Presentation 2

125TMSD 5 (2) 125–145 © Intellect Ltd 2006

Keywords biotechnology development poor farmers innovation systems institutional change

International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development Volume 5 Number 2 © 2006 Intellect Ltd

Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/ijtm.5.2.125/1

Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India Norman Clark African Centre for Technology Studies

Pakki Reddy Osmania University

Andrew Hall United Nations University

Abstract This paper explores an attempt to bring biotechnology more directly within the ambit of civil society in general and resource-poor farmers in particular. The Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme (APNLBP) was one of four cou- ntry programmes initiated by Dutch aid in the early 1990s. It is coming to an end as an aid project next year. The broad objective of the programme was to contribute to poverty alleviation through biotechnologies but to do so in a rather unique way. Instead of having R&D laboratories develop a raft of new technologies and then ‘dis- seminating’ these to farmers, the emphasis was put on direct interaction with farmers and related stakeholder groups such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The paper describes the programme’s inception and evolution, outlines key governance aspects and sets the analytical discussion within the context of modern ‘innovation systems’ discourse. Two aspects in particular are emphasized. The first is the degree of connectivity among the different stakeholders that are part of the system. It is now well recognized that it is the flow of information across stakeholder groups that often determines the degree of technological development that occurs, although clearly there are other factors also involved. The second is the importance of institutions and institutional change in enabling successful innovation to take place.

Introduction This paper has been written as a contribution to the current policy debate about the status of biotechnology for international development. As we move into the twenty-first century it has become clear that biotechnology is certain to play a key role in economic and social development throughout the world. Already its impact on agriculture, health and the environment has been noted extensively in the relevant literature but there is widely held expectation that this generic technology will revolutionize these and other sectors in the coming decades. While much of the debate concerns impor- tant issues of ethics and risk, there are many other issues that currently exercise decision-makers in relevant fora. One such issue concerns how best to enfranchise the ultimate user of the technology in conditions of underde- velopment. Just as with the industrialized countries where biotechnology

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 125

1 The others were in Colombia, Kenya and Zimbabwe.

2 As part of the DFID- funded Crop Post- harvest Programme based at ICRISAT, Hyderabad. See Clark et al. (2002).

126

developments are influenced by the high-tech ambitions of powerful scientific communities, so in the developing world similar trends often obtain.

This paper explores an attempt to bring biotechnology more directly within the ambit of civil society in general and resource-poor farmers in particular. The APNLBP was one of four country programmes initiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Netherlands in the early 1990s.1 The broad objective of the programme was to contribute to poverty alleviation through biotechnologies, but to do so in a rather unique way. Instead of having R&D laboratories develop a raft of new technologies and then disseminating these to farmers, the emphasis was put on direct interaction with farmers and related NGO groups. A significant feature from its inception, therefore, was that it should be owned and executed by local steering committees having representatives from many stakeholders. Thus unlike most internationally funded research projects, research agendas were derived from the felt needs of local communities. In addition, research focused on crops, resistances and properties that differ from those invested in by multinational companies (MNCs). In this respect, research was aimed at forming a counterbalance – from the perspective of food security and sus- tainable farming by small farmers in developing countries – to technological trajectories that emphasize large-scale genetic engineering in agriculture.

The first phase of the APNLBP started in 1 November 1995 and concluded by 31 March 2002 with a total budget of Rs 155 millions. On the basis of a satisfactory performance evaluation, the programme was extended for another five years up to 31 March 2007 with a total budget of Rs 275 millions. Thus the total duration of the programme has been more than eleven years with a total outlay of Rs 430 millions. During the period between 1995 and 2005, the programme established about 75 research projects with a total commitment of about Rs 300 millions in association with a number of research organizations, NGOs and state gov- ernment departments in Andhra Pradesh. Two of the lead authors were part of a research group that investigated the programme in 2002.2 One was then asked to be part of a mid-term review team in October 2005. The objective of this evaluation was to assess the structure and procedures of the programme, the results obtained and its impact on poverty allevia- tion and sustainable development among smallholders. In particular, the evaluation was asked to assess the extent to which the programme had secured the participation of the end-user in programme formulation and its implementation and how this has affected the programme as a whole. It was asked to examine the achievements of the programme vis-à-vis these objectives and identify strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation was also asked to suggest scope for its extension in the future.

The data for this paper are based on impressions received and quanti- tative information obtained as a result of extensive project site and labora- tory field visits and discussions with stakeholder groups. It is emphasized, however, that we have tried to pass no final judgement on the programme’s overall achievements. Rather, the paper has been written to inform a lay readership of an interesting institutional attempt to bring biotechnology into direct contact with poor farmers in a poor region of a developing country. It may well be that the case will have lessons that could be adapted and promoted in other parts of the developing world.

Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 126

3 NICs refer to the ‘newly industrializing countries’.

4 See, for example, Oyeyinka (2005).

127Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

The remainder of this paper is in five sections. The first section sets the discussion of this case within the context of modern innovation systems discourse. Two aspects, in particular, are emphasized. The first is the degree of connectivity among the different stakeholders that are part of the system. It is now well recognized that it is the flow of information across stake- holder groups that often determines the degree of technological development that occurs, although clearly there are other factors also involved. The second is the importance of institutions and institutional change in en- abling successful innovation to take place.

The second section reviews the institutional and organizational struc- ture of the APNLBP paying special attention to issues of governance. The third section provides summary details of programmatic activities and as- pects of performance over the past ten years or so. It provides examples of the types of projects that have been undertaken and the implementation strategy of the executive group. The fourth section draws out the main lessons that appear to flow from this case. It summarizes the broad impact of the programme and makes suggestions about future policy. The last section of the paper makes some concluding remarks.

