Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit A Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit B Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit i Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit ii Table of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms..................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Why is there a need for coordination in the Chilean agricultural innovation system? .............. 1 1.2 What does innovation system coordination comprise? .......................................................... 2 1.3 Methods used....................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 What follows? ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. Coordination of agricultural innovation systems: Principles and practices....................... 5 2.1 Governance of innovation systems........................................................................................ 5 2.2 Forms and levels of innovation system coordination.............................................................. 9 2.3 Resources and skills needed by innovation system coordinators......................................... 11 3. Design elements for an Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit at MINAGRI.............. 14 3.1 The current structure of the public institutional framework in which the Chilean AIS is embedded................................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Coordination efforts to enhance the performance of the public support infrastructure in the Chilean AIS: Mandate of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit........ 16 3.3 Functions of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit.................................... 19 3.4 Positioning of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit: Coordination with MINAGRI, the Chilean National Innovation System and the Chilean AIS............................... 28 3.5 Staffing and governance...................................................................................................... 32 3.6 Estimated budget................................................................................................................ 34 4. Implementation schedule: Next steps.................................................................................. 35 4.1 Steps in realizing the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit............................. 35 4.2 Evaluation of the usefulness of the Unit............................................................................... 36 Annexes....................................................................................................................................... 39 Annex I. Governance of the core coordinating network: Roles and relationships ......................... 40 Annex II. Approaches to key thematic challenges in AIS coordination........................................... 60 Annex III. Staffing and positioning ................................................................................................. 68 iii Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Acronyms AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ACHIPIA Chilean Agency for Food Quality and Safety AIS Agricultural Innovation System ASOEX Association of Exporters of Chile CIREN Center of Natural Resources Information CNIC National Council of Innovation for Competitiveness CNR National Commission on Irrigation COMSA Committee of Agricultural Insurance CONAF National Forestry Corporation CORFO Chilean Economic Development Agency COTRISA Wheat Commercialization CONICYT National Commission for Science and Technology FEDEFRUTA National Federation of Fruit Producers FIA Foundation for Agricultural Innovation FONDAP Fund for Financing Priority Area Research Centers FONDEF Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (CONICYT) FONDECYT National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development FUCOA Foundation of Communications, Training, and Culture of Agriculture ICT Information and Communication Technologies INFOR Forestry Institute INIA Institute of Agricultural Research INNOVA Public Innovation Program of CORFO INDAP Institute of Agricultural Development IPR Intellectual property rights M&E Monitoring and evaluation MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture of Chile ODEPA Office of Agricultural Studies and Policies OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PTI Public Technological Institutes SAG Agricultural and Livestock Service SAGARPA Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food (Mexico) SEREMI Regional Ministerial Secretary SNA National Society of Agriculture TOR Terms of reference VCRT Value Chain Roundtables (Canada) iv Acknowledgments Acknowledgments This study was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile to the World Bank, as part of a series of studies to review Chile’s agricultural innovation system and make proposals to improve its functioning. The study was undertaken by Laurens Klerkx, Associate Professor of Innovation Studies at Wageningen University in The Netherlands, Sophie Theis, Agricultural Economist in the Sustainable Development department of the Latin America and Caribbean Region of the World Bank, and Willem Janssen, Lead Agricultural Specialist in the same department. The team would like to thank Susan Goldmark, Director for Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru, Ede Ijjasz-Vasquez, Director of the Sustainable Development Department, and Laurent Msellati, Manager of the Agricultural and Rural Development Unit, all of them in the Latin America and Caribbean Region of the World Bank, for their extensive support. The team also wishes to acknowledge the support to the country case studies: Andréanne Léger, Bronwynne Wilton, Oswald Zachariah, and Michael Toombs for Canada; Brigid Letty, Thiambi Netshulivi and Shawn Cunningham for South Africa; Krijn Poppe and Jasper Dalhuisen for The Netherlands; James Turner, Richard Lynch and Chris Bourke for New Zealand; and Leticia Deschamps, Mauricio Lastra, Marcelo Angione, and Guadalupe Ascencion Betanzos for Mexico. We would also wish to thank the many Chilean interview respondents and workshop participants. The team sends special thanks to Alvaro Cruzat, Subsecretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, for his intensive involvement. The team received excellent and enthusiastic support from the informal innovation management unit in MINAGRI and from FIA, and would like to recognize Eugenia Muchnik, Fernando Bas, Francisca Silva, Carlo Rojas and Catalina Castro. Only through their engagement was it possible to arrive at a proposal that is relevant and feasible in the Chilean context. A final word of thanks to the peer reviewers, Riikka Rajalahti, Leticia Deschamps, Svetlana Edmeades, Eija Pehu, Aparajita Goyal and Rabih Karaky and to Francisco Obreque, Javier Zuleta and Gayatri Acharya for their useful comments and suggestions. v Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit vi Executive Summary Executive Summary The present study follows a series of three one another, and fail to fully capitalize on publications that ensued from a collaboration involvement of the private sector. In summary, between the Government of Chile and the the public agencies are unable to contribute to World Bank to support the development of a a shared vision for advancing innovation in the long-term strategy for agricultural innovation. sector. The first three studies assessed Chile’s public technological institutes, formed a vision of While several innovation coordination initiatives Chile’s agriculture towards 2030 using scenario and instruments exist in the Chilean AIS, these planning methods, and finally developed an have developed independently. The mix of action plan to achieve a Vision for 2030. The regulatory, economic or ‘soft’ instruments present study pursues the recommendation in appears to be inappropriate or incoherent the action plan to enhance the coordination to maximize impact and synergy. Some of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System instruments are under-developed, and there (AIS) by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture appears to be a lack of specific ‘systemic (MINAGRI) with the creation of a Directorate instruments’. for Agricultural Innovation. In response to this recommendation, MINAGRI established Weaknesses in the coordination of the system an informal coordination unit within the can be grouped into four themes: lack of shared Subsecretary’s office, which started to follow vision, weak articulation, conflicts with funding up on the recommendations of the three innovation, and culture. reports. At the request of the Subsecretary and the informal coordination unit, in the current 1. Lack of shared vision: Actors in the paper the World Bank elaborates a proposal Chilean AIS are unaware of a shared for how such a Directorate for Agricultural agricultural policy and clear priorities for the Innovation could be established and how it sector. Several disarticulated priority setting could function. and innovation agenda-setting mechanisms exist. Confusion and even conflicts about Chile’s agricultural innovation, though a model mandates of public technological institutes in the region, faces a significant opportunity to and other MINAGRI agencies exist, as well improve efficiency and strengthen the public as between MINAGRI agencies and the infrastructure of the system. As found by universities. In general, short-term focus previous studies in the series and confirmed by of support instruments jeopardizes the the stakeholder consultation for this study, the continuity of many programs, as political central challenge for the AIS is coordination. turnover generates inconsistency. The The public infrastructure for the Chilean AIS lack of systemic monitoring and evaluation struggles with a high level of fragmentation, precludes the possibility of understanding duplication, and ambiguity about mandates the impact of policies, programs, and and functions, so that the numerous public instruments. agencies involved in various aspects of agricultural innovation miss opportunities for 2. Articulation between actors in the AIS: collaboration, compete with one another for The absence of formal coordination of limited resources, on occasion conflict with agricultural innovation from MINAGRI has vii Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit led to duplication, conflict, and ambiguity building, priority setting, synchronization of amongst agencies. The AIS does not funding flows and other innovation support have established mechanisms to solicit activities such as research, makes sure and translate private sector priorities into that adequate and systematic monitoring government policy, representing foregone and evaluation of the AIS takes place, and opportunities to meet the needs of the private hence optimizes the existing more informal sector, present co-financed investments, coordination efforts. Such an Agricultural or support commercialization, a key link Innovation Coordination Unit within MINAGRI in the sequence of innovation. There is a would have the following mandate: lack of sufficient direct interaction and well- functioning feedback links between the public The mission of the MINAGRI Agricultural innovation support infrastructure and the Innovation Coordination Unit is to enhance private sector. Feedback on how the AIS is the coherence and synergy in agricultural working from the private sector’s perspective innovation policy formulation and execution, is very limited, and the public agencies’ ability by formulating broadly shared priority areas to represent the demands of the private sector for agricultural innovation guiding policy in its strategy development is constrained. formulation, by coordinating the efforts of the executive innovation support agencies to 3. Conflicts with funding innovation: reach complementarity and integration among Funding is dispersed over many different themselves and with innovators and innovation sources, and all have their own criteria. support organizations in the private sector. Compatibility between funding instruments is low. The lack of consistent financing for The following four objectives are proposed basic research and infrastructure forces for the MINAGRI agricultural innovation agencies to compete one another for coordination unit: funding sources that are not intended to maintain basic operations. Inappropriate 1. Define long-term priority areas, shared by use of funding for maintaining a basic the sector, and translate them into coherent structure is common. Complex procedures innovation programs with actions in the and extensive ‘red tape’ complicate access medium and short-term horizon to resources. 2. Induce and manage a process of structural 4. Culture: Stakeholders indicate a high adaptation of the MINAGRI agencies, degree of mistrust in collaborative processes, redefining and synchronizing main activities between public agencies and MINAGRI and and insuring that these activities are between the public and private sectors. adequately resourced. Individualistic behavior and lack of a culture of sharing further complicate coordination 3. Monitor and evaluate the AIS to measure the in the Chilean AIS. A disconnect also exists impact of policies and support instruments between federal and regional support efforts and to improve the capacity to learn from in priority setting and funding. and adjust policies and instruments in accordance with findings. In order to improve on these areas, it is recommended to establish a dedicated Unit 4. Organize continuous dialogue and feedback which induces processes of vision and agenda through information management, between viii Executive Summary MINAGRI and the sector, and between bases, make available information for users, MINAGRI agencies, in support of the other create simplified formats for monitoring pro- objectives. grams, and create an integrated system for technology transfer. Five key functions of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit are identified in Mirroring institutional arrangements in other support of these objectives: countries, the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit will be embedded in the 1. Strategy development and priority Ministry of Agriculture, as a separate department setting: Design strategies to translate a or sub-directorate. Three subunits respond to long-term vision into reality through medium the first three functions, respectively: Strategy, and short-term innovation programs with a Program and Capacity Development; Innovation coherent mixture of support instruments. Policy Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptation; Link relevant actors into consortia and and Funding Coordination, Administration and networks that execute programs. Control. Functions 4 and 5 are transversal and support the former three functions. The Unit 2. Research and innovation policy can gradually delegate operational coordination analysis, design and implementation: tasks like program management, monitoring Articulate what is necessary to evaluate, and evaluation, and foresight exercises to other contract and supervise evaluations, interpret MINAGRI agencies. results and inform policy with learning. An Advisory Council and think tank both 3. Managing programs and resources, complement the Unit. The Advisory Council including innovation financing: Analyze serves to broadly represent AIS stakeholders and organize the funding programs in the (different sectors, regions, researchers/ AIS with the objective to balance base and industry/agencies/civil society, and so on) and competitive funding for MINAGRI agencies, innovation specialists, advising the Minister on connect regional funds with priorities, the Unit’s proposals and managing evaluation of negotiate with other agencies about funds the Unit. The think tank works to operationalize directed to agriculture, and investigate the radical ideas with the potential to transform feasibility of levy-based innovation funds the sector. Experts on innovation from abroad from the private sector. can be contracted to share methodologies for sparking system innovation, but the Advisory 4. Innovation system management: Council, think tank, and Unit will critically rely Define basic functions of each MINAGRI on Chilean actors to ensure solutions are well agency, divide tasks, and induce reform; tailored to the Chilean context and develop organize and supervise continuous local capacity. proactive coordination between agencies; analyze existing procedures to simplify and The report provides a framework for launching streamline where possible; and catalyze the a process to design an Agricultural Innovation organization of consortia and networks to Coordination Unit. Many decisions and dialogs delegate some program management. must be organized by MINAGRI going forward, and pressing next steps include further 5. Information management and knowl- stakeholder consultations and the appointment edge sharing: Connect and integrate data- of a leader for the project with specific ix Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit competencies who will become the interim director of the Unit to get it up and running in January 2014. It is important that the existing momentum is maintained and that the Unit is quickly established and operationalized. To ensure continuity in the light of the upcoming change of administration, it is recommended that the establishment of the Unit is included in the briefing material for the next administration. If so required, the World Bank will remain available for further support in developing the Unit and implementing other recommendations of this and the previous studies. x Introduction 1. Introduction This paper follows up on a series of three 1) leadership and facilitation, 2) getting value for papers that ensued from a collaboration of money, and 3) integrating institutions. the Government of Chile and the World Bank, which dealt with 1) an assessment of the public 1) Leadership and facilitation technological institutes, 2) exploration of Chile’s 1. MINAGRI should enhance its capacity to agriculture towards 2030 using a scenario manage the issues related to agricultural planning methods, and 3) a study which, based innovation. It is recommended that a on the former two studies, outlined an action Directorate for Innovation2 be established plan to achieve the vision towards 2030. The within the expected new structure of current paper builds mainly on the third study, MINAGRI whose main responsibility would as several of the recommendations made be to ensure the participation of the sector in that study already pointed at enhancing in the National Innovation System and the coordination of the Chilean agricultural facilitate the implementation of its own innovation system by the Chilean Ministry of agenda within the sector. Agriculture (referred to henceforth as MINAGRI). One of the recommendations of these reports 2. The first responsibility of this Directorate was to establish a Directorate for Agricultural would be to develop a strategy to articulate Innovation inside MINAGRI in order to better the position of the agriculture sector within coordinate and support the agricultural the National Innovation System, thereby innovation system, and in the end, contribute contributing to the strengthening of that to raising total factor productivity growth to the same system in general. levels observed around the turn of the century. In response to this recommendation, MINAGRI 3. MINAGRI should invite the private sector established an informal coordination unit within to strengthen its organization, at the sector the Subsecretary’s office, which started to follow and key subsectoral levels. up on the recommendations of the three reports. At the request of the Subsecretary and the 2) Getting value for money informal coordination unit, in the current paper 1. To increase the efficiency of funding in the the World Bank elaborates a proposal for how short term, MINAGRI has to work with the such a directorate for agricultural innovation funding agencies and use its own budget could be established and how it could function. to support multidisciplinary teams with a critical mass of scientists in its priority areas 1.1 Why is there a need for of interest. coordination in the Chilean agricultural innovation system? 2. A better mix of instruments should be put in place to strike a balance between core The action plan towards 2030 made several recommendations on coordination. These 2 While the report on the Action Plan Towards 2030 uses the term are summarized below, under three headers1: ‘Directorate of Innovation’, given the terminology used in Chile and accounting for the legal possibilities, in this report the term MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit is used. Depending on the 1Derived from: World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation final legal shape the Unit will have, it may also be called ‘office’, System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. ‘department’ or ‘sub-directorate’. 1 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit funding, competitive funding, performance 2013 confirmed the need for the coordination contracts, development of human actions as proposed by the Action Plan 2030, as resources, support to private sector, it found similar issues as already elaborated upon infrastructure, equipment, etc. in the aforementioned Action Plan 20304 such as: 3. To benchmark with the OECD countries in • A lack of formal coordination, while more the year 2020, MINAGRI needs to pursue a informal and ad hoc coordination does tripling of total public resources. exist. • Duplication of efforts of technology 4. Regional governments should be more institutes and funding organizations, and explicitly included as partners in the system ambiguity about mandates, institutional with an emphasis on developing and setup, objectives and task divisions. financing regional agendas. • Insufficient articulation and prioritizing with the sector itself of sector innovation needs. 5. Instruments should be put in place to • Too short-term focus: the existence of encourage private sector participation such a long-term vision is unknown or not as development of consortia, tax breaks, enacted upon. IPR legislation and enforcement. • Perception of too laborious procedures for funds procurement, and monitoring and 3) Integrating institutions evaluation of projects (‘red tape’). 1. A framework needs to be established • Insufficient M&E capacity to measure the to create viable and attractive linkages impact of support programs and install among the various institutions of the learning within support programs to system. The integration should take place enhance their continuous adjustment. within the priority research areas identified • Insufficient continuity of thematic focus for the future and through the Regional points (priority areas) and corresponding Agricultural Research and Development support programs (e.g., funding Centers proposed in the Action Plan 2030. instruments). Integrated teams need to have stable • Creation of new support instruments funding and need to pool resources where without sufficiently considering the added necessary. This will require programmatic value versus the existing ones, or without funding on the basis of performance removing the support instruments that contracts; joint teaching appointments; need replacement. the secondment of researchers from the Public Technology Institutes (PTIs) to 1.2 What does innovation system bolster research teams in the universities; coordination comprise? collaboration in doctoral and master’s level programs; and the integration of research The literature indicates that a typical mandate facilities, i.e. shared laboratories and and set of activities for an Agricultural Innovation equipment. A consultation with key stakeholders in the Chilean 4 This is also the case within the National Chilean Innovation agricultural innovation system3 (AIS) held in June System; see: OECD. 2007. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy - CHILE. OECD, Paris; World Bank. 2008. Toward a Cohesive and Well Governed National Innovation System. World Bank, 3 In this report forestry is also seen as part of the AIS. Washington, D.C. 2 Introduction Coordination Unit or Directorate would be the an agreed ordering of priorities and balance following5: between long-term, middle-term, and short -term actions, greater accountability of policy • Coordinate the development of a strategic actors with other actors in the agricultural vision for agricultural innovation. sector through adequate consultation and • Coordinate and formulate agricultural feedback mechanisms6. innovation policy, which will be increasingly integrated into general science-innovation 1.3 Methods used policy. • Link agricultural innovation to broader For this study, a number of steps were taken: agricultural policy and science-innovation discussions. 1. A consultation was held with stakeholders, • Continue to contribute to the development gathering their views on the current state of of a strategic vision of the agricultural coordination in the Chilean AIS, and ideas sector. on how to improve coordination. A total of • Coordinate and design agricultural 20 interviews were held with high-level staff innovation priorities and agendas. (directors or subdirectors) of: • Coordinate the division of labor in the innovation system (e.g., of PTI, Technology • Sector organizations/private sector: Transfer Organizations) and channeling of Asociación de Exportadores de Chile funds to priority innovation areas. (ASOEX); Federación Gremial Nacional • Monitor and evaluate innovation programs de Productores de Fruta (FEDEFRUTA); and their impact. Sociedad Nacional de Agricultura • Promote collaboration and exchanges (SNA) Consorcio Lechero; Consorcio among the various parts of the innovation Tecnológico de la Fruta, Consorcio system (e.g., funding agencies, PTI, Biofrutales. Technology Transfer Organizations, sector • Universities: Facultad de Agronomía organizations), including external linkages de la Universidad Católica; Facultad de (e.g., foreign technology sources). Agronomía de la Universidad de Chile. • MINAGRI Agencies7: INIA; ODEPA; The outcome of coordination in the agricultural CONAF; INFOR; CIREN; FIA. innovation systems (as proposed by the • Agencies of the Chilean Ministry of literature and confirmed in the stakeholder Economic Affairs: INNOVA; Año de la consultation with stakeholders from the Innovación; División de Innovación. Chilean AIS) should be reduced fragmentation • MINAGRI’s Subsecretary staff. and duplication of policies and support instruments and thus, enhanced synergy between the different organizations involved 6 Braun, 2008. Organizing the political coordination of knowledge in the agricultural innovation system and the and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4): 227- 239; Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of available support instruments, avoidance of Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural policy inconsistencies, minimization of conflicts, Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, D.C.; Palmberg, C. and Lemola, T., 2012. Governance 5 Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of of Innovation Systems. Module 6, Thematic note 2, in: Agricultural Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Innovation Systems.: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 7 See Section 3.1 for explanation of acronyms. 