women in agriculture and food security: web viewensuring food security is an important...

Proceedings 06.05.2015 – 10.06.2015

The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more

sustainable food security and nutrition

Proceedings of Online Discussion

Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asiawww.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en

2 The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition

TABLE OF CONTENT

Topic introduction.............................................................................................................................................................4

Contributions received....................................................................................................................................................7

1. Guram Aleksidze CACAARI, the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia...........7

2. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan...............................................................................................8

3. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, ssociation " - ", KyrgyzstanА Кыргыз Эт ................................................10

4. Subhash Mehta, DST, India...........................................................................................................................11

5. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan......................................................................11

6. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada.............................................................................12

7. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ), Kyrgyzstan.....................................................................................................................................................................12



10. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan.................................................................14

11. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada........................................................................14

12. Ырысбек Абдурасулов " - ", KyrgyzstanАссоциация Кыргыз Эт ..........................15

13. Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan.....................................15


15. Rustam Ibragimov, Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Association of Agriculture Research Institutions, Uzbekistan.......................................................................................................................17

16. Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China..........................................................................18


18. Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds under the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, Armenia.........................................................................................19

19. Sherzod Kosimov, ICARDA, Uzbekistan.............................................................................................21

20. Vugar Babayev, Ganja Agribusiness Association, Azerbaijan...................................................21

21. Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan22

22. Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan22

23. Yagub Guliyev, Agrarian Science and Information Advisory Center, Azerbaijan............22


25. Anastasiya Lebedeva, ASC, Spain..........................................................................................................23




26. Muratbek Karabaev, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, CIMMYT, Kazakhstan....................................................................................................................................................................24

27. Jamshid Fayziev, Tajikistan.....................................................................................................................28



30. Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan......................................30

31. Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan.............................32

32. Elena Kan, Uzbekistan...............................................................................................................................32



35. Subhash Mehta, DST, India......................................................................................................................34

36. Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan.......................................35

37. Natalie Ernst, Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Switzerland...............................35


39. Shaibek Karasartov, , ( ), Центр обучения консультации и инновации ЦОКИKyrgyzstan.....................................................................................................................................................................36


41. Mark Holderness, Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Italy...........................................37

42. Eren Taskin, YPARD Turkey, Italy........................................................................................................38

43. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI- , UzbekistanИсполнительный Секретарь .............39

44. Shaibek Karasartov, , ( ), Центр обучения консультации и инновации ЦОКИKyrgyzstan.....................................................................................................................................................................39

45. Hongchun Xue Division of Science & Technology Extension,Northwest A & F University, China.........................................................................................................................................................40

46. Maria Losova, Canada................................................................................................................................40


48. Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan......................................41


50. , , Ирина Церетели министерство сельского хозяйства РА Армения.....43



53. Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China...................................................46

54. Metin Güven, Renta LTD, Тurkey..........................................................................................................50





56. Tatatiana Yusupova, Freelance consultant, Russia.......................................................................50


58. Maria Losova, Canada................................................................................................................................52


60. Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Singapore. .52


62. Alexander Makeev, Eurasian Center for Food Security, Russia...............................................54

63. Hongyan Zhang China Agricultutre University, China.................................................................55

64. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kirgizstan.................................57

65. Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan.....................................................................57



68. Maria Losova, China....................................................................................................................................59


70. Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China...................................................61

71. Hongyan Zhang, China Agricultutre University, China................................................................62

72. Ovezdurdy Dzhumadurdyev, Project Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan..............................62

73. Youguo Tian, National agritech extension and service center, Ministry of Agriculture, China 63

74. Nabira Jumabaeva, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Uzbekistan.......................................64


76. Karin Reinprecht, CGIAR CRP Dryland Systems, Jordan...........................................................66

77. Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kirgizstan.............................................................67

78. Courtney Paisley YPARD, Italy...............................................................................................................68

79. Guljahan Kurbanova, FAO, Russia........................................................................................................68



82. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan.............70

83. Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman, Georgia.............................................................................71

Digest No1 (18.05.2015)..............................................................................................................................................73

Digest No2 (28.05.2015)..............................................................................................................................................76

Closure message (10.06.2015)..................................................................................................................................78

Online Discussion Summary.......................................................................................................................................82




Topic introduction

This online discussion is initiated by the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (CACAARI) in close collaboration with the Northwest Agriculture & Forest University (NAFU) from China and supported by FAO’s Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia (FSN Forum in ECA).

The purpose of this cross-regional online discussion is to offer stakeholders an opportunity to share their experience, knowledge and regional good practices on strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in the Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) countries and China.

The poor linkages among farmers, especially women farmers, the public sector, the private sector, policy makers, and academia are a common problem in the CAC countries and China. Many farmers in the CAC countries and China are encountering difficulties in accessing advanced knowledge and information on agricultural technologies and emerging markets. This deprives them of innovation-based opportunities to improve their productivity, profitability and their livelihoods.

To tackle these problems many countries have established Rural Advisory Service (RAS) Systems, which however, substantially differ from country to country and are still not playing a big enough role in assisting farmers for increasing productivity and profitability. In some countries RAS systems are largely a government domain or are being donor-driven, while in others they include participation of the private sector and non-governmental organizations. Notwithstanding these differences, most countries are facing the common challenge to make the RAS system more efficient and sustainable.

Considering such challenges, CACAARI in 2012 adopted the Regional Strategy for transforming and strengthening agricultural research and innovation systems. The strategy advocates an integrated approach towards more sustainable food and nutrition by strengthening cooperation among various stakeholders of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) such as research institutions, rural advisory services, academia, input providers, farmers, government organizations, in order to facilitate actions for development along agricultural food chains.

AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural research and extension systems by strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector. This is considered an important factor for connecting farmers in CAC countries and China and providing opportunities for better access to markets and income diversification that ultimately will benefit food security and better nutrition.

The main objective of this online-discussion is a wider inclusion of stakeholders into a constructive dialogue for contributing to: a) identifying challenges, opportunities and collective actions towards strengthening AIS; b) identifying roles of various stakeholders; c) gathering insights and views on consistent actions needed to enhance the capacities of existing regional platforms to promote communication and collaborations on agricultural innovations ; (d) promoting regional cooperation (through initiatives such as “One Road One Belt”) for improved policies to enhance market liberalization, environment sustainability, and regional development.



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/28/c_134105435.htm

http://www.cacaari.org/filesarchive/others/cacaari_regional_strategy.pdf

http://cacaari.org/en.php

mailto:http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en

mailto:http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en

http://en.nwsuaf.edu.cn/

http://en.nwsuaf.edu.cn/




This discussion is open to everyone interested in the subject; and we are inviting experts from the governments, civil society organizations, private sector, research and education organizations to take part in a constructive dialogue on opportunities and challenges for AIS contributing to sustainable food security and better nutrition in CAC countries and China.

We would like to propose discussing the following issues:

What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?

What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support farmers in for improving their livelihood?

What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?

What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and rural communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?

The outcomes of the online-discussions will feed into face-to-face consultation on the Roadmap to enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event at the 6 th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GRAS).

We wish to thank you in advance for participating in this discussion. We do believe that your participation and comments will prove to be very valuable and that both you and your organization will benefit from the e-interaction with other experts regionally and globally.

We look forward to an interesting and rich discussion!

Respectfully Yours,

Guram Aleksidze (Georgia)Chairman, CACAARI, Academician

and

co-facilitators:

Dr. Botir Dosov (Uzbekistan)Technical Adviser, CACAARI Innovation Platform Coordinator, CGIAR-ICARDA; Focal point, CAC-FRAS-GFRAS

Prof. Xiangping JIA (China)Professor, Northwest Agriculture & Forest University (NAFU)



http://www.g-fras.org/en/events/gfras-events/annual-meeting-kyrgyzstan-2015

http://www.g-fras.org/en/events/gfras-events/annual-meeting-kyrgyzstan-2015


Contributions received

1. Guram Aleksidze CACAARI, the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia

Dear participants,

As you know, food security can be provided and maintained by creating enabling environment for sustained provision of availability and access to all types of food and nutrition to the entire population in quality and quantity that is required for their healthy life with the greatest possible independence from external sources of food provision.

Ensuring food security is an important socio-economic problem for the countries of Central Asia, South Caucasus and China. Covering a wide range of national, economic, social, demographic and environmental factors, food security policy is implemented by means of development and implementation of comprehensive measures aimed at increasing the production of domestic food products, creating the necessary social, institutional, and industrial infrastructure to provide the population with food.

The particularly important areas are: development of agricultural sector, further development of agricultural innovation systems, introduction and production of advanced scientific developments and new technologies, improvement of productivity and crop yields.

The main common objectives of national food security in the region are:

1. expansion of domestic food production, that enables provisioning of reliable stock of food and raw materials to ensure food security through domestic sources, which is of a particular importance in terms of basic foodstuffs price increase in the world markets;

2. achieving and maintaining availability and access to safe food in quantities and assortments that meet the standards for nutrition required for active and healthy lifestyle;

3. assurance of food quality and safety.Mechanisms to ensure national food security in the countries of the region are subject to the regulatory acts of the countries, which set up terms for operation of national economy sectors and intersectorial economic regulation. They are sustained by the financial resources of the state budget; by the funds, which support various industries and sectors of economy; by the local authorities; commercial banks loans; own funds of organizations and businesses and other private sector actors.

Development strategies in the field of food security in the countries of the region are aimed at:

increase in yield and production of agricultural products; development of transport and communication infrastructure; development of processing of agricultural products; improvement of the monetary and credit system in agriculture; social welfare, and subsidies to the population; improving the insurance and tax system; support and development of food industry, etc.

However, the following questions should be given consideration to:

improving efficiency of mechanism of provision of safe and balanced nutrition to the population;



http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/users/guramaleksidze


increasing the level of solvent demand for food of the individual groups of the population;

smoothing of price distortions in the markets of agricultural products, raw materials and food on the one hand, and input resources on the other hand;

increase in the level of innovation and investment activity in production of agricultural and fishery products, raw materials and food;

enhancement of regulatory and legal framework in regard to GMO in the countries;

paying special attention to reduction of national genetic resources of plants and animals;

capacity building and support to workers involved in agricultural research, education and advisory services;

development of competitive advantages of domestic food products;

further development of regional partnerships in order to create and implement innovative programs aimed at improving the sustainability of food security in the region.

I hope that during this discussion the participants will not only recognize existing problems, but also suggest coordinated actions aimed to enhance the role and contribution of agricultural research systems, education and advisory services, and other stakeholders from agricultural innovation systems to the development and improvement of sustainability of food security in Central Asia, Caucasus and China.

Sincerely yours,

Guram Aleksidze

Chairman of the Coordination Council of CACAARI

the National Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Georgia

2. Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan

National research and educational institutions play an important role in food security research.

Agricultural research institutes, centres and associations, as well as their employees, are considered as a single National System of Agricultural Research. National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) involve scientific research institutes, which in some countries are a part of a structure of Ministries of agriculture; but in other countries they are included in a higher educational institutions structure, which are involved in training of high university degree specialists for work in agriculture, as well as highly-qualified scientific and academic personnel.

While countries of Central Asia and South Caucasus have inherited a system of high quality agricultural research and education of the Soviet period, following independence of the republics links between national systems has significantly weakened. Also, there was an outflow of well-trained scientists, as they migrated to their historic homeland. Similarly, the connection, which provided a possibility for agricultural research to contribute to ensuring food safety, innovation, well being of producers and population, has been lost. In the context of new economic conditions, institutions of national agricultural research systems are underfunded from the state budget. As the analysis of the national agricultural research systems in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus has shown, that the average share of expenditures on agriculture in the gross agricultural output is 0.1%, while the average volume of investments in agricultural research as a




percentage of agricultural GDP in developing countries is 0.58%, compared with 2.4% in developed countries. This indicator reflects to what extent ARD are provided with funds to address their activities to current problems in agriculture.

Therefore national systems of agricultural research have been transformed in order to address new goals of agricultural development and food security challenges. However, functional connections between the systems of agricultural education, research and rural advisory services are still not developed. Another weakness is that there is no mechanism for coordination of national agricultural research separately for each sector of agriculture, food niches and disciplines at regional level. This does not guarantee good planning, monitoring, achievement and division of labor, but also leads to duplication of activities of various organizations at the cost of scarce resources availability.

Agricultural Universities that have qualified teaching staff, direct most of the activity to education, and do not conduct cross-disciplinary research.

Countries of the region provide funding to agricultural research through:

allocation of state budget funds to different trends of agricultural research; the mechanism of attraction of private investments, financial means of institutes of

development, grants of the international organizations; focus of scientific research on priority areas of agrarian and industrial complex according

to social and economic development of the region, and world science trends; modernization of research infrastructure of scientific organizations in order to carry out

scientific research in accordance with international standards.

The further measures of strengthening of Agricultural Innovation Systems at national and regional level could be the following:

development of institute of farming as a basic form of the organization of agricultural production;

introduction of new advanced agro-technologies of cultivation of agricultural crops and modern resource saving and water saving technologies, as well as breeding and seed-growing methods;

securing intensive growth of volumes of production by means of an increase in productivity of agricultural crops and efficiency of animal industries, other than by means of a pressure on natural resources;

further renovation and expansion of agricultural machinery park and improvement of quality of maintenance service;

accomplishment of measures on radical improvement of an ameliorative condition, and increasing efficiency of irrigated lands;

modernization of material-technical base and intellectual potential of research institutes and universities;

development of extension / rural advisory services.

Taking this into account, an increase in investments aimed at improving the existing infrastructure, as well as at the development of infrastructure of agricultural research, education and rural advisory services is an important factor of development of agricultural research.



10

The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition

To achieve this goal, it is important for coordinated actions to be effective and sustainable in influencing socio-economic development of rural regions in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

Dr. Alisher Tashmatov

CACAARI-executive secretary, Uzbekistan

3. Yrysbek Abdurasulov, ssociation " - ", KyrgyzstanА Кыргыз ЭтWhat are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?

Lack of communication between them that is required for collaborative work, lack of a single coordinated structure, lack of joint pilot projects, finance, and therefore other problems, and they are legion.


First of all, special attention should be paid to the formation of a national policy, legislative and regulatory framework and institutional development in the field of agricultural innovation systems (AIS), establishing of a unified information system in the AIS, improvement of soil fertility, energy-saving technology, ensuring water resources, genetic progress of plants and animals (and micro-organisms), provision of training and advisory services to farmers, scientific support, advanced processing systems and technologies, relevant marketing and management of AIS, etc.

What kind of actions is needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?

Establishing of a unified information system, adequate funding, improvement of material and technical base, better contact between countries’ profile research institutes. The most important is to establish a better contact between research institutions and farmers...


All activities of RAS within RAS systems should be based on the results provided by recent agricultural research and educational institutions (universities). The most preferable partnership modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders (i.e. farmers, rural communities, RAS staff, farmers associations) are direct and corporate forms of cooperation. In fact there is no innovation agricultural institutes in Kyrgyzstan. I believe that in other countries of the region their presence is unlikely as well. Major obstacles between innovation institutions and farmers - the main consumers of their products - are organizational, informational, financial and many other problems.



11


4. Subhash Mehta, DST, India

The major challenges faced by AIS in CAC countries and China is the fact that the producer communities in the CAC countries and China are following the high cost high risk mono crop agricultural technologies, thrust on them by their research institutes and Government development programmes. This has deprived them of access to their own requirements of low cost low risk safe, nutritious food, increased debt, poverty, malnutrition, effects of climate change whilst reducing net income/ purchasing.

To tackle these problems these countries require to assist/ facilitate producers to establish their org/ company (PC) but managed by professionals, contract CSO/ NGOs and successful farmers following their agro ecology to assist/ train producer communities with low cost low risk innovative research and development, season after season, to increase farm production and net profit/ purchasing power. The inclusion of and identifying roles of all stakeholders, contributing to the PC’s plan and budget, enhance the human and institutional capacities of the producer communities’ long term sustainability and for improved policies to enhance investments and environment sustainability, thus contributing to food and nutrition security through agro ecology, in CAC countries and China, case study link,www.navajyoti.org .

Attached manual on community producer org FYA

5. Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan

Dear Dr. Tashmatov,

Indeed, the Agriculture in the CAC region faces problems, and some of them are implications and legacy of past decades, while others were caused by the unstable situation of the global economy and of the environment. Concerns about these problems are compounded by countries’ understanding that increasing food prices and over-exploitation of natural resources are primarily a threat to smallholders and vulnerable population groups. It should be mentioned that population growth that will lead to increased food consumption and use of even more natural resources requires a comprehensive approach to solve the problems, as such Academician Aleksidze mentioned in his introduction.

It is critical, that development of an efficient agricultural research and extension systems to address the needs of farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector is considered as an important factor for the reorientation of CAC region smallholder farmers towards markets, their income diversification, contribution sustainable development and adaptation to climate change.

The development of innovation systems in the region is considered as a necessary condition for protection from crisis situations and enhancing agricultural productivity. I agree with you that comprehensive measures towards fostering innovations in the agricultural sector will enhance not only the value-chain, but also significantly improve the investment climate in agriculture.



http://www.navajyoti.org/

12


6. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

My doctoral research about China's ecological agricultural sector really made me think that the Chinese government's claim to support the development of more sustainable agricultural production is superficial. Chinese farmers got stuck in the vicious circle of being dependent on excessive use of chemicals (often accompanies the vigorous promotion of industrialized modern agriculture) to sustain the yield and their livelihood while the ecosystem is increasingly deteriorated. Peasants have been complaining that they have to use more chemicals per hector to sustain the yield. Food produced in this way is cheap, which constrains the livelihood of peasants. This unsustainable agriculture also generates the food safety problem, which is one of the biggest threats for food security in China. It is urgently needed for China to switch from a productivity-oriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system, or at least support the development of sustainable agriculture.

However, transforming into organic, “green” or “hazard-free” productions bares high risk that peasants would not be able to take. The decline of yield in the first few transitional years to organic farming and the high initial inputs prevent peasants from conducting ecological farming approaches. Knowledge about sustainable ways of farming has been lost among peasants. Marketing is another problem in the social environment that remarkably lacks of trust. All these problems make external supports necessary.

These dilemmas make the priority areas for AIS in China clear. More peasants, rather than big agrifood companies which currently received most of the subsidies from local governments, should be supported to take ecological farming approaches. A knowledge sharing network needs to be established to facilitate the dissemination of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Innovative ways of marketing of organic, “green food” or “hazard-free food” should be encouraged and supported. These include what agrifood scholars usually call, “alternative food networks”, or “short food supply chains”, which builds trust between producers and consumers effectively. Yet, the problems of the current food system in China extend far beyond the agricultural sector. There are so much more to do to achieve sustainability.

7. Shaibek Karasartov, Центр обучения, консультации и инновации (ЦОКИ), Kyrgyzstan

Our CAC region has a lot of opportunities for developing and implementing innovative technologies, due to the importance of its agricultural sector in the economy. Large agricultural research and education systems exist and operates in the region, which incorporate science and skilled work forces for agriculture. There is a tendency that Agricultural Universities will be transformed into or will incorporate national agricultural research institutions centres. Having a legacy of big agricultural research systems from the past the CAC countries has tremendous research potential and capacity. However, there is a gap in age distribution among scientist, and therefore improving the capacity of young professionals is very urgent today. And the last, but not least opportunity for integration of innovation in agriculture is the big share of the agricultural population. Thus, the region is open for strengthening the AIS, but it is expected that this demand will be supplied by strengthening of interaction between all actors, where the state should play the biggest role as a trigger of innovation system. I support Dr. Tashamov's view that CAC region



13


experience a notable lack of investments in agricultural research and innovations. However, it would be wrong if we consider the under-sourcing of ARD as the only factor that hinders agricultural innovations. Indeed, low investment in research system affects not only the research quality, but also transferring research outputs to farmers, i.e. production system. Thus, the agricultural innovations systems is suffers from poor linkages between research and productions. Under such circumstances, rural advisory services could play a critical role in bridging those gaps or strengthening the linkages between researchers and producers by transferring knowledge and technologies, and communicating the needs/demand and opportunities/potential supply. In resource-constrained economies, such as in CAC, investments in agricultural research, and extension systems should be identified at breakout points of “supply and demand” and be prioritized according to current and future challenges to ensure the development impacts. And here, the innovation system concept should lay a framework for integrating innovation capacities in the rapidly changing market, technological, social and institutional environments of the agriculture.


Dear Mr Yrysbek Abdurasulov,

Thank you for your constructive suggestions and for highlighting the causes and the consequences of the constraining factors of agricultural innovation processes. In fact poor communication and coordination between members of AIS are due to the lack of a unified coordination structure and the lack of pilot joint projects and funding. I would like to agree with you that national policy-making, establishing of a legislative and regulatory framework and institutional development in the field of agricultural innovation systems (AIS), establishing of a unified information system in AIS are the priorities. I would like to emphasize the value of your point of view that in order to improve agricultural research and extension services it is important to establish a unified information system and to provide it with adequate funding, to improve material and technical base, to establish a better contact between countries’ profile research institutes, as well as between research institutions and farmers. I would like to ask your opinion on how to create a unified information system and what form it should have? Were you talking of a unified system at the national level or at the regional level?


Dear Subhash Mehta,

Thank you for your contribution and sharing with the manual to develop community enterprise system and link to Nava Jyoti PC Community Enterprise System. Do you think that it would be applicable to tackle challenges that Zhenzhong Si mentioned above?

and

Dear Zhenzhong Si,

Do you think that community enterprise system combined with advocacy and dissemination of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” would facilitate switching from a productivity-oriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system



14


at least at community level? Could you give some examples of what Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” could be?


Dear Academician Guram Aleksidze,

I would like to thank you for introduction to the online-discussions and quote from the Regional Strategy for Transforming and Strengthening of Agricultural Research and Innovation Systems for Development in the Central Asia and Southern Caucasus region:

"Transformation of extension systems should be a priority in the short term development of AR4D. Enhanced extension systems will assist farmers in making economic and innovative decisions on improving productivity, introducing new technologies, and enhance resilience to food and economic crises and climate change impacts through improved information management, application of R&Ds." P.18, 2012

11. Zhenzhong Si, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

Dear Dr. Botir Dosov,

Thanks very much for the note! The "community enterprise system" looks very much like the ecological farmers' cooperatives that China has been promoting in the past few years. Unfortunately, the development of farmers' cooperatives has been confronting a lot of challenges in China. It has been very much captured by the elite group as an approach to acquire government fundings while real peasants haven't really benefit much from it. Matthew Hale has documented some of the challenges facing peasant organizations in China in his doctoral thesis: (https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/23389/Hale_washington_0250E_12050.pdf?sequence=1).

