This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Editing/proofreading, Subtitling
Expertise
Works in:
Accounting
Computers: Software
Computers: Systems, Networks
Construction / Civil Engineering
Economics
Energy / Power Generation
Telecom(munications)
Electronics / Elect Eng
Aerospace / Aviation / Space
Engineering: Industrial
Mechanics / Mech Engineering
Rates
Payment methods accepted
Check
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 1
English to Arabic: Management of Publicly Funded Agricultural Research General field: Science Detailed field: Agriculture
Source text - English Management of Publicly Funded Agricultural Research
(An Israeli ICT case study)
E. Gelb, D. Levanon
,
Abstract
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can make a major contribution to
the management of publicly funded research in agriculture by improving the
effectiveness of research activities, their results, their dissemination and eventual
implementation. The Israeli ICT adoption case study outlines a combination of
competitive, cost effective public R&D funding with public maintenance of scientific
infrastructure. It details management specifics; human resource considerations;
integration of funding sources and stakeholders; collaboration efficiencies and more. ICT
adoption involved management changes, R&D constraint alleviation and maximizing
research productivity.
Keywords: Public funding of research, Information and Communication Technologies,
Agriculture, Technological innovation adoption.
1. Background
“Support of Research Activity directed towards improvement of most forms of
agricultural technology has long been recognized as a responsibility of the Public Sector,
even in the most private-market oriented economies” Boyce and Evenson (1975). Ruttan,
1982 details agricultural research policy, the research review process and the role of the
research administrator. This role includes knowledge acquiring and funding effective
research via monitoring within an overall research utility function. The Chief Scientist of
the Ministry of Agriculture in Israel is such a Research Administrator. Perspectives
guiding the Research administrator are outlined by Boyce and Evenson, (1975)
“implicitly presuming that research and extension are productive activities that contribute
to the efficiency with which scarce resources are converted to agricultural products”.
Grilliches (1958) quantitatively estimated the contribution of such research to farm
productivity. Evenson and Kislev (1975) survey in detail and quantify this productivity in
the context of investment in agricultural research and extension. Alston et al (1995)
specifically indicate that “…in a time of tight government budgets research
administrators are faced with the need to provide strong evidence that costs are justified
by benefits”. Eyal (1996) quantified this benefit suggesting a positive return ratio of 1:2.5
for public funding of agricultural research. Earlier Kislev (1986) suggests a similar ratio.
The contribution and impact of innovative Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) to R&D management is reviewed within these generalizations via the Israeli case
study and the role of the Chief Scientist in the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture.
A general overview of agricultural research is presented by Pardey and Beintema (2001)
accessible at www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/fpr31.pdf. An additional history and review of
agricultural research in general and in developing countries can be found in the FAO
manual: “Management of agricultural research” ww.fao.org/sd/RTdirect/RTre0025.htm;
www.fao.org/sd/RTdirect/RTan0004.htm and in the CIGAR Science Council review 2
accessible at www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/SfADSection05.pdf. For an expanded review of
agricultural research in Israel see Loebenstein and Putievsky (2007).
Public sector funding of advanced agricultural research and ICT supported research
management is focused in this case study on “developed countries”. By definition these
countries, in this context are characterized by capital intensive agriculture, utilizing
modern technology, cutting edge science supported methodologies and minimal labor
input. In order to achieve efficiency of public research in agriculture and attain its
resulting productivity goals R&D management methodology employs uniquely complex
interactions. This insight is universal. The interactions are dictated by extremely varied
agricultural products and stakeholders. They range from environment maintenance to
genetically modified crops, diverse research disciplines, various and heterogeneous
stakeholders representing multiple and possibly conflicting interests and/or priorities with
concerns and benefits spread over varying periods of time, regions and markets.
