduce brain drain among trainees. To put thatbenefit in perspective, it is worth remembering thatmore African scientists and engineers are workingin the United States than in all of Africa (El-Khawasin Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:2,3).

Sandwich training also has its drawbacks. It isbest suited for students carrying out field researchrather than laboratory work, which may requireexpensive equipment and supplies. Other prob-lems include delays in degree completion if localresearch funds are not available and high trans-action costs in managing the system, includingdual reporting and joint supervision (Eicher: ibid.;

also InterAcademy Council 2004:177). Finally,difficulties may include unclear procedures forconferment of a joint degree and lack of a commonaccreditation system (Tongoona and Mudhara2007:3). Still, the sandwich method has workedwell at Wageningen University, which over the pastfive years has produced more than 200 Africanswith MSc and 50 with PhDs (InterAcademyCouncil: ibid.).

Harness the potential for distanceeducation and online provision

Perhaps the most intriguing feature from Chart 7.1is the low cost of a master’s degree via distancelearning through the Imperial College in London.The College (formerly Wye College) pioneered dis-tance education courses for Africa in agriculturaland rural development in the 1980s. At presentabout 250 of its 800 students are African nationalsresiding in Africa, and 21 of its 86 graduates in 2005were African (Eicher 2006: 48).

Substantial potential exists for Web-based dis-tance education. Technically and pedagogically, itshould be possible increasingly for students andemployed professionals to undertake postgraduatedegrees via ICT. “Online degrees,” although not in-expensive, are increasingly common in industrial-ized countries. Many of these programs adhere tostrict accreditation standards to ensure quality.Major universities in the West are entering the mar-ket. There is no reason why students in Sub-Saharan Africa should not benefit from this trend,provided bandwidth is sufficient, financial assis-tance is available, and local quality assurance is inplace (InterAcademy Council 2005:179; see alsoWorld Bank, 2002). The impending completion ofthe East Coast fiber-optic cable around Africa holdsthe promise of more bandwidth in the near futurefor most coastal countries.

In 2005 CGIAR inaugurated a distance learninginitiative, the Global Open Food and AgricultureUniversity (GO-FAU). GO-FAU develops coursemodules in agro-economy and agribusiness andmakes them available to partner institutions(Eicher 2006:48). Some universities are alreadyusing ICT to enhance educational quality, in-cluding the encouragement of students to form“human capital chains” through the use of e-mail(InterAcademy Council: ibid.). The limitations ofprohibitive distances and poor infrastructure areminimized when communication is achievedthrough the Internet.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 63

Within Africa, capacities for distance educationand e-learning are being steadily put in place.Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnology is producing low-cost computers andemphasizing ICT literacy among its students.Africa University in Zimbabwe has developedgood e-learning facilities on its campus. InEthiopia, the International Livestock ResearchInstitute is constructing its Domestic AnimalGenetic Resources Information System (DAGRIS)as a Web-based source of information on se-lected indigenous farm animal genetic resourcessuch as cattle, sheep, goats, chicken, and pigs.DAGRIS is designed to facilitate the organiza-tion and dissemination of information on the ori-gin, distribution, diversity, present use, and statusof indigenous farm animal genetic resourcesfrom past and present research results. AnotherEthiopia-based initiative is a partnership between

Haromaya (ex-Alemaya) University of Agri-culture and IFPRI to establish a Center forAgricultural Research Management and PolicyLearning for Eastern Africa (CARMPoLEA).Through face-to-face and virtual courses, thisCenter seeks to improve the management of agri-cultural research and research policymakingwithin this region.

Videoconference also offers innovative ways toaccess knowledge and expertise. With supportfrom the Rockefeller Foundation, ACCI studentsat University of KwaZulu-Natal discuss lecturematerials and proposals with collaborators atCornell University through videoconferences(InterAcademy Council: ibid.). The CollaborativeMasters in Agricultural and Applied Economics(CMAAE) is exploring the use of e-learning to in-crease the coverage, flexibility, and quality of itsprogram (Tongoona and Mudhara 2007:22)


Box 7.2 Master’s Program in Agricultural Information and Communications Management

At the initiative of the Association for StrengtheningAgricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa(ASARECA), an innovative master’s program in agri-cultural information and communications manage-ment has been launched at Haromaya (ex-Alemaya)University in Ethiopia, Makerere University inUganda, Sokoine University in Tanzania, and theUniversity of Nairobi in Kenya. The program seeks toprovide agricultural advisory service workers with in-formation and communication skills that will helpthem to view extension work as a communication andknowledge management profession. In the process,

these skills will enable professionals to better con-tribute to and participate in an agricultural innovationsystem. The curriculum is oriented toward employ-ment in technical publications, Web site manage-ment, media communications, computerizedagricultural information systems, ICT applications tomanagement, and archives management. The programwill include a two-year MSc degree course, a one-yearpostgraduate diploma course, and a course modulethat can be included as an elective within existingMSc programs. Future plans calls for distance educa-tion delivery as well. Web site: www.asareca.org/rain.

Source: Authors.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 64

65

Agricultural education and training has been demonstrated to be avital, but much neglected, component of agricultural development inAfrica. It is undervalued, underresourced, and underprovided.Human capital in agriculture has been depleted by long term neglect.Market-driven agriculture and agriculture innovation systems placenew demands on the knowledge and skills of those working in theagricultural sector. Continuing neglect of AET risks constrainingagricultural recovery, economic growth, and poverty reduction.Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are therefore called upon to addressthe shortcomings of current approaches to human capital formationin agriculture and to train a new generation of agricultural profes-sionals. This goal is not amenable to a quick fix. Long-term, patientsupport is needed from government, AET institutions, and develop-ment partners over 20 years or more.

TOWARD AN AET STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKGiven that quick solutions are unavailable and that reforms inevitablywill take time to produce results, what can be done in the short term?What interventions should be given top priority? The first step shouldbe to convene representatives of the agricultural innovation system(i.e., government policymakers, agricultural researchers, privatesector entrepreneurs, NGO rural advisory staff, AET institutionalleaders, agricultural suppliers, and credit providers) for a collectiveexercise in priority setting. The following six elements of a possiblestrategic framework could form the basis for such a discussion:

Short term

1. Modernize teaching methods and curricula at the tertiary level,along with the necessary teaching inputs.

2. Improve institutional linkages (e.g., strategic partnerships, pro-fessional networks, collaboration incentives) and knowledge ac-cess (e.g. TEEAL, AGORA, computers).

3. Persuade development partners to fund essential operationaland equipment maintenance costs.

4. Conduct labor market studies and establish a labor market mon-itoring capacity.

5. Work to make the agricultural professions attractive employ-ment and career options, while recruiting many more womeninto this field.

The Time to Act Is Now468

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 65

6. Createnetworksandassociationsthatcancham-pionthecauseofagriculture,andlearn lobbyingtechniques to generate supportive political will.

Long term1. RebalanceAETenrollments infavorofdiploma,

degree, and especially postgraduate programs.2. StrengthenandexpandstrategicMScprograms,

including associated staff development, so thatall standard MSc programs for agriculture areavailable inSub-SaharanAfricawithin10years.

3. Broaden the foundation for regional PhDprograms by launching a major program of

postgraduate fellowships to train 1,000 PhDs,initially abroad and eventually at home, over15 years.

4. Take a more proactive approach to AET fi-nancing by improving the efficiency of re-source use, increasing income generationfrom nonpublic sources (e.g., market-orientedshort courses), and persuading donors to fi-nance operating costs.

Much of this could be implemented partly orfully through various types of multi-donor com-petitive funds at national and regional levels.


Table 8.1 Matrix of Key Actions and Responsibilities

Actors:Levels:

Education

Research

Institutionalmanagement

Financing

Government/politicians

� Educate the public onagriculture’s role in nationaldevelopment and valueagricultural professions.

� Rebalance the technicaleducation pyramid.

� Promote/accept regionalcollaboration partnerships.

� Establish quality assurancemechanisms for highereducation.

� Increase overall levels ofresearch funding.

� Establish competitiveresearch funds.

� Outsource more publicresearch to universities.

� Award greater autonomy toinstitutional management.

� Modify institutional gover-nance to include greaterstakeholder representation.

� Establish coordinationmechanisms betweenEducation and Agriculture.

� Provide budgets on the basisof strategic goals and perfor-mance rather than historicalprecedent or equity.

Institutional managers

� Curriculum reform to in-clude practical skills mas-tery and soft skills.

� Pedagogical reform to em-phasize facilitation of learn-ing, problem solving.

� Increase female enrollments.� Improve student admissions

procedures to favor studentmotivation.

� Link curricula to the labormarket.

� Curriculum reform to buildapplied and soft skills.

� Pedagogical reform toemphasize facilitation oflearning, problem solving.

� Revise incentive and pro-motion systems to encour-age applied research andprivate sector collaboration.

� Create stakeholder plat-forms to set systemwidepriorities.

� Establish clear careerladders for academic staff.

� Carry out periodic employersurveys and graduate tracerstudies.

� Provide budgets for periodicprofessional updating of staff.

� Pursue public-privatepartnerships.

Development partners

� Give greater fundingattention to diplomalevel education.

� Help build capacitiesfor information access,e.g., TEEAL, AGORA.

� Underwrite fellowshipsfor women.

� Encourage curriculaexperimentation andpedagogical retooling.

� Develop capacities fordistance education andonline learning.

� Contribute to competitivelearning, innovation andresearch funds.

� Support increasedbandwidth for tertiary institutions.

� Agree to fund operatingexpenses.

� Support experimental in-centive systems designedto increase individual andinstitutional innovation.

� Join long-term consortia tosupport collaborative regionalpostgraduate programs.

� Fund 1,000 PhD scholarships.

Source: Authors.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 66

The Time to Act Is Now 67

To advance these goals, the following roles andresponsibilities are proposed for political leadersand government officials, for institutional man-agers, and for development partners. These are alsosummarized in Table 8.1.

THE ROLE OF NATIONALPOLITICAL LEADERSNational political leaders, especially those withingovernments of African countries, are urged totake the following priority steps to strengthen thebasis for agricultural education and training:

1. As stated by the InterAcademy Council,“Today, the lack of political commitment inthe State House is the biggest single missingingredient in building a strong and produc-tive agricultural science base in Africa”(InterAcademy Council 2004:183). Africa’shuman capital challenge calls for renewed andsustained African commitment. As seen frominternational experience, long term commit-ment is essential for achieving breakthroughsderived from reforms (Chapter 5; Eicher2006:33).

