Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development

Vol. 6(3), pp. 865-887, October, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477

Research Article
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of
ERITREA
Gebremichael Kibreab Habtom, PhD
Department of Management and Public Administration, College of Business and Social Sciences, P.O. Box 12492,
Adi Keih, Eritrea
E-mail: gmichaelkibreab@gmail.com; Fax: 291-1-126422; Tel: 291-1-7146534

This study, analyzes the challenges of national agricultural research institutions (NARIs) in
Eritrea from organizational perspective. It examines the institutional and research capacities,
and the human and financial capabilities of NARIs. The data for this study was taken from a study
conducted in June 2017 in the Ministry of Agriculture. The study used both survey and case
study methodologies. The study seeks to answer the following two research questions: what are
the challenges of NARIs in Eritrea? What can be learned from the experience of SSA countries
NARIs? In this study, it is found that NARI has inadequate human, material and financial
resources and limited research agenda. NARI has shortage of operational funding and trained
personnel in specialized areas, which require higher education level. The current agricultural
research system under NARI is less responsive to the various challenges and constraints of
agricultural production and development in Eritrea. NARI should focus on participatory demand
driven research methodology and integrate the needs of small-scale and commercial farmers,
and improve its management, planning, monitoring and evaluation systems, including physical
and human capital, and its research agenda. There is a need for the development of strategy that
integrates elements that reinforce and build the present capacity of the agricultural research
system.

Keywords: Agricultural Research, Eritrea, Sub-Saharan Africa, Decentralization, Agricultural Technology Generation

INTRODUCTION

Eritrea is an East African country, which is bordered with
Ethiopia in the south, with Sudan in the north and the west,
with Djibouti in the southeast, and with the Red Sea in the
east. Eritrea got independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after
30 years of armed struggle. Eritrea’s population is
estimated to be 5.2 million, with an average life expectancy
of 60.4 years and a literacy rate of 67.5% (UNDP Report,
2009).
Agriculture is the most important sector in Eritrea’s
economy in terms of food and nutrition security,
employment, income, raw materials for industry and
exports to regional and international markets. It is a large
sector that currently employs, on a full-time basis about
70% of the Eritrean people (almost all rural
employment).The crop and livestock sector employs the
vast majority of Eritrea’s population and provides the basis
for food security. Although agriculture has the potential to
sustain its reputation as the primary driver of economic
growth and poverty eradication only 3.6% of total area of
the country is under cultivation, about 56% is used for
grazing and 33% is considered barren (Rena 2004).
Domestic production remains well below consumption.
Food security depends heavily on imported commodities,
of which food commodities contribute nearly one quarter of
the country’s total imports.
A combination of adverse factors, such as: erratic rainfall,
rotational land-holding system, traditional farming
methods, inadequate research and extension services
both in terms of expertise and resources; insufficient credit
facilities; pest and disease infestation and inadequate

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Gebremichael KH. 866
supply of inputs; degradation of the natural vegetation
cover and associated soil erosion, are induced low
agricultural production in Eritrea. As a result, agricultural
output has barely exceeded 80% of annual food
requirement even in relatively good years of adequate
rainfall and bumper harvest, which are punctuated by
cyclical periods of drought and precariously low input. Due
to this agriculture contributes only 12–15% of the national
GDP (Rena, 2004).
The National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) was
expected to play a key role in agricultural development in
Eritrea by conducting scientific research on biotechnology,
aquaculture, animal breeding, forestry, agronomy,
livestock management, livestock disease, food science
and technology, insect and pest management, plant
pathology, plant genetics, soil conservation, and
horticulture. This can be done by creating effective
linkages with universities and colleges, NGOs, and
international and regional institutions and non-African
advanced research institutes working in Africa.
The objective of this study is, therefore, to assess the
challenges of agricultural research institutions in Sub-
Saharan African countries in general and in Eritrea in
particular. The study tries to answer the following two
research questions: what are the challenges of the
National Agricultural Research Institutions in Eritrea?
What can we learn from the experience of Sub-Saharan
African countries National Agricultural Research
Institutions?
Conceptual Framework: Approaches for Agricultural
Research
After three decades of low investment in agricultural
research in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), African
governments now have a range of new opportunities for
the financing and conducting of agricultural research. The
structural adjustment and market liberalization of the
Table 1: Approaches to Agricultural Research service Provision and Financing
Variable
Public
Agricultural Research Service Provision
Private
Source: Habtom, (2017).
As noted by Roseboom and Flaherty (2016) about 72
percent of the total research institutions in 2011 in Africa
were owned by the government. In Africa government
research agencies still represent by far the largest
component of National Agricultural Research Systems
(NARSs) in terms of the number of full time equivalents
(FTEs) researchers employed. The higher-education
sector’s share of researchers expanded substantially in
the past couple of decades from 16 percent in 1991 to 25
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
1990s have generated four approaches for financing and
conducting of agricultural research. These are :(1)
agricultural research is conducted and financed by the
government (pure public system); (2) agricultural research
is conducted by the government but financed by the private
sector (public-private partnership); (3) agricultural
research is publicly financed but conducted by the private
sector (contracting out to the private sector); and (4)
agricultural research is conducted and financed by the
private sector. There are also a mix of public-private
financing of agricultural Research and Development
(R&D) projects. In many SSA countries agricultural R&D is
primarily funded by national governments and donors, with
variations across countries. Some countries continue to be
highly donor dependent while others are funded almost
completely through government allocations. According to
Beintema and Stads (2014) SSA NARIs are classified the
into four categories: 1) as a research department within a
ministry of agriculture or equivalent (e.g., in Botswana); 2)
as a semi-autonomous government institute with the
flexibility to determine key internal policies (e.g., in Kenya);
3) as multiple agencies focusing on specific agricultural
subsectors (e.g., in Sudan); and 4) as numerous institutes
organized under a council (e.g., in Ghana).
Table 1 demonstrates the four approaches for financing
and conducting of agricultural research. Each approach
has its own merits and limitations. In cell 1 agricultural
research service is provided by government owned
national research institutions and financed by government
through general taxation. In this case the government has
generally taken on responsibility for agricultural research
and frequently used civil service bureaucracies as the
instrument. The government owns all the relevant assets,
and resources which are allocated through instructions
given to agents through a managerial hierarchy. In cell 1
government funding base with national government
ownership is needed to promote the sustainability of
supranational agricultural R&D and overcome the problem
of donor dependency.
Agricultural Research Financing
Public Private
1 2
3 4
percent in 2011 (ibid). In many developing countries
government owned research institutions, however,
constrained by shortage of financial resources, the fact
that frequently a relatively small share of the total
government budget is allocated for agricultural research.
In cell 2 agricultural researches service is provided by
government research institutions but the cost is levied to
agricultural research service beneficiaries (individual
farmers and private commercial companies).In this case

