Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Report 27
A Study on Human Resource Management, Staff Turnover and
Incentives in the National Agricultural Research System (NARS)
By
Afework GebreEyesus
Ethiopian Development Research Institute
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
July 2015
ii
iii
THE ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORTS
About EDRI Founded in August 1999 as a semi-autonomous government development research institute, EDRI’s
primary mission is to conduct quality research on the development of the Ethiopian economy and
disseminate the results to key stakeholders within and outside of Ethiopia. EDRI is sponsored by the
Ethiopian government, ACBF, UNDP, IDRC-TTI and IFPRI/ESSP. For more information, as well as
other publications by EDRI staff and its affiliates, go to http://www.edri.org.et
Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) P.O.Box 2479 Tel: 251115506068 Fax: 251115505588 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.edri.org.et ABOUT THESE RESEARCH REPORTS The Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) Research Reports contain research materials from EDRI and/or its partners. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of EDRI’s, their home institutions’ or supporting organizations’. Comments may be forwarded directly to the author(s) respective addresses. Report citation: Afework GebreEyesus. 2015. A Study on Human Resource Management, Staff Turnover and Incentives in the National Agricultural Research System (NARS). EDRI Research Report 27. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Development Research Institute.
About the Author(s)
Afework GebreEyesus, [email protected]
iv
A Study on Human Resource Management, Staff Turnover
and Incentives in the National Agricultural Research
System (NARS)
Afework GebreEyesus
Ethiopian Development Research Institute
(EDRI)
Copyright © 2015 Ethiopian Development Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced
for personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to EDRI. To reproduce
the material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires express written permission. To obtain permission, please
contact Eden Fitsum via [email protected]
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................... viii
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 9
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15
2. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................. 15
3. Literature Review........................................................................................................................ 16
3.1. Agriculture and its Role in Global Economic Development .................................................. 16
3.2. Importance of Agriculture in Africa ........................................................................................ 17
3.3. Agriculture and Development in Africa .................................................................................. 18
3.4. Agricultural Productivity in Africa........................................................................................... 19
3.5. African Agricultural Research Systems ................................................................................. 20
3.6. NARS and Human Resource Development in Africa ............................................................ 21
3.7. Staff Turnover and Retention in NARS in Africa ................................................................... 22
3.8. Agriculture in Ethiopia ........................................................................................................... 24
3.9. NARS in Ethiopia .................................................................................................................. 25
3.10. Staff Turnover and Retention in the Ethiopian NARS ........................................................... 27
4. Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................... 27
4.1. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 27
4.2. Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.3. Field Visits ............................................................................................................................. 28
4.4. Collection of Opinions from Senior Researchers .................................................................. 28
5. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 28
5.1. The Concept of National Agricultural Research System (NARS) ......................................... 28
5.2. The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) ....................................................... 30
5.3. Government Budget Allocation to EIAR ................................................................................ 31
5.4. Human Resource Development & Management at EIAR: .................................................... 32
5.5. An Overview of Staffing in EIAR ........................................................................................... 32
5.6. Staff Training and Development............................................................................................ 33
5.7. Staff Recruitment, Transfer and Promotion .......................................................................... 34
5.8. Qualification Level of Researchers by Gender ..................................................................... 36
5.9. Category of Researchers by Post and Gender ..................................................................... 37
5.10. Age Distribution of Researchers ........................................................................................... 37
5.11. Location of Staff .................................................................................................................... 38
5.12. Length of Service Years of Researchers .............................................................................. 38
vi
5.13. Staff Turnover........................................................................................................................ 39
5.14. Common Influencing Factors for Staff Turnover ................................................................... 40
5.15. Researchers Turnover by Reason ........................................................................................ 41
5.16. Where do the Researchers Go? ........................................................................................... 42
5.17. Incentives Systems/Benefit Packages .................................................................................. 43
5.17.1. Staff motivational factors ........................................................................................... 43
5.17.2. Existing incentives at EIAR and RARIs ..................................................................... 43
5.18. Benchmarking EIAR/RARIS Incentive to Incentives at Universities ..................................... 46
5.19. Project Proposal Development Related Benefits .................................................................. 46
5.20. Assignment of Directors and Centre Managers .................................................................... 48
5.21. Performance Appraisal and Rewarding System ................................................................... 48
6. Main Findings of the Study ....................................................................................................... 49
7. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 49
7.1. Recommendations to be Dealt with by Agricultural Research Institutes .............................. 50
7.1.1. Introduce better hiring process ...................................................................................... 50
7.1.2. Establish transparent internal staff transfer rules .......................................................... 50