2. Political, civil, and academic leaders shouldincrease the attractiveness of agricultural careersby advocating their importance for national de-velopment to the public, by creating new ca-reer paths that open a wider range ofemployment opportunities, and by stimulat-ing student and parental interest in agricul-ture as a profession (see Chapter 6).

3. Ministry officials should outsource a part ofpublic research funds to tertiary AET institu-tions. Not only will this be a cost-effective useof research funds (see Chapter 2), it will alsocounter staff attrition by helping to create anattractive professional environment for teach-ing staff. The best mechanism for doing thiswould be through competitive funds, whichalso help to retain staff.

4. Ministry and institutional leaders shouldincrease female enrollment in AET institutionsby such measures as establishing quotas,providing earmarked scholarships, arrang-ing mentors, reducing sexual harassment,and ensuring that AET institutions have ap-propriate facilities to accommodate women(see Chapter 6). To stimulate demand,countries should institute preferential hiring

policies for women in research and extensioninstitutions.

5. Government leaders and ministry officialsshould devolve authority to AET institutionsand subject them to governance by stakehold-ers. This will allow them to take more initia-tive, find their niche markets, and mobilizeadditional resources.

6. Governments should provide incentives andrewards for AET staff and introduce diversestaff retention measures, such as merit pay,transparent promotion procedures, continu-ing professional development opportunities,and administrative streamlining. Where pos-sible, integrate AET institutions under the samepublic institutional authority.

7. Governments should avoid proliferation, or at-omization, of AET, which dilutes resourcesand drives down quality. Government shouldbase public financing on strategic goals and per-formance in achieving them rather than histori-cal precedent or equitable sharing.

THE ROLE OF AETINSTITUTIONAL MANAGERSAt the institutional level, reforms in these priorityareas would generate multiple benefits:

1. Create fora among stakeholders for setting prior-ities in AET vis-à-vis agriculture developmentplans, building institutional linkages, andnourishing information networks.

2. Improve student selection procedures so thatonly those with a personal interest in agricul-ture are admitted.

3. Consult stakeholders, particularly private sectoremployers, on program definition and conductperiodic employer surveys and tracer studiesto assess the effectiveness of AET programs.

4. Link curricula to the market for graduates. Oneway to link supply with market demand couldbe to focus on growth areas or “niches” incommercial agriculture. AET institutionscould (1) identify a niche agricultural initiativein the country, such as pyrethrum or coffee inRwanda, cut flowers in Kenya, or fish exportsin Uganda; (2) analyze the supply chain, in-cluding human resource requirements; and(3) develop teaching programs to address theneeds. This modest approach could help ener-gize AET and serve two important objectives:

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 67

orient AET to market trends and stimulate re-newed student interest as they see chances foremployment on the horizon.

5. Where possible, introduce interdisciplinary pro-grams at the undergraduate level, e.g. naturalresource management. Training must be prac-tical, require contact between students and arange of producers, and focus on solving ac-tual production problems.

6. Budget and provide for periodic professionalupdating of staff.

7. Create a conducive professional environment forstaff, including the definition of clear careerladders and a streamlining administrativeprocedures to reduce the inefficient use oftime by staff.

8. Mobilize additional resources and use them forupgrading staff conditions, teaching, andresearch.

THE ROLE OF DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSAs illustrated in Chapter 6, numerous innovative ex-periments, pilot programs, and individual cases ofsuccess in agricultural education and training can befound across the African continent. What is needednow is to build on these experiences, adapt them toeach country, and replicate them across the conti-nent. The resources of African countries will not beadequate for this task (InterAcademy Council2004:184). Development partners are thereforeasked to make long-term financing commitments tohelp interested governments replenish their humancapital and strengthen the performance of their agri-culture innovation systems. Actions by donors arerecommended in seven priority areas:

1. The most immediate intervention is to rebuildthe human capital base in agriculture—to in-crease the quality and number of high levelagricultural professionals by means of post-graduate fellowships to attain the goal of 1,000new PhDs in agriculture within the next 15years. This must be preceded by assessment ofcurrentsupplycapacity,a feasibilitystudy,anddetailed plan with interested governments anddonors. Initially, doctoral studies would belargely overseas, but would gradually be un-dertaken in Africa as capacities are developed.

2. Ensure gender rebalancing within the abovestaff development programs, and establish

female scholarship programs at the secondaryand undergraduate levels to attract morewomen into agricultural sciences.

3. Support donor consortia for, say, a dozenspecialized collaborative regional PhD pro-grams, starting with four—one for each majorregion—on a trial basis over a period of fiveyears.

4. Fund the operating and equipment maintenancecosts that are essential for retaining skilledstaff and enabling them to work produc-tively. This could include “incentive goods”such as sabbatical leaves for African acade-mic staff who were trained 15 to 20 years ago,funds to attract visiting professors, seminars,and mini-travel grants to ensure that acade-mic staff attend one national or regional con-ference annually and one internationalconference every three years. Funding is alsoneeded for upgrading libraries and vehiclesfor field research, and rebuilding universityfarms.

5. Finance access to international sources of infor-mation by funding electronic innovations(TEEAL, AGORA, etc.) at key AET institu-tions, and by financing the facilities andequipment necessary for increased band-width and computer facilities and networks.

6. Finance competitive grant funds for tertiary in-stitutions to undertake peer-reviewed research.A competitive fund for institutional devel-opment could also stimulate initiatives basedon school/college/faculty own-generateddevelopment plans. The difficulties of admin-istering these funds in small countries wouldneed to be addressed. (InterAcademy Council2004:173).

7. Finance experimentation with new modes of agri-cultural education and training that make useof information and communication technolo-gies, including online degrees and varioustypes of distance learning.

CONCLUSIONIn examining the role and future potential of agri-cultural education and training systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, this report relies in part on anagricultural innovation systems perspective tomake its case. This view is a relatively new appli-cation to the study of developing country agricul-ture, and the body of empirical work that precedes


ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 68

The Time to Act Is Now 69

this report is still small. Thus, efforts are yet in earlystages of development to link empirical analyses ofinnovation systems in developing country agricul-ture with recommendations that can inform poli-cymakers (Davis et al. 2007).

This report has pursued this goal. However, fur-ther analysis of AET from an innovation systemsperspective is needed. Likewise, more politicaldiscussion is necessary on how to produce exten-sion agents, researchers, educators, and skilled pro-ducers in sufficient quantity to boost agriculturalproductivity and output, and of sufficient quality toplay an active role in a changing agricultural sce-nario. This implies closer consideration of the morenuanced challenges of strengthening innovative

capabilities among both individuals and institu-tions; creating organizational cultures in AET thatare sufficiently open and dynamic to facilitatechange; and building innovation networks, part-nerships, and linkages to foster an accelerated flowof ideas, greater adaptation, and use of available in-formation and knowledge. Ultimately, it must berecognized that interventions designed tostrengthen AET systems are a long-term undertak-ing. Only through an enduring commitment tochange can AET systems contribute to the devel-opment of more dynamic agricultural economiesthat engage farmers, entrepreneurs, extensionagents, researchers, and many other actors in awider system of innovation.

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 69

ch01-08_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:06 PM Page 70

71

Annex 1.NARS and AKIS

Frameworks inRelation to Agricultural

Innovation Systems

Source: World Bank, 2006a.

* As defined by FAO and World Bank 2002.

Defining feature

Purpose

Actors

Outcome

Organizing principle

Mechanism forinnovation

Degree of marketintegration

Role of policy

Nature of capacitystrengthening

NARS

Planning capacity for agri-cultural research, techno-logy development, andtechnology transfer.

National agriculturalresearch organizations,agricultural universitiesor faculties of agriculture,extension services, non-profit institutions, privatecompanies, and farmers.

Technology invention andtechnology transfer.

Using science to createinventions.

Transfer of technology

Nil

Resource allocation,priority setting.

Infrastructure and humanresource development.

AKIS*

Strengthening communica-tion and knowledge deli-very services to people inthe rural sector.

National agriculturalresearch organizations,agricultural universities,faculties of agriculture,extension services, farmers,NGOs, and entrepreneursin rural areas.

Technology adoption andinnovation in agriculturalproduction.

Accessing agriculturalknowledge.

Interactive learning

Low

Enabling framework.

Strengthening communica-tion between actors in ruralareas.

Agricultural innovationsystem

Strengthening the capacityto innovate throughout theagricultural production andmarketing systems.

Potentially all actors in thepublic and private sectorsinvolved in the creation,diffusion, adaptation, anduse of all types of knowle-dge relevant to agriculturalproduction and marketing.

Combinations of technicaland institutional innovationsthroughout the production,marketing, policy research,and enterprise domains.

New uses of knowledgefor social and economicchange.

Interactive learning

High

Integrated component andenabling framework.

Strengthening interactionsamong actors; institutionaldevelopment and changeto support interaction,learning, and innovation;creating an enablingenvironment.

ch_annexes_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:07 PM Page 71

73

The purpose of AET is to enable agricultural pro-ducers to realize higher returns on their labor andinvestments. Sometimes this is done directlythrough farmer training. More often this is achievedindirectly by educating extension staff, by develop-ing researchers, or by building the technical capaci-ties of producer organizations and input suppliers(Wallace and Nilsson 1997: 37). Essentially, AET tar-gets three distinct groups in the agricultural sectorlabor market: farmers (subsistence and commer-cial), extensionists and other support personnel(public and private), and researchers. These targetaudiences are reached through different levels andtypes of AET, ranging from informal farmer train-ing to secondary-level agricultural colleges that pre-pare farm managers and extension specialists topostgraduate faculties of agriculture, where re-searchers are trained.