I believe more advocacy is necessary. However, it might be difficult to conduct in Chinese political context. Although there are civil society initiatives (such as the New Rural Reconstruction Movement) that are taking the lead in promoting sustainable agriculture in China, their influences and resources are very limited.

Regarding the second question, "green food" and "hazard-free food" are certified food labels in China (in parallel with "organic" certification) for food that is produced in ecological ways. One of the publications of our research team (see attachment) have documented these labels and what they mean (see table 1):http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001061

Right now, ecological agriculture (organic, green and hazard-free foods) still takes up a minimal share of the food production in China but they are expanding rapidly. However, most of this expansion are attributed to the governments' subsidies to big agrifood companies while the majority of producers (small peasants) are excluded from this field. Unfortunately, this is the critical way for the whole food system to be more sustainable.

Regarding the GAP, I think the FAO provides clear and concise standards: http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/

For Chinese producers, some of the most urgent practices are reducing the usage of synthetic fertilizer and pesticides, and taking more sustainable approaches to take care of the soil.



http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001061

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/23389/Hale_washington_0250E_12050.pdf?sequence=1

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/23389/Hale_washington_0250E_12050.pdf?sequence=1

15


Potential approaches are: growing green manures, using organic fertilizer, crop rotation, growing cover crops in winter to reduce soil erosion, etc.

Thanks for organizing this interesting and very relevant discussion. I hope I can contribute more to it.

Best regards

12. Ырысбек Абдурасулов " - ", KyrgyzstanАссоциация Кыргыз Эт

Dear Botir,

You posed a very good question. You’re certainly very much aware of the importance and role of a modern information system (IS) in any sphere of human activities. Its’ role in agriculture, given the complexity of the industry and its dependence on a number of factors (such as weather, which is an act of God), is obviously very big. But unfortunately many people in our countries overlook the importance of IS, therefore we are where we are. Of course, initially information systems should be established at the national level, and only then at the regional level, with further integration into the World Wide Web or network. The hierarchy here, as you know, is very strong. All of these should be done together, jointly. Thank you.

13.Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan

Global distribution and insufficient level of resource endowment of the government innovation processes, education and advisory services, as well as poor linkages with general development processes, farmers, non-commercial non-governmental organisations and the private sector is the main bottleneck, which reduce the value and impact of agricultural innovations on lives and livelihoods of rural population.

Despite the huge potential of agriculture, wide experience in farming, functioning of agricultural system and phased implementation of institutional reforms in the sector, there are a number of problems that do not allow agriculture to fulfill its full potential. These issues relate to various areas of the agricultural sector, such as agriculture and water management; crop production; livestock; forestry; transboundary diseases; impact of climate change, etc.

Problems due to the climate and environmental change exacerbate the loss of valuable genetic stock of crops for use in breeding. Droughts in the region will only increase; early establishment and introduction of drought-resistant crops and moisture-, soil- and resource-saving technologies of their cultivation are crucial.

Due to geographical and climatic conditions of Uzbekistan, it is subject to desertification and bear loss caused by land degradation, impoverishment of biodiversity and biological resources and, as a consequence, social deprivation of population.

Therefore, halting desertification in the region is the task of a strategic importance; alleviation and prevention of this problem will guarantee the sustainable development of the country.

In order to solve these problems it is necessary to strengthen the role of rural advisory services, which provide the main channel for conducting innovation in production, as well as the real



http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/users/fsn-moderator

16


feedback between agricultural producers and research institutions, and practical cooperation between science and production.

Dr Iroda Rustamova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan

14.Botir Dosov, facilitator of the discussion, Uzbekistan

Adapting from the World bank concept, e.g. Andy Hall (“Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: Framework and Principles”) and Willem Janssen (“Towards an Intervention Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity”) I can say that Agricultural innovation system can be defined as the network or include organizations, enterprises, farmers' associations and individuals, involved in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use in agriculture, with the institutional and policy support favorable to sustainability and productivity of the system.

AIS facilitates creating knowledge, access to knowledge, share knowledge, and fostering learning. The innovation systems concept embraces not only the science suppliers, but the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation.

Thus to my view, involving and interactions between AIS actors (individuals and organizations), including producers, processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services, universities, input providers, government bodies, market and other players are required for ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of AIS. As results of those interactions economic/production, social, institutional, market, cultural and other values are produced.

At the same time, I would like to emphasize that it is not necessary that all of those actors and all the time participated in the AIS, but necessarily the ones that can directly or indirectly produce or foster the creation of values.

Taking into account that the knowledge and technology are of great importance in AIS, we discuss the scope, challenges and opportunities of agricultural research systems, RAS and academia. However, knowledge and technologies do exist and do not function by themselves. It is necessary to create them, transfer them, out-scale, specifically, where there is a demand for them.

Finally, I would like to give you a food for thinking, the quote by Steve Jobs: "people don’t know what they want until you show it to them”. In other words, I think that our discussions should not only be formal. Perhaps we need to propose, discuss and agree more practical steps forwards.

I am sure that the problems and their solutions that we are discussing, will be delivered and taken into account in the global meetings of: Global Forum on Agricultural Research and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the Global Forum of rural advisory services, and many other international organizations, as our the region is an integral part of the global community.



17


15.Rustam Ibragimov, Central Asian and Southern Caucasus Association of Agriculture Research Institutions, Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues, stakeholders! Dear friends,

First of all, let me express a word of gratitude to the organizers and facilitators of the e-discussions which is extremely important and provide the background for the new way of exchanging opinions and as a consequence taking appropriate actions based on the results of the discussions for which I feel confident.

Thank you!

Concerning the role of AIS in improving food security and nutrition, it should be pointed out that the relevance of agricultural education and training is high in this context, especially among youth and women farmers. Sustainable productivity growth in agriculture represents a knowledge intensive undertaking, the success of which hinges on the development of the capabilities of the actors primarily involved. Fostering the education and development of the ability of both gender farmers and young people to innovate, to solve new problems as they emerge in a volatile environment, and to engage with other stakeholders ― from researchers and policy makers to retail buyers — is at the heart of agriculture development in the CAC region and China. In many countries of the region agricultural education and training has been neglected. Low levels of general education in the farming population of developing countries can also be an obstacle to adaptation. A broader approach to, and a new emphasis on, agricultural education and training is required for two reasons. First, there is a need to provide farmers and rural small and medium enterprises (SME) with the skills, understanding and innovative capacity that they require to practice sustainable agricultural intensification and market oriented activities. Strengthening individual capabilities is important for all aspects of farm and business management. Furthermore, human capital development, including health, nutrition, education, and skills development, is essential to increase farmers ‘productivity in agriculture, as well as their ability to seize decent non-farm employment opportunities. In many developing countries, access and quality of education in rural areas need to be urgently improved. Rural-urban gaps remain wide in education enrolment and attainment rates basic education is frequently biased against agriculture and, in general, fails to teach young people and women farmers about agriculture in the context of sustainable development or to appreciate how it is linked to the communities’ development aspirations.

Sustainable agricultural intensification and Agricultural Innovation System must be recognized and presented as modern and profitable, so that the aspirations of rural youth ― young men and women — can converge around this. Second, there is a need to train a new generation of agricultural specialists, scientists and service providers who can work with smallholders in new ways to develop the skills needed to make sustainable agricultural intensification work.



18


16.Xiangping Jia, facilitator of the discussion, China

Dear Alisher Tashmatov,

Thanks for elaborating the challenges and potential role of agricultural universities in AIS. I hope to extend bit more on the basis of Alisher’s insights. Agricultural universities have some born advantages in extension (when comparing with other institutions such as agribusiness companies and government-related extension stations). First, infrastructure. The practices of agricultural extension is built on and being guided by comprehensive knowledge. Agricultural universities are better invested in infrastructure of equipment and materials. Second, scientific staffs and researchers. Working on agricultural research of various discipline and teaching on a daily base, university researchers master both fundamental and frontier knowledge of science and technology in agriculture (and related), making it possible to guide extension people to deliver and disseminate of the knowledge in field. Third, institutional stability. Compared with government extension institutions, universities (and academia) are relatively less affected by political and administrative changes, especially in a context where agricultural policies (or more precisely agricultural extension policies) do not evolve and change in a consistent direction (but on a swing that causes segmented interests). In other words, the formation and accumulation of knowledge are relatively better maintained and deposited in universities through established curriculum, trained lectures, and set-up network. Nevertheless, there are generic drawback or constraints for agricultural universities to overcome in playing an active role in AIS and extension. First, incentives. In reality, the number and influence of publications become the rule of thumb in evaluating researchers. The efforts and time engaged in extension are often not recognized, especially when extension work demands massive inputs of time, making the opportunity costs of extension prohibitive for researchers. Unless there are additional benefits (such as direct revenue relating to extension or reputational reward), it is difficult to incentivize university researchers to engage themselves into extension. Second, lack of cross-disciplinary collaboration. When technologies are being applied in field by farmers, different lines of scientific field are being united. In other words, it is an integrated knowledge that is applied in field instead of a simple ‘combination’ of various advice. Unfortunately, most of university researchers are specialized in their own topic and do not have sufficient opportunities to collaborate with others in especially production. Third, insufficient involvement of social & economic scientists. Extension in agricultural universities are often wrongly considered as an application of ‘hard science’. However, in fact, it is an interaction between scientific knowledge and human behavior. As a consequence, the knowledge of rural society, psychology and human behavior, and economics eventually help understand and ensure the innovations of ‘last-mile’.


Dear Mr. Yrysbek Abdurasulov

Thanks for your response point-by-point according to the guideline of the Launching Message. I hope to take the opportunity to facilitate discussions regarding to “Modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders (i.e. farmers, rural communities, RAS staff, farmer associations)”. The modalities or the organizational forms of extension is based on the nature of



19


agricultural information (but being affected also by market structure and political institutions). When extension information are classified into a public good or a private good, the organizational forms of extension are therefore divided into public and private financing (Umali and Schwartz, 1994). When food security and over-exploited resources are a public problem, the technology and information related are therefore of the nature of a public good. The key issue being discussed AT THIS FORUM is that “Who provides extension information of a public good (for sustainable food security)? Will agricultural universities be a candidate? What are the relationship between universities and other stakeholders, such as the government RAS staffs, the private sector and rural communities? In some CAC countries and China, agriculture extension was administered and delivered mainly through the public-sector hierarchies with state authority, suffering from changing attitudes, insufficient support, segmented interest, and thus a low accountability. The role of the private sector has not been fully realized and the negatives are not regulated; sometimes extension staffs in the public sector indirectly engage themselves into the private sector for profit, causing biased interests of the delivery of public extension that is supposed to be a public good. This was the case in China during the late 1990s and 2000s. As a result, the Chinese government revised the law of agricultural extension in 2012 and clearly states that the public sector is legally providing only public services of non-for-profit. While the modalities of agricultural extension can have many forms (Training & Visiting, decentralization, fee-for-services, which were piloted by the World Bank throughout 1970-1990, and farmer-field-school by FAO since 1990s), the ‘modalities’ that we hope to discuss at this FSN forum are innovations through which agricultural universities are interlinked with stakeholders (mainly government and the private sector). The relations of ‘partnership’ is very vague and does not sort out the problem of incentive within the system. To be specific, a few specific questions are raised to moderate further discussion: First, who pays universities for extension? Government, private, or self-finance? Is the funding a missionary donation or a real ‘sub-contract’ with clear obligation? Second, what are the relationship between universities and the public RAS staffs at the local level? “Partnering” will cause weak commitment and high transaction costs. Will the public RAS staffs working for the universities as in hierarchies or simply be ‘agent’ from contracting? What are the incentives for local RAS staffs to engage in university-led extension mode? Third, one generic problem for public extension system is the difficulties of evaluating extension work at the local level and justify the value. How do agricultural universities overcome the problem? Lastly, it will be valuable if people can share case studies of government’s buy-in extension services from agricultural universities or others. In addition, cases of innovative relationship between agricultural universities and local RAS staffs, local communities and the private sector will be welcome and valuable.

18.Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds under the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, Armenia

Reforms in agriculture contribute to economic growth through increased efficiency of agricultural production in the region. However, there is still a range of issues that should be solved. General efficiency has improved, but unaccomplished reforms and other factors hold back agricultural growth rather than promote it. The key challenges for agricultural development in the region have been specified in accordance with the provisions of the First Global Conference on



20


Agricultural Research for Development (2010). Considering that the third Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development will be held soon, I suggest we specify the following challenges that are still to be solved:

Challenges associated with food security and nutrition:

The need for effective funding to support small farmers; The need to improve sustainable cultivation of crops in irrigated and rain-fed areas, as

well as in remote and mountainous regions; The need to improve management of cattle breeding, pasture and agro-pastoral farming; The need to bring attention to horticulture; The need to emphasize on fisheries; The need to reduce risks and residues of transboundary diseases of animals and plants, as

well as pests; The need to develop special mechanisms for newly-established smallholders.

Challenges associated with improvement of the quality of life and livelihoods of farmers:

The need to diversify agricultural production, development and maintenance of processing plants and establishing of smallholder farms;

The need to find specific solutions to improve livelihoods in mountainous areas; The need to establish and provide support to the role of rural women and youth in

agriculture, research and development.Challenges associated with environmental protection:

The need to halt land and water degradation; The need to halt forest degradation and implementation of agroforestry programs; The need to increase efforts to protect biodiversity.

Challenges associated with social reforms:

The need to improve legal framework for land tenure, access and property rights; The need to improve / restore structures of irrigation and drainage.

Challenges associated with specific issues in the region:

The need for comprehensive measures to address the problems of global warming and climate change;

The need to address the problem of desertification; The need to address the problem of water logging, preventive measures to protect against

landslides and other problems of alpine husbandry.Challenges related to strengthening national research systems and agricultural extension:

The need to increase investments in agricultural innovations to address the needs and problems of agricultural development;

The need for reformation of agricultural education in accordance with the objectives of agricultural research and development, as well as the needs of the market;

The need to establish effective innovation agricultural extension systems, forge linkages between farmers, researchers, and civil society organisations, as well as to support technology transfer;

The need for enhanced cooperation in the field of agricultural innovations at national, regional, and international levels to effectively address issues of food security, improve livelihoods of rural population and provide environmental protection.



21


Development of agricultural innovation systems, strengthening of relations between farmers and other actors of agricultural sector will provide assistance to producers and agribusiness in addressing the aforementioned issues, in improving access to the markets, in developing integrated production systems and further adaptation of agriculture to climate change. It is necessary to analyze strengths and weaknesses of agricultural innovation systems, of their needs, challenges, and opportunities, to make a cross-country synthesis of these challenges and opportunities, as well as to elaborate recommendations for further actions to improve innovation systems at national and subregional levels.

I would like to emphasize that exchange of experience, knowledge and discussion of key issues between the countries of CAC and China, will be very useful in further design, planning and implementation of regional programs.

Dr Gayane Sarkisyan, Director of the Scientific Center for vegetables and gourds under the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia

19.Sherzod Kosimov, ICARDA, Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues and friends!

I also would like to say big thanks to organizers for giving us a chance to exchange our ideas and knowledge.

I would like to open a discussion on Data Management in Agricultural Research. How it should be organized, how can we share our data easily and prevent to make a double (sometimes triple or even more) research on similar topics. Waiting for your comments.

With best regards.

20.Vugar Babayev, Ganja Agribusiness Association, Azerbaijan

Overcoming and eliminating the existing "Soviet" stereotype thinking in relation to economy management is the most serious obstacle to development and expansion of use of agricultural innovation systems in agriculture. This situation requires targeted outreach program for "new farmers" and officials of various levels of government through numerous workshops, seminars, conferences, demonstration fields, and other events that will involve all staff, information and resource potential, as well as directly create practical examples (pilot farms) in the form of demonstration sites.



22


21.Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues and friends!

A big thanks for the organizers of this dialogue platform! The questions which are raised very important and challenging.

Personally, I would like to share my view on question: what is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education organizations in the RAS sytems?

Current situation: from the experience in the region, there is often absent the link between education and real field experiments. Majority of education institutions are lack of laboratory equipments and conditions to link theory with practice. Science and research cannot be successful and viable without linking its results with the field uptake. Therefore, research and education should be closely linked with the people in the places. In majority cased, it is considered that innovation and technology could solve the problem in the places however it is people in the end of the day who will use it. Human factor as well as local conditions and culture plays important role. Role of agricultural research and education organization is to make sure the research and education linked from bottom to up.

Hope it contributes to discussion. Rgrds, Oyture Anarbekov

22.Oyture Anarbekov, IWMI Central Asia as well as CDE, University of Bern, Uzbekistan

Dear Sherzod Kosimov,

Thank you for raising a good topic on Data sharing in Agricultural research.

In my opinion, to make sure that data is constantly shared or sent, there is need to organize economic incentives to our partners so they themselves will be willing to do it.

People respond to incentives. But this is not easy.

With best regards.

23.Yagub Guliyev, Agrarian Science and Information Advisory Center, Azerbaijan

At first I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues for organisation of this online discussion. Agriculture in the CAC faces problems which are legacy of past decades, and others caused by unstable situation in global economy end the environment. National agricultural innovation system at each country needs first to define priorities to actively contribute to improvement of agricultural productivity, improvement of the quality and quantity of food through intensification and diversification of sustainable agriculture and mitigation of adverse impacts of climate changes. Concerns about mitigating and adapting to climate change are emerging as additional innovation priorities. AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural



23


research and extension systems by strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of agricultural sector. Today there is very poor linkage among different actors in AIS which needs to be strengthen.


Dear Sherzod, Vugar and Oyture,

Thank you for raising and sharing your views, which I would like to comment to. Incentives and motivations are two of key drivers of the progress, while obsolescent mind-sets are deterrent force of the development to my view. I would like to use the term "deterrent force" not a "factor", because mind-set is really a "tremendous force": it is power. Thus, it can be 'driving' or 'deterring'. Some people thinks that having holding data, information and knowledge gives themselves advantages to being competetive in securing their progress, while others see that sharing and communicating their resources (knowledge and information) give them additional dynamics. The latters are more progressive and more adaptive, as they share, obtain feedbacks, and refine the knowledge and intellectual products, making them more attractive, productive and user-friendly. Non-research examples could be the posts on social media. And we can judge the overall values of posts by number of 'clicks' and 'likes'. Because any post is carrying a message, i.e. information, whether it is specific, local, global, cultural, economic, useful, useless, etc.

We collect and have "data", that can be further transformed into "information". We use information for generation "knowledge". And our "wisdom" is based on that knowledge. Eventually, our actions are based on/driven by knowledge and wisdom.

Commitments and economic incentives are powerful drivers, and progressive mindset is a light that helps us to be oriented in existing and future scenarios of pathways to the goals we set up, like food security and nutrition in our region.

Mindset needs to be nurtured and shaped with sharing and discussing diversity of views, as we do here in our discussions. Maybe people, who are working in development intervention, should be led not only by economic incentives, but also commitments and believes to contribute, because demand-driven inputs have higher probability of higher returns.

25.Anastasiya Lebedeva, ASC, Spain

Dear Dr Tashmatov,

Thank you for the invitation to take part in the consultations on Agricultural Innovation System. I would like to specify the advantages and disadvantages of Agricultural Innovation System.

The advantages of Agricultural Innovation System are:

1. Production, investment and human resources efficiency, as well as the ability and flexibility to attract qualified managerial, scientific and production personnel;

2. Avoidance of duplication of activities in innovation system, allocation of roles and responsibilities, allocation of organizational and production risks;



24


3. System operations management in separate fields, for example, production and processing of agricultural production;

4. Centralized resource and capacity management, which can be effectively allocated between segments of the innovation system, in accordance with the intended use;

5. Capability for production diversification in order to reduce organizational risk and ensure specialization of certain types of activities;

6. Consolidation of production capacities, technical expertise and research and development with the ability to integrate science and production;

7. The possibility of a coordinated financial, investment and credit policy.

The disadvantages of Agricultural Innovation System are:

8. It is difficult to transform the organizational and production system, which has become effective in the new economic context, and which therefore reduces cost-effectiveness;

9. The complexity of system management, which involves a variety of actors that represent different sectors and activities, for example, researchers, input suppliers, local communities, customers, etc .;

10. Low standard of wages of government employees, as well as scientific institutes and academia, that reduces motivation and innovative capital;

11. A large number of target groups with different interests, abilities and potential and a lack of flexibility and mobility when choosing organizational-legal forms of cooperation with target groups;

12. The complexity of reorganization and reorientation of a system, focus on a specific segment of the market.

Anastasiya Lebedeva

26.Muratbek Karabaev, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, CIMMYT, Kazakhstan

AIS could help enhancing participatory agricultural research and extension systems by strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors of the agricultural sector. This is considered an important factor for connecting farmers in CAC countries and China and providing opportunities for better access to markets and income diversification that ultimately will benefit food security and better nutrition.This discussion is open to everyone interested in the subject; and we are inviting experts from the governments, civil society organizations, private sector, research and education organizations to take part in a constructive dialogue on opportunities and challenges for AIS contributing to sustainable food security and better nutrition in CAC countries and China.

We would like to propose discussing the following issues: What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries

and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition? What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively

support farmers in for improving their livelihood? What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and

make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?



25



About the role of innovation systems in CAC countries in regards to increasing Food security (some thoughts, insights and proposals)

1) Innovation in the agricultural sector is a new technology (innovation approach, the decision), significantly improving the quality of life of the rural population and farmers, reducing the cost of access at this quality when compared with the existing technology. In other words, innovation is a new product that gives a tangible growth in the agricultural sector, the effect compared to the old one.