Traditional management methodology to manage R&D in agriculture was and is
supported by use of basic Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) -
skillfully adapted and employed to do “traditional” clerical chores. Innovative research
management methodology supported by ICT involves coordinating interactive knowledge
accessing, cross referencing and integration of ever expanding and varied data sets, real
time client feedback of research results and product implementation, maintaining
geographically-neutral collaboration, synchronizing long term goals with resource
allocation priorities and much more. In some cases R&D management methodology and
practice are even dictated by ICT specifics. Exploiting innovative ICT supported
management practices can considerably improve the efficiency of research, research
results, and their dissemination and eventually result implementation. This efficiency can
be expressed via an increase in general agricultural productivity, product quality and
technological progress - Levanon et al (2005). Additional economic benefits can be
derived from commercialized, publicly funded/generated Intellectual Property Rights,
agricultural products, increased production output, marketing and management
methodology and more. In turn improved agricultural productivity contributes to rural
viability and public welfare in general which justifies public funding of agricultural
research beyond the direct benefit to agricultural producers. The importance of such
public investment in ICT for agriculture was recognized at a recent conference of the
European Federation of Information Technology in Agriculture (EFITA) Gelb, Parker
(2005). The importance of incorporating ICT into the publicly funded research
management procedures is universally recognized to the extent that specific programs are
outlined for that purpose. An illuminating example is a program initiated by the Research
Office for Research Information Management at the University of Sydney – detailed at
www.usyd.edu.au/ict/PMO/es/Projects/rm/index.shtml. The purpose of the ICT initiative
(Research Management Systems Project) was to promote the following:
• Improve accessing information, information management, reporting, analysis and
enable assessment of quality and impact;
• Increase research income resulting from improved awareness of opportunities and
income management;
• Reduce risk of data inaccuracy and improve data integrity; 3
• Ensure compatibility with future trends in Research Information Management,
database, web and workflow technologies;
• Reduce costs by reducing manual processes, paperwork and system maintenance;
• Support end-to-end research management.
The specific project objectives were to:
• Redefine the business processes to adhere as far as possible to best practices
including electronic workflow, e-records management, paper management;
• Conduct a gap analysis of the business requirements across the potential vendors
and products;
• Rationalize the recommendation for the best-fit vendor and product;
• Implement the Research Management System without negative impact to business
operations;
• Reduce data redundancy and manual data handling;
• Improve data security, confidentiality and privacy standards;
• Improve control and management of research financials;
• Improve technical platform to support open architecture and web based options;
• Reduce the number of disparate and adhoc systems across the University.
Agricultural R&D in the “developed countries” of the world is to a large extent a public
strategic concern due to Agricultural R&D market inefficiencies and the reflection on the
general public – economic and social. This is the result of the fact that the total of private
benefits of all firms is smaller than the overall public benefits Alston, et al (1999).
Consequently the investment in Agricultural R&D will be sub optimal without public
sector funding. This market allocation inefficiency of funding for research has several
causes. They include:
• The products of Agricultural R&D are usually within the public domain.
Examples include an overall reduction of pesticide applications or long range
planning criteria for using natural resources such as water and land, and many
more. It is very difficult to patent the results of applied agricultural research and
basic life sciences studies – a fact which deters private sector investments;
• Technological innovation in agriculture deteriorates agricultural terms of trade –
namely lowering the farmer income from products and increasing the cost of
inputs. It is the public that gains from this situation - better produce at lower
prices and not the farming sector. In general since the public benefit is larger than
the sum of benefits for the agricultural producers it stands to reason that it is
within the public concern to sustain these trends;
• The agricultural producers are usually small and they cannot afford agricultural
R&D. In this sense Agricultural R&D is in essence different from Industrial R&D
carried out by firms that are the direct beneficiaries of the results.
This description does not ignore the fact that agribusinesses (Large scale farming and the
Agricultural Inputs Industry) and concerns can be large. In fact to the extent that some of
them have registered patents, “public” shareholders, multi-national scope, etc. In many
cases they are innovative and ICT intensive. They however are not “public welfare”
oriented and they do not invest generally in public domain research. They do fund 4
research in areas with potential Intellectual Property rights such as seeds, chemicals,
fertilizers, etc. This is reflected in their share of the total funding of agricultural research
but not to the extent that diminishes public funding dominance. A recent survey estimated
their share in Israel at around 15% of the total agricultural R&D (Appendix A.)
The public sector funding of agricultural research has frequently resulted in the
establishment of Governmental Research Institutes dedicated to agricultural research and
complementing academic research institutes. The academic teaching entities
(universities) do not have a binding commitment to agricultural research or to agricultural
productivity. Basic agricultural research in various areas done in University Faculties of
Agriculture may not even be relevant in the short term to current agricultural production.
Examples include such ”basic” agricultural research areas including theoretical genetics,
bio-informatics, cell biology, molecular physics along with their “applicative” aspects
such as improving plant varieties with spliced in genes, gene specific pesticides, etc.