Secondary-level AET. Secondary-level agriculturaleducation and training47 is highly diverse across thecountries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Generally,secondary-level AET makes up only a tiny fractionof total secondary school enrollments. In Kenya, thesecondary schools offer agriculture as an option andare the main sources of secondary level AET, pro-viding courses to more than 106,000 students.Ethiopia has 25 ATVET Colleges enrolling almost37,000 in training for agricultural occupations as

district extension agents. Mozambique has a fewbasic and medium-level agricultural schools atlower and upper secondary, respectively, enrollingabout 4,000 students. Benin supports four agricul-tural colleges enrolling about 2,400 students pluscenters for rural promotion for nonformal training.The AET landscape is diverse in Rwanda, with 22secondary-level schools offering agriculture edu-cation and graduating 890 trainees per year. Theseinstitutions have nine different types of names,from “agricultural school” to “secondary school”and “school group.” Burkina Faso has only oneagricultural college, but a total of 16 other AET in-stitutions under five different ministries. Table 1shows some of the diversity in types and ordersof magnitude.

Tertiary AET. As defined here, tertiary AET in-cludes certificate, diploma, and degree quali-fications at the post-secondary level. These areoffered in universities (agricultural universitiesand faculties of agriculture and related subjects inmultipurpose universities), agricultural colleges,polytechnics and agricultural institutes. Table 2shows the types of institutions studied.

Postgraduate AET. Postgraduate AET is offeredwithin SSA in some of the tertiary AET institutions,and at specialized regional centers. Table 3 lists themain collaborative regional postgraduate programs.

Annex 2.The Landscape of

Agricultural Education andTraining Institutions

Included in This Study



Table 2 Tertiary AET Institutions Included in Background Study

University & facultiesof agriculture &

Country veterinary science Agricultural colleges Polytechnics Higher institutes Other

Cameroon 6 18Ghana 5 5 3Malawi 1 1Mozambique 3 2 3Rwanda 1 1Senegal 2 7Uganda 2 1 1TOTAL 17 26 5 3 11

Source: Drawn from case studies for Rivera. Unfortunately, enrollment and graduation statistics were not available.

Table 1 Types and Dimensions of Secondary Level AET, Selected Countries

Country AET institution Number Enrollment Graduates

Benin Colleges of Technical Agricultural 3 960 240Education (CETA)

Agricultural College Medji of Sekou 1 1,400 350(LAMS)

Centers for Rural Promotion

Ethiopia Midlevel Agricultural Technical 25 36,800 10,840Vocational Education (ATVET)

Mozambique Basic agricultural schools 8 2,480

Midlevel Agricultural Institutes 3 1,700

Rwanda Diverse schools for agriculture, 22 890veterinary and forestry, lycées,and secondary schools.

Source: Drawn from case studies for Vandenbosch.


Annex 2. The Landscape of Agricultural Education and Training Institutions Included in This Study 75

Table 3 Regional Postgraduate Programs in Agriculture

Program Location Field Qualifications

Africa Regional International Center for Insect Science PhDPartnership Program Insect Physiology and in Insect Science Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi,

Kenya

Agribusiness Africa University, Mutare, Agricultural economics MScZimbabwe

Agricultural Information and Haromaya University, Ethiopia Agriculture MScCommunications Management Makerere University, Uganda

Sokoine University, TanzaniaUniversity of Nairobi, Kenya

Aquaculture and Fisheries Science University of Malawi Fisheries MSc, PhD

Agricultural and Resource University of Malawi Agricultural economics MSc, PhDEconomics

Biotechnology and Plant Breeding Makerere University Crop Production MSc, PhD

Collaborative Master of Science Various. Agricultural economics MScin Agricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE)

Dairy Science and Technology University of Zimbabwe Animal production MSc

Dryland Resource Management University of Nairobi, Kenya Natural Resource MSc, PhDManagement

Food Science and Nutrition Jomo Kenyatta University of Food Technology MSc, PhDAgriculture and Technology, Kenya

General Agriculture University of the Free State Agriculture MSc

Land and Water Resource Sokoine University, Tanzania Natural Resource MScManagement Management

Plant breeding and biotechnology African Center for Crop Crop Production PhDImprovement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Plant Breeding and Seed Systems University of Zambia Crop Production MSc

Research Methodology Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture MScAgriculture and Technology;University of Malawi

Rural Development Eduardo Mondlane University Agriculture MSc

Sasakawa Africa Fund for Winrock International, Extension BSc or MScExtension Education (SAFE) Bunda College, Malawi

University Science, Humanities University of Cape Town, Science and Engineering PhD and MScand Engineering Partnerships South Africain Africa (USHEPiA)

Source: Tongoona and Mudhara: 2007; RUForum Newsletter, March 2007.


77

Annex 3.Percentage of Total

Employment in Agriculture

30 40 50 60 10070 80 90

Ethiopia

%

Burkina Faso

Rwanda

Uganda

Guinea

Mali

Guinea-B.

Tanzania

Chad

Mozambique

Gambia

Eritrea

C.Af.Rep.

Madagascar

Senegal

Somalia

Eq. Guinea

Zambia

Angola

Liberia

Cameroon

Sudan

Congo, D.R.

Sierra Leone

Togo

Benin

Ghana

Cote d'Ivoire

Mauritania

Gabon

Lesotho

Source: Based on ILO, 2003.

Note: For economies with a share in agricultural employment over 40 percent.


79

Annex 4.Summary of Donor

Support for AgriculturalEducation and Training



Com

men

ts

Fina

ncin

g ha

s be

en li

mite

d to

USD

2.

2 m

illio

n fo

r a

colla

bora

tive

MA

prog

ram

in a

gric

ultu

ral e

cono

mic

s.

Proj

ect fi

nanc

ing

data

is r

epor

tedl

y no

tor

gani

zed

in a

way

that

per

mits

sec

tor

repo

rtin

g.

Agr

icul

ture

and

food

sec

urity

are

ale

sser

pri

ority

, to

whi

ch 1

0 pe

rcen

t of

Bel

gian

OD

A is

allo

cate

d.

Rep

orte

dly

no li

kelih

ood

of A

ETin

volv

emen

t.

No

finan

cing

for

form

al A

ET a

t the

seco

ndar

y or

tert

iary

leve

l.

Prim

ary

emph

asis

on

farm

er tr

aini

ng.

Wor

ks th

roug

h Fi

nnis

h N

GO

s an

d di

-re

ctly

with

par

tner

org

aniz

atio

ns in

Afr

ica

on e

nvir

onm

enta

l pre

serv

atio

n,hu

man

rig

hts,

and

goo

d go

vern

ance

.

Supp

ort f

or b

road

ly d

efine

d A

ET ta

kes

prec

eden

t ove

r re

sear

ch a

nd e

xten

sion

.In

199

9 sw

itche

d fr

om s

uppl

y-dr

iven

trai

ning

to d

eman

d-dr

iven

cou

rses

base

d on

par

ticip

ator

y pr

oces

ses.

Iris

h A

id p

olic

y fo

r ag

ricu

lture

defi

ned

in 2

001

emph

asiz

es im

prov

ed fa

rmer

serv

ices

Agr

icul

tura

l ass

ista

nce

focu

ses

mai

nly

on fo

od c

rop

rese

arch

, far

mer

trai

ning

,po

st-h

arve

st te

chno

logy

and

env

iron

-m

enta

l pro

tect

ion.

Geo

grap

hica

l foc

us

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

Ben

in, B

urun

di, D

RC

, Mal

i,M

ozam

biqu

e, N

iger

, Rw

anda

,Se

nega

l, Ta

nzan

ia, U

gand

a

Ben

in, B

urki

na F

aso,

Ken

ya,

Moz

ambi

que,

Tan

zani

a, a

ndU

gand

a

Fran

coph

one

Afr

ica,

Eth

iopi

a

Ethi

opia

, Ken

ya, M

ozam

biqu

e,Ta

nzan

ia, Z

ambi

a

Ben

in, B

urki

na F

aso,

Cam

eroo

n, E

thio

pia,

Gha

na,

Ken

ya, M

alaw

i, M

ali,

Moz

ambi

que,

Nam

ibia

,R

wan

da, S

eneg

al, T

anza

nia,

Uga

nda,

Zam

bia

Ethi

opia

, Les

otho

,M

ozam

biqu

e, T

anza

nia,

Uga

nda,

Zam

bia

Ethi

opia

, Gha

na, K

enya

,M

alaw

i, Se

nega

l, Ta

nzan

ia,

Zam

bia

AET

pro

gram

pri

orit

ies

Agr

icul

tura

l eco

nom

ics

atpr

esen

t

Farm

er tr

aini

ng, m

inis

try

and

educ

atio

nal i

nstit

utio

n ca

paci

tybu

ildin

g.

Gen

eral

tech

nica

l and

voc

a-tio

nal e

duca

tion,

incl

udin

gag

ricu

lture

; far

mer

trai

ning

for

food

pro

duct

ion

with

info

od s

ecur

ity a

nd r

ural

dev

el-

opm

ent p

roje

cts.

Farm

er tr

aini

ng th

roug

h di

s-tr

ict l

evel

trai

ning

cen

ters

; in-

stitu

tiona

l str

engt

heni

ng fo

rfa

rmer

ser

vice

s.

Farm

er tr

aini

ng, t

echn

ical

trai

ning

, uni

vers

ity e

duca

tion

Non

e ap

pare

nt.

Shor

t tra

inin

g co

urse

s fo

r se

lf-he

lp o

rgan

izat

ions

ser

ving

farm

ers;

dir

ect t

rain

ing

offa

rmer

s; a

nd tr

aini

ng o

f agr

i-cu

ltura

l res

earc

hers

.

Farm

er tr

aini

ng; e

xten

sion

agen

t tra

inin

g

Gen

eral

voc

atio

nal a

nd te

ch-

nica

l edu

catio

n, in

clud

ing

agri

cultu

re; f

arm

er tr

aini

ng

Don

or

Afri

can

Cap

acity

Bui

ldin

gFo

unda

tion

Afr

ican

Dev

elop

men

t Ban

k

Bel

gium

Can

ada

(CID

A)

Den

mar

k(D

AN

IDA

)

Fran

ce

Finl

and

(FIN

NID

A)

Ger

man

y (In

WEn

t,G

TZ)

Irel

and

Japa

n JIC

A

Leve

l of A

ET fu

ndin

g

Min

imal

.

Unc

lear

.

Sign

ifica

nt.

Ave

rage

s U

SD 8

00,0

00 a

year

Non

e.

Sign

ifica

nt.

