Agricultural research investment and human capacity trends in Latin America and the Caribbean: New evidence

Inter-American Development BankWashington, DC | April 27, 2016

Nienke BeintemaASTI Program Head, International Food Policy Research Institute

Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators

Introduction

Why monitor agricultural R&D resources?

In order to feed a growing population and to address other challenges (including climate change and food price volatility), it is crucial that agricultural productivity is increased.

Agricultural R&D is a major contributor to productivity growth, food security, and poverty reduction.

Quantitative data are essential to analyze trends in agricultural R&D investments; identify gaps; set future investment priorities; and better coordinate agricultural R&D across institutes, regions, and commodities.

R&D indicators are also an indispensable tool when assessing the contribution of agricultural R&D to agricultural growth and to economic growth more generally.

ASTI’s three programmatic components

DATA & INDICATORS

ANALYSIS AND DIAGNOSTICS

OUTREACH AND

ADVOCACY

ASTI OUTPUTS

ASTI outputs• Country factsheets• Regional and global reports• Datasets and online tools• Analytical assessments• Seminars and presentations• Various dissemination instruments• ASTI website

(www.asti.cgiar.org)

ASTI indicators• Institutional arrangements• R&D spending by cost category• Funding sources• R&D staff by degree, gender, and age• R&D focus by commodity and theme• Output indicators

LAC survey round Most complete coverage in ASTI’s history (27

countries): South America excludes Suriname and Guyana Central America excludes El Salvador Caribbean excludes Cuba and Haiti

South America and Mexico funded by IDB, Brazil by Embrapa, Central America and Caribbean funded by Canada

Surveyed close to 700 government, higher education, and nonprofit agencies

Timeseries: total spending (by cost categories); funding (by source), total researchers (by degree)

Other indicators: 2012 for Central America and Carribbean / 2013 for South America and Mexico

Methodology Collected data from who performs agricultural

research, not who funds it (but funding sources were collected).

Human resource data were FTE-adjusted. Financial data include salaries, operating, and

capital costs. Financial data are expressed in 2011 PPP dollars. Collected quantitative and qualitative information. Data results exclude private for-profit sector due to

incomplete data. Some quality concerns regarding research output

data.

Overall trends

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

0

1,500

3,000

4,500

6,000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Total number of researchers (FTEs)

Tota

l spe

ndin

g (m

illio

n 20

11 P

PP

dolla

rs)

Spending

Researchers

Longterm researcher and spending trends

Since 2006, total spending and the number of researchers have increased by 37 and 20 percent, respectively. Brazil and Argentina accounted for most of this growth.

Dominance of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico

Total spending

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,00019

81

1991

2001

2013

Tota

l num

ber o

f res

earc

hers

(FTE

s)

Argentina Brazil Mexico Other

The three countries accounted for a combined total of roughly 80 percent of the region’s spending and three-quarters of its agricultural researchers during 1981–2013. Total

researchers

0.4 0.4 0.30.7

1.42.0

1.8

2.70.6

0.40.5

0.7

0.60.6 0.8

1.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1981

1991

2001

2013

Rese

arch

spen

ding

(bill

ion

2011

PPP

dol

lars

)

2.4 3.0 3.05.8

4.25.2 4.8

5.92.1

3.1 3.7

4.0

2.7

3.7 4.2

4.9

0

6

12

18

24

1981

1991

2001

2013

Tota

l num

ber o

f res

earc

hers

(t

hous

and

FTEs

)

Institutional distribution of agricultural R&D

The government sector dominates agricultural R&D in more than half of the region’s countries, but the higher education sector has become a major player in a number of countries.