3 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 2. A literature review was done, including: literature on the topic, and examples from the comparative case studies, in order to provide • scientific literature from specialized journals entry points for a design of a Coordination in the field of science and innovation Unit or Directorate within MINAGRI. Chapter policy, on the topic of innovation system 3 will outline the actual design in terms of coordination; mandate, functions, structure, staffing and • policy oriented literature on innovation resource requirements, informed by principles system coordination from organizations and practices as outlined in the literature on such as the OECD and the World Bank. innovation system coordination and by the insights from the different stakeholders in the 3. A comparative study was made of Chilean AIS who were consulted. In order coordination of AIS in five countries, in order to provide reflection on the design choices to identify different organizational models outlined in Chapter 3, there will be a continuous and experiences of coordination of AIS. mirroring with experiences on agricultural The countries chosen were: Canada, The innovation system coordination from Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Mexico and New Zealand, The Netherlands, Mexico and South Africa. The choice was made based South Africa (outlined in Annexes I to III). Chapter on available documentation, and relevance 4 describes next steps for the implementation to the Chilean case (in terms of elements of the Coordination Unit. such as country size, sector organization, national versus decentralized governance, economic models and export orientation). Documentation (policy documents, scientific literature) was reviewed, and interviews with key informants (coordinating bodies’ staff, experts on AIS in the countries) were held. 4. A draft report outlining the diagnosis of weaknesses with regard to current coordination of the AIS and the design for the Coordination Unit was shared with MINAGRI staff to receive feedback, and the main points were presented to the stakeholders to get their feedback. This feedback was used to improve the draft report. Furthermore, MINAGRI lawyers advised on the legal possibilities for setting up the Unit. 1.4 What follows? The remainder of the report has 3 chapters. Chapter 2 will briefly review principles and practices of innovation system coordination, based on scientific evidence and policy oriented 4 Coordination of Agricultural Innovation Systems: Principles and Practices 2. Coordination of agricultural innovation systems: Principles and practices 2.1 Governance of innovation systems a typical governance structure of an innovation system and shows a clear division of tasks Coordination in innovation systems relies and functions such as policy making, financing on governance. Governance concerns the and program implementation10. For innovation mechanisms by which decisions are made. policies to be legitimate it is important that the In the context of innovation systems, this stakeholders from the different governance layers specifically concerns the systems and practices in the innovation system participate in innovation for setting priorities and agendas, designing policy making11. Innovation governance and and implementing policies, and obtaining coordination should also include ‘innovation knowledge about the impacts of innovation system deconstruction’ and capacity to adjust policies and support instruments8. Several and adapt in case the innovation system becomes building blocks for effective governance of ineffective or inefficient12. innovation have been identified9: Four different innovation policy instruments can • Clarity of vision, objectives and strategy; be distinguished. These policy instruments are • Clear jurisdiction and mandates over mainly executed through vertical governance objectives, strategy and programs, (e.g., how a Ministry governs its agencies) (see complemented with budgetary and human Figure 1). resource capacity; • Coordination mechanisms (within the These four types of instruments are as follows13: government and between the government and non-public participants of the national 1. Regulatory instruments: These are the innovation system); ‘rules of the game’ for knowledge and • Accountability mechanisms, checks and innovation processes in innovation policy. balances on decision making; These regulatory instruments (laws, rules, • Transparency and openness to support directives, etc.) are obligatory in nature, accountability; • Periodic and systemic evaluation and 10 World Bank, 2008. Toward a Cohesive and Well Governed National Innovation System. World Bank, Washington, D.C.. related adjustment mechanisms. 11 Palmberg, C., and Lemola, T., 2012. Governance of Innovation Systems. Module 6, Thematic note 2, in: Agricultural Innovation Similar to other types of innovation systems, Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, agricultural innovation systems typically consist of D.C.; Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural different governance layers which have different Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, functions in support of innovation. Figure 1 displays Washington, D.C.. 12 Smits and Kuhlmann, 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in 8 Palmberg, C., and Lemola, T., 2012. Governance of Innovation innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Systems. Module 6, Thematic note 2, in: Agricultural Innovation Policy, 1: 4–32. Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 13 This subsection is integrally derived from Borrás, S. and Edquist, 9 World Bank, 2008. Toward a Cohesive and Well Governed National C., 2013. The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments. Technological Innovation System. World Bank, Washington, D.C.. Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8):1513-1522. 5 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Figure 1. Typical governance structure of an innovation system14 Government, parliament • Policy guidelines Government • Overall policy coordination Councils, advisory committees, etc. Ministries • Policy design Ministry Ministry • Funding and its steering Coordinating bodies Vertical governance Agencies • Policy implementation R&D agency Research council • Funding • Intelligence, follow-up Think tanks, etc. Public research Sectoral research institutes • R&D performers • Technology transfer Universities Polytechnics, etc. • Intelligence Incubators, science parks, living labs, etc. Business sector • R&D and innovation performers Companies Entrepreneurs Horizontal governance meaning that actors are obliged to act within and public research organizations (e.g., some clearly defined boundaries of what is the statutory nature of the organizations); allowed and what is not allowed. Obligatory • competition (anti-trust) policy regulations measures are typically backed by threats of concerning R&D and innovative activities sanctions in cases of non-compliance. These by firms in the market; sanctions can be very different in nature (fines • bioethics and other ethical regulations and other economic sanctions, or temporary related to innovative activities. withdrawal of rights), depending on the content of the regulation and the definition of 2. Economic transfers: Economic and legal responsibility. Examples include:14 financial instruments provide specific pecuniary incentives (or disincentives) • the regulation of intellectual property rights and support specific social and economic (e.g., patent regulations); activities (see Box 1 for examples from • the regulation of research and higher the comparative case studies, and Annex education organizations like universities II, Section A for further details). They involve economic means in cash or kind, and can be based on positive incentives 14 Palmberg, C., and Lemola, T., 2012. Governance of Innovation Systems. Module 6, Thematic note 2, in: Agricultural Innovation (encouraging, promoting, certain activities) Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, D.C. or on disincentives (discouraging, restraining, 6 Coordination of Agricultural Innovation Systems: Principles and Practices certain activities). Examples of positive economic instruments. Soft instruments are incentives include: characterized by being voluntary and non- coercive. With soft instruments, those who • ‘in block’ public support to research are ‘governed’ are not subjected to obligatory organizations, primarily public universities measures, sanctions or direct incentives or and public research organizations; disincentives by the government or its public • competitive research funding (industrial agencies. Instead, the soft instruments or basic research), tax incentives for provide recommendations, make normative R&D performed at firm level, support appeals or offer voluntary or contractual to technology transfer, and support to agreements. These instruments are very venture and seed capital; diverse, but generally based on persuasion, • funding of education at all levels (basic, on the mutual exchange of information secondary, tertiary). among actors, and on less hierarchical forms of cooperation between the public 3. ‘Soft instruments’: These instruments and the private actors. Examples of these are largely a complement to regulatory and are: Box 1. Co-financing, public-private partnerships, and levy-based funding The design of economic and financial instruments illustrates distinct approaches on how to stimulate research for certain objectives, timeframes, and users. To get value for money and to fund projects that truly meet demand, the government frequently collaborates with the private sector to finance innovation. Three common examples are co-financing, wherein government and industry share funding for a given project, often on a proportional basis; public-private partnerships (PPP), wherein government invests in the private sector to conduct a project; and levy-based funding, wherein a given sector coordinates itself to fund research of its choosing. Co-financing, PPPs, and levy-based funding fall along a continuum of autonomy of the private sector. Co-financing and PPPs are often allocated on a competitive basis to encourage research that is both demand-driven and aligned with government priorities. Passing through a government-facilitated selection process, often with external or sector-representative panels making decisions on proposals, helps to ensure this balance. In Canada, the AgriInnovation Program offers over two-thirds of its budget, $468 million, for funding industry-led Agri-Science Clusters over a five-year period under a PPP scheme. Industry submits research proposals to Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada (AAFC), which are selected and funded, contingent on support for government priorities. The winning Agri-Science Clusters, which must focus on a specific sector at the national level, then contract research from public or private research institutes and can count on technical assistance from the AAFC. The AgriInnovation program promotes commercialization, a priority for the Canadian agricultural innovation system, as the program incentivizes downstream, applicable research that the private sector itself has deemed useful in a short-time horizon. Levy-based funding is a way for a sector to pool resources and fund research and development for solutions specific to that sector. In New Zealand, a Commodity Levy Act (1990) empowers producers in a given sector to self-impose levies on agricultural products at the farm gate through a vote, in order to finance ‘industry good activities’. Once voted, the levy becomes obligatory for all commercial producers of the products in question. For each product, farmers vote every six years to decide whether to continue to impose the levy. Levies are commonly paid by producers on each unit of a delivered commodity. See Annex II, Section A for more examples of financing approaches and examples for five case study countries. 7 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Figure 2. Four broad areas of innovation policy instruments15 • Intellectual property rights • Universities and PROs statutes Regulations • Competition policy about R&D alliances • Bioethical regulations Systemic instruments • ‘En block’ support to research organizations Economic and universities • Competitive research funding transfers • Tax exemptions • Support to venture and seed capital • Voluntary standardization Soft • Codes of conduct instruments • Public-private partnerships • Voluntary agreements • voluntary technical standards at the 4. ‘Systemic instruments’: The recognition national or international level; that innovation takes place in systems and • codes of conduct for firms, universities is a highly interactive process, has given or public research organizations (e.g., rise to a fourth type of innovation policy advocating transparency in recruitment instrument, which connects to the previous procedures); category of ‘soft instruments’. These have • management contracts with public been called ‘systemic instruments’16, and research organizations (an instrument their functions include: defining an agreement between policy-makers and managers of these • management of interfaces in innovation organizations, setting up the strategic systems: making sure different elements of goals for that public organization);15 the existing innovation system interact; • public–private partnerships sharing costs, • building and organizing systems: benefits and risks in the provision of (de)construction of innovation systems; specific public goods (e.g., in the field of • providing a platform for learning and knowledge infrastructures); experimenting; • campaigns and public communication • providing an infrastructure for strategic instruments (e.g., diffusion of scientific intelligence; knowledge by using events like ‘research • stimulating demand articulation, strategy days’ or ‘open houses’). and vision development. 15 Adapted from Borrás, S. and Edquist, C., 2013. The Choice of 16 Smits and Kuhlmann, 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in Innovation Policy Instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Change, 80(8): 1513-1522. Policy, 1: 4–32. 8 Coordination of Agricultural Innovation Systems: Principles and Practices Typically, these systemic instruments take the the public technological institutes and the form of think tanks and innovation incubator private sector actors. organizations which execute radical innovation programs and conduct experiments with new Policy and administrative coordination are technologies and ways of working. related, and to achieve optimal coordination it is important to consider the degree of Generally, individual innovation support in- intentionality of coordination, which can be put struments are combined to complement and on a scale and comprises both administrative strengthen each other (known as innovation pol- and policy coordination (see Figure 3). There icy mixes) to ensure that the ‘innovation system are 4 different degrees of coordination, beyond functions’ of well-functioning innovation systems ‘no coordination’: are realized: 1) fostering entrepreneurial activi- ties, 2) knowledge development, 3) knowledge 1. Negative’ or ‘passive’ coordination: diffusion in networks, 4) guidance of the search, Actors are not completely independent in 5) market formation, 6) resource mobilization, their decision-making but obliged to take 7) creation of legitimacy/overcoming resistance into account a negative backlash against to change17. their own actions by other actors. Negative coordination often is done by formalized 2.2 Forms and levels of innovation procedures in which other actors can react to system coordination the policy intentions of a Ministry. For example, if a certain budget change is proposed for a In terms of the coordination of innovation research institute which is to the detriment systems, two forms of coordination can be of another research institute, the affected distinguished18: research institute will react to minimize the damage and might propose a collaboration. • Policy coordination, which is concerned Negative coordination leads to the mutual with the development of a clear, adjustment of actors, but not to concerted consistent and agreed set of policies, action nor to cohesiveness of policies. the determination of priorities and the formulation of strategies for putting 2. Positive’ or ‘pro-active’ coordination: these policies into practice, hence it Implies more than mutual adjustment, as means coordination at the level of policy actors start to cooperate with each other in formulation, often at the level of overall order to deliver certain services. Such positive government and ministries. coordination can take place in committees, • Administrative coordination, which concerns with the help of coordination divisions of the problem of getting everyone to pull in ministries, within jointly managed policy the same direction given agreement on programs. It typically develops at the ministerial what direction to go in, so coordinating the or agency level. In order to succeed, a ‘win– different executive agencies of the Ministry, win’ game is needed in which each partner under cooperation can improve his or her 17 Wieczorek, A. J. and M. P. Hekkert, 2012. Systemic instruments position by participating in the cooperation. for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers Positive coordination is necessary at the and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39(1): 74-87. level of administrative coordination when 18 This section and Figure 3 are integrally based on Braun, 2008. Organizing the political coordination of knowledge and innovation overall agreed-upon strategies must be policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4): 227-239. implemented. 9 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Figure 3. Degrees of coordination No coordination Negative coordination Positive coordination Policy integration Strategic coordination ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COORDINATION COORDINATION 3. ‘Policy integration’ strives for the As regards overall policy coordination, there coordination of goals. are several modalities to organize such coordination19, which may also exist in mixed 4. ‘Strategic coordination’ aims at the forms and with different levels of delegation: development of encompassing common visions and strategies for the future. This • Internal coordination by a unit within is, at the same time, the most far-reaching a Ministry. Often, such units exercise type of coordination. Policy integration and steering on the basis of hierarchical strategic coordination are adequate means relationships or through economic for achieving an encompassing innovation arrangements. International examples policy. include The Netherlands’ Agri-Knowledge Directorate in the Ministry of Economic Regarding the levels of coordination, in line Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation,and with the governance structure in Figure 1, there Canada’s Innovation Policy Division in can be ‘vertical coordination’ from government Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (see and ministries downwards to the sector, Annex I). and ‘horizontal coordination’ e.g., between agencies that serve a certain Ministry, but • External coordination across different also between different ministries. Following ministries through, for example, ministerial the same logic as the policy instruments, the committees or inter-ministerial working way in which coordination takes place can be groups as in Mexico’s Inter-Sectoral based on hierarchical control, regulatory power Commission on Sustainable Rural and coercion or through economic incentives Development (see Annex I). This is often (negative and positive), but can also be in the form of ‘soft coordination’ based on dialogue 19 Braun, 2008. Organizing the political coordination of knowledge and concerted action. and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4): 227-239. 10 Coordination of Agricultural Innovation Systems: Principles and Practices based on voluntary bargaining, and maybe Roles of such advisory boards, councils or ineffective due to different existing routines think tanks may include22: and world views in each Ministry. Such external coordination may be internalized - Providing a platform for learning by a so-called ‘superministry of science and experimenting, for example The and innovation’20 as in the case of South Netherlands’ Innovation Network (see Africa’s Department of Science and Annex I and Annex II, Section C). Technology. - Providing an infrastructure for strategic • Coordination at the agency level. The intelligence to produce, identify and executive agencies of ministries often act build links between actors, such as New as ‘intermediary organizations’ between Zealand’s various commercialization- policy making, science and industry. They oriented organizations (Annex II, often have a quasi-public status and are Section B). controlled through budgetary steering, rather than hierarchical mandates. Given - Stimulating and facilitating discourse, the proximity with the sectors they work vision and strategy development in in, there is a risk of focusing too narrowly conjunction with users of the outcomes on these sectors while losing oversight of the innovation process, such as of the overall policies Examples from farmers and processing companies, the comparative cases studies include like Canada’s Value Chain Roundtables the Agri-knowledge Directorate in The (Annex II, Section B). Netherlands, SAGARPA in Mexico, and the Strategy, System and Science Directorate These advisory boards, councils or think in New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary tanks feed into the more hands-on day-to- Industries (see Annex I). day operational units that are responsible for coordination, such as ministerial coordination • High level advisory boards, councils or units or agencies that coordinate (sub) think tanks. Such boards give advice sectors. based on scientific evidence and/or practice-based experience from economic 2.3 Resources and skills needed by sectors and civil society domains. They innovation system coordinators enhance the accountability towards the sectors, but can also enhance reflexivity. Innovation system coordinators need a An example in Chile, not tied to a specific particular set of resources, capacities and skills sector, is the Consejo Nacional de in order to be effective. Coordinating units will Innovación para la Competividad (CNIC)21. need operating funds, physical infrastructure and communication infrastructure to enable transparent and open communication (through, 20 The Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la Competitividad (CNIC) has recently launched a proposal for such a superministry of 22 Smits, R. and Kuhlmann S., 2004. The rise of systemic science and innovation for Chile. instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight 21 See: www.cnic.cl and Innovation Policy, 1: 4–32. 11 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit e.g., an ICT platform)23. They also need they must command resources, have continuity, particular capacities and skills, which can be be seen by other actors in the AIS as honest fully integrated within coordinating units (in- brokers, and those actors, especially top house capabilities), but may also be acquired government officials, must be willing to listen to through the delegation of certain tasks to their advice25. There are a couple of key values specialized organizations. These capacities that influence this26: and skills include24: • There should be transparency about • Recognize system strengths, weaknesses, the roles the coordinating unit fulfills, problems, development potential—which which requires active communication requires analytical skills. and expectations management by the • Define the focus and the topics for political coordinating unit and affiliated councils. action (agenda setting)—which requires • There should be responsiveness to skills in communication and consensus- the different stakeholders needs and building. accountability on spending of funds, • Encourage diverse players (through which requires adequate monitoring and consultation and participation) to evaluation of the work of the coordinating coordinate their activities in and beyond unit and affiliated councils. their policy field—which requires skills in • There should be good connections with facilitation, negotiation and consensus- top government and industry officials, building. strong and clear commitment of these • Implement these policies—which requires officials, who should respect the role of the policy capacity. unit and affiliated councils. • Learn from previous experience (such as evaluation results)—which requires There are some inherent dilemmas in this learning, intelligence and accountability. coordinating role, which require balancing • Make adjustments over the complete between27: policy cycle – which requires reflexivity and flexibility. • taking too much credit of the achievements in the coordinated networks It is important that a coordinating unit and affiliated bodies such as councils have the means to ‘enforce coordination’. Otherwise 25 Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of coordinating units and councils may prove Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural ineffective and mainly serve as ‘window Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, D.C. dressing’. For innovation units and affiliated 26 Braun, 2008. Organizing the political coordination of knowledge councils to be more than formal constructs, and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4): 227- 239; Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural 23 Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural Washington, D.C.; Palmberg, C., and Lemola, T., 2012. Governance Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, of Innovation Systems. Module 6, Thematic note 2, in: Agricultural Washington, D.C. Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, 24 Rajalahti, 2012. National Coordination and Governance of Washington, D.C. Agricultural Innovation. Module 1, Thematic Note 1, in: Agricultural 27 Klerkx, L, Schut, M., Leeuwis, C., Kilelu, L., 2012. Advances in Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. World Bank, knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector: Towards innovation Washington, D.C. system facilitation. IDS bulletin, 43(5): 53-60. 12 Coordination of Agricultural Innovation Systems: Principles and Practices of actors in the AIS, and not having one’s contribution recognized; • steering processes too much in a top- down way through authority and or funding and being too laissez-faire or acting too much bottom-up with the risk that nothing happens; • having sufficient expert knowledge to obtain a legitimate position in a network and acting too much as an expert and overruling contributions of the network partners; • empowering non-powerful actors in the network and starting to act as a spokesperson for them; • acting in line with current policy lines and current innovation systems structures and procedures, and challenging these policy lines and reconfiguring innovation systems structures (i.e. fresh thinking). 