2) In the countries of the CAC the development and implementation of innovations in the agricultural sector are constrained by an underdeveloped system of incentives and support to innovations, a weak research base, insufficient skills of agricultural producers and farmers, shortages in skilled professionals. The key issue of the agricultural innovations is peopleware. With the support of international institutions we need to educate and prepare the innovators - people with new thinking, approach, creativity. Agricultural universities in the CAC should undertake much of this. Universities should become a kind of educational and research institutions (for example similarly to leading foreign research universities). Of great importance are the popularization and promote innovation in the agricultural sector, in this domain there are still much to be done. A major role in provision of assistance in this direction could play governmental, non-governmental organizations, such as the Union of Farmers of Kazakhstan.

3) The share of the investments to agricultural and biological science in the GDP of CAC countries in comparison with the highly developed countries is ten and dozens times less. Still growth in spending on agricultural science is not accompanied by an increase in technological innovation. Funds are allocated for science, however science works rather on itself.

4) In spite of the progress achieved and the level of agricultural science evolution in the countries of the CAC, its modern trends have not yet found a proper use and potential opportunities of agricultural science, agrobiology are still not sufficiently implemented. This is because for many years the link between science and industry has been weak. Moreover, to date the system has not been formed and the appropriate infrastructure for the commercialization and implementation of new technologies and scientific developments; there are practically no experts in this field. Existing interdepartmental inter-sectorial barriers also hinder participation in cross-sectorial programs and the practical implementation of the results. Big World breakthrough in the production of major crops, called "green revolution", has been made possible through not only science and technology, but also by the creation of well-functioning extension services, promotion and dissemination of knowledge.



26


5) Following most important abiotic factors limiting agricultural production in Kazakhstan and the CAC countries can be highlighted:

Drought (lack of rainfall in rainfed areas, the lack of water in irrigated areas); High temperatures (damaging effect enhancing by dry winds); Low temperatures in winter, especially in the northern regions of Central Asia, which

complicates the cultivation of winter crops; Salinity; Soil degradation.

6) On the territory of the CAC, there are almost all the major abiotic and biotic stress factors of the environment, and further increase agricultural production in the conditions of pressure requires the wide use of modern technologies and approaches. This task is complicated by the more visible effects of climate change and the emergence of increasingly dangerous plant diseases. One good example is the recent emergence and spread over the world of a dangerous race of wheat stem rust SR Ug99. It first discovered in Uganda in 1999, this race has spread through Africa and reached the Asian continent (particularly Iran). Ug99 peculiarity is that it is constantly mutating, and currently seven varieties of this race are identified, which can affect upo to 90% of commercial wheat varieties. Rust spores carried by the wind, and if proactive measures to combat the disease, primarily through the creation of resistant varieties are not undertaken, it would threaten food security on a global scale. Naturally, the preventive measures are not affordable for a separate country, and to prevent this threat an international "Global Initiative on behalf of Norman Borlaug rust» (Borlaug Global Rust Initiative - BGRI) is currently organized. And Kazakhstan, as world wheat producer must be prepared to confront this dangerous disease.

7) The share of international programs and projects, innovation and investment funds in the total amount of financing of agricultural science and development projects in the agricultural sector is still insufficient. In fact, these works do not receive financial support from agricultural production, domestic and foreign companies. This underpins the fact that domestic research and developments continue to be weakly demanded by economy . The principle of programs formation from the "final consumer" is not working. Unfortunately, many research areas are functioning without close interaction, sometimes duplicating each other, due to the presence of inter-sectorial and inter-departmental barriers, the absence of (in many CAC countries) single body that could coordinate the entire research systems, designing and coordinating major multidisciplinary projects. Many ministries de and agencies have their own research agenda/programs, financed from the state budget, and each agency is implementing its own "scientific" policy. Most of the innovative projects are just initiatives, rather than driven by regional, scientific and technical demand, i.e. developers invent a product and then subsequently forced to seek his application. Applied science management and financing models is largely scientific (interest) driven, but not oriented to (addressing) technological issues . In particular, conducted by CIMMYT the analysis of financing research on biotechnology, breeding and exploration has shown that today there is practically no major multidisciplinary projects combining the efforts of these areas to solve specific practical problems. According to scientists, the main reason is interdepartmental dissociation of institutions. Even within a single research organization it is difficult to create interdisciplinary projects.



27


8) The current legislation of the CAC is based on the provisions of the national Constitutions and is a system of legal institutions, norms and regulations, as well as a number of laws and decrees of the president of the country, a government decree-laws relating to the problems of preservation and use of natural resources, protection of selection achievements, and biosafety other regulatory tasks in the field of agricultural science and production. However, existing legal mechanisms of regulation in these areas have a lot of gaps and contradictions. Further efforts are needed to make changes and additions to the existing legislation and purposeful work to create new areas of legislative policy to support innovation in the agricultural sector. The most important task is the development of the legislation on intellectual property, access to genetic resources, technology and receive equal benefits from their use.

9) Particular attention is given to the seed system and variety trials in the region. Here we need to pay attention to bringing advanced systems and approaches, innovations developed and existing in the world to the countries. Weak seed system is a missed opportunity for selection and breeding, unmet costs of the country and the work of scientists on the development of new varieties, ultimately it is a decline in the competitiveness of agricultural products.

10) In the countries of the CAC, it is necessary to provide favorable conditions for international and foreign scientific organizations, highly qualified professionals. Experience of CGIAR Research Centers and affiliates in CAC demonstrates the effectiveness of cooperation between national agrarian programs with leading international research centers, which attract international experience, a wealth of global gene pool, modern methods and methodologies, new technologies, assist in training and through this contribute to the rapid integration of countries in the region into the current global scientific and technical process. A good illustration is an example of Uzbekistan, actively supporting international cooperation to create favorable conditions for this cooperation, which agriculture and science show rapid development in the last decade.

11) Although there are objective (external) and subjective (internal) difficulties and challenges in the development and promotion agricultural innovations, the CAC countries in recent years have enhanced public research and innovation policies fostering agricultural science and innovation. International cooperation in the scientific field, assistance and cooperation of international institutions and research and innovations forums particularly is actively carried out in Uzbekistan. CAC countries possessing rich land resources, high scientific potential and developed structure of the economy, have huge potential for increasing agricultural production and become the leading manufacturers and exporters of high quality, competitive agricultural products. CAC is now considered as the most important region of the world food security of the population of the Earth. According to the official analytical data in 2025, 3 billion tons of grains should be produced to feed 8-billion world population. For example, to achieve this, the annual growth of important food crops - wheat, should be 2% (compared to the current annual growth rate of 1.3%). And, it must occur/happen against the backdrop of the rise of influence of adverse factors, such as: reduction of water availability, drought, temperature rise, land degradation, the emergence of new races are very dangerous pathogens, increase the use of food crop to biofuel, and livestock needs. There is no doubt that overcoming these negative factors and sustainable development of agricultural production in the CAC region and globally largely depends on the development of new



28


technologies and scientific domain. In today's world the technologies and innovation are key to the country's competitiveness and food security.

27.Jamshid Fayziev, Tajikistan

In the economies like CAC and China where rural advisory service are operating in a diversity models and scales, any sources of investments supporting their day-to-day activity could be considered favorable at certain extent. Of course, in terms of sustainability, national rural advisory service systems should reduce the dependency on donors support, and be rather pluralistic. On the other hand, programs and projects under development agencies support bring innovative approaches, good practices, models of operations and partnership to emerging RAS systems. Therefore, both public and private investments to RAS is conducive. In addition, more considerations are needed to answer how to make governments play a more pro-active role in creation of a favorable environment, while those transition economies in many countries are experiencing the lack of both public and private investments in rural advisory services.


1. Significance of AIS

The importance of training and education.

Agricultural education and training (ATE) on especially the youth and women has been neglected in CAC region and China. ATE enhances the capacity of farmers and rural SME for sustainable intensification and access to markets.

Second, ATE facilitates rural transformation and reduce rural-urban inequality by empowering rural people with the ability of engaging in off-farm employment opportunities ( - Rustam Г нIbragimov).

The definition and principle of Agricultural Innovation System (AIS).

AIS is a network that unites multiple stakeholders (enterprises, government, academia, farmers) in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organizations into agricultural production. AIS is not to supply ‘science’ but promote interactions among stakeholders, and eventually produce economic, social, institutional, and cultural values (Botir Dosov).

2. Challenges in CAC region and China, and prioritized actions

The challenges and problems in agriculture in CAC region are partly legacy of history. However, it is critical to overcome the problems by taking new opportunities such as being more market-oriented, income diversification, and adaptation to climate change. AIS is important to facilitate such a transformation (Botir Dosov).

In the Chinese context, ecological agriculture and certification to quality and safety are emerging in recent years. However, the market structure is biased towards large state-subsidized agrofood companies and small farmers are excluded. Institutional innovations are needed for being inclusive (Zhenzhong Si).



29


Lack for communications and collaborations in a coordinated framework for the AIS programs. The existing actions are fragmented. As such, a united and integrated framework of institutions (including regulations and legislation) is prioritized. Second, reaching the ‘last mile’ and establishing a better framework between farmers and researchers becomes highly important (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).

3. The role and constraints of agricultural universities in AIS, and institutional innovations

In CAC region, the national agricultural research system faces challenges of capacity building on young professionals. AIS is underfunded in CAC region. In additional to this major constraints, the poor linkage between resource and production greatly undermines the value of knowledge and technologies (Shaibek Karasartov).

Research and production are disconnected and research institutes “thrust” their knowledge to farmers without meeting multiple needs (such as risk, poverty, malnutrition, and income (Subhash Mehta).

There is little innovative modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders and the major obstacles are organizational, informational, financial (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).

In CAC and Central Asia, the national agricultural research and agriculture system has been weakened, such as outflow of quality scientists and underfinancing. The problems are exacerbated further by poorly coordinated and implemented research and actions (ranging from planning to monitoring). Agricultural universities also have the constraints of not being cross-disciplinary (Alisher Tashmatov).


Given the current and emerging challenges for further sustainable development population growth, climate change, their implications for agriculture and food security system on one hand, and specific current constrains in region: such as land degradation, over-exploitation of natural resources, irrigation, wind and soil erosions, price volatility, and etc. on the other hand require the reorientation of agricultural livelihoods systems towards sustainable and efficient development "producing more with less".

In this regards, the role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition and improved livelihoods is critical.

Endeavours towards only focusing agricultural science on farmers' needs and addressing yields gap is not enough, as agricultural system has not only the economic dimension, but also social one. Therefore, Agricultural innovation system is effectively functioning when producers, processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services, universities, input providers, government bodies, market and other players are interacting to produce additional value through new organizational forms of production, new products, new approaches and innovative mind-set.



30


Participants of the online-discussion have been highlighting wide range of challenges and priority areas for enhancing and promoting AIS:

Food security elements: availability, accessibility and utilization. Capacity: education and training, innovative capacity. Social groups: women, youth, smallholders, vulnerable groups, marginal. Socio-economic: livelihoods and well-being. Health: nutrition, synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. Institutional: low interactions, poor linkages of intervention with national development

goals and trends, institutional constraints, poor coordination within AIS. Production and productivity: livestock, crop systems, forestry, land and water use, organic

agriculture, yield gaps, undeveloped processing and marketing infrastructure. Ecosystems: land degradation (salinity, soil and water erosions). Regulatory framework: equitable land and water use and rights, conducive institutional

and regulatory framework supporting AIS. System elements and components: research, extension, education, government support,

markets. System unsustainability and inefficiency: low investments to research and RAS system,

productivity-oriented food system, absence or poor planning system, obsolete material-technical (logistic) base of research institutions and academia.

Knowledge platform: absence of or unripe agro-information systems, low engagement of universities in RAS and FSN issues.

Approaches, models, best practices, good practices: farm schools, community enterprise system, green food" and "hazard-free food", more sustainable and ecologically friendly system, “short food supply chains”.

Particular issues: synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. Extending (regional, global, non-agricultural) issues: "problems of the current food system

is far beyond the agricultural sector", Climate change, trans-boundary diseases, foreign trades distortions and price disparity, transition process implications, poor transport and communication infrastructure at national and regional level, poor insurance systems, low efficiency of trade-offs between production and consumptions.

It should be noted that those challenges and ways to address them are isolated and need comprehensive, cohesive and perhaps stepwise approach.

30.Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan

Dear Botir,Thank you for raising such an important question.Food security is an important driver of sustainable development of the republic. It involves physical availability of food in sufficient quantities, access to these foodstuffs for households, as well as consumption of food in quantities required to meet their needs.The forum has raised some very important questions about food security, which is an important socio-economic challenge for the countries of Central Asia, South



31


Caucasus and China. I would also like to share my point of view about food security in the context of my country.According to the state statistics bodies in the last five years consumption of certain types of food is low in relation to the physiological dietary intake in Tajikistan. The most critical situation is created in consumption of meat and meat products, eggs, milk and dairy products. Consumption of these products per capita in relation to the standard rate of consumption is less than 30%. In particular, consumption of meat and meat products per capita in 2012 was 4.5 times less than standard rate of consumption, consumption of eggs - 3.6 times less, milk and dairy products - 3 times less. Consumption of fruits per capita relative to the recommended standard is less than 50%.The main priorities for achieving food security in the country is to ensure:

1. Availability of foodAvailability refers to physical presence of food as a result of domestic production, or by means of the market. At the country level availability of food is determined by combination of food stocks, commercial imports, food aid and domestic production.

2. Access to food – means that all members of households have sufficient amount of resources to produce foodstuffs, that satisfy their need for adequate nutrition for healthy and active lifestyle. Access can be maintained through in-house production, market purchases and donations.

3. Sustainable agricultural development is the basis.4. Food security and adequate nutrition – in case of vulnerable social groups is maintained

through safety management and ensuring a healthy diet.5. Food stability – through adjustment of seasonal and annual variations in food security

and resistance to crises.These priorities can be achieved through promotion of private sector development.

6. Availability of food is based on:7. agricultural productivity growth8. opportunity to produce food products, crop and livestock development9. producer prices analysis10. basic food trade11. availability of food per capita

Failure to meet any of these parameters leads to low level or lack of food security. Food insecurity is a situation when population doesn’t have a guaranteed access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food necessary for normal growth, development, and active and healthy lifestyle. Low level of food security leads to malnutrition among the population, which, in turn, entails negative consequences for individuals, families and entire nations.Within the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative, USAID has implemented Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan project. It was aimed at improving food security of smallholders through improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers in the 12 districts of the Southern Tajikistan.Despite being their own bosses or small commercial farms, small dehkan farms are the basic source of the means of subsistence and cash income for a large part of the population of Tajikistan. Small dehkan farms need free access to markets, improved inputs in agriculture, including land, guaranteed supply of irrigation water and better access to knowledge, for more efficient performance and promotion of their welfare.



32


At the request of farmers and together with the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of Jamoats and Mahallas, the project has organized trainings and workshops on agricultural technologies of cultivation of agricultural crops for mahallas. The results have shown that although all farmers have certain skills in agricultural production, their knowledge require improvement. Therefore further improvement of knowledge is required in order to ensure stable food base for each household and farmer.It is necessary to carry out:

12.Structural reforms of land-use pattern and production13.Monitoring and ensuring food security in the country14.Advisory services to small dehkan farms and households15. Introduction and development of the latest agro techniques, where they are

required16.Engagement of NGOs and state institutions in agricultural development17.Attracting foreign consultants in the field of agriculture to meet with

households and small dehkan farms to share experiences18.To arrange and conduct regional conferences aimed at introduction of

advanced forms of training on crops cultivation19.Conduct regional workshops in each area individually in order to increase

agricultural knowledge capacity of staff, which will promote new mind-sets related to crop production, its processing and marketing.

31.Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan

Food security cannot be achieved without the introduction of innovative technologies in a large scale. This will require significant amount of financial resources that the stands out in the region is not enough. Alexandr Kaigorodtsev, East Kazakhstan State University, Kazakhstan

32.Elena Kan, Uzbekistan

to Dr.Botir Dosov on his comment of May 18

Small comment: Sharing of both - information and knowledge, formal and informal- depends on personal aspirations, skills and economic incentives. Someone’s strategy is being competitive with better access to ‘knowledge/information=power’; another is committed to enjoying the shared benefits. The first mode might be as one of the typical behaviors, especially in academia. I don’t argue whether it is good or bad, since many things are influenced by the existent formal, organizational and cultural values and ethics. The network connections as capital (that is being formed sometimes during years), is an important element of sharing in any environment, be it research or farming community.


Dear Prof. Xiangping JIA,

Thanks, for your concise summary of existing advantages and drawbacks of university-led extension system. In your comments (to Dr.Tashmatov, May 15 and later to Mr. Yrysbek



33


Abdurasulov) you’ve brought the accent on Advisory services/extension as critical and central element in the entire AIS environment.

My comment on that. In Uzbekistan, the modality of delivering the extension and ‘partnering’ for extension is centralized (funding, institutional setting) on one hand, but on the other – the university specialists seem to have established relationships with e.g. government RAS workers or rural communities, since both come from the rural area (esp. in a town with one high institution only). If teachers perform as extensionists, their present role seems to be of more transferring (than communicating) the technology to

1) their students (who are rural dwellers, from the farmer’s family);

2) a bit larger farming community at specific educational, training or propaganda events;

3) to RAS workers or other agricultural experts at specific educational events organized by the government or within donor-driven activities.

Still, teachers or scientists are respected people in the community, and therefore are the sources of advise, information or new technology. At the same time, on the contrary, farmers consider them as having more book knowledge than practical help they need in the field. Though, the example might be similar to rural areas elsewhere, this is one of the modalities that can be traced.


Dear participants of the online discussion!

Let me highlight that within this discussion, we are actively discussing the problem, objectives, priorities, and possible actions to improve the systems of rural advisory services, extension, aimed at improving the welfare and food security and nutrition.

To structure and systemize the outputs of our discussions and add more practical value / applicability to them, and taking into account your proposals, I suggest "7 steps (of the Roadmap) for the enhancing RAS systems in the region."

Of course, it is not necessary that our discussions and actions are strictly followed these 7 stages, as we are discussing both problems solutions. However, to have a systemic vision in defining our goals and objectives and consistency in achieving them, I think it will not hurt, and probably it will help to determine the scope, priorities and gaps that we may have overlooked.

Here is 7 steps of the Roadmap for the enhancing RAS systems in the region (they presented as diagram in the attached files):

1. Identifying problems, constraints in RAS system Socio-economic issues Institutional and management issues Technological issues Environmental issues Economic issues (value chain) Policy issues



34


2. Structuring problems, constraints in RAS system3. Transferring problems into objectives / Setting priorities4. Formulating activities that need to address problems/produce outputs; Identifying roles and

actors to implement the activities identified;5. Formulating the Roadmap (Strategy) to enhance RAS system in the region6. Formulating Action plan to implement the Roadmap to enhance RAS system7. Implementation, M&E of the Action plan/Roadmap

35.Subhash Mehta, DST, India

To the question of Mr Dosov dated 12.05.2015

Dear Dosov,Yes it will apply to you provided you follow the agro ecology of the area being worked:

Debt, despair and suicide as farm crisis deepens

High cost high risk Green Revolution Technologies Wheat Cause of Deep Distress The damage to wheat crop this 2015 rabi season due to untimely rain and hailstorm,

followed by delayed payments, has further stressed Punjab’s farmers. With the cost of external farm inputs rising manifold over the past few years, the net profit is reducing, thus making farming unviable. Unable to bear losses/ debt, several farmers have committed suicide in recent months/ years.

Major problems

High cost high risk green revolution technologies (GRT), supported by Government policies, is unviable in the wake of rising external input costs, climate change and falling net profits

The production has reached saturation point, requiring increased quantities of agro chemicals and water each year

Climate change increases costs and risk with reducing productivity, making GRT unviable for producer communities

Producer communities mostly depend on dealers of external inputs (money lenders) who exploit them

No long term policy to compensate producer communites in case of loss of crop due to varied reasons

The way out

There is a need to shift Government policy to support/ assist producers follow their low cost low risk agro ecology

MSP fixed on the basis of cost plus 50% at the time of sowing, contracting producers for the quantity required



35


Diversification and following the low cost low risk agro ecology of each area ensures producer communities’ access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash in contrast to the high cost high risk GRT wheat-paddy mono crops

Government support/ assist the producer communities to set up their org/ company (PC) but staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAS in agriculture) taking over risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities

PC to value add for increasing shelf life of produce/ product for storage and mitigating post harvest losses

PC group insurance covering its members should be implemented as cover for facilities from financial institutions.

36.Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan

Given the current challenges, the primary task today is to provide maximum assistance in addressing issues aimed at improvement of agricultural productivity, increasing quality and quantity of food security through intensification and diversification of agriculture, and developing of mechanisms for effective use of natural resources, and minimization of the negative impact of climate change.

Further development of rural advisory services is an important requirement for addressing these issues. Transformation of extension systems shall be a priority in a short-term period of transformation of agricultural research and development. Strengthening of extension services will be reflected in assistance to agricultural producers in adoption of adequate economic decisions on intensification of production, application of new technologies, as well as in adapting to fundamental changes due to current crisis in the agricultural sector in the region through improvement of information support, use of scientific potential of researchers and introduction of research and development.

Processes of formation of different modalities of cooperation among educational-and-research institutions (especially universities), sectorial research and production are being implemented in Uzbekistan these days.

There are entire systems of relations, which include operations under separate contracts with educational and production structures, making industrial and academic research agreements, conducting joint research funded by grants, organizing joint research centres, and university research centres.

Dr Firuza Galimova, Tashkent State Agrarian University, Uzbekistan

37.Natalie Ernst, Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Switzerland

Dear colleagues and moderators,

First of all, let me thank the organisers for launching this discussion and everyone that provided an input for your interesting thoughts. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS - see www.g-fras.org ) is pleased to see this discussion ongoing and the CAC region and China pro-actively start to engage in these imporant discussions.

GFRAS is particularly pleased to see this discussion happening now, as it is organising its 6th GFRAS Annual Meeting in your very region. It takes place from 14-17 September 2015 in Issky Kul, Kyrgyzstan, co-organised by GFRAS, CACAARI, the Kyrgyz Republic and RAS Chui-Talas. Focusing on Global Good Practices in RAS, it will indeed tackle many of the issues you raised so far in this discussion. See the GFRAS website for more information and registration.



36


It is interesting - and confirmative - to see that actually many of your main discussion points and issues, are shared worldwide. Regions like Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, or even the Pacific struggle with the same questions.