A useful review of the Institutionalization process in general is presented in the FAO
National Agricultural Research System Manual: www.fao.org/sd/sdrr/rom_en.asp. At
www.fao.org/sd/researchinstitutions/index.asp?lang=en a listing of such Institutes can be
found. It is important to note however that neither governmental nor academic research
entities necessarily formulate national research priorities or monitor them and all the
publicly funded agricultural research. In Israel the governmental Agricultural Research
Organization (ARO), is recognized as one of the successful government agricultural
research institutes with close collaboration with Universities. Both undertake publicly
funded research on behalf of the Government. As outlined below it is however the Chief
Scientist that decides the research priorities based on Government policies and supervises
compliance to them. For a detailed review of the ARO see Loebenstein and Putievsky
(2007).
For a review of Israel’s agricultural sector and research organizations see
www.moag.gov.il/documents/760agri.pdf, Levanon et al (2005) and Appendix A. The
reviews illustrate the fact that Israel has a diversified and complex agricultural profile
which provides Israel with a comparative advantage in agricultural products, the market
place and in promoting agricultural related technological innovations. To be specific
Israel’s geographical and climate diversity result in Israel becoming a producer of a wide
variety of products and a testing ground for innovative technology, innovations and
novel/niche products for export. To sustain this advantage it is essential to maintain wide
and comprehensive research capabilities able to address unique problems in the various
areas of production and marketing with minimal lead times till implementation of
research results. This dictate is similar to that confronting other countries. In most, but
not all of them there are large agricultural sectors and consumer bases to support
necessary agricultural research. The viability of the agricultural sector is consequently
less dependant on exporting their products.
Israeli farmers and their representative organizations participate in funding the publicly
funded agricultural research. Their funding participation is facilitated via fees levied by
statuary marketing boards on marketed produce and regional funding by grower
associations. Their priority choices are expressed in joint committees which allocate the
“Public” funds according to overall needs and agreed criteria. The current composition of 5
the committees is a three way partnership – farmers, extension and researchers – each in
turn being a source of innovation, stakeholder and end user.
This framework is quite similar to the funding allocation practice in the US and Western
Europe. Gelb Kislev (1982) evaluated the impact of farmers within this framework by
detailing a series of committee allocations and the farmer’s point of view:
“Agricultural research is mostly a public undertaking. In Israel, as in many other countries,
farmers participate in the finance of research through taxes imposed by farm organizations on
the marketed products. Farmer contribution ranges from 8% of research outlay in tomatoes to
79% in cotton. Strength of organization and ease of collection were the major factors affecting
this share. In general, as inflation eroded the real value of government's finance, the farmers
increased their share.
Representatives of farmers' organization participate in the bodies that approve grants to
proposed research projects. It was found that the higher the share of farmers' finance the larger
the part of short-term research directed at immediate outcomes and the smaller the part of long-
term, more basic research. The tendency of the farmers to prefer short-term, applicable research
may reflect both their familiarity with practical problems and a comparatively high degree of risk
aversion. It is not clear how farmers' participation in the direction of research, which is based on
their financial contribution, affects the efficiency of resource allocation to the agricultural
science”.
Economic evaluation of public funding of agricultural research in general indicates a high
rate of return Evenson and Kislev (1975). A detailed review of Israeli funding for
agricultural research with overall benefit resulting from it and its breakdown is presented
in Levanon et al (2005). Overall benefit was calculated using a Cobb-Douglas production
function with labor and capital weighted .60 and .40 respectively.
Table 1. Overall benefit resulting from research
Change % Overall
benefit Capital Labor Output
Innovative Technology Crop
56.7 20.0 0.0 64.7 Early ripening Loquat
25.4 61.1 45.2 77.0 More trees per area unit Avocado
14.6 0.0 0.0 14.6 Sea transportation Flowers
17.8 29.6 -14.3 21.0 Roof cleaning Greenhouses
40.6 16.1 -5.0 44.0 Agro technique Mushrooms
30.9 5.3 -20.0 20.5 Economy of scale techniques Dairy
23.5 4.0 12.0 32.3 Feeding management Ornamental fish
29.7 16.7 -10.0 30.4 Improved harvesting Peanuts
Source: , Levanon et al (2005).
The review indicates that average annual increases in agricultural productivity ranged
from 8% between 1986 till 1990, 6.4% from 1991 till 1995 and 4.7% between 1996 and
2001 see Fig. 1. These rates were higher than those of other sectors of the economy. This
rate of change in productivity is due to rapid technological progress originating from
research and development in agriculture. The Source of this data is the Bank of Israel,
Research Department 1996, 2001 and Levanon et al (2005). 6
Agricultural research in Israel contributed to the viability and development of the rural
sector and public welfare. The public as beneficiaries were provided with high quality
and affordable agricultural produce and other public goods derived from agriculture.