7.1.3. Implement the Lead Researcher post: .......................................................................... 50
7.1.4. Arrange frequent visits to researcher centres by top management .............................. 50
7.1.5. Develop a proper succession plan ................................................................................ 51
7.1.6. Create more enabling environment ............................................................................... 51
7.1.7. Establish exit interview system ..................................................................................... 51
7.1.8. Encourage and support participation of researchers in local/international workshops . 51
7.1.9. Assignment of Senior Researchers in nearby centres to cities/towns .......................... 52
7.2. Recommendations to be Dealt with by the Government ...................................................... 52
7.2.1. Establish an organizing body for NARS ........................................................................ 52
7.2.2. Revise the existing salary scale .................................................................................... 52
7.2.3. Improve incentive mechanisms ..................................................................................... 52
7.2.4. Create formal linkages between agricultural research institutes and universities ........ 53
7.2.5. Create opportunities for joint appointments .................................................................. 53
7.2.6. Institute/design rewarding system ................................................................................. 53
7.2.7. Assignment of Research Directors................................................................................ 53
References ........................................................................................................................................... 55
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of minimum and maximum salary of selected professional posts of some public
organizations. ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Trends of Government budget allocation ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 2. EIAR’s Staff in 2012 ......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3. Recruitment of Researchers and Technicians in 2012 ............................................................... 35
Figure 4. Qualification level of Researchers in 2012 ................................................................................... 36
Figure 5. Category of Researchers in 2012 .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 6. Age Distribution of Researchers in 2012 ...................................................................................... 38
Figure 7. Length of Services of Researchers in 2012 ................................................................................. 38
Figure 8. Researchers Turnover by Reason ................................................................................................. 42
viii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADLI Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization
AfDB African Development Bank
AGP Agricultural Growth Program
AgSS Agricultural Sector Strategy
APPRC Ambo Plant Protection Research Centre
ARC Agricultural Research Council
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa
SAHRC Sebeta Animal Health Research Centre
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CSO Civil Society Organizations
DDG Deputy Director General
DG Director General
DZARC Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Centre
EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FRC Forestry Research Centre
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
HLIs Higher Learning Institutions
IAC Inter Academy Council
IAR Institute of Agricultural Research
IARC International Agricultural Research Centre
ix
ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
ICT Information Communication Technology
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
INERA Environmental and Agricultural Research Institute
ISRA Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute
KERI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
NARIs National Agricultural Research Institutes
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NFLARC Sebeta Fish and Other Living Aquatic Resources Research Centre
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
NSRC National Soil Research Centre
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
PID Project Information Document
R & D Research and Development
RARIs Regional Agricultural Research Institutes
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
ZARI Zambia Agricultural Research Institute
9
Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Study
This study deals with human resource management, staff turnover and incentive systems in
the NARS in order to answer research questions including, among others:
(a) Why researchers of the NARS leave their respective institutes?
(b) What incentive mechanisms are already in place and why are these inadequate?
(c) Are there adequate incentive mechanisms in place in other public organizations and in
other countries we can learn from to curb turnover and retain staff?
(d) What policy measures and strategies are desirable in the Ethiopian context to reduce
staff turnover and retain researchers? What are the potential challenges in providing the
recommended incentive mechanisms and what needs to be done?
2. Study Methodology
In undertaking the study, methodologies employed include:
(1) Literature review: literature review have been carried out on recent global, regional and
national agriculture and agricultural research systems to get background information about
NARS for the study. Agricultural research experiences of some African countries at similar
stage of development have been assessed. Some books have also been referred on
concepts and principle of human resource management, staff turnover and incentive
systems;
(2) Data collection: data on human resource status, staff turnover and incentives have been
collected mainly from EIAR with additional inputs from RARIs. For the purpose of data
collection, a reference period of 2003 – 2012 was chosen and based on the already
developed standard list of research questions, human resource data such as number of
researchers by qualification, gender and age were compiled from EIAR. Additional data on
issues such as the main reasons why researchers have left EIAR/RARIs and recruitment
status of the institute were also collected;
(3) Field Visits: Field visits were made to Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, Oromiya
Agricultural Research Institute, Jimma Agricultural Research Centre, Melkassa Agricultural
Research Centre, and Werer Agricultural Research Centre. The purpose of these visits was
to get first-hand information on the existing conditions. During the visits, discussions have
been held with Director Generals, Research Centre Directors and other Researchers.
(4)Collection of opinions from senior researchers: In order to substantiate the study
further, opinions have been collected from about 50 researchers through face to face
contacts, telephone calls and e-mail messages/communications. Some of these researchers
are currently working for agricultural research institutes and some are retirees (80%). The
other researchers involved were those who worked for EIAR and RARIs but who have left
the institutes for various reasons and are currently working in different national and
international NGOs and those running their own businesses (20%). Opinions were also
collected from officials and researchers working at universities (Jimma, Mekele, Haramaya
and Addis Ababa Universities).