Size

able

.A

vera

ged

USD

$2.

3 m

illio

nbe

twee

n 19

99 a

nd 2

003

Min

imal

or

none

.

Siza

ble.

USD

$3.

3 m

illio

n in

200

4

Sign

ifica

nt.

Ave

rage

d U

SD $

700,

000

aye

ar b

etw

een

2000

–200

4

Mod

erat

e.


Annex 4. Summary of Donor Support for Agricultural Education and Training 81

Sour

ce: A

utho

rs.

Com

men

ts

Wor

ks p

rim

arily

thro

ugh

Dut

ch in

ter-

natio

nal N

GO

s th

at fo

cus

on e

duca

-tio

n, h

ealth

, env

iron

men

tal p

rote

ctio

n,an

d em

ploy

men

t cre

atio

n.

Ofte

n w

orks

thro

ugh

NG

Os.

Ass

ista

nce

guid

ed b

y U

ma

Vis

áoEs

trat

éica

par

a a

Coo

pera

ção

Port

ugue

saof

200

6.

Join

tlyop

erat

edby

Nip

pon

Foun

datio

nin

Japa

nan

dC

arte

rCen

teri

nU

SA.

Goa

lis

totr

ansf

erav

aila

ble

tech

nolo

gyto

smal

lfar

mer

sw

hile

upgr

adin

gex

ten-

sion

agen

tsan

dre

form

ing

univ

ersi

tycu

rric

ula.

Educ

atio

n se

ctor

ass

ista

nce

dedi

cate

dto

bas

ic e

duca

tion.

Not

add

ress

ed u

nder

its

educ

atio

n or

agri

cultu

re p

rogr

ams.

Its

Dec

embe

r20

05 p

olic

y pa

per G

row

th a

nd P

over

tyR

educ

tion:

The

Rol

e of

Agr

icul

ture

iden

tifies

eig

ht p

rior

ity a

ctio

ns fo

rD

fID, b

ut n

one

of th

em in

clud

eshu

man

cap

ital d

evel

opm

ent.

No

appa

rent

inve

stm

ent i

n bu

ildin

gna

tiona

l lev

el c

apac

ities

for a

gric

ultu

ral

educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng.

Fund

ing

for

AET

con

stitu

ted

just

1 p

er-

cent

of t

otal

fund

ing

for a

gric

ultu

ral r

e-se

arch

, ext

ensi

on a

nd e

duca

tion

inA

fric

a ov

er 1

995–

2004

. See

July

200

4U

SAID

Agr

icul

ture

Str

ateg

y: L

inki

ngPr

oduc

ts to

Mar

kets

.

Geo

grap

hica

l foc

us

Ben

in, B

urki

na F

aso,

Cap

eV

erde

, Eri

trea

, Eth

iopi

a, G

hana

,K

enya

, Mal

i, M

ozam

biqu

e,R

wan

da, S

eneg

al, T

anza

nia,

Uga

nda,

Zam

bia

Ethi

opia

, Tan

zani

a,M

ozam

biqu

e, M

adag

asca

r,M

alaw

i, M

ali

Ang

ola,

Cap

e V

erde

, Gui

nea-

Bis

sau,

Moz

ambi

que,

Sao

Tom

e an

d Pr

inci

pe, a

nd o

cca-

sion

ally

oth

ers

such

as

Ethi

opia

and

DR

C.

Ben

in, B

urki

na F

aso,

Eth

iopi

aG

hana

, Gui

nea,

Mal

awi,

Mal

i,M

ozam

biqu

e, N

iger

ia,

Tanz

ania

, Uga

nda

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

Gha

na, K

enya

, Mal

i,M

ozam

biqu

e, U

gand

a, Z

ambi

a

AET

pro

gram

pri

orit

ies

Non

e ap

pare

nt.

AET

follo

win

g th

e EA

RTH

Uni

vers

ity m

odel

.

Gen

eral

voc

atio

nal a

nd te

ch-

nica

l edu

catio

n, in

clud

ing

agri

cultu

re; s

elec

tive

high

ered

ucat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy tr

ansf

er; e

xten

-si

on a

gent

deg

ree

educ

atio

n;fa

rmer

trai

ning

Farm

er tr

aini

ng; e

duca

tiona

lm

ater

ials

dev

elop

men

t

Farm

er tr

aini

ng, p

rodu

cer

orga

niza

tions

, str

engt

heni

ngin

stitu

tions

for

agri

cultu

ral

educ

atio

n.

Don

or

Net

herl

ands

Nor

way

(NO

RA

D)

Port

ugal

Sasa

kaw

a A

fric

aFu

nd fo

r Ex

tens

ion

Educ

atio

n

Swed

en (S

IDA

)

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

(DFI

D)

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

(FA

O)

Uni

ted

Stat

es(U

SAID

)

Leve

l of A

ET fu

ndin

g

Min

imal

or

none

.

Mod

est,

but m

ay g

row

.

Sign

ifica

nt.

Ave

rage

d U

SD $

600,

000

aye

ar b

etw

een

2000

–200

4

Siza

ble.

USD

5 m

illio

n in

200

3

Non

e.

Non

e.

Min

imal

.

Min

imal

.


83

• Establish policies that acknowledge the dualrole of women (as both professionals andhomemakers).

• Reduce the stress of more committee workand greater non-research-track demands.

• Provide mentoring (especially with regard tocontract negotiation, workloads, priorities,performance, and career track.

• Recognize broader experience when appoint-ing women and setting salaries.

• Broaden the weighting of the service compo-nent in promotion criteria.

• Address both overt and subtle harassment ofwomen.

Source: Muir-Leresche 2006a:59.

Annex 5.Suggested Actions That

Would Help TertiaryInstitutions to Recruit,

Retain, and PromoteProfessional Women

• Develop more practical and service-orientedcurricula that appeal more to women andare more in keeping with the needs of 21st-century graduates.

• Address the stigma attached to affirmativeaction appointments and reduce the biasagainst women where affirmative action isnot a factor.

• Consider offering flexible work schedules toboth women and men.

• Set up crèche and after-school care facilitiesfor both staff and students.


85

Annex 6.Distribution of Highly

Skilled Human Resourcesfor Agricultural Research

and Education Withinand Among Countries of

Sub-Saharan Africa

Percent of No. of agric Percent of Percent of Percent of allNo. of public public sector researchers agric higher educ PhD agric sector agric agric in higher researchers agric researchers researchers researchers education in higher researchers in higher

Country (FTEs) with PhD (FTEs) education with PhD education

Botswana 101 28% 17 17% 34% 17%Burkina Faso 261 50% 16 6% 92% 10%Burundi 77 11% 19 25% 45% 50%Congo 135 33% 28 21% 64% 29%Côte d’Ivoire 161 46% 25 16% 83% 22%Eritrea 86 5% 13 15% 26% 44%Ethiopia 742 9% 80 11% 19% 19%Gabon 54 29% 12 22% 38% 23%Gambia 48 8% 6 13% 21% 25%Ghana 475 31% 83 17% 58% 25%Guinea 269 15% 28 10% 36% 20%Kenya 822 27% 138 17% 58% 27%Madagascar 202 23% 9 4% 63% 11%Malawi 146 24% 16 11% 38% 15%Mali 300 30% 31 10% 48% 14%Mauritania 98 17% 8 8% 87% 29%Mauritius 147 12% 6 4% 33% 10%Niger 109 24% 17 16% 64% 29%Nigeria 1,352 34% 513 38% 48% 35%Senegal 151 46% 29 19% 24% 9%South Africa 1,029 35% 158 15% 55% 19%Sudan 780 34% 225 29% 37% 24%Tanzania 542 26% 90 17% 72% 31%Togo 98 39% 33 34% 75% 39%Uganda 245 31% 51 21% 36% 19%Zambia 179 19% 20 11% 57% 25%Total: 8609 29% 1671 19% 49% 25%

Source: ASTI/IFPRI.


87

COMMISSIONED BY THE WORLDBANK ON AGRICULTURALEDUCATION AND TRAININGIN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

1. Davis, Kristin, Javier Ekboir, WondimsiamregnMekasha, Cosmas Ochieng, David Spielman,and Elias Zerfu. 2007. Strengthening Agricul-tural Education and Training in Sub-SaharanAfrica from an Innovation Systems Perspective:Case Studies of Ethiopia and Mozambique.Research commissioned by the World Bank.Washington, D. C.: International Food PolicyResearch Institute.

2. Eicher, Carl K. 2006. The Evolution of Agri-cultural Education and Training: Global Insightsof Relevance for Africa. Unpublished papercommissioned by the World Bank, AFTHD.

3. Langrock, Ines. 2006. “Typology of Agricul-tural Knowledge and Innovation Systems(AKIS) in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Study commis-sioned by ARD, the World Bank. DepartmentofAppliedEconomics,UniversityofMinnesota.

4. Rivera, William. 2006. Transforming Post-Secondary Agricultural Education and Trainingby Design: Solutions for Sub-Saharan Africa.Unpublished paper. World Bank, Washington,D.C. Based on country case studies in:

Cameroon, by Dominic FontemGhana, by Joseph KwartengMalawi, by Rebbie HarawaMozambique, by Helder GemoRwanda, by Makelele KilyoboSenegal, by Abdou Gueye andUganda, by Joseph Obua

5. Rygnestad, Hild, William Saint, and Eija Pehu.2006. “Agricultural Education and Trainingin Sub-Saharan Africa FY86–06. Unpublishedpaper for the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

6. Stulpinate, Lina. 2005. “Annotated Bibliogra-phy on Agricultural Education and Trainingin SSA.” Unpublished document by the WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

7. Tongoona, P. and M. Mudhara. 2007. “RegionalTraining Strategies for Post-Secondary Agri-cultural Education in Sub-Saharan Africa:When Do They Work and How Should TheyBe Done.” University of KwaZulu-Natal.Unpublished paper commissioned by theWorld Bank, Washington, D.C.

8. Vandenbosch, Tom. 2006. Post-Primary Agri-cultural Education and Training in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Adapting Supply to Changing Demand.Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).Based on country case studies in:

Benin, by Georges OgoudedjiBurkina Faso, by Abdoulaye ZononEthiopia, by Alemayehu MerkoriosKenya, by Frederick Ngesa Mozambique, by Nicia Givá and Rwanda, by Emile Ndejuru

9. Zuidema, Larry. 2007. “Agricultural Educationand Training in Africa: An Economic Justifi-cation for Investments.” Unpublished papercommissioned by the World Bank, Washington,D.C.