13 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 3. Design elements for an Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit at MINAGRI In this section, the MINAGRI Agricultural Regarding the structure of MINAGRI, and its Innovation Coordination Unit will be outlined roles in the support of agricultural innovation, in terms of mandate, functions, structure and Figure 5 shows the current setup. MINAGRI positioning, and resource requirements. is headed by a Minister, and a Subsecretary, and is represented in the Chilean regions by 3.1 The current structure of the regional representatives (SEREMI). The different public institutional framework agencies related to MINAGRI have diverse in which the Chilean AIS is functions29: embedded28 • ODEPA (Oficina de Estudios y Políticas The current Chilean AIS is both supported by a Agrarias) generates and disseminates sector specific Ministry (MINAGRI) which has its information on the agricultural and forestry own range of agencies, and by ‘generic’ non- sector with the goal of supporting decision sector specific support instruments, from the making by public and private agents Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry • INDAP (Instituto de Desarrollo of Education. Furthermore, support comes for Agropecuario) provides technical and specific issues from other ministries as well. entrepreneurship support to small and Figure 4 shows an overview scheme of the medium-sized farm enterprises in order overall public institutional framework in which to build capacity and strengthen the the Chilean AIS is embedded, and Figure 5 integration of these enterprises in national shows an organizational chart of the Ministry and international value chains and its agencies. • SAG (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero) generates fitosanitary and zoosanitary As Figure 4 shows, several organizations policies and norms to control, certify and support agricultural innovation. Apart from protect natural resources, to avoid the sector-specific public technology institutes, entry of pests and diseases which may generic institutes and universities also support endanger the production capacity of agricultural innovation through research and Chilean agriculture and forestry extension. Apart from the agricultural sector • CONAF (Corporación Nacional Forestal) specific innovation funding from FIA, also contributes to the conservation, growth, generic funding bodies such as CORFO and management and use of forestry resources CONICYT fund projects in the agricultural and in Chile, through promotion, control and forestry sector, often through competitive grant protection of forestry resources schemes open to all sectors. • CNR (Comisión Nacional de Riego) coordinates, implements and evaluates the national irrigation policy, through 28 For an overview of the evolution of Chile’s AIS, see: World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan 29 Information derived from: http://www.minagri.gob.cl/institucion/ Towards 2030, World Bank, Washington, D.C. institucional/servicios-del-agro/, visited on July 10, 2013. 14 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI Figure 4. Current structure of the public institutional framework in which the Chilean AIS is embedded30 National Council Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Presidency of Innovation Planning Agriculture Economy Education for Competitiveness Public Administration Public funds in support of innovation • CORFO • FONDECYT • Innova Chile • FONDEF • CONICYT-PBCT • FIA • FONDAP • ICM Innovation research, diffusion and technology transfer • Public sector institutes • Centers of Excellence (INDAP, INTA, INIA) • Regional Centers of Investigation Council • Universities • Rings of Investigation Chile Potencia • Firms in Sciences and Technology Agroalimentaria • Technological consortia • Scientific Nuclei of the • Prochile Iniciativa Científica Milenio • SAG • Fundación Chile investment programs which aim to • FUCOA (Fundación de Comunicaciones, increase the irrigated surface in Chile and Capacitación y Cultura del Agro) generates the optimal use of water30 communication and participation of • INIA (Instituto de Investigaciones actors in the rural areas in order to value Agropecuarias) generates and transfers rural traditions and culture, and provides knowledge to induce innovation, information about rural policies and enhance sustainability and improve the achievements of MINAGRI competitiveness of the sector • CIREN (Centro de Información de • FIA (Fundación para la Innovación Agraria) Recursos Naturales) provides information co-finances agricultural innovation projects based on georeference systems (e.g., (development, validation and adoption through remote sensing) about, e.g., of innovations) aimed at generating natural resources, soils and hydrological or improving processes, products or resources to facilitate decision making by management practices in the agricultural public and private agents and forestry sectors. Furthermore, • INFOR (Instituto Forestal) creates it facilitates the attraction of foreign and transfers scientific and technical knowledge and innovative solutions and knowledge for the sustainable use of enables Chilean entrepreneurs to go forestry resources, development of forest abroad to explore solutions to clearly products, and generate other useful defined problems or opportunities. economic, environmental and social information for the forestry sector 30 Based on World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan Towards 2030, World Bank, Washington, These different agencies of MINAGRI all have D.C. their particular institutional set-up (i.e. legal 15 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit form) and mandate, which connects to the promote Chilean exports through market reason for which they were set up and their exploration and business model innovation; fit within the institutional context at the time of and COTRISA (Comercializadora de Trigo) emergence.31 is a regulator of the wheat market. Given the planned reform of MINAGRI, also fishery related Of the related organizations, ACHIPIA (Agencia agencies will be included in due time. Chilena para la Calidad e Inocuidad Alimentaria) is the agency which coordinates and oversees 3.2 Coordination efforts to enhance the national food safety regulations; COMSA the performance of the public (Comité de Seguro Agrícola) promotes and support infrastructure in administrates an agricultural insurance co- the Chilean AIS: Mandate financed by the state; PROCHILE aims to of the MINAGRI Agricultural Figure 5. Current organizational chart of MINAGRI and Innovation Coordination Unit agencies31 As already touched upon in the introduction, there are several coordination problems Ministry of (fragmentation, duplication, ambiguity about Agriculture mandates and functions) within the public support infrastructure for the Chilean AIS, as indicated by previous studies and confirmed Subsecretary of Agriculture SEREMIAS by the stakeholder consultation for this study. These link to several weaknesses for the Chilean AIS, as articulated by the consulted stakeholders. ODEPA INDAP Weaknesses concern: • Absence or unawareness of a shared SAG CONAF agricultural policy and clear priorities, and the existence of several disarticulated priority setting and innovation agenda CNR INIA setting mechanisms, as stakeholders from sector organizations, PTI and other MINAGRI agencies, and innovation support agencies from other ministries FIA FUCOA indicate. • A lack of sufficient direct interaction and well-functioning feedback links between CIREN INFOR the public innovation support infrastructure and the private sector, as mainly the Related Institutions stakeholders from sector organizations ACHIPIA COMSA PROCHILE COTRISA and the different consortia which work with private sector partners indicate. • Confusion and even conflicts about 31 Source: http://www.minagri.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ mandates of PTI and other MINAGRI organigrama_minagri-4.jpg,visited on July 10, 2013. agencies such as INDAP and CONAF 16 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI amongst themselves, and between coordination has improved, in the form of MINAGRI agencies and the universities, ‘positive coordination’. In the last 3 years, the overlapping functions and competition for advisors to the MINAGRI Subsecretary have resources, as stakeholders from PTI and started to play several coordinating roles, universities indicate. and have made significant advances on this • Inconsistency and short-term focus of matter. Such coordination often takes place at support instruments, under influence of decentralized levels of particular sectors (e.g., political changes, as stakeholders from dairy sector) or topics (water management, PTI, public sector organizations and geographical information systems, genetic consortia indicate. improvement). Other coordination activities of • Funding is dispersed over many different the Subsecretariat coordination cluster include sources, and all have their own criteria; voting representation in the boards of FONDEF, compatibility between funding instruments CNIC, and INNOVA; providing guidance to is low, as stakeholders from PTI, the PTI for submitting competitive funding universities and consortia indicate. projects; establishment of new sector priorities • No solid basic funding for a consistent such as varietal improvement; articulation of a basic research and technology transfer national network of ex-situ gene banks; and infrastructure, and hence use of the design of technology transfer instruments inappropriate funds for maintaining a basic with CORFO. structure, as stakeholders from PTI and universities indicate. Coordination also takes place through the • Lack of trust in collaborative processes, different Consorcios or the Centros de individualistic behavior, no culture of Excelencia (Centers of Excellence)32. There is sharing, as most consulted stakeholders coordination between FIA and CORFO. CIREN indicate. has made efforts to join forces in order to improve • A disconnect between national and information on land use. While such coordination regional support efforts (priority setting, may help in optimizing collaboration under the funding), as stakeholders from sectoral current institutional regime (in terms of how organizations and PTI indicate. funding is organized and how PTI are organized) it often does not induce structural change and In summary, while several innovation support reforms to the institutional regime, to create a initiatives and instruments exist, these have better attuned and synergic AIS. developed independently with their own logic and have their own course of action. What can A number of improvements can hence be made, hence be noted is, that while different innovation to boost the performance of the public support policy instruments of regulatory, economic or infrastructure in the Chilean AIS performance: ‘soft instrument’ nature exist, there appears to be an inappropriate or incoherent mix of these • Priority areas can be better articulated to maximize impact and synergy, or some and can be made more clearly visible in instruments are under-developed (e.g., IP the different policy lines and innovation rights). Furthermore, there appears to be a lack support instruments. of specific ‘systemic instruments’. However, several stakeholders, mainly 32 See: World Bank, 2010. Chile: review of public technological those already involved in consortia, say that institutes in the agriculture sector. World Bank, Washington D.C. 17 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit • A better task division between the different 1. Defining a long-term joint vision33 for Chilean MINAGRI agencies and other innovation agriculture with clearly defined priority support agents can be articulated, in areas, and jointly with all relevant actors terms of funding, research, technology relevant to those priority areas ensures that transfer, and extension. this vision is enacted through medium and • Learning on performance and impact short-term actions and investments. This of innovation support policies and includes ensuring that the formulation of instruments can become more systematic. coherent innovation programs takes place, • Linkages and feedback loops in the AIS comprising different kinds of activities can be improved, building on the positive contributing to innovation, such as research experiences of instruments such as the programming, network building, technology Consorcios Tecnológicos. transfer and extension, creation of new markets; hence, combining regulatory, In order to achieve these improvements, it economic and soft innovation policy would be helpful to have a dedicated Unit instruments. It includes synchronizing and, which induces processes of vision and agenda if possible, matching of public and private building, priority setting, synchronization of investments in agricultural innovation. funding flows and other innovation support Such programs are targeted towards activities (such as research), makes sure sectors or towards cross-cutting issues that adequate and systematic monitoring affecting several sectors, and the MINAGRI and evaluation of the AIS takes place, and Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit hence optimizes the existing more informal should ensure that the coordination of such coordination efforts. Such an Agricultural innovation programs is properly delegated Innovation Coordination Unit within MINAGRI to (sub) sectoral and/or regional levels. would have the following mandate: 2. Inducing a process of structural adaptation Mission of the public innovation support agencies The mission of the MINAGRI Agricultural that fall under the responsibility of the Innovation Coordination Unit is to enhance Ministry, achieving synchronization of tasks the coherence and synergy in agricultural with other agencies and other players in innovation policy formulation and execution, the AIS such as universities and, where by formulating broadly shared priority areas needed, a redefinition of tasks. This includes for agricultural innovation guiding policy defining the core business of each agency formulation, by coordinating the efforts of and securing adequate funding for this core the executive innovation support agencies to business. In the cases of project funding reach complementarity and integration among instruments, synchronization with generic themselves and with innovators and innovation funding instruments that do not fall under support organizations in the private sector. the realm of MINAGRI needs to be sought, and the possibility for institutionalization of Primary objectives sector based funding (e.g., through sector The primary objectives, which are largely in line with the proposal in the Action Plan 33 Such a vision has already been elaborated upon. See: World Toward 2030 and have been confirmed and Bank, 2011. Towards a Vision for Agricultural Innovation in Chile in 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. This vision should be more complemented by the stakeholders consulted widely disseminated, acted upon, where needed, expanded or for this study, include: adapted. 18 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI organization based levies) needs to be functions connect both to policy coordination explored. and administrative coordination, and strive for positive coordination, policy integration and 3. Monitoring and evaluating the Chilean AIS, strategic coordination (as outlined in Section both to achieve accountability on effective 2.2). Overall, the coordination by the MINAGRI and efficient spending of public funds for Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit is the support of innovation (results-based and at a macro level, which means that the Unit impact-based monitoring and evaluation), induces and oversees that coordination at and to achieve enhanced reflexivity and meso level (e.g., sector level) or micro level policy learning in the AIS in order to (innovation program level) occurs, but does not adjust innovation priorities, policies and get involved in decision making and day-to-day support instruments. Part of the monitoring management at the level of sectors, regions, function includes strategic intelligence, and programs (such as Consorcios, Centros de monitoring developments elsewhere to feed Excelencia) and projects as this is the domain them into Chilean agricultural innovation of the sector-specific MINAGRI agencies and policy making. other public and private stakeholders. 4. Organizing dialogue and information 1) Strategy development and priority management, including ensuring proper setting information flows between the Ministry and the sector, and information flows within the Linked to objectives 1 and 2, the MINAGRI Ministry, in order to achieve the objectives Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit is of vision formulation and enactment, responsible for organizing the process of synchronization of tasks, and monitoring vision and strategy development and priority and evaluation, improve communication setting at macro level, and facilitating other between stakeholders in the Chilean AIS organizations or networks (existing or new) to and the public support infrastructure. specify vision and priorities for specific regions, subsectors and innovation programs. The 3.3 Functions of the MINAGRI strategy development process should focus Agricultural Innovation on different time horizons and scale levels Coordination Unit and should take into account international developments and international opportunities In this section, the principal functions for collaboration. It should include a long- proposed for the MINAGRI Agricultural term horizon (for which elements have Innovation Coordination Unit are described, already been elaborated in the Vision for outlining ways of shaping these functions. The 203035). Vision and strategy development design of these functions is informed by the comprises both topics which have to do stakeholder consultation and earlier work34, with specific subsectors (e.g., dairy, fruit) or and where appropriate the proposed design specific technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, is mirrored to findings from the comparative biofuels), and with institutional innovation case studies from Canada, New Zealand, The in the innovation system (e.g., forms of Netherlands, South Africa, and Mexico. The collaboration, IP rights, integrating PTI). 34 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An 35 See: World Bank, 2011. Towards a Vision for Agricultural Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. Innovation in Chile in 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 19 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit While long-term strategy development efforts and 2.3); c) facilitate that the adequate networks can help in developing the ‘macro priority are formed to execute innovation programs areas’, in order to effectuate these there with different time horizons and ambition levels should be a good connection between long- (see Figures 4 and 6); and d) safeguard the term (10-20 years), and medium-term (5-10 continuity of innovation programs. As indicated years) and short-term (1-5 years) actions with earlier, it would not be the task of the Unit to get corresponding meso and micro priorities - some involved in meso and micro-level coordination of which have also already been elaborated36. processes at the level of sectors, regions, It is important that the short and medium and programs, but the Unit ensures that there priorities and the related action plans are agreed is exchange and alignment between these upon and decided upon by representatives different meso and micro-level coordination, from the different priority sectors and areas. and that these coordination processes take Subsequently, coherent innovation programs the form of positive coordination which lead are formulated which comprise a cohesive to policy coordination and strategic integration set of support instruments through concerted (see Figure 3). action by the different public support agencies (PTI and funding agencies) as well as private For the short-term questions, in order to make sector participation and investments. An sure that a) investments made are in line with example of such an approach can be found in macro priority areas, and b) that they are The Netherlands, where the so-called System addressing real and pressing problems currently Innovation Programs37 tried to connect the experimented by the sector, an articulation different time horizons, an approach which is and priority setting mechanism delegated to continued to some extent in the current Top sectoral organizations could be developed Sector projects (see Annex II, Section B). (or maybe build on existing mechanisms). This may include exploring the possibility and Hence, to ‘bring down to earth’ the long-term feasibility of installing a levy-based funding vision and macro priority areas, the MINAGRI mechanism (see also function 3), which is Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit would currently not yet legally possible. There are need to: a) facilitate medium and short-term many international examples of priority-setting articulation and prioritization processes; b) delegated to sectors, including Bioconnect facilitate that the priorities are developed into and TransForum in The Netherlands, Canada’s coherent innovation programs supported by Value Chain Roundtables, and Mexico’s adequate combinations of innovation policy Produce Foundations (described further in instruments of regulatory, economic incentive Annex II, Section B), whereby some fiscal or ‘soft instrument nature’ (see Sections 2.238 decentralization empowers sectors to finance their own priorities, aligned with national 36 See: World Bank, 2010. Chile: review of public technological institutes priorities. Competitive matching funds also in the agriculture sector; World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation serve to give sectors some autonomy in System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. financing their own solutions in line with 37 Vogelenzang and Wijnands, 2011. Working methodologically on system innovations. Syscope Magazine, Summer 2011; see: http:// national funding criteria. www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/2/a/f/371b3837-0aca-4600- 99b0-d8fe4a0aa362_Co%20innovation%202011.pdf For the medium-term programs (time 38 See: Wieczorek, A. J. and M. P. Hekkert, 2012. Systemic horizon 5-10 years), current modalities like instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy the Consorcios Tecnológicos and Centros 39 (1):74-87. de Excelencia could be further developed, 20 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI and, following recommendations from earlier Supporting long-term strategy development studies39, multidisciplinary research teams and macro priority setting: roles of the think consisting of PTIs and university researchers tank and high-level Advisory Council can be composed, functioning through multi-disciplinary R&D programs. While the In order to have a continuous capacity to current consortia and centers of excellence articulate long-term innovation agendas, and mainly concentrate on collaborative also maintain the capability to generate ‘fresh projects between researchers and firms, ideas’, the installment of a combined think a more diverse set of participants (such as tank and experiments incubator is advised. civil society organizations, environmental Such a think tank would be closely connected NGOs, sector organizations, government to the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation representatives, education institutions, Coordination Unit, and is responsible for international partners) could be included foresight studies, technology assessment and depending on the issue at hand, to ensure strategic intelligence (see also function 2). The that beyond improving research and think tank/experiments incubator can execute technology transfer, other factors important some of these studies itself but should, where for innovation (institutional change, human possible and appropriate, contract these resource building, infrastructural adaptations) out to organizations well-equipped for this are addressed. Here the MINAGRI Agricultural (e.g., national or international consultancy Innovation Coordination Unit would have the companies, universities, Fundación Chile). A function of facilitating that initial relationships competitive tender process should be held to are brokered and consortia formed (see also choose an institution to manage the think tank. function 4) and facilitating that these consortia If it is decided that the think tank should remain are properly managed and develop sufficient close to MINAGRI, it could be located in INIA ‘social capital’ to function independently. because its current activities are most aligned with the proposed think tank. In addition, there needs to be room for high-risk, high-ambition projects with a 10-20 year time Such ‘blue sky’ research projects mentioned horizon, which may be within priority areas, but above could be developed under the there also needs to be space for experiments coordination of the think tank/experiments and ‘blue sky’ research which do not neatly incubator. The think tank/experiments fall within policy lines and incumbent practices incubator has the mandate to induce these in the sector. This function is also important projects, source funding for it, broker the for Chile to move from a country which has networks of public and private actors to work had an approach of ‘catching-up’ in terms of on the projects by making connections within innovation (importing technologies and business and outside the agricultural sector (for fresh models from elsewhere) to becoming a mature ideas and making innovative combinations). innovation system with strong innovation The think tank/experiments incubator connects capacities, able to define and execute its own issues of public concern with private sector visions for innovation40. interests. See Box 2 with an example of what such a think tank/experiments incubator does. 39 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 40 As done earlier with help from World Bank; see: World Bank, 2011. Towards a Vision for Agricultural Innovation in Chile in 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 21 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Box 2. Paradigm shifts into practice: The Netherlands’ InnovationNetwork and Systemic Innovation The Innovation Network for Rural Areas and Agricultural Systems (InnovationNetwork) evolved from a more traditional research intermediary, the Dutch Council for Agricultural Research (NRLO), which was intended to set priorities for mid- and long-term research, representing users of research, government representatives, and researchers. In 1999, in response to a changing agricultural economy with a greater emphasis on sustainable development and specialization, the NRLO shifted focus to system innovations (i.e. a coherent package of product and process innovations that radically transform production systems and value chains), transitioning to become the InnovationNetwork in mid-2000. With the original objective of formulating options and priorities for mid- and long-term research unchanged, InnovationNetwork’s principal activities include conducting foresight exercises, building networks (for development, diffusion, and implementation) and developing instruments and methods to jointly identify, develop and implement innovative opportunities41. The network supports early-stage innovation through relationship brokering, technical advice, and some funding with the objective to ensure that these radical new concepts are put into practice by interested parties. Several organizations targeting specific sub-sectors –Horticulture Innovation Foundation (SIGN), Courage (dairy sector), Kiemkracht (arable farming sector)42, among others– grew out of InnovationNetwork conceptualization and incubation; other ‘concepts’ are perpetually being developed through radical re-imagination via building partnerships and cross-fertilizing with concepts outside of the agricultural sector. The InnovationNetwork maintains an independent board of directors, yet advises the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation on a yearly basis and is funded by the Ministry. Role of the high-level Advisory Council4142 council may be created as a sub-committee from the existing council Chile Potencia A high-level Advisory Council consisting of Alimentaria (see Section 3.4). This option would key and high-level representatives from the leverage the strengths of an existing structure scientific world, civil society realm and private while creating an opportunity to adjust the sector advises strategy development, manages mandate and representation of the council. In evaluation of the Unit, and ensures legitimacy. It this case, as the Minister chairs the broader ensures that the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation council, the Subsecretary could chair the Coordination Unit has high level connections subcommittee. The Advisory Council manages with the realms it operates in. As is common the evaluation of the MINAGRI Agricultural in international experiences, this Advisory Innovation Coordination Unit. The Advisory Council serves to represent the sectors, civil Council also suggests names of organizations society, and other stakeholders by providing to contract for the evaluation and drafts TORs opinions on the policy recommendations of for the Minister’s approval. the MINAGRI Unit. The council assesses the proposals and activities of the MINAGRI Unit See Box 3 with examples from the international and makes recommendations to the Minister, case studies of different possible configurations who retains authority on policy decisions. This and functions of such a council or committee. 