10
3. The Importance of Agriculture and Agricultural Research
The contribution of agricultural growth for economic development has been extensively
discussed. All past rapid and widespread economic developments in the world have been
causally associated with the transformation of agricultural systems. Striking increases in
agricultural productivity, improvements in food processing and storage, and markedly
reduced costs of food distribution improved the quantity, quality, safety and variety of food
available at lower prices. Through these advances, agricultural development permitted
historically unprecedented growth in incomes, increased life expectancy, decreased the risk
of chronic or acute malnutrition and enabled increased investment in education and non-
agricultural activities in today’s advanced economies.
National research systems in developing countries must ultimately drive to generate, develop
and adapt agricultural technologies that focus on the needs of the overall agricultural
development and its beneficiaries. National Agricultural Research Institutions play a crucial
role in adapting available technologies to the needs of local farmers and communities.
Universities also provide training for professionals throughout the agricultural sector including
farmers, agronomists, economists, and business owners.
Agriculture in Ethiopia is a basis for the entire socioeconomic structure of the country and
has a major influence on all other economic sectors and development processes and hence
it plays a crucial role in poverty reduction. It accounts for about 47 percent of national GDP,
almost 90 percent of the foreign exchange earnings, and 85 percent of employment. The
livelihood of about 90 percent of the poor is fully or partly dependent on agriculture. As a
result, agricultural development will continue to be the basis for economic growth.
The Ethiopian National Agricultural Research System is expected to play an important role in
resolving challenges related to low agricultural productivity and production by generating and
adapting new agricultural technologies that will improve mainly the agricultural production of
the small holder farmers, which constitutes the major part of agricultural production. These
technologies can be readily available if the country has a good research system and a pool
of competent and experienced researchers.
Talented and well-trained scientific staff is therefore essential to produce high-quality
agricultural research. Ethiopia’s overall human resource capacity in agricultural Research &
Development has increased notably in recent years. Comparatively more researchers hold
PhD and MSc degrees, although the share of those qualified at the BSc level has also
significantly increased in recent years due to the increase of number of agriculture
college/faculties in different universities.
4. National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in Ethiopia
Ethiopian farmers, from time immemorial, worked hard to increase agricultural productivity
and production using the dynamics of their indigenous knowledge. They collected and
selected high-yielding varieties and improved cultivation and organic fertilization techniques
in the effort to secure household food supply and generate income. However, the growth in
total production was mainly attributed to the expansion of cultivated areas. As farmer’s effort
had not been sufficiently supported by outputs of modern research, until very recently,
agricultural productivity in the country remained to be low.
11
National Agricultural Research System (NARS) is defined as an organized system in
mobilizing the contribution of cross section stakeholders in agriculture, which incorporates
research institutions (public, private and professional), universities and professional training
institutions, farmers’ organizations, the private sector and their organizations, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSO) and any other
entity engaged in the provision of agricultural research services. In the Ethiopian context, the
Ethiopian National Agricultural Research System (NARS) comprises the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR), Regional Agricultural Research Institutes (RARIs) and Higher
Learning Institutions (HLIs). The private sector and some NGOs involved in agricultural
research may also be considered part of the system. In 1993, some of the Ethiopian
Agricultural Research Centres were decentralized to create independent research centres
run by the respective National Regional Governments and became the Regional Agricultural
Research Centres under the respective Regional Bureaus of Agriculture.
The Ethiopia National Agricultural Research System, composed of most of the above
stakeholders, is a relatively recent phenomenon, which is still in the making to fulfil public
expectations towards poverty reduction and food security by accelerating production gains.
However, it has been growing in the face of several challenges, opportunities and
expectations. Due to lack of coordination, agricultural research works have been conducted
in uncoordinated manner in the country leading to duplication of efforts and wastage of
meagre resources. Thus, to address these challenges and meet expectations, there is a
need for the establishment of a national body that coordinates works of the different
institutions involved in agricultural research.
5. Staff Turnover at the Ethiopian NARS
From human resource perspective, staff turnover is described as the number of employees
who leave an organization compared with the number of people who remain employed. It is
generally considered undesirable to have high staff turnover, because this means the office
is made up of mostly new hires without many years of experience at the organization. The
result of high turnover is that new employees constantly need to be hired and trained, which
can get expensive and time-consuming. The impact of staff turnover is very high in research
institutes especially when those that are leaving the institute are experienced researchers.
The generation of new and innovative technologies in agricultural research requires several
years of hard work based on practical experience both in the lab and in the field researches.
Although it is a recent phenomenon, there is an exodus of several senior researchers to non-
government organizations, the private sector and to other attractive international positions
within and abroad. The turnover, especially of the highly qualified and experienced
researchers, has become a big challenge to the Agricultural Research Institutes (both EIAR
& RARIs) that are trying to generate, develop and adapt agricultural technologies for the
farming system. Normally, staff of the agricultural research institutes are among the best
performing graduates, then gained vast experiences on the job, some of the experiences
cannot be gained through training as it is a research dealing with new ideas, innovations, etc.