10. Eicher, Carl. 2007. “Investment in AgriculturalEducation and Training in Africa.” Unpub-lished paper commissioned by the WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

Principal Research Works

PRW_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:08 PM Page 87

PRW_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:08 PM Page 88

89

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 The interrelated importance of education, research, and

extension in enhancing agricultural production and reduc-ing rural poverty is well recognized in many developingcountries. However, evidence suggests that the traditionaleducation-research-extension “triangle” may be increas-ingly ill-equipped to respond to the new opportunities andchallenges now associated with agriculture in Sub-SaharanAfrica (Kroma 2003; Tadesse 2003). The entry of new actors,technologies and market forces, when combined with neweconomic and demographic pressures, suggests the need formore comprehensive approaches to strengthening agricul-tural education, research, and extension (IFPRI 2006).

CHAPTER 12 This section draws heavily on Zuidema (2007).3 At the moment, Rwanda is reportedly leading national im-

plementation of CAADP within the region.4 The following paragraphs are drawn largely from Davis et al.

2007.5 The interrelated importance of education, research and

extension in enhancing agricultural production and reduc-ing rural poverty is well recognized in many developingcountries. However, evidence suggests that the traditionaleducation-research-extension “triangle” may be increas-ingly ill-equipped to respond to new opportunities andchallenges in sub-Saharan African agriculture (Kroma 2003;Tadesse 2003). The entry of new actors, technologies andmarket forces, when combined with new economic anddemographic pressures, suggests the need for more innov-ative approaches to strengthening agricultural education,research and extension (IFPRI 2006).

6 A country’s innovation system can be strong even when itsNRS is weak. Ecuador and many Central American coun-tries, for example, have weak NRSs but strong innovationsystems that have enabled them to develop competitive pro-duction clusters in fresh fruits and vegetables. On the otherhand, the Soviet Union of the 1970s and 1980s had a strongnational research system and a weak innovation system(Davis et al 2007).

7 Definitions: “Agriculture” is meant here in its broadestsense, including crop production, forestry, fisheries, and vet-erinary science. “AET” signifies agricultural education andtraining. “Agricultural education” is defined as that pro-vided to beneficiaries by formal educational institutions nor-mally leading to an official qualification (certificate,diploma, or degree.) “Agricultural training” focuses on theacquisition of competencies for application in the labor mar-ket. It is provided by either formal or nonformal institutions,

is generally short-term in nature, and does not normally leadto a formal qualification.

8 Shown on the first page of the bibliography.9 Nonfarm skills training was covered in earlier research by

Johanson and Adams on Skills Development in Sub-SaharanAfrica, World Bank, 2004.

CHAPTER 210 IFPRI 2007; Commission for Africa Report: 229; FAO 2000;

Vandenbosch: 12–13; ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market:2003; ILO, World Employment Report 2004–2005: 133.

11 In 2005, the World Food Program fed 43 million Africans,double the number that it assisted in 1995 (ASARECA2007). The number of chronically undernourished in Africais projected to rise from 180 million in 2004 to 300 millionin 2010 (FAO 2004). Global warming may accelerate thistrend.

12 Technology, human capital and institutional innovationstend to be complementary inputs in production, but it isimpossible to separate their relative influences with muchaccuracy. (Bonnen 1998: 272–274.)

13 Some universities in Africa have a large stock of agriculturalscientists with MSc and PhD degrees. For example, in 1995,there were 550 African scientists with a PhD in agricultureemployed by universities, more than the 360 in the govern-ment agricultural research agencies in Eastern and SouthernAfrica (Myrema 1997 in Eicher 2006:3 and in InterAcademyCouncil 2004:173)

CHAPTER 314 Declining donor support for AET mirrored broader negative

trends in development assistance for technical and vocationaleducation and training (TVET) in general. The causes areidentified as (1) a strong critique of publicly provided TVETcontained in the World Bank’s 1991 policy paper on this topic;(2) the growing concentration of donor and government ef-fort on the universal provision of basic education; (3) the highpriority placed on poverty reduction contained in theMillennium Development Goals; and (4) rising awareness ofthe importance of the informal economic sector for employ-ment in Africa and consequent shifts in skills developmentassistance towards nonformal training in business and finan-cial management. In the case of the World Bank, total financ-ing for TVET in Africa dropped by 40 percent during the1980s and 1990s. As a share of the Bank’s lending portfolio foreducation in Africa, investments in TVET plummeted from22 percent in the 1970s to just 5 percent in the 1990s (Johansonand Adams 2004: 19–25).

Notes

ch_notes_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:07 PM Page 89

15 A contributing factor may also be found in the organiza-tional structures of donor agencies (including the WorldBank), which tend to parallel the ministerial sectors of thegovernments with which they work. Agricultural educationis a multisectoral issue that does not fall neatly into either theeducation or the agricultural sector. Thus, it rarely findsstrong advocates within the ministerial cabinets of govern-ment or development assistance organizations. Instead, ittends to “fall through the cracks” between the mainlinesector programs.

16 In an earlier study, Fan and Saurkar (2006) show that be-tween 1980 and 2002 agriculture’s share of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa fell from 18.8 to 16.7 percent and agriculture’sshare of total government spending declined from 6.4 per-cent to 4.5 percent.

17 However, 70 percent of agricultural researchers held postgrad-uate degrees, a substantial increase from 43 percent in 1971.

18 Some observers have suggested that the sudden rise in de-velopment assistance was a temporary response to the eventsof September 11, 2001 and subsequent arguments that terror-ism is spawned by underdevelopment.

19 The members are the Carnegie, Ford, Hewlett, Kresge,MacArthur, Mellon, and Rockefeller Foundations (www.foundation-partnership.org). Some of this assistance benefitsfaculties of agriculture.

CHAPTER 420 Data from UNESCO Institute of Statistics, obtained from

EdStats (World Bank). Data for only 12 African countrieswere reported.

21 These classifications correspond to the ISCED levels used bythe UNESCO Institute of Statistics: Level 4 straddles theboundary between upper secondary and post-secondary; inthis table it is limited to technical or vocational programs of 6months to 2 years duration. Level 5 represents the first stageof tertiary education; 5A is preparation for advanced degreewith a minimum of 3 years of study and in this table only sci-ence, technology and engineering (STE) enrollments are used;5B is practically oriented and occupationally specific withtwo or three years’ duration. Level 6 leads to an advanced re-search qualification (i.e., a master’s or doctoral degree).

22 On this scale, African countries accounted for 9 out of the 10bottom-ranked economies, and 19 out of the last 26. SouthAfrica was the highest ranked economy on the continent at48th place (World Economic Forum 2006).

23 The reason may be the earlier establishment of graduateprograms in the four competitive countries.

24 Geographically, PhD programs were established earlier inEastern and Southern Africa than in West Africa. More thantwo-thirds of the 37 PhD programs in West Africa werestarted in or after the 1990s. In contrast, three-fourths of the26 PhD programs in Southern Africa and 62 percent of the 12PhD programs in East Africa were established before the1990s (Beintema, personal communication, 2007).

25 This pattern also contrasts with ratios in the broader setof technical education of which AET is a part. Based on 16Sub-Saharan Africa countries, technical upper secondaryaccounted for 29 percent of total enrollments at that level,11 percent at postsecondary nondegree level, and 17 percentat degree level. UNESCO Institute for Statistics and WorldBank EdStats.

26 Farm plots run by women have been found to have 20 to40 percent lower yields than those run by men, but whenwomen receive the same levels of education, experience, andfarm inputs as men, they can increase yields of some crops by22 percent (Rosegrant et al. 2005).

27 However, enrollments in BSc forestry increased as studentspursued the more prestigious university degrees (Temu 2005:9).

28 National Council for Tertiary Education. Statistical Digest ofPolytechnics. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Education andSports—various years.

29 In Ghana, a draft AET policy prepared by the Ministry ofAgriculture is awaiting discussion and ratification by theMinistries of Agriculture and Education (Kwarteng 2006).

30 The region’s only two master’s degree programs in agricul-tural education are located at the University of Swazilandand at Egerton University in Kenya.

31 Students get few practical skills despite the specialization.Most of the basic agriculture schools have no equipment andfacilities to provide practical teaching.

32 The number of higher education research units increased inmany countries, but their individual capacity remainedsmall. More than 40 percent of the 86 agricultural higher edu-cation research units in Nigeria and Sudan employed fewerthan five full-time equivalent researchers in 2000 (Beintemaand Stads 2004).

33 The situation in agriculture seems to closely parallel highvacancy rates experienced in science and technology. Forexample, the College of Science at KNUST, Ghana, has a63 percent staff post vacancy rate with only 99 out of 268posts filled. Likewise, the vacancy rate for science techniciansin the College is 55 percent (Menyeh: 2005).

CHAPTER 534 This section distills the findings in the commissioned study

by Carl Eicher, 2006, “The Evolution of AgriculturalEducation and Training: Global Insights of Relevance forAfrica,” unpublished document, The World Bank. The docu-ment reviews the development of AET capacity in four in-dustrial and four developing countries outside Africa.Available at www.worldbank.org/afr/teia.

CHAPTER 635 In 2001, the Institute of Development Studies of the

University of Sussex conducted tracer studies of 2,500 uni-versity graduates from 1980, 1987, 1994, and 1999 in Malawi,Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. It found that unemploy-ment rates among graduates were quite low and that mostgraduates were generally employed in their field of univer-sity studies. Agriculture was the main exception where be-tween 25 and 50 percent of graduates reported that they wereemployed in non-agricultural jobs. This disconnect betweentraining and employment was reportedly due to the limitednumber of attractive jobs in the agricultural sector, wherepublic agricultural officers are frequently posted to remoterural areas (Al-Samarrai and Bennell 2003).

36 Angola, Botswana, Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique,Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda.

37 John Lynam, personal communication, April 2007.38 Virtually identical recommendations emerged from a 2003

tracer study conducted by the University of Dar es Salaam(Mkude and Ishumi 2004: 316).