These included environmental preservation, adopting agricultural practice to livelihood in
areas of national priorities – arid lands, frontiers and unique geography, an agricultural
framework for high school education and rural viability. Agricultural innovations
provided a basis for international scientific and economic collaboration, development of
an agricultural input industry with profitable exports and additional employment. A brief
summary of the R&D and funding structure is outlined in Appendix A.
2. The Role of the Chief Scientist
The role of the Israeli Chief Scientist in the management of publicly funded agricultural
research was defined by a governmental decision. It designates the Chief Scientist as the
scientific advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture, its Minister and its Director General.
The Chief Scientist is responsible to define the agricultural research priorities as guided
by the Ministry’s goals. These reflect national priorities. In detail “The government
attaches special importance to the role of Chief Scientist in all of the Government
Ministries that have a Chief Scientist. The Chief Scientist has to be a senior scientist
recognized and accepted by the scientific community, active as a researcher in areas
relevant to the ministry’s activities with authority and judgment abilities in areas of his
competence. The Chief Scientist will have the ability to coordinate between the scientific
community, other R&D entities, farmers and other sectors.”
As soon as the Ministry of Agriculture outlines the annual priorities the Chief Scientist is
expected to identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to achieve the
Ministry goals. Bridging these gaps is translated by the Chief Scientist into the research
goals to be achieved by the research funded by the Ministry. There are alternatives as
well which the Chief Scientist is expected to identify. The Chief Scientist accordingly
allocates the Ministry originating research funds (budgets) in a manner that will enable to
Overall productivity in the years 1986-2001
Industry
Agriculture Trade and
Services
Electricity
and water Construction
-4.0
-2.0
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
Average yearly rate of change (in percent)
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-2001
Fig.1
7
attain the Ministry designated goals. A long term overall research outline is defined and
updated yearly. It is important to note that funding agricultural research is not limited to
the public domain - around 15% of agricultural research is not publicly funded. The Chief
Scientist’s overview of all research priorities uniquely contributes to overall
synchronization. Whereas the public funding procedures provides guidelines for public
research priorities competitive bidding for allocation of public funds ensures effective
allocation of resources – funds and research prowess. The Chief Scientist provides an
impartial authority to guarantee this smooth interaction. The details of the system and
ICT’s contribution follow.
3. Detailing Information and Communication Technologies’ contribution
ICT are today a major tool in managing public research – they are detailed below in
context of the various stages of managing research. They are integrated in all stages of
research implementation and the reporting of research results to a wide range of users and
beneficiaries. ICT supported teams led by the Chief Scientist facilitate the research
program in the following general stages:
- Finalizing the research priorities and preparing the Call for research proposals;
- Collecting the proposals from scientists, regional research entities, regional councils,
various organizations and individuals:
- Monitoring the proposals and preparing them for evaluation;
- Consolidating proposal evaluations for allocation decision;
- Budgeting funds based on priorities and Benefit/Cost ratios;
- Preparing the contracting of the approved proposals with necessary guidelines;
- Allocating funds and financing the approved proposals;
- Follow up of ongoing research to ensure compliance with its approved program;
- Evaluation of research results and preparation of further professional recommendations
including possible updating and/or continuation research proposals;
In detail the process involves the following sequence:
3.1 Formulation of research goals according to identified knowledge gaps – with
participation pf scientists, extension, farmers, economists, marketing professionals and
others. These are cross checked against available results from various sources;
3.2 A call for participation – requests for submission of research proposals by “all
involved in agricultural research in Israel” including researchers from ARO, Universities,
regional research entities, regional councils and others. At present the calls are available
electronically;
3.3 Processing of applications and proposals (several hundred a year) and their inclusion
in the relevant information data base;
3.4 Evaluation of the proposals by a two stage process:
First stage – assessment of the potential contribution to Israeli agriculture
Second stage – assessment of the scientific merit and success probability including ex -
ante economic analysis.
