A vision for enabling the sector to reach development and sustainability goals. Increasingly there is a consensus that a new vision for agriculture in SSA is required, articulated through various organizations. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa’s (FARA) vision is for African agriculture
to become vibrant and competitive in the international market, growing at a rate of at least 6% per annum by the year 2020 (FARA, 2007). NEPAD’s vision includes an agricultureled development that eliminates hunger, reduces poverty and food insecurity and includes improving access to markets to integrate more farmers into the market economy (NEPAD, 2004).

 Key tenets expressed by many individuals involved in policy making, are decentralization and the adoption of a value chain approach, embedded within an environment of good governance. Definitions of good governance invariably include elements of democratic decentralization, enforcement of law and order—including the elimination of corruption, properly enforced legal frameworks—and participatory, transparent and equitable processes (UNESCAP, 2007). An environment of good governance for the generation and application of AKST would include empowerment of farmers to take on a larger role in agricultural research and development; activities to ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups such as women and pastoralists; decentralization of economic and political structures of governance; promotion of the principles of subsidiarity and plurality in service provision; use of local and traditional knowledge, and private and public sector skills; and well defined and enforced property rights.

 Given that many SSA countries are relatively small in terms of geography and population, with many having similar sociocultural and agroecological similarities across borders, a regional approach to value chain development has been advocated (UNECA, 2007). To African and other investors in agriculture and AKST, regional integration in the context of value chain development would allow for the much needed spatial and population sizes critical to viable production, processing, distribution and market expansion. Increased trade opportunities associated with regional integration, in particular, would help to facilitate private sector involvement and ultimately, market led productivity and production improvements. Given that Africa has, during the 2006 African Food Security Summit, identified regional strategic commodities, using these commodities as entry points for a regional approach to value chain development offers an opportunity to realize the benefits of this new vision to agricultural development in Africa.

 The current institutional environment in many SSA countries is not always conducive to developing the agricultural sector. At the country level, AKST is often poorly represented in negotiations with finance ministers and other key players. This situation is exacerbated by agriculture often being represented in multiple ministries, which makes national coordination tricky even for the agricultural sector, let alone links between agriculture and other sectors. Countries have two broad options, to attempt to coordinate agricultural and AKST activities at the national level or to coordinate at the level of decentralization. As coordination occurs at a more decentralized level, the complexity of developing a national strategy can be reduced.

       Arguments have been put forward that the key role for governments and agriculture in SSA is not about public expenditure, but rather about policy making and regulation. Agriculture is primarily market-based. Even in SSA many of the small-scale producers who are currently producing for home consumption would be involved in the market if they were not constrained by, for example, high transaction costs or lack of credit. The role of government becomes one of correcting for market failures and distributional objectives.

 The current and likely future of AKST in SSA, at least in the short term, is one of unreliable funds for AKST generation, access, development and extension and inadequate human capacity. When compared with other regions, spending on the agricultural sector in SSA does not appear disproportionately low. Indeed, total public spending on agricultural R&D as a percentage of agricultural output (agricultural GDP)—the intensity ratio—in SSA (48 countries) in 1995 was 0.79%, greater than the average for all developing countries (0.62%) though lower than the global average. However, the trend has been downward in SSA. Spending in SSA grew by only 0.82% in the 1990s as compared with 1.25% in the 1980s, and the intensity ratio in
2000 was down to 0.7%. The World Bank recommends a ratio of 2%, whereas other organizations have suggested 1% as more realistic (Beintema and Stads, 2006). There is considerable variation among countries in SSA, from 0.20% or lower in Gambia and Niger, to over 3.0% in Botswana, Mauritius, and South Africa (Beintema and Stads, 2006). To reach either recommended level requires increased spending in most countries. Given that the number of research staff in the region (sample of 27 countries) has been growing at approximately 4% per year over the past three decades, average spending per scientist has declined by about half over this period.

Donor funds. Traditionally donors have taken an areabased approach to their agricultural activities. Yet a value chain perspective on agricultural development lends itself more to a commodity-based focus that would fit better with a value chain approach and use limited funds more effectively. At the regional level, AKST is almost always a standalone activity in donor programs rather than being part of an integrated research-development-application approach (Rothschild, 2005). Effective donor involvement is further constrained by a project-oriented approach, including limited time commitments and a lack of coordination (Tripp, 2003). The Commission for Africa has advocated for increased aid to SSA—that is untied, predictable, harmonized and linked to the decision making and budget processes of the country receiving it—for an increased growth rate and progress towards achieving development goals (www .commissionforAfrica.org; Commission for Africa, 2005). Indeed, as direct budgetary support through country offices of donor agencies becomes the preferred mode of overseas development assistance, the constraints to effective donor involvement may be reduced. Poor representation of agriculture at the national level may become an increasing problem (Rothschild, 2005) unless mechanisms are in place to raise the profile of agriculture and availability of funding for AKST.