To have an experienced researcher who can really develop technology usually needs to stay
on the job from 10 to 20 years. The generation of some technologies may require the
attention of a researcher for more than 10 years and if such experienced researcher leaves
then the whole effort is lost.
12
The loss of senior (MSc and PhD) qualified researchers has left the agricultural research
institutes with junior employees who have little research experience . This in turn, obviously,
leads to low performance in the national agricultural research and development system,
compromising the rate of development and delivery of innovations. With the increasing
demand for high-quality research output by the government and beneficiary farmers, the loss
of highly qualified researchers has a considerable negative effect.
The agricultural research institutes will face two main challenges due to the loss of senior
and qualified researchers. First, there will be significant hindrance in the execution of the
institute’s strategic plan. Second, young researchers may not have the opportunity to benefit
from the experience of the senior researchers. This situation may also create discontinuity
among some of the institute’s research programs, which will negatively affect performance.
Hence, the loss of the experienced researchers is the most threatening and thus needs
urgent interventions to retain them as much as possible.
From the results of this study, the reason for leaving of researchers from the agricultural
research institutes is mainly economic factor (low salary scale and poor incentive schemes)
and to some extent in search of enabling environment and better training opportunities.
These researchers have been found to join international organizations within the country and
abroad, local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Higher Learning Institutions.
6. Existing Salary Scale and Incentive Schemes
When the salary of agricultural researchers is viewed in terms of the current civil servant
salary scale, it is a little higher. There is no much difference either with the payments of
academic staff of universities, where many agricultural researchers are moving to. However,
it is a bit lower than the salary payment to Health and IT Professionals. When compared with
Revenue and Customs Authority (one of the public organizations) staff salary, however, that
of the agricultural researchers’ salary is by far very low).
On the other hand, the salary being offered to researchers by NGOs is non-comparable. Not
to mention offers by international organizations within the country and abroad even offers by
local NGOs are lucrative. A researcher who is getting an average salary rate at the
agricultural research institutes may be offered at least double of his monthly salary by local
NGOs.
In general, the agricultural research staff believe that given the overall increased cost of
living and taking into account the contributions of the researchers for the attainment of
agricultural technological innovations, the existing salary is not commensurate and one of the
reasons for leaving.
When it comes to incentives, it is even the worst. These days, universities are much better in
terms of incentives. They have flexible time, sabbatical leave, research leave, leave without
pay, summer, distance and evening courses, housing allowances, excess load payments for
teaching in regular evening and advising benefits, and some universities have even full-
fledged schools for their children, etc. No such provisions are available at the research
institutes. Even the researchers working in the remotest research centres in harsh
environments, where they are exposed for malaria and other diseases have no medical
benefits and hardship allowances. Hence, the research staff complain that existing incentive
schemes in agricultural research institutes are totally inadequate and one of the main
reasons for staff turnover.
13
7. Key Findings of the Study
7.1 Agricultural Research is important:
Agriculture is the main sprinter of our economy and will remain to be a key sector in
socioeconomic development in Ethiopia for a long time to come. As clearly indicated in the
Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of the country, in order to sustain rapid and broad-
based economic development, agriculture will be maintained as major source of economic
growth. In this regard, agricultural research will have great contribution in availing, multiplying
and pre-scaling up of agricultural technologies.
7.2 There is a need for the establishment of NARS coordinating body
The National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in Ethiopia is considered to include the
EIAR, RARIs, HLIs and some NGOs and the private sector engaged in the agricultural
research and development activities. However, because of the absence of coordinating body
of the agricultural research in the country, the above indicated actors are working their
research activities on uncoordinated manner in their own way and this in turn leads to
duplication of efforts and wastage of meagre resources. Having a NARS coordinating body at
the national level may have benefits including creation of possible retention mechanisms of
highly qualified and experienced researchers, common use of modest laboratories and other
research infrastructure established by NARS at different centres, collection, organization and
proper utilization of research outcomes from the NARS, mobilization of funds from
international donors in an organized manner and using it in an equitable basis and
establishment of strong relationship among the NARS and broaden the opportunities in
resource mobilization, training and technology transfer from international partners.
7.3 Staff Turnover is high in the NARS:
Many of the NARS organizations, mainly the EIAR, RARIs and HLIs are used to be known
for their highly qualified and experienced staff. From time to time, however, these staff are
leaving the institutions for various reasons. The high staff turnover in the agricultural
research institutions are among the senior and qualified researchers, which is worrisome for
its negative consequences on the quality of the agricultural research and innovation. For
instance, 10 and 14 PhD holders have left EIAR in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Similarly, 35
and 38 MSc holders have left the institute in 2011 and 2012, respectively. When we see at
the above figures, the rate of staff turnover might look very low. However, when the staff who
left are found to be those with high qualification and many years of research experience, the
loss is damaging to the institutes.