Innovation systems The concept of an innovation system has become used increasingly in current science policy discourse as a kind of metaphor to indicate the need for a much wider perspective on relevant decision-making procedures than has been the case in the past. Originally put forward by economists such as Nelson (1993) and Freeman (1987) in the 1980s to explain the rapid economic growth of the so-called NICs over the latter part of the twentieth century3, its use has been extended and developed widely over the past decade.4 In agricultural research policy discussion is even more recent (see, for example, Biggs 1990; Hall et al. 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004; Clark 2002; Juma and Yee-Cheong 2005). Essentially, the concept has been developed to deal with the inability of conventional economic vari- ables (such as capital investment and R&D expenditures) to explain differ- ential rates of economic performance and to locate the role of knowledge among a much wider range of stakeholder groups than had previously been the case. However, the tradition in agricultural technology develop- ment had always been to regard national and international R&D centres as the major players. Where this failed to produce the desired results, responsibility for failure tended to be laid at the door of poor government policies or inefficient extension services.

Hall et al. (2000) argue that it was the early successes of the science- based Green Revolution that led to this complacency. The application of crop improvement principles – notably dwarfing, hybrid vigour and ferti- lizer responsiveness to the cereal crops of the developing world (rice, wheat and maize) – created a series of high yielding varieties (HYVs). Judged in terms of increasing productivity and food supply (the policy agenda for which research systems were established), agricultural research at that time was clearly succeeding. In fact, the initial impetus for the Green Revolution did not come from the national agricultural research systems (NARS) of the developing countries themselves, but from two international research centres that subsequently became the model for the fifteen or so

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 127

5 See pp. 1–30.

128 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

centres that now comprise the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system – CIMMYT in Mexico for wheat and maize, and IRRI in the Philippines for rice.

The CGIAR system (sometimes called the CG system) came into being (in 1971) because despite international help for the NARS, many developing country governments did not support local research sufficiently. In compen- sation, therefore, multilateral and bilateral aid, along with support from private foundations, was channelled to international centres of excellence that would undertake strategic research for developing countries without becoming enmeshed in the administrative and political arenas of client countries. What emerged was a two-tiered system. The CG centres developed production technologies and varieties for mandated crops (and geographical regions) that were subsequently passed on to the NARS for applied, con- textual research and final transfer to the farmers. This essentially is the ‘transfer of technology’ (TOT) model, which became the ‘engine’ of the Green Revolution and which has really dominated policy thinking until very recently. Its chief characteristics are a belief in the existence of scale economies in the R&D process, a faith in the scientific method as the main source of improved technological practices for the poorest of the poor, rela- tively little attention paid to the tacit knowledge and local preferences of other groups including the farmers themselves (Chambers and Ghildyal 1987)5, and the belief that issues of technology transfer and needs assess- ment are largely the responsibility of other ‘non-scientific’ organizations.

However, nowadays it is increasingly difficult to regard publicly funded agricultural science as the only source of crop yield improvements and thus, international food security and social well-being. Moreover, the agricultural research agenda has now expanded well beyond improving ‘yields per hectare’ to include issues of continued (and worsening) poverty, environ- mental sustainability, the multi-faceted contribution of the private sector, the complementary roles of NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs), the importance of farmer knowledge, the growth of relevant agribusiness and changing (national and global) macroeconomic conditions. In short, the agenda for agricultural science has arguably become much more complex and multidimensional. In particular, it is about building up knowledge on how to integrate agricultural science better with client need and comple- mentary capabilities, especially with relevance to poor rural communities.

In short, modern literature shows that the agenda for agricultural research has changed dramatically from the days of the Green Revo- lution, and with it the demands on relevant organizations. It is this new complex agenda that has created the need for a fresh look at science policy analysis for agriculture. Arguably, agricultural R&D can no longer be left on its own to meet the new demands of the twenty-first century using the old institutional methodologies. In turn, this means new types of relationship with other stakeholders and new types of capacity on the part of scientific institutions and organizations. This does not mean any reduction in the quality of the science. Rather, the reverse in fact, as a UK Parliamentary Select Committee has pointed out in a recent report (DFID 2004). It implies that scientists and the organizations, in which they work, need to improve their capacities to undertake quality science. But to do this, they also must become more aware of the wider context of

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 128

6 We prefer to see the concept as a metaphor rather than a theory. For more detailed analysis of its applicability to Third World agriculture see Clark (2002).

129Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

their research and how this can inform the nature and purpose of what they are trying to do.

It is here that the innovation systems metaphor begins to play a role.6 It may be defined as the network of agents whose interactions determine the innovative impact of knowledge interventions including those associated with scientific research. The concept is now used as a kind of shorthand for the network of inter-organizational linkages that apparently successful countries have built up as a support system for economic production across the board. In this sense, it has been explic- itly recognized that economic creativity is actually about the quality of ‘technology linkages’ and ‘knowledge flows’ amongst and between econo- mic agents. Where the interactions are dynamic and progressive great innovative strides are often made. Conversely where systemic compo- nents are compartmentalized and isolated from each other, the result is often that relevant research bodies are not at all productive. In extreme cases, they have ceased to provide any innovative output at all. Put another way, the key property of a system of innovation is therefore not so much its component parts, or nodes, but rather how it performs as a dynamic whole.

Two of its properties should be emphasized. The first is that ‘knowl- edge’ is by no means confined to the output of public research laboratories but includes tacit and explicit components maintained in NGOs, CBOs, private sector organizations, farmer groups and government departments and parastatals. It is the combined use of knowledge from all these sources that can really make a difference to improvements in social welfare. The second is the importance of institutional change in allowing innovation systems to function well. In a comprehensive survey of the literature, Oyeyinka (2005) has recently argued that especially in developing coun- tries it is actually the disconnectedness of organizations combined with deeply held cognitive prejudices about the role of ‘expertise’ that proves an obstacle to development. And what is true of technology development in general is equally true of specific technologies such as biotechnology. As we shall see with the APNLBP, it is the recognition of both factors that appears to have guided the way the programme developed.