private companies either outsource their research to public
agencies or collectively fund a specialized, nonprofit
research agency through a levy or membership fee. Using
levies to fund agricultural research, however, has a
number of practical limitations. The most obvious
limitations are the feasibility and cost of collecting levies in
smallholder agriculture. In general, collecting levies is only
cost-effective for commercial crop and livestock products
that pass through a small number of processing or
marketing points. This is obvious for most export-oriented
products, but many opportunities also exist within
domestic markets, especially where production is largely
commercial and geographically concentrated (Brennan
and Mullen, 2003; Kangasniemi, 2003). Examples in Africa
include irrigated rice, wheat, and sugarcane and, in many
cases, some partly commercial products, such as
groundnuts, poultry, and dairy. The role of privately funded
and implemented agricultural research in SSA is still very
limited. Private sector funding will only be possible where
there is sufficient incentive for profit. For example, a seed
company could fund breeding research by a NARI or
university if they will retain exclusivity to commercialize the
developed germplasm.
Private companies in SSA employ agricultural researchers
on a permanent basis, but these are few. A complicating
factor is that private companies tend to keep information
about their research efforts confidential and often have no
legal obligation to report on them, with the result that
information on private, intramural agricultural research
tends to be incomplete (Roseboom and Flaherty, 2016).
This is because the intellectual property regimes in many
SSA countries are for most part not supportive of such
ventures.
In cell 3 public financing is combined with privately
conducted agricultural research services. The separation
of functions is achieved by contracting agricultural
research services. Private research, however, remains
constrained by small markets, weak public-sector research
programs, a shortage of scientists and technicians, and a
difficult business environment, including competition with
government corporations and weak intellectual property
rights. In this case there is a need for the introduction of
new funding modalities, such as competitive mechanisms
and private contract-based research or public–private co-
financing of research. This requires the necessary
institutional arrangements and flexibility to mobilize
multisource funding, as well as a more entrepreneurial
attitude. An added benefit is that such funding instruments
can be used to improve coordination and alignment among
agencies.
In cell 4 agricultural research service is financed and
provided by the private sector. Private agricultural
research is generally funded by three groups of industries:
agricultural input industries, production agriculture, and the
agricultural processing industry. These firms may finance
and conduct their research in-house, outsource research
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 867
to research organizations or universities, or finance
research collectively with other firms. In Africa, the three
main combinations of industry and research organizations
are in-house research conducted by input firms, in-house
research conducted by large plantations or agricultural
processing firms, and collective research undertaken by
producers and processors. In small countries, of which
Africa have many, the small size of both the agricultural
sector-in terms of Agricultural GDP- and of modern input
markets significantly limits opportunities for private firms to
profit from investing in agricultural research. The level of
adoption of improved inputs in SSA is far below other
regions of the world. For example, the 2008 World
Development Report showed that the adoption of
improved crop varieties in Africa in 2000–2005 was
considerably lower than in Asia and Latin America for all
major staple crops except cassava (Walker et al. 2014).
The role of privately funded and implemented agricultural
research in SSA is still very limited. The private sector in
SSA is the least developed source of sustainable financing
for agricultural R&D (Lynam, et. al., 2012). Cultivating such
private-sector funding involves developing a more explicit
market demand for the products of agricultural research,
which are also often associated with enhanced intellectual
property rights. Private companies in SSA employ
agricultural researchers on a permanent basis, but these
are few. A complicating factor is that private companies
tend to keep information about their research efforts
confidential and often have no legal obligation to report on
them, with the result that information on private, intramural
agricultural research tends to be incomplete (Roseboom
and Flaherty, 2016). To enhance the role of private
research institutions NARIs must interact with an
expanding private sector and an increasing array of
farmers’ and civil society organizations that are important
partners in identifying problems and validating
technologies. Nowadays Africa is entering a phase of rapid
commercialization of its food and agricultural system that
provides major new opportunities for privately conducted
research and development. Indeed, unless both public and
private investment in agricultural research and
development is stepped up sharply, lack of
competitiveness will prevent Africa from seizing these
opportunities. Rapid growth of domestic and regional
markets offers the most attractive opportunities for African
commercial agriculture. Assuming that Africa meets a 6
percent growth rate (which many countries are already
doing), rising consumer incomes and the projected
doubling of the urban population in Africa by 2030 imply
that urban food markets will quadruple in the next 20 years
(World Bank 2013).
Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa
Agriculture remains the backbone of many African
economies. It accounts for 57% of total employment, 17%
of gross domestic product (GDP) and 11% of export
earnings in Africa (FAO 2005). But agricultural productivity
Gebremichael KH. 868
on the continent continues to raise serious concerns. At
present, many countries barely achieve 1% annual growth
in agricultural output. Why is productivity so low in Africa?
Because agricultural growth in Africa is generally achieved
by cultivating more land and by mobilising a larger
agricultural labour force with very little improvement in
yields and barely any change in production techniques
(NEPAD, 2013). In Africa production is increasing, but
productivity is stagnating. The African model of agricultural
growth differs significantly from the dynamics seen in Asia
or South America. Agricultural growth in Asia over the last
30 years was due in large part to intensive agriculture
(improved varieties, greater use of inputs and irrigation),
while in South America it was due to a significant increase
in labour productivity caused by the gradual mechanisation
of agriculture (ibid). This has not been the case in Africa,
where there has been very little improvement in production
factors (labour and land), except in North Africa and, to a
lesser extent, in West Africa.
In Africa agricultural productivity is low because research
was not able to solve the most limiting factors to increased
production. SSA has benefited less from agricultural
research and development than other regions of the world
because both investment in the development of new
technologies and the potential for technology spillovers
from elsewhere are low (Lynam, et. al., 2016).Most
national agricultural research programs in Africa do not
have the capacity to absorb research results that could be
useful to their circumstances (Diouf, 1989). Skills in
agricultural and agribusiness development remain a
fundamental factor for increasing productivity, profitability
and competitiveness of Africa’s agriculture (Lynam, et al.,
2016). There are four key constraints affecting the
performance of agricultural research in SSA (USAID
2013): (1) inadequate policies; (2) weak organization and
management; (3) insufficient financial, human, and
physical resources; and (4) poor collaboration and
coordination. Due to this SSA countries become
consumers of technologies developed by high-income
countries (which are often no longer appropriate to their
needs), or borrowers of technologies from emerging
economies instead of developing their own technologies.
An assessment of African NARSs by FARA in 2005 (FARA
2006) revealed that 54 percent of the agricultural research
agencies surveyed in SSA lacked a long-term strategic
plan. Of those that had a strategic plan, about a quarter
had no implementation plan. Moreover, 38 percent of the
respondents rated their capacity to undertake research
priority setting, program planning, and monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) as inadequate. Another often-cited
constraint to the functioning of African NARSs is the
weakness of institutional linkages within and between
national and supranational entities, between agricultural
research and agricultural extension, and between
research providers and end users.
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Lack of financial resources is another constraint for African
NARIs. Although a number of countries have increased
their support to agricultural R&D, overall investment levels
in most SSA countries remain below the levels required to
sustain viable agricultural R&D programs that address
current and future priorities (Lynam, et. al., 2012). A recent
study by the Inter Academy Council (IAC 2004a) observes
that the impact of investments in agricultural research has
been relatively weaker in Africa than elsewhere, a finding
supported by the United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa (UNECA 2005, 9): IAC (2004a) found that
agricultural research does not rank high in a majority of
African Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)-the
superficial version of participatory economic policy making
in Africa, pushed through by the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund (World Bank and IMF 2002;
Brautigam 2004). Greater ownership of the development
assistance agenda in support of agricultural R&D by
leaders, agricultural ministries, research organizations,
farmers’ associations, and other constituencies in SSA is
needed. Experiences from other developing countries-
most notably China, India, and Brazil suggest that more
assertive priority setting, resource allocation, and R&D
management at both national and sub-national levels are
feasible and desirable (Lynam, et. al., 2016). However, this
can only occur if SSA countries open the door to a wider
discussion on the opportunities and limits of development
assistance to agricultural R&D.
Most African NARIs are still in the phase described by
Rothwell (1994) as the first generation of innovation: the
push for technology. This was the foundation of the
industrial revolution; innovation came with new,
technologically advanced products and means of
production, which were pushed into the market
(Terziovskim, et. al. 2001). This approach to innovation is
largely supply driven. In African agricultural research and
development systems, it has seen scientists developing
plant varieties and production techniques that are then
disseminated to farmers as end users. Increasingly,
donors have been prompting these systems to move into
the second generation of innovation: the need or demand
pull (Chema, et. al., 2003). The focus at this stage is
consumer or market determined needs. Thus, nearly every
African NARI now has a market-orientation approach,
which typically manifests itself in the creation of
socioeconomics and postharvest departments.
While African NARIs have been grappling with mastering
this second generation of innovation, much of the world
has already moved through the third, fourth, and fifth
generations (see Rothwell 1994). The first generation was
supply driven; second generation is need or demand
driven; the third generation combines the first and second
generations in a push–pull relationship (Terziovski, et.al.
2001, 2). In turn, the fourth generation integrates
marketing, R&D activity, suppliers, and leading customers
whilst the fifth generation involves broader systems
integration and networking models, including strategic

partnerships with suppliers and customers, and
collaborative marketing and research arrangements
(Terziovski, et. al., 2001). Africa must leapfrog to the fifth
generation of innovation. As noted by Beintema & Stads
(2008) effective innovation in SSA, which is systemically
transformative requires efficient and effective agricultural
research and advisory systems with appropriate research
capacity and infrastructure.
Africa’s agricultural research and development system
remained fragmented. Universities and faculties of
agriculture developed independently of the research
system so that research was limited to station trial and
organized along disciplinary lines, and little effort was
made to link university research with agricultural research
institutes, national extension services, the private sector,
and users-especially farmers and consumers (Chema, et.
al., 2003; Lynam and Elliott 2004). Even within Ministries
of Agriculture, which were the primary focus for agricultural
research, different divisions tended to develop their own
capacities and compete with other departments rather
than following a demand-driven agenda and letting that
agenda drive expansion (Lynam and Elliot 2004). Recent
studies show that many publicly funded agricultural
organizations in Africa-such as agricultural research
organizations, universities, extension services, and farmer
organizations-are facing a crisis of confidence among key
stakeholders arising out of the failure to deliver the desired
development impact (Ashby et al. 2000; Biggs and Smith
1998; Chema, et. al., 2003; Hall and Nahdy 1999;
Paterson, et. al., 2003). This failure is attributable to the
supply-driven agenda of NARSs (lack of responsiveness
to clients and inadequate participation by end-users and
other stakeholders); obstructive intra- and inter-
organizational boundaries (inadequate linkages,
partnerships, and coordination within and between
organizations); lack of inter- or multi-disciplinarity; weak
monitoring, evaluation, and performance cultures
(including lack of institutionalized organizational learning);
and precarious resource conditions stemming from
overdependence on donor and state funding and lack of
innovative mechanisms to finance physical, human, and
capital resources. These factors have resulted in
organizational inefficiencies and management problems,
decreased investor confidence, low staff morale and
motivation, high staff turnover, and brain drain (leading to
human capacity problems). The ultimate result is limited
research, service, and outreach outputs and,
unsurprisingly, limited development impact (IAC 2004a).
The contribution of universities to agricultural knowledge
creation and diffusion in many developing countries has
been limited for several reasons: teaching, which absorbs
most if not all the available human resource capacity; the
lack of adequate facilities and funding for agricultural
research and extension activities; the lack of critical mass
due to the relatively low numbers of qualified faculty staff;
inadequate links to users and potential clients; and
inadequate linkages with other agricultural research and
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 869
extension providers, causing overlap and duplication
instead of complementary roles (FAO 1996; Beintema, et.
al., 1998; Idachaba, 2003; Michelsen et al. 2003; Eicher
2004; Oniang’o and Eicher, 2004. Despite having better
trained staff, lecturers in colleges of agriculture in SSA,
spend only a modest proportion of their time on agricultural
research (10–30%).
For a long time, many African NARIs have relied on
government and donor funding, which worked relatively
well in the era of supply-driven agendas. However,
changes in the role of the state and national priority setting
and the perceived failure of many public service providers
have resulted in reduced state financing and increasing
emphasis on efficiency, sustainability, and cost
effectiveness (Lynam and Elliot 2004). Many NARIs are
increasingly looking to diversify their funding sources. In
countries such as Kenya and Uganda (Baguma 2006;
Murithi and Wabule 2006), this has taken the form of block
grants (“core” funding from the government), matching
grants, loans, self-generated revenues (raised from
product levies and services rendered), and competitive
grant systems. But the need for innovative sources of
funding-for example, co-financing or cost-sharing
arrangements, contract research, outsourcing, public–
private partnerships and privatization-persists (Heemskerk
and Wennink 2005).
The design of the agricultural research and development
system in SSA must take into account issues such as the
wide scope of research needs and heterogeneity in agro-
ecological and socioeconomic conditions (Lynam, et. al.,
2016). These factors affect the efficiency of agricultural
research, especially in the context of limited government
budgets and reliance on highly variable donor aid flows.
Increasing national agricultural research and development
investment remains a critical prerequisite for achieving
balanced agricultural growth in SSA. What SSA needs is
rural capacity that incentivizes the delivery and uptake of
new technologies and motivates the adaptation and
innovation of these technologies across the extraordinary
heterogeneity of SSA smallholder farming systems (ibid).
Such an evolving rural innovation system enables farmers,
agribusiness firms, input and service suppliers, research
institutes, and other public-sector institutions to
continuously identify technology bottlenecks and to
generate adequate solutions to overcome them.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
The data for this study was taken from a study conducted
in June 2017 in the Ministry of Agriculture under the
supervision of Eritrean Center for Organizational
Excellence, which was financed by the European Union.
The study used both survey and case study methodologies
to examine the challenges of the agricultural research
Gebremichael KH. 870
institutions in Eritrea. The case study and survey methods
are not mutually exclusive; hence, one could have a case
study within a survey or a survey complementing a case
study (Hakim, 1987; Dancey and Reidy, 1999). A key
strength of the case study method is that the use of
multiple sources and techniques in the data gathering
process, e.g. documents review, interviews, focus group
discussions and observations.
Source of Data
Data was collected from primary and secondary sources.
Primary data was collected through interviews, focus
group discussions, questionnaire and personal
observation. Interview was conducted with 20 key
informants (3 department heads, 9 division heads, 5 unit
heads and 3 regional agricultural extension staff).
Furthermore, 135 questionnaires were distributed to
selected Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) staff of which 5
questionnaires were missing. Secondary data was
collected from documents, publications, and annual
reports of the MoA; reports of the World Bank, and FAO.
The secondary data was collected from various sources
inter alias relevant books and journals, international and
national agricultural reports, published and unpublished
documents. The rationale for using multiple sources of
data is the triangulation of evidence. Triangulation is a
combination of research methodologies in the study of the
same phenomena (Habtom, 2014). It increases the
reliability of the data and the process of gathering
information. Triangulation helps to analyze and compare
data collected through interviews, questionnaires,
observations and secondary sources.
Sample Size
The samples were randomly selected from 204 employees
of NARI. The sample includes agricultural extension
workers, agricultural researchers, national plant and
animal health laboratory staff, project coordinators,
planning and statistics staff, regulatory service department
staff, forestry and wild life department staff, division and
unit heads. The study adopted Guilford and Fruchter
(1973) formula to determine the sample size, which is: N/
(1+μ2N), Where N is the size of the population, and μ is
alpha = 0.05.
Based on Fruchter’s formula the sample size is
determined as follows:
Sample size (S) = 204/ (1+0.052 x 204) = 204/ (1+0.025
x 204) = 204/ (1.51) = 135
Based on the formula the sample size is 135. The sample
comprises 90 male and 40 female and about 41% of the
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
respondents have more than 30 years of work experience.
Education wise about 58% of the respondents have
bachelor’s degree and above.
Data Analysis
The study used descriptive and explanatory case study
methods in the analysis of primary and secondary data
sources. The results are presented in absolute figures and
percentages, and explained in detail through deductive
reasoning.
Overview of Eritrea’s National Agricultural Research
Institutions
The Eritrean National Agriculture Research Institute
(NARI) was established in 2003. It is a semi-autonomous
unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and by far the largest
agricultural research institute in Eritrea, accounting for
over 76% of the country’s Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
agricultural research and development staff and
expenditures in 2011. The institute has adopted an area-
specific or strong commodity-based approach in
accordance with the government’s policy of making
agricultural research more impact-oriented. Eritrea’s
agricultural policy is derived from the need to achieve the
national development objectives of increasing household
incomes, food and nutrition security and employment as
stipulated by the Sectorial Development Plan in which
agriculture is identified as one of the primary drivers of
growth in the economy.
NARI operates three regional research stations, and seven
substations that concentrate primarily on crops, livestock,
natural resource management, and agricultural
engineering. There are also two other government
agencies involved in Agricultural Research and
Development. One is in the Ministry of Fisheries’
employing 2.4 FTEs in 2011. The division conducts limited
research on fisheries and natural resources. The other is
Hamelmalo Agricultural College (HAC) employing 38 FTEs
in 2011, conducts agricultural research on a range of
issues, primarily including crop genetic improvement,
horticulture, and livestock. An agricultural research system
consists of a number of elements such as organisations,
funders, service providers and clients. For Eritrea NARIs
the key categories include Government (national and
regional), parastatals, higher education and development
institutes, private/business sector, farmer organisations,
civil society and financial institutions. Table 2
demonstrates the roles and responsibilities of each
categories.
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 871