I see you discussing on the different actors in the AIS. Whereas we should come away from the discussion "who is better or who does it better", we should look on what are the comparative advantages of each of these actors, and how can we use and put together all of these advantages to make the AIS more efficient and effective. Reality often poses many challenges, but stakeholders worldwide put a lot of efforts into this.

I see you discussing how to deal with pluralistic RAS systems and how to deal best with external conditional and agenda-driven activities of RAS actors versus the needs of smallholders and rural actors. Many new RAS approaches try to include this issue, but it is clear that even within RAS, actors often do not cooperate and/or work together, and are often organised top-down.

I see you discussing what Innovation is and how it can be generated. Innovation, in GFRAS point of view, is more than just a new technology. It is a new approach, a new tool, a new mind-set or even a new attitude. Innovation can be triggered by anyone but usually needs to be stimulated with different ideas. Which leads us to the Information and knowledge exchange discussion, which you have also started, including the role of ICTs in RAS.

I see you discussing about gender and youth, and how to include vulnerable groups, a very prominent topic and challenge worldwide (see GFRAS publications on these issues).

So whereas the core of the challenges are often very similar worldwide, of course they differ widely depending on the regional and cultural contexts. GFRAS is looking forward to learn more from your region and your particular lessons learned.

Please visit the GFRAS website for information and resources, but also to link with other people from other regions, which might be able to help tackle these issues. Given that you want to take this discussion forward in a pro-active way, which should lead to an action plan, you might also want to consider to hold a Face 2 Face meeting as a side event at the GFRAS Annual Meeting, in order to take this discussion forward.

I attach the GFRAS New Extensionist Posistion Paper for those interested. Look forward to read/learn more from you and hope that many of you will register for the Annual Meeting.


Dear professor Xiangping,

I found out that participants and addressees/recipients of the online-discussions are reading with great interest the contributions and comments. I just thought, that your view on how “One road one belt” would be or is relevant to RAS, Education system or any other thoughts would also be interesting, because within the current established arrangement there is still a margin for enhancing cooperation between CAC and China supporting innovation systems towards improved and more sustainable food security and nutrition in the region. Thank you and best regards.

39.Shaibek Karasartov, , Центр обучения консультации и инновации ( ), KyrgyzstanЦОКИ

Dear Botir,

I also wanted to share my view on rural advisory services during this online-discussion, but everything I wanted to mention was included in your message. I totally agree with you on these



37


matters. I find that the questions you address are global, but there are minor issues as well. Therefore personally I have nothing else to add, everything was very well written and explained. Now we only have to define objectives and carry them out. Best regards, Shaibek Karasartov


Dr. Botir Dosov ,

thanks for your inquiry.

There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC and China through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The ones related to RAS emerge through three windows, in my views. First, government regional projects. A variety of ministerial programs are directed under the OBOR initiative, including rural infrastructure investment, "demonstration park" of agricultural technology, and agricultural production and trading programs (such as cotton), information and telecommunication programs, etc. All these have direct linkage and reference to RAS. Second, private investments. Private sector become active in agricultural investment in CAC from China. This ranges from agro-chemical inputs to agro-food supply chain. Recently, the private sector moves gradually into factor markets such as land and forestry. This might introduce external factors on the existing farm system and affect the knowledge & information system at the local level. Such a process is meeting with a mixture of cooperation and conflicts, depending on how the private & public investments are adapting to the local context for a synergistic embeddedness and be inclusive . Third, academic society. This might be the most active and liberal window so far. It is also an important stepstone for a continued and deepened cooperation between CAC and China. However, the communication and collaboration within the academia has not been integrated with the above two windows, thus greatly undermining the capacity of decision-making for public and private sector. China and CAC share similarities in RAS system from the history. In addition, 21.1% of land in China are in arid area and most of them are in western China. The nexus of resource-environment-development is by no means at the national level but potentially generate benefits at the regional level.

41. Mark Holderness, Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Italy

I am very pleased to see this consultation underway and commend CACAARI, NAFU and the FAO FSN Forum on bringing it about. The Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) works to transform and strengthen agricultural research and development systems to improve lives and livelihoods in the development world. The Global Forum – which includes CACAARI in its collective partnership, works to shape the future of agricultural research and innovation through multi-stakeholder actions and dialogues through the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD). The GCARD is a unique dialogue process aimed at fostering real system changes in agricultural research and innovation. Working to the GCARD Roadmap, partners come together to discuss and agree the reforms required of agricultural innovation and research systems worldwide.This e-discussion forms an important and extremely valuable contribution to the GCARD process. It is regional dialogues like this that help put the GCARD Road Map into practice. The discussion on strengthening agricultural innovations systems in the Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China is highly topical, relevant and useful in promoting regional cooperation. This is precisely what the GCARD process is all about – it helps to refine regional and global agricultural research priorities in an inclusive way, as identified by different stakeholder groups and representatives in the region.



38


We are now well underway in the third GCARD cycle, which is running through 2015 and 2016. On behalf of the GCARD3 Organizing Committee, we welcome this e-consultation and look forward to taking the results into wider discussion and planning through the GCARD3 process in 2015 and 2016. There will be a number of consultation events linked to GCARD3 throughout the next 18 months and we welcome the opportunities offered by this e-discussion to build and share more ideas that will positively influence the direction, activities and resourcing of international research, the needs for strengthening and investment in national agricultural innovation systems, and effective measures that will create real change in farmers lives in the region.This requires also a real rethinking of partnerships between public, private and producer sectors, so that producers and their innovations become central to actions, not regarded as the end of a chain. Moreover, we need to move away from the historical ‘walls’ between sectors and institutions that often constrain development. We need to recognize that agriculture is a fast-changing environment; that rural livelihoods, economic growth, and issues such as nutrition, go well beyond agricultural productivity considerations alone and there is an associated need to rethink and reshape the roles of institutions. Massive changes such as the growth of ICTs, urbanization and climate change require our knowledge and innovation systems to be far more responsive, flexible and forward thinking than before and to be driven by system realities on the ground, linking public, private and producer organizations in new and exciting partnerships that deliver real change.Good luck with the consultation and I look forward to reading more of the comments and ideas as they are posted!

42.Eren Taskin, YPARD Turkey, Italy

What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?Lenghty approval/permit process of innovations that are designed to support agricultural production. Any sort of innovative solution such as machinery to provide better harvest with less losses, or a plant production product that might be a quick solution to the issues faced should be first approved and tested by a competent body (e.g. universities), following approval from first part the innovation again should be taken to the related ministries for other approvals for commercial purposes etc. Process usually seen by owners of innovation as lengthy, tiring and having lots of paperwork to be done. Those are factors that eventually may delay innovation's immediate term benefits and demotivate the owners of approval request. What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support farmers in for improving their livelihood?Focusing small scale farmers more than multinationals or big scales. Although there are subsidies and other supports available to, eventually the road maps drawn seems like it won't be supporting small scales that much. If thought that global security will be eventually at the hands of small scale farmers or smaller family farming that road map may not contributing for any sort of improvisation when small scale farmers eventually sell or leave their lands and practices. What kind of actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?For extension to be more conducive i think promotion of farming among youth is highly needed. Older the farmers are harder the communication. Our country's population is relatively young and extension services also has young graduates working for them, therefore farmers usually are not very keen to people younger than them about their choices in their own field. Besides communication there is also a distance between farmers and technology. Traditional practices should be studied and if needed improved so they years of years experience won't be lost. But if



39


average age of farmers can be reduced, those experiences innovations, good practices can be transferred easier. What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and rural communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?I assume that the communication gap between academia and rural areas are almost visible in everywhere and not limited to our country only. However, there are also lots of researchers and professors with will volunterily to help farmers as well as conducting research and there are also farmers visiting them for advices. Examples of direct personal cooperation for research that eventually teach farmers in the area of field trials new methods exist and that kind of voluntarily cooperations + good personal communication skills of individuals are more needed in future. There are state cooperatives with strategy development departments to better communicate innovations and information for farmers that can use so-called smart devices and internet. Sharing of weather data with cooperative members, for preventative measures against frost or molds etc is also a practice that are currently being used. Events like state fairs, meetings or local newspapers with sections dedicated for extension are also useful for partnerships and communication of innovations. Agricultural policies that are being followed without actually listening to all stakeholders are greatest contstraints for both farmers and existing institutions.

43.Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI- , Исполнительный СекретарьUzbekistan

Dear Botir,Thank you for taking the initiative about 7 steps towards enhancing RAS/extension systems in the Central Asia &Caucasus and China. CACAARI Secretariat is supporting that Roadmap and would like to ask you to take a lead on facilitation of that process.In 2012 CAC NARSs adopted the Regional Strategy for or transforming and strengthening agricultural research and innovation systems. Some efforts have been done to implement that strategy, but I believe we need to develop the coordinated (more comprehensive and coherent) Action plan to effectively and efficiently implement the statements of the regional strategy. But, this could not be realized with only with efforts of few experts. CG and non-CG centers those operate in the region, should be actively involved in that process in close cooperation with NARSs, universities and RAS systems. Reforms in CGIAR should underlay a real base and commitments for close cooperation of GC centers with NARSs. Still those interactions between GC centers with NARSs are very weak, fragmented and not sustainable.Ultimately, the strengthening interaction between Global, Regional and National systems will increase the impact of the research, education, extension and innovation activities to the overarching goals such as food security and nutrition. Best regards

44.Shaibek Karasartov, , Центр обучения консультации и инновации ( ), KyrgyzstanЦОКИ

Dear colleagues,I would like to share some information on problems that rural advisory service providers are facing today:1. Lack of the government support. The government pays very little or no attention to rural advisory service providers, often considering them being non-governmental organizations, which only fulfill orders of donors. In each region there are government organizations operating in



40


agricultural sector, representatives of the ministry of agriculture and water resources. They are mainly engaged in collecting statistics, although one of their main task is to provide advisory services and information to farmers. The government shall allocate some part of the funds of the Ministry of agriculture to advisory service providers and assign them with directions for consultations, trainings and other activities that are of the most priority for the government and farmers.2. Inability of farmers to pay for advisory services. Most of the farmers (about 90%) refuse to pay for the provided advisory services due to lack of money, as well as believing that it should be donor organizations paying for it. Because they are used to. Besides the effect of a consultation/training cannot be seen immediately. Moreover, farmers as well do not keep records or research on what was the main factor of good or bad yields. Therefore, they need to improve their knowledge.3. Insufficient linkages between advisory services and research institutes. There are good new varieties of crops, innovative technologies and recent developments being developed by research institutions, but due to limited budget they cannot be widely extended. Therefore, extension services and research institutions should be in closely interrelated.There are still lots of problems and issues within extension systems, but I fully support Botir Dosov and his idea to define priorities, strategy and solution of these problems.

Best regards, Shaibek Karasartov

45.Hongchun Xue Division of Science & Technology Extension,Northwest A & F University, China

Dear FSN Forum,

NAFU has been developing its university system of agricultural extension since 2005. The major finance resources are from Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education and the Province of Shaanxi government. Being practiced for ten years, NAFU has piloted several programs of agricultural extension such as a) establishing demonstration stations in rural areas; b) establishing multi-layer training system; c) establishing agricultural service system that is accessible to farmers; d) reforming the institution arrangement within the university by highlighting the provision of agricultural extension services; e) enhancing the cooperation between the university and local government.The NAFU extension programs has yielded some benefits. For example, it promotes agribusiness and introduces capacity building at the local level. For the university, through agricultural extension, new varieties are able to be applied in production. Large number of graduate students are able to conduct their experiment research in field.NAFU’s agricultural extension programs are meeting several difficulties. First, the program is focusing on regions of limited coverage and hard to be scaled up. The majority of products are cash crops; the program is meeting difficulties in transferring technologies of grain production. Second, the extension staffs are getting old and few young professionals have interests and motivation in the position. Third, capacity building within the system has been neglected in the program. Finally, the funding resources are limited.

46.Maria Losova, Canada

I would like to add a few points to this discussion:



41


- The efforts to introduce and develop RAS were made by donors through NGOs over the past 15 years in almost all the ex-Soviet countries. Up to now, there is no a national RAS system working in none of those countries (except Kaz). Donors and NGOs have done a great job to implement all kind of RAS related projects; nevertheless donors and NGOs cannot substitute the government in this process. Thus, the main reason why RAS is not properly functioning is unfortunately a lack of interest from the side of the governments of the ex-Soviet countries. And as long as there is no green light from the national governments (like in Kazakhstan, recently in Armenia and Azerbaijan), RAS will not flourish in those countries. To tackle this, there is a need in lobbying this question. Lobby can be done by the experts and international community on the national level. It does not mean that the government has to do the entire job related to RAS, but it should provide the minimum, that is legislation for RAS, for small scale business, conditions of trade, important and export, infrastructure for markets and transportation of agricultural produce and others. Without those, RAS cannot function.- RAS should meet the needs of different farmers (small and poor, medium and big), thus RAS should be done in a participatory manner rather than in top-down as it is usually done in these countries. In this way it will better reflect the needs of the final recipients and not just fulfill the plans by governments or donor/NGO's projects which do not correspond to the reality of rural citizens.- To this end, I would like to agree with the organisers and highlight that a joint effort of the actors involved — NGOs, donors, research institutes and the state — is crucial for RAS development.I hope these points are useful for this discussion.To this end, I would like to draw your attantion to the book that will be launched in September. It combineds 12 papers on development of extension, knowledge and innovation in the post-Sovinet countries.Hornidge, A.-K., Shtaltovna, A. and C. Schetter (editors) (2015, forthcoming) ‘Agricultural Knowledge and Knowledge Systems in Post-Soviet Societies’, Peter Lang. ISBN: 978-3-0343-2006-1 Bern Switzerland. For those who are interested, do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards


Dear Elena Kan,

Thanks for your discussion on the role of agricultural university in RAS and the case in Uzbekistan. It seems that RAS in Uzbekistan is centralized and the coordination between agricultural universities with the public extension stations at the local level is an interesting case. May you be kind to elaborate bit more regarding the following two questions? First, what are the incentive for teachers and academic staffs to engage themselves in agricultural extension? Second, how the private sector is developed in RAS? Is there any gap between the partnership between the private sector and others (such as the public sector and academia)? How are the gaps filled in your opinion?

48.Lola Gaparova, Farmer Advisory Services in Tajikistan, Tajikistan

Dear Botir,



42


Thank you for provided Roadmap for the enhancing RAS systems in the region. There were highlighted all key steps for enhancing RAS/extension systems in the Central Asia &Caucasus and China. The capacity building must be done based on farmer situation and need button up approaches, supporting ideas coming from the households, small commercial farmers, which will to shape RAS services, and also implement needed new agricultural technology for improving the welfare and food security and nutrition. In some countries of Central Asia is the only income of rural people is agricultural products from their back yard gardens. Household farmers consume a large part of what make and sell the surplus to purchase additional food. Traditionally each family in rural has more than 5-10 members, who has income only from household farm. Thus, the main objective of improving food security in Central Asia is to help household farmers produce more and better-for-sale and self-consumption. RAS should in future support Household farmers to obtain skills and information, and to address challenges to improve their livelihoods and well-being.

Best regards, Lola


Dear Prof. Xiangping Jia,

To answer your questions I shall firstly emphasize that agricultural extension in Uzbekistan, and I suppose in most of CA countries, does not exist as academic discipline and therefore as a profession (excuses, if I’ve missed this point in someone’s discussion). Also, it is absent on the level of adult education (so-called [re]-training program, or vocational education). This is an important aspect for overview of how ‘extension’ is done and who is involved in it. Thus, theoretically, I can call ‘extension workers’ those whose work is formally/non-formally related to agriculture and knowledge/technology dissemination/generation on different levels:

1) Formal, governmental, national: experts of the Ministry of Agriculture and water resources; agrarian science and education

2) Non-governmental, national: specialists of the Farmers’ council

3) Non-governmental, regional: NGO, donor-based TA projects;

4) Private level, national: a) dealers of commercial firms, private agricultural shops; Grass roots: b) the same people from the above mentioned levels, since they can consult on their own e.g. within their home community and through network connections; c) Farmer-to-farmer and community-based exchange;

I’ve referred to agricultural teachers as potential extensionists due to their involvement into research projects at their universities, including Phd studies; the results of that work shall have the practicality for agriculture. Also, initiated and supported by the state, a tradition of annual Innovations Fair (since 2008) is now a platform for four domains: research, education, business and agricultural production = farmers, to demonstrate available local or adapted technologies, to make aware, to establish contacts and sign real contracts ( see comment of Mrs. Galimova of May 20).

Based on that, incentives that I see: 1) number of signed contracts with production and remuneration; 2) scoring system that evaluates teacher’s work on various criteria, whereas research and practical work add important share to the overall score and consequent remuneration; 3) apart from tangible and monetary value – name, reputation and improved skills. Here, the principles are the same, as for extension workers elsewhere in the world – One



43


satisfied farmer will spread the word about the effective results. Moreover, nowadays researchers and teachers have better access to world knowledge and expertise through collaboration with foreign science and education, so as to enrich their own capital and diversify the advice they [can] provide.

RAS private sector: Private dealers of seeds, equipment as an example. I can’t call it private RAS though, but as mentioned above - their work includes elements of advisory work, though heavily influenced by advertising and selling, rather than farm development. Yet, owing to access to information about improved seeds, technologies, experts who can advise, etc. these agents can communicate the alternative information from place to place, provided they gain appropriate extension expertise (approaches, basic principles), and see the extension function as additional asset. Perhaps, these private ‘extensionists’ can deliver the farmers’ feedback to the research system.

Connection between the private and public sector like academia has some gaps, indeed. One of the instances, the cases when research is implemented upon demand of farmers or private companies are still rare. Also, the problems of funding and state support, accountability remain among the challenges.

Best regards, Elena.

PS. If you're interested, please see attached an article with our views on extension in Uzbekistan.

50. , , Ирина Церетели министерство сельского хозяйства РААрмения

Dear colleagues,

Today food security issues that are an important socio-economic challenge in Central Asia, Southern Caucasus and China, are largely dependent on innovative infrastructure as an intermediary or a tool that enables interaction between academia and producers. When developing innovative economy in the region, regulatory role of the government in innovative development objectively comes to the forefront; it will ensure positive results only in case of a balanced long-term development strategy. The role of technological solutions in agriculture is maximum assistance in addressing the issues of improvement of agricultural productivity, and increasing the quality and quantity of food security through intensification and diversification of agriculture.National agricultural innovation systems in each country need to identify priorities for making an active contribution in improvement of agricultural production, and increasing quality and quantity of food.AIS are aimed at strengthening agricultural research through strengthening linkages with farmers and other actors of agricultural sector.Innovative development of agriculture requires solution of a group of problems:

20. To provide scientific and research-and-technology field with financial and material resources;

21. To establish an institutional framework for implementation and promotion of innovations. This institutional framework shall include an information system and a system of methodological support.

22. To strengthen the role of actors of agrarian business in innovation process, to encourage introduction of developments into production, to establish a system of training, retraining and skills development needed for the implementation of specific innovation programs



44


and projects, to include civil servants involved in the innovation process management into this process;

23. To develop methods of taking into account the impact of innovations on socio-economic parameters of agricultural system.

An important condition for solving these problems is further development of extension systems, establishment of a stable institutional framework for agricultural advisory services and information transfer in such fields, as crop production, production of agricultural products, acquisition of resources, marketing of products, attracting credit funds, research and introduction of new technologies, etc.



CAC region and China are facing similar challenges in agriculture, such as agricultural intensification and declined resource for a sustainability, diversified agriculture and challenges of climate change (Subhash Mehta).

There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC and China through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The ones related to RAS emerge through regional development programs (such as rural infrastructure investment and "demonstration park" of agricultural technology), private investments (in agro-chemical inputs, agro-food supply chain, and land market), and academic collaborations. Being designed and implemented within a systematic framework, OBOR potentially plays an important role in not only knowledge exchange but also a formation of regional network in directing public and private investment in enhancing AIS in the region (Xiangping JIA).


Research, education and extension are disconnected with each other in reality. For the triangle relationship, it is important to “make sure research and education [are] linked from bottom to up” (Oyture Anarbekov).

Being institutionalized in positive and negative way, incentive and motivation are driving and deterrent forces. It is very important to structure incentive mechanism in AIS (Botir Dosov).

AIS faces diversified stakeholders, and ‘the target groups’ have different interests and abilities. In consequence, the organizational forms of AIS have to be flexible and dynamic to be responsive and adaptive (Anastasiya Lebedeva).

More considerations are needed to make government play a pro-active role in creating a favorable environment for AIS (Jamshid Fayziev).

Community-based companies that are staffed by professionals potentially play a role in enhancing value-adding of the agro-food chain and dealing with risks through group insurance or credit (Subhash Mehta).



45


Lengthy approval/permit process of innovations hinders the quick application of technologies in field. Prioritized areas should be smallholder centered policies and education on the youth (Eren TASKIN).


Academic staffs and scientists in agricultural universities are respected people in the community and therefore are the sources of advice, information or new technology. However, it is challenge for university scientists to combine the “book knowledge” with the practical application in field (Elena Kan).

Insufficient communication between academia and the rural society is pervasive. While the academia has not been formally institutionalized into RAS, existing practices are often on the individual base; scientists voluntarily conduct extension and give farmers advices through direct personal cooperation. However, it is not easy because good practices of agricultural extension requires good communication skills; this is especially challenging for scientists who work mainly in laboratories (Eren TASKIN).


Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much for the active participation in our online discussion that day by day is becoming more interesting.

Taking into account your comments and views, as well as the goals and objectives of this online discussion, I have tried to portray what could be a model of efficient Agricultural Innovation Systems in the Central Asia and the Caucasus countries, as well as China in ensuring food security and nutrition and improving livelihoods. I have gotten a very multi-compound scheme, which you can find in the attached file. To make this scheme friendlier I decided to add a bit of creativity.

The clouds, or threats, such as climate change and the population growth, represent the challenges for future of rural and agricultural population, including households with low income and vulnerable populations. By agriculture, I mean all sectors, for example, crops, livestock, fisheries, etc.

The main components of an innovation system are:

rural advisory services, agricultural research system agricultural education system agro-information system.