7.4 Inadequate salary scale and incentives
Both the existing salary scale and incentives schemes at Agricultural Research Institutes are
inadequate.
8. Recommendations
In line with the findings of the study, a two-type recommendations are proposed for action.
The first type of recommendations are those that can be dealt with by the agricultural
research institutes themselves. These include:
14
Introducing better hiring process through the establishment of a strategy that helps to
indentify applicants who have real interest in the agricultural research and are really
committed to serve the institute rather than using it as a steppingstone for the purpose of
getting scholarships or other opportunities.
Establishment of a transparent internal transfer policy;
Implementation of the lead researcher post;
Arrangements for frequent visits to research centres by top management;
Developing a proper succession plan;
Creating more enabling environments;
Establishment of exit interview system to document reasons and extent of staff turnover;
Encouraging and supporting of participation of researchers in local/international short
term trainings and workshops; and
Assignment of senior researchers at main centres located near major cities/towns as
required so that they could easily move to research centres to coordinate research
activities and mentor junior researchers by sharing their experience in the field.
The second types of recommendations are broader ones, which are to be presented to the
Government for policy considerations. These include:
Establishment of coordinating body for NARS
Revision of existing salary scale
Improvement/implementation of incentive mechanisms
Creation of formal linkage between Agricultural Research Institutes and Universities
Creation of opportunities for joint appointments
Designing a reward system
Assignment of Research Directors based on merit and by election. As EIAR and RARIs
are Knowledge institutions, the person to be assigned as a director should have the
quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge,
especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.
15
1. Introduction
The National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in Ethiopia mainly involves public
institutions including the federal agricultural research centres, the regional research centres
and the universities with agricultural faculties. The private sector and some NGOs involved in
agricultural research may also be considered part of the system. The establishment of IAR in
1966, currently known as the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), and several
other nationally mandated research centres over the 1970s and 1980s marked a significant
development in the history of Ethiopian NARS. This development involved a rapid transition
in the system from a limited start with some colleges and ministry-based research activities
to an institutionally networked, nationally coordinated, policy-oriented and modestly full-
fledged national research system in many aspects. The Ethiopian NARS is expected to
contribute towards poverty reduction and food security in the country by accelerating
production gains by adapting and generating proven agricultural technologies and
knowledge.
The Ethiopian Government has invested a lot on NARS to strengthen agricultural research in
the country in way of expansion (establishment of more than 60 researcher centres) and
training of research staff. On the other hand, the Ethiopian NARS has been facing serious
challenges in retaining its senior research staff. The main reason for the rapid staff turnover
in the Ethiopian NARS is the search for higher pay. The existing financial incentives are not
attractive enough to retain researchers and reduce staff turnover. Search for better work
station and place is also the other reason for high staff turnover as most research centres of
the Ethiopian NARS are located in remote areas far from towns where access to improved
social services is very limited. The rapid loss of well experienced researchers will
undoubtedly have a long-lasting negative repercussion on the overall success of the NARS
of the country.
Efforts should, therefore, be made to curb the existing problem of high staff turnover in the
Ethiopian NARS and retain its high-profile researchers. To do so, it needs a thorough
understanding of the underlying causes contributing towards the problem. The purpose of
this study was, thus, to undertake a desk based study on the root causes of high staff
turnover in the Ethiopian NARS and come up with plausible recommendations for policy
measures.
This study document contains a review on agriculture and agricultural research conditions at
the national, regional and global levels. It also discussed about NARS, staff turnover and
incentive mechanisms. Based on the main findings of the study, recommendations are
proposed for institutional and policy considerations.
2. Objectives of the Study
The overarching objective of the study is to assess the challenges of staff retentions and
turnover in the Ethiopian NARS and suggest policy measures for an effective and efficient
NARS in Ethiopia. The research questions that need to be addressed by the research
include, among others:
Why do researchers of the NARS leave their respective institutes?
What incentive mechanisms are already in place: why are these inadequate?
16
Are there adequate incentive mechanisms in place in other public organizations and in
other countries which we can draw upon to curb turnover and retain staff?
What policy measures and strategies are desirable in the Ethiopian context to reduce staff
turnover and retain researchers? What are the potential challenges in providing the
recommended incentive mechanisms and what need to be done?
3. Literature Review
3.1. Agriculture and its Role in Global Economic Development
The contribution of agricultural growth for economic development has been extensively
discussed. All past cases of rapid, widespread economic development in the world have
been causally associated with the transformation of agricultural systems, from 18th and 19th
century Europe and North America to late 20th century east Asia. Striking increases in
agricultural productivity, improvements in food processing and storage, and markedly
reduced costs of food distribution improved the quantity, quality, safety and variety of food
available at lower prices. Through these advances, agricultural development permitted
historically unprecedented growth in incomes, increased life expectancy, decreased the risk
of chronic or acute malnutrition and enabled increased investment in education and non-
agricultural activities in today’s advanced economies. Failure to achieve such improvements
is strongly associated with the development failures of the poorest economies in the world
today (Barrett et al., 2010).