The evaluation process involves hundreds of professionals: farmers, extension,
researchers, economists, planners, market professionals and others. The process 8
eventually prioritizes research proposals eligible for public funding. ICT provides the
Chief Scientist with tools to independently follow all the above stages of the evaluation
process and in turn optimize the review recommendations in terms of expected
agricultural productivity increase potential. It should be noted that the Chief Scientist’s
funding is mainly directed toward “applicative research” with “basic research” done
mainly via the academic entities. Funding for basic research is allocated based mainly on
scientific excellence. Funding for applicative research involves a multitude of
considerations. These include economic viability, innovativeness, contribution to the
public welfare, employment and sector enhancement, market comparative advantages,
effective (scarce) natural resource utilization, and more. ICT supported evaluation is
indispensable in incorporating and integrating these considerations
3.5 Managing implementation of the approved research proposals in the various venues
which includes:
• final approval of the chosen proposals and funding them;
• follow up during the research duration including decision making, changes and
termination mid study if and when necessary. The procedure involves
professional monitoring of the written scientific and fiscal annual reports for each
approved proposal till its completion – in addition to ongoing verbal updating and
frontal review by professional panels and periodic scientific inspections at the
research sites;
• follow up of the dissemination of the research results to all relevant “clients” and
their implementation.
This ongoing process is closely monitored with innovative ICT. Allocation is decided
competitively – a process facilitated by ICT. The unique contribution of ICT in this case
over the traditional pencil and paper reporting is focused on real time follow up, ongoing
iteration of economic alternatives and their consideration.
3.6 Managing the reporting of interim and final research results – verbally and formally
by dissemination of the results to end users – farmers via the extension service, extension,
researchers, others and publication. This process and its transparency is a major
beneficiary of ICT facilities.
In all these stages ICT plays a critical role by enabling the system to involve large
numbers of individuals in their various diverse capacities and exposing them to large data
bases. In turn ICT facilitates dissemination of the research results to the various potential
beneficiaries. In this case they include agricultural producers, extension, follow up
research, agricultural services and international collaborators. This collaboration has
become a mainstay of international collaboration as well – mainly sharing initiatives,
information, joint research activities and their results.
King and Scholar (1997) commented on the efficiency and benefits of the Israeli
procedures. They combine competitive evaluation and acceptance of research proposals
with and without institutional funding of the national scientific infrastructure. They
lauded the achievements of the multiple public and private funding sources: “Israel
provides an excellent example of cost effective research”, and “Israel shows quite
dramatically that a system can intertwine an intramural research with competitive grant 9
project funding to maximize research productivity and provide direction towards
predetermined national objectives." ICT were dominant in enabling effective decision-
making based on public priorities, monitoring their implementation and disseminating the
results.
4. Research management changes resulting from ICT Adoption
The following lists the changes and/or improvements enabled by ICT Adoption:
4.1 On line and real time addressing of large audiences efficiently via the Chief
Scientist’s Portal and individual e-mail contacts. Both in turn facilitate online accessing
of relevant information and individual contacts as and when required;
4.2 Computerized handling of the research proposals enable improved and efficient
decision making. The proposals can be efficiently categorized according to decision
making criteria. These include crop/subject differentiation, spatial orientation, innovation
category, scientific discipline, required research duration till implementation, scientific
and agricultural innovativeness, economic contribution, and more. In this case avoidance
of duplication, repetition and details of international study results availability are a prime
benefit in efficient funding, human capital allocation and their management.
4.3 Innovative dissemination technologies shorten end user result accessing lead times;
enable provision of more detailed and varied information, feedback and interpersonal
interactions. These in turn provide the Chief Scientist with an enhanced ability to monitor
and manage research in process and interact with the researchers.
4.4 An unsuccessful research project is not necessarily a failure. The knowledge gleaned
from the research might be useful in its own right and as a significant input to other
research. The most prevalent case is avoiding repetition of mistakes. In terms of
efficiently managing public funds ICT supported “organizational memory” effectively
ensures avoiding allocation of “soft money” (funding of research programs) just for
supporting “hard money” (existing scientific infrastructure and personnel). Making
“unsuccessful results from the past” common knowledge saves a lot of time and
resources. The existing ICT supported overview contributes to this aspect.
4.5 Allocation of human capital is a delicate issue. ICT enables the Chief Scientist to
anticipate human capital deficiencies, among others, in the various stages of various
studies and input the necessary support. The ICT supported proposal-evaluation may
indicate the need of a multidisciplinary approach to the extent of being a critical success
factor – again enabling the Chief Scientist to initiate remedial measures.
4.6 ICT potentially flattens various hierarchies – among them information accessing. The
various evaluation procedures described above employs hundreds of scientists and other
agricultural professionals. These ICT supported procedures provide access to all
information available and relevant to proposal evaluation and monitoring. This has yet to
be perfected, as detailed below, with facilities for providing access to all involved and
concerned.