88 8375 73 71 67 61 58 54 52 51 50

40 39 3428 26 24

12 1624

1426

24 34 42

2819

48 50

20

61 66

41 48

30

14 1018

2939

31 27

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pana

ma

Vene

zuel

a

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Ecua

dor

Braz

il

Chile

Nic

arag

ua

Para

guay

Guat

emal

a

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an

Uru

guay

Arge

ntina

Colo

mbi

a

Mex

ico

Peru

Boliv

ia

Cost

a Ri

ca

Hond

uras

Shar

e of

tota

l FTE

rese

arcj

ers (

%)

Government Higher education Nonprofit

Financial resources

1.821.65 1.60

1.401.29

1.06 1.050.93

0.79 0.74

0.38 0.35 0.31 0.30 0.260.18 0.17 0.14

1.10 1.15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Braz

il

Chile

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an

Urug

uay

Arge

ntina

Cost

a Ri

ca

Mex

ico

Boliv

ia

Colo

mbi

a

Pana

ma

Nic

arag

ua

Peru

Vene

zuel

a

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Para

guay

Ecua

dor

Hond

uras

Guat

emal

a

LAC,

200

6

LAC,

201

3

Agric

ultu

ral R

&D

spen

ding

as a

shar

e of

AgG

DP (%

)

Agricultural R&D spending intensity

Eight countries fall on the low end of the spectrum, spending 0.4 percent or less of their AgGDP on agricultural R&D. Many of the Southern Cone countries invest more than 1.0 percent.

> 1.0

< 0.4

Spending allocation, NARIs (2009–2013 average)

For most of the NARIs, salaries and related expenses account for the bulk of agricultural R&D costs.

86 79 78 78 75 72 72 69 62 54 54 51 51 49 42 42

12

10 16 18 22 2318 23 27 38

39 35 4535 45

11

38

37

11 11 14

47

20

51

0

20

40

60

80

100Co

lom

bia

(Cor

poic

a)

Arge

ntina

(IN

TA)

Para

guay

(IP

TA)

Hond

uras

(DIC

TA)

Guat

emal

a (IC

TA)

Braz

il (E

mbr

apa)

Cost

a Ri

ca (I

NTA

)

Dom

inic

an R

ep. (

IDIA

F)

Pana

ma

(IDIA

P)

Mex

ico

(INIF

AP)

Chile

(IN

IA)

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an (C

ARDI

)

Urug

uay

(INIA

)

Ecua

dor (

IDIA

P)

Vene

zuel

a (IN

IA)

Peru

(IN

IA)

Boliv

ia (I

NIA

F)

Shar

e of

tota

l spe

ndin

g (%

)

Salaries Operating and program costs Capital investments

Funding sources, NARIs (2009–2013 average)

Government contributions remain the main source of funding for most NARIs, although many NARIs receive considerable funding through other sources.

97 97 94 94 93 90 89 84 76 74 7060 58 57 55

4328

1435

5141

10 2413

30

22 3037

12 2117 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Braz

il (E

mbr

apa)

Cost

a Ri

ca (I

NTA

)

Arge

ntina

(IN

TA)

Pana

ma

(IDIA

P)

Hond

uras

(DIC

TA)

Dom

inic

an R

ep. (

IDIA

F)

Colo

mbi

a (C

orpo

ica)

Mex

ico

(INIF

AP)

Ecua

dor (

IDIA

P)

Peru

(IN

IA)

Para

guay

(IP

TA)

Chile

(IN

IA)

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an (C

ARDI

)

Vene

zuel

a (IN

IA)

Guat

emal

a (IC

TA)

Uru

guay

(IN

IA)

Boliv

ia (I

NIA

F)

Shar

e of

tota

l fun

ding

(%)

Government Donors/development banks Commodity levies

Sale goods/services Other

Human resources

Degree qualification of agricultural researchers

73

4737

26 23 21 17 16 14 13 11 10 10 10 9 8 6 5

21

35

2032 34

1841 42 41 46

3551 46

2642

36

19 25

618

43 42 44

61

42 41 45 4054

39 44

6449

56

76 69

0

20

40

60

80

100

Braz

il

Mex

ico

Chile

Urug

uay

Colo

mbi

a

Arge

ntina

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an

Vene

zuel

a

Cost

a Ri

ca

Peru

Boliv

ia

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Ecua

dor

Guat

emal

a

Nic

arag

ua

Pana

ma

Hond

uras

Para

guay

Shar

e of

tota

l FTE

rese

arch

ers (

%)

PhD MSc BSc

Brazil and Mexico employed more than 70 percent of the region’s total researchers with PhDs. Many other countries lack the critical mass of PhD-qualified researchers.