41 Smits, R. and Kuhlmann S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1: 4–32. 42 See: http://www.innovatieglastuinbouw.nl/engels/, www. courage2025.nl, http://www.innovatienetwerk.org/en/themas/ toon/33/Kiemkracht.html 22 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI Box 3. Advisory Committees to a Ministry Ministry entities responsible for strategy development receive advice, solicited and unsolicited, from a number of organizations representing different stakeholders in the innovation system. Formally convened advisory committees that are appointed by the Ministry and advise on a regular basis serve a special function to reflect government, research institutions, and/or sector perspectives on the actions of the Ministry and impact on the innovation ecosystem. They provide an independent, multi-disciplinary, and whole-system vision of the Ministry strategy. They also can help to build trust with stakeholders in the innovation system through representing and communicating their priorities and increase the entity’s legitimacy. In practice, many formal advisory committees are not intended to be broadly representative of government, research, and private sector and instead focus on culling a specific perspective on the agricultural innovation system. In its first year of operation, Canada’s Agri-Innovators Committee is part of a government-wide trend of prioritizing industry to set agricultural priorities. The Agri-Innovators Committee advises the Minister. Participants are mostly members of the private sector and are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, while the committee is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the principal department overseen by the Minister of Agriculture. The Netherlands’ Knowledge Chambers (Kenniskamers) are embedded in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation and represent policymakers, scientists, and sector stakeholders, but focus on strengthening the relationship between research institutes and the Ministry and informing policy with science. 2) Research and innovation policy unit placed in one of the MINAGRI’s agencies analysis, design and implementation (e.g., in ODEPA, or a social science unit within FIA, or could be contracted out to relevant An important function of the MINAGRI organizations with the necessary expertise Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit, linked such as universities). Also, a collaboration with to objective 3 is to ensure evidence-based CORFO would be an option, since it already policy making. In order to do so, adequate has innovation system evaluation schemes information is needed about the functioning and running which also include the agricultural effects of current policy and policy instruments, sector. In international experiences, specific both those implemented in Chile by MINAGRI project evaluation is frequently contracted out (i.e. monitoring and evaluating the different while monitoring of projects is housed in a agencies connected to MINAGRI and the specialized unit within the Ministry. Sometimes innovation programs executed through them), specific financing programs are monitored and and experiences from elsewhere. evaluated by the financing institution (see the New Zealand Primary Growth Partnership, Evaluation needs to comprise both impact Annex II, Section F), and specialized agencies studies, but also (midterm) evaluation on for innovation like Chile’s ODEPA (e.g., South innovation program functioning to learn Africa’s Centre for Science, Technology, and how, for example, collaborative innovation Innovation Indicators) study the changes and can be better supported. The evaluation of impact of policies on the innovation system. the functioning and effects of the innovation policies and support instruments (e.g., the work The task of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation of the different agencies, funding schemes) Coordination Unit would be a) articulating from MINAGRI could be done by a dedicated the evaluation needs and developing the 23 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Figure 6. Connecting different ambition levels and time horizons – connections between the work of the think tank/ experiments incubator43 and thematic and sectoral consorcios ination Unit oversees, Coord ovation s different ambits Inn rdinate Future ral o Future icultu and co Target visions g r ts I A po r GR sup NA MI Ambit: Think Tank / Design Experiments Incubator Innovation networks Stakeholders’ Innovation innovation agenda experiments Pioneers Analysis Ambit: Ambit: Consorcios, Mesas de Diálogo, Centers of Excellence, Agendas de Innovación FIA induced networks Practice Practice (in the field) (in the field) related terms of references to steer the actual by the earlier mentioned think tank/experiments evaluations, and b) feeding back the results incubator (see function 1) and this think tank/ of the evaluation into policy making. In doing experiments incubator could also engage so, it is important that the evaluation feeds into in Technology Assessment44. The Advisory the different types of innovation policy learning Council also manages the evaluation of the as outlined in Table 1, and induces adaptation MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination and adjustment or reformulation of policies Unit itself (see function 1). and related innovation policy instruments, when necessary. In The Netherlands, the 3) Managing programs and resources, Chief Scientific Officer and Knowledge including innovation financing Chambers serve this role of applying learning by strengthening policy with the latest science A current weakness indicated in both earlier developments (see Annex I, The Netherlands).43 work45, and also indicated by the stakeholders consulted for this study, is the fragmentation of Also here, there is a key role for the high-level resources and lack of a coherent programmatic Advisory Council to advise on adaptation and adjustment or reformulation of policies 44 Technology Assessment is defined as ‘an applied process that and related innovation policy instruments. considers the societal implications of technological change in Experiences from elsewhere could be gathered order to influence policy to improve technology governance’. See: Vanclay, F.M., Russel, A.W., Kimber, J., 2013. Enhancing innovation 43 Based on a figure by Vogelenzang and Wijnands, 2011. Working in agriculture at the policy level: the potential contribution of methodologically on system innovations. Syscope Magazine, Summer, technology assessment. Land Use Policy, 31: 406-411. 2011; see: http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/2/a/f/371b3837- 45 World Bank, 2011. Towards a Vision for Agricultural Innovation in 0aca-4600-99b0-d8fe4a0aa362_Co%20innovation%202011.pdf Chile in 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 24 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI approach. In relation to the priority areas by channeling funds coming from other developed in the long, medium and short sources through MINAGRI (e.g., as is term, coherent innovation programs should be currently done by the Fondo de Innovación developed as described under function 1. y Competitivad –FIC, managed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs). In order to provide incentives to stakeholders • Forging agreements with public funding (private sector, public innovation support sources such as CORFO and CONICYT agencies) to align with these priority areas and on the earmarking of a certain share of related innovation programs, a key function their funds available to the agricultural of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation and forestry sector and assign these Coordination Unit (linked with objective 2) is to to priority lines and specific R&D, make sure that appropriate funding lines are education and innovation programs. For defined and made available. This follows up example, as previous World Bank studies on the recommendations in an earlier study46 have indicated47, scientific capacity on the increase of public funding levels and strengthening is a key issue, and training funding growth (matched with decentralized of MSc and PhD level students could be funds, private funds, foreign investment) and much more closely tied to priority lines, establishes differentiation of funding in order to for example, by formulating specific PhD enhance efficient use of funds. programs connected to Consorcios Tecnológicos or Centers of Excellence48, A key task in this regard for the MINAGRI instead of having more open calls. PhD Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit will be work would then go beyond training to a) get an overview of all the current funding individuals, contribute to a larger goal and lines available for the support of agricultural deliver concrete inputs to programs, or innovation from MINAGRI and from other public could also deal with agricultural innovation sources b) (re)organize funding in order to policy topics (e.g., assessing collaboration support priority areas and innovation programs. in Consorcios), in support of function 2. Such (re) organization can be done in several This would imply negotiations on how ways, and in most cases needs institutional generic mechanisms such as Becas and legal reform: Chile could be brought in line with these programs, or research funding could also • Establishing what degree of core funding is be allocated to PhD project funding. needed for the different agencies (funding, • Engaging organizations managing PTI) in order to sustainably execute certain decentralized funding at the level of basic tasks and maintain critical mass ( in regions in priority setting processes, terms of staffing, research infrastructure), coupling national and regional funding and which part of the funding is distributed streams to obtain more targeted funding through competitive grants in line with priority for identified priority areas and related areas and related innovation programs. innovation programs, and allowing to • Increasing decision-making authority on consider private sources of financing. how funding is distributed to the agencies connected to MINAGRI (see Figure 4) 47 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 46 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An 48 For example, this modality is employed in the current Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. International Centre of Excellence in Food led by Wageningen UR. 25 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit • Opening funding lines for international coherence and synergy, and a key task of the collaboration. This may be thought of in MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination different ways: Specific funds may be Unit is to reduce duplication and fragmentation. made available for well-defined projects This requires a number of functions, linked to between a Chilean and an international objectives 2 and 3. partner; funding opportunities may be available to facilitate international A key function, also related to following up on participation across the range of outcomes of innovation policy evaluation as instruments that the Unit will support; described under function 2, is organizing critical the Unit may facilitate international links reflection on the adequacy of the diverse tasks and partnerships through its network and and focus areas of the different public innovation database. support instruments (i.e. the agencies related • Assessing the legal possibility of levy- to MINAGRI described in Section 3.1), as based (sub)sectoral innovation funds well as the task division between the different based on obligatory private contributions agencies. While this would be a continuous (as a percentage of production value, or function, an initial task would be to induce an based on farm size), with the possibility of exercise to define what should be the core public matching. Such levy-based funds business of the different agencies, and how are currently not legally possible. The they relate to each other and other innovation emphasis of the Unit should be to develop support organizations (e.g., the stakeholders measures to support sectors that want to consulted indicated a need to assess and establish such contributions. revise the task division and/or collaborative work between INIA and agronomy faculties In terms of the actual decision making on of universities; between INFOR and CONAF; spending of funds, while the MINAGRI between ODEPA, FUCOA and CIREN; between Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit would FIA and CORFO-INNOVA; between INDAP and draw out the boundaries and secure the overall technology transfer units in universities, INIA, budgets for main thematic areas and related and sector organizations). This function thus innovation programs (supported by its Advisory aims to ensure that, from negative or passive Council), it would leave the management of horizontal coordination between MINAGRI these innovation programs to the responsible agencies and organizations which perform organizations. This includes the setting of the similar functions as the MINAGRI agencies but specific priorities within the broader thematic do not fall under the control of MINAGRI, there areas, selection of proposals, the decision is a gradual move towards positive horizontal making on funds allocation, and the monitoring coordination and eventually policy integration of the correct spending of funds. and strategic coordination (see Figure 3). 4) Innovation system management: Another key function related to innovation deconstructing the Chilean AIS through system deconstruction, is assessing the current rationalization and constructing it procedures for obtaining innovation support, through brokering of partnerships as it has become obvious that stakeholders experience too much ‘red tape’. The MINAGRI As stated earlier in this report, duplication, Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit fragmentation and a high perceived degree should streamline as much as possible the of bureaucracy in the Chilean AIS prevent different procedures and, to the extent that it is 26 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI possible, engage in trust-based management. operationalization of innovation programs For example, formalities can be reduced in the (see also function 1), stimulate collaborative case that there is proven management capability working between public and private sector in projects or consortia and careful handling actors by means of regulatory requirements of funds. Connected to this issue is bringing or financial incentives, e.g., prescribing a in line the incentive and reward mechanisms consortium approach as a requirement with the expected core mission of an agency, to obtain funding. It can also use different so that these are not contradictory and ways to connect to private sector initiatives, counterproductive: for example, PTI indicated e.g., by matching funding, having a system that their performance is increasingly assessed of prizes for innovative endeavors, or on the basis of peer reviewed publications, organizing ‘share fairs’ events on innovation which takes away time for translating research related themes that foster networking and results into publication for general audiences matchmaking (see Annex II, Sections A and and participation in technology transfer and B for international experiences on financing extension activities. and organizational strategies to involve the private sector). In terms of innovation system construction, regarding building relationships in order to be 5) Information management and able to define priority areas and initiate actions knowledge sharing in the long, medium and short term through targeted innovation programs as described This function is closely related to the previously under function 1, a key function of the MINAGRI described functions, and connects to objective Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit is 4. While coordination to a certain degree relies on to make sure linkages are built between the personal networks and hence tacit knowledge different actors in the Chilean AIS, and also sharing, there are a number of actions the outward linkages with actors within the Chilean MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination National Innovation System and abroad Unit can realize in order to improve information (combined vertical and horizontal coordination). management and knowledge sharing: This can be done in several (interrelated) ways: • As ICT is a key tool to ensure • The MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation information sharing and learning, and Coordination Unit can convene the actors especially relevant in a country as for drawing up the programmatic lines Chile where distances are large, ICT (through, e.g., the organization of dialogs to support innovation and to enhance -mesas de diálogo-, or high-level events). the coordination of innovation support It is important that a continuous facilitation efforts is key. To enhance synergy, the of innovation programs is installed, Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit so beyond facilitating initial network needs to ensure that different information formation and funding, the Unit can databases are connected or integrated, enhance collaboration through improved or that ‘metaportals’ are created, or that communication, trust building, conflict existing ones are better used, specifying resolution, etc. the contribution of the different agencies to these (closely related to the function • The MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation of ensuring an adequate task division as Coordination Unit can, in its described under function 4). 27 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit • Create a simplified and, to the extent Alianzas Productivas type programs, the possible, unified formats for reporting proposed regional extension centers, the on progress and impact of projects and Grupos de Transferencia Técnológica programs, and organize training for - GTT51). Mexico has a similar system those responsible for reporting on using of regional Centers for Evaluation of the desired format. This also implies technology transfer (Annex I). connecting databases of different funding sources to exchange information on 3.4 Positioning of the MINAGRI those that have obtained funding, as was Agricultural Innovation suggested by stakeholders linked to the Coordination Unit: Coordination consulted funding agencies. New Zealand with MINAGRI, the Chilean has strong online portals for research National Innovation System, funding from various sources (see Annex I). and the Chilean AIS • In order to enhance knowledge sharing between the different coordinating The MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination entities (both the MINAGRI Agricultural Unit, resembling set-ups elsewhere as in The Innovation Coordination Unit and the Netherlands’ Agri-Knowledge Directorate or different delegated coordination entities Canada’s Innovation Policy Division within of sectoral and thematic networks), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (see Annex in order to capture feedback, sharing I), has its main operational unit embedded within of experiences, and learning about the Ministry of Agriculture (see Figure 8). There best practices in coordination, an ICT are two options to set-up the Unit: supported ‘Community of Practice’ could be formed49. 1. The Unit can be created as a department • Following earlier recommendations50 and or sub-directorate of ODEPA as this agency also advised by stakeholders consulted is embedded at the central ministerial level from INIA, universities and the Consorcios, and has coordination formally described create a well-linked extension system, in its existing mission statement (defined in which the MINAGRI Agricultural by the current law). It is then established Innovation Coordination Unit would need by a formal resolution which ensures its to ensure a) adequate feedback links sustainability. Though connected to ODEPA, between research and extension providers the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation (knowledge brokering to advisors, train- Coordination Unit should position itself the-trainer functions in PTI), b) continued (through its branding, a separate physical capacity building of the pluralistic system location) as an independent entity to ensure of advisors (extension training, quality a legitimate position as coordinator. assessment, certification) c) assessing the access of different types of farmers (large, 2. The Unit can be established directly within medium, small) to extension services and the Subsecretariat. ensure adequate programs (e.g., through There are advantages and disadvantages for either option (Table 1): 49 See: http://www.kstoolkit.org/ for examples of different ICT based knowledge sharing tools. 50 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An 51 World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington D.C. 28 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI Table 1. Pros and cons of options to position the Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Option Pros Cons Within ODEPA - Connects with mission statement of ODEPA - ODEPA cannot manage funding - ODEPA has an institutional stability which - The Unit will have a low position in the enhances sustainability of the Unit MINAGRI chain of command/hierarchy - The Unit will be at such a level that it cannot have a high-level Advisory Council In the Subsecretariat - Builds on three years of experience - Soft coordination may be hindered by of Subsecretary advisors working on strong hierarchical relationships and power coordination over economic incentives - Direct authority over funding to agencies - Legal construction is less solid and Unit enhances steering capabilities may be more easily removed - High position in the AIS hierarchy lends required authority to the Unit for coordination efficacy While the current arrangements for public key is to select the option that will allow for the innovation policy management are ad hoc, smoothest transition into an eventual directorate they have functioned satisfactorily and have while developing political authority and continuity. allowed the Ministry to progress in establishing policies. The recommendation is to maintain this The Unit has a vertical coordination relationship informal arrangement until, possibly during the with the different agencies related to MINAGRI, next administration, until legal steps have been with the possibility to exercise steering through completed for the establishment of a Directorate. deliberation (soft coordination), through To enhance continuity, it is recommended that the funding, and through backing by the Minister process of establishing a Directorate is initiated and the Subsecretary (hierarchical steering). immediately and that the innovation directorate With other organizations, such as private is explicitly considered in the transition briefing sector organizations, coordination can take for the 2014-2018 administration. place through dialogue and deliberation and, where needed, using regulatory instruments In the medium and long term, creating the or economic incentives. It is important that the Coordination Unit as a Directorate within MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination MINAGRI is preferable to either option for its Unit carefully choses its main contact persons, hierarchical authority and political stability. i.e. the entry points to the organizations it works However, the current MINAGRI law does not with. Ideally, people are chosen which have a allow divisions such as the División de Innovación sufficiently high level in their organizations (e.g., of the Chilean Ministry of Economic Affairs. While senior managers), but are not at the levels where the legal process is underway to establish the there are frequent staff changes (e.g., directors’ legal possibility of such a Directorate, the existing level), to ensure long-term relationships coordination arrangement in the MINAGRI essential for effective coordination. Subsecretariat can be developed into this unit. The law currently in preparation will redefine the The MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation form and tasks of MINAGRI, so that regardless of Coordination Unit, as discussed in Section 3.3, which option is chosen, in a few years when the can gradually delegate the more operational new MINAGRI law is established the Unit can be coordination tasks ((sub)sector level, program made an independent division of MINAGRI. The level, project level) to some of its agencies: set- 29 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit up of topic or subsector specific priority setting, oversee the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation program development, program facilitation Coordination Unit. The Advisory Council would (which can be delegated to ODEPA52), monitoring include at least three members from the council and evaluation of the AIS that can be delegated Chile Potencia Alimentaria and five members to an existing or new organization (e.g., FIA). from innovation-oriented organizations, public Where desirable and/or complementary, the or private. Membership should also include MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination regional representatives. It needs to be noted Unit contracts out specific functions to third that the high-level Advisory Council will interact parties (such as consultancy companies, with the current separate advisory councils of research institutes, from Chile or abroad). For its the different MINAGRI agencies as some of its foresight, technology assessment and strategic members will have shared positions. This will intelligence functions it is supported by an most probably also alter the functions of the affiliated think tank/experiments incubator. advisory councils of the MINAGRI agencies. To ensure high-level coordination and legitimacy On a more operational level, the MINAGRI within the Chilean National Innovation System Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit can and the Chilean AIS, the Unit is advised by set up several working groups with relevant a high-level Advisory Council (see function stakeholders from the Chilean National 1 in Section 3.3) presided by the Minister Innovation System and the Chilean AIS: of Agriculture, consisting of directors of the following organizations: • A working group on the coordination of funding with representatives of other • Sector organizations like ASOEX, ministries and their funding agencies Consorcio Lechero, FedeFruta, etc. • A working group with sectoral • Processing industry representatives on assessing the possibility • Civil society organizations (for issues such and feasibility of levy-based research and as, e.g., animal welfare) innovation funding schemes • Universities • A working group on the placement of the • Other ministries’ innovation agencies MINAGRI Innovation Unit in the proposed • Each MINAGRI agency (see Section 3.1) ‘superministry’ of science and innovation53 • Key scientific and innovation experts from Chile (e.g., from CNIC, as these perform These inter-ministerial working groups should similar roles as the proposed Advisory feed into high-level committees such as the Council) and from abroad Comité Interministerial para la Innovación (CMI). Most of the proposed stakeholders are already In order to effectively coordinate with the Chilean participating in the high level council Chile AIS as a whole, the Unit needs to ensure Chile’s Potencia Alimentaria and to avoid setting diverse agricultural regions are adequately up a parallel council, members from this represented in the national-level coordination same council can form a subcommittee to process. In general, the Unit should aim to be regionally informed rather than decentralized. 