39 TEEAL web site: www.teeal.org; AGORA website: www.aginternetwork.org; OARE web site: www.oaresciences.org.

40 Studies available at www.suanet.ac.tz.41 Currently under consideration at Makerere University.42 An emerging exception is Mozambique. In 2002 the Ministry

of Agriculture undertook a national diagnosis of genderinequities in agriculture. This in turn produced variousproposals for ways in which rural research, extension and



Notes 91

education activities might empower women. In 2005 aNational Research Fund was established by the Ministry ofScience and Technology to stimulate applied research. One ofits criteria for proposal evaluation is the potential benefit forrural women.

43 This program offers two years of mentoring by a senior sci-entist, training in team management and leadership skills,funds for presentation of research at a major scientificconference, and linkages to global networks of women sci-entists: www.genderdiversity.cgiar.org/resource/women_fellowships.asp.

44 www.fas.usda.gov/icd/borlaug/westafrica.htm.

CHAPTER 745 In which the candidate does coursework abroad for about

one year, but returns home to do thesis research.

CHAPTER 846 Action on AET cannot be considered in isolation from the

wider context of the education and training system as awhole, or in isolation from developments within the nationalagricultural innovation system.

ANNEX 247 Also termed "post-primary" agricultural education and train-

ing, or various forms of education and training available toprimary education graduates, including vocational educa-tion, technical training, and general secondary education.(Vandenbosch: 10)


93

Africa Region Human Development Department. 2006.Nigeria: A Review of Science and Technology in Post-BasicEducation in Federally Funded Institutions. Washington,D.C.: The World Bank.

African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and NaturalResources Education. 2006. “Agroforestry Training at thePostgraduate Level in Sub-Saharan Africa: Solutions toChallenges in Curriculum Delivery.” Nairobi, Kenya:ANAFE.

Ajayi, J. F. ade, L.K.H. Goma and G. A. Johnson. 1996. TheAfrican Experience with Higher Education. Association ofAfrican Universities. London: James Currey.

Akroyd, Stephan and Lawrence Smith. 2007. Review of PublicSpending to Agriculture. A Joint DFID/World Bank Study.Oxford, UK: Oxford Policy Management.

Alex, Gary, Willem Zipj, and Derek Byerlee. 2002. RuralExtension and Advisory Services: New Directions. RuralStrategy Background Paper No. 9. Rural DevelopmentFamily. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Al-Samarrai, Samer and Paul Bennell. 2003. Where has all theeducation gone in Africa? Employment Outcomes AmongSecondary School and University Leavers. Brighton, UK:Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Atchoarena, David, and Lavinia Gasperini, eds. 2003.Education for Rural Development: Towards New PolicyResponses. A joint study conducted by FAO and UNESCO.Rome: FAO.

Basant, Rakesh and Pankaj Chandra. 2006. “Linking TechnicalEducation to Business Growth: A Case Study on BuildingTechnical Skills in India.” Processed. Ahmedabad: IndianInstitute of Management.

Beintema, Nienke. 2007. Personal communication.Beintema, Nienke and Gert-Jan Stads. 2004. Investing in Sub-

Saharan African Agricultural Research: Recent Trends. 2020Africa Conference Brief No. 8, Washington, D.C.: Inter-national Food Policy Research Institute.

Beintema, Nienke, Philip G. Pardey, and Johannes Roseboom.1998. “Educating Agricultural Researchers: A review of theRole of African Universities.” EPTD Discussion Paper No.36. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Beintema, Nienke M., Aggrey R.E. Mwenda, and Alfred P.Mtukuso. November 2004. “Malawi.” Agricultural Scienceand Technology Indicators (ASTI) Country Brief No. 22.Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Bekunda, M., P. Okori, and S. Kyamanywa. 2007. “PromotingRelevance of University Training and Research Activities:The Case of National Forum Uganda.” Paper presented atthe biennial conference of the Regional Universities Forumfor Capacity Building in Agriculture, Mangochi, Malawi,April 22–28.

Birner, R. and D. Spielman. 2007. “A Benchmarking Tool forAgricultural Innovation Systems.” Presentation at the

World Bank Workshop Enhancing Agricultural InnovationSystems, Washington, D.C., March 22–23, 2007.

Blackie, Malcom and Paul Woomer. 2005. “Challenges andOpportunities of the Regional Universities Forum forCapacity Building in Agriculture in Kenya, Malawi,Mozambique, Uganda and Zimbabwe.” Consultants’ reportto RUFORUM. Kampala, Uganda.

Bloom, David, David Canning, and Kevin Chan. 2006. HigherEducation and Economic Development in Africa. Africa RegionHuman Development Series No. 102. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Bonnen, James. T. 1998. “Agricultural Development:Transforming Human Capital, Technology andInstitutions.” In International Agricultural Development. JohnM. Staatz and Carl K. Eicher (eds). Baltimore: Johns HopkinsPress. 271–286.

Byerlee, Derek and Gary E. Alex. 1998. Strengthening NationalAgricultural Research Systems: Policy Issues and Good Practice.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Carnoy, Martin. 2006. “Higher Education and EconomicDevelopment: India, China and the 21st Century.” Paperpresented at the Pan Asia Conference: Focus on EconomicChallenges, May 31–June 3. Palo Alto: Stanford UniversityCenter for International Development.

Chilonda, Pius and Minde, Isaac. 2007. “Agricultural GrowthTrends in Southern Africa.” Policy Brief No. 1. May.Pretoria, South Africa: International Water ManagementInstitute.

Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor. 2003. The Innovator’sSolution. Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth.Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

Christiansen, Luc., Lionel Demery, and Jasper Kohli. 2006.“The Role of Agriculture in Poverty Reduction: AnEmpirical Perspective.” Policy Research Working Paper No.WPS 4013. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Commission for Africa. 2005. Our Common Interest. Report ofthe Commission for Africa. London, UK: DFID.

CORAF (West and Central African Council for AgriculturalResearch and Development). 1999. Strengthening ResearchExtension Farmers’ Organization Linkages in West and CentralAfrica. Dakar: CORAF.

Court, David, with James Coleman. 1993. The Development ofUniversities in the Third World: The Rockefeller FoundationExperience. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Darvas, Peter. 2007. “Tertiary Education in Sub-SaharanAfrica: An Overview.” Processed draft. Washington, D.C.:World Bank, Africa Region Human DevelopmentDepartment.

Davis, Kristin, Javier Ekboir, Wondimsiamregn Mekasha,Cosmas M. O. Ochieng, David J. Spielman, and Elias Zerfu.2007. Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training inSub-Saharan Africa from an Innovation Systems Perspective:

References

Refs_FS.qxd 12/12/07 4:09 PM Page 93

Case Studies of Ethiopia and Mozambique. Research commis-sioned by the World Bank. Washington, D. C. InternationalFood Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

DFID (Department for International Development). 2005.Growth and Poverty Reduction: The Role of Agriculture. ADFID policy paper. London: DFID.

Dione, Josue. 1997. “Human Capital Investment forAgricultural Competitiveness in West Africa” In G.H.Peters and D.D. Hedley, eds., Agricultural Competitiveness:Market Forces and Policy Choice. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference of AgriculturalEconomists, Harare, Zimbabwe, 22–29 August 1994.Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth, pp. 605–618.

Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete(eds.). 1988. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London:Pinter.

Edquist, C. (ed.). 1997. Systems of Innovation Approaches:Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.

Eicher, Carl K. 2006. The Evolution of Agricultural Education andTraining: Global Insights of Relevance for Africa.” Unpublishedpaper commissioned by the World Bank, AFTHD.

Eicher, Carl K. 1999. “Institutions and the African Farmer.”CGIAR. Issues in Agriculture, 14.

Eicher, Carl K. and John M. Staatz, (eds.). 1998. InternationalAgricultural Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

El-Khawas, M.A. 2004. “Brain Drain: Putting Africa Between aRock and a Hard Place.” Mediterranean Quarterly. Fall 2004,pp. 37–56.

Evenson, Robert E. 2004. “Private and Public Values of HigherEducation in Developing Countries: Guidelines forInvestment.” Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 2:1,pp. 151–176.

Fagerberg, J. 2005. “Innovation: A Guide to the Literature.”In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (eds.), TheOxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford/New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Fan, S., and N. Rao. 2003. “Public Spending in DevelopingCountries: Trends, Determination, and Impact.”Environment, Production and Technology Division,Discussion Paper 99. Washington, D.C.: International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Fan, S. and A. Saurkar. 2006. “Public Spending in DevelopingCountries: Trends, Determination and Impact.” Processed.Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute.

FAO. 2000. “Agricultural Production and Productivity inDeveloping Countries.” The State of Food and Agriculture2000 (SAFA). http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4400e/x4400e12.htm. Retrieved in 2002.

FAO/World Bank. 2000. “Agricultural Knowledge andInformation Systems for Rural Development: StrategicVision and guiding Principles.” FAO, Rome; World Bank,Washington, D.C.

FAO. 1995. Women, Agriculture and Rural Development: Findingsof a FAO Study in Africa. Rome: United Nations Food andAgricultural Organization.

FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa). 2006.Framework for African Agricultural Productivity. Accra,Ghana: FARA.

FARA/NEPAD. 2006. “Framework for African AgriculturalProductivity (FAAP)”. FARA Secretariat, Accra, Ghana.

Fauliau, C. 2004. “Rural training—A Key to the MillenniumGoals.” Agriculture and Rural Development, 11:2, pp. 54–56.

Fine, Jeffrey C. 2007. “Regional Mechanisms for SupportingResearch and Development in Developing Countries.”Paper presented at the Global Forum: Building Science,Technology and Innovation Capacity for Sustainable

Development and Poverty Reduction. February 13–15, 2007.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Fine, Jeffrey C. 1997. “An African-based Doctoral Programmein Economics: Summary Report.” Nairobi: AfricanEconomic Research Consortium.

Fontem, Dominic A. 2006. “Post Secondary AgriculturalEducation and Training in Cameroon: Country Study.”Unpublished paper commissioned by the World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Francis, Judith. 2006. “Empowering Women in Science,Technology and Innovation for Agricultural and RuralDevelopment in Africa.” In Geofrey Tusiime and GilbertMwanjololo (eds.), Enhancing Women’s Role andParticipation in Science for Food and Nutritional Security inAfrica. RUForum Working Document No. 1. Kampala,Uganda: Regional Universities Forum for CapacityBuilding in Agriculture, pp. 1–8.