10
5. Existing ICT supported tools and ICT being developed
It is impossible to imagine managing the Israeli public research funding system without
the extensive and advanced ICT described above. They include
5.1 An Internet site which enables interactive communication with a large and varied
users. The site provides proposal and report forms with instructions how to use them,
general background material describing Israeli agricultural State of the Art which
includes “crop pages” with specific data and economical evaluation for many of Israel’s
important crops. In addition the site provides calls for research proposals, addresses of
researchers, institutions, Agricultural organizations, sources of information and lists of
relevant contacts.
5.2 A Decision Support System (DSS) for managing and supervising research
implementation. In addition to continual data input the DSS itself is constantly upgraded
as needed insuring compatibility with the specifics of the various research projects. This
facilitates the ongoing management decision processes, management of the allocated
funds and supervision of subject matter content of the research in progress.
5.3 A Knowledge Base Management System (KBS) which enables decision makers
ongoing access to information while evaluating research proposals, monitoring the
implementation and assessing the benefits from the research results.
5.4 An advanced review and documentation center.
5.5 From a management point of view various operative ICT have yet to be incorporated.
One example is a paperless environment with electronic forms. This framework will
serve the whole decision making process before proposal selection and later while
monitoring the approved projects. The main constraints in realizing this plan are various
legal aspects involving commitments by the researchers, their respective
institutes/organizations and authorities. Solving these will enable realizing this planned
enhanced system efficiency.
5.6 An elaborate formal economic evaluation framework – which includes multiple
interactive economic evaluations and comparison of research alternatives and results.
6. ICT and interaction with research beneficiaries
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of ICT in enabling interaction with the End users,
beneficiaries, the public at large and international collaborators. As outlined above farmer
participation in deciding and funding the research priorities enables a “bottom up”
contribution to a traditional “top down” public funding allocation framework.
Participants include the research personnel (which in some cases can be the farmers or
other beneficiaries), the Institutes funding or contracting the studies, those involved in the
funding allocation process, endusers and the public at large. ICT facilitates real time
access to information in addition to:
6.1 the rate of knowledge and innovation transmission – with the Chief Scientist’s site
and e-mail leading the way;
11
6.2 ICT enabled public accessibility to available information – with identified demands
from publicly funded research that were larger and more varied than formerly assumed.
Experience indicates that previously unassociated individuals joined the Chief Scientist’s
clientele following publications on the Chief Scientist’s site.
6.3 Real time response to comments, questions and suggestions from the public in
general in addition to specifically involved research participants. This enables their
incorporation in Chief Scientist priority decisions and inclusion in ongoing interim
benefits.
7. Constraints in adopting ICT
Four categories of problems became urgent issues in effectively adopting ICT for
management of publicly funded research. They have yet to be routinely integrated in
research funding management methodology.
The first was a major problem in collaboration with unstructured frameworks such as
regional or random contributions from farmer organizations. The problems were a result
of the incompatibility of various organizational cultures and structures. Integrating
scrutinized public funding procedures with farmer requests unhindered by formal and
structured decision making frameworks occasionally made the whole research funding
process cumbersome, ineffective and counterproductive. ICT went a long way to smooth
out such problems by facilitating collaboration – sometimes under intense short term
problem solving necessities.
The second was ICT illiteracy – within the various aspects of digital divides. They are not
limited to “have – have not” and how to use a “computer/internet/computer supported
device” considerations. They include how to use ICT when accessible, how to integrate
ICT in the production chain, how to avoid information overload, “computer made”
mistakes, farmer “age” constraints, unnecessary “market push” hardware/software
updates, and more.
The third was the inflexibility of government formalities imposed on Ministry funding
and activities. A national Information Society (IS) initiative adapting government
procedures to ICT supported programs in now in place. In the long run these constraints
should be insignificant.
The fourth was adherence to international procedures, regulations and collaboration
agreements – all facilitated to a great extent by adoption of ICT supported procedures.
8. The Management Model
As outlined above the following benefits are the result of the ICT component of the
Israeli case study management-model and details:
• The overall ICT supported centralized public funding management enables
consolidation of team efforts under the Chief Scientist’s umbrella;
• The Chief Scientist ICT facilities enable a follow up of the allocation match up of
scarce human capital with Ministry priorities and subsequently identification of
future human capital needs; 12
• The various ICT supported aspects of this model enable a global approach to need
priorities, resources and goal attainment;
• The ICT supported management model enables integrating research efforts,
research result dissemination, end user feedback with overall public welfare;
• The Chief Scientist monitored research structure hierarchy is “flattened” by ICT
resulting in more efficient research results implementation;
• ICT enables the Chief Scientist to maintain an impartial mediating function
between research beneficiaries as a source of research funding and public interest
funding;
• The Chief Scientist overview can identify ICT subject matter research needs and
priorities – an issue with major potential cost overruns and missed opportunities;
• The Chief Scientist model is a focal point for identifying ICT spillover
opportunities.