52 Here, FIA would focus on short-term and mid-term programs (as the think tank/experiments incubator deals with the long- 53 See: http://www.encuentrocientificointernacional.org/ term programs), and has to be complementary to sector or topic reportescienciaperu/201303marzomayo/Informe_Comision_ specific coordination efforts already existing, such as Consorcios Asesora_Presidencial_Institucionalidad_Ciencia_Tecnologia_e_ Tecnológicos and Consorcio Lechero, and fill gaps. Innovacion.pdf 30 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI The Unit should ensure the regions are able Innovation Coordination Unit should appoint one to contribute their priorities and perspectives person in each subunit (three in total) tasked with to the national strategy development and give managing regional linkages and communication. feedback on programs and policies. Federal- As part of function 3, the Unit’s work in articulating regional coordination can be achieved through streams of innovation funding should also ensuring at least three members of the Advisory account for regionally specific funding streams. Council represent the geographic diversity The Unit may choose to establish additional of Chile’s territory beyond Santiago.54These structures for communicating with the regions. representatives may be from the public or private International experiences in regionalism are sector. Furthermore, the MINAGRI Agricultural summarized in Box 4. Box 4. Strategies to ensure regional representation in national AIS coordination Chile can consider a number of strategies to ensure the regions are adequately represented in the AIS coordination. Many countries have experimented with varying degrees of devolution of control in priority-setting and of fiscal control in order to empower locally-driven and/or locally-informed agricultural innovation. In addition to regional representation in the Advisory Council and Coordination Unit, Chile may also consider additional structures to increase the communication with the regions. Canada, like Chile, has a high degree of heterogeneity in its agricultural sector between provinces, making it complicated to set common priorities across the country. Canada has several strategies to balance regional autonomy and alignment. The agricultural sector has long been a joint responsibility between the province and federal government and a significant process of consensus building and deliberation precedes bilateral agreements between the provinces and the federal government on five-year agricultural policy plans. Financing is split on a 60-40 basis between the federal and provincial government. Canada’s Value Chain Roundtables (VCRTs) were launched in 2003 as a kind of forum for regional stakeholder representation. The VCRTs convene industry leaders across one value chain with federal and provincial government policy makers; there are currently VCRTs for eleven value chains. Industry leaders set the agenda and the Ministry of Agriculture ensures roundtable priorities on policy and programs are communicated to inform its planning and decision-making. Another mechanism used in the province of Ontario is a research advisory network that provides long-term, strategic guidance for research program development and identifies short-term, emerging research priorities. A provincial advisory body identifies priorities specific for the province and an expert panel, comprised of members from across North America, provide perspective on emerging issues critical for progress (see Annex II, Section D for more information.) Mexico’s Produce Foundations are a well-known example balancing strategic and fiscal decentralization with national priorities. The Produce Foundations serve to increase farmer involvement in setting research priorities by giving such farmers a say in the allocation of funds at the state-level. Produce Foundations were established in each state to manage competitive funds for agricultural research and extension that solve their states’ technological needs. Innovative, technologically advanced ‘lead’ farmers appointed to the research board of each Produce Foundation; state and federal government representatives serve on the board in an advisory role54. Key to the success of such an approach is a strong monitoring system that can capture lessons from the diversity of experiments incubated through the foundations. 54 http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Mexico_CB41_En.pdf 31 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 3.5 Staffing and governance selected by this project manager. Each subunit is staffed by three staff members (one senior The MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation staff member, a mid-career staff member, and a Coordination Unit has three subunits which are junior staff member) who possess the following interconnected (see Figure 7) and which cover characteristics and competences to gain the both administrative and policy coordination legitimacy to become effective as coordinators: (see Section 2.2) : • sufficient specific sector knowledge and a • strategy, program and capacity good connection with practice, but also a development (principally linked to function holistic view 1, with connections to functions 3, 4 • knowledge on administrative procedures and 5) • excellent networking skills • innovation policy monitoring, evaluation, • pro-activeness and adaptation (principally linked to • diplomacy function 2, with connections to function 1, • no explicit political orientation 4 and 5) • funding coordination, administration and The different subunits need to have a control (principally linked to function 3, with balanced staff composition in terms of having connections to function 1 and 2) specific knowledge of the different priority sectors (e.g., horticulture, dairy, forestry), and The Unit is led by a director, who can either specific knowledge related to the specific be the same project manager who sets up the innovation coordination functions addressed Unit (see Table 2), or it can be a senior person by each subunit (e.g., research management, Figure 7. Functions of the subunits within the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Subunit Subunit Strategy, Program and Functions Capacity Development Function 1: Strategy Development and Priority Setting Function 2: Research and Innovation Policy Analysis, Subunit Design and Implementation Innovation Policy Monitoring, Evaluation, and Function 3: Managing Programs and Resources Adaptation Function 4: Innovation System Management Subunit Funding Coordination, Function 5: Information Management Administration, and Knowledge Sharing and Control 32 Design for an Agricultural Innovation Unit Coordination Unit at MINAGRI extension, innovation funding, monitoring and management at the level of whole sectors or evaluation). It might not be realistic to find all value chains (i.e. ‘system innovation’). The these characteristics and competences in a think tank/experiments incubator gives input single person, but the overall composition of for strategy and program development and the think tank/experiments incubator should induces long-term innovation experiments. bring these together. If people with the required They act as ‘honest brokers’, using their characteristics and competences already independent position to broker networks to reside within MINAGRI or its agencies, the staff tackle innovation ambitions, and to make sure of the Unit can be recruited from existing staff that these processes are informed by foresight, which can then be seconded to the Unit. To technology assessment, and scientific ensure a rapid start of the MINAGRI Agricultural evidence. As their task is to influence the short Innovation Coordination Unit, and have people and medium innovation activities in order to with a thorough knowledge of the public achieve a long-term agenda, they should make innovation support structure, using existing a bridge between future visions and current staff would be the preferred option. practices (see Figure 6). The think tank/experiments incubator is The think tank/experiments incubator is connected to the Unit but needs to have a composed by 5 permanent staff members, degree of independence, and can be contracted who engage for specific strategy development out via a competitive call to an organization exercises and experiments with appropriate which has capacities in strategic innovation partners such as consultancy agencies, Figure 8. Organizatinal chart of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Advisory Minister Council Subsecretary Think Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit tank Subunit Subunit Subunit Strategy and Innovation Funding Program Policy, Coordination, Development Monitoring, Administration, Evaluation, and and Control Adaptation Private Sector Agencies of MINAGRI other Ministries (e.g., ASOEX, FEDEFRUTA, Consorcio Lechero, Agencies (e.g., CORFO, INNOVA, Biofrutales, etc.) CONICYT, etc.) (e.g. INFOR, INDAP, INIA, ODEPA, etc.) 33 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit universities, and other Chilean think tanks and tank/experiments incubator should bring these innovation facilitation organizations (e.g., CNIC, together. Fundación Chile55, Consorcios Tecnológicos). Another possibility would be to connect the think 3.6 Estimated budget tank/experiments incubator to the international Centers of Excellence, to be able to tap into As a new Unit is proposed, investments are expertise from elsewhere on how to shape long- needed in staff, office space, operational term strategic innovation programs, and use expenses. While this will require budget, the both technical expertise and methodological coordination by the Unit most likely will result skills (for visioning, strategic intelligence, in efficiency gains elsewhere, which would innovation experiments)56. International contacts justify the investment. With a staffing of ten are also important to identify opportunities for staff members for the MINAGRI Agricultural collaboration in specific innovation programs. It Innovation Coordination Unit and two support is important though to make sure that the think staff, as well as five staff members for the tank/experiments incubators get firmly rooted think tank/experiments incubator and one into the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System support staff, a total of 18 people are foreseen. and that domestic capacities are developed. Calculating an average of $50,000 personnel costs and $50,000 overhead, this would come The staff members should have the following to a total of $1.8 million per year. characteristics and competences: • excellent networking skills • innovative mindset • trend watching and scenario thinking capabilities • risk taking and experimenting attitude • facilitation, mediation and trust building skills • design thinking It might not be realistic to find all these characteristics and competences in a single person, but the overall composition of the think 55 See: Bell Jr, B. W. and C. Juma, 2007. Technology prospecting: Lessons from the early history of the Chile Foundation. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 3(2-3): 296-314. 56 For example, a connection could be made to the International Centre of Excellence in Food led by Wageningen UR, as this has specific agricultural sector experience, and has longstanding experience in system innovation approaches (see: Vogelenzang and Wijnands, 2011. Working methodologically on system innovations. Syscope Magazine, Summer 2011; see: http://www.wageningenur. nl/upload_mm/2/a/f/371b3837-0aca-4600-99b0-d8fe4a0aa362_ Co%20innovation%202011.pdf), but also the other non-agricultural Centers of Excellence (led by e.g., the German Fraunhofer Institute or the Australian CSIRO) can offer value in this regard. 34 Implementation schedule: Next steps 4. Implementation schedule: Next steps 4.1 Steps in realizing the MINAGRI and the feeling of ownership of the Unit and Agricultural Innovation acceptance of its tasks (which will affect the way Coordination Unit of working of many organizations); secondly, the process may yield further actionable ideas The proposed design for the MINAGRI Agricultural that could be incorporated in the plan and, third, Innovation Coordination Unit points at different use can be made of the positive experiences so actions and initiatives at different levels of the far. For the consultation and validation process, innovation system. It requires changes internally at MINAGRI may consider a series of regional MINAGRI to set up and install the Unit. It requires workshops and a set of further consultations defining a division of labor between the Unit and with partners at the national level such as the the different agencies related to MINAGRI (e.g., Ministry of Economics, CORFO, CONICYT, funding agencies, PTI) but also other innovation the Ministry of Education, the National Society support instruments with relevance for the of Farmers (SNA), the major value chain and agricultural sector. It requires embedding in the export associations. broader innovation system by setting up the Advisory Council, so to engage in dialogue with In order to start setting up the MINAGRI sector organizations, universities, and innovation Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit, it is experts from abroad. It requires getting a good important that a project leader is appointed view on how existing coordination efforts can be by MINAGRI who champions the set up of the integrated in the work of the MINAGRI Agricultural Unit. This project leader could be recruited from Innovation Coordination Unit, to avoid ‘reinventing or installed at the MINAGRI Subsecretariat, the wheel’. given its role in follow-up on the Action Plan 2030, or one of the agencies. Staff members Given that most of the consulted stakeholders can be seconded (comisión de servicio) from work at the national level, and given the the MINAGRI agencies to build the initial team increasing delegation of tasks to regional for a smoother transition. Once the Unit has governments, adequate follow-up consultation been shaped, in order to give them hands-on is needed to well incorporate the view of experience, a study trip to one or several of the the regions (although also here the need for comparative case study countries could take coordination is acknowledged, as was indicated place58. by several stakeholders)57. It is important that the existing momentum Such consultation/validation will have at least is maintained and that the Unit is quickly three important benefits: first, the existing established and operationalized. To ensure design for the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation continuity in the light of the upcoming change Coordination Unit can be confirmed or modified, of administration it is recommended that the thereby improving the chance of success establishment of the Unit is included in the 58 Given the proposed design, Canada and The Netherlands could 57 These steps resemble and are inspired by earlier World Bank be interesting options. Furthermore, hands-on support could be studies: World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: requested from the Unidad de Innovación of the Chilean Ministry An Action Plan Towards 2030. of Economic Affairs. 35 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit briefing material for the next administration. If so Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit, required, the World Bank will remain available taking into account that its implementation for further support in developing the Unit and and the execution of the different functions implementing other recommendations of this will also be a learning process which will take and the previous studies. time. Also, some coordination activities (e.g., brokering relationships) are quite ‘intangible’ A roadmap with milestones is proposed in and difficult to measure. So sufficient time Table 2. should be allowed for the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit to show its 4.2 Evaluation of the usefulness of usefulness, and quantitative information should the Unit be complemented with qualitative information (e.g., narratives, showcases). The main purpose of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit is to improve Some key indicators of the effectiveness and effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and usefulness of the Unit include: synergy in the Chilean AIS. The process of achieving this will take several years, as it • Perceived reduction of overlap between requires adaptations on part of the different PTI and other MINAGRI agencies stakeholders within MINAGRI and its related • Agreements on integrated funding streams agencies, stakeholders of other Ministries and with other Ministry’s agencies their agencies, as well as sectoral stakeholders. • Development of 5 experimental innovation projects by the think tank/experiments ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating’, incubator and hence it is important to assess the • Integrated information available on AIS effectiveness and usefulness of the MINAGRI functioning from the M&E subunit Table 2. Roadmap with milestones Year Milestones 2014 - further consultations have been finished and adaptations to design have been made - project leader has been appointed - staff of the Unit has been recruited - competitive tender process to select institution that will manage the think tank has been completed - staff of the think tank has been recruited - the Advisory Council has been composed and installed 2015 - study trip has taken place - assessment has been done of current funding streams, programs, task division of agencies and PTI and possibilities for integration and rationalization have been identified - operationalization of priority areas has taken place into long-term, medium-term and short-term action plans and corresponding innovation programs - reconfiguration of funding streams has taken place, for serving different purposes and innovation programs (core funding, competitive funding, levy-based funding) - agreements with other ministries have been forged on earmarking funding - implementers of delegated coordination at (sub)sector/topic/priority area have been identified and appointed 2016 - integration and rationalization of agencies and PTI - initiation of integrated innovation programs - external evaluation of the Unit has been contracted by the Advisory Council 36 Implementation schedule: Next steps • Set up of 5 integrated innovation cells in the matrix, depending on the activities programs, comprising multi-disciplinary undertaken by the Unit. R&D programs with related technology transfer activities, Consorcios The evaluation process will be initiated by the Tecnológicos, Mesas de Diálogo Advisory Council, which will propose names • Investments in the agricultural innovation and terms of reference of a small panel to the system have been brought to the OECD Minister, and upon his approval, will be the first average59 point of contact for the evaluation panel. The effectiveness and usefulness can It is also important that the MINAGRI Agricultural be measured independently through a Innovation Coordination Unit installs a process in commissioned evaluation (establishing a which it reflects on the dilemmas it encounters baseline situation and measuring progress at in its coordination tasks, to be able to find a right regular intervals). balance. Some dilemmas are listed in Box 5. The recommendation is that after two years, the Unit be evaluated according to the following matrix, measuring to what extent has the Unit contributed to better policies, priorities, financing, public spending, knowledge sharing, and innovation agendas at the subsector level. At the time of the evaluation, more specific indicators can be defined for each of the Public Management More effective More efficient More coherent Greater synergy Parameters Innovation Policies Innovation Priorities Overall Innovation Financing Public Innovation Budgets Knowledge Sharing Sub-Sector Innovation Agendas 59 See also: World Bank, 2011. Chile’s Agricultural Innovation System: An Action Plan Towards 2030. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 37 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Box 5. Some probable risks and dilemmas in the coordination tasks of the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Unit Risk/dilemma Measures to mitigate risk - Balance hierarchical steering plus economic - Experiment on a small scale with soft incentives and soft-coordination: too much coordination before expanding this practice reliance on the former may counteract the - Move to soft coordination after proven good effectiveness of soft coordination based on trust conduct and self-organization - Balance trust and control: a degree of trust is - Develop monitoring and evaluation mechanisms needed to enable positive coordination and policy which reduce administrative burden integration, but in the ambit of administrative coordination control to achieve transparency and accountability is also needed - Balance continuity and change: the priority lines - Ensure that the MINAGRI Agricultural require long-term attention, but they also operate Innovation Coordination Unit has an within an environment which may experience independent status, and that also the Advisory political turbulence and may mean that key Council remains as stable as possible individuals are changed - Balance established priority lines and continuous - Give the think tank/experiments incubators room room for experimentation: to guide investments, to diverge from policy lines priority lines need to be followed, but this should - Have an active strategic intelligence function not be a straitjacket which does not allow for some - Have ‘fresh minds’ from outside Chile in the free space Advisory Council - Balance creative diversity and fragmentation: - Make use of the regional diversity working within not all fragmentation is bad, as it also allows for the overall priority areas the emergence of slightly (or radically) different - Create parallel programs on similar issues approaches to tackle specific problems and with slightly different approaches (portfolio of challenges, which enlarges the solution space promises) - Balance incumbents with established interests - Give the think tank/experiments incubators room and deviants with new thinking: representation to diverge from policy lines enhances ownership but may also lead to - Have an active strategic intelligence function compromises which do not offer real solutions - Have ‘fresh minds’ from outside Chile in the and maintain a situation of ‘lock-in’, hence deviant Advisory Council ideas also need to be fostered - Balance involvement of coordination entities - Have adequate M&E with self-organization of sectors, Consorcios, etc.: - Delegate as much as possible when things move avoid superfluous structures – so withdraw when well coordination becomes self-organized - Be transparent about role coordinating entities and manage expectations - Balance dialogue and stakeholder involvement with - Be transparent and communicate about the need painful rationalization measures for change - Induce a gradual transition when possible - Make use of crisis moments 38 Annexes Annexes Annexes I-III serve to capture insights relevant for MINAGRI from international experiences coordinating agricultural innovation systems (AIS). Canada, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Africa were chosen for their relevance to Chile given the similarity in size and structure of their agri- food economy and their creative approaches to the AIS challenges that Chile also faces. Annex I focuses on the governance of the ‘core network’ of coordinating bodies in the AIS. This Annex describes the roles and relationships that comprise the system and identifies how the five functions of the proposed MINAGRI Directorate for Innovation (provided in Chapter 3) are executed in the AIS of the case countries. Annex II focuses on key thematic challenges in the design of an agricultural innovation coordinating unit. Noteworthy initiatives and creative approaches to several key challenges are highlighted: a) financing innovation (including co-financing, public-private partnerships, competitive funds, levy- based funding mechanisms), b) harnessing the creativity of the private sector (top sectors approach, sector-driven research planning, farmer-driven funds, and value chain roundtables), c) keeping the AIS fresh and maintaining the ability to evolve with the sector, d) balancing regional autonomy with centralized coordination, e) involving small farmers in the AIS, and f) methods for monitoring and evaluation. Annex III provides information about the staffing and positioning of the Ministry-level coordinating units most comparable to the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit proposed in this report. 39 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Annex I. Governance of the core coordinating network: Roles and relationships The governance of the core network (see Section 2.1 of the main report), understood as the mechanisms by which decisions are made, is reviewed for each of the case study countries, describing the roles and relationships of each of these actors within the system. Most of the countries’ core networks include a Ministry AIS coordinating unit similar to the one proposed in this report but also involve other entities, public and private, that influence the AIS agenda. An overview of these entities for all five countries, grouped by the level of coordination at which they work, is provided in the table below. Case Ministry-level Advisory Committees Agency-level Industry-level Country coordination to Ministry-level Coordination Coordination60 Canada Agriculture and Agri- Agri-Innovators Provincial departments of Value Chain Food Canada (AAFC) Committee agriculture Roundtables62 (e.g., OMAFRA Research Provincial Ministry of Canadian Agricultural Advisory Network) Agriculture offices Innovation and Regulation (e.g., Ontario Ministry Network (CAIRN)61 of Agriculture and Food, OMAFRA) Mexico63 Ministry of Agriculture National Research and National Coordinating Produce (SAGARPA) Technology Transfer Agency for Produce Foundations System (SNITT) Foundations (COFUPRO)64 Inter-Sectoral Commission on Innovation Inter-Sectoral Commission on Sustainable Rural Development National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) The Ministry of Economics, Knowledge Chambers Innovation Network Top Sectors Netherlands Agriculture, and Innovation Advisory Council for Bioconnect Science and Technology65 (among others) The Council for Levy-based funding Environment and mechanisms Infrastructure66 Chief Scientific Officers InnovationNetwork 40 Annex 1 New Zealand Ministry of Business, MBIE Science Board67 Primary Growth Innovation, and Partnership Employment (MBIE) Callaghan Ministry of Primary Innovation Industries (MPI) NZBIO68 New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE)69 Food Innovation Network of New Zealand70 South Africa Department of Science National Advisory Council Technology Innovation Technology and Technology (DST) on Innovation (NACI) Agency (TIA) Innovation Agency (TIA) Department of National Agricultural Agriculture, Forestry, and Research Forum (NARF) Fisheries (DAFF) Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII)71 Agricultural Research Council (ARC) What can be noted in all cases is that AIS coordination is never done by a single unit: it is always a core network. All of the elements of coordination are never contained by a single entity. Instead these functions are actively delegated to government agencies, councils made up of diverse stakeholders, and some private sector organizations (e.g., Bioconnect or NZBIO).60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 This Annex uses the five key coordination functions identified in Chapter 3 to analyze the roles of the main organizations in each country’s core network. The five functions are: 60 Numerous private sector groups are organized in each sector to provide input to the coordination of the agricultural innovation system. For the purposes of this table, the list is not exhaustive but rather highlights a few key examples. 