Female participation The overall share of female agricultural

researchers is higher in LAC than in other developing regions. No gap in qualification levels is apparent between females and males.

48 4541 37 37 36 34 33 32 30

25 2420 20 18 18

140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Shar

e of

tota

lFT

E re

sear

cher

s (%

)

50 50

40

3139

3135

24 24 23 24

12

61

620

15 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Braz

il

Chile

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an

Uru

guay

Arge

ntina

Cost

a Ri

ca

Mex

ico

Boliv

ia

Colo

mbi

a

Pana

ma

Nic

arag

ua

Peru

Vene

zuel

a

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Para

guay

Ecua

dor

Hond

urasSh

are

of to

tal F

TE re

sear

cher

sho

ldin

g PH

d de

gree

s (%

)

Age distribution of research staff

10 10 12 11 1224

11

1718 13

1417 25 18 18

29 3017

27

20

34 30

314318 22 24

31

32 29 36 38

24 2438

2842

27 31

19 2346 4349

34

3628

39 30 25 2531 28 26 18

25 18 19

10 1219 16 10 14 11 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pana

ma

Mex

ico

Cost

a Ri

ca

Peru

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Braz

il

Guat

emal

a

Vene

zuel

a

Arge

ntina

Uru

guay

Nic

arag

ua

Hond

uras

Boliv

ia

Chile

Para

guay

Colo

mbi

a

Ecua

dor

Shar

e of

tota

l FTE

rese

arch

ers (

%)

<31 31–40 41–50 51–60 >60

Overall, 40 percent of the region’s agricultural researchers are in their 50s or 60s.

Aging of PhD-holders

77 7471

63 61 58 55 5550 49 49 46

39 38 35 35

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

Peru

Guat

emal

a

Pana

ma

Cost

a Ri

ca

Mex

ico

Vene

zuel

a

Hond

uras

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Nic

arag

ua

Boliv

ia

Colo

mbi

a

Arge

ntina

Braz

il

Urug

uay

Ecua

dor

Chile

Para

guay

Shar

e of

rese

arch

ers o

lder

than

50

year

s of a

ge (%

) Fifty-five percent of the country’s remaining

researchers with PhD degrees are currently in their 50s and are set to retire in the short to medium term.

Commodity focus

8474 74 71 70 69 69 66 61 60 55 51 49 48 43 42 42

28

12 2110 22

10 1512

2720

17 21 20

30

22 18

12

16 11

14 15 2012 18

1018 18

25 21 22 26 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ecua

dor

Boliv

ia

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

Hond

uras

Guat

emal

a

Para

guay

Braz

il

Nic

arag

ua

Pana

ma

Colo

mbi

a

Cost

a Ri

ca

Chile

Angl

. Car

ibbe

an

Vene

zuel

a

Mex

ico

Arge

ntina

Peru

Urug

uay

Shar

e of

tota

l FTE

rese

arch

ers (

%)

Crops Livestock Natural resources Fisheries Other

In most countries, more than half of all FTE researchers conducted crop research, followed by livestock research.

Concluding remarks

Conclusion Agricultural research spending and researcher

capacity in LAC have grown progressively in recent years.

But there are considerable differences across countries:

Brazil outperforms every other country with its highly qualified research staff and world class research infrastructure/outputs.

Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay also have relatively well-developed agricultural research systems.

Many other countries (Central American countries, Caribbean island nations, and poorer Andean countries) have fallen behind in terms of infrastructure, investment levels, and capacity.

Policy implications Given the critical role of agricultural research in

addressing climate change, persisting rural poverty and other challenges, stable and sustainable levels of funding are key.

Governments will also need to provide the necessary policy environment to stimulate cooperation among their countries’ agricultural R&D agencies.

Further integration of R&D at the regional level is indispensable too.

Given the immense diversity of the region’s countries as well as the large differences in the quality of agricultural research systems across countries, the implications for potential policy interventions differ broadly by country.

Thank youwww.asti.cgiar.org www.asti.cgiar.org/es