It is also necessary to have available resources: financial, operational, technological, natural and human, as well as the state support, which could be compared with the importance of the sun in life on earth. In our case, the government support is an important component for effective AIS,



46


including agricultural research, advisory services and education. The public and private sector as well as donors, together play a crucial role in the development of infrastructure.

You can also see a man on the draw as the main driving force, which is necessary for the efficient functioning of the system that ensures cooperation and coordination.

With an agricultural productivity growth across value chains, yields and profitability of the overall system will increase and result in generation of additional capital that can be reinvested in agriculture. This process will be accompanied by agricultural "technologization" with back up of innovation development.

53.Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China

Response to Dr. Botir Dosov’s question to Zhenzhong Si,

Do you think that community enterprise system combined with advocacy and dissemination of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” would facilitate switching from a productivity-oriented food system to a more sustainable and ecologically friendly system at least at community level? Could you give some examples of what Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) “green food” or “hazard-free food” could be?

I can share a case my YPARD China team is working on for nominating for the 2015 UNDP Equator Prize. Its good practices have been extended in 28 of the 31 provinces in Mainland China.

Community Supported Agriculture-- Little Donkey Farm Exploring Innovative Ways for Sustainable Agriculture towards Rural and Urban coordinated development

I. Backgrounds

Agriculture in China is threatened by three major challenges, namely food safety, environmental pollution and huge disparity between the urban and the rural. Within such a context, Eco-agriculture should be developed to establish direct linkage between consumers and producers, and encourage citizens’ participation in agriculture, so as to provide a solution to these imminent problems.

As a producing- teaching - research base co-founded by Haidian District government and Renmin University, Little Donkey Farm sees its launching as a response to the national development strategy. Starting from 2003, the central government has put forward many goals, for example, “promoting the scientific concept of development”, “building a resource-saving and environmentally-friendly society”, “building a socialist new countryside as a huge historic mission”, “developing an Eco society”, “prioritizing modern agriculture in building the new countryside”. Against such backdrops, Little Donkey Farm aims at promoting mutual help between the urban and the rural through Eco-agriculture, and embarks on a road that explores the national strategies in real practice.

Its Good practices include:

1. Forging a direct supply chain between the communities, households and the production base



47


By subscription in Little Donkey Farm, we mean that the CSA members and the farm cooperate and share risks throughout the production and forge such relationship into a direct supply chain between the two parties. This method can not only promote development of the community, but also strengthen trust that used to be missing due to the lack of direct linkage between consumers and producers so as to ease the pressure of food security.

In 2009, citizens’ farm was officially launched, but only saw a total of 37 households joining the Little Donkey Farm subscription program; in 2010, the number grew to 280 households; in order to meet the members’ continuous demand for vegetables from the Little Donkey Farm, a special delivery service of the stored vegetables for winter was provided; in 2011, the member number reached 460. Up till now, such a size has been well maintained.

2. Developing an urban base for agriculture leisure experiences

Citizens’ farm as one form of suburban agriculture, is highly crucial in offering a platform for farming, leisure and entertainment. Labor-sharing subscription is the first operating business of Little Donkey Farm and also embodies the multiple functions of agriculture, serving as a typical example of agriculture going into the tertiary industry. At the same time, such innovation changes the way citizens relax, with a shift from traditional sightseeing in the suburban to agriculture-related entertainment. Members establish unique neighboring relationships through communication and mutual help, forming an urban farming community that prospers in vegetable planting, leisure and relaxation for the senior, education for the children as well as holiday entertainment.

The most exciting news is that the number of subscribers to Little Donkey Farm’s labor-sharing program have been continuously growing over the last 7 years, from the mere 17 households in 2001, to 107 in 2010 and 263 in 2011, to almost 400 in total in 2015.

3. Establishing an Eco-agriculture technology research and promotion platform

The design of Little Donkey Farm reflects the concept and thinking of Eco-agriculture and country life. Crop farming, fish breeding and poultry raising are combined together. Farmlands, grass and forests prosper together. Various elements are integrated for enhanced benefits and together form a positive ecological system and an ecological cycle within the farm itself. That is, we establish the area’s ecologic and economic system by practicing sustainable agriculture production and living model.

In terms of production, Little Donkey Farm adheres to crop planting, fish breeding and poultry raising in an Eco-friendly way. It makes full use of the local natural resources of light, heat, water and earth as well as capital shallowing mechanism that replaces capital with labor to improve quality of the earth. The farm also introduces the natural breeding technology from South Korea to make use of the local endogenous microorganisms to break down the excrement so as to reduce pollution, save water and enhance the body health of pigs and other animals. Based on such achievements, Little Donkey Farm also establishes partnerships with Eco-agriculture practicing groups from more than ten countries including the US, India, Thailand, Peru, South Korea, and Japan. It serve as a pilot workshop which has developed a set of applicable technologies and standards that are endogenous, effective, low-cost and suitable for our national conditions. The production, management and quality control system for organic products is also



48


put in place to serve sustainable agriculture production and living, and help different kinds of farms, rural cooperatives (rural communities) and small household production with their shift toward more sustainable development.

In 2011, Little Donkey Farm organized a two-session training class that saw nearly 100 participants coming from Malaysia, Singapore and across the nation. The training received guidance from the Beijing Agriculture Technology Promotion Center, Haidian Agriculture Science Institute, etc. and generated very positive results.



49


4. Training Eco-agriculture professionals

The rise of ecological farm is epitomized in the growing interest on the part of the youth in agriculture. Every year, Little Donkey Farm launches internship programs to recruit passionate young people interested in Eco-agriculture and CSA operation from universities, NGOs and other social sectors. In this way, farms can become an intermediary for youth to get closer to rural areas and know better about agriculture. At the same time, it can train talented people that can help develop the farm itself, promote pilot Eco-agriculture programs and contribute to common development of both the rural and the urban areas with interactive activities.

Since the launching of the internship program in 2008, altogether 8 batches of young people, about 100 in total took part. Interns have to receive a 9-month training during which time they can make use of their talent and interest to experience the whole production cycle and get fully involved in every step of the farm’s operation and management. We promote the idea of combining learning with laboring, practice with theory, and guide every intern to cultivate down-to-earth, truth-seeking and hardworking characteristics and strong capabilities. In addition to interns, we also welcome large numbers of volunteers who long to serve the farm.

Over the 7 years, Little Donkey Farm has already accumulated rich experiences in running the intern training system that depends on “farm/agriculture” development. It helps alleviate pressure of the job market for collage students and train a huge number of agriculture-loving talents or at least those who have some understanding of the agriculture, farmers, and rural areas. This system also creates a favorable environment that respects and highlights agriculture development and advocates the philosophy of returning to homeland.

5. Promoting a sustainable way of life

The indication of sustainable life first lies in healthy consumption, especially consumption in food and daily necessities. However in fact, as we enjoy the convenience and varieties brought about by modernization, urbanization and industrialization, we have to live with problems like environmental pollution and food insecurity which are generated by rapid development as well. Therefore, helping farmers shift their farming methods, supporting healthy agriculture and opting for healthy consumption are all highly important efforts the whole society needs for sustainable development in the future.

Availing itself of the network of members and the communication platform of the farm, Little Donkey Farm has thrown more than 400 events and activities and received about 30,000 visitors. Also, it has cooperated with different institutions in carrying out non-current promotion activities in various communities. In 2011, a very special school was built up in the fields to offer children as well as adult citizens targeted agriculture education and provided opportunities for them to experience a healthy way of farming life. One year later, the farming education activity kicked off to allow households to engage in various activities like agriculture experiencing, environment protection activities and handcrafting, etc.

6. Supporting healthy small household farming while initiating common purchase

Common purchase allows consumers to establish sound cooperation based on mutual trust and reduce the risk of food insecurity. It not only ensures the supply of healthy food needed in daily



50


life besides those for delivery or extra share, but also supports different types of rural households and farmers’ cooperatives.

From 2009, Little Donkey farm tried to initiate the common purchase plan with the help of its members and the community work. In 2010, a number of moms in Huilongguan area formed a so-called “Mothers in Huilongguan” group; some parents in Zhongguancun also established Shi’an Health Cooperative after they organized citizens for an field trip investigating into organic food. In 2011, communities in Xiaotangshan, Shaoyaoju, Wangjing and Yuetanxijie also saw a craze in community group buy featured by common purchase.

In 2012, Little Donkey Farm established strategic cooperation with Guoren Green League and directly sold the different kinds healthy food on behalf of the farmers’ cooperatives and small household groups affiliated with the league.

7. Promoting the rise of new farmers’ markets nationwide

One direct form of community supporting agriculture is to build trust between producers and consumers through face-to-face communication.

In September 2009, Little Donkey Farm hosted the first small-scale national farmers’ fair. More than ten institutions coming from across the country gathered together to introduce to consumers their healthy agri-products. Ever since then, such farmers’ fairs have attracted tens of thousands citizens, providing trustworthy Eco-products with convenient delivery, facilitating communication between consumers and producers, as well as playing a pivotal role for the establishment of Beijing farmers’ organic agriculture fairs in 2011.

In October 2011, as Little Donkey Farm celebrated its harvest season; more than 60 institutions related to healthy agriculture from across the country came over to the event and made it a farmers’ fair boasting the most number of participating agencies and the richest activities.

As farmers’ fair became popular in Beijing, many other places also followed suit in organizing local fairs. Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chengdu, Nanjing, Wuhan are all such examples. Farmers’ fair serves as a channel for transmission and communication, not only draws producers closer to citizens with enhanced mutual trust and transparency in production, but also allows consumers to play a supervising role of the agriculture production as they come to know more about the producers and the whole production process.

8. Promoting the establishment of a nationwide Eco-agriculture network

In order to promote the innovative projects across the nation, Little Donkey Farm has hosted CSA experience sharing meetings six times in Beijing, Shanghai and Fuzhou, respectively in January 2010, November 2010, October 2011, November 2012, November 2013 and December 2014. More than 2000 practitioners and researchers around the country attended the discussions and contributed to its fruitful results.

To further boost development of CSA, Little Donkey Farm started a “National CSA and Family Farm Training Class” twice a year starting from 2013. So far, 5 training sessions have been completed with more than 200 trained members.



51


According to initial statistics, since 2009, about 200 CSA organizations have been established in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangdong, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Fujian, Liaoning, Shanxi, Shandong, Shaanxi, Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Neimeng, Henan, Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou (all are either major municipalities or provinces). Among these places, Mazhuang village in Lankao, Henan province became the focus of attention and got praise from the then Vice President Xi Jinping as it draws upon our experiences in developing CSA.

54.Metin Güven, Renta LTD, Тurkey

Building up accredited expert database is so crucial. Technology could be put in place to setup an information sharing platform accessible to all related parties.


Dear Mr. Metin Güven,

Thank you for an interesting comment. I would like to ask you to comment further.

Would that such a database of experts already exists in some form, or should it be built on/in one of the existing platforms, such as universities? Should it exist at country, regional or global level? What should be the goal and objectives of that database / platform?

Sincerely, Botir

56.Tatatiana Yusupova, Freelance consultant, Russia

Dear Mr. Botir

Firstly, I would like to share my thoughts regarding your comment on comment of Mr. Metin Güven, if you do not mind. It seems to me that the idea of database and online platforms is not bad. Although, possibly there is no need specifically to create it. You can use existing platforms, e.g. the platforms of the universities or organizations that have organized this discussion. But, a network, forum or engine, linking existing platforms or data bases through means of communication would also be useful. By itself, the database does not need not have a certain purpose, and they can be multi-purpose. Various projects, programs, forums, companies can benefit from those databases, if the information they keep is supported by metadata. For example, for my project I would able to find from that database the X experts, with qualification on Y-1, Y-2, Y-31, and with working experience in country Z.

Secondly, I would suggest not ignoring the issues of branding and marketing of your products and services, i.e. products and services of research, education, extension and information systems that would have the distinctive features to attract the attention of the public sector, donors and the private sector, as you have them depicted in their picture. By the way, I like your picture of effective AIS models. There is an element of branding and promotion in that. In addition, it would be important to discuss what are your goals of co-operation with various target groups. We must



52


pay more attention to the preferences and needs of customers and actors of the innovation system. You emphasize the role of coordination and cooperation. Therefore, an effective model of innovation systems have to envisage the effective communications that I certainly did not see in your picture. So my question is: what means and tools of communication do you use to work with different target groups? How effective are they? What kind of products are your target groups expecting from you? What kind of products are you going to offer them? And, yes, I agree with you that sometimes (it happens), "people do not know what they want until you show it to them," as Steve Jobs were saying.

I wish success to this discussion in the application of its conclusions and recommendations, Tatiana


Dear Elena Kan,

Thanks for your kindness to share your thoughts on agricultural extension and its organizations in Uzbekistan. You raised a very important issue that is neglected in many developing countries, including China. Agricultural extension, being considered simply as farmers’ behavioral changes of technology adoption after being provided the information, has rarely been structured into a formal educational system. In fact, the value and importance of non-formal method of education in agriculture is neglected in pedagogy in developing countries. When scientists and extensionists force on the “transfer of technologies”, some of the technologies were developed in research stations under controlled and uniformed conditions. However, many of these technologies were often found to be unsuitable in complex, diverse and risky situations. Such a variability is enlarged and complicated by social limitations because learning leads to social action outcomes.

Therefore, agricultural extension becomes a tool and facilitator of discovery learning in a group context whereby farmers collectively focus on real problems on their plots and figure out solutions for their own. Unfortunately, in reality, agricultural extension and informal education are segmented in various government lines (such as Ministry of Agriculture for the former and Ministry of Education for the latter). Pedagogical professionals understand the transformative process of adult education but have little knowledge in agricultural extension and its complication. Agricultural extension staffs, having all the technical knowledge, have little knowledge in pedagogy of informal training. The gap becomes a constraint and hurdle and the segmentation of government bureaucracy makes such a gap insurmountable.

Global network (such as FAO) potentially plays an important and facilitating role in regional initiatives in CAC and China for an integrated pedagogical program of agricultural extension. Through working with the national partners, such a regional initiative and the formation of international knowledge is able to align various government segments with each, at least at a pilot level. This can be, in my personal view, a prioritized area of actions.



53


58.Maria Losova, Canada

Dear Mr. Gueven,

The idea with the experts' database might be of use for donors or government or private sector who is interested to hire one or another consultant. But i don't think it will be of use to small scale farmers in the remote areas of Central Asia and Caucasus. From my fieldwork experience and travels in whole of the Central Asia and Caucasus, i have witnessed that small scale farmers often do not have computers (1); they often don’t know how to use computers and access databases (2); and unexpected but regular power shut-downs take place in many parts (3).

Thus, indeed it would be good to know who is working on the region but it does not really bring much to the actual recipients of the services, thus farmers.

Kind regards, Maria


Dear Jieying Bi,

Thanks for introducing the case of CSA under the backdrop of urbanized agriculture in China. As the facilitator of the forum, I hope to ask additional questions. First, it seems that third-party certification of quality & safety standards (hazard free, GAP, etc) are not required in CSA. This is consistent with theoretical and a few empirical studies; CSA applies a different mechanism of governing agro-food market. May you be kind to address bit more on this (as you motivate your presentation through a response to the discussion from Botir and Zhenzhong Si. Second, could you elaborate more on agricultural extension services in the CSA case you introduced? Probably I miss some points but it is indeed important and the key theme of the e-discussion. To be specific, we would like to know: a) who provide technical advisory services in CSA program? What are the incentives? b) how does the CSA case cover the costs and be financially viable and sustainable? If consumers (or the members of CSA) pay higher price, how much of the revenue goes to buy-in of extension services? c) how do you think the CSA case in an urban context contributes to the e-Forum of food security and nutrition in CAC region and rural areas of China?

Thanks. Your contribution and discussion is indeed valuable.

60.Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Singapore

To the organizers and contributors,

I've read through all previous comments, and I can say I've really learned a lot from this discourse. From a developed country's perspective, the opportunities in China and in the CAC countries seem to lie in the ability to draw sufficient support from the net importing countries. The reason lies in the instabilities the Ch and CAC can cause once they start importing (rather than producing domestically), although this depends on the kind of good traded (goods that are



54


thinly traded could be priority goods for net importing countries). Essentially, the food security of the said countries should be a crucial concern for developed countries as well.

Another point is on employment given the current young generation's preferences. There seems to be a bifurcation of jobs- - rural and urban being the best way of dividing them. Rural jobs seem unattractive to the current young generation, and this has caused the continued urban migration. With less heads focusing on how to address the future global food sufficiency issues, it is expected that food sufficiency will continue to be a problem. In my research I find that one solution lies in the ability to get job migration re-directed to agriculture jobs, by not framing them as unattractive rural-type jobs. After all, we all have a basket of goods which we consume, and food should be sufficiently prioritized as well. If the current system leads to lower attractiveness of agricultural jobs, even when agriculture is a non-negotiable commodity (i.e. we can't not consume it regardless of our income)- - then making agriculture-related jobs more attractive should be the way forward.

Last, price instability is also a problem which leads to low investments. On this point, I don't think that the non-interventionist agenda will be helpful, as this also means having more instabilities. There has to be leeway for governments (think India) to intervene, at least when it comes to price and supply stabilization. Without this stability, investors will always be at the stage of deciding, and not necessarily committing, towards making the investments. This explains the low investment rate, and the reason why we are still waiting for the second green revolution to occur.

Many thanks to the FSN organizers for setting this up! I've surely learned a lot, and I look forward to the outcomes of these discussions as well.

Cheers,

Jose Ma. Luis Montesclaros, Dynamic Modeller of Food Policy Issues, Associate Research Fellow, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Singapore


Dear Jieying Bi,

I also found CSA is the really interesting good practice in China. It brought me back to 2014 when we have organized a Regional RAS conference for CAC countries in Bishkek. Dr. Robin Bourgeois, GFAR, was facilitating the foresight session, where participants were discussing 7 possible transformations of the future agriculture. And some of those transformations were close to CSA taking place and developing in China. As it is happening now in China, it would be good to study this model more deeply, as one of the probable models of agriculture, responding to emerging challenges in agriculture and food security to develop more robust strategies by considering not only how to adapt to the trends but also how to adapt to ruptures and even sometimes how to shape them (trends and ruptures). From this point of view, additionally to Xiangping's comments below, I would like to suggest organising a Workshop or Training on a Specific Global Good Practice, i.e. CSA and /or correlated programs, e.g. establishing direct links between producers and consumers, urban base for agriculture leisure experiences, Eco-agriculture technology research and promotion platform, Training Eco-agriculture professionals, etc. as side event at the



55


6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GRAS). It is not necessarily means that CSA model should be "copied and pasted" to other economies, but its elements can be adapted to the local contexts.

62.Alexander Makeev, Eurasian Center for Food Security, Russia

Dear colleagues,

According to the comments, we all agree, that it is crucial for the region to use innovation systems in agriculture. However I would like to draw attention of the members of the Forum that most of the comments do not discuss or offer particular innovation technologies. There are not so many comments on agricultural research development. Why is that so? A set of innovative technologies, which are promising for introduction, is wide enough. These technologies have been tried out in various institutions, and research farms. Analysis of economic benefits of introduction of technologies has been carried out, and their role in improving sustainability of agricultural production has been determined. Apparently, the key task for today is to disseminate the positive experience of application of new technologies. Actually, these are the key points of a large part of presentations of our forum. It is obvious that establishing an integral system of dissemination and implementation will promote more effective development of new technologies. In my comment I would like to focus on the issues related to establishing of an educational system, which has its focus on students of different levels. The Eurasian Center for Food Security has begun to establish a system of distance learning products in Russian and English. Educative products are designed for different categories of students. These products are in compliance with the educational standards for further education of the Lomonosov Moscow State University and comply with the levels of skill improvement, professional retraining and second higher education. As of today, the Center has developed more than 20 distance-learning courses on economic and social aspects of food security, as well as on land and water use for food security. Two master’s programs on food security have been created:

1. Land and water resources management in order to ensure food security2. Agri-food management

Both programs are fulfilled in partnership with the World Bank, and will be presented at the educational platform of the Center (www.edu.ecfs.msu.ru) in 2016. Two faculties - the Faculty of Soil Science and the Faculty of Economics, will jointly carry out teaching. It is also planned to accept students and arrange teaching of the basic disciplines on the basis of the branches of the Moscow State University in Central Asia and Caucasus. Education will last two years. The Eurasian Center for Food Security also designs short distance-courses. Until the end of 2016, the Center will present 5 courses: foundations of food security, food security assessment, foundations of land management to improve food safety, economic and environmental assessment of land, and legal and political foundations of water management. Short courses are practice-oriented and are designed for employees of information and consultancy services, civil servants and politicians. The Center is also ready to develop farmers-oriented short modular courses on agricultural innovation systems and particular technologies. These courses can be designed on the basis of materials and requests by information and consultancy services, donor organizations, research centers, etc. Remote educative products are complemented by the system of electronic



56


consultations and forums that are organized on the platform of the Center and its partners. We are open to broad cooperation for development of the educational system for all aspects of food security improving. Sincerely, Dr. Sci. Alexander Makeev, Head of knowledge management and learning department, Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS), Lomonosov Moscow State University, tel.: (+7-495) 9308952

63.Hongyan Zhang China Agricultutre University, China

Dear organizers and contributors,

I am a teacher in China Agricultural University, China and it is my great pleasure to have chance to learn a lot form this discussion. I am interested in the role of agricultural university in agricultural technology transformation and extension. Here I would like share with you our experience on high yield and high efficiency agricultural technology research and transformation during last year. Hopefully I can get your kind suggestion!

A brief introduction of Science and Technology Backyard (STB) Agricultural technology and extension innovation system of China AgriculturalUniversity (CAU)

Background

Due to the increased population, decreased arable land, shortage of agricultural resources such as water, and increased pressure to environment, study and use of high yield and high efficiency (Double high, DH) agricultural technology become urgent in China. The success of ‘‘double high’’ agriculture is highly dependent on both DH technology and effective agricultural technology transfer and extension. However, the poor link between researcher and farmer, and between agricultural study and practical production limit both the usability and transformation of agricultural technology. To resolve these problems, the scientist from China Agricultural University (CAU) establish a so called Science and technology backyard (STB) agricultural technology research and application platform in rural area since 2009. Professors and graduated students from CAU, Beijing lived in STB and worked with farmers with “zero distance” to study, optimize and transfer DH agricultural technology, and help farmer to use DH.