9. ICT supported contacts with scientists abroad
Within Israel all the above is Hebrew specific with the Chief Scientist’s site being
accessible in Hebrew worldwide. This in turn however is a constraint for international
cooperation and collaboration. This impediment is characteristic of all independent
national governmental research in Israel and other non English reporting countries. Use
of mainly English is however standard for bi-national, multi-national and internationally
funded research programs included in the Israeli agricultural research programs. With this
in mind ICT can make a major contribution to making the Chief Scientist’s site at least
bi-lingual. This can go a long way to enhance international collaboration with Israel’s
agricultural research. In addition “Automatic” translations are getting better by the day.
Summary
The contribution of ICT to the management of publicly funded agricultural research can
be summarized in the following points:
• Accurate monitoring of fund allocation to specific studies, progress and use of
funds for each study and reporting of the research results;
• Efficient fund allocation re Ministry goals and priorities via a monitored
competitive comparison of proposals;
• Shorter lead times for implementing research results;
• Improved evaluation of study proposals vis a vis earlier studies in Israel and
international research to avoid duplication and ensure study relevance;
• Real time follow up of study progress with improved transparency;
• Efficient collation of study proposals and their evaluation for economic viability,
compatibility with Ministry priorities, scientific relevance, public sector interest
and available funds;
• Improved human interaction between regional, national and international study
participants;
• End user access to information re study proposals, funding allocation and study
progress 13
• In service communication efficiency – researchers, extension, farmers and
agricultural sector service providers;
• Improved collaboration and research integration with regional based research and
ongoing field trials;
• Improved collaboration between the various sources of “public funds” –
government, farmers, consumer groups, etc;
• Interaction with the various partners of the rural sector.
ICT supported issues yet to be improved include the following:
• Unified funding reporting and monitoring criteria;
• Faster and more efficient communication and software facilities;
• In service computer literacy competence;
• National ICT standardization;
• Improved internal study follow up and result implementation procedures;
• Improved real time research follow up transparency – mainly for end users – with
a provision for suitable cautionary advice.
References:
Alston, J., Norton, G., Pardey, P., 1995. Science under scarcity: Principles and practice for
agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Alston, J., Christian, J.,Jason, E.,Pardey, P., 1999. Paying for Agricultural Productivity. The
John Hopkins University Press.
Boyce, J., Evenson, R., 1975. Agricultural Research and Extension Programs. Agricultural
Development Council. Inc. pages 18 and 101.
CGIAR Science Council 2005. The enabling environment for research: a changing international
landscape. Science for Agricultural Development: Changing Contexts, New Opportunities, Rome,
Evenson, R., Kislev, Y., 1975. Agricultural Research and Productivity. Economic Growth Center,
Yale University. Pg. 15-31.
Eyal, S., 1996. “Feasibility of Investment in Agricultural R&D” M.Sc. Thesis Technion, (Heb)
Gelb, E., Parker, C., 2005. Is ICT Adoption still an Issue? Proceedings EFITA Conference, Villa
Real, Portugal.
King, J., Scholar, T., 1997. “Funding Public Research: An Analysis of International Agricultural
and U.S. Federal Agency Research Funding Mechanisms”
Gelb, E., Kislev, Y., 1982. “Farmers' Financing of Agricultural Research in Israel”. Research
Policy, 11, 321.
Griliches, Z., 1958.Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations.
Journal of Political Economy 66:419-31.
Kislev, Y. 1989. Economic Considerations in the Organization of Agricultural Research” (Heb.)
Levanon, D., Levkovitch, G., Rophe, T., 2005. Contribution of the Agricultural R&D in Israel.
Minstry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Israel.
Loebenstein, G., Putievsky, E., 2007. Agricultural research in Israel
Pardey, P.G. and N.M. Beintema, 2001. Slow Magic: Agricultural R&D a Century after Mendel.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI Food Policy Report (www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/fpr31.pdf)
Ruttan, V., 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. University of Minnesota Press.