Table 2: Current stakeholders in the agricultural R&D system

Categories Roles and responsibilities
Government: Development and implementation of policy and legislation
-Ministry of Agriculture (National Agricultural on agriculture, environment, biodiversity, agro-forestry,
Research Institute, and National Plant and water, science and technology and the promotion of
Animal Health Laboratory) innovation.
-Ministry of Marine Resources and Fisheries
Parastatal Scientific research, generation and transfer of technology (or
-Eritrean Livestock and Crop Corporation, promotion of the application of knowledge and innovation) in
and Grain Board of Eritrea agriculture, biodiversity, agro-processing, socio-economic
development and impact.
Higher education and Curriculum development, training, research (pure and
development institutions adaptive) and transfer of technology.
-Colleges of Agriculture and College of
Marine Sciences
Organised agriculture Transfer of technology; provision of a commercial base for
-Agricultural Cooperatives, private/business procurement, advocacy for policy, priority setting, facilitate
sector, and farmer organisations,) resource allocation.
Civil society/Community based Development, training, capacity strengthening, adaptive
organisations research, transfer of technology, support services.
Financial institutions Lending and mortgages, socio-economic research and
-National Insurance Corporation of Eritrea general financing to the agricultural sector.
and Saving and Micro Credit Programs)
Source: Field data (2017)

In Eritrea NARI has direct responsibility for variety
screening, evaluation and maintenance, producing
breeder and foundation seeds, and training of the private
sector in the production of foundation seed for an eventual
transfer of that responsibility to them. It collaborates with
HAC in variety screening, evaluation and dissemination to
assure synergy. NARI consists of five commodity-based
divisions (natural resources management, crop
improvement, livestock research, agricultural engineering,
and genetic resource management). The major functions
of NARI include setting national priorities, plans and
programs; harmonization of agricultural research activities
of the national agricultural research system constituent
institutions and institutes in the public, civil society, private
sectors and farmer organizations; promoting delivery of
quality and efficient agricultural research services;
providing guidelines for the delivery of quality agricultural
research; providing technical guidance to local
governments in agricultural research matters; providing
leadership and advocacy for the promotion, protection and
development of agricultural research; identifying and
solving producer and natural resource problems;
conducting applied and adaptive research using
appropriate technology and information; and establishing
linkages and cooperation with national and international
research centers.
NARI has full authority to manage its financial and human
resource capacities, while remaining under the umbrella of
the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). NARI collaborates
closely with a number of centers under the Consultative
Group of International Agricultural Research, most notably
the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the
Dry Areas, the International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics, the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Centre, and the International Potato Centre.
In addition, being a member of the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central
Africa, NARI maintains close linkages with other national
agricultural research institutes in the sub-region. In
collaboration with the aforementioned agricultural
research institutions NARI is charged with the task of
identifying the needs and priorities of developing countries
for more inclusive and environmentally-sustainable
development pathways, and of setting out the
partnerships, mechanisms, innovative pathways and
investments needed to translate the products of
agricultural research into larger and quicker development
impacts.
During the last twenty years, however, NARI suffers from
inadequate human, material and financial resources due
to war and unfair economic sanctions imposed on Eritrea.
As can be seen from table 3, total spending for agricultural
research decreased by 18.66% during 2000-2011 but the
total number of agricultural researchers grew by close to
60%. Given that more than half of its researchers are
under 41 years old, and 60% of them hold only BSc
degrees, Eritrea has one of the of the youngest agricultural
researchers in Africa.

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Gebremichael KH. 872

Table 3: Eritrea’s Agricultural Research & Development Indicators Factsheet

Total Agricultural Research Spending 2000 2008 2011
Nakfa (Million constant 2005 prices) 40.2 16.5 7.5
PPP (Million constant 2005 prices) 6.4 2.6 1.2
Total number of public agricultural researchers
Full-time Equivalent (FTEs) 74.4 106.9 116.8
Agricultural research intensity
Spending as a share of agricultural GDP 2.15% 0.64% 0.30%
FTE researcher per 100,000 farmers 6.83 7.27 7.35
Source: Beintema, et al., (2014)

Eritrea’s agricultural research and development spending
is currently well below the levels required to sustain its
needs; in fact, spending as a share of agricultural GDP fell
by more than half between 2008 and 2011 and is among
the lowest in Africa. About 63% of the funding sources of
NARI are government, donors contribution is 37%
(Beintema, et al., 2014). Agricultural research and
development spending fell dramatically in Eritrea during
2008–2011 as a result of declining donor funding to NARI,
the country’s main agricultural research agency, and
international economic sanctions imposed by the United
Nations in 2009. Due to this NARI’s agricultural R&D
spending is currently well below the levels required to
conduct effective agricultural research. Unjustified
economic sanctions on Eritrea had prevented NARI from
purchasing much-needed research equipment and
renovating its laboratories. Increased and consistent levels
of funding that cover salaries, operating costs, and capital
investments over the long term are needed to make
national agricultural research institute more productive in
Eritrea.
RESULTS
In this section, data was analyzed through qualitative and
quantitative research methodologies. The results are
presented in percentages and absolute figures (see table
4). Questioner, interview, observation and focus group
discussions are used to investigate primary data sources.
Secondary data sources are interpreted through deductive
data analysis techniques.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
As can be seen from table 4 about 71% of the respondents
were male. There was gender imbalance in sample
selection; this was partly due to large male composition of
the MoA workforce. Furthermore, table 4 shows that about
41% of the respondents have more than 31 years of work
experience and about 38% are above 50 years old. This
indicates that most of the respondents have a deep
knowledge and understanding of the current situation of
NARI. They were in a position to provide honest and
credible information about NARI functions and
responsibilities, challenges and opportunities,
weaknesses and strengths as well. Education wise about
58% of the respondents have B.A. degree and above (i.e.,
48% BSc and 10% MSc) and the sample includes division
heads, unit heads, agricultural extension workers, national
animal and plant health laboratory staff, administration and
finance staff, project coordinators, planning and statistics
staff, NARI researchers, regulatory service department
staff, forestry and wildlife authority staff, and public
relations, legal service and internal audit staff.