Freeman, C. 1988. “Japan: A New National system ofInnovation.” In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G.Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change andEconomic Theory. London: Pinter.

Freeman, C. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance:Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

Freeman, C. and L. Soete. 1997. The Economics of IndustrialInnovation (3rd edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gallagher, K. D. 2000. “Community Study Programmes forIntegrated Production and Pest Management: Farmer FieldSchools.” Human Resources in Agricultural and RuralDevelopment. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization.

Gemo, Helder. 2006. “Agricultural Education in Mozambique:Brief Description of Its Evolution and Present Challenges.”Unpublished paper commissioned by the World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Givá, Nícia. 2006. “Demand Profiles and Supply Responses forAgricultural Education and Training at the Post-PrimaryEducation Level in Mozambique.” Paper prepared for theFarmers of the Future, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF),Nairobi, Kenya.

Harawa, Rebbie. 2006. “A Field Study on the Post SecondaryAgricultural Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa:Malawi Country Study.” Unpublished paper commissionedby the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Haug, R. 1999. “Some Leading Issues in AgriculturalExtension, A Literature Review. The Journal of AgriculturalEducation and Extension, 5(4): 263–274.

Idabacha, F. S. 2003. “Creating the New African University.”Paper prepared for the international seminar series onSustainability, Education and the Management ofChange in the Tropics (SEMCIT). Retrieved fromwww.changetropics.org on June 6, 2006.

Idachaba, Francis S. 1997. “Human Capital and AfricanAgricultural Development. In G.H. Peters and D.D.Hedley, eds. Agricultural Competitiveness: Market Forcesand Policy Choice. Proceedings of the Twenty-SecondInternational Conference of Agricultural Economists,Harare, Zimbabwe, 22–29 August 1994. Aldershot, UK:Dartmouth, 540–553.

InterAcademy Council. 2004. Realizing the Promise and Potentialof African Agriculture. Amsterdam: Royal NetherlandsAcademy of Arts and Sciences.

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2007. “EconomicImpact of African Agriculture.” http://www.africangreen-revolution.com/en/african_agriculture/impact/economic_impact/index.html. Retrieved on February 18, 2007.

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2006. Seminar onCapacity Building for Agricultural Development. October25. Washington, D.C.



References 95

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2004. Agricul-tural Science and Technology Indicators. Washington, D.C.:IFPRI.

ILO. 2005. World Employment Report 2004–2005. Geneva.ILO. 2003. Key Indicators of the Labour Market. Geneva.Johanson, Richard K. and Arvil V. Adams. 2004. Skills for

Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Regionaland Sector Studies. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Juma, Calestous (ed.). 2005. Going for Growth: Science, Technologyand Innovation in Africa. London: The Smith Institute.

Kibwika, P. and J. Hagmann. 2007. “Moving from Teaching toLearning in Universities: Implications for Competence andManagement.” Paper presented at the biennial conferenceof the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building inAgriculture, Mangochi, Malawi, April 22–28.

Kroma, M. 2003. Reshaping Extension Education Curricula for21st century Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of theAssociation of International Agricultural and ExtensionEducation, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, April 8–12.

Kwarteng. J. A. 2006. “Post Secondary Agricultural Educationand Training in Sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana Country StudyReport.” Unpublished paper commissioned by the WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

Langrock, Ines. 2006. “Typology of Agricultural Knowledgeand Innovation Systems (AKIS) in Sub-Saharan Africa.”Study commissioned by Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Department, World Bank. Department ofApplied Economics, University of Minnesota.

Lele, Uma and Arthur A. Goldsmith. 1989. “Development ofNational Agricultural Research Capability: India’sExperience with the Rockefeller Foundation and itsSignificance for India.” Economic Development and CulturalChange. 37: 305–344.

Lundvall, B. 1999. “Technology Policy in the LearningEconomy.” In D. Archibugi, J. Howells and J. Michie (eds.),Innovation Policy in a Global Economy. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Lundvall, B. 1988. “Innovation as an Interactive Process: FromUser-Supplier Interaction to the National System ofInnovation.” In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G.Silverberg, and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change andEconomic Theory. London: Pinter.

Lundvall, B. 1985. Product Innovation and User-ProducerInteraction. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Maguire, Charles. J. 2000. “Agricultural Education in Africa:Managing Change.” Paper prepared for Workshop 2000,Sasakawa African Association, Accra and Cape Coast,Ghana.

Makelele, Kilyobo. 2006. “Système d’Éducation et deFormation Post-Sécondaire en Agriculture au Rwanda.”Unpublished paper commissioned by the World Bank,Washington, D.C.

McCalla, Alex F. 1998. “Agriculture and Food Needs to 2025,”In John M. Staatz and Carl K. Eicher (eds.). InternationalAgricultural Development pp. 39–54. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Press.

Mellor, John W. 1995. “Agriculture on the Road toIndustrialization.” Food Policy Statement No. 22.Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Institute.

Menyeh, Aboagye. 2005. “Four Decades of Human ResourceDevelopment in Basic and Applied Sciences at the KwameNkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana”.Paper presented a the First African Conference of Vice-Chancellors, Provosts and Deans of Science, Engineeringand Technology held in Accra, Ghana on November 15–17,2005. Nairobi: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science.

Merkorios, Alemayehu Gebrehiwot. 2006. “Report on DemandProfiles and Supply Responses for Agricultural Educationand Training at the Post-Primary Education Level inEthiopia.” Unpublished paper prepared for the WorldAgroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

Ministry of Education, Kenya. 2006. Report of the PublicUniversities Inspection Board. Nairobi.

Mkude, Daniel and Abel G. Ishumi, eds. 2004. Tracer Studies ina Quest for Academic Improvement: The Process and Results of aUniversity-Wide Tracer Study Project Conducted in 2002–2003.Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es Salaam University Press.

Mpepereki, S. 2007. “Engaging Universities in Research forDevelopment: University of Zimbabwe Soybean OutreachProgramme.” Paper presented at the biennial conference ofthe Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Developmentin Agriculture, Mangochi, Malawi, April 23–27.

Mremaa, G. C. 1997. “Agriculture Research Systems in theECA Sub-Region.” In Development of a Long Term StrategicPlan for Agricultural Research in the Eastern and CentralAfrican Region. Association for Strengthening AgriculturalResearch in Eastern and Central Africa (ASAREC).Kampala, Uganda.

Muir-Leresche, Kay. 2006a. Improving Approaches for EffectiveTeaching and Learning: Tertiary Agricultural Education. AnANAFE publication. Nairobi, Kenya: World AgroforestryCentre.

Muir-Leresche, Kay. 2006b. “Challenges for Women inChanging African Universities.” In Geofrey Tusiime andGilbert Mwanjololo (eds.), Enhancing Women’s Role andParticipation in Science for Food and Nutritional Security inAfrica. RUForum Working Document No. 1. Kampala,Uganda: Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Buildingin Agriculture, pp. 57–64.

Muir-Leresche, Kay. 2003. “Transforming African Agri-cultural Universities and Faculties: Examples of GoodPractice.” Paper prepared for the international seminarseries on Sustainability, Education and the Management ofChange in the Tropics (SEMCIT). Retrieved fromwww.changetropics.org on June 6, 2006.

National Council for Tertiary Education, Ministry of Educationand Sports. Statistical Digest of Polytechnics, Accra, Ghana.

Ndejuru, Emile and Callixte Gatali. 2006. “Demand Profilesand Supply Responses for Agricultural Education andTraining at the Post Primary Education Level in Rwanda.”Paper prepared for the Farmers of the Future of the WorldAgroforestry Centre (ICRAF.)

Nelson, R. 1988. “National Systems of Innovation: InstitutionsSupporting Technical Change in the United States.” In G.Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete(eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.

Nelson, R. and N. Rosenberg. 1993. “Technical Innovation andNational Systems.” In Nelson, R. (ed.), National InnovationSystems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

NEPAD. (New Partnership for Africa’s Development).November 2006. Comprehensive Africa AgricultureDevelopment Programme. Addis Ababa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). June2006. “Framework for African Agricultural Productivity.”Accra, Ghana: FARA.

NEPAD (New Partnership for African Development). 2002.Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme.Addis Ababa: NEPAD.

New Partnership for African Development. 2006. Biotechnologyin Africa’s Development. Draft report of the high levelAfrican panel on modern biotechnology. July 11. AddisAbaba: African Union.


Ngesa, Frederick. 2006. “Kenya: Case Study.” Unpublishedpaper prepared for the World Agroforestry Centre.

Ng’ethe, Njuguna and Charles Ngome. 2007. “University-Industry Linkages in Kenya: With Special Reference to theJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology(JKUAT).” Processed. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Noragric. 2006. “Sustainability, Education and Management ofChange in the Tropics (SEMCIT). Final Seminar Report.Oslo, Norway.

Obua, Joseph. 2006. “Post-Secondary Agricultural Educationand Training: Uganda Country Report.” Unpublished studyfor the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Obwona, Marios. and David Norman. 2001. Status ofAgricultural Economics in Selected Countries ofEastern/Southern Africa. Prepared for the International FoodPolicy Research Institute with support from the RockefellerFoundation. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

OECD. 2006a. Creditor Reporting System Aid ActivityDatabase. Paris. Retrieved from www.oecd.org inNovember 2006.

OECD. 2006b. Education in Ireland: 1960–2000. Reviews ofNational Policies for Education. Paris: Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. 1999. Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris:Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Ogoudedji, Georges. 2006. “Benin Case Study on DemandProfiles and Supply Responses for Agricultural Educationand Training at the Post-primary Education Level in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Paper prepared for the Farmers of theFuture of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF.)

Orden, David, Maximo Torero, and Ashok Gulati. 2004.“Agricultural Markets and the Rural Poor.” PovertyReduction Network. (POVNET).

Pardey, Phillip G. and Julain M. Alston and Roley R. Piggot.2006. Agricultural Research and Development in the DevelopingWorld: Too Little, Too Late? Washington, D.C.: FFPRI.