The work procedure of STB model

(1) Investigation of practical problems in agricultural production

The scientist and graduate student lived closely with farmer and practical agricultural practice, thus they can easily found the real problems in the main cropping systems which limited both yield and efficiency through field investigation and farmer discussion

(2) study and Optimize of DH technology

Based on the investigation, we introduce new technology, or carried out field experiment to study new technologies in farm’s field with the help of farmers. After modification of traditional management practice with these new technologies, we formulate an optimized integrate agricultural management practices which is suitable for the practical situation, and

(3) Built demonstration field to show the effect to farmers



57


At the same time we optimize the DH technology, the demonstration field about 5-10 ha was established near to the village where STB lies. In the demonstration field, the new DH technology was used to compare with traditional management. We organize field days and invite farmer to show the effect of DH and introduce our technology to them. Only after seeing the real “effect” the farmer would like to use these technologies.

(4) Training the farmers-face to face

Before farmer use these technologies, they should be trained firstly to understand the technology. For this purpose, students and scientists in STB organize training class for farmers both in home and in field. We establish so call science and technology galleries along the roadside in field and on the wall in the village to show the technology principle with cartoon, picture and less words thus farmer can conveniently learn and easily understand the technology. Also, farmer field schools (FFS) were established to train farmer systematically. The training class and FFS were very welcomed by farmers. Considering women is the most important labor force for agricultural production, STB in some villages also establish farmer field school special for women and in the women FFS, we teach them not only agricultural technology, but also dancing and singing which made them happy and increased their initiative to learn and use new DH technology.

(5) Organize the farmers

With training, STB successfully transfer the DH technology to farmers and enhance their confidence to use DH technology. Transfer of DH technology to farmer, however, not always lead to final use of technology in field. The reason is that in most area of China, farmer had very small piece of arable land, for example only 0.1 ha per capita in Northern China Plain. Small farm not only limit application of some agricultural technology such as deep tillage with good quality machine, but also reduce the effect of pest and pathogen control. To resolve these problems, STB tried to find ways to organize small farms into somewhat larger land units. For example, we encourage and help the farmers in the village to develop farmer cooperative to organize farmers to use the DH technology. Also, running of farmer cooperative lower the cost of agricultural production, for example lower the fertilizer price and mechanical cost, and thus further encourage the use of technology by farmers.

(6) Help farmer hand by hand

To make sure the correct application of DH, the students in STB go into the field to give farmer hand by hand helping during the growing seasons. Also, the farmer can easily found the students in the STB to find help.

With these 6 steps: Investigation-Study-Demonstration-Training- Organization and Service, STB successfully transfer the new technology from scientist to farmer and farmer’ field, and increased both yield and resource use efficiency of crop production. Due to the contribution of STB model on high yield and high efficiency agricultural development, it was welcomed by farmer and local government and finally the number of STB increased from 1 in 2009, to 55 at the end of 2014 in China.

Future perspectives



http://www.baidu.com/link?url=kaTPgxthBOM1XkS1LgB8My8kVT7WZcsVwBk-mfU7-rglJcwTP8FxFlmBxoJ5765Dh5q1tTfyO5jqofSHQUPHbK

58


STB supply a platform which scientist/students can live, work and communicate with farmers and actual production with “zero distance”. These not only increase the usability of agricultural technology, but also accelerate the transfer and use of agricultural new technology. CAU’s STB experience of 6 years indicates that agricultural university can play an important role in both agricultural technology innovation and agricultural technology extension.

64.Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kirgizstan

The role of agricultural innovation systems (AIS) in developed countries is very significant and is aimed at improving knowledge and skills of farmers and processors. The question - what is the role of the AIS in increasing productivity of crops, livestock, processing of agricultural products – there has been no special studies carried out in Kyrgyzstan, and apparently in Central Asia. The only exception is a workshop conducted by CACAARI in 2014 in Bishkek, which studied out the following: what is the situation with AIS in Central Asia, what are the weaknesses, and what are the opportunities; the regional strategy has been developed on the basis of this information.

Rural extension services have been performing the mission of AIS in Kyrgyzstan since the time of their establishment. RAS development in Kyrgyzstan is funded by donors and is dependant on how much they are able to fundraise, this includes introduction of innovations.

There are other NGOs as well, that introduce innovative approaches, but the role of AIS in their activities is limited by the TOR of the project.

The priorities for AIS shall be: innovations related to irrigation of crops, plant breeding and seed production, animal breeding, preservation of agricultural biodiversity, use of climate change adaptive technologies, issues related to food security and nutrition.

In addition to the state support of research, researchers should submit their projects to the producer’s associations (associations of beet growers, processors association, etc.). Extension services and researchers should conduct market research of their products. RAS should promote awareness of farmers and decision-makers on food security and nutrition principles.

In Kyrgyzstan RAS and NGOs working as AIS perform separately and don’t have the country development strategy. There is a need for a center, which will coordinate their activities, develop methodological approaches and tools, and perform fundraising activities. It’s advisable to have such a center based in the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, which is an educational-research-and-production system. It is necessary to involve students into this system, which is a knowledge management system in the field of agriculture and other multi-disciplinary sectors. This system involves many NGOs working in the field of ecology, agriculture and rural development, climate change, food security and nutrition. It is necessary to include in the system organizations in accordance with the food and seed chain: plant breeder – seed producer – farmer – miller – baker – consumer (shop).

65.Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan

Innovation Platforms – Room for Partnership



59


When ICARDA promoted Innovation Platforms (IPs) in the inception workshop in Bishkek in December last year, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) could see a potential for a high impact joint collaboration. At the moment, IWMI’s core research portfolio includes cultivating and promoting Liquorice plant among farmers in the areas of mid and high saline lands. Liquorice has a vast potential to rehabilitate lands, while providing market benefits for farmers. Its root can be utilized for pharmaceutical and other industrial purposes, while the plant itself can be used as cattle feed. But above all, the agrochemical benefits of the plant is what makes or should make it the most attractive means of bringing the abandoned lands in the dryland systems back to cultivating.

IPs, as the name itself explains, could play a defining role as a facilitator for innovations, in particular, regarding the Liquorice, disseminating knowledge generated by IWMI and partners, while bringing potential beneficiaries of this research together for further discussions. Promotion of this technology requires joint efforts of multiple interdependent stakeholders who operate in complex settings, including farmers, development organizations, donors, private sector and government agencies. There are some institutional barriers hampering development and competition or conflict is likely to occur. That is when the role of IPs should have a defining momentum – it should serve as a platform for result oriented discussions and innovative solutions.

Soon, IWMI starts active promotion of its latest research results regarding the Liquorice and very much would like to see IPs as an active partner in this process. While IPs itself is a process rather than anything else, it could potentially be called as a partner-in-process, within the process of linking research to policy efforts of IWMI.

Dr Jusipbek Kazbekov & Mr Firdavs Kabilov, IWMI


Dear Dr. Hongyan Zhang,

Thanks for your introduction on the STB program of CAU. It seems that the program has energized great vigor in rural sites of China. We understand that, it is challenging to institutionalize agricultural extension services to commercial smallholder farmers whose major farming activity is grain production. As the price of grains is not high, farmers are dampened in adopting high-yield-high-efficiency technologies as the increased revenue is minor given the small size of agro-holdings. Rural transformation and emerging off-farm employment forms another challenging for agricultural extension of grain production. We also learned from other Chinese colleagues (such as from NAFU) that it is relatively easier to institutionalize extension in cash-crop sector. May you be kind to elaborate bit more about your insights regarding agricultural extension in grain production in transformed agriculture?


Dear Jusipbek Kazbekov,



60


Thanks for your contribution to the e-discussion. Your background and experience allows for a valuable input to the discussion about the coordination mechanism in multi-stakeholder AIS. As you mentioned, “promotion of this technology requires joint efforts of multiple interdependent stakeholders who operate in complex settings”. As a CGIAR researcher, how IWMI engages itself with the national AIS and what are the challenges? It is very important that you addressed “there are some institutional barriers hampering development and competition or conflict”. Could you elaborate more about the ‘conflicts’ and possible solutions to overcome the constraints?

68.Maria Losova, China

Dear participants of the forum,

I thank you all for your valuable contributions on the discussed topic. And I agree that AIS could potentially play a crucial role towards more sustainable food security and nutrition in the CAC. But the question is either AIS, the way we have it now, does contribute to the food security and nutrition CAC? And the immediate answer is NO. At the moment in unfortunately doesn’t contribute at its fullest capacity (it of course varies per country).

Why not?

There are many problems which hinder AIS functioning. All of them were scatterly mentioned in the forum. The main problems are linked to the changes related to the breakdown of Soviet Union and all the structural consequences that our countries are facing since then. In particular, many of those changes have negatively affected innovation production (that concerns research and academia; the link between research and production); producers (that has shifted from kolkhozes/sovkhozes towards different categories of farms); the national production priorities have shifted; and the markets. As said, many of those problems were touched throughout the forum so I don’t need to go in detail here.

What I am interested in hearing and discussing is the practical solutions how to overcome these barriers as soon as possible and make AIS contribute to the sustainable food security and nutrition in the CAC? For example, I eager to know your thoughts about the followings:

How research and education systems have to be reorganized to serve the present-day needs of newly emerged forms of the agricultural producers, on one hand, and to be self-sufficient as an institution, on the other hand? How to make agricultural research and education attractive for the students?

Given a prevailing number of under-skilled and vulnerable farmers that has emerged in the past 25 years in CAC, how to link them to the innovations produced by the research institutes, how to link them to AIS, to the entire food chain, to the experts databases we are discussing here?

Who or what institution is to lobby farmers’ interests? Why there is no singe example of the strong farmers’ association in any of the post-Soviet

country that would lobby the interests of the farmers on the national level? (as it was in Netherlands or Belgium 100 years ago)

Etc.I would be grateful to hear your considerations in this regard! I strongly believe if we reflect on those issues and make steps towards overcoming them, we will make AIN contribute to the food



61


security and nutrition in CAC. At the end of the day, we are not starting from the scretch, we have a solid basis for it.

Thank you in advance!


Dear Participants,

Let me add to the comment of Jusipbek Kazbekov, IWMI Central Asia, Uzbekistan on 01.06.2015

"Innovation Platforms – Room for Partnership"

Supporting and facilitation of interaction between different actors of innovation system can give additional dynamic to out-scaling impacts of research and development intervention in agriculture in Central Asia. To make it possible systems-based efforts are required to deliver demand-driven technologies to farmers and smallholders. Innovation platform is considered as one key elements of the CGIAR Research Program on Dryland Systems pursuing a new approach to integrated and ‘holistic’ agricultural research, since it promotes multi-disciplinary research through multi-stakeholders approach.

Innovation platform approach to address the issues in Agriculture in CAC region allows to engage a range of stakeholders into collective actions to identify and alleviate the constraints to productivity growth and the conditions that enable sustainable intensification and diversification, and improve the access to quality seed materials, varieties, breeds, data and knowledge, advisory services, technologies, economic incentives that are needed to enhance the resilience of smallholder farmers, and rural communities.

This approach is based on participatory planning and multi-disciplinary research and work with end-users and beneficiaries to test and scale out innovations, technologies, and research methods, multi-stakeholders dialogue, and foresight mechanisms that also involve partners from the research, policy, development, production and civil-society sectors.

Innovation Platform facilitates dialogue between the main local players in the value chain: farmers, input suppliers, traders, transporters, processors, wholesalers, retailers, regulators, and the research and development institutions. Innovation Platform identifies bottlenecks and opportunities in production, marketing and the policy environment. Therefore, the Innovation Platform is recognized by CRP DS stakeholders as an open platform for different players to pursue technology, institutional and policy options for enhancing productivity and managing risks through diversification sustainable intensification and integrated agro-eco-system approaches in DS CRP Action site.

Within CRP DS In December 2014, in Bishkek, we have organized the Innovation Platform workshop for research organisations, local governments, development partners, civil society, as well as representatives from farmers’ community in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) to jointly explore the possibilities of applying Agricultural Innovation Systems perspectives and Innovation Platform approaches in their respective countries.

As results of the workshop



62


A common understanding of Agricultural Innovation Systems and Innovation Platforms was created

Types of stakeholders in the Agricultural Innovation System within the research sites were identified

Opportunities and constraints to agricultural innovation and development were identified Entry points for action for establishing Innovation Platforms in the three countries were

discussed and agreed Intervention frameworks at country level a joint strategy and action plan were developed.

70.Jieying Bi, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China

Dear Prof.Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov,

Thank you for your questions and the idea for sharing the good practices.

I would like to also thank the organizer, especially Chairman Guram Aleksidze, and Dr. Botir Dosov for their efforts to invite youth to have their voice been heard in this discussion, and Prof.Jia Xiangping for his tremendous input to motive Chinese participants in this global discussion. I was once coordinator of an online discussion in e-agriculture, I know how much we need to do to motivate Chinese experts, researchers, students to join international digital communication. Each time, when an online discussion is organized, the participation of Chinese professional moves one step forward. So, thank you all.

Then response to your questions:

CSA adopted Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) accredited by International Federation of Organic Farm Movements (IFOAM); PGS is locally focused quality assurance systems. They certify producers based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange.

There aren’t special public agricultural S&T extension services in eco-agriculture or CSA from the national level. The main technical advisory services are provided by the operators who received advanced education in agricultural universities and accumulated knowledge in learning by doing. Another way of technical services is communication and sharing through CSA network, like the annual CSA conference and training organized by the Little Donkey Farm. So from this aspect, we can see the gap in AIS.

The Little Donkey Farm received an average income of 30,000 RMB per mu much higher benefits than common farm relying on its diversified functions. In addition to production, Little Donkey Farm also provides multiple agriculture-centered services including education, entertainment, sightseeing, and experiencing opportunities. All in all, it is a bold try in making the suburban agriculture a tertiary industry. There isn't statistic about the proportion of benefits used for technical services, but the high benefit and the idea of eco-ag can motivate the operators to improve the technics.

CSA can be a win-win model for urban and suburb area. It’s experience in linking producers with consumers, rural tourism, filed visit and the return for rural development, can be extended. Such exploration is of great significance to China’s efforts in solving the problems of agriculture, farmers and rural areas and actually contributes to the social welfare in a more profound way.



63


I appreciate the idea to organize side event for good practice sharing as I think it’s a very practical way to learn those successful cases which share similar background status and challenges. There’re also some other youth innovative ways of participation in agriculture, like the specialized production and modern logistics, eco-friendly agriculture and tourism in remote areas, e-commercial agriculture, etc. We need to draw a new image for agriculture then those excellent professionals, including youth and social capital can join and work for agriculture towards a sustainable development.

71.Hongyan Zhang, China Agricultutre University, China

Dear Prof. Jia Xiangping,

Thanks a lot for your response and I agree with you that it is indeed a big challenge to enhance agricultural extension efficiency in grain production area, especially the smallholder farm where grain production only contribute small part of their income and most of farmer are part time farmers. However, considering the challange of food security situation in China, we had no choice to face to and resolve this problem. There are several ways, to my opinion, to resolve this problem. Firstly, the DH technologies the researchers studied and introduced to the farmer’s should not only can increase the yield and lower the input, but also should be easier, simple, and timesaving. Secondly, the activities for transformation of technology to farmer, for example training, should be free of charge and arranged at the suitable time and place, and with correct ways which is convenient for farmer, especially the part-time farmer to take part in. Thirdly, socialized service system or farmer cooperative should be established with the strong support of the government to supply timely and cheaper service, such as agricultural machinery service which can save both time and money of farmer. Finally, the establishment of the mechanism that farmer can easily got service during the whole crop growing season is very important.

Ensuring food security is the more task of the government than the farmers, especially small holder farmers. Therefore the government should, in future, pay more attention and give more financial support to encourage more and more public welfare department and people such as scientists from university and institute to think, study and work closely with farmers to enhance the DH technology transformation and finally resolve the problems.

Thanks again for your response.

72.Ovezdurdy Dzhumadurdyev, Project Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan

Food imports by developing countries, those that have enough water and land resources, is one of the challenges for AIS. Import means that cost of local production is much higher than of imported products. The reason is that they don’t use agricultural scientific achievements and high technologies.

In some cases local producers when competing with importers try to reduce production costs by means of excessive use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Excessive amounts of fertilizers act like solvents. They dissolve and wash out ancient natural reserves of nitrogen in soils. When soil loses its fertility, it becomes more dependent on chemical fertilizers. Therefore excessive use of



64


nitrogenous fertilizers is also a challenge for AIS. AIS should provide support for local manufacturers in their unequal contest with competitors.

The proposal is to establish AIS. Therefore, it requires demand. However challenges are not a demand. We can speak of a demand, when consumers are ready to pay. Demand is born in a certain situation. Without adequate situation there is no prerequisite to establish AIS. Situations in the region differ, therefore the priorities for AIS in the region will not be the same. In some areas situations are being created, and in others there is still no adequate situation for prerequisites of AIS. Perhaps, for this reason it is needed to work out individual steps on the basis of the 7 regional steps.

73.Youguo Tian, National agritech extension and service center, Ministry of Agriculture, China

Hi, Dear All,

I am really happy to be here to exchange ideas about agrotech extension. I learnt alot from what you friends have discussed.

First of all, I would like to introduce a little bit about myself and my oganization. I am Tian youguo from China, now am working in National Agrotech Extension and Service Center（NATESC）, Ministry of Agriculture. I am the division director of National Agrotech Extension System Management in NATESC, MOA, China.

NATESC is a governmental organization under MOA, which has 4 main sections technically, Soil and Fertilizer, Plant Protection, Seeds and Agronomy. Besides of propose of related policy suggestion and its investigation and drafting, and executing of the detailed rules for law implementation, international agrotech and scientific exchange program, the main role of NATESC is Running technical projects pertaining to cropping management in china, mainly through demonstration and experiments, famers day and other ways. In recent years, NATESC system has focused on organizing and extending new varieties of grain crop, fruits and vegetables, and a large number of advanced and applicable technologies such as throwing transplantation rice, formula fertilization by soil testing, disease and pest monitoring and integrated management, facility agriculture, creating high yield grain and oil crops, which made an important contribution to promoting agricultural science and technology, improving the quality of agricultural products, increasing production, ensuring food security, increasing farmers income and enhancing the comprehensive agricultural production capacity.

There are about 31000 agrotech extension agencies of crop cultivation in China, of which 29 000 are at grass-roots. There are 13 people at county level on average and 8 at the township and village level on average. The agencies at different levels organize new technology trial demonstrate and extend and implement key projects in their respective fields.

Speaking of working system, we have 300,000 stuff in total, nationwide from central government level to the township level. In the past several decades, they played a really important role in the aspect of food security and farmers income increasing in China. Of course, Chinese government



65


made very difficulty efforts to its buildup and its maintenance, including building, working facility, traffic tools, and training, etc.

However, situation is changing very fast in the last 10 to 15 years. First of all, More and more young famers are trying to work in the city and some even move to live in the urban area. Every year there is about 8 million people shift from countryside to the city and most of them are young men.

Secondly, Small scale famers are still in a majority place in China, but there are already 870,000 family based farms and 1.29 million co-ops nationwide. That means more and more middle scale even large scale farmers are increasing.

Thirdly, there are hundreds of thousands individual organization are emerging, which provide various service to farmers beside of the governmental extension system.

Therefore, how to adapt to the new situation and provide better services to farmers are a new challenge for the public organization like NATESC. Many explore and attempt are tried and made good success. However, there is still a long way to go on this, including learn from experts and experience overseas.

Expect to exchange more and in deeper discussion in the sooner future. Welcome you friends visit China someday so that we can learn from each other and then put forward the extension more efficient and successful.

All best wishes, Tian Youguo

74.Nabira Jumabaeva, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Uzbekistan

If I understood correctly, Dr. B.Dosov in his commentary lamented the fact that discussion participants did not mention anything about scientific achievements by scolars and farmers of countries that took part in the online consultation.I, as representative of the Scientific Center, would like to say something on the role of agricultural research in innovation processes.President of Uzbekistan Mr. Islam Karimov once said that "our main priority or main strategic task, we understand, is achievement of clearly defined objective which is to gain our rightful place on the global market which is determined by natural and raw, even the geographical features of the country, its human, demographic and intellectual potential" that has been identified as main strategic task of country development. Without doubt, innovation and knowledge-based economy and the innovation economy play a key role to achieve that goal. Research data shows that in developed countries innovation industry generates 75% of GDP growth.Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan №PP-916 dated 15 July 2008 "On additional measures to stimulate development and implementation of innovative projects and technologies in production" had proposed a new system of national science in close relation with production, system of views over role and importance of science in ensuring the independence and prosperity of Uzbekistan as well as governance principles on mechanism of state regulation of innovative activities.