Institutional structure Background It has been the strong belief of the Dutch public policy since early 1990s that the potential of agricultural biotechnology can help redress problems of food insecurity in developing countries provided these countries are empowered to design their own technologies to suit their local conditions. The Indian programme focused on Andhra Pradesh, one of the states where Dutch Development Cooperation is strong. After two years of prepa- ration the substantive programme began in November 1995. From the beginning, its unique feature was that it should follow an ‘interactive bottom up (IBU)’ approach, an approach based on the principles of partic- ipatory technology development (PTD). All projects were to be formulated on the basis of local needs assessment and priority setting, to which end users, researchers, policymakers, government and NGOs should all be involved. In addition a central principle was to be constant interaction

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 129

130 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

between farming communities and scientists in the process of technology development and adaptation. These interactions would be used to combine indigenous knowledge of people with both tacit stakeholder and modern scientific knowledge.

Developed by a group of researchers at the Free University of Amsterdam in the late 1980s (Bunders and Broerse 1991), the IBU approach placed emphasis on identifying needs and priorities for interventions based on end- user demands. These should be formulated by all stakeholders interacting with each other in multidisciplinary fora until common ground is achieved regarding what the priorities are and how they should be tackled. Equally, power relations should be such that no one group could dominate any other. Basic scientists, for example, would not be in a position to dictate procedures, but on the contrary would be subject to constant scrutiny from other parti- cipatory groups. Moreover, the process would be interactive in the sense that constant monitoring and adaptation would take place throughout the life of projects. Using this process, a multidisciplinary team consisting of natural scientists, social scientists, extension workers, administrators and NGO representatives participated in a local ‘need assessment survey’. This led to intensive discussions and deliberations in prioritizing specific areas for intervention in dry land agriculture. The output of this survey resulted in a base document for designing the entire programme and defining the priority areas in a priority-setting workshop wherein different stakeholders participated and deliberated. Its broad objectives were as follows:

• To promote application of biotechnologies relevant to small-scale agricul- tural producers and processors in Andhra Pradesh in such a way as to contribute to sustainable agricultural production taking into account in particular the position of target groups such as women and poor farmers.

• To develop appropriate biotechnologies through research activities that focus on identified priority problems.

• To conduct supportive activities required to ensure development and adoption of biotechnologies, including training, TOT activities, work- shops and information dissemination.

• To strengthen capacities of local organizations in Andhra Pradesh to develop and transfer biotechnologies and conduct analysis in the field of technology assessment.

• To promote the adoption of biosafety measures and to contribute to discussions on issues of intellectual property where appropriate.

The programme began in 1997 and has since focused on four priority areas. These are:

• Agroforestry and horticulture, • Food crops, • Oil seeds, and • Animal production and health.

It focuses mainly on a few selected villages in Mahaboobnagar and Nalgonda districts, close to Hyderabad. All technologies developed through this pro- gramme are being tried initially in these villages and their impact assessed.

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 130

131Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

The plan is that proven technologies will then be propagated in other parts of the state.

Governance The institutional structure of the programme is summarized in Figure 1. Ownership is entrusted to a multi-stakeholder steering committee called the Biotechnology Programme Committee (BPC). The Committee consists of rep- resentatives from grassroot level NGOs, heads of developmental departments of the state government, representatives of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Government of India (GOI) and scientists of national and international repute. Currently out of fourteen members three are women. The Committee is headed by Dr M. V. Rao, a well-known agricultural scientist. The committee operates within a set of rules and regulations formulated by itself.

The BPC is supported by a Secretariat, the Biotechnology Unit (BTU), hosted by the Institute of Public Enterprise (IPE), based at a national uni- versity in Hyderabad (Osmania). The institute is an autonomous society engaged in teaching, research, consultancy and training in the field of public enterprise management and public policy. It has core funding from the GOI and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The BTU team itself con- sists of a multidisciplinary group with a co-ordinator, four subject experts and four supporting staff. The main functions of the Secretariat are to assist the BPC in ensuring that the objectives and approach of the pro- gramme are followed; that project proposals follow the established criteria, and that end user participation and feedback is handled appropriately.

Cooperation and coordination is maintained with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (Government of the Netherlands). A representative of the Government of the Netherlands visits at least once a year for meetings with the IPE and the APNLBP. Besides discussing programme progress, these occasions are also used for interaction with different stakeholders in the field and visits to laboratories. Apart from these annual visits, the programme has also been visited by the officer in charge of the research

Figure 1: Institutional structure.

BPC: Biotechnology Programme Committee NEDA: Netherlands Development Assistance MOFA: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

BTU: Biotechnology Unit IPE: Institute of Public Enterprise

END USERS

BPC

NEDABTU

IPE MOFA

IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATION

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 131

7 Interview data. DGIS stands for the Directorate General for International Co-operation.

132 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

division of DGIS in 1997, the Chief Scientist, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Government of the Netherlands) in 1998, the Chief of the Research Division in 2003 and the Ambassador of the Netherlands to India in 2005. At the same time, DGIS has maintained a ‘hands-off ’ policy right from its inception in 1995.7

Project inception, monitoring and control Within the broad priorities identified, research projects are formulated on the basis of specific problems based on farmer demand. Problems are identified and prioritized based on the severity of the problem, urgency to address it and the potential of biotechnology to solve the problem. The pro- gramme uses a Pre-Project Formulation Workshop (PPFW) to arrive at consensus on these issues. Different stakeholders, including scientists, extension agents, NGOs, farmers, etc., are invited for these workshops. Also invited are experts at national and regional level who explain the status of the crop, the production constraints, the state of technology and possible interventions, including biotechnological interventions. Farmers explain in their own language their experiences and articulate their needs. Different stakeholders then resolve to work together to seek solutions through biotechnology. Such a resolve takes the form of a project proposal that undergoes peer evaluation before coming to the BPC for a final decision. Once the decision is taken to fund a project, a strict monitoring mechanism is put into operation. This involves regular six monthly reviews, three monthly BPC meetings at which each project provides a report and regular interactive meetings between farmer groups and scientists (usually involv- ing NGOs), occurring both in the field and at the laboratory.