Existing evidences indicate that agriculture and economic development are intricately linked.
It has been rightly argued that no country has ever sustained rapid economic productivity
without first solving the food security challenge. Economic development trends from
industrialized countries as well as countries that are rapidly developing today indicate that
agriculture stimulated growth in the non-agricultural sectors and supported overall economic
well-being. As mentioned above, economic growth originating in agriculture can significantly
contribute to reductions in poverty and hunger. Because the majority of those who are
hungry live in rural areas and depend on agriculture and natural resources for their
livelihoods, investing in agriculture is the most efficient way to target those in need.
Investments in the agricultural sector also contribute to overall economic growth by
increasing efficiency in the marketing chain, reducing the share of poor people’s income
spent on food, and enabling them to purchase other goods and services, like education,
health care, and housing. Since agriculture in these countries constitutes a large share of
national output and employs a majority of the labour force, the sector has been integral to
any thinking about development (Diao et al., 2007). Most of the world’s remaining arable land
is in developing countries, and dramatic gains in agricultural productivity are possible.
Unleashing the potential of small-scale farmers and agribusinesses to produce and sell food
will substantially reduce hunger and create a more resilient global food supply for everyone
(World Bank, 2010; Juma, 2011).
The recent food crises and growing concerns about global climate change have placed
agriculture on top of the international agenda. For example, the Rio+20 Summit of 2012,
where Ethiopia has been an active participant, recognized the importance of sustainable
agriculture for the eradication of hunger in the World. Achieving this will require a significant
increase in agricultural investment but, more importantly, it will require improving the quality
17
of this investment. The international financial crisis, which is affecting governments and
donors around the world, means that now, more than ever, public resources alone cannot
meet the investment needs for agriculture. Governments and donors play a crucial role in
catalysing, channelling and governing agricultural investment, but private investors, primarily
farmers themselves, must be central to any investment strategy for agriculture (FAO, 2012).
3.2. Importance of Agriculture in Africa
In some of the world’s poorest countries, agriculture accounts for more than 30 percent of
economic activity, and in the least-developed countries as a group, it accounts for 27 percent
of GDP (http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e04.pdf). It also remains to be the
backbone of many African economies. It plays a very important role in promoting growth and
reducing poverty in a continent which is rich in natural resources. It supports the livelihoods
of 80 percent of the population, provides employment for about 60 percent of the
economically active population, and for about 70 percent of the poorest people (African
Development Bank Group, 2010). In many countries of Africa, 30 percent or more of GDP
comes from agriculture, and in a few countries, agriculture’s share of output reaches 50
percent. For Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, between 15 and 20 percent of GDP is obtained
from agriculture (Gollin and College, 2009).
Although, agricultural production seems to increase in some parts of Africa, it still is
undercapitalized, uncompetitive, and underperforming. It is characterized by relatively low
yields, overdependence on primary exports, and high price volatility. Most of the recent
growth is mainly related to increasing the land area under exploitation rather than to
productivity. Agricultural GDP per farmer has over the last two decades risen by two percent
per annum in Asia, nearly three percent in Latin America but only less than one percent in
Africa. African farmers have been working harder, more people have taken up farming, but
productivity has not increased (African Development Bank Group, 2010). According to IAC
(2004) and UNECA (2005), the low productivity in Africa could be attributed to relatively
weaker investments in agricultural research.
When agriculture stimulates growth in Africa, the growth is only twice as effective in reducing
poverty as compared to growth based in other sectors. As a result, two hundred million
Africans live with food insecurity. Although economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
has averaged close to three percent over the past 25 years, per capita growth for the SSA
population dependent on agriculture has been less than one percent. On the other hand, in
China, agriculture-based growth is close to four times more effective in reducing poverty than
growth based on other sectors. In Latin America, the effectiveness is nearly three times
(African Development Bank Group, 2010). In addition, Africa’s competitiveness in its
traditional areas of comparative advantage is increasingly being eroded by technological
innovations in the rest of the world and by increased globalization, which is squeezing both
its internal and external markets (UNECA, 2005; IFPRI, 2006).
To address this situation and reduce poverty and food insecurity, African leaders have set a
target of increasing agricultural output by six percent per year over the next 20 years.
Meeting the target, however, requires enhanced capability on the part of agricultural research
systems to effectively and efficiently generate and adapt to African indigenous knowledge
systems and new knowledge and modern technologies, such as biotechnology, which is
necessary for increasing output and productivity (IFPRI, 2006).