61 http://www.ag-innovation.usask.ca/cairn_about 62 http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/rt-tr/index-eng.htm 63 http://www.asti.cgiar.org/mexico/profile for more information on actors in agricultural research and development in Mexico. Directory of Agricultural R&D agencies, including contact information: http://www.asti.cgiar.org/mexico/directory 64 http://www.cofupro.org.mx/cofupro/cofupro_web.php?documentweb=2&idseccion=5 65 www.awt.nl 66 http://en.rli.nl/ 67 http://www.msi.govt.nz/about-us/science-board/ 68 http://www.nzbio.org.nz 69 http://www.nzte.govt.nz/en/about-us/ 70 http://www.foodinnovationnetwork.co.nz/who-we-are/networks/ 71 http://www.nstf.org.za/ShowProperty?nodePath=/NSTF%20Repository/NSTF/files/PlenaryMeetings/2012/STISurveys.pdf 41 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 1. Strategy development and priority setting 2. Research and innovation policy analysis, design, and implementation 3. Managing programs and resources, including innovation financing 4. Innovation system management (define roles, induce reform, streamline procedures, catalyze consortia and networks of innovation) 5. Information management and knowledge sharing Despite differing emphases in agricultural innovation (e.g., commercialization, private sector investment, or poverty alleviation) coordination of the AIS is a concern for each country. Each has developed a unique set of solutions, yielding diverse institutions, organizational structures, and programs. In many cases, there is a centralized unit, often within a Ministry, that is responsible for this delegation. The Netherlands’ Agri-Knowledge Directorate and Canada’s Innovation Policy Branch are most similar to the MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit proposed in this report. Both are a division of the equivalent Ministry of Agriculture and work on all five of the key coordination functions, though many of the functions are also delegated. Other countries rely on councils to advise the Ministry on coordination, like South Africa’s National Agricultural Research Forum (NARF) and Mexico’s National System for Research and Technology Transfer (SNITT). These two bodies rely on soft coordination and do not implement projects, resulting in less hierarchical authority. Strategy development and priority setting for agricultural innovation is centralized in a division of the Ministry, but in many cases consensus building between the regions and the national level takes place, as in the case of Canada, South Africa, and Mexico. Each country’s AIS features councils and advisory bodies that provide perspectives from different stakeholder groups. In many cases a number of councils exist (especially in Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa), each advising the Ministry on strategy and policy given a certain priority theme or aspect of innovation (see Chapter 3, Box 3). In each country, separate bodies coordinate general innovation and agricultural sector innovation. It has been challenging for many countries to define this relationship, capitalize on collaboration, and avoid duplication. In Mexico, two high-level councils that convene representatives from several ministries operate in parallel with limited communication, though both discuss agricultural innovation. South Africa has a national-level advisory council on innovation across sectors that currently only advises the Minister of Science and Technology; the advisory council is developing a platform to meet regularly with the other Ministers. In many cases, agricultural innovation is taken up by two units in two different ministries; in New Zealand and South Africa, both the equivalent Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Science and Technology have units that deal with agricultural innovation. In New Zealand, these two units are leveraging their distinct assets and networks, collaborating on a matching-fund program called the Primary Growth Partnership. The private sector and civil society participate and influence priority setting; numerous industry lobbies and representative associations exist to coordinate the private sector. The task of the government is to facilitate this participation. The government can support this activity through financing innovation, catalyzing consortia and other forms of organization and representation, and designing channels to solicit feedback from sectors (experiences in working with the private sector from the case countries are described in Annex II, Sections A and B.) In all countries, coordination units need to balance public and private interests, and each country defines these groups and determines its own priorities. 42 Annex 1 Mexico and South Africa, for example, are more oriented towards public research and economic inclusion, whereas New Zealand and Canada are actively striving to increase private sector investment in agricultural innovation. This Annex goes on to describe the key actors, roles, and relationships within each case countries’ AIS, using the five key coordination functions as the operative framework. Canada Canada’s AIS has recently been emphasizing investments and institutions to increase participation of the private sector. Active industry participation in the AIS has been encouraged with the intention of closing Canada’s ‘commercialization gap’, cited as a greater challenge than its science and research. Several key initiatives support the private sector: the Agri-Science Clusters, competitive funding for industry-led research projects; Value Chain Roundtables to influence strategy on given value chains; and a Minister-appointed Agri-Innovators Committee, an industry advisory group to the Minister. However, problems have arisen when rapid changes including cuts to the public sector have been implemented with the mistaken expectation that the private sector would be able to assume responsibility. Coordination failures within the private sector prevented rapid absorption of some of these cut positions. Reform has occasionally outpaced the private sector’s ability to self-organize. A small domestic market, large and stable dependency on exports to the U.S. and a consensus- oriented culture that is reluctant to ‘pick winners’ have been cited as barriers to innovation in Canada. Partially in an effort to bring in international perspectives, Canada has established the Canadian Agricultural Innovation Network (CAIRN) composed of national and international researchers that are funded to study the Canadian AIS. Agriculture in Canada is a joint-responsibility between provinces and the federal government, and agricultural strategy is developed, financed, and implemented jointly. Canada’s heterogeneous agro- climatic zones and a high degree of provincial autonomy make it difficult to set common priorities for agricultural innovation across the country, but institutions and programs have been developed to balance a federal perspective with regional priorities. Still, some government organizations are criticized for bias towards certain regions. Canada’s Minister of Agriculture oversees several departments, the largest of which is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), which develops strategy for the sector and executes programs. 43 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Function 1: Function 2: Function 3: Function 4: Function 5: Strategy Research and Managing programs Innovation system Information development and innovation policy and resources management management and priority setting analysis, design, and knowledge sharing implementation AAFC consensus- Innovation Policy AAFC federal and Innovation Policy Innovation Policy building process Division (of AAFC) regional offices Division (of AAFC) Division (of AAFC) between provinces and federal government Canada Agricultural CAIRN Innovation Research Provincial level Network (CAIRN) example: OMAFRA Research Advisory Agri-Innovators Network Committee Function 1: Strategy development and priority setting Canada balances regional and federal demands on the agricultural sector through an extensive 18-month consensus-building process that involves regional and national consultations, publications, and focus groups. Through this process the federal government and the provinces negotiate bilateral agreements to define the agricultural development package for the province. Programs are cost- shared 60% by the federal government and 40% by the provincial government72. The federal policy frameworks Growing Forward 1 and 2 set the agenda for development plans for the agricultural sector at the national level in five-year periods. At the provincial level, groups like the OMAFRA Research Advisory Network (ORAN) in Ontario set regional research priorities in a process that balances input from the regional agricultural Ministry (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, OMAFRA), an external scientific expert panel with members from all of North America, and a mixed thematic panel made up of industry, university, and government leaders. Research professors select a theme from the priorities determined through this process and competitively propose projects for funding in accordance with the theme. Project performance is then monitored by the thematic group (see Annex II, Section D for more information). Two principal committees represent stakeholders and advise the Minister of Agriculture. In its first year of operation, the Agri-Innovators Committee primarily represents the private sector. Members are selected by the Minister, while the committee is chaired by the Deputy Minister (and director of AAFC). CAIRN is a research network that advises AAFC. Its objective is to increase understanding of agricultural innovation and aid in the development of public policy and regulation to support innovation in the Canadian agriculture and food sector. Function 2: Policy analysis, design, and implementation The Innovation Policy Division in the AAFC is responsible for research and policy analysis on innovation. It advises other programs and other branches of the AAFC, employing a ‘challenge function’ to evaluate other programs of AAFC for their impact, intentional or not, on agricultural innovation. The Innovation Policy Division advises the Deputy Minister and senior management of 72 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/partners-and-agencies/meetings-of-federal-provincial-and-territorial-ministers-of- agriculture/?id=1173979162358 44 Annex 1 AAFC. Internal monitoring and evaluation of AAFC activities is the responsibility of the Program Branch of AAFC. The Research and Analysis Directorate of AAFC, staffed by economists, monitors performance indicators for AAFC innovation activities. An important role of CAIRN is to conduct analysis on the innovation system. CAIRN brings researchers together to study the processes of agricultural innovation while proactively engaging government, industry, and the public in an effort to improve the agricultural innovation system in Canada73.CAIRN researchers conduct policy analysis including industry coordination and commercialization, regulatory systems analysis, and innovation impact and measurement. This is a body established in 2004 that has 37 members from across Canada, the U.S., and Europe representing academic, government, and private institutions. Function 3: Managing programs and resources The Program Branch of AAFC manages the Growing Forward programs at the federal level. Key programs include the industry-led innovation financing program based around Agri-Science Clusters, described further in Annex II. Provincial AAFC offices manage programs and resources assigned in the cost-sharing Growing Forward agreements. Function 4: Innovation system management The Innovation Policy Team monitors and analyses the functioning of the AIS as a whole while working to facilitate relationships between actors in the system. Function 5: Information management and knowledge sharing AAFC maintains a comprehensive website on science and innovation in Canada’s agricultural sector, providing information on current research projects, scientific staff and expertise, technology transfer and licensing, among other relevant topics74. Key lessons Canada has well-developed functions for centralized and decentralized priority setting and, through AAFC and CAIRN, has especially strong capabilities for innovation systems management and M&E. CAIRN makes possible independent research on Canada AIS policy from diverse researchers, including from abroad, though it has been criticized for a bias towards Western Canada. Influence from the private sector is strong on government strategy and investments, but funding for basic/ upstream research (through AAFC, private institutes, and universities) remains relatively consistent. OMAFRA demonstrates an effective competitive system of balancing regional priorities with industry demand, informing these thematic priorities with scientific expertise, and maintaining a broader perspective with geographically diverse representatives including international participants. 73 http://www.ag-innovation.usask.ca/cairn_about/index.html 74 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/?id=1360882179814 45 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Mexico In contrast to Canada, Mexico’s AIS features lower participation of the private sector, with government supporting research that tends to orient towards academia rather than the market. Mexico’s AIS features a strong role of public research universities and institutes, with 54% of agricultural researchers employed by a university75. As for coordination of the AIS, the core network of coordinating entities is extensive and complex, with multiple coordinating entities whose roles are often duplicated76. The numerous coordinating actors (the two inter-sectoral commissions, SNITT, and the SAGARPA Directorate) in practice tend to coordinate passively rather than actively, with roles and hierarchy not particularly clear; an IICA diagnostic77 concluded that Mexico’s national system of agricultural innovation struggles with a high degree of fragmentation.78 Function 1: Function 2: Function 3: Function 4: Function 5: Strategy Research and Managing programs Innovation system Information development and innovation policy and resources management management and priority setting analysis, design, and knowledge sharing implementation COFUPRO Directorate of COFUPRO COFUPRO COFUPRO Productivity and Directorate of Technological CONACYT SNITT SNITT Productivity and Development Technological (SAGARPA) Knowledge Development Management System (SAGARPA) State Centers of (SIAC)78 Evaluation Inter-Sectoral Commission on CONACYT Sustainable Rural Development Inter-Sectoral Commission on Innovation Council of Sustainable Rural Development Function 1: Strategy development and priority setting The main entity responsible for setting priorities for agricultural innovation policy and programs is the Directorate of Productivity and Technological Development, a division of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food (SAGARPA). Within this directorate, there is a director of support for agricultural production, under which there is a subdirector of research and technology transfer. This subdirector oversees three departments: scientific and technological innovation, integration of reports, and agricultural research. 75 http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Mexico_CB41_En.pdf 76 http://www.iica.int/Esp/regiones/norte/mexico/Publicaciones%20de%20la%20Oficina/Innovacion%20Agroalimentaria%20final.pdf 77 http://www.redinnovagro.in/documentosinnov/IICA%20SNIA_M%C3%A9xico_ingl%C3%A9s.pdf 78 http://www.siac.org.mx/?documentweb=5&idseccion=17 46 Annex 1 Policy priorities for rural development more generally are established in a legal framework with the Law of Sustainable Rural Development. The Inter-Sectoral Commission on Sustainable Rural Development, led by SAGARPA with the participation of several other secretariats, oversees the translation of these goals into policy. A Council of Sustainable Rural Development, comprised of members of the government, research institutes, and the private sector, also advises this commission. The Inter-Sectoral Commission on Innovation (led by CONCACYT, Secretariat of Public Education, and Secretariat of the Economy, with the participation of SAGARPA and other secretariats) establishes priorities in innovation across sectors, but integration with agriculture is very weak. Both inter-sectoral commissions have suffered from poor leadership and not been very effective in aligning priorities between the two. The new administration is beginning to develop a new policy framework, holding open dialogs with stakeholders in a process led by SAGARPA, but future changes are unpredictable. Priority-setting at the regional level is done by the Produce Foundations. Each state has its own Produce Foundation which involves representation from leaders of each of the priority supply chains of the state. They meet, along with state and federal government representatives who have a voice but no vote, to determine the innovation agenda on an annual basis. The National System of Innovation and Technology Transfer (SNITT), a group of 10-15 government functionaries appointed by SAGARPA, was created to advise the Directorate. The Law of Sustainable Rural Development declared the creation of a mechanism for coordinating the agricultural innovation system, not an organization, but in practice SNITT is both coordinating network and small organization. SNITT receives direction from the Inter-Sectoral Commission for Sustainable Rural Development. Though SNITT personnel tend to have government backgrounds, the SNITT advisory council involves representatives from the government, research institutions, and private sector. SNITT has faced some challenges. Its resources and administration are the responsibility of COFUPRO since no budget is laid out by law. In practice, in terms of setting priorities, it operates subordinated to the SAGARPA Directorate79. A system of state evaluation centers evaluates technology transfer and technical assistance, contributing to policy design. Function 2: Policy analysis, design, and implementation Policy analysis and design is under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Productivity and Technological Development and implemented by COFUPRO. Function 3: Managing programs and resources SNITT and COFUPRO each administer a fund from SAGARPA for agricultural innovation. The Sector Fund for Agricultural Research, managed by SNITT, distributes competitive funds from the National Council for Technology (CONACYT) primarily for technological innovation and research80. The second principal fund, the Subprogram for Research and Technology Transfer, is managed by the National Coordinating Agency for Produce Foundations (COFUPRO), whereby farmers’ associations 79 http://www.iica.int/Esp/regiones/norte/mexico/Publicaciones%20de%20la%20Oficina/Innovacion%20Agroalimentaria%20final.pdf 80 http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/FondosyApoyos/Sectoriales/Paginas/default.aspx 47 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit commission research on specific themes of their choosing for the Produce Foundation of their state (see Annex II for more information on Produce Foundations). The objective of this fund is to prioritize research that solves technological problems at the state level. Function 4: Innovation system management The mandate of SNITT is to coordinate the different sectors involved in agricultural innovation and broker relationships between actors. COFUPRO oversees the system of Produce Foundations, of which there is one for each state of Mexico based on producer demand81. COFUPRO represents the Produce Foundations and negotiates with SAGARPA for funding. Function 5: Information management and knowledge sharing COFUPRO plays a role in capturing and diffusing lessons learned from the individual states’ Produce Foundations. COFUPRO develops methodologies and systems that help to homogenize the national process of innovation management82. SNITT collaborates with COFUPRO to disseminate information through the production of educational materials and holding workshops83. Its Information System for Knowledge Management (SIAC) serves to share new technologies, knowledge, and successful case studies from the agricultural innovation system. Key lessons Mexico’s AIS coordination, particularly in the area of priority-setting, tends to be passive in practice as multiple government bodies inhabit an unclear hierarchy and accommodate each other’s actions. SNITT was created by federal law to coordinate the actors in the AIS but in practice did not achieve the hierarchical authority over many of the main actors. Originally designed as a network with no formal budget, SNITT evolved into a small organization. People interviewed stated that SNITT is actually managed by COFUPRO and seen as subordinate to the SAGARPA Directorate for Productivity and Technological Development. Staffing decisions did not help: SNITT was mostly composed of people from within the government and upon its creation had trouble establishing legitimacy as a fresh coordinating body able to forge new relationships with actors in the AIS. SNITT’s principal role is seen as information dissemination. The two commissions related to agricultural innovation (Commission for Sustainable Rural Development and Commission for Technology and Innovation) do not meet regularly and do not have mechanisms for interacting with one another. Though their mandate is to translate two federal laws into policy, they, like SNITT, are also embedded at the Ministry level without strong pathways to seek input from other actors in the system. The sectors are therefore weakly integrated into the system, without national representation in priority setting or steering research through control of funding. However, at the regional level, Produce Foundations exemplify participatory priority-setting involving local stakeholders. The Produce Foundations enable farmer associations to direct funds for agricultural research that meets their short-term, applicable needs specific to the given region, serving on a 81 Vera-Cruz, A. O., G. Dutrénit, J. Ekboir, G. Martínez, and A. Torres-Vargas, 2008. Virtues and limits of competitive funds to finance research and innovation: The case of Mexican agriculture. Science and Public Policy, 35(7):501-513. 82 http://www.iica.int/Esp/regiones/norte/mexico/Publicaciones%20de%20la%20Oficina/Innovacion%20Agroalimentaria%20final.pdf 83 Mauricio Lastra, Personal Communication, August 21, 2013. 48 Annex 1 board composed of regional and national government representatives. The coordinating and learning mechanism, COFUPRO, of the Produce Foundations serves to diffuse lessons learned through the dispersed produce experiments but does not have a strong mechanism for feeding back into the individual foundations. The Netherlands In recent years, The Netherlands has shifted emphasis of its AIS from efficiency and productivity towards agricultural diversification, specialization, recognizing and enhancing the multi-functionality of agriculture and advancing the social and ecological sustainability of the system. Greater specificity of farmers’ demands has led to privatization in many areas to move away from supply- towards demand-driven innovation services84. Agricultural extension was privatized at the end of the 1990s, and the most important constellation of agricultural research is housed in the Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), composed of the university and nine private research institutes. The Agri-Knowledge Directorate is the principal coordinator of the AIS but has multiple and diverse relationships to other organizations that help develop strategy. The Agri-Knowledge Directorate also delegates substantially policy analysis to the WUR and program management/sector engagement to the noteworthy InnovationNetwork.85 86 Function 1: Function 2: Function 3: Function 4: Function 5: Strategy Research and Managing programs Innovation system Information development and innovation policy and resources management management and priority setting analysis, design, and knowledge sharing implementation Agri-Knowledge Agri-Knowledge Agri-Knowledge Agri-Knowledge Agri-Knowledge Directorate Directorate Directorate Directorate Directorate Knowledge Chambers Contracts WUR, InnovationNetwork InnovationNetwork Agroportal Rathenau, and other InnovationNetwork institutes for analysis85 WUR Bioconnect and other Knowledge on the ‘innovation brokers’ Field (KODA) Council on Bioconnect86 Environment and Green Knowledge Infrastructure Transforum Cooperative Council for Science and Technology Policy 84 Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector, 76(6): 849-860. 85 http://www.rathenau.nl/en.html 86 Bioconnect is one example of many coordinating bodies for a specific sector that receive some funding from the Innovation Network or the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation, sometimes referred to as ‘innovation brokers’. For further examples, see: Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector, 76(6): 849-860. 49 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Function 1: Strategy development and priority setting The Agri-Knowledge Directorate, in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation87 is the executive unit for coordinating priority-setting and funding streams to agricultural innovation. Knowledge Chambers serve to inform policy with science and strengthen the relationship between the research institutes and the Ministry. They are composed of policymakers, scientists, and private sector stakeholders. A division of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Knowledge Chambers identify research and innovation priorities. The affiliated entity InnovationNetwork carries out foresight studies, develops strategies for innovation, and supports early-stage innovation. The InnovationNetwork advises the Ministry on a yearly basis (see Annex II). The mission of the InnovationNetwork is to develop and promote the implementation of ground-breaking innovations88. It emerged from the Dutch Council for Agricultural Research which coordinated agricultural research policy and investments since the 1950s, but gradually moved to an advisory role to the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1980s and expanded its mandate in the 1990s89. The Top Sectors Approach in The Netherlands identifies nine ‘top’ sectors of the economy to receive government investment and assistance, including agri-food. Top teams, comprised of a scientist, a senior official, and an innovative small or medium enterprise entrepreneur and a standard-bearer for the sector. The top team advises businesses, science, and the government on measures to address challenges in the agri-food sector, setting out its advice and priorities in an action plan. The sector and government together implement these actions. Innovation contracts set out arrangements and financial agreements between businesses, scientists, and the government90. Function 2: Policy analysis, design, and implementation The Agri-Knowledge Directorate plays a principal role analyzing, designing, and implementing innovation policy. The Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), composed of the research university and private research institutes (the DLO)91, are often contracted by government to analyze policy. The research institutes conduct research that is oriented towards practical applications. The Ministry contracts monitoring and evaluation from external parties, including the Agricultural Economics Institute (LEI) from DLO and the Rathenau Institute. In addition, but not specifically aimed at the agricultural sector, the Council on Environment and Infrastructure and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy provide solicited and unsolicited advice on innovation in general. Function 3: Managing programs and resources The Agri-Knowledge Directorate delegates sector-based coordination to a number of sector networks and programs, which it also funds. Examples include Bioconnect and TransForum, which are both 87 This unit has a long history; it existed in the Ministry of Agriculture since the nineteen nineties, and has continued after the merger of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Economic Affairs in 2010. 