Organization of outreach activities While the hub of the APNLBP is the BTU, which is housed in the IPE and serves as the integrator of activities, the programme as a whole is actually a complex network consisting of many groups and projects for the generation of new knowledge and discovering genes that have long-term implications in addressing crop production problems of the dry land areas. Thus there are biological software activities like biocontrol systems, tissue culture for micro-propagation, and on-the-ground programmes involving farmers in activities such as agro-silvi-horti pastoral systems, vermiculture, mush- room cultivation, agricultural machines for making feed, expellers and shellers. Technology delivery is through NGOs who help to promote micro-entrepreneurships in various areas. The APNLBP seems to have adopted two approaches to technology delivery. These are as follows:

Model 1

RARS palem NGOs Mass multiplication facility

Technology support system

Farmers with one or more intervention experience

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 132

133Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

Here a government regional research centre (RARS) at Palem, Mahaboobnagar serves as the local science centre with backstop research scientists and research-product development linkages with other research establishments at Hyderabad. The NGOs who interact with knowledge sources develop the validated relevant technology either by scaling up the production facility with them (as with the Bt multiplication facility, biofertil- izer and spawn production discussed below) or by involving farm families (or a group of them) for testing and adopting each component of the technology.

Model 2

The other model, followed in Nalgonda, has similar elements as Model 1, except that activity is centred in a special type of NGO called a Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) – literally ‘farmers’ science centre’. The creation of such orga- nizations took place as part of a much earlier nation-wide initiative to strengthen agricultural extension activities associated with the ICAR. While the success of such KVKs and for that matter agricultural extension in India more generally has been mixed, their role in APNLBP hints at what their potential might be. In this case, the KVK became a genuine functional node in the technology system rather than a passive conduit for research prod- ucts. Relationships were undoubtedly strengthened with central research organizations, although some hierarchies naturally persist. But the current move towards a commercially viable production laboratory will be a critical institutional innovation that will force the KVK to test assumptions about the validity of its product and its approach.

In this model, facilities for mass production of biofertilizer, vermicom- posting, biocontrol agents, tissue culture of trees and micro-propagation of planting materials, are housed within well-developed classroom and trainee facilities. It revolves around extramural scientists and KVK staff with agricultural science backing. They have promoted young entrepre- neurs in all the sectors in which they are operating. The village-level extension activities in agroforestry, silvipastural system, cattle breeding are all covered by the KVK in a holistic manner. The activity here driven by the KVK is addressing rural livelihood issues perhaps in a more inte- grated manner compared to the Model 1.

Programme activities General focus As outlined above, the APNLBP mission has been to improve the income generation and quality of life of the people living under the harsh and

Technology developer/originator (Hyderabad-based science establishments)

Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK)

Farmers or client

Entrepreneur/ experimenter/adopter

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 133

134 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

drought-prone rural conditions of Mahaboobnagar and Nalgonda districts of the Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh. The programme has aimed at productivity increases of castor, sorghum, pigeon pea and groundnut by quality seed production and molecular genetic approaches, organic matter recycling, vermicomposting and biological control of insect pests and dis- eases. Income diversification of farmers is addressed by feed development, cattle improvement, other relevant animal husbandry activities and silvi- pastoral and horti-pastoral systems. The programme has upstream research to develop transgenic crops and relevant downstream activities to make the villagers open to the adoption of simple technologies that can increase the productivity of their crop and animal husbandry related activ- ities. This approach has thus aimed at opening the minds of poor farmers to simple locally available technologies with the subsidiary objective of exploring future possibilities for using higher-order technologies such as transgenic crops. Progress of different components of the project is summa- rized below. One particular focus is that Andhra Pradesh is the single largest user of chemical pesticides in the country and a lot of it is used for pigeon pea, castor, sorghum and groundnut. Arguably, excessive use of pes- ticides has adversely affected the ecosystem and incomes of the farm fami- lies. Therefore, the APNLBP felt it appropriate to address the need to reduce chemical pesticides and fertilizer use and find viable alternate technologies.

As may be seen from Table 1, most projects involve consortia in which national research bodies play a key role. Thus 42 bodies are (or have been) involved ranging from government and university departments, research institutes managed by national research councils, to NGOs of different types. Often, the NGOs focus on a specific locality and play an invaluable role as interfaces with farming communities. However, funding disburse- ments are closely monitored by the programme’s secretariat (BTU). Table 2 summarizes the projects that have been funded under the pro- gramme. They cover a wide range of activities ranging from genetic engi- neering projects where the objective is to develop longer-term solutions to specific farmer problems to shorter-term projects that focus on more immediate potential solutions. One important feature of these data is the relatively small proportion of projects and expenditures on genetic

SI No.

Organization Amount committed

(Rs in lakhs)

Amount disbursed

(Rs in lakhs)

Number of institutions

involved

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh 198 147 3

2 Universities 1747 1412 9

3 ICAR 660 503 6

4 CSIR & ICMR 120 94 4

5 NGOs 453 348 18

6 Others 32 32 2

7 Programme management 385

TOTAL 3209 2921 42

Table 1: Organization-wise commitments and disbursements.

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 134

135Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

engineering (15 per cent by number and 23 per cent by value). This appears to have been deliberate policy on the part of the BPC and illustrates that one should not confuse biotechnology interventions in general with genetic engineering solutions, something that is quite common in the popular literature. There is insufficient space to cover in detail all the differ- ent projects that the programme has funded but it is useful to give some examples of their properties as technological projects that show promise.

Biocontrol projects One category is biocontrol. This category covers a variety of projects that deal with the use of plants, natural predators and natural fertilizers to enhance production possibilities for mandated crops. For example, locally at village level, there occur a number of plants with insecticidal and insect repelling properties. These can be deployed in biological control of crop diseases and pests and make potential components of integrated pest man- agement (IPM). Indigenous traditional knowledge has been documented by experience rather than through experimentation. For this reason, attempts have been made to collect samples of relevant species for prior screening. A good example is the neem tree (Azadirachta indica). Samples were collected from different parts of the country from which estimates have been made of the level of azadirachtin (aza) present. Experiments were conducted on factors such as the role of soil and age of tree to select elite accessions with stable high aza content. There was significant variation in the aza and the best clones were validated, micro-propagated through tissue culture and several thousands of them were planted in various

Research area code

Subject of project No. of projects involved

(Rs in lakhs) Per cent of total funds committed

Funds committed

Funds committed

A Agroforestry 1 105 73 3

B Animal sciences 8 294 248 9 C Biocontrol agents 11 577 417 18

D Biofertilizers 5 149 141 5

E Botanical pesticides 2 79 72 3

F Genetic engineering 10 635 589 20

G Medicinal plants 4 142 77 4

H Post-harvest technology 5 102 81 3

I Tissue culture 7 238 228 7

J Molecular marker-assisted selection

2 100 64 3

K HRD 5 453 390 14 L Bioresource centre 4 168 31 5

M Others 5 107 73 3

N Supportive activities 5 60 53 2

TOTAL 74 3209 2536 100

Table 2: Project-wise funds committed and disbursed – (31 July 2005).