18
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) may also contribute
through its research, to promoting sustainable agriculture for food security in the developing
countries. International centres supported by the CGIAR are part of a global agricultural
research system. The CGIAR conducts strategic and applied research, with its products
being international public goods, and focuses its research agenda on problem solving
through interdisciplinary programs implemented by one or more of its international centres in
collaboration with a full range of partners.
3.3. Agriculture and Development in Africa
A World Bank review concludes that higher agricultural and rural growth rates are likely to
have a ‘strong, immediate, and favourable impact’ on poverty (World Bank, 1996). The
review notes that agricultural growth rates exceeding three percent a year produce a decline
in the World Bank’s poverty index grouping by more than one percent. In no case did poverty
decline when agricultural growth was less than one percent (World Bank, 1996). Even the
most populated countries have had great success. In both China and Indonesia, for example,
rapid agricultural growth substantially reduced rural poverty, improved food security in both
rural and urban sectors, and provided a significant demand side stimulus for non-agricultural
goods and services (Timmer et al., 1983; World Bank, 1996). In contrast, countries failing to
make progress in agricultural growth experience stagnating rural sectors, sluggish overall
economic growth with declining per capita incomes, and falling investment in rural services
and agricultural infrastructure (Binswanger and Landell-Mills 1995; FAO, 1996). In addition,
while rural growth has important impacts on urban poverty reduction, urban growth has much
less impact on urban poverty reduction (Mellor, 2001; Stringer, 2001).
Agricultural production generates forward production linkages when agricultural outputs are
supplied as inputs to non-agricultural production. Agricultural growth can thereof re-
contribute to expanding agro processing and processed food marketing, which provide new
engines of growth and opportunities to substitute for imports. Agriculture also creates
backward production linkages through its demand for intermediate inputs such as fertilizers
and marketing services. The strong linkage effects of agriculture suggested to some theorists
that agricultural growth could lead to broader economic growth during the early stages of
industrialization, even in more open countries. Singer (1979) described a “balanced-growth”
strategy as one that emphasizes the “national development of agriculture as the primary
sector and developing industries with strong emphasis on agriculture–industry linkages and
interactions” (Singer, 1979). The balanced growth strategy was later relabelled by Adelman
(1984) as an “agricultural-demand led-industrialization” (ADLI) strategy. This strategy
stresses that increasing agricultural productivity expands internal demand for intermediate
and consumer goods produced by domestic industries and, in turn, helps support the drive
toward industrialization (Diao et al., 2007). Cognizant of the above, Ethiopia has also
adopted agricultural lead industrial development (ADLI) as a strategy.
The problems of poverty in Africa could, therefore be assumed to be closely linked to low
agricultural productivity as agricultural development offers the best prospects for solving such
problems. A result of detailed case studies carried out in Ethiopia, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda,
and Zambia by Diao et al. (2006) concludes that “despite recent scepticism, agricultural
growth is still important for most low-income African countries”. The paper specifically notes
that “agriculture is especially important for poverty reduction.” The paper further argues that
19
“most African countries cannot significantly reduce poverty, increase per capita incomes, and
transform into modern economies without focusing on agricultural development. The paper
further notes that increasing agricultural productivity in Africa will require significant and
sustained investments in agricultural research and science, combined with infrastructure
spending and other public investments. Other studies have also documented that such
investments have in the past yielded successes (Gebremedhin and Haggblade, 2003). The
above findings and recent trends suggest that there are some signs of hope for productivity
gains in African agriculture. In the past five to ten years, money has begun to flow again to
research in agriculture and it seems plausible that productivity growth will follow (Gollin and
College, 2009).
In light of the above, agriculture could play an important role in Africa by providing jobs,
generating more income and providing food security. This contributes indirectly to education
which in turn provides private and public benefits. The better the education, the more
opportunities for a higher-paying job and the ability to be well-nourished and to work more,
earn more, consume more and save more. As incomes increase for subsistence and other
rural households, families increasingly spend to educate their children. Thus rural
households contribute to the overall education and productivity levels of those children who
migrate to cities. Education, training and access to information are directly linked to
productivity and aggregate output. A study of the determinants of real GDP covering 58
countries during 1960-85 suggests that an increase of one year in average years of
education may lead to a three percent rise in GDP (World Bank, 1990). Virtually all studies
on agricultural productivity show that better educated farmers get a higher return on their
land. According to one study, African farmers who have completed four years of education -
the minimum for achieving literacy - produce, on average, about eight percent more than
farmers who have not gone to school. Studies in Malaysia, Republic of Korea and Thailand
confirm that schooling substantially raises farm productivity (World Bank, 1990; Diao et al.,
2007).