14
Appendix A. Outline of Agricultural Research and Development (R&D) in Israel
Agricultural R&D in Israel is essentially publicly funded. The Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development (MOARD) through the Chief Scientist’s office plays a major role
in allocating these funds based on priorities synchronized with Ministry guided national
goals. The Chief Scientist's Bureau is situated within the Ministry, headed by the Chief
Scientist who reports directly to the Minister. Its role is to annually determine define the
national research goals and specific objectives according to the Ministry's policy. The
Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) is the main research body in Israel - being the
recipient of about 60% of all public R&D funds. It is an extension of the Ministry which
to a large extent funds and operates the nation-wide Agricultural Extension Service
(SHAHAM) as well. The main role of the Extension Service is to disseminate research
results, initiate transfer of knowledge and adoption of technological innovations.
SHAHAM is actively involved in applied research – field trials, feedback to the formal
research programs, identification of knowledge gaps and feedback from farmers to the
Ministry. Shaham experts participate in the development and implementation stages of
Agricultural R&D at national and regional levels.
The public funding of Agricultural R&D can be divided into two categories:
a. Infrastructure costs including ARO and SHAHAM salaries.
b. Research project budgets
Allocation of the publicly funded agricultural research budgets in Israel is basically
competitive, and open to the entire scientific community and the public.
The main publicly competitive funding sources available today are:
1. The Chief Scientist's Fund
2. Bi- and Multi-National Funds (US, EU, the Netherlands, etc.)
3. Funds allocated by the various national and regional farmers associations and the
agricultural production and marketing boards.
The following are the main bodies carrying out agricultural research in Israel:
a. The ARO (The Agricultural Research Organization alias The Volcani Center) which is
a semi-autonomous extension of MOARD. Its mission is to carry out research in all fields
of the agricultural production chain (FtoF – Farm to Fork) and animal husbandry
(excluding veterinary and animal health research). The ARO is also responsible for the
scientific management of all regional agricultural R&D (see below). The ARO is
managed by a director with permanent, government employed, staff.
b. The Kimron Veterinary Institute which is a semi-autonomous extension of MOARD.
This institute is responsible for all public veterinary and animal health research and
collaboration with the national Veterinary Services.
c. Universities and other formal research institutes which include among others the
Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which carries out the main
share of research carried out by the academic agricultural research institutions. Other 15
important ones are the Technion's Faculty of Agricultural engineering, Ben Gurion
University's Institutes of Applied Research, the Blaustein Desert Research Institute, Tel
Aviv University, and the Weitzman Institute of Science.
d. Regional R&D facilities which are mainly joint initiatives integrating farmer needs and
activities through their regional councils with experts from MOARD (ARO and
SHAHAM), the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and commercial
interests. Their significant role is to evaluate and implement formal research results,
adapt them to the multitude of Israel’s geographical conditions and promote viable
agriculture in often disadvantaged peripheral regions of Israel, jump start and encourage
local initiatives to alleviate knowledge gaps and shorten development timetables and
integrate peripheral areas of national priority into the mainstream of current agro-
technology and various markets.
e. Local, regional and national farmers' organizations contribute to the national funding
mechanism in addition to their participation in the formal MOARD framework. Their
R&D activities are undertaken mostly by the above institutes and the regional facilities.
An in-depth review of their impact is outlined in Gelb, Kislev 1982. In many cases their
efforts are geared to solve short term problems.
f. Private and commercial R&D. These include farmer initiated field trials, “model
(demonstration) farms”, trial and “observation” plots and other variations of “trial and
error” and innovation dissemination instruments.
Privately funded agricultural R&D is relative small compared in volume to other
developed countries. On average it usually does not surpass funding more than 15% of all
agricultural R&D. This has been changing due to increased exports of agricultural
equipment and inputs with Intellectual Property rights protection. These include for
example seeds, fertilizers, chemicals for plant and animal protection, irrigation
equipment, ICT based software and hardware, plastics and more. Israel’s comparative
advantage as an “agricultural field testing laboratory” results in revenue justifying
increased R&D investments in these areas. Investments sources include international
companies and venture capital funds.
The Chief Scientist employs all the above individuals, their respective research
infrastructures and services in various flexible combinations. Each and all are eligible for
competitive funding applications.
The Chief Scientist’s products are mainly public domain goods. They include among
others:
• More efficient use of existing technologies, production methods and their
marketing;
• Cheaper agricultural products and services;
• Cheaper agricultural inputs;
• New agricultural products and services;
• New agricultural production technologies;
• Methods for more efficient use of scarce natural resources;
• An improved agricultural research infrastructure
Translation - Arabic Management of Publicly Funded Agricultural Research
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 15. Registered at ProZ.com: Dec 2009.
Portfolio