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 135

136 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

villages. A neem clone CRI 8/97 that contains better and higher levels of aza was registered as a genetic stock with the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi (INGR 2001).

This renewable pesticide bank of neem provides income for rural women who collect the neem kernels to extract oil, which is used for pest control purposes. Similarly, Pongamia and Anola (custard apple) seeds are collected and the seed oil is used as a botanical pesticide. In the horti-silvi- pastoral aspect of the programme, several Anola trees were planted and seed supply used for oil extraction. Projects extracted and made available these oils for spraying of field crops to check insect damage. The result is that farmers are now aware of and are practising the use of, botanicals spray at a given dose as part of IPM. Reliance on shop-driven chemical pesticide for insect control has thus been downsized and production of alternatives has provided jobs and income to several people, while helping to conserve the environment as well.

A final example is the case of castor. After a series of experiments it was observed that Trichoderma viridie strain B-16 and T.konningii strain B-19 are the most adapted and effective to control castor wilt (Fusarium ricini) and grey mould (Botritis ricini). The KVK and many of the NGOs were edu- cated on the mass multiplication and application of these biocontrol organisms in several villages covering many farmers and a few hundred acres of crop. The effectiveness of the technology is shown by the fact that micro-entrepreneurs are now mass multiplying these biocontrol agents and marketing them at village level. Farmers have also learnt the art of seed treatment with biocontrol agents. Effective strains of beneficial nitro- gen fixing and phosphate solubilizing bacteria are now routinely applied with beneficial results.

Livestock A second set of projects concerns livestock improvement and through this income enhancement and employment generation. Here several interven- tions have been made though initiatives taken by APNLBP. Fifty-two cows, cross-bred between locally adapted breeds and Jersey cows as well as high- milk producing Murrah buffaloes, were introduced in the project area. The original programme was in four villages but the diffusion is now spreading to other villages. Cross-bred cows produce four times more milk as compared to native cows. Since there is a shortage of fodder, green fodder development has been undertaken by introducing Napier grass – bajra hybrids which produce higher biomass and several cuttings can be made from ratoons. Chaff cutters have been introduced into several vil- lages for producing chaff of uniformly small pieces for better utilization of fodder by cows and buffaloes. Sevem hundred and fifty chaff cutters have now been purchased by villagers in this project area. Machines for extru- sion of crop residues such as cotton and castor stems have been introduced which pulverize the residue into small pieces. By adding concentrates into the pulverized materials pellets are made for animal feed. Another inter- vention is the addition of yeast culture to improve the utilization and digestibility of extruded materials. Technology for production of dried yeast culture at village level has been successfully introduced. Urea treatment of rice straw improves its digestibility and palatability. Para workers have

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 136

137Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

been trained for artificial insemination of cows and buffaloes. They have been provided with low-cost insemination kits.

Local sheep and goat herds have become highly inbred resulting in poor health, low birth weight and high mortality of lambs. To alleviate this problem rams from unrelated herds have been introduced to increase genetic diversity. This has apparently resulted in healthier lambs with 3–4kg birth weight as compared to only 1kg of birth weight for lambs of inbred herds. Lambs from improved herds are disease resistant and grow faster. In the improved herds, one ram serves 18 sheep as compared to 30 sheep in the inbred herds. Sheep pox cell culture vaccine has been pro- duced at the Veterinary Biological Research Institute and 21.63 lakh doses of vaccine have been supplied to shepherds at the cost of Rs 1.00 per dose. Vaccination is done for treatment of Blue Tongue disease of sheep. Poultry production has been improved through introduction of better poultry breed, Vanaraja. The introduced breed lays bigger eggs, chicks grow faster and attain a body weight of 3–4kg as compared to 1–2kg for local breeds. About 10,600 Vanaraja poultry birds have been provided to women farmers to improve their health status and income. Poultry birds are regularly inoculated against ranikhet disease.

Low-cost income enhancement A third set of projects concern the spread of projects that are directly capable of contributing to income enhancement at village level. For example APNLBP supported four projects on medicinal plants that are being undertaken primarily to enhance awareness for this traditional system of medicine and provide affordable alternatives to poor communi- ties for primary health care. Over 200 training programmes have been organized in villages and nurseries have been set up to provide planting materials. The overall guiding principle has been to encourage women to grow medicinally important plants in their kitchen gardens and manage common ailments. The effort is valuable for the impoverished villagers since modern medicines are often not available. Feedback found women enthusiastic about, for example, the beneficial effects of Aloe barbadensis in gynaecological problems and Withania somnifera for general well-being.

Another example concerns waste management. In the project villages there are considerable levels of crop residue and animal droppings that go as waste. These are good sources of carbon and minerals in which soils are deficient. Vermicomposting alleviates these deficiencies. In many places visited, there was an overwhelming acceptance of this technology. Apart from creating well-aerated soils, improving soil structure and increasing the availability of micronutrients, vermiculture fields had good crop stands. Several thousand farmers have now been trained and many of them are mass producing vermicompost or selling live worms (Eudrillus eugeneae). Vermicompost has virtually become a mass movement in the places visited. Around 5,000 tonnes of vermicompost was produced in 170 villages. Another example is the case of mushroom cultivation. Recycling paddy straw by oyster mushroom cultivation in locally designed sheds has made excellent progress. It has given additional income to women and has extended nutritional security by way of food to the community. Marketing mushroom spawn and the mushroom themselves will also offer new

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 137

138 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

employment opportunities to the youth and improve the nutritional status of the farming communities.