88 http://www.innovatienetwerk.org/en/organisatie/toon/15/ 89 Van der Meulen, B., Dijksterhuis, F.J., 2007. Leren van sectorraden Over noodzakelijke en onmogelijke relaties tussen beleid en kennis. Innovatie Netwerk. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 90 http://www.government.nl/issues/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/investing-in-top-sectors/agri-food 91 http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Research-Institutes.htm 50 Annex 1 short-term grant-making councils on different themes in sustainability. WUR and InnovationNetwork also manage programs. Function 4: Innovation system management InnovationNetwork plays a key role in linking disparate actors in the innovation system and provides seed-funding and technical advice to assist new groups. In addition, a number of so-called ‘innovation brokers’ thrive in the Dutch AIS, many of which coordinate and broker relationships at the local or sector level and are funded at least initially by the Ministry. Some function as innovation consultants, as brokerage organizations that foster peer networks, or as boundary organizations that act at the interface between policy, research, and users, among other roles92. Function 5: Information management and knowledge sharing The Netherlands has several internet-based portals and databases that provide relevant information for stakeholders that may be privately or publicly funded, depending on the target audience, and address a broad range of strategic innovation issues at the short-term time horizon. Two such examples are the Agroportal, and Knowledge on the Field (KODA). There are also a number of non- profit foundations that work to improve educational curricula in order to better train students for business and societal needs, such as the Green Knowledge Cooperative. Key lessons Dutch coordination represents a clear approach to coordination that despite numerous actors, manages to avoid fragmentation with well-defined and distinct roles. Multiple permanent organizations contribute to each of the five functions. The Agri-Knowledge Directorate is the key focal point for priority setting, definition of roles, and policy analysis but actively delegates activities like evaluation, program management, and policy analysis. InnovationNetwork is a noteworthy initiative that complements the established policies of the Agri-Knowledge Directorate by catalyzing radical ideas and, importantly, leveraging networks and offering some seed-funding to put them into practice. Several organizations have been incubated by InnovationNetwork and co-financed by the private sector, these relationships are brokered by the InnovationNetwork which is trusted and seen as impartial. Bioconnect was developed by the InnovationNetwork and has become established enough to the point that now the Ministry delegates priority-setting in the entire organic sector to this group. Funding through the top sectors strategy and InnovationNetwork allows the private sector to be well represented in influencing research priorities. New Zealand New Zealand’s agricultural innovation system is well coordinated, capitalizing on diverse entities that play well-defined roles and guided by clear priorities. Private investment in research and development, low by OECD standards, has become a strong government priority, and a number of creative independent public agencies (Callaghan Innovation) and funding programs (Primary Growth Partnership) have emerged in response. The government’s Business Growth Agenda has set clear 92 Klerkx, L. and C. Leeuwis, 2009. The emergence and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6):849-860. 51 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit priorities that govern general innovation as well as agricultural innovation and, translated to the agricultural sector, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) aims to double the value of exports by 2025. Coordinating agricultural innovation is chiefly the responsibility of the Ministry of Primary Industries, but some agricultural innovation coordination is shared with the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE). The lead program for funding agricultural innovation is a collaboration between these two ministries, though MPI has final investment decision power. The Primary Growth Partnership is a competitive matching fund initiative for innovation in the primary sector. Both MPI and MBIE have units that translate government priorities into innovation policy: in MPI, the Strategy, Systems, and Science Directorate; and in MBIE, the Division of Strategy and Governance sets priorities for the innovation system as a whole93. Function 1: Function 2: Function 3: Function 4: Function 5: Strategy Research and Managing programs Innovation system Information development and innovation policy and resources management management and priority setting analysis, design, and knowledge sharing implementation Ministry of Business, People, Science, and Primary Growth Callaghan Innovation93 NZBIO Innovation, and Enterprise Policy Partnership Employment (MBIE): (MBIE) Institutions and Strategic Policy Resource System Performance Division Research Evaluation Management and (MBIE) and Analysis (MBIE) Programmes Branch Science, Skills and (MPI); Growth and NZBIO Innovation Division Crown Ownership Innovation Directorate Monitoring Unit New Zealand Trade Ministry of Primary Science Board (MBIE) and Enterprise (NZTE) Industries (MPI): Policy Branch; Strategy, Science and Food Innovation Systems, and Science Innovation Group Network of New Directorate (MBIE) Zealand (FINNZ) Commercialization Partner Network Function 1: Strategy development and priority setting The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), which was newly formed in 2012 as a merger between the forestry, fisheries, and agriculture ministries, also sets policy on agricultural innovation strategy. The Policy Branch of MPI is responsible for strategy development and priority setting in science and innovation for the primary sector. One mechanism of collaboration with MBIE is the Primary Growth Partnership. The Strategy, Systems, and Science Directorate in the Policy Branch of MPI leads policy development required to ensure the government’s primary sector goals are achieved. It will lead the development of science planning prioritization, frameworks and processes to support regulatory quality, improvement of MPI policy advice, and a multi-year work program for the Policy Branch. The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) is responsible for general innovation policy. Two divisions contribute to innovation strategy development in MBIE: the Science, Skills, and Innovation Division, and Strategic Policy (in the Division of Strategy and Governance). 93 http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/nz-innovation-system 52 Annex 1 MBIE monitors the government’s investment in the Crown Research Institutes (principal science research institutes) and advises the Shareholding Ministers (one from the MBIE, and another from the Ministry of Finance) which are responsible for appointing boards of directors for each of the research institutes. Function 2: Policy analysis, design, and implementation MPI’s Policy Branch provides regulatory processes and advice for legislation administered by the new MPI and conducts forward-looking analysis, strategic science, policy development and advice on strategic issues relating to the primary sectors94. In MBIE, the People, Science, and Enterprise Policy team, within the Science, Skills, and Innovation Division, is principally responsible for policy analysis and implementation for innovation in general. There is also the Research Evaluation and Analysis team, in the Strategy and Governance Division of MBIE. The Institutions and System Performance branch of MBIE is also responsible for monitoring and analyzing the innovation system, including the AIS. The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit is a unit of the Treasury that monitors the government’s investment in companies and entities owned by the Crown (e.g., Crown Research Institutes, the principal research institutes), provides performance and governance advice to Ministers and assists with the appointment of directors for crown-owned entities. Function 3: Managing programs and resources There are several coordinating bodies of funding streams. The Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) invests in research and innovation programs for improving economic growth and sustainability of the primary sector, throughout the value chain. The government (Ministry of Primary Industries with the Ministry of Science and Innovation) invests about $55 million annually with matching funding from the industry95. Launched in September 2009, the PGP has funded 10 government and industry partnerships worth nearly $600 million96. Within MPI, the Policy Branch manages the PGP. The Resource Management and Programmes Branch of the Ministry of Primary Industries has an Aquaculture Growth and Innovation Directorate that will be responsible for the delivery of financial and all other forms of non-regulatory support to the primary sector through grants, research, and programs. The Growth and Innovation Group is housed in this directorate, but the group is nascent since the Ministry has just merged and restructured97. The Science Board of the MBIE makes independent investment decisions on funding proposals for research, science, and technology that are selected by the MBIE Chief Executive. The MBIE Science and Innovation Group invests in business on behalf of the government. Last year, more than 100 investments were made with a total worth of more than $170 million. A proportion of these investments are made through the Regional business partners. 94 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/about-mpi/our-organisation/our-structure 95 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/funding-programmes/primary-growth-partnership.aspx 96 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/about-mpi/our-organisation/current-priorities 97 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/Portals/0/Images/about/overview-resource-management-programmes-branch-design.pdf 53 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Callaghan Innovation is new government agency that was recently delegated responsibility for administering most of the innovation funding from MBIE. The Commercialization Partner Network (CPN) receives funding from the MBIE Science, Skills, and Innovation group to turn science findings into commercially viable products. Function 4: Innovation system management Callaghan Innovation is a government agency designed to accelerate commercialization of innovation by firms in New Zealand. It is the first organization in New Zealand to act with a ‘whole- of-system’ view that focuses on building teams of innovation agents that work with New Zealand firms to help solve innovation challenges and catalyzing collaboration between diverse actors. It also provides funding grants for research and development for different scales of businesses. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) is New Zealand’s economic development and trade promotion agency. NZTE helps firms grow in international markets by offering strategic advice, access to networks and influencers, research and market intelligence, and targeted financial support. NZBIO is an organization focused on growing New Zealand’s bio-economy, with hundreds of members from agri-biotech, human health, industrial, and environmental and food bioscience, representing a variety of firms, research institutes, and specialist service professionals. Its activities include member events, seminars and conferences, policy advocacy, national and international outreach, and promotion. The Food Innovation Network of New Zealand (FINNZ) is a network of regional hubs of plant facilities intended to improve access to equipment, facilities, and technical support for smaller companies. Function 5: Information management and knowledge sharing New Zealand has strong online communication with stakeholders. MPI has migrated all funding competitions online to a common portal and releases publications on the projects funded. MSI Portal is the government’s central hub for general science and innovation information coordinated by MBIE. Components include a fund finder that helps businesses learn what funding opportunities are available and appropriate for their needs; an overview of the Science Challenges workshops that bring together stakeholders to build consensus around solutions to key challenges identified by MBIE; science and innovation news, events, social media, and other information; and a log-in portal for funding recipients. NZBIO maintains a web-based portal with current bioscience innovation news including latest funding opportunities, publishes a newsletter, holds events, and conducts other activities with the intention of knowledge sharing. Key lessons New Zealand provides a useful case of a country actively mobilizing private investment in agricultural innovation that has decided to increase the independent government agencies while consolidating at the ministry level (Ministry of Primary Industries). Several new organizations have been founded and delegated responsibilities, like Callaghan Innovation, which manages most of the innovation funding and has a strong commercialization focus and couples fund management with advising and network-building. The Primary Growth Partnership combines the innovation expertise and commercial 54 Annex 1 network of MBIE with the technical/sectoral knowledge of the Ministry of Primary Industries. The Director General of the Ministry of Primary Industries makes final funding decisions and is advised by a six-member Investment Advisory Panel composed of members of the different sectors in primary industries with private sector experience. South Africa Function 1: Function 2: Function 3: Function 4: Function 5: Strategy Research and Managing programs Innovation system Information development and innovation policy and resources management management and priority setting analysis, design, and knowledge sharing implementation Department of Agricultural Research TIA National Agricultural ARC Science and Council (ARC) Research Forum Technology (DST) ARC (NARF) Research Information Technology Innovation Management System National Advisory Agency (TIA) TIA (RIMS)98 Council on Innovation (NACI) Centre for Science, ARC Technology, and Department of Innovation Indicators Agriculture, Forestry, (CeSTII) and Fisheries (DAFF) Department of Provincial Science and departments of Technology agriculture Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (DAFF) 98 South Africa’s current agricultural innovation policy began to emerge amidst the advent of democracy in the 1990s. To this day, the historical legacy of apartheid has necessitated a particular emphasis on equality of access to innovation resources, and innovation is seen as needing to be clearly connected to shared socio-economic benefits. The agricultural research and development strategy is targeted to mobilize a collective action that reduces malnutrition, hunger, and poverty99. However, innovation coordination remains limited by a ‘silo mentality’ that results in isolated pockets of innovative activities or models with limited reach and impact, and the agricultural system remains bifurcated between large commercial farmers and small capital-poor farmers100. The Department of Agriculture develops strategy for agricultural innovation with an emphasis on vulnerable populations, and is advised by the National Agricultural Research Forum (NARF). The Department of Science and Technology (DST) is responsible for setting overall innovation policy across sectors, and a National Advisory Council on Innovation advises the Minister of Science and Technology on the coordination of innovation across all sectors. 98 http://info.rims.ac.za/ 99 http://www.daff.gov.za/docs/researchP/RD_Strategy.pdf 100 Personal communication, Dr. Thiambi Netshiluvhi, Director: Policy Analysis and Advice, Department of Science and Technology. 55 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Function 1: Strategy development and priority setting The Department of Science and Technology (DST) is responsible for innovation policy across sectors, including agriculture. The National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) was created to advise the Minister of Science and Technology. Specific advice is provided on the role and contribution of science, mathematics, innovation, and technology, including indigenous technologies, in promoting and achieving national objectives101. NACI membership of 17 advisors is intended to broadly represent all sectors and disciplines and to balance national and provincial interests, as well as needs of different socio-economic groups. Sub-committees focus on specific topics such as infrastructure, human capital and knowledge base, STI for competitiveness, and reach and benefits of innovation102. Though the primary client of NACI is the Minister of Science and Technology, the council is developing an inclusive platform that will bring together all the Ministers, as well as leaders of key public institutions and the private sector, to regularly discuss national priorities across the whole science, technology, and innovation landscape103. The Department of Agriculture does not have a specific division dedicated to research or innovation and is generally seen as playing less of an active role in establishing priorities in innovation than the DST. However, there are efforts, documented in the Department’s research and development strategy papers, to develop a Division of Research and Technology that would report to the Minister of Agriculture and provide overall strategic planning and coordination of national agricultural research priorities in line with a broader government vision104. Function 2: Policy analysis, design, and implementation The Department of Agriculture is responsible for research and innovation priority setting in the agricultural sector. The Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Branch includes divisions dedicated to different aspects on M&E (including organizational performance, economic analysis, and SOE and provincial monitoring) and strategic planning, policy research, and program development105. NARF advises on coordination policy. The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) is the principle agricultural research institute in South Africa, and the conducted range of research includes analysis of agricultural innovation policy. Its 11 research institutes are grouped in five divisions: field crops, horticulture, animal production and health, natural resources and engineering, and technology transfer106. The Socio-Economic Partnerships program of the Department of Science and Technology aims to lead and support other government departments in sector-specific research and development, technology, and directed human capital programs, including in agriculture. It has three sub-programs that focus on science and technology for economic impact (including a climate change and biodiversity 101 http://www.naci.org.za/index.php/about-naci 102 http://www.naci.org.za/index.php/about-naci/structure 103 Personal communication, Dr. Thiambi Netshiluvhi, Director: Policy Analysis and Advice, Department of Science and Technology. 104 http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Policy/Research_and_Development_Strategy.pdf 105 http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/topMenu/aboutUs/organisationalStructure/18%20JUNE%202013%20%20organogram.pdf 106 http://www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pid=283 56 Annex 1 unit), science and technology for social impact, and strategic guidelines for science and technology investments. The Centre for Science, Technology, and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) (see Annex II, Section F) is commissioned by the Department of Science and Technology to conduct annual R&D surveys, general innovation surveys, and biotechnology and agricultural R&D surveys. Function 3: Managing programs and resources The Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) was established in 2008 with the objective of promoting technological innovation. Its core business objective is to support the development and commercialization of competitive technology-based services and products. TIA was formed through merging seven DST entities previously tasked with supporting and promoting innovation in the country107. The TIA invests in the following technology sectors: Advanced Manufacturing, Agriculture, Industrial Biotechnology, Health, Mining, Energy and ICT. One program it manages related to agriculture is the Tshwane Animal Health Innovation Cluster that aims to support technological innovation and commercialization in the animal health industry in the municipality of Tshwane. The cluster brings together TIA with ARC, the National Research Foundation, two universities, and the private sector, offering an initial $9 million108. The ARC is also responsible for maintaining national assets, undertaking programs and rendering services that are required from the Department of Agriculture and other stakeholders. Function 4: Innovation system management The National Agricultural Research Forum (NARF) was launched through a long series of extensive consultations, plenary sessions, and development of supportive documents and among major stakeholders of the status of the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in May 2002. The mission of the NARF is to facilitate consensus and integrate coordination in the fields of research, development, and technology transfer to agriculture in order to enhance national economic growth, social welfare and environmental sustainability. NARF's activities are implemented by the NARF Secretariat, which is situated in the national Department of Agriculture. The NARF Secretariat is responsible for providing sectoral support to the NARF Plenary and Steering Committee, composed of representatives of NARF's stakeholders headed by a chairperson who, in turn, is responsible to the NARF plenary session109. Function 5: Information management and knowledge sharing The ARC serves as the principal portal for information on the agricultural innovation system in South Africa. The South Africa Research and Information Management Program (RIMS) aims to provide a common application platform for publicly funded research institutions and establish a common platform for the DST to distill data from the publicly funded institutions that will inform strategic research decision making. 107 These entities included the Innovation Fund, Tshumisano Trust, Cape Biotech Trust, PlantBio Trust, LIFElab, BioPAD Trust, and the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy (AMTS). 108 http://www.tia.org.za/Our-Projects/tshwane-animal-health-cluster-initiative 109 http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/others/RTD/NARF.html 57 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Key lessons South Africa features a less complex constellation of agencies in the agricultural innovation system, with coordination the responsibility of one Department (DST), implementation largely the role of TIA, and agricultural research consolidated in the Agricultural Research Council. Horizontal coordination is not very strong between DST and the Department of Agriculture, and DST/TIA actions do not seem to affect the ARC. Given the historical legacy of economic exclusion in South Africa, government initiatives are largely oriented towards maximizing and sharing socio-economic benefits of agricultural innovation. Overall conclusions From the review of how the different countries executed the different coordination functions, a number of crosscutting observations can be made. Despite the sometimes quite large network of coordinating entities, in each country the main priority setting unit for agricultural innovation is embedded within a Ministry. These divisions, teams, branches, directorates, or units all employ some degree of hierarchical and soft coordination and often delegate coordination via economic incentives to other agencies. In no country does coordination occur in just one unit. Different entities coordinate different parts of the innovation system. These different units have different focus points in terms of the level of aggregation at which they work (national, regional, sectoral), their time horizon (short term, medium term, long term), their specific functions (brokering, M&E). Some organizations engage more in ‘macro- management’, while others work more on ‘micro-management’, sometimes with clear delegation relationships. This unit, however, does not determine priorities for the agricultural sector independently; each unit has a number of channels through which it receives advice from the constituents it must represent. Where the innovation system is relatively less complex, as in South Africa, there is a council that advises on agricultural research and innovation that is supposed to broadly represent all stakeholders from each sector, all regions, etc. In other cases, multiple councils provide input to the coordinating unit and other levels of the Ministry. In Canada, the Agri-Innovators’ Committee, representing different members of the private sector, advises the Minister, while the Canadian Agricultural Innovation Research Network (CAIRN), like a decentralized think tank, brings together researchers from Canada and abroad to study the Canadian innovation system and share findings with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The Value Chain Roundtables also advise Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada for different sectors. At the regional level, to which much coordination is delegated in the Canadian system, a network of advisory bodies, each representing scientific or sector experts, helps set priorities and make investment decisions in a competitive research process. The different advisory bodies offer input at different levels (Ministry, provincial), representing different groups (private sector, research scientists), and for different ends (setting priorities, investment decisions, etc.). Clear definition of roles and distinct contributions of these advisory bodies helps to represent the universe of stakeholders while avoiding fragmentation. The advisory committees and think tanks organized by coordinating units in different countries often tend to be coupled with some financial and technical support from the Ministry. This support provides 58 Annex 1 an incentive to collaborate and helps to bring distinct, sometimes competitive actors together. Canada’s Value Chain Roundtables and The Netherlands’ InnovationNetwork exemplify this. The Ministry-level coordination unit tends to emphasize continuity in its staffing while the associated advisory bodies have rotating positions. In all the case countries, agricultural innovation system coordination exists alongside ‘generic’ innovation system coordination. Of the countries studied, only The Netherlands has a ‘superministry’ approach wherein all innovation policy, for agriculture and otherwise, is embedded within one Ministry. Even then, there are separate units in charge of coordinating agricultural innovation and general innovation. Agriculture is the only sector to have its own innovation coordination unit in all the cases. Partnerships between generic innovation and agricultural innovation teams can bring together fruitful new combinations of networks and combine expertise from different sectors, as in the case of New Zealand’s Primary Growth Partnership. Some of the stronger systems in these countries exhibit clear programs to give space to early-stage, radical ideas, like The Netherlands’ InnovationNetwork and New Zealand’s Callaghan Innovation. There are always ‘coordination gaps’ and, while sometimes coordination entities are there, they are not effective. This may have to do with an unclear mandate, a lack of means to exercise authority, poor leadership, or otherwise the means to become a legitimate coordinator. 