3.4. Agricultural Productivity in Africa
Agricultural productivity raises serious concerns in Africa where many countries are found to
barely achieve one percent annual growth in agricultural output. A study by the Inter
Academy Council (IAC, 2004) 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). According to the findings,
many African indigenous food crops and animals, on which 80 percent of the African
population depends, have reaped few benefits from modern R&D on their breeding
improvements, agronomy, processing and commercialization (IFPRI, 2006). The World
Bank’s World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development notes that specifically,
SSA has lagged behind other regions of the developing world in agricultural productivity
levels and growth rates. Grain yields, a measure of land productivity, grew at 2.8 percent
annually in East Asia between 1961 and 2004; in Sub-Saharan Africa, they grew hardly at all
(Gollin and College, 2009).
There are many possible explanations for the low productivity levels. One possible
explanation is that technologies for African agriculture are poor, perhaps reflecting a
historical pattern of underinvestment in relevant research (Evenson and Gollin, 2003).
Another possibility is that there are simple geographic and climatologically factors that make
20
agriculture in this region inherently less productive than in other parts of the world, including
other regions of the tropics. This point of view has been most notably argued by Gallup and
Sachs (2000), Sachs (2001) and Masters and McMillan (2000). The fact that Africa has far
lower levels of modern variety adoption than other regions of the developing world, and that
little land is irrigated can also be taken as additional reason for low Agricultural productivity in
Africa (Gollin and College, 2009).
Some relate low agricultural productivity to low labour productivity that could result from
characteristics of the labour force (such as the low skill level of workers) or from low levels of
capital and/or intermediate goods. In turn, the underlying causes could include market
failures, transaction costs, or a number of other possibilities. By most measures, agricultural
capital per worker and agricultural capital per unit of land are lower in Africa than in other
regions of the developing world. Use of fertilizer, chemicals, irrigation, and machinery are
also very low in Sub-Saharan Africa, compared to other regions of the developing world. Yet
another contributing factor for low agricultural productivity could be connected to institutional
arrangements, perhaps operating through the mechanism of very bad policy as it may
destroy incentives of various kinds (Gollin and College, 2009).
Aware of the above, however, African leaders have determined that agriculture must be the
engine of development because it is the biggest direct employer and contributor to GNP and
through the provision of inputs for processing and marketing. It also generates significant
additional employment and income. In most African countries it is also amongst the top
foreign exchange earning industries (Hårsmar, 2006).
Acknowledging the low level of agricultural production in Africa, some efforts have recently
been made in the policy field to change the situation. African governments collectively have
engaged in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Under a special session
of the FAO Regional Conference for Africa in Rome on 9 June 2002, the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) was first endorsed at ministerial level
by African Ministers assembled. It has since then been officially adopted by NEPAD organs
as the framework for the sector’s development in Africa. The programme is meant to provide
African governments, in collaboration with their development partners, with an opportunity for
renewed and re-focused efforts to reverse decades of stagnating economic growth, low
agricultural production and declining productivity, food insecurity and increased poverty in the
region (Hårsmar, 2006).
African governments have since then agreed to “adopt sound policies for agricultural and
rural development, and committed themselves to allocating at least 10 percent of national
budgetary resources for their implementation within five years” to the agricultural sector. This
was declared in the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa of July
2003. Heads of state and governments, participating in the African Union high-level meeting,
signed the declaration (Juma, 2011; Hårsmar, 2006).
3.5. African Agricultural Research Systems
The major components of the global agricultural research system are the national agricultural
research systems (NARS) of developing and developed countries, including private and
other non-governmental research establishments, and the international agricultural research
centres (IARC). In 1995, developed countries NARS accounted for about 48 percent of
21
global research expenditures with one-third of scientists, while developing-country NARS
accounted for about the same proportion of expenditures but with nearly two-thirds of
scientists. The IARC accounted for the balance of about 4 percent of global research
expenditures (FAO, 1996).
In Africa, the NARS are comprised of the national agricultural research institutes, universities
and colleges, NGOs, and international and regional institutions and non-African advanced
research institutes working in Africa. The NARS have endured extended periods of
underfunding and retrenchment and are in need of urgent reinforcement and reinvigoration.
The international and regional agricultural research centres and non-African advanced
research and tertiary education institutes have contributed greatly to Africa's agricultural
development but would be more effective if there was a framework within which their
contributions could be targeted and focused. This would help them focus their traditional role
in filling gaps in specialized human and infrastructural capacity and improve their contribution
to building capacity to reduce Africa's dependency (FAO, 1996).
3.6. NARS and Human Resource Development in Africa
National research systems in developing countries must ultimately drive the research agenda
of partner countries. Universities and national research institutions play a crucial role in
adapting available technologies to the needs of local farmers and communities. Universities
also provide training for professionals throughout the agricultural sector including farmers,
agronomists, economists, and business owners.
Talented, well-trained scientific staff is essential to produce high-quality agricultural research.
Africa’s overall human resource capacity in agricultural R & D has increased notably in
recent years. Comparatively more researchers hold PhD and MSc degrees, although the
share of those qualified