Transgenic crops and molecular markers for varietal improvement Transgenic and marker-assisted approaches comprise powerful long-term tools to speed up crop improvement. To resource-poor farmers, these can provide seeds as a package of easy-to-apply technologies. For low-input agriculture practiced in semi-arid regions, the critical target traits are tol- erance to insect pests, diseases and water deficit. The farmers in dry lands of Andhra Pradesh depend upon castor, sorghum, pigeon pea and ground- nut for their livelihood. With this background, the APNLBP evolved ten projects aimed at developing transgenic cultivars relevant to this region. A majority of these projects were built to utilize already known genes as an available solution to the problems of dry land agriculture. Hence seven out of ten projects were based on transgenics. Three projects (on pigeon pea and castor) aim at isolating native genes by approaches of functional genomics, molecular mapping and wide hybridizations. It is expected that these components will be strengthened later on since by that time research groups will have the mapping populations under development and will be better prepared infrastructurally to take up bigger challenges in molecular approaches. In this context, it should be noted that dry land crops are not of major interest to private enterprise and are of lower prior- ity in current international programmes.

Human resource development (HRD) An important feature of the programme has been in HRD, particularly in formal training and capacity building. Support has been given to M.Sc. biotechnology programmes at local universities. Also refresher courses for in-service teachers and researchers were the direct initiative of the pro- gramme to contribute to quality education in biotechnology and to create skilled manpower. Up till now, 192 teachers and researchers in the state have been trained to impart better education through thirteen refresher courses. About 92 students have benefited from the M.Sc. programmes. Besides these direct interventions, the programme has also supported six persons for overseas training ranging from 15 days to 30 days. They were trained in the Netherlands, Switzerland and China. Some scientists were also sponsored for participation in international conferences. Further 213 young scientists were employed in research projects and were trained in different techniques. Out of them, 29 received Ph.D.s from the work they did in the projects. Of these, 42 per cent were women.

A second aspect has been on building capacity more widely. At an outreach level, this includes training of paravet workers, assisting in establishing field production activities for entrepreneurs and training of farmers and linked NGOs in agronomic and related functions. At a more advanced level, participating research organizations have been strength- ened with state-of-the-art infrastructure including equipment. This criti- cal support has stimulated them to modernize their laboratories and create additional infrastructural facilities with their own funds. In some cases, separate departments have been set up to intensify research and

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 138

139Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

training in biotechnology. It is estimated that out of the total funds made available by the programme as much as 35 per cent has been spent only on equipment. The other form of capacity building has been supporting partners with human resources. The cost of manpower both in the labo- ratories and in the field for extension work was met by the Programme. These personnel were also trained in research experiments and front-line demonstrations. It is estimated that, overall, around 213 persons have been employed directly in projects as researchers and technicians. The share of manpower expenditure has amounted to 22 per cent of total allocations made. In this way, project staff who work in research projects have gained experience under the supervision of the project leader and through seminars, workshops and short-term training courses. Many of them have also simultaneously pursued Ph.D. and post doctoral certifi- cates. An important contribution of the programme has been to enhance sensitivity among these young researchers towards societal relevance of the technologies with which they are working.

Discussion In the above sections we have indicated that the APNL programme repre- sents an interesting case study of the possibilities available to use biotech- nology as direct resource to improve socio-economic possibilities for poor farming communities. Although it is hard to itemize the individual factors, the following stand out.

Research strategy The BPC appear to have been keen to let farming communities know that the programme wished to spread the use of technologies that have some immediate impact. Indeed, within an Indian context, genetic engineering solutions to problems have to be seen in a long-term perspective for two reasons. One is the length of time still needed for plant-breeding purposes. The second involves the regulatory hurdles that have to be overcome before releases can be permitted. A noteworthy feature has been the will- ingness of the BPC to sanction projects that offer different solutions to the same problem as is the case with two projects run by the Directorate of Oil Seeds Research. Here there are two scientists each with her own labora- tory, working on the same problem but from competing technological standpoints. The problem is insect pest control on castor, an important oil seed in low areas with poor soils. One scientist is a geneticist and is trying to identify a transgenic means of breeding resistant plants. Two genes have now been identified and in the next phase the modified plant will be grown and subsequently evaluated by farmers. The second project has developed a yeast-based bio-pesticide that is produced by a micro-enter- prise established by the programme in collaboration with an NGO. Although there is a certain rivalrous situation here, it is interesting to note that both approaches have been sanctioned. Presumably, it is antici- pated that this will diversify ways of dealing with pest control. But also it will provide a technology that can be put into farmers’ fields fairly rapidly, as well as one (the transgenic technology) that may well prove a more effective technology, but only in the long term and perhaps only against a narrow range of pests.

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 139

140 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

A related point concerns interactivity with NGOs and farmers. The bio- pesticide project is interesting in that during the technology development phase the BPC encouraged the scientist to experiment with farmers, through an NGO in order to refine the effectiveness of the approach. A key technological innovation has emerged in response to the farmers indicating that a liquid-based pesticide would be ten times as expensive to apply as a solid-based one. This required the development and validation of a liquid- based batch production process. Such activities helped build up a series of relationships between the scientist, NGO and communities they are working with. These relationships have now become important in different ways in the second phase of the project. For this innovation in pest management to become effective, production and distribution facilities are required that allow farmers to access the bio-pesticide easily. In the second phase of the project, the scientist explored with the NGO ways of setting up village-level production as a micro-enterprise activity for members of the community. This NGO happened also to be involved in another APNLBP project that has already established successful village-level compost production systems using vermiculture. In the process, it has built up knowledge on ways of adapting technology to village circumstances and establishing a commer- cially viable intervention. Arguably, what is novel about this case is not that technology development has led to efforts to produce and distribute this technology. Rather that the scientist leading the project has recognized that this is part of the larger task of developing and introducing a pest manage- ment innovation. Seeking closer integration and partnership with both NGOs and the communities they represent is therefore seen by the scientist as critical to the success of the overall endeavour.