Table 4: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

No. % No. % No. %
Sex: Work Experience Position
Male 90 69 1-5 years 16 13 Division Head 7 5
Female 40 31 6-10 years 17 13 Unit Head 21 16
Total 130 100 11-15 years 15 12 Agri. Extension 30 23
Age: 16-20 years 13 10 NPAHL 10 8
20-30 years 25 19 21-25 years` 124 11 Admin.& Finance 11 8
31-40 years 26 20 26-30 years 15 12 Project Coordinator 3 2
41-50 years 30 23 31-35 years 11 8 Planning &statistics 5 4
Above 50 years 49 38 36-40 years 13 10 Agri. researchers 19 15
Education: 41-45 years 15 12 Regulatory Service 10 8
High school 6 5 Above 45 years 14 11 Forestry & Wildlife 8 6
Certificate 8 6 Public Relations 4 3
Diploma 40 31 Legal service 1 1
Bachelors Internal Audit 1 1
Degree 62 48
Master’s Degree 14 10
Ph.D. 0 0

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 873

A total of 130 questionnaires were collected. To
substantiate the data collected through questionnaire
personal interviews were conducted with department,
division and unit heads at the MoA and focus group
discussions were conducted with employees of the MoA.
The results were amassing; there were a lot of discussions
and debates, opinions and suggestions with regards to the
functions, responsibilities and organization of NARIs in
Eritrea.
Research Staff Qualifications and Training
Eritrea’s pool of agricultural research and development
staff is among the least highly qualified in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Eritrean agricultural researchers are also among
the youngest in Africa. NARI scientists, on average, are
younger than 30, and even the most senior scientists are
younger than 55. The 2008 employee profile of the MoA
showed that 7% of the country’s agricultural researchers
held PhD degrees, 27% held MSc degrees, and 66% held
BSc degrees. Faculty staff employed in the higher
education sector is more highly qualified than those
employed at NARI, which is compatible with findings in
most African countries. At NARI the relative share of
researchers that received postgraduate (PhD or MSc)
training decreased during 2001–08; however, the absolute
number of postgraduate researchers remained stable at
23 to 24 FTEs. Eritrean agricultural scientists cannot enroll
for PhD training in their own country, so they are forced to
spend a few years abroad to pursue doctorate-level
training. HAC began to offer MSc programs in agricultural
sciences in 2011. Eleven NARI researchers had received
MSc degrees from HAC during the past six years. HAC is
expected to train a large numbers of students at B.A and
MSc in the coming years. In the past ten years, three
female scientists from NARI were pursuing MSc training
abroad (in the Netherlands and China) and one additional
scientist pursued MSc training at the University of Nairobi.
In addition, some NARI scientists had received short-term
training in various locations. For instance, two researchers
went to Egypt for training in tissue culture for three weeks.
Investment in faculties of agriculture, and in particular in
postgraduate programs in agricultural sciences, is critical
to enhancing agricultural research and innovation and
hence agricultural development in Eritrea.
The current employees’ profile of NARI (table 5) shows
that NARI has a fair distribution of researcher in the
following areas of agriculture: agronomy (23 staff),
horticulture (33), soil sciences (16), agricultural
engineering (33), and .livestock management (15). But
NARI does not have specialized research staff (M.Sc. and
above) in animal genetic/breeding, biotechnology, insect
/pest management, weed science, wildlife, natural
resource, genetic resource, aquaculture, biometrics, rural
sociology, agricultural extension, and food
technology/nutrition.

Table 5: NARI Staff by level of education and specialization

Research Discipline Certificate Diploma Bachelor’s M.A/M.Sc Ph.D. Total
Degree
Animal/Livestock Disease 3 2 1 6
Animal/Livestock 7 7 1 15
Management
Agricultural Economics 6
Agricultural Engineering 6 16 11 33
Agronomy 1 12 8 2 23
Biotechnology 3 4 7
Forestry 1 1 2 4
Food Science and Technology 1 2 3
Information Technology 1 1 2
Insect /Pest Management 4 4 8
Plant Pathology 2 4 1 7
Plant Genetics/ Breeding 1 4 1 6
Soil Science 2 8 5 1 16
Weed Science 5 1 6
Horticulture 1 7 22 3 33
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Unpublished document, 2017.

Throughout the agricultural research system, the human NARI and is likely to remain so, unless important steps are
resource base constitutes one of the most important taken to promote training, retention and expansion of the
factors that constrain the management, implementation existing numbers of qualified researchers. This limitation is
and development of the agricultural research network of not only in terms of the inadequate numbers of qualified

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Gebremichael KH. 874

researchers available within the system but also due to the
lack of scientific staff to cover important areas or domains
of research, such as biotechnology and crop improvement,
animal genetics, plant protection, food technology,
economics, social sciences and other areas, including
post-harvest issues. The postgraduate training programs
in agricultural sciences in Eritrea are still very small in
terms of student enrollment, and they themselves suffer
from staff limitations, exacerbated by losses of qualified
and experienced staff. Moreover, programs often have
difficulty establishing a credible research culture because
of lack of research facilities, institutional incentives, and
funding (Osiru, et al. 2016).
As shown in table 6 about 49% (101) of NARI staff have
Bachelor’s Degree and above (i.e., 1 PhD, 15 MSC, and
85 BSc). The remaining 51% (103) of the staff have lower
level of education (69 Diploma, 8 Certificate, and 26
support staff). NARI has acute shortages of trained staff in
specialized areas that require a higher education level
(PhD and MSC). Experimental stations lack also
specialized staff; most of the staffs are BSc holders (no
MSc or PhD holders).

Table 6: NARI staff distribution by level of education, 2017

Degree Male Female Total Head Quarters Experimental stations Percent in Head Quarters
PhD 1 0 1 1 0 100
MSc 15 0 15 15 0 100
BSc 63 22 85 32 53 38
Sub-total 79 22 101 48 53 47
Diploma 50 17 69 30 39 43
Certificate 7 1 8 3 5 37
Sub-total 57 18 77 33 43 43
Support staff 15 11 26 24 2 92
Overall 153 51 204 105 99 51
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Unpublished document, 2017.

The human resource restrictions combined with
inadequate financial and research facilities seriously limit
the amount, type, effectiveness and the ability of NARI to
conduct agricultural research that addresses the major
production constraints and that is responsive to the
objectives of agricultural development. As a result, there is
a limited impact of agricultural research on poverty
reduction, increase on food security and yields, increase
in productivity of labor, and in maintaining and improving
the natural resource base. This situation could be partly
attributed to the low emphasis given to build the capacity
of NARI due to other developmental priorities during the
early stages of the country’s independence. The problem
has been exacerbated by the eruption of the border war
with Ethiopia (1998-2000). Looking ahead it is clear that
addressing the small country agricultural research and
technical skills problem is central to any successful
strategy for assuring food security and reducing poverty
with the help of agricultural research. Fundamental to
building strong human resource capacity in agricultural
research is the development of comprehensive
recruitment, training, and succession plans to fill existing
and anticipated medium- to long-term staffing gaps
(Lynam, et. al., 2016). Such plans should assess gaps in
specific skills and disciplines, the distribution of staffing by
age and gender, and degree-level and short-term training
needs. An implementation plan is also required for the
management and provision of training and mentoring.
To rectify current deficiencies of NARI there is a need for
strategic planning to identify the gaps, the needs and
definition of an implementation plan, and monitoring and
evaluation tools for human resource development. Several
SSA countries have instituted strategies in response to
human resource challenges, which offer valuable lessons
for other countries in the region. Such strategies include
recruitment of (often junior) staff upon the cessation of
recruitment freezes, improved training and mentoring
opportunities, and improved benefit packages (Beintema
and Elliott, 2016). Some of these strategies have been
implemented at the institute level, while others have a
broader reach.
Research Competence in NARI
Although capacity, in all its dimensions, is key to effective
knowledge generation, dissemination and use for
agricultural transformation, NRI’s current institutional
capacity and resource levels are inadequate to realize
essential research tasks and outputs, or to meet the
needs of producers on a national scale. NARI has few
trained personnel in wildlife, natural resource, genetic
resource, aquaculture, biometrics, rural sociology, and
food technology/nutrition. Due to this NARI research
competence level is limited to research areas such as crop
improvement, natural resource management, genetic
research, and agricultural engineering. Other research
competencies explained by respondents include also
socio-economic and farming systems.
J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 887

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA

Figure 1: Agricultureal Research Focus, 2011
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 15%
10% 6%
1%
0%
Other Natural Resource Fisheries
As shown in figure 1, about 58% of Eritrea’s agricultural
research focuses on major crops such as sorghum, millet
, wheat, and barely, 13% on livestock, 7% on forestry, 6%
on natural resource, and 16% on others such as
vegetables, potatoes, fruits and fisheries. The agricultural
research in Eritrea should focus also on enhancing crop
productivity and halting land degradation. There is a need
for a paradigm shift from a principally commodity-driven
technological package approach to a truly integrated
agricultural research approach and to ensure that
researchers (national and international) work together with
smallholders and extension agencies, the private sector
and NGOs to have impact on the ground. Previous studies
show that many publicly funded agricultural organizations
in Africa-such as agricultural research organizations,
universities, extension services, and farmer organizations-
are facing a crisis of confidence among key stakeholders
arising out of the failure to deliver the desired development
impact (Ashby et al. 2000; Biggs and Smith 1998; Chema,
Gilbert, and Roseboom 2003; Hall and Nahdy 1999;
Paterson, Adam, and Mullin 2003). This failure is partly
attributable to the supply-driven agenda of NARSs (lack of
responsiveness to clients and inadequate participation by
end-users and other stakeholders); obstructive intra- and
inter-organizational boundaries (inadequate linkages,
partnerships, and coordination within and between
organizations); lack of inter- or multidisciplinary; weak
monitoring, evaluation, and performance cultures
(including lack of institutionalized organizational learning);
and precarious resource conditions stemming from
overdependence on donor and state funding and lack of
innovative mechanisms to finance physical, human, and
capital resources (Mbabu and Ochieng, 2006). The
ultimate result is limited research, service, and outreach
outputs and, unsurprisingly, limited development impact
(IAC 2004a).
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric. Econs Rural Dev. 875
58%
13%
7%
Forestry Livestock Crops
To overcome the above problems NARI should engage in
human resource development, capacity building, create
linkages, partnerships, and coordination within and
between organizations, and sharing of limited resources.
Furthermore, NARI should break away from the traditional
linear and supply-driven thinking of “research →
technology transfer → application,” instead emphasizing
interdependence and nonlinearity in innovation processes
and demand as a determinant of innovation, which is
strongly influenced by evolutionary thinking. These are
essential for enriching knowledge and empowering
farmers, researchers, students, extension officers and
trainers in agricultural and allied sectors. It is anticipated
that through these efforts, the technology information
needs of the farmers will be met.
Training Needs Assessment in NARI
The purpose of training in the work context is to develop
the abilities of the individual and to satisfy the current and
future manpower needs of the organization (Chew,
2004).Training provides also employees with specific skills
to correct deficiencies in their performances. Training is
investment in human capital, as noted by Dockel (2003)
opportunities for training and development are among the
most important reasons why employees stay in an
organization, especially the young and enthusiastic ones.
Figure 2 shows that there is a need for training of NARI
staff in the following areas: impact assessment, monitoring
and evaluation, project management, human resource
management, program planning, scientific report writing,
intellectual property, financial management, and priority
setting. Other training needs explained by the respondents
include: farming systems diagnostic study, socio-
economic study, and statistical data analysis.
Gebremichael KH. 876

Training in impact assessment is cited by most of the scientists and understand the basics of the research being
respondents as an important skill needed for NARI staff. evaluated, financial resources for the evaluations, and a
Impact assessment requires economic evaluation skills, solid plan for collecting and managing data (Norton and
an ability for evaluators to work jointly with biological Alwang, 2016).