59 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Annex II. Approaches to key thematic challenges in AIS coordination Annex II describes how these countries have managed challenges that arise with coordinating agricultural innovation systems. The challenges are: Financing of innovation, the ‘Keeping it Fresh’ function, Regionalism and Representation, Involving Smallholders in Innovation, Linking AIS to the National Innovation System, and Monitoring and Evaluation. A. Financing Financing innovation and research takes different forms across the case study countries. The design of financing tools illustrates distinct approaches on how to involve industry and how to stimulate research for certain objectives, timeframes, and users. Table A2.1 provides a selection of innovation financing tools that are employed by the case countries, and this section on financing profiles an example each of co-financing, public-private partnerships, farmer-driven funds, and compulsory levies.110 111 Table A2.1 Types of economic transfers as innovation policy instruments Case country Examples of economic transfers Canada · $2 billion for cost-shared programs on a 60:40 basis between federal government and provinces (Growing Forward policy framework, 2013-2018) · AgriInnovation Program funds industry research proposals to form national-level agri-science clusters · Science and research development tax credit · Canada Agricultural Innovation Research Network (CAIRN) funds policy-relevant research on issues of interest for the sector · Provincial ministry and university partnerships for research and programs (e.g., Ontario AAFC and University of Guelph) Mexico · Competitive Sector Fund from CONACYT managed by SNITT · Competitive fund for agricultural research and technology transfer managed through Produce Foundations The Netherlands · Short-term start-up funding via InnovationNetwork: Decision Investments in Knowledge Infrastructure (e.g., Transforum, SIGN), sometimes with industry matching funds · Identify and invest in 9 top sectors New Zealand · Contestable funding110 · On-demand funding · Core funding for Crown Research Institutes · Matching funding from industry for primary sector research (Primary Growth Partnership)111 · Compulsory levies commonly used to fund industry R&D · R&D funding for commercialization via Callaghan Innovation 110 http://www.msi.govt.nz/about-us/how-we-invest/ 111 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/funding-programmes/primary-growth-partnership.aspx 60 Annex 2 South Africa · Intellectual Property Fund · Technology Development Fund · Youth Technology Innovation Fund · Industry Matching Fund112 · R&D Tax Incentives program113 · Statutory levies important Co-financing112 113 In New Zealand, the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) brings together two government ministries (the Ministry of Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment) and industry to invest in research and innovation programs for improving economic growth and sustainability of the primary, forestry, and food sectors. The Primary Growth Partnership is a competitive matching fund initiative aimed to increase private investment in innovation in the primary sector. An amount of NZD 70 million is invested annually by the government, with industry at least matching this sum. The PGP makes investments throughout the value chain, including education and skills development, research and development, product development, commercialization, commercial development, and technology transfer114. The Primary Growth Partnership combines the innovation expertise and commercial network of MBIE with the technical/sectoral knowledge of the Ministry of Primary Industries. The Director General of the Ministry of Primary Industries makes final funding decisions and is advised by a six-member Investment Advisory Panel composed of members of the different sectors in primary industries with private sector experience. Public-private partnerships In Canada, the AgriInnovation Program, established in the national Growing Forward 2 policy framework, administers competitive funding for Agri-Science Clusters. Sectors submit research proposals for funding on topics that are relevant for the sector as a whole at the national level. The funded clusters contract Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) scientists, public research institutes, or universities to carry out the proposed research. Up to $468 million is available for funding projects out of the $698 million budget for the five-year initiative. The funding can be accompanied by support in the form of collaborative assistance by AAFC research scientists to promote knowledge transfer. Given the short timeframe of five years for the Agri-Science Clusters, research tends to be downstream for industry application. Levy-based funding mechanisms Especially common in South Africa, New Zealand, and The Netherlands, levy-based funding mechanisms are a way for sectors to pool resources and fund research and development specific for sector solutions. Levy-funded research tends to emphasize downstream solutions for the sector in the short term and are a way to galvanize demand-based innovation. Levy-based funds have different degrees of coordination with the public sector, but often there are some incentives in place to align the levy-funded research with national priorities. 112 All administered by TIA: http://www.tia.org.za/Funding-Procedure 113 http://www.dst.gov.za/index.php/services/the-rad-tax-incentives-programme 114 Falloon, 2012 and PGP website. 61 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit In South Africa, declining government funding for public research is increasingly being replaced by private sector funding. Statutory levies paid by producers on each unit of a commodity delivered are pooled for various uses, including agricultural research. While some sectors use the funds to undertake their own research, a significant portion in one sample of ten important industries in 2009 was allocated to the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) to pursue research in consultation with the client industry. In 2009, R29 million, about a third of the total levies collected by these ten industries, went to the ARC, while the ARC received a government allocation of R450 million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year. In New Zealand, a Commodity Levy Act (1990) empowers producers in a given sector to self-impose levies on agricultural products at the farm gate through a vote in order to finance ‘industry good activities’. Once voted, the levy becomes obligatory for all commercial producers of the products in question. For each product, farmers vote every six years to decide whether to continue to impose the levy. In The Netherlands, there are 11 commodity boards organized per sector or product (arable farming; grains and seeds; animal feed; drinks; margarines, fats and oils; poultry and eggs; horticulture; cattle and meat; fish; wine; dairy). They were installed in the 1950s, as a way of promoting collective sector interests (i.e. promotion of products, quality enhancement, research on productivity and quality). They are funded on area based or product quantity-based levies, so larger farmers contribute more. Given increasingly specialization of Dutch agriculture and, connected to this, the difficulty of having real democratic representation of levy payers, there have been debates about abolishing the obligatory levy. This will happen in 2013, after which some tasks will be taken up by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, and others through voluntary contributions by the sectors. Competitive funds Many of the case countries are moving from open matching funds, whereby the government matches funds for any industry-proposed research, to competitive funds with clearly articulated government goals. Numerous structures of competitive funds exist to finance projects from the start-up phase to commercialization. Three key considerations are fairness and transparency in the selection process, flexible demand-driven priorities for selection that evolve with the sector, and monitoring and evaluation of the outputs of the research. New Zealand employs two layers of selection in the process of allocating competitive funds for general innovation, with the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment doing the first round of selection and the Science Board, an advisory council, making the final decision on the proposals. For the Primary Growth Partnership, the MBIE and MPI together establish funding priorities, and an Investment Advisory Panel made up of six members of the private sector advises the Minister of Primary Industries, which makes the final investment decisions. Mexico’s CONACYT operates three types of competitive funds – institutional, sectoral, and mixed – representing different levels of CONACYT control. In the case of CONACYT’s institutional competitive funds, CONACYT exercises full control over the goals and administration of the funds, while for the sectoral and mixed funds, CONACYT administers the funds but other government agencies 62 Annex 2 and state governments, respectively, set funding priorities and provide counterpart funding115. The competitive funds have been critiqued for not adequately reflecting real demand in the selection of projects, failing to interact with stakeholders, adapt to an evolving agricultural sector, or consider a value chain approach116. Mexico’s agricultural research is predominated by a strong public sector with relatively little participation of industry or private research institutes.117 118 119 B. Harnessing the creativity of the private sector Several case countries have designed structures that create space for farmers and industry to organize and provide input to the priority-setting process of the agricultural innovation system (see Table A2.2). Table A2.2 Examples of initiatives that give influence to the private sector in the coordination of the AIS Case Government Public-private Sector-driven Organized sector Industry-financed country investments in cost-sharing of research advising to research private sector innovation planning and government innovation funding Canada Agri-science Value Chain Levy-based clusters Roundtables117 funding is most common for all cases Mexico Produce “ Foundations The InnovationNetwork SIGN118 Bioconnect Bioconnect “ Netherlands Top Sectors TransForum Courage119 New Zealand MBIE Science and Primary Growth Callaghan “ Innovation Group Partnership Innovation Callaghan NZBIO Innovation Commercialization Partners Network South Africa FAIR/Prolinnova Industry Matching “ Fund Top sectors approach In The Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs through a lobby process identifies nine ‘top sectors’ of the economy to receive government investment and assistance, including agri-food. Top teams, comprised of a scientist, a senior official, and an innovative small or medium enterprise 115 http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Mexico_CB41_En.pdf 116 Deschamps, Leticia. Consolidación del Sistema Mexicano de Innovación Agroalimentaria. IICA, México, D.F. 117 http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/rt-tr/index-eng.htm 118 SIGN is funded on a 50:50 basis by the InnovationNetwork and the greenhouse industry. See: http://www.innovatieglastuinbouw.nl/engels/ 119 Courage is the dairy sector innovation organization and works with the InnovationNetwork. See: www.courage2025.nl 63 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit entrepreneur and a standard-bearer for the sector. The top team advises businesses, science, and the government on measures to address challenges in the agri-food sector, setting out its advice and priorities in an action plan. The sector and government together implement these actions. Innovation contracts set out arrangements and financial agreements between businesses, scientists, and the government120. Sector-driven research planning The Netherlands’ Bioconnect is a research council for organic agriculture to advise government policy. Bioconnect is made up of various stakeholders in the organic agriculture sector. The government delegated responsibility to Bioconnect for setting the research priorities in the organic sector and allocates 10 percent (€9.6 million in 2008) of its budget for policy support research and statutory research to the sector. The users of research (farmers, agri-food supply and processing companies, civil advocacy organizations representing consumers) convene with researchers, consultants, and policy makers to determine strategy for investing public research funding through sector working groups (e.g., dairy, glass house horticulture). Following themes established by the government, working groups propose topics based on demand from their constituencies. Research is then contracted based on the selected user-oriented topics, aligned with the government-provided themes, and Bioconnect discusses topics with the research coordinators to align research with the needs of the sector. Some of the key challenges for Bioconnect include the ability to maintain a neutral position as an intermediary and maintain the trust of its numerous and varied counterparts121. Farmer-driven funds The Produce Foundations of Mexico serve to increase farmer involvement in setting research priorities by giving farmers a say in the allocation of funds at the state-level. Produce Foundations were established in each state to manage competitive funds for agricultural research and extension that solve their states’ technological needs. Innovative, technologically advanced ‘lead’ farmers appointed to the research board of each Produce Foundation; state and federal government representatives serve on the board in an advisory role122. In most states the Produce Foundations have become quite independent from the state government while maintaining support from the federal government as they evolve. The large number of Foundations has helped create an innovation system with diversity and with it, the potential to exchange lessons from varied contexts; however, a weak centralized monitoring system has constrained the ability to share learning from Produce Foundations’ individual experiments. Value Chain Roundtables Canada’s Value Chain Roundtables (VCRTs) were launched in 2003 to bring together key industry leaders from across the value-chain – input suppliers, producers, processors, food service industries, retailers, traders and associations – with federal and provincial government policy makers. The VCRTs have become pivotal in identifying sector strengths and weaknesses, sharing information and building trust across commodity sectors, identifying research, policy, regulatory, and technical requirements, creating shared visions and cooperative long-term strategies. There are 11 national VCRTs on beef, 120 http://www.government.nl/issues/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/investing-in-top-sectors/agri-food 121 Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis 2009; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008. In the Agricultural Innovation Sourcebook, World Bank. 122 http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Mexico_CB41_En.pdf 64 Annex 2 food processing, grains, horticulture, organic, pork, pulse industry, seafood, seeds, sheep, and special crops. Industry members lead the roundtables and establish the roundtable agenda. Industry and AAFC representatives co-chair each roundtable. AAFC provides logistical support, expertise, and financial support to implement roundtable action plans. AAFC also ensures roundtable priorities on policy and programs are communicated to inform planning and decision-making of AAFC. The provincial governments also designate representatives to sector roundtables that are priorities for the province123. C. ‘Keeping it fresh’: constructing and deconstructing, evolving with the sector The InnovationNetwork (InnovatieNetwork) in The Netherlands functions like a crossover between an incubator and think tank and works to catalyze not incremental innovation but paradigm-shifting, radical, and far-reaching change by developing breakthrough concepts and investing in early-stage projects. Its mandate is to carry out foresight studies and develop strategies for innovation with a long-term horizon. Its staff and program budget is financed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation, and it co-finances projects (e.g., SIGN, Courage) with the corresponding sector (greenhouse horticulture, dairy industry). An independent board directs InnovationNetwork, and it presents its findings on an annual basis to the Minister to advise on innovation policy. D. Regional representation and national coordination Canada, like Chile, has a high degree of heterogeneity in its agricultural sector between provinces, making it difficult to set common priorities across the country. The agricultural sector has long been a joint responsibility between the province and federal government and a long process of consensus building and deliberation precedes bilateral agreements between the provinces and the federal government on agricultural policy. Program finance is split on a 60:40 basis between the federal and provincial government. The province of Ontario presents a valuable case of how the provincial government tailors its research agenda while maintaining alignment with national priorities. The OMAFRA Research Advisory Network (ORAN) is a network of advisory bodies that provides long-term, strategic guidance for research program development and identifies short-term, emerging research priorities (Figure 9). While the Theme Advisory Groups identify priorities specific for the province, the expert panel is comprised of 8-10 members from across North America to provide perspective on emerging issues critical for progress. These priorities for program development are implemented through a partnership between the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) with the University of Guelph. Guelph professors submit research proposals based on the list of priorities identified. 123 http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/rt-tr/5710-eng.htm 65 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Figure 9. Priority setting at the provincial level: The case of ORAN124 Priority Setting Implementation • Strategic priorities set by ARIO expert panels guide overall research program development Theme Advisory Groups • Theme Advisory Groups Expert Panels reviews stakeholder input, Deliverable: Updated Priorities (every 5 years) monitors progress, and and Emerging Issues Document advises on priorities for (updated annually) annual calls for proposals KTT Knowledge Translation and Transfer (KTT) Theme Research Analyst KTT Commodity or Stakeholder Theme-Based Meetings Documents Informal Input Stakeholder Engagement The 32 Produce Foundations, one in each state of Mexico, function to attend to state-level demand while balancing federal priorities. See Section B in this Annex.124 E. Involving smallholders in the agricultural innovation system Prolinnova (Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically-oriented agriculture and Natural Resource Management) is a global learning and advocacy platform that works to encourage farmer-driven innovation. Departing from the traditional linear model that flows through research, extension, and farmer adoption, Prolinnova uses an approach called Participatory Innovation Development (PID) with the objective of better meeting farmers’ needs by empowering farmers to create an enabling environment for innovation at the local level. A pilot program, Farmers’ Access to Innovation Resources (FAIR), provides grants for small farmers to experiment, strengthen local institutions, and hold cross- learning events. The grants are managed locally by farmers. In South Africa, the FAIR project is led by the Farmer Support Group in partnership with SaveAct (an NGO) and the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, and Rural Development of KwaZulu-Natal Province. In South Africa, FAIR set up innovation markets and farmers forums to exchange farmer knowledge, conducted technology testing, explored market opportunities, and linked with other stakeholders in the agri-innovation 124 ARIO stands for the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario (ARIO), an agency that reports directly to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, providing advice about strategic directions in research investments. For more information see: http://www.omafra.gov. on.ca/english/research/oran/oranindex.htm#publications 66 Annex 2 system. A Local Innovation Support Team made up of representatives from the three partners served to support the process. With a presence in 18 countries, Prolinnova forms a network of small-holder innovation groups that works to diffuse learning between members125. The Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa’s principal agricultural research body, conducted an evaluation of the program. F. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can take many forms and serve many functions. There is M&E for compliance, for accountability, for attribution of impact, and for unintended impacts. In all of the case countries, program monitoring is conducted by a division of the principal ministry for agricultural innovation. Also, in many of the case countries, formal evaluation studies of the agricultural innovation system or agricultural innovation programs are contracted to external partners: • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a Program Branch that conducts regular monitoring of programs. • In The Netherlands, the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) and Wageningen often work with the government on evaluations. • Mexico has a network of regional Centers for Evaluation that evaluate technology transfer and extension services. • New Zealand has developed a sophisticated monitoring and evaluation process for the programs funded by the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) (this Annex, Part A: Financing). Evaluation has four main components: i) the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) and an Investment Advisory Panel monitor progress through active review of quarterly reports and annual plans; ii) Program Steering Groups, in which the Ministry has at least one representative, conduct program planning, risk management and review; iii) programs are audited for financial management (by MPI or an external group) and iv) programs are evaluated by an outcome model, which they must develop in alignment with an over-arching logic model of the PGP. The PGP contract for programs includes terms for termination or reduced funding given inadequate program performance126. • In South Africa, the Department of Science and Technology created the Centre for Science, Technology, and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII)127 in 2002 to conduct annual R&D surveys, general innovation surveys, and biotechnology and agricultural R&D surveys. The Centre also conducts analytical work on the state of science, technology, and innovation in South Africa. 125 http://www.prolinnova.net/sites/default/files/documents/S_Africa/2012/fair_2_in_south_africa_findings_and_lessons_learnt.pdf 126 http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/funding-programmes/primary-growth-partnership/governance-and-monitoring 127 http://www.nstf.org.za/ShowProperty?nodePath=/NSTF%20Repository/NSTF/files/PlenaryMeetings/2012/STISurveys.pdf 67 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit Annex III. Staffing and positioning Annex III describes the staffing and positioning of the case countries’ principal Ministry-level coordination units that are most comparable to the proposed design.128 129 Table A3.1 Composition of lead coordinating units Country Lead coordinating Subdivisions of unit Embedded in: Number of staff unit Innovation Policy Team, Strategic Policy Branch, Innovation Policy Bioproducts, Reparatory 25 in total, about Agriculture and Agri-Food Division (federal level) Team, Cross-Sectoral 7 per team Canada Policy Team Canada Varies at provincial level (e.g., OMAFRA Thematic group, expert Regional departments of Varies Research Advisory panel, etc. agriculture (e.g., OMAFRA) Network, Ontario) External advisory board with representatives of National Coordinator each state’s Produce Independent civil society of the Produce Foundations and informal organization with funding from 30 staff Foundations representation from SAGARPA (COFUPRO)128 SAGARPA, INIFAP, SNITT, CONACYT, AMSDA Network administered by COFUPRO; Board of directors, 14 people in National System technical committee, Advises Inter-Sectoral the SNITT office of Innovation and executive secretary Commission on Sustainable administered by Technology Transfer (at the national level), COFUPRO, also Mexico Rural Development (group (SNITT) and technical state representing several a network of commissions ministries, chaired by organizations SAGARPA) Within this Directorate, there is Subdirector of Research and Technology 4 people in the Directorate for Transfer: Subdirectorate Productivity and Secretary of Agriculture, of Research Technological SAGARPA Departments of Scientific and Technology Development Innovation and Technology, Transfer Report Integration, and Agricultural Research129 Clusters: Knowledge Management, Education 56 staff (half are The Agri-Knowledge and Knowledge-spreading, Ministry of Economic Affairs, full time) Netherlands Directorate Research and Valorization, Agriculture, and Innovation Knowledge Management Management of 5 Agriculture 128 http://www.cofupro.org.mx/cofupro/nosotros.php# 129 http://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/estructura/showOrganigrama.do?method=showOrganigrama&_idDependencia=00008 68 Annex 3 Science Policy Group, Departmental Science Adviser, Primary Growth Strategy, Systems, and Partnership Fund, Irrigation Ministry of Primary Industries Not available Science Directorate Acceleration Fund, Policy New Zealand Capability and Regulatory Systems Group People, Science, and Science, Skills, and Enterprise Policy; Science Ministry of Business, Not available Innovation Investments; Institutions Innovation, and Employment and System Performance Full membership National Agricultural NARF Secretariat, Plenary, Department of Agriculture, and observers Research Forum and Steering Committee130 Forestry, and Fisheries of organized groups, no limit South Africa Three Sub-Programmes: Science and Technology Socio-Economic Department of Science and (S&T) for Economic Impact, Not available Partnerships Technology S&T for Social Impact, S&T Investments 130 130 http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/others/RTD/NARF.html 69 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 70 71 Towards optimal coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit 72