Networking and partnerships One of the interesting aspects of the APNLBP has been the way the pro- gramme has built up a wide variety of partnerships and networks. These have occurred in a variety of ways and across many different types of stake- holder groups. For example, in the field, villagers, community groups (including women’s groups), NGOs, small businesses and rural bio resource centres now have extensive cross-linkages that are both formal and infor- mal. Because these are now extensive, it is likely that considerable trust has been built up where very little would have existed before. On a different level, it is clear that programme administrators and principal investigators within the formal science system have all participated in different fora to share experience. There are many examples of this. One is the involvement of BTU staff in a number of training programmes and workshops organized by national institutions like the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD), the National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM), the National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE) and the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF).

Yet another level has been the degree of international networking the programme has appeared to develop. Of course, this is partly related to the role of Dutch aid, but it has gone well beyond this in a number of respects. For example, an international Tailor Made Biotechnology (TMBT) network has been established under the leadership of the Technology and Agra- rian Development Group of Wageningen Agricultural University in the

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 140

141Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

Netherlands. As a founder member of this network, the programme interacts with other partners from Brazil, Cuba, Ghana, Kenya and the Netherlands. The programme also offered its experiences to the programme on ‘Molecular Breeding for Pest and Disease Resistance’ sponsored by Asian Development Bank and hosted by ICRISAT. It also collaborated with South Asia Biosafety Programme (SABP) supported by IFPRI and Ag. Bios and ICRISAT in organizing a trainers’ training programme on agricultural biotechnology for a multi-stakeholder group.

Technology development and socio-economic impacts As noted in the first part of this paper, our objective is not to perform a rigorous ex post evaluation of the APNLBP, but rather to describe an

Box 1

QUANTITATIVE OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Objectives Promoting application of biotechnologies

Develop appropriate biotech- nologies through research activities

Conduct supportive activities

Strengthen capacities of local organizations

Promote adoption of biosafety and IPRs

Achievements • Products of lower- and middle–order biotechnologies

delivered to end-users (approx. 15,000 farmers and 35,000 acres covered)

• About 70 research projects • Rs 3,200 lakhs committed • More than twelve technologies perfected • 64 + 35 publications • 29 Ph.D.s • One product registered • One patent (filed) • 63 genes/ESTs deposited with GenBank

• Fifteen PPFWs • 40 Network meetings • Eighteen PTD and farmer exposure visits • Four public debates • Three international workshops • Three biomelas

• 24 Research Institutions • Eighteen NGOs • Rs 1100 lakhs (35 per cent on equipment) • Rs 700 lakhs (22 per cent on manpower) • Rs 450 lakhs (14 per cent on HRD) • Ten scientists for overseas training • 213 young scientists trained

• Awareness through national and international workshops and training

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 141

142 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

interesting approach to technology development. Boxes 1 and 2 provide some broad impact of the overall impact of the project. They summarize the extent to which the programme managers feel they have succeeded in technology development that may have lessons in other contexts. And both the qualitative and quantitative indicators speak for themselves.

It may also be worth mentioning some additional features. First of all, the empowerment of women has been significant at many levels but espe- cially as we get closer to field level. Twenty-one per cent of the BPC are women; about 42 per cent of the project scientists are women; and it is esti- mated that more than 75 per cent of the villagers involved in the production of vermiculture, mushrooms, medicinal plants, botanical pesticides, bio pesticides and livestock are women. Secondly, there has clearly been consid- erable employment creation in the rural areas. This is partly ‘on-farm’ due to technology development itself. But more important perhaps are the range of forward linkages that have been established as a result of project inter- ventions. These include activities just mentioned, such as off-farm produc- tion capacity of bio-pesticides and mushrooms, production and sale of medicinal plants and the establishment of ‘paravet’ employment. At a qual- itative level there seems also to be taking place interest outside the pro- gramme areas whereby the APNLBP experience has begun to have an impact. The NGO community has played an important role in this respect.

Overseas aid It is clear that the debt the programme has with Dutch development assis- tance is considerable. Not only has DGIS (the agency involved) responded to the need to embed R&D in a much wider sense than has been tradi- tional with this type of intervention, it has also realized at quite an early stage that the need is much greater than simply ‘working with farmers’ – a view still taken by many practitioners. Related to this is the acceptance of the notion that institutional change has to emerge indigenously. The conundrum for development assistance agencies is often how to create the conditions for this highly contextual process to happen without reverting to the usual tendency of simply transferring another institutional blue- print from elsewhere. Hence we would suggest that Dutch Aid has had the vision to create professional space for institutional innovation to take place.

Box 2

QUALITATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS

• Convergence of indigenous knowledge with modern biotechnology • Concern for social relevance of technology • Capacity-building – individual, institutional, societal • Organizational restructuring • Resource mobilization • Knowledge and material sharing • Sustainability of research and technology • Environmental improvement

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 142

8 This reflects only the view of the review team. See BPC (2005).

143Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

The corollary has been that institutional change has been an evolutionary process of trial and error (learning) that builds up momentum to gradually shift professional positions.

A related point is that DGIS chose an approach (IBU) that relied on creating this space and flexibility according to the broadest possible set of principles consistent with operational control. Right from the start the aim has been to involve NGOs and scientists in one broad coalition and then to give the resultant system freedom to develop and to do so experimentally. In keeping with such a philosophy, the BPC is an autonomous organ with rep- resentation from all stakeholders, chaired by an eminent scientist but with day-to-day operations managed by a social scientist. DGIS continues to monitor proceedings for its own purposes. But in contrast to more conven- tional aid procedures, monitoring and control activities have made use of Indian reviewers rather than reviewers from the North.

Outstanding issues Finally, to provide a balanced picture it is worth noting areas where improvements could be made.8 The more important are as follows:

• Establishing the capacity to spread technologies to farmers beyond the current village areas. This will involve the creation of more rural units that would act as ‘knowledge centres’ integrating the various activities such as central research and NGO extension work to bring about a greater coherence to the programme as a whole.