Figure 2: Training Needs Assessment

Human resource management 13

Financial management 8
Scientific report writing 12
Program planning 10
Training Needs Priority setting 9
Monitoring and evaluation 14
Project management 11
Intellectual property 7
Impact assessment 16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Employee Response (%)

Training in monitoring and evaluation is the second most
cited skill by respondents. As mentioned by Elliott and
Lynam (2016) there are four types of monitoring and
evaluation systems in agricultural research: (1) monitoring
inputs versus outputs, (2) monitoring research process
versus outputs, (3) monitoring research outputs versus
broader innovative processes, and (4) monitoring the
research process versus the development process.
rapid developments in the various disciplines of science
and technology, especially in the field of agricultural
science (IAC, 2004b; Beintema and Di Marcantonio,
2010). The key challenges of SSA countries are lack of
appropriate training and development opportunities and
high rates of staff attrition, both from developing to
developed countries and from science to non-science and
technical sectors.

The Ministry of Agriculture in its effort to drive sustainable Staff Motivation

development in the agricultural sector has to take into
account the training needs of NARI staff in the above
specified areas. Training opportunities should be sought
through bilateral cooperation with countries that already
have strong NARIs and higher-education networks.
Without adequate training and development programs
SSA countries would not be able to keep pace with the
To analysis the factors that affect employee’s performance
the study examines nine motivational factors. These are
promotion opportunities, remuneration, development and
training, working condition, recognition, job content,
organization policy and administration, fringe benefits, and
job security.

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA

Figure 3: Staff Motivation
Fringe benefit
Working condition
Recognition
Job content
Motivational Factors Remuneration
Promotion opportunities
Organizational policy & administration
Job security
Development & training
0 5
As shown in figure 3 the results of the study reveal that job
content is considered to be by far the most important
motivational factor. The respondents noted that
challenging and attainable jobs are more attractive than
routine jobs. Factors coming second and third are
development and training, and promotion opportunities,
followed by remuneration, recognition, organization policy
and administration, and working conditions. With regards
to training and development about 75% of the respondents
indicated that they have got some training or development
opportunities, which was important for their agricultural
research endeavors.
With regards to promotion the situation in NARI is not
appealing. About 75% of the respondents noted that
promotion opportunities in NARI are limited. Employees
expect to work in jobs that provide them with opportunities
to be promoted to new and challenging positions (Dockel,
2003). It has been argued that people should not only be
rewarded financially but they should also be offered
opportunities to grow within the organization. Employees
who feel stagnant in their positions generally aren’t
motivated and will not stay in unfulfilling position.
Promotion offers opportunities for growth and is also one
of the motivators which can be used to enhance retention.
In the developed world promotion for agricultural research
staff depends upon research and publications. However,
in most developing countries, especially in SSA countries,
research get less priority by governments due to financial
constraints and inadequate publishing facilities. Hence,
publication of articles in refereed journals has become a
monumental challenge for agricultural research staff.
As far as remuneration is concerned, NARIs salaries and
conditions of service are often linked to civil service scales
that are insufficient to compete with universities, the
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 877
3
6
7
27
11
12
7
5
22
10 15 20 25 30
Employees Response (%)
private sector, and other organizations in recruiting and
retaining well-qualified researchers. These factors have
resulted in organizational inefficiencies and management
problems, low staff morale and motivation, high staff
turnover, and brain drain (leading to human capacity
problems). For example, many well-qualified scientists
have left the National Institute of Agricultural Research of
Benin in recent years as a result of the large differences in
the institute’s salary levels and benefit packages
compared with those of universities and international
organizations (Lynam, et. al., 2016). Obviously, countries
and institutions with uncompetitive salary and benefits
packages need to take steps to redress these barriers. In
a large number of countries, significant discrepancies exist
in the salary and benefits packages offered to NARI
researchers compared with their university-based
colleagues. These problems would result in organizational
research inefficiencies and management problems, low
staff morale and motivation, high staff turnover, and brain
drain. Lynam, et. al., (2012) further noted that salary levels,
conditions of service, and facilities and equipment
continue to be poor in many SSA NARIs, prompting
researchers to pursue more attractive opportunities in
higher education, the private sector, or abroad.
Institutional Publishing Pattern of NARI
About 80% of the respondents noted that research
scientists in government agricultural research institutes
are civil servants who progress professionally via system
that do not necessarily consider their publications output.
Therefore there is no incentive, pressure or obligation to
publish research papers. Due to this institutional
publication pattern of NARI is very low. As the only
agricultural research institution, NARI is supposed to
publish its research outputs in agricultural journals, books,
Gebremichael KH. 878
extension bulletins and newsletters. The results shown in
figure 4 are disappointing; almost all respondents
indicated that NARI’s publication record, particularly for
Figure 4: NARI Publication Pattern
News letters
Training materials
Audio/Video cassettes
CD-ROM
User brochure/pamphlets
Publication type
Extension bulletins
Reports
Articles in conference proceedings
Articles in refereed journals
Book
0 5
In university affiliated NARIs, the publication pattern is
different because research scientists are assessed for
promotion on the basis of the same criteria used for the
assessment of university lecturers, which is usually
principally on the publications performance; researchers in
these institutions are compelled to publish like their
university counter parts.
In Eritrea, NARI staffs are civil servants who progress
professionally via system that do not necessarily consider
their publications output. Due to this employees have less
incentive, pressure or obligation to publish research
papers. Furthermore the supply-driven agenda of NARI
does not encourage publication because it is less
responsive to clients, end-users and other stakeholders. In
the focus group discussions the participants mentioned
four problems that inhibit research and publications in
NARI. These are obstructive intra- and inter-organizational
boundaries (inadequate linkages, partnerships, and
coordination within and between organizations); lack of
inter- or multi-disciplinarily in research agenda; weak
monitoring, evaluation, and performance cultures
(including lack of institutionalized organizational learning);
and precarious resource conditions stemming from
dependence on partners and state funding and lack of
innovative mechanisms to finance physical, human, and
capital resources. These problems resulted limited
research, service, and outreach outputs and,
unsurprisingly, limited development impact. A realistic
view should be taken of the need both to strengthen further
the capacity of NARI, in order to enable the principles of
decentralized service delivery and local empowerment to
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
books and research articles in refereed journals, are very
low.
13
22
1
3
11
9
27
7
4
2
10 15 20 25 30
Number of Publications (%)
be realized, and to equip MoA with responsibility for
oversight of local services with the means of transportation
and communication that this function requires.
Another challenge in this regard is to integrate NARIs into
the broader agricultural research system and agricultural
sector. For research to be effective, it must successfully
address farmers’ and other clients’ needs, which demands
a participatory approach. Similarly, universities and other
training institutes need to be forward looking in their
curriculums; adopt pedagogical methods; and collaborate
with research institutes not only in training, but also in
research. In addition to national collaboration between the
government and higher-education sectors, regional
collaboration is warranted to achieve critical mass and
efficient resource use within training programs. Many
countries in Africa, however, lack strong articulation of a
national agricultural innovation system to bring research,
higher education, extension, and the private sector
together (Elliot and Lynam, 2016).
Accessibility of External Information to NARI Staff
As shown in figure 5 most of the respondents indicated that
they sought research information from books and journals
available in the library, international organizations
publications; on line resources/internet, agricultural
research partners, clients, colleges and universities, and
institutional collections. Most of the respondents, however,
stated that they have limited access to on-line internet
resources, distance education, and agricultural news
bulletins that are pertinent to agricultural research output
dissemination.
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 879

Figure 5: External Information Sources to NARI Staff

International organizations 16
News papers/Magazines 1
Institutional collections 6
Conferences and workshops 2
Clients 8
Colleges and universities 7
Information Agricultural research partners 10
Sources Personal contact with peers 3
Agricultural news bulletins 4
Distance learning 5
Internet /on-line resource 17
Library/Journals/Books 21

0 5 10 15 20 25
Employees response (%)

NARI should modernize its services and where
appropriate introduce computerized library and
documentation services. Library and documentation
services are crucial to enable NARI to reach out to the
world knowledge systems and to document results of
research, and exchange information. Such systems are
well developed in most countries; the major gap being
inabilities to generate appropriate and relevant materials
for the major in-country client groups and to sustain these
services in the context of foreign exchange scarcities
remains a challenge for NARI.
NARI Information Facilities
documentation facilities, and transportation services, most
of the employees have less access to on-line journals, e-
conferences, and other internet facilities. As shown in table
7 access to internet searching facilities is rated 50% poor
by the respondents. Information is a key for agricultural
research, without it agricultural research is hardly
conducted and research outputs are effectively
implemented. Stocking and dissemination of information
requires well organized ICT system. In this regard NARI
has good library and documentation (55% rated good),
and laboratory facilities, which are rated 50% good and
35% very good, respectively.