66


After approval of that Decree and a number of other government decisions, Uzbekistan has achieved significant progress in innovation development. It is well known that Uzbekistan has a substantial intellectual potential, and is famous for achievements of its scientists in the field of fundamental and applied science.One of the priorities of national economy is development of agriculture. Therefore, research activities carried out by scientific institutions in agricultural sector are relevant and in demand.Currently, there are 16 major research institutes in the country (as well as more than 100 structural units of those institutions that are located in all regions of Uzbekistan and Karakalpakstan) that are involved in research of all topics in the agricultural sector of Uzbekistan. The scientific potential is represented by 58 doctors and 176 candidates of science, and 3 of them are female doctors and 33 female candidates of science.Taking into account that today a priority task all over the world is to ensure food security of each country, I would like to mention results achieved by our scientists in this field.During independence years more than 30 varieties of wheat have developed, as well as recommendations for growing and placing those crops that produce 70-80 hundredweights of grain taking into account climatic conditions of local regions. As a result, over the years of independence, grain yield in the country increased by an average of 2.4 times. Also, scientists of our research institutions established selection of pome, stone fruit, nut crops. As an outcome, more than 170 new varieties of fruit and grapes have been created. Over the past 3 years on research and evidence-based intensive technologies intensive growing gardens on more than 22 thousand hectares have been created.Selection vegetable experts developed 64 varieties of vegetables, 18 melons, 9 varieties and hybrids of potatoes, 6 varieties of tomatoes to be grown at greenhouse, 15 outdoor varieties, 4 varieties of onions, 3 varieties of carrots. Selection work on non-traditional crops such as vegetable soybeans, lettuce, radish and many others is underway. These varieties are very popular among farming enterprises and are sown on an area of over 350 thousand hectares.In addition, such breeds of cattle as Kora-ola, Qizil chul, Schwyz and Bushuyev have been regionalized in the country. Selection scientists have created a line of longhaired breeds of goats “Zhundor", highly productive Hissar sheep breeds "Keng Gusar"and "Hush Bahor".For a wider implementation of research outcomes into production, in accordance with government decisions, annually Republican fair of innovative ideas, technologies and projects has been conducted in the country. This year, during the eighth in a row Fair, agricultural research and educational institutions made presentations about over 80 new innovations. Among them are new crop varieties, high technologies, machinery and many others. At the end of the fair, farmers of the country signed more than 640 contracts worth of over 4.1 billion soums.Of course, such work in intensive innovative mode is in need for both qualitatively and quantitatively improvement of key factors that ensure scientific and innovative processes, including volumes and forms of financing, organization of science and its personnel, material and technical resources, information, technical and patent systems and their focus on market innovation. Unfortunately, not all problems are solved successfully. As a finance specialist, I would like to highlight following:



67


- Absence of a clearly structured legal framework for implementation of all stages of innovation activities and state support, including direct (government funding) and indirect (tax preferences, state guarantees, etc.) mechanisms, as well as legal framework regulating conditions for creation of enterprises and relations norms between entities of innovation infrastructure;- Undeveloped special financial mechanisms over support of specific components of innovation infrastructure, innovation entrepreneurship and self-innovation projects, namely funds of venture financing (venture capital funds);- Weakness of cooperation links between research organizations, educational institutions and industrial enterprises;- Shortage of highly qualified personnel;- Lack of development of contemporary forms of innovation management and commercialization of innovations;However, as practice shows, the chosen path of development of the economy is a precondition for the country's effective innovation economy. There is still much to be achieved in this regard, and such online discussions help to find answers on many questions, to share ideas with colleagues, learn from someone else's experience, not to repeat mistakes.In conclusion, I would like to thank all the organizers and participants.


Dear Dr. Youguo TIAN,

As the co-facilitator of the FSN E-forum, I am thankful to your participation and contribution. The transition of RAS in China, together with the experience and lessons, is highly relevant and valuable to CAC countries because of the similarity of political structure in history, although the endowment of resources and social & economic structure are distinct. This is one of the motivation to position CAC and China together at the FSN E-forum. RAS in developing countries evolves under a backdrop of rural transformation.

The Chinese case – aging and feminine agricultural labors and emerging large farm through various ways of land consolidation – is not exceptional and might be happening in CAC and other regions. Therefore, comparative studies between CAC and China on agricultural innovation systems (AIS) are highly valuable to policymakers and international development agencies. It seems that NATESC is experiencing a dramatic change in meeting these challenges, and the process is discovery and open-end. We hope that the E-forum provides network for further exchange and collaboration between NATESC and others.

76.Karin Reinprecht, CGIAR CRP Dryland Systems, Jordan

Dear discussion participants,

If given the same opportunities and support as men, women can be equally productive in agriculture as men – this is not only common sense, but has been also shown by research (e.g. FAO 2008). Agricultural extension is such an opportunity, which is central to enhancing



68


agricultural productivity, but often not equally accessible to women. In Central Asia, feminization of agriculture can be observed (in World Bank 2012), which sees women taking a central role in agriculture due to male labour migration. CRP Dryland Systems does research on extension services targeting women in farming as well as men in East- and West Africa, and India, but I wondered, if there is research in Central Asia currently done on different needs and interests of male and female farmers, on the best aproaches for addressing women’s needs in agriculture through extension, or on the types of services (also information about finance, markets, etc), which would be most useful to female farmers?

Thank you very much,

Karin Reinprecht, Gender & Youth Program Coordinator in CRP Dryland Systems

77.Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kirgizstan

Proposals on the issues under discussion:

What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?

1. Growth of world population, and therefore the need to increase world food production;

2. Global climate change, and therefore the need to adapt agriculture to climate change;

3. Deterioration of food quality, due to environmental non-compliance and wide use of GMO.


1. Use of innovative technologies that are available to rural producers (low-cost);

2. Consolidation of farmers / farms (cooperatives);

3. To establish service stations to ensure mechanization of planting, application of chemicals, chemical treatment, etc.

4. To establish veterinary service stations;

5. Animal identification.

What kind of actions is needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?

1. Setting priorities for agricultural research. The first priority should be given to agricultural technologies that bring high returns at little additional cost;

2. Increase amounts of state financing of agricultural research, and attraction of investment projects;

3. Dissemination of knowledge on the use of innovative technologies to be added to the function of the Ministry of Agriculture.

What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education organizations (academia) in the RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between



69


academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations and rural communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?

1. Consolidation of education and science at the premises of agricultural universities;

2. Developing a base at agricultural universities (extension centre) for dissemination of knowledge;

3. Strengthening the role of RAS, especially in rural areas. However, RAS consultants should be trained to use innovative technologies in agricultural extension service centres, and subsequently should train / advise farmers;

4. To establish research-and-production demonstration sites to demonstrate available innovative technologies to farmers (low cost, availability of agricultural machinery);

5. To expand international exchange of experience on extension services and exchange of best agricultural technologies.

Malik Bekenov, Kyrgyz Agrarian University

78.Courtney Paisley YPARD, Italy

The importance of having youth input into new strategies for Central Asia, China and all other countries/regions cannot be understated. To create systems whereby the youth are interested and committed to becoming involved in agriculture, they must be involved in priority setting. Agricultural innovation systems must make provisions for youth inclusion and input if they are to create any sustainable change.

We know that in many countries decisions are taken by leaders at the highest level without inclusion of other groups. These are not inclusive and can never make real revolutions in the food system that impacts all of those who are part of it. Interesting discussion and thanks to Botir Dosov, who has been calling upon young professionals to contribute to this discussion.

79.Guljahan Kurbanova, FAO, Russia

Dear Colleagues,

I wish to participate int he discussions on the referenced topic since it is really very important for increasing agricultural production and improving livelihood of millions of people.

It requires more and more attention in our region and globally. The region is very diverse in terms of economic development, the structure of agriculture, climate conditions and farming systems. In addition it is under impact of external factors and international trends. The type agro-technology as well as its level differs depending on financial situation, knowledge, experience and historical traditions. Taking into account the trends, limited natural resources, environmental issues as well as climate change there is a need to re-consider ways for improvement of farming for increasing production, farmers and consumers. Countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) have enough food to meet the needs of their entire populations. However, future stable agricultural production and provision of food security face the regional problems such as an unequal distribution of income by countries, existence of environmental issues, vulnerability to



70


climate change, limited natural resources and their degradation, and volatility of economic and financial trends. An innovative approach is required for dealing with diverse, flexible and specific needs of technologies and their management depending on specific of locations for possible transformation to Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA offers an opportunity and a mission to move into next phase in the sector. It is a challenge for all stakeholders, scientific community, farmers, extension agencies and industry to understand opportunities, and calls for strategies different from those we have adopted over past decades in conventional agriculture.

The above said is one of topics for further knowledge and information sharing in order to extend capacity of farmers and other stakeholders. I would suggest to have it for the workshops/ conference in near future.

Many thanks, Jahan


Dear Colleagues, dear friends!

This online discussion was in itself an "innovation" for the rural advisory services in the region. Indeed, it created a collective knowledge and basis for planning, design, implementation and monitoring of efficiency and sustainability of new programs and initiatives on fostering Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in the region.

This cross-regional online discussion has engaged in dialogue different stakeholders from countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China and, even beyond that. We discussed the major challenges and bottlenecks faced by AIS in the region of CAC and China. Participants proposed a wide range of systemic actions to enhance agricultural research and extension services and make them conducive to food security and improved nutrition. All your valuable contributions will be carefully analyzed, summarized and presented to you very shortly.

The outcomes of this online-discussion will feed into face-to-face consultation on the Roadmap to enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. Besides, the summary will be widely circulated among stakeholders in the region.

I sincerely believe that the discussion really helped to catalyze the cooperation between CAC and China in the field of agricultural education, science and extension. In near future we are planning to initiate joint projects in countries of CAC and China. I think that other regional and global initiatives will also benefit from the results of this discussion.

I would like to thank you all for your contributions and making this discussion successful! My special thanks go to the team of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition for hosting and moderating this online-discussion.

Sincerely, Botir Dosov




71


After five weeks, the online discussion “The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition” is closing. As the co-facilitator, I am thankful to all the participants from CAC, China, and other regions.

As announcing at the beginning, the E-discussion does not aim to demystify AIS or to identify its core aspects (as there are many resources available). Nor does the E-discussion aim to provide a full-package of recommendation and cure-all solutions (as we suspect any one-size-fill-all panacea). Instead, the E-discussion expects to create a community for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to understand and to exchange thoughts of the complexity and dynamics of AIS in CAC and China. We hope, in the pluralistic system, each of the stakeholders is able to argue and voice. The possible ‘confusion’ or ‘discordance’ is necessary as it is valuable to call for cautious and integrated interventions on AIS at both the national and the global level.

There are great similarities and distinction in RAS between CAC and China in terms of political structure and institutional environment. The public sector plays an important role and the government is responsible to deliver rural advisory services. Meanwhile, the public sector is facing great challenges in rural transformation and a variety of alternatives of RAS providers are emerging (such as the private sector and civil society). Both CAC and China should prioritize conductive policies and an integrated framework to further decentralize planning and financing of RAS and to frame private presence in RAS for public interests. In China, the legal framework starts to agree with the fact that RAS becomes pluralistic and dynamic; the central role of the public sector is to focus on services for the public interests. In addition, the value of civil society, such as agricultural universities, is highly recognized in the legal framework and they become more and more active.

The E-discussion indeed aims to establish a window and network for future collaboration between CAC countries and China under the “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. First, more public and private investment should to be directed from China to CAC in strengthening infrastructure and AIS at the local level. Second, the establishment of agrofood chain between CAC and China allows for agricultural producers’ accessing to an improved and expanded market. Given the emerging demand for high-quality food and agricultural products in urbanized China, the potentials for such a value-added chain is tremendously large. Lastly, a regional network between CAC and China is crucial in strengthening capacities of RAS actors.

The major learning from this E-discussion is to institutionalize future innovations of RAS into existing structure. Both CAC and China established a hierarchical authority of public RAS. Given the institutional inertia, future innovations must be embedded within such a structure, rather than an intended replacement of or increment onto it. In addition, where decentralized public funding (such as buy-in services or contracting RAS with government) becomes feasible or being practiced as pilots, regulatory framework and monitoring & evaluation should be integrated.

Finally, the role of agricultural universities was intensively discussed through this E-discussion. In the region of CAC and China, agricultural universities become a major stakeholder in the pluralistic system. The triangle nexus ‘Research-Education-Extension” accredits agricultural universities natural merits. However, agricultural universities are facing great challenges in institutionalizing themselves into the existing structure in CAC and China.



72


The E-discussion ends up with a wealthy knowledge of AIS and pending questions. It also inspires great passion and seeds future collaborations. Thanks for all the participants and also FAO who organizes this online discussion.

Prof. Dr. Xiangping JIA, Northwest A & F University, China

82.Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI-Исполнительный Секретарь, Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues,

CACAARI Secretariat thanks all of you for your priceless efforts on increasing the productivity of e-discussion from the very beginning of the event. Special words of gratitude are addressed to the organizers and facilitators for hosting e-discussion on a high, professional level. They accomplished a dazzling work the outcomes of which will undoubtedly be used for correspondent purposes.

The founding approach on the extra attention on Agro Innovation Systems was initiated by Global Forum of Agricultural Research (GFAR). It should be clearly stated that GFAR’s focus is on the role of agricultural knowledge and innovation in achieving development impacts. This relates directly to ensuring the effective governance and operation of systems of agricultural research for development (agricultural innovation) globally. The evidence gathered for GCARD 1 demonstrates that these systems require transformation and strengthening at all levels (national, regional, global) if they are to deliver at the scale required for their intended goals. The current message is in the process of delivery to the stakeholders (e-consultations) which is truly relevant not only to CAC region alone, but also to China as both of them have typically identical constraints in using Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS).

There are some summarizing notes worth attention to made on the basis of all participants’ views and comments on emphasizing the role of AIS in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus region and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition.

First of all, sustainable agriculture for achieving food security needs to be an explicit component of countries’ national development strategies, including the identification of financial resources to expand rural infrastructure and support services to small-scale agricultural producers. A holistic, cross-sectorial approach should consider trade-offs and build on synergies between sectors and objectives, to prioritize and promote technically available and economically feasible win-win options that ensure food security, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.

Secondly, there is a need to substantially expand resources for agricultural research and development and for the adaptation of technology to local conditions, with an explicit focus on meeting the needs of small-scale farmers, including women in CAC region and China.

Thirdly, new forms of public-private partnerships, including civil society organizations, need to be identified to expand the provision of public goods in rural areas.

And fourthly, the institutions responsible for service provision in rural areas (including education, and research and development/R&D) will need to undergo radical reform to make them responsive to the needs of small-scale rural producers through direct



73


participation and consultation between small-scale producers and relevant stakeholders with the support of AIS in CAC region and China.

In conclusion, it should be recapitulated that the event provided the background for an effective start for further development of AIS on national and regional levels.

With kind regards,

Alisher Tashmatov, CACAARI Executive Secretary

83.Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman, Georgia

Dear participants, colleagues, friends,

On behalf of CACAARI forum, let me express my sincere gratitude for your active participation and involvement in the e-discussion by stressing the importance of Agricultural Innovation Systems in ensuring food security and nutrition. Additionally, the whole process of organizing and facilitating this event is a great merit of the organizers and facilitators respectively with the sufficient assist of whom we can notice various number of opinions provision and an eventual knowledge exchange within CAC region and China which was an ornamentation of the e-discussion throughout its duration.

On the basis of the discussion conducted, it should be mentioned that ensuring food security over the longer-term requires major policy transformations to strengthen systems of agricultural innovation and increase resources for rural development and sustainable natural resource management for CAC region and China. This will require a radically different approach to address the structural constraints on food production and nutrition. It would entail both the establishment of integrated national frameworks for sustainable natural resource management, and a harnessing of the technology and innovation needed to increase the productivity, profitability, resilience and climate change potential mitigation of rural production systems considering the specifics of CAC region and China. It can be concluded that governments thus have an important role to play in expanding access to technology and information; building rural infrastructure; improving access to credits, input and product markets; building and maintaining storage facilities and irrigation systems; providing social safety nets; and securing property rights, including land redistribution. In this endeavor, it is wise to summarize that Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) provide a useful framework for policy making, emphasizing policies and incentives to stimulate innovation to increase food productivity and consequently protecting the environment. AIS recognize the dynamic nature of learning and innovation, the multiplicity of actors engaged in the innovation process and the institutional contexts within which they interact.

It can be firmly stated that the outcomes of this e-discussion should have a logical continuation in the face of attempting to implement the all required suggestions and proposals for the eventual wellbeing of the food security and nutrition with the great support of AIS within CAC region and China.



74


Thank you for spending your valuable time to contribute for bring the topicality of Agricultural Innovation Systems to a next stage of development.

I would like to express my special thanks to FSN Forum for facilitating this fruitful online-discussion.

With best regards,

Academ. Guram Aleksidze, CACAARI Chairman



75


Digest No1 (18.05.2015)

Dear Participants,

We would like to share with you Digest №1 of the online discussion “The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition”. The discussion was launched by the FAO Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia on 6 May and will be open until 31 May 2015.

It is a pleasure for us to welcome 38 new FSN Forum members from 20 countries and also to thank the contributors from Uzbekistan, China, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, India and Canada who already provided their valuable opinions and recommendations to this topic.

It is worth mentioning that the interest in this online discussion goes beyond the region. Many experts from various backgrounds have expressed their interest on this topic and there have already been some 620 hits on the web-site from 65 countries all around the globe.

For this Digest, the co-facilitators of the discussion – Prof. Xiangping Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov – have kindly provided their observations on the mid-term results of the discussion.

And indeed, we look forward to receiving more comments and actively engage with you during the next two weeks. To post your comment or to read the comments received until now in Russian, English or Chinese, please visit the web-site: www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en

Sincerely Yours, FSN Forum Team

Prof. Xiangping Jia


The importance of training and education.

Agricultural education and training (ATE) on especially the youth and women has been neglected in CAC region and China. ATE enhances the capacity of farmers and rural SME for sustainable intensification and access to markets.

Second, ATE facilitates rural transformation and reduce rural-urban inequality by empowering rural people with the ability of engaging in off-farm employment opportunities ( - Rustam Ibragimov). Г нThe definition and principle of Agricultural Innovation System (AIS).

AIS is a network that unites multiple stakeholders (enterprises, government, academia, farmers) in bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organizations into agricultural production. AIS is not to supply ‘science’ but promote interactions among stakeholders, and eventually produce economic, social, institutional, and cultural values (Botir Dosov).





76


The challenges and problems in agriculture in CAC region are partly legacy of history. However, it is critical to overcome the problems by taking new opportunities such as being more market-oriented, income diversification, and adaptation to climate change. AIS is important to facilitate such a transformation (Botir Dosov).

In the Chinese context, ecological agriculture and certification to quality and safety are emerging in recent years. However, the market structure is biased towards large state-subsidized agrofood companies and small farmers are excluded. Institutional innovations are needed for being inclusive (Zhenzhong Si).

Lack for communications and collaborations in a coordinated framework for the AIS programs. The existing actions are fragmented. As such, a united and integrated framework of institutions (including regulations and legislation) is prioritized. Second, reaching the ‘last mile’ and establishing a better framework between farmers and researchers becomes highly important (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).


In CAC region, the national agricultural research system faces challenges of capacity building on young professionals. AIS is underfunded in CAC region. In additional to this major constraints, the poor linkage between resource and production greatly undermines the value of knowledge and technologies (Shaibek Karasartov).

Research and production are disconnected and research institutes “thrust” their knowledge to farmers without meeting multiple needs (such as risk, poverty, malnutrition, and income (Subhash Mehta).

There is little innovative modalities between scientific communities and other stakeholders and the major obstacles are organizational, informational, financial (Yrysbek Abdurasulov).

In CAC and Central Asia, the national agricultural research and agriculture system has been weakened, such as outflow of quality scientists and underfinancing. The problems are exacerbated further by poorly coordinated and implemented research and actions (ranging from planning to monitoring). Agricultural universities also have the constraints of not being cross-disciplinary (Alisher Tashmatov).

Dr. Botir Dosov

Given the current and emerging challenges for further sustainable development population growth, climate change, their implications for agriculture and food security system on one hand, and specific current constrains in region: such as land degradation, over-exploitation of natural resources, irrigation, wind and soil erosions, price volatility, and etc. on the other hand require the reorientation of agricultural livelihoods systems towards sustainable and efficient development "producing more with less".

In this regards, the role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition and improved livelihoods is critical.



77


Endeavors towards only focusing agricultural science on farmers' needs and addressing yields gap is not enough, as agricultural system has not only the economic dimension, but also social one. Therefore, Agricultural innovation system is effectively functioning when producers, processors and consumers, research institutions, rural advisory services, universities, input providers, government bodies, market and other players are interacting to produce additional value through new organizational forms of production, new products, new approaches and innovative mind-set.

Participants of the online-discussion have been highlighting wide range of challenges and priority areas for enhancing and promoting AIS:

Food security elements: availability, accessibility and utilization.

Capacity: education and training, innovative capacity.

Social groups: women, youth, smallholders, vulnerable groups, marginal.

Socio-economic: livelihoods and well-being.

Health: nutrition, synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Institutional: low interactions, poor linkages of intervention with national development goals and trends, institutional constraints, poor coordination within AIS.

Production and productivity: livestock, crop systems, forestry, land and water use, organic agriculture, yield gaps, undeveloped processing and marketing infrastructure.

Ecosystems: land degradation (salinity, soil and water erosions).

Regulatory framework: equitable land and water use and rights, conducive institutional and regulatory framework supporting AIS.

System elements and components: research, extension, education, government support, markets.

System unsustainability and inefficiency: low investments to research and RAS system, productivity-oriented food system, absence or poor planning system, obsolete material-technical (logistic) base of research institutions and academia.

Knowledge platform: absence of or unripe agro-information systems, low engagement of universities in RAS and FSN issues.

Approaches, models, best practices, good practices: farm schools, community enterprise system, green food" and "hazard-free food", more sustainable and ecologically friendly system, “short food supply chains”.

Particular issues: synthetic fertilizer and pesticides.

Extending (regional, global, non-agricultural) issues: "problems of the current food system is far beyond the agricultural sector", Climate change, trans-boundary diseases, foreign trades distortions and price disparity, transition process implications, poor transport and communication infrastructure at national and regional level, poor insurance systems, low efficiency of trade-offs between production and consumptions.

It should be noted that those challenges and ways to address them are isolated and need comprehensive, cohesive and perhaps stepwise approach.



78


Digest No2 (28.05.2015)

Dear Participants,

Digest №2 offers you an overview of the online discussion “The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition” for the period from 16 to 25 of May.

We welcome new participants and thank all of you, for your contributions to this rich discussion!

The discussion is moving towards a true inter-regional dialogue in three languages. Knowledge and experience are shared among interested experts who would normally have little chance to meet or talk to each other due to the distance or the language divide.

The co-facilitators of this discussion – Prof. Xiangping Jia and Dr. Botir Dosov – have prepared their observations and proposed some ideas to discuss for the final week.

To post your comment in Russian, English or Chinese and to get know what your colleagues from other countries shared last week we welcome you to visit the web-site: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en.

Sincerely Yours, FSN Forum Team

Prof. Xiangping Jia


CAC region and China are facing similar challenges in agriculture, such as agricultural intensification and declined resource for a sustainability, diversified agriculture and challenges of climate change (Subhash Mehta).