• Broadening the economic base of rural interventions through wider technology packages.

• Acting as a forum to continue to improve connectivity between the many research bodies that are involved. Disconnection and overlap among research laboratories continued to be an issue the programme’s organizers had to deal with.

• Building the entrepreneurial, marketing and related capacities of farmers and local production centres to access larger markets (perhaps through industrial partnerships) that will enable activities to be com- mercially sustainable in the long run.

• Building up business development knowledge in organizations. This will include importantly how to handle IPR issues where the review team detected significant weaknesses. For example, there were many examples where projects had clearly reached the stage where relevant IP protection could have been sought. But in only one case had this actually happened. Additionally there were no cases where IP parame- ters had been sought out at project proposal stages.

• Ensuring that the lessons of the APNLBP are adequately docu- mented so that the model may be efficiently communicated to a wider public. This would include producing accessible training and educational materials that may be distributed to poor families and schoolchildren.

• Accessing alternative and additional sources of funding so that it will be possible to capitalize on the programme’s successes such that new aspirations can be adequately resourced. This is especially important since Dutch aid will soon be withdrawn.

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 143

144 Norman Clark, Pakki Reddy and Andrew Hall

Conclusions What then can we conclude about the APNLBP experiment? In our view, the most important conclusion is that the programme is a clear example of the applicability of innovation systems thinking in a developmental context. Thus the importance of connectivity among many different stakeholder groups has been demonstrated in a number of respects as has the degree of institutional change needed to effect viable partner- ships. In addition, there are many examples of learning and capacity building at different levels and among stakeholder groups that would not traditionally interact, at least not to the degree shown in this case. Even more important perhaps is the degree to which formal science has been able to shed traditional tendencies to organizational isolation and to accept that an important aspect of their behaviour requires con- scious efforts to integrate more closely with client groupings and other groupings that are sources of forms of knowledge of developmental rel- evance.

Of importance also is the capacity of the programme to have an impact at the level of the rural poor. Although little formal ex post assessment has taken place there is enough qualitative information to suggest that positive employment, income and gender results have taken place not only in the programme area itself but also in surrounding regions. The fact that these areas are also poor and drought prone indicates that there are lessons here that may be of considerable significance more widely. Finally, there are potential lessons for international aid agencies whose capacity to assist technology development could be improved were they to take a more heuristic approach to technical assistance.

Acknowledgements This paper was originally delivered at the workshop on Governing Technology for Development: From Theory to Practice and Back Again, organized by the Open University, UK held in London, 31 March–1 April 2006. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Gurdev Khush, Dr S. Nagarajan and Dr R. Tuli who participated in the original review aspects of which have been used in this text.

References BPC (2005), Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme for Dryland

Agriculture: Mid-Term Evaluation of Second Phase: Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprises, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad-500007, India, October.

Biggs, S.D. (1990), ‘A multiple Source of Innovation Model of Agricultural Research and Technology Promotion’, World Development, 18: 11, pp. 1481–499.

Bunders, J.F.G. and Broerse, J.E.W. (eds.) (1991), Appropriate Biotechnology in Small- Scale Agriculture: How to reorient research and Development, Wallingford, UK: CAB International, p. 47.

Chambers, R. and Ghildyal, B.P. (1987), ‘Agricultural Research for Resource-poor Farmers: The Farmer First and Last Model’, Agricultural Administration, 20: 3, pp. 1–30.

Clark, N.G. (2002), ‘Innovation Systems, Technology Assessment and the New Knowledge Market: Implication for Third World Development’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11: 4–5, pp. 353–68.

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 144

145Client-driven biotechnology research for poor farmers: a case study from India

Clark, N.G., Hall, A. and Yoganand, B. (2002), ‘New Science, Capacity Development and Institutional Change: The Case of the Andhra Pradesh-Netherlands Biotechnology Programme’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 2: 3, pp. 196–212.

DFID (2004), The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy, London: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2003–2004, The Stationery Office, 26 October.

Freeman, C. (1987), Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London: Pinter.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S.H., Troww, M. and Scott, P. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.

Hall, A.J., Clark, N.G., Sulaiman, R.V., Sivamohan, M.V.K. and Yoganand, B. (2000), ‘New Policy Agendas for Agricultural Research: Implications for Institutional Arrangements’, Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 13: 1, pp. 70–91.

Hall, A.J., Sivamohan, M.V.K., Clark, N.G., Taylor, S. and Bockett, G. (2001), ‘Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrange- ments and Implications for Developing New Technology for the Poor’, World Development, 29: 5, pp. 783–97.

Hall, A.J., Sulaiman, R.V., Clark, N.G. and Yoganand, B. (2003), ‘From Measuring Impact to Learning Institutional Lessons: An Innovation Systems Perspective on Improving the Management of International Agricultural Research’, Agricultural Systems, 78, pp. 213–41.

Hall, A.J., Crouch, J.H. and Clark, N.G. (2004), ‘The Evolving Culture of Science in the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research: Concepts for Building a New Architecture of Innovation in Agri-biotechnology’, in A.J. Hall et al. (eds.), Innovations in Innovation: Reflections on Partnership, Institutions and Learnin, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT, CPHP & ICAR, pp. 135–62.

Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oyeyinka, O. (2005), ‘Systems of Innovation and Underdevelopment: An Institutional Perspective’, UNU/INTECH Discussion Paper Series, Maastricht: The Netherlands.

Suggested citation Clark, N., Reddy, P. and Hall, A. (2006), ‘Client-driven biotechnology

research for poor farmers: a case study from India’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 5: 2, pp. 125–145, doi: 10.1386/ijtm.5.2.125/1

Contributor details Norman Clark is Director of Research, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya. Contact: P O Box 45917, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected]

Pakki Reddy is Project Co-ordinator, Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprises, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India. Contact: Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprises, Osmania University, Hyderabad 500007, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Andy Hall is at the United Nations University, Institute for New Technology, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Contact: Institute for New Technology, Maastricht, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

TMSD002_C02pg 125-146.qxd 10/10/05 12:05 PM Page 145