Though NARI has adequate infrastructures such as

buildings, offices, office equipment, laboratory, library and

Table 7: NARI information facilities

Type of information facility Availability of information facility (% Respondents)
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Internet searching facilities 0 0 20 30 50
On-line journals 0 0 15 35 60
E-conferences 0 0 0 0 100
Library & documentation facilities 0 0 55 35 10
Laboratory facilities 0 35 50 10 05

In the knowledge-based economy, information is the key
for wealth creation and technology innovation.
Advancement in information technology brings together
two elements that have not been naturally joined in the
past. One is the environment, within government and in the
society at large, created by the use of electronic
technologies such as computing, e-mail, the World Wide
Web, wireless and other ICTs, combined with
management models such as client/citizen centricity and
single-window convergence. As noted by respondents
investment in information technology is pertinent for
agricultural research and development in Eritrea.
NARI Linkage Patterns
The fact that linkage between National Agricultural
Research Institute, higher education institutes and other
organizations with a stake in agriculture is not strong. As

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Gebremichael KH. 880

can be seen from figure 6, NARI’s linkage patterns with and extension activities; the lack of critical mass due to the
local universities/colleges, policy makers, sub-regional relatively low numbers of qualified faculty staff; inadequate
organizations, and with NGOs rated weak. The linkage links to users and potential clients; and inadequate
pattern with foreign universities, agricultural research linkages with other agricultural research and extension
institutions in the west, and research institutions in the providers, causing overlap and duplication instead of
south is also not strong. IAC (2004a) has argued that the complementary roles. Existing trained staff and lecturers
weak or non-existent linkages within the African NARSs in colleges of agriculture, in Eritrea, spend only a modest
represent a failure to exploit possible synergies, despite proportion of their time on agricultural research roughly 10-
the acknowledged human, physical, and financial 30 percent. Lynam, et. al., (2016) noted the constraints to
constraints facing these systems. the functioning of African NARIs as the weakness of
institutional linkages within and between national and
The contribution of universities and colleges to agricultural supranational entities, between agricultural research and
knowledge creation and diffusion in Eritrea has been agricultural extension, and between research providers
limited for several reasons: teaching, which absorbs most and end users, weak organization and management,
if not all the available human resource capacity; the lack of insufficient human, financial, and physical resources.
adequate facilities and funding for agricultural research

Figure 6: NARI Linkage Patterns Table 7. NARI Linkage Patterns

80
70
Degree of Libnkage (% of respondents)

70

60
Very strong
50 44 linkage
40 40 Strong linkage
40
Weak linkage
30
No linkage
20
10
10 5 5

0
Policy making
(South-South

NGO’s
University/

Institutes in
Universities

institutes in

Linkage with

organizations
sub-regional
the south
Research

the West
College

ministries
Research
Foreign
Local

Agri.

Linkage Agency

This situation is not conducive for NARI to bring about According to Trigo (1993) there are three main types of
substantial improvement in the agricultural sector. regional associations and networks: the first type is the
Definitely there is a need for the strengthening of the institutional associations, bringing together research
national agricultural research institute by fostering institutions from different countries within developing
collaborative linkages with academic research institutions, regions, to interact at the institutional level. Interactions
international research organizations and private-public may include general exchange of information, the
sector partnerships. Furthermore, there is a need for the coordination of their research efforts in different issues and
participation of stakeholders in identifying needs, training. The second type is at the institutional level, goes
strategies, and solutions to problems and in collective beyond cooperation and exchange of information on the
innovation systems involving joint learning and the basis of what each participating institution/country is
generation of knowledge and research outputs with the already doing as part of their on-going programs, to include
aim of realizing impact and evaluating outcomes based on the identification of issues of common interest and the
a range of criteria such as effects on the magnitude, development of specific program and projects to deal with
stability, and sustainability of natural, physical, human, them; and the third type is the networks that mostly bring
social, and financial resources. together individuals of different institutions and countries
with common working interests. Networks have a varying
spatial definition and the bonding element is the issue at

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA

stake. They can be defined by disciplinary interests,
commodities or products, or given issues.
Nowadays there has been a significant increase in
international agricultural research associations at different
levels and in new networks. Their aim is to complement
national agricultural research infrastructures and to
capture technology spill over across geographical and
national boundaries. Agricultural research association can
mobilize also significant resources for small countries by
mitigating the diseconomies of scale limitations they
confront. The respondents suggested that NARI should
carefully link its research agenda with national
development priorities; increase its coordination,
interaction, inter-linkages, partnerships, and networks
among the various agents associated with African
research for development systems; and secure innovative
financing and resource mechanisms.
Mokwunye (2010) noted that Africa’s national, sub-
regional and regional institutions and their partners should
develop agricultural research and development
programmes based on priorities that have been developed
at the national level. Such research institutions should
emphasize on conservation, use and enhancement of
genetic resources, integrated natural resource
management, development of markets and institutions, the
use of information and communication technologies to
solve up-and out-scaling challenges.
Effect of decentralization on the linkage between,
research, extension and farming community
Research, extension and farmers are three main pillars of
agriculture system and they are complementary and
independent upon each other. To ascertain this, the
respondents were asked about the effect of the
decentralization on linkages between research, extension
and farming community. About 54% of the respondents
pointed out that decentralization had positive effect on
linkages between research and extension. However, few
of the respondents indicated negative effect (20%) and no
effect (26%) on linkages between research and extension.
The majority (69%) of the respondents indicated positive
effect of decentralization on linkages between extension
and farming community. Only few respondents (7%)
highlighted that decentralization had negative effect on
linkages between extension and farming community and
24% of the respondents no effect on the linkages. The
respondents were further asked about the linkage between
researches and farming community, the data showed that
about 25% of the respondents reported positive effect of
decentralization on linkages between research and
farming community. Only 5% of the respondents indicated
that there is a negative effect and about 37% of the
respondents indicated no effect of decentralization on
linkages between research and farming community.
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 881
The success of investment in agricultural research is
heavily dependent not only on the quality of the research,
but also on the strength of the links between research and
extension providers (Roseboom, et. al., 2016). Effective
linkages among research, extension and farmers are
essentially needed for development and dissemination of
farm technologies to increase the adoption rate of
technologies at farmers’ level. Rolling (1990) argues that
scientists involved in basic, strategic, applied and adaptive
research, together with subject-matter specialists, village-
level extension workers and farmers, should be seen as
participants in a single agricultural knowledge and
information system. Asopa and Beye (1997) revealed that
in the absence of effective linkage, researchers do not
receive enough information about the environment and
resource constraints under which farmers are operating.
The FGD participants noted that strong interaction and
effective collaboration among all the stakeholders are
essentially needed to achieve the common objective of
increasing agricultural production and uplift the living
standard of the rural poor. The relationship between
farmers, community groups, researchers and extension
personnel is imperative to the success of future agricultural
development in Eritrea. All these segments have a
significant role in the development and progress of rural
development. To this end, in Eritrea, there is a need for the
development of a clear understanding of the institutional
structures needed at the national, regional and sub-
regional levels for agricultural research and service
provision and of whether, and how, this understanding
would imply changes in the current structures present at
national, regional and global levels.
DISCUSSION
In Eritrea, the key agricultural constraints are soil erosion,
land degradation, poor fertility of soils, water deficits, and
erratic weather conditions. Other challenges are loss of
rainwater due to evaporation and run-off, non-availability
of resource-efficient crop varieties, and a lack of external
inputs and efficient production technologies as well as the
chronic energy crisis and poor farm mechanization. These
constraints, coupled with poor efficiency of applied inputs
due to biotic and abiotic stress, makes the farming system
in Eritrea uneconomical and mostly traditional.
In Eritrea, the farmers use family labor and animal power
(oxen) with limited access to mechanization and modern
technologies such as improved seeds, pesticides, and
fertilizers. Subsistence agriculture, with mono-cropping,
low productivity and poor access to markets, leads to low
profitability. When coupled with short-term land ownership,
this type of farming limits most farmers from investing in
agriculture. Within the Eritrean agricultural sector, a
number of prominent issues need to be addressed and
these include dual economy and related socio-
technological issues (empowerment, land tenure);
integrated natural resource management (soil, water,
biodiversity, veld and natural pastures); competitiveness
Gebremichael KH. 882
(value-chain addition, post-harvest processing and
storage, profitability, food safety, crop and animal health),
cross-sectoral issues (health, energy, education,
transport); production systems; risk management and
climate change; policy and institutional issues;
globalisation; human resource capacity for agricultural
R&D and protection of the environment.
In addition to the above, the research and extension
capacity of the Eritrean national agricultural research
system faces also severe restrictions in the availability of
resources and facilities (Cummins 2007). Farming is a
cumbersome occupation with low profitability. The current
NARIs arrangement is largely incapable of addressing
these issues in a coherent manner. In particular, a number
of weaknesses, challenges and opportunities have been
identified. These include lack of a coordinating mechanism
at national level; inadequate mechanisms to establish
priorities; lack of a national system to allocate resources to
priorities; lack of institutionalised monitoring, evaluation
and impact assessments; land degradation, lack of R&D
capacity; lack of an intellectual property rights (IPR)
management system; poor partnerships (public-private,
public-public, private-private); ineffective linkages among
knowledge and information generators and users;
inadequate linkages internationally; lack of participation of
the informal economy in the formal system of innovation;
low level of investment in agricultural research;
overlapping mandates of role players and lack of
clarification of the role and responsibilities of different role
players; poor access to information, weak or inadequate
value-addition technologies; biased approach towards
technology-directed research versus policy and socio-
economic research; insufficient resources for maintenance
of national assets and infrastructure; lack of trust among
stakeholders; declining science and technology capacity
and negative perception of agriculture as being ‘rural’,
associated with unskilled labour and poverty, making
agriculture unattractive to the youth and potential students
who may contribute to R&D.The Eritrean NARIs, therefore,
have huge challenges ahead to overcome the
aforementioned problems. In the Focus Group Discussion
(FGD) most of the participants stated that NARI has the
potential for high economic and social returns to the
country if wise investments are made in agricultural
research and development. However, the current
agricultural research system under NARI has not yet
sufficiently responsive to the various challenges and
constraints of agricultural production and development.
There is a need for institutional changes that: promote
policy and long-term strategic management in research
and enhance the linkage mechanisms between
agricultural research institutions and their clients; clearly
articulate on how linkages should be strengthened to
improve the farmer-extension researcher linkages; design
and establish suitable institutional linkages to support
effective coordination and prioritisation of research needs
at all levels; and focus on client-oriented research, farmer-
to-farmer dissemination, demand-driven advisory services
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
and integrated agricultural research for
development/innovation platforms. To this end NARI
should ensure effective and inclusive stakeholder
participation (e.g. farmers' organizations, civil society,
private sector) and strengthened ownership of national
and regional research systems.
Nowadays, NARI’s on-farm trials have been reduced to a
minimum, and the soil, plant protection, and tissue culture
laboratories lack the chemicals, equipment, and other
materials necessary to operate efficiently. Owing to human
resources and other constraints, certain lines of research
have not been followed up (or only in a limited way); the
adoption rate of results by the existing extension services
and ultimately the farmers is often not known (or not
recorded); there is a need for a significant support of
operations, some functions (such as Internet access at
NARI headquarters) are not operational; feedback
mechanisms for interaction with farmers as well as with
other institutions and organizations are limited.
NARI can increase its funding by commercializing its
outputs. In the focus group discussions the participants’
noted that collective action by farmers and related
agribusinesses (often through formal associations), for
example, has the potential to generate substantial
additional resources for agricultural research in Eritrea.
Some agricultural R&D agencies across SSA manage to
derive a significant share of their total funding from the
services they render to third parties, such as laboratory
analyses or tests done on phytosanitary products, the sale
of crop and animal products, and rental of farm equipment
(Lynam, et. al., 2016).
In the functional analysis it has been noted that NARI has:
few trained (PhD) researchers; less access to on-line
internet facilities; shortage of operational funds; weak
linkage to smallholder system; ongoing research
programs are threatened by shortage of funds; research
stations have limited facilities and trained manpower; few
trained personnel in wildlife, natural resource, genetic
resource, biometrics, bio-technology, food
technology/nutrition and rural sociology; and limited
laboratory chemicals and equipment, and ICT facilities.
Fundamental to building strong human resource capacity
in agricultural research is the development of
comprehensive recruitment, training, and succession
plans to fill existing and anticipated medium- to long-term
staffing gaps. Such plans should include assessments of
gaps in specific skills and disciplines, the distribution of
staffing by age and gender, and degree-level and short-
term training needs. Indeed, NARI needs further
improvements to overcome weaknesses in management,
planning, monitoring and evaluation, inadequacy of
resources including physical and human capital, and also
in terms of its research agenda, which has to emphasize
more on participatory methods. The current agricultural
research system under NARI is less responsive to the
various challenges and constraints of agricultural