There are massive emerging opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC and China through “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. The ones related to RAS emerge through regional development programs (such as rural infrastructure investment and "demonstration park" of agricultural technology), private investments (in agro-chemical inputs, agro-food supply chain, and land market), and academic collaborations. Being designed and implemented within a systematic framework, OBOR potentially plays an important role in not only knowledge exchange but also a formation of regional network in directing public and private investment in enhancing AIS in the region (Xiangping JIA).


Research, education and extension are disconnected with each other in reality. For the triangle relationship, it is important to “make sure research and education [are] linked from bottom to up” (Oyture Anarbekov).

Being institutionalized in positive and negative way, incentive and motivation are driving and deterrent forces. It is very important to structure incentive mechanism in AIS (Botir Dosov).




79


AIS faces diversified stakeholders, and ‘the target groups’ have different interests and abilities. In consequence, the organizational forms of AIS have to be flexible and dynamic to be responsive and adaptive (Anastasiya Lebedeva).

More considerations are needed to make government play a pro-active role in creating a favorable environment for AIS (Jamshid Fayziev).

Community-based companies that are staffed by professionals potentially play a role in enhancing value-adding of the agro-food chain and dealing with risks through group insurance or credit (Subhash Mehta).

Lengthy approval/permit process of innovations hinders the quick application of technologies in field. Prioritized areas should be smallholder centered policies and education on the youth (Eren TASKIN).


Academic staffs and scientists in agricultural universities are respected people in the community and therefore are the sources of advice, information or new technology. However, it is challenge for university scientists to combine the “book knowledge” with the practical application in field (Elena Kan).

Insufficient communication between academia and the rural society is pervasive. While the academia has not been formally institutionalized into RAS, existing practices are often on the individual base; scientists voluntarily conduct extension and give farmers advices through direct personal cooperation. However, it is not easy because good practices of agricultural extension requires good communication skills; this is especially challenging for scientists who work mainly in laboratories (Eren TASKIN).

Sincerely, Xiangping Jia

Dr. Botir Dosov

Dear colleagues,


Taking into account your comments and views, as well as the goals and objectives of this online discussion, I have tried to portray what could be a model of efficient Agricultural Innovation Systems in the Central Asia and the Caucasus countries, as well as China in ensuring food security and nutrition and improving livelihoods. I have gotten a very multi-compound scheme, which you can find in the attached file. To make this scheme friendlier I decided to add a bit of creativity.

The clouds, or threats, such as climate change and the population growth, represent the challenges for future of rural and agricultural population, including households with low income and vulnerable populations. By agriculture, I mean all sectors, for example, crops, livestock, fisheries, etc.

The main components of an innovation system are:

1. rural advisory services,



http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/sites/eca/files/files/AIS_CAC_CHINA/References/AIS%204%20FSN_in%20English_4%202nd%20digest-s.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/sites/eca/files/files/AIS_CAC_CHINA/References/AIS%204%20FSN_in%20English_4%202nd%20digest-s.pdf

80


2. agricultural research system

3. agricultural education system

4. agro-information system.

It is also necessary to have available resources: financial, operational, technological, natural and human, as well as the state support, which could be compared with the importance of the sun in life on earth. In our case, the government support is an important component for effective AIS, including agricultural research, advisory services and education. The public and private sector as well as donors, together play a crucial role in the development of infrastructure.

You can also see a man on the draw as the main driving force, which is necessary for the efficient functioning of the system that ensures cooperation and coordination.

With an agricultural productivity growth across value chains, yields and profitability of the overall system will increase and result in generation of additional capital that can be reinvested in agriculture. This process will be accompanied by agricultural "technologization" with back up of innovation development.

Sincerely,

Botir Dosov

Closure message (10.06.2015)

Dear Colleagues,

This is a closure message for the online discussion “The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in Central Asia and Caucasus countries and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition” that ran during the last five weeks on the regional platform of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition.

Our sincere thanks go to all of you for the active participation and the open exchange of views!

We are very happy to inform you that this E-discussion has been very interactive and has harvested 83 comprehensive contributions coming from 48 experts. Views came from participants with the most diverse affiliations such as ministries of agriculture, scientific and research institutions, high education and post-graduate institutions, international and inter-regional organizations and initiatives, developing programmes, farmer’s organizations, extension services organizations, youth organizations, associations, private companies and individuals. The geographical scope of participants was wide, drawing from 18 countries of different regions as well as from developed and developing economies. People from 73 countries visited the discussion’s webpage and above 10 000 people received information on the discussion. We were pleased to see a near-perfect gender and age balance among the participants who have taken part in the discussion; roughly 35 per cent of women and 10 per cent of young professionals. Additionally, some participants have kindly shared several analytical documents for further reading.



81


This discussion turned out to be truly inter-regional multistakeholder dialogue, being supported by the experts’ rich experience and countries evidence. The dialogue among experts also went much beyond the topic. The participants brought up more issues (e.g. gender, agricultural information systems, agricultural education, youth employment in agriculture, climate change and regional agricultural trade among others); these need to be explored in future discussions.

Ultimately, your comments will: (i) feed into a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services in September 2015; (ii) support an establishment of a window for future collaborations between countries of Caucasus and Central Asia (CAC) and China under the “One Belt One Road” initiative; (iii) help better understand the current role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in countries of CAC and China; and (iv) contribute to the overall inclusive dialogue on Food Security and Nutrition issues in Europe and Central Asia.

In order to engage experts from different countries, the FSN Forum, together with its partners from the Chinese Northwest Agriculture & Forest University and the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions, has provided content and communication in English, Russian and Chinese languages. The complete proceedings in three languages are available online here: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en. We will keep you informed on the E-discussion’s outputs through both emails and the FSN Forum web-site, where you can get more information about the FSN Forum activities in the Europe and Central Asia region. We will continue to be available for you through [email protected] even after the closure and keep you informed on the upcoming events. Feel free to send us messages you deem important.

In closing, we would like to share with you two concluding messages from our co-facilitators –Dr. Xiangping JIA and Dr Botir Dosov. On the discussion web-page, you can also read the closing messages addressed to all participants by Dr Guram Aleksidze (Chairman of CACAARI) and Dr Alisher Tashmatov (CACAARI Executive Secretary).

Thank you!

Your FSN Forum Team

Prof. Xiangping Jia, Northwest A & F University, China

As the co-facilitator, I am thankful to all the participants from CAC, China, and other regions.

As announced at the beginning, the E-discussion does not aim to demystify AIS or to identify its core aspects (as there are many resources available). Nor does the E-discussion aim to provide a full-package of recommendation and cure-all solutions (as we suspect any one-size-fill-all panacea).

Instead, the E-discussion expects to create a community for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to u nderstand and to exchange thoughts of the complexity and dynamics of AIS in CAC and China. We hope, in the pluralistic system, each of the stakeholders is able to argue and voice. The possible ‘confusion’ or ‘discordance’ is necessary as it is valuable to call for cautious and integrated interventions on AIS at both the national and the global level.



http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/re-role-agricultural-innovation-systems-central-asia-and-caucasus-countries-and-china-towards-mor-44

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/re-role-agricultural-innovation-systems-central-asia-and-caucasus-countries-and-china-towards-mor-45

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


82


There are great similarities and distinction in RAS between CAC and China in terms of political structure and institutional environment. The public sector plays an important role and the government is responsible to deliver rural advisory services. Meanwhile, the public sector is facing great challenges in rural transformation and a variety of alternatives of RAS providers are emerging (such as the private sector and civil society). Both CAC and China should prioritize conductive policies and an integrated framework to further decentralize planning and financing of RAS and to frame private presence in RAS for public interests. In China, the legal framework starts to agree with the fact that RAS becomes pluralistic and dynamic; the central role of the public sector is to focus on services for the public interests. In addition, the value of civil society, such as agricultural universities, is highly recognized in the legal framework and they become more and more active.

The E-discussion indeed aims to establish a window and a network for future collaboration between CAC countries and China under the “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives. First, more public and private investment should to be directed from China to CAC in strengthening infrastructure and AIS at the local level. Second, the establishment of agrofood chain between CAC and China allows for agricultural producers’ accessing to an improved and expanded market. Given the emerging demand for high-quality food and agricultural products in urbanized China, the potentials for such a value-added chain is tremendously large. Lastly, a regional network between CAC and China is crucial in strengthening capacities of RAS actors.

The major learning from this E-discussion is to institutionalize future innovations of RAS into existing structure. Both CAC and China established a hierarchical authority of public RAS. Given the institutional inertia, future innovations must be embedded within such a structure, rather than an intended replacement of or increment onto it. In addition, where decentralized public funding (such as buy-in services or contracting RAS with government) becomes feasible or being practiced as pilots, regulatory framework and monitoring & evaluation should be integrated.

Finally, the role of agricultural universities was intensively discussed through this E-discussion. In the region of CAC and China, agricultural universities become a major stakeholder in the pluralistic system. The triangle nexus ‘Research-Education-Extension” accredits agricultural universities natural merits. However, agricultural universities are facing great challenges in institutionalizing themselves into the existing structure in CAC and China.

The E-discussion ends up with a wealthy knowledge of AIS and pending questions. It also inspires great passion and seeds future collaborations. Thanks for all the participants and also FAO who organizes this online discussion.

Dr. Botir Dosov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan

Dear colleagues,


Dear Colleagues, dear friends!

This online discussion was in itself an "innovation" for the rural advisory services in the region. Indeed, it created a collective knowledge and basis for



83


planning, design, implementation and monitoring of efficiency and sustainability of new programs and initiatives on fostering Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in the region.

This cross-regional online discussion has engaged in dialogue different stakeholders from countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China and, even beyond that. We discussed the major challenges and bottlenecks faced by AIS in the region of CAC and China. Participants proposed a wide range of systemic actions to enhance agricultural research and extension services and make them conducive to food security and improved nutrition. All your valuable contributions will be carefully analyzed, summarized and presented to you very shortly.

The outcomes of this online-discussion will feed into face-to-face consultation on the Roadmap to enhance RAS system in CAC countries and China to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. Besides, the summary will be widely circulated among stakeholders in the region.

I sincerely believe that the discussion really helped to catalyze the cooperation between CAC and China in the field of agricultural education, science and extension. In near future we are planning to initiate joint projects in countries of CAC and China. I think that other regional and global initiatives will also benefit from the results of this discussion.

I would like to thank you all for your contributions and making this discussion successful! My special thanks go to the team of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition for hosting and moderating this online-discussion.

Sincerely, Botir Dosov



84


Online Discussion Summary

“The role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in countries of Central Asia and Caucasus and China towards more sustainable food security and nutrition”

1. PreambleThis online discussion ran on the regional platform of the FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en/AIS-CAC-China) from the 6th of May until the 9th of June 2015. The e-discussion was initiated by the Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (CACAARI) in close collaboration with the Northwest Agriculture & Forest University (NAFU) from China.

The main objective of this online discussion was to offer stakeholders an opportunity to share their experience, knowledge and regional good practices through a constructive dialogue, and to contribute to a) identifying challenges, opportunities and collective actions towards strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China; b) identifying roles of various stakeholders; c) gathering insights and views on consistent actions needed to enhance the capacities of existing regional platforms to promote communication and collaboration on agricultural innovations; (d) promoting regional cooperation (through initiatives such as “One Road One Belt”) for improved policies to enhance market liberalization, environmental sustainability, and regional development.

Due to poor linkages among various agricultural actors in CAC countries and China, many farmers, especially women farmers, are encountering difficulties in accessing advanced knowledge and information on agricultural technologies and emerging markets. This deprives them of innovation-based opportunities to improve their productivity, their profitability, and their livelihoods. Besides, increasing food prices and poorly managed natural resources are primarily a threat to smallholders and vulnerable population groups.

To address these problems, many countries have established Rural Advisory Service (RAS) systems, which however are not yet playing a big enough role in assisting farmers. RAS systems differ substantially from country to country: some are largely a government domain or donor-driven, while others include the private sector and Non-governmental Organizations. Notwithstanding these differences, the common challenge that most of these countries are facing is that of making RAS systems more efficient and sustainable.

An integrated, innovative approach towards more sustainable food security and nutrition system is required to strengthen cooperation among various stakeholders, to adapt new technologies, to develop natural resource management strategies, and to strengthen institutions involved in Agricultural Innovation Systems.

2. Overall outputs and outcomes Initially targeted at the countries of Central Asia and Caucasus and China, the e-discussion grew into a cross-regional multistakeholder dialogue, supported by the rich experience of 48 experts as well as evidence from 18 countries. There was strong interest in the topic and a desire to exchange views with colleagues within and outside the participants’ countries, having a chance to communicate in Chinese, English and Russian. This made the e-discussion extremely interactive and fruitful, with 83 comprehensive contributions. The geographical scope of interest in the discussion was even wider, with visits to the discussion’s web page coming from 73 countries across different regions and including



85


both developed and developing economies. This was complemented by a near-perfect gender and age balance among the participants who took part in the discussion. The wide outreach of the e-discussion was achieved thanks to the FSN Forum community of experts, the networks of regional partners (i.e. CACAARI, CGIAR-CAC, YPARD, GFAR, GFRAS, and FAO-REU), and FAO social media channels.

The results of the online discussion call for creating and promoting equal opportunities for participation and transparency among all stakeholders in the planning and implementation of agricultural research and innovation for development.

3. Key issuesThanks to the very interactive and well-facilitated discussion, the participants fairly covered all issues proposed for this topic and more.

3.1. What are the major challenges faced by Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China to increase their role in improving food security and nutrition?

Participants highlighted the challenges that AIS is facing in the region, which can be grouped into the following issues: socio-economic, institutional and management, research and technological, environmental, production and marketing (value chain), and policy.

The discussion highlighted the lack of coordination between different AIS actors and sectors across countries. The linkages among the key stakeholders (such as the public and private sector, or academic and civil societies) within the national agricultural research system in CAC countries and China are very weak, which is evident in the poor planning, poor resource and labour distribution, defragmentation, and duplication of interventions in the agricultural sector. Existing interdepartmental and intersectoral barriers also hinder AIS programmes from planning to implementation. In addition, insufficient linkages constrain the application of innovation approaches for improvement of food security and well-being of population. Functional linkages among agricultural education, research and rural advisory services also remain weak. Having high-quality staffs, the majority of resources have been directed at agricultural universities in teaching and researching.

Moreover, AIS in the CAC countries and China is constrained by additional problems, such as lack of consideration of incentives at both individual and organizational level, weak research capability, insufficient training for agricultural producers and farmers, and a shortage of skilled professionals. In some countries the process of transferring innovations, "know-how", and new technologies is constrained by complicated regulatory and institutional frameworks and barriers.

The participants agreed that AIS could play a crucial role in achieving more sustainable food security and nutrition in CAC countries and China through an innovative infrastructure that enables interaction between academia and producers. However, currently AIS is not contributing at its fullest capacity.

3.2. What should be the priority areas for Agricultural Innovation Systems to effectively support farmers in improving their livelihood?

The following further measures for strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems at the national and regional level were suggested by participants:

Framing national policies, legislation, regulations, and institutions for Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in an integrated approach;

Operationalizing AIS at the national and local level;

Implementing a unifying information system and big-data management in AIS;



86


Identifying farming technology and techniques which are suitable for local-level climatic, socio-economic, and cultural environments;

Supporting agricultural actors along food chains in the application of new technologies;

Promoting new, high-yield plant varieties resistant to disease and tolerant of drought, salinity, and frost, as well as promoting new high-productivity animal breeds with a strong immunity to disease;

Supporting modernization and diversification processes in agriculture;

Strengthening the role of gender and increasing the involvement of youth and low-income populations in agricultural innovation and human capital development, including health, nutrition, education, and skills;

Providing support in mitigation and adaptation to climate change;

Improving data management.

3.3. What actions are needed to enhance agricultural research extension services and make them conducive to ensuring food security and improving nutrition?

Proposals of participants for actions were summarized and grouped as follows:

Strengthening human and institutional capacity of AIS actors is required for boosting relevant agricultural knowledge and technologies and their application:

a) Academia should be proactive and lead the implementation of training programmes (including short- and medium-term farm training courses); design the curriculum of methods for participatory training; design and implement field experiments; conduct impact assessments; and support graduate student research, workshops, farmer field schools, distance learning, and other means;

b) Universities should support farmers and rural small and medium enterprises (SME) in improving their skills, understanding, and innovative capacity to practice sustainable agricultural intensification and market-oriented activities.

Enhancing linkages between research, education, and extension through interactive, dynamic and flexible processes, along with better contact between institutions. This will help bring knowledge, technologies, and services to rural and agricultural populations, and also improve their capacity to innovate.

Establishing an agricultural innovation institution. This could serve as a platform of knowledge formation and technology transfer where different actors of AIS can benefit from knowledge sharing, coordination and innovation.

Improving access to finances, in order to obtain adequate funding for improvement of material and technical capacities.

Marketing the products and services provided by agricultural research, education and extension institutions. This will help attract both public and private investors.

Establishing a unified information system. ICT is a useful tool for the development, transfer, application and dissemination of agricultural information and knowledge to increase agricultural productivity and income. However, there is still a communication gap between agricultural research, academia, and rural areas. Eventually, massive changes such as fast



87


growth in ICT, urbanization, and climate change will require our knowledge and innovation systems to be far more responsive, flexible, and forward thinking than before.

Empowering women and youth in agricultural innovations should be considered in the development agenda. The participation of women and young people in agricultural innovations is indispensable, given their crucial role in household livelihoods and in the socio-economic and cultural environment.

3.4. What is the current and what should be the future role of agricultural research and education organizations (academia) in RAS systems? What should the partnership modalities be between academia and other stakeholders such as public organizations, farmer organizations, and rural communities? What are the existing innovative institutions? And what are the major constraints?

Academia: Agricultural research and education institutions play an essential role in AIS, but institutionalizing them with other RAS providers is challenging. Although agricultural research and education institutions have a variety of natural benefits in AIS – such as: (a) identifying key research and capacity issues that are critical to FSN and well-being; (b) defining interventions to increase the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural production and the use of natural resources; (c) developing and implementing options to manage risk and production variability; (d) promoting the use of indigenous knowledge, creativity and ingenuity in conservation and sustainable use of natural resources; (e) improving the productivity and profitability of agricultural production through sustainable intensification, diversification, value-added products, and market linkages; (f) identifying the areas that are important to the livelihoods of vulnerable populations, women, and children; (g) addressing the challenges faced by marginal farmers; and (h) developing new models of participatory and inclusive development interventions and partnerships. However, they are constrained by fragmented sectors of conflicting interests and a lack of coordination within the AIS system. Besides their role in AIS, agricultural research and education institutions have become primary stakeholders in voicing the needs of the poor and vulnerable, and in providing them with the means and capabilities to benefit from these innovations.

Additionally, academia’s role in capacity building is paramount. For example, agricultural universities deliver formal and systematic courses and training programmes to extension staff who eventually facilitate participatory learning with farmers, especially those vulnerable and disadvantaged groups such as women and youth, for changes and innovation. In both the CAC countries and China, it’s becoming crucial to deliver training to a new generation of agricultural specialists, scientists and service providers who can work with smallholders at the local level. Agricultural universities are important not only because they develop human resources, but also because they serve as a source of knowledge and technology. In transition countries where the political views on RAS are volatile, the formation and accumulation of knowledge is relatively better maintained and secured in universities through an established curriculum, training lectures, and set-up networks.

Government: The public sector is playing a central role in developing AIS in CAC countries and China. Nevertheless, in many transition economies, government interventions need to be enhanced, including the operationalization and institutionalization of national RAS systems.

To address an important socio-economic challenge such as food security and better nutrition, “the regulatory role of the government in innovative development objectively comes to the forefront; it will ensure positive results only in case of a balanced long-term development strategy”.



88


Information and communication technologies can help to build up linkages among public and private sectors in new and exciting partnerships that deliver real change.

4. Next steps The outputs of this e-discussion will: (i) feed into a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services in September 2015; (ii) support the establishment of a window for future collaborations between countries of Central Asia and Caucasus (CAC) and China under the “One Belt One Road” initiative; (iii) help better understand the current role of Agricultural Innovation Systems in CAC countries and China; and (iv) contribute to the overall inclusive dialogue on Food Security and Nutrition issues in Europe and Central Asia.

Given emerging issues, such as population growth and climate change, the development of innovation systems in CAC countries and China is considered to be a necessary condition for enhancing agricultural productivity. Comprehensive measures towards fostering innovation in the agricultural sector should include participatory agricultural research and extension systems by strengthening linkages to farmers and other actors in the sector. This is considered an important factor in connecting farmers in CAC countries and China, and in providing opportunities for better access to markets and income diversification that ultimately will benefit food security and improve nutrition.

The suggested “Seven steps towards enhancing RAS/extension systems in Central Asia & the Caucasus and China” raised positive feedback from the participants. The CACAARI Secretariat has advised to promote and facilitate the process. These steps will be further enriched with the outputs of this discussion and together will feed into face-to-face consultations on the Roadmap to enhance RAS systems in CAC countries and China, to be organized as a side event at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services.

The results of this online discussion will contribute to further discussion and planning during the third Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development process in 2015 and 2016. They will also influence the direction, activities and resourcing of international research, as well as highlight the need for strengthening and investment in national Agricultural Innovation Systems and for effective measures that will create real change in farmers’ lives in the region.

This online discussion revealed many priority areas that can be considered as entry points to be addressed with the China initiative "One Road One Belt", which provides substantial opportunities to enhance cooperation between CAC countries and China. Those opportunities related to RAS emerge through regional development programmes (such as rural infrastructure investment and "demonstration parks" of agricultural technology), private investment (in agrochemical inputs, agro-food supply chains, and land markets), and academic collaborations.

5. Beyond the topic The dialogue among experts also went much further beyond the topic, creating a window for further interactions.

Due to insufficient investments, agricultural research systems are not able to realize their full potential for contributing adequately to AIS. The average share of expenditures on agricultural research in the gross agricultural output is 0.1 percent in CAC region, while the average value of investments in agricultural research as a percentage of agricultural GDP in developing and developed countries is 0.58 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. Although the investments in RAS may vary from country to country, we can assume their value to be very low. Therefore, further discussion is needed on how to increase investment in R&D and RAS in the regions in order to fulfil its potential to improve food security and nutrition and to increase livelihoods.



women in agriculture and food security: web viewensuring food security is an important...

Documents