Pardey, Phillip G. Nienke Beintema, Steven Delmer andStanley Wood. 2006. Agricultural Research: A Growing GlobalDivide? Agricultural Science and Technology IndicatorsInitiative. Washington, D.C.: International Food PolicyResearch Institute.

Powell, W. W. and S. Grodal. 2005. “Networks of Innovators.”In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, and R. R. Nelson (eds.), TheOxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford/New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Reis, S. M. and J. S. Renzulli. 2003. “Developing High Potentialsfor Innovation in Young People through the SchoolwideEnrichment Model.” In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The InternationalHandbook on Innovation. London, U.K.: Pergamon.

Renzulli, J. S. 2003. “The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness:Its Implications for Understanding the Nature ofInnovation.” In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The InternationalHandbook on Innovation. London, UK: Pergamon.

Republic of Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, StatisticalAbstracts, various issues.

Riley, P. J. 1995. “Gender Issues and the Training ofAgricultural Extensionists in Malawi.” In Agriculture andHuman Values. 12 (1), 31–38.

Rivera, William. 2006. Transforming Post-Secondary AgriculturalEducation and Training by Design: Solutions for Sub-SaharanAfrica. Unpublished paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Rockefeller Foundation. 2006. Africa’s Turn: A New GreenRevolution for the 21st Century. New York: The RockefellerFoundation.

Roseboom, Johannes. 2004. “Case Study of the Financing ofAgricultural Research in Brazil. Washington, D.C., WorldBank.

Rosegrant, M. W., M. S. Paisner, S. Meijer, and J. Witcover.2001. Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends andAlternative Futures. Washington, D.C.: International FoodPolicy Research Institute.

Rosegrant, M., S. A. Cline, W. Li, T. Sulser, and R Valmonte-Santos. 2005. “Facing Alternative Futures: Prospects for andPaths to Food Security in Africa.” 2020 Africa ConferenceBrief 17. Washington, D.C.: International Food PolicyResearch Institute.

Rowat, R. 1980. “Personnel qualifié et développementagricole et rural,” in Étude FAO: Développement économiqueet social, No. 10. Rome: U.N. Food and AgricultureOrganization.

Ruttan, Vernon. 1991. Statement at a “Seminar on Strategiesfor the Future of Africa. African Development: Lessonsfrom Asia.” (p. 195) Sponsored by the Africa Bureau,USAID, and Winrock International, Arlington, VA.

Rycroft, R. W. and D. E. Kash. 1999. The Complexity Challenge:Technological Innovation for the 21st Century. New York:Cassell.

Rygnestad, Hild, William Saint and Eija Pehu. 2006.“Agricultural Education and Training in Sub-SaharanAfrica FY86–06. Unpublished paper for the World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Sanders, John H., Richard L. Meyer, Roger W. Fox andFernando C. Peres. 1989. “Agricultural UniversityInstitution Building in Brazil: Successes, Problems, andLessons for Other Countries.” American Journal ofAgricultural Economics. 71 (5): 1206–1210.

Schein, E. H. 1984. “Coming to a New Awareness ofOrganizational Culture. Sloan Management Review, 25,pp. 3–16.

Schuh, G. Edward. 2006. “Notes on the Development ofInstitutions of Higher Education for Agriculture in Brazil.”Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Schuh, G. Edward. 1997. “Agriculture as an Engine ofEconomic Development.” In Bonte-Friedheim, C., andKathleen Sheridan (Eds). The Globalization of Science: ThePlace of Agricultural Research, pp. 175–180. The Hague:International Service for National Agricultural Research.

Sibuga, K. P. 2007. “Possible Strategies to Promote GraduateLevel Training and Recruitment of Women in NARS andOther Organizations: The Case of Tanzania.” Paper pre-sented at the biennial conference of the RegionalUniversities Forum for Capacity Development inAgriculture, Mangochi, Malawi, April 23–27.

Sokoine University. 2005. “Job Market Survey, TrainingNeeds Assessment and Tracer Studies for SokoineUniversity of Agriculture Graduates.” Final consultant re-ports of K-Rep Advisory Services Limited, DevelopmentAssociates Ltd., and Afrozone. Morogoro, Tanzania:Sokoine University.

Spielman, David J., Kristin Davis, Javier Ekboir,Wondimsiamregn Mekasha and Elias Zerfu. “The Role ofAgricultural Education and Training in StrengtheningAgricultural Innovation Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa:Case Studies of Ethiopia and Mozambique.” Draft Papercommissioned by the World Bank. Washington, D. C.:International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Stads, Gert-Jan and Nienke M. Beintema. 2006. “WomenScientists in Sub-Saharan African Agricultural R & D.”Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute.

Stads, G. J. and L. Sène. 2004. “Agricultural Science andTechnology Indicators: Senegal.” ASTI Country Brief No.26. Washington, DC: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute.



References 97

Stads, G.J. , M. H. Kabeley and M. Gandah. 2004. AgriculturalScience and Technology Indicators: Niger. ASTI Country BriefNo. 24. Washington, D.C.: International Food PolicyResearch Institute.

Staatz, John. M. and Carl Eicher. 1998. “AgriculturalDevelopment Ideas in Historical Perspective.” In Carl K.Eicher and John M. Staatz (eds.), International AgriculturalDevelopment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Swanson, Burton E., 1986. “The Contribution of U.S.Universities to Training Foreign Agricultural Scientists.” InLawrence Busch and William B. Lacy (eds.) The AgriculturalScientific Enterprise: A System in Transition. Boulder:Westview Press. pp. 229–238.

Tadesse, Mulugeta. 2006. “A landscape of knowledge systemsin Ethiopia—The Case of Public Institutions Involved inRural Development.” Paper submitted to Ethiopia StrategySupport Program Policy Conference, June 6–8 on “Bridging,Balancing, and Scaling Up: Advancing the RuralDevelopment Agenca in Ethiopia.” IFPRI and EthiopiaDevelopment Research Institute.

Tadesse, Mulugeta. 2003. “IFPRI’s Ethiopian Strategy SupportProgram” and “Food Security Program Strategy Document,”Sage Journals Online, Vol. 1, November 2003. Sage JournalsOnline, Vol. 23, No. 2-3 Information Development.

Temu, August B., Per G. Rudebjer, James Kiyiapi, and Pietervan Lierop. 2005. Forestry Education in Sub-Saharan Africaand Southeast Asia: Trends, Myths and Realities. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization.

Temu, August, Inonda Mwanje and Kebadire Mogotsi. 2003.Improving Agricultural and Natural Resources Education inAfrica: A Stitch in Time. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.

Tettey, Wisdom J. 2006. “Staff Retention in African Universities:Elements of a Sustainable Strategy.” Available at www.worldbank.org/afr/teia. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Tongoona, P and M. Mudhara. 2007. “Regional TrainingStrategies for Post-Secondary Agricultural Education inSub-Saharan Africa: When Do They Work and How ShouldThey Be Done.” University of KwaZulu-Natal. Unpublishedpaper commissioned by the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Topouzis, D. 2000. “The impact of HIV on agriculture and ruraldevelopment: implications for training institutions.” HumanResources in Agricultural and Rural Development. Rome: FAO.

Udry, Christopher and John Hoddirott, Harold Alderman andLawrence Haddad. 1995. “Gender Differentials in FarmProductivity: Implications for Household Efficiency andAgricultural Policy. Food Policy. 20 (2): 407–423.

UNESCO. 2006. Yearbook of Education Statistics. Paris: UNESCO.USAID. 2005. AKIS Database.USAID. 2003a. Regional Agriculture Sector Training and Capacity

Building Needs Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Board forInternational Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD).

USAID 2003b. “Mozambique Human Capacity BuildingAssessment: Agriculture Sector.” Washington, D.C.: Board

for International Food and Agricultural Development(BIFAD).

Vandenbosch, Tom. 2006. Post-Primary Agricultural Education andTraining in Sub-Saharan Africa: Adapting Supply to ChangingDemand. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF).

Von Braun, Joachim. 2005. The World Food Situation: AnOverview. Report prepared for the CGIAR Annual GeneralMeeting, December 6, 2005. Washington, D.C.: InternationalFood Policy Research Institute.

Wallace, Ian and Esse Nilsson. 1997. The Role of Tertiary-levelAgricultural Education and Training in Improving theResponsiveness and Performance of Public Sector Services for theRenewable Natural Resources Sector. London, UK: NaturalResources Policy Advisory Department, DFID.

Willett, Anthony. 1998. “Agricultural Education Review:Support for Agricultural Education in the World Bank andby Other Donors: Past and Present Perspectives.” AKISDiscussion Paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Wingert, S. 2002. Agribusiness Education in Mozambique2004–2010: Concept Paper. Maputo, Mozambique: UnitedStates Agency for International Development.

World Bank. 2006a. “Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: Howto Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems.”Washington, D.C.: Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, the World Bank.

World Bank. 2006b. Nigeria: A Review of Public Expenditures forEducation – A Policy Note. Abuja, Nigeria: World Bank(AFTH3).

World Bank 2005a. Kenya Public Expenditure Review 2004.February. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Africa Region,Country Department for Kenya.

World Bank. 2005b. “Meeting the Challenge of Africa’sDevelopment: A World Bank Group Action Plan.” AfricaRegion.

World Bank. 2005c. “Supporting NEPAD’s AfricanAgricultural Productivity Program: A Concept Paper.”

World Bank. 2004a. Agricultural Investment Sourcebook.Agriculture and Rural Development, Washington, D.C.

World Bank. 2004b. “Directions in Development: AgriculturalGrowth and the Poor – the World Bank’s Agenda,” Draft.October.

World Bank, 2003. Reaching the Rural Poor: A Renewed Strategyfor Rural Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. 2002. “From Action to Impact: The AfricaRegion’s Rural Strategy.” Washington, D.C.: RuralDevelopment Operations, the Africa Region.

Yusuf, Shahid and Nabeshima, Kaoru. 2006. How UniversitiesPromote Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Zonon, Abdoulaye. 2006. “Demand Profiles and SupplyResponses for Agricultural Education and Training at thePost-Primary Education Level in Burkina Faso.” May.Washington, D.C.: Unpublished study commissioned byICRAF and the World Bank.


the world bank cultivating knowledge and skills to grow...

Documents