production and development in Eritrea. It has been
suggested that the MoA should carefully link the
agricultural research agenda with national development
priorities by improving the coordination, interaction, inter-
linkages, partnerships, and networks among system
agents-that is, agricultural research institutes, extension
systems, higher education institutions, farmer
organizations, civil society, and the private sector-and
finding innovative financing and resourcing mechanisms to
support the numerous components of the system.
In the focus group discussions the participants further
suggested that NARI should focus on participatory
demand driven research methodology and integrate the
needs of small-scale and commercial farmers. Therefore,
there is a need for the development of strategy that
integrates elements that reinforce and build the present
capacity of the agricultural research system in which the
critical requirements are: (1) empowerment of the system
to fulfill the basic resource requirements (highly qualified/
professional researchers, which can guide a research
program and coach juniors, funds and other research
facilities) in order to establish a full-fledged research
system; (2) flexibility and accountability in the
management of the research system; (3) strengthen its
research capacity in livestock breed improvement and
forestry; (4) greater participation of beneficiaries in the
strategic decision-making and evaluation of research
results; (5) greater coordination and interaction among
public research institutions/ colleges; (6) decentralization
in the implementation of research to the agro-ecological
zonal centers; (7) strengthening linkages with agricultural
extension, farmers and other stakeholders involved in the
generation and transfer of technology; (8) reinforcing the
public research system with financial resources and with
adequate infrastructure and equipment; (9) reinforcing,
training and development of the human resource base to
carry out and manage agricultural research; (10)
development of participatory technology generation and
dissemination involving NARI, MoA, regional agriculture
and land administration department and farmers; and (11)
permitting the development of technologies which are
responsive to smallholders’ farming system and ensure
cost-effective extension services. In the focus group
discussions the participants suggested also for the reform
of the agricultural research system with an emphasis on
redefinition of the role of government, decentralization,
stakeholder participation, new financing mechanisms, and
system linkages.
CONCLUSION
NARI needs further improvements to overcome
weaknesses in management, planning, monitoring and
evaluation of its research programs. The findings revealed
that NARI has inadequate human, material and financial
resources and limited research agenda. NARI has few
trained PhD researchers. There are acute shortages of
trained staff in specialized areas, which require higher
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
J. Agric Econs. Rural Dev. 883
education level. Research stations do not have adequate
facilities and trained manpower. There are no adequate
trained personnel in wildlife, natural resource, genetic
resource, aquaculture, biometrics, rural sociology, and
food technology/nutrition. NARI has shortage of
operational funding. Ongoing research programs are
threatened by shortage of funds. There are lack of
laboratory chemicals and equipment, and ICT facilities.
Due to this NARI current institutional capacity and
resource levels are inadequate to realize essential
research tasks and outputs, or to meet the needs of
producers on a national scale. NARI’s on-farm trials have
been reduced to a minimum, and the soil, plant protection,
and tissue culture laboratories lack the chemicals,
equipment, and other materials necessary to operate
efficiently. Owing to human resources and other
constraints, certain lines of research have not been
followed up (or only in a limited way); the adoption rate of
results by the existing extension services and ultimately
the farmers is often not known (or not recorded); there is a
need for a significant support of operations, some
functions such as internet facilities are not operational at
NARIs research stations; feedback mechanisms for
interaction with farmers as well as with other institutions
and organizations are limited. The contribution of the
agricultural research to accelerated growth in the
agricultural sector require focused efforts in tackling and
responding to identified challenges and opportunities.
These will include a core of competent researchers that
needs to be optimised; political commitment and support
for agricultural R&D; comparative and competitive
advantage; strong higher education institutions (HEIs);
good basic research infrastructure; potential or opportunity
for innovative funding mechanisms; potential to strengthen
existing international linkages; identification and equitable
exploitation of indigenous technologies; and strengthened
and sustainable linkages between research institutions
and tertiary education. It has been suggested that to
improve its research capacity NARI should address its
current deficiencies in collaboration with government
agencies and development partners.
Policy Recommendations
Learning from the experience of Sub-Saharan African
countries National Agricultural Research Institutions, the
study forwarded the following policy recommendations to
agricultural policy makers, stakeholders, and agricultural
research and development partners, in Eritrea:
• Encourage innovation within the broader agricultural
sector, primarily through improved communication,
market integration, and institutional linkages across
the different actors in the sector by formalizing
agricultural innovation systems.
• Break away NARI from the traditional linear and supply-
driven thinking of “research → technology transfer →
application,” instead emphasizing interdependence
and nonlinearity in innovation processes and demand
 Gebremichael KH.
as a determinant of innovation, which is strongly
influenced by evolutionary thinking.
• Strengthening the demand side of agricultural research
and services to ensure that programmes are more
responsive and accountable to end users, but also
anticipating demand as new and emerging
technologies dominate the landscape.
• Develop research guide- national seed system through
private-public sector collaboration and enable the
smallholders to play a key role, and commercialize
smallholder seed production;
• Strengthening of Variety Introduction, Evaluation,
Screening and Maintenance. The variety development
program of NARI should be strengthened, aiming at
faster and more effective introduction and
dissemination of improved varieties to farmers, by
shortening the time within which the germplasm is
introduced, screened and evaluated.
• Introduce new crop varieties while upgrading the quality
of the existing ones through a standard variety
evaluation system;
• Update and maintain a national variety catalogue;
• Strengthen Variety Maintenance Unit within NARI for
variety maintenance and production of breeder and
foundation seed.
• Establish Variety Evaluation Committee to properly
evaluate new varieties before their introduction into the
seed system;
• Screen local land races for suitability and potential for
improvement. For this purpose NARI should be
appropriately strengthened for a systematic variety
introduction, evaluation, registration and maintenance;
and production of breeder and foundation seeds.
• Promote NARI into an advanced research institute to
address the implications of climate change to
agricultural production.
• Strengthen NARI commitment to enhance the
livelihoods of the poor through enhanced agricultural
productivity and natural resource management. To this
end (a) a commodity program within a NARI should
focus on developing varieties of high-value crops that
meet market demand; (b) an extension system should
commit to introducing high value commodities in
smallholder production systems; (c) development
partners should focus on organizing smallholder
farmers of high-value commodities to meet market
demands on quality and timeliness of delivery; (d) a
community-based organization/cooperatives should
focus on organizing community members to gain
access to farm inputs and markets for high value
products; (e) a private-sector agent should commit to
focusing on postharvest processing, packaging, and
marketing of high-value commodities, and so on. While
such complementary roles can be potentially
envisaged among diverse agents within a given
Agricultural Research for Development system,
successfully achieving such complementarity would
require systemic leadership, coordination, and
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
884
incentives that are not readily available in many
developing countries.
• In order to motivate NARI to conduct commodity-based
research on a demand-driven basis, the MoA should
have adequate budget, which can be used to contract
NARI to undertake such research on its behalf. Such
contractual schemes with agricultural research
institutes have proven successful in several countries
around the world and the NARI model could draw on
such experiences.
• NARI should facilitate the development of innovative
and diversified funding instruments that make public
institutions more sustainable, reduce donor
dependence and encourage co-financing by end users.
To this end NARI should mobilize financial resources
from different sources-this includes block grants (“core”
funding from the government), matching grants, loans,
self-generated revenues (raised from product levies
and services rendered), competitive grant systems, co-
financing or cost-sharing arrangements, contract
research, and public–private partnerships.
• Empowering farmers so that they can participate in
setting the research and development agenda
and be active partners in implementation and
quality control; and strengthening farmers' support
services so that they will be able to access
technologies and improve their own livelihoods through
having the ability to continuously innovate and improve
their production systems and out-scale innovations.
• Strengthening agricultural technology generation for
enabling and underpinning progressive smallholder
and pastoral agricultural enterprises.
REFERENCE
Ashby, J. A., A. R. Braun, T. Gracia, M. P. Guerrero, L. A.
Hernandez, C. A. Quiros, and J. A. Roa. (2000).
Investing in farmers as researchers: Experience with
local agricultural research committees in Latin America.
Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacionalde Agricultura
Tropical.
Asopa, VN. & G. Beye. (1997). Management of agricultural
research: a training manual. FAO. Rome. Italy.
Baguma, D. (2006). Key elements in agricultural research
for development in Uganda. Paper presented at Project
Development Workshop, “Impact Orientation in AR4D
Systems in ASARECA Member Countries.” International
Food Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, April 24–
26, 2006.
Beintema, N., and F. Di Marcantonio. (2010). Female
Participation in African Agricultural Research and Higher
Education: New Insights. Synthesis of the ASTI–Award
Benchmarking Survey on Gender-Disaggregated
Capacity Indicators. IFPRI Discussion Paper 957.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute and African Women in Agricultural Research
and Development.
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 885

Beintema, N. M., P. G. Pardey, and J. Roseboom. (1998). Committee on World Food Security, 31st session,
Educating agricultural researchers: A review of the role May 23– 26, 2005.
of African universities. ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 98- FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa). (2006).
6. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research Delivery in Africa: An Assessment
Agricultural Research. of the Requirements for Efficient, Effective, and
Beintema, N. M., & Gert-Jan Stads, G.-J. (2008). Measuring Productive Agricultural Research Systems in Africa.
agricultural research investments: A revised global picture. Main Report and Strategic Recommendations. Accra,
Retrieved from Ghana.
http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Global_revision.pdf (Accessed Guilford JP, Fruchter B (1973). Fundamental Statistics in
14 October 2020). Psychology and Education. 5th edition, New
Biggs, S., and G. Smith. (1998). Beyond methodologies: York, McGraw-Hill.
Coalition-building for participatory technology Habtom, GK. (2017) Designing innovative pro-poor
development. World Development 26 (2): 239–248. healthcare financing system in sub-Saharan Africa: The
Brautigam, D.A. (2004). The people’s budget? Politics, case of Eritrea. Journal of Public Administration and
power, popular participation and pro-poor economic Policy Research 9(4): 51-67,
policy. Draft paper, International Development Program, Habtom GK (2014). Public Administration Reform in
School of International Service, American University, Eritrea: Past Trends and Emerging Challenges. Journal
Washington, D.C. of Public Administration and Policy Research 6(3):44-58.
Brennan, J., and J. Mullen, (2003). “Joint Funding of Hakim C (1987). Research design: Strategies and choices
Agricultural Research by Producers and Government in in the design of social research (No. 13). Allen and
Australia.” In Agricultural Research in an Era of Unwin.
Privatization, edited by D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría. Hall, A., and S. Nahdy.(1999). New methods and old
Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. institutions. The “systems context” of farmer
Chema, S., E. Gilbert, and J. Roseboom.(2003). A review participatory research in national agricultural research
of key issues and recent experiences in eforming systems: The case of Uganda. AgREN Paper No. 93.
agricultural research in Africa. ISNAR Research Report London: Overseas Development Institute, Agricultural
No. 24. The Hague: International Service for National Research and Extension Network.
Agricultural Research. Heemskerk, W., B. Wennink, eds. (2005).Stakeholder
Chew, J. C. (2004). The Influence of Human Resource driven funding mechanisms for agricultural innovation.
Management Practices on the Retention of Core employees Bulletin 373 Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
of Australian Organizations: PhD Thesis. Murdoch University. IAC (Inter-Academy Council). (2004a). Realizing the
Dancey, C P &Reidy, J (2007). Statistics without maths for promise and potential of African agriculture: Science
psychology. Pearson Education. and technology strategies for improving agricultural
Dockel A (2003). The Effect of Retention Factors on productivity and food security in Africa.
Organizational Commitment: An Investigation of Amsterdam.
High .Master of Human Resource Thesis. IAC (Inter-Academy Council). (2004b). Inventing a Better
University of Pretoria. Future: A Strategy for Building Worldwide Capacities in
Eicher, C. K. (2004). Rebuilding Africa’s scientific capacity Science and Technology. Amsterdam.
in food and agriculture. Background Paper No. 4, Idachaba, F. S. (2003). Creating a new African agricultural
commissioned by the Inter-Academy Council Study university. Paper prepared for the international
Panel on Science and Technology Strategies for seminar series, “Sustainability, Education and the
Improving Agricultural Productivity and Food Security in Management of Change in the Tropics,” August 2003,
Africa. Amsterdam: Inter- Academy Council. Ibadan, Nigeria.
Elliott, H. and Lynam, J. (2016). Monitoring and evaluation Kangasniemi, J. (2003). “Financing Agricultural Research
to strengthen the Performance of Agricultural by Producers’ Organizations in Africa.”In
Research and Development. In Lynam, J. Beintema, N. Agricultural Research in an Era of Privatization, edited
Roseboo. J, and Badiane, O. (2016) Agricultural by D. Byerlee and R. Echeverría. Wallingford, UK:
Research in Africa: Investing in Future Harvests. CABI Publishing.
International Food Policy Research Institute Lynam, J. Beintema, N. Roseboom. J, and Badiane, O.
Washington, DC (2016) Agricultural Research in Africa: Investing in
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Future Harvests. International Food Policy Research
Nations). (1996). The role of universities in the national Institute Washington, DC
agricultural research systems of Egypt, Jordan, Lynam, J., Beintema, N., and Irene Annor-Frempong,
Morocco, the Sudan and Tunisia. Rome. (2012). Agricultural Research and Development:
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Investing in Africa’s Future-Analyzing Trends,
Nations) (2005). Special event on Green Revolution in Challenges and Opportunities. FARA Conference
Africa. Background document prepared by the SDR Reflection.

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Gebremichael KH. 886
Lynam, J., and H. Elliott. (2004). Organizing agricultural
research: Fitting institutional structure to the research
agenda. In Transformation of agricultural research
systems in Africa: Lessons from Kenya, C. Ndiritu, J. K.
Lynam, and A. N. Mbabu, eds. Ann Arbor: Michigan
State University Press.
Mbabu, A.N. and Ochieng, C. (2006). Building an
agricultural research for development system in Africa.
ISNAR Division Discussion Paper 8. International Food
Policy Research Institute
Michelsen, H., L. Zuidema, C. Hoste, and D. Shapiro.
(2003). Improving agricultural research at universities in
Sub-Saharan Africa: A study guide. ISNAR Research
Management Guidelines No. 6. The Hague: International
Service for National Agricultural Research.
Mokwunye, U. (2010). Regional review of Africa’s
agricultural research and development. GCARD.
Murithi, F., and Wabule, M. (2006).Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute country report. Paper presented at
the Impact Orientation in African Agricultural Research
for Development Workshop. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 24–26,
2006.
NEPAD (2013). African Agriculture, Transformation and
Outlook.
Norton, G. and Alwang, J. (2016). The Role of Impact
assessment in Evaluating Agricultural Research and
Development. In Lynam, J. Beintema, N. Roseboom. J,
and Badiane, O. (2016) Agricultural Research in Africa:
Investing in Future Harvests. International Food Policy
Research Institute Washington, DC
Oniang’o, R., and C. K. Eicher. (2004). Universities and
agricultural development in Africa: Insights from
Kenya. Chapter 10 in Transformation of agricultural
research systems in Africa: Lessons from Kenya, C.
Ndiritu, J. K. Lynam, and A. N. Mbabu, eds. Ann Arbor:
Michigan State University Press.
Osiru, M., Nampala, P., and Ekwamu, A. (2016). African
Facuities of Agriculture within an Expanding University
Sector. In Lynam, J. Beintema, N. Roseboo. J, and
Badiane, O. (2016) Agricultural Research in Africa:
Investing in Future Harvests. International Food Policy
Research Institute Washington, DC
Paterson, A., R. Adam, and J. Mullin. (2003).The
relevance of the national system of innovation approach
to mainstreaming science and technology for
development in NEPAD and the AU. Pretoria, South
Africa: New Partnership for Africa’s Development.
Rena, R. (2004). Emerging Eritrean Agriculture in
Accordance with Global Competition: A Case Study on
Elabered Estate (December 28, 2004). Osmania Journal
of Social Sciences 4(1&2): 34–44.
Rolling, N., (1990). ‘The Agricultural Research-Technology
Transfer Interface: A knowledge system perspective’, in
D. Kaimowitz (ed.). Making the link: Agricultural
Research and Technology Transfer in Developing
Countries, London, Westview.
AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA
Roseboom, J., Beintema, N., Lynam, J., and Badiane, O.
(2016). Unlocking Africa’s Agricultural Potential. In
Lynam, J. Beintema, N. Roseboom. J, and Badiane, O.
(2016) Agricultural Research in Africa: Investing in
Future Harvests. International Food Policy Research
Institute Washington, DC
Roseboom, J. and Flaherty, K. (2016). The Evolution of
agricultural Research in Africa: key Trends and
Institutional developments. In Lynam, J. Beintema, N.
Roseboom. J, and Badiane, O. (2016) Agricultural
Research in Africa: Investing in Future Harvests.
International Food Policy Research Institute
Washington, DC
Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards fifth-generation process
innovation. International Marketing Review 11(1):7–31.
Terziovski, M., D. Samson, and L. Glassop. (2001).
Creating core competence through the management of
organizational innovation. Research Paper, Foundation
for Sustainable Economic Development, Melbourne,
Australia.
Terziovski, M., D. Samson, and L. Glassop. (2001).
Creating core competence through the management of
organizational innovation. Research Paper, Foundation
for Sustainable Economic Development, Melbourne,
Australia.
Trigo, E. J. (1993). “El Papel de lasRedes de Investigación
y de los Programas de Coorperación Regional en el
Contexto de los Noventa.” San José, Costa Rica: Inter-
American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
(IICA). UNDP, (2009), UNDP
Report.www.hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles//E
RI.html
UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for
Africa). (2005). Emerging issues in science and
technology for Africa’s development. Fourth Meeting of
the Committee on Sustainable Development, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, October.
USAID (United States Agency for International
Development). (2013). Towards USAID Re-engaging in
Supporting National Agricultural Research Systems in
the Developing World. Washington, DC.
Walker, T. A. Alene, J. Ndjeunga, R. Labarta, Y. Yigezu,
and A. Diagne. (2014). Measuring the Effectiveness of
Crop Improvement Research in Sub-Saharan Africa
from the Perspective of Varietal Output, Adoption, and
Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in
Farmers’ Fields. Rome: CGIAR Independent Science
and Partnership Council, Standing Panel on Impact
Assessment.
World Bank and International Monetary Fund. (2002).
Review of poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP)
approach: Main findings. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank (2003), World Development Indicators 2003
(CD-ROM), World Bank, Washington, DC.
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural Dev. 887

Accepted 20 October 2020

Citation: Gebremichael KH (2020). An Overview of the Challenges of Agricultural Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: The
Case of Eritrea, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 6(3): 865-887.

Copyright: © 2020: Gebremichael KH. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are cited

AN OVERVIEW of the CHALLENGES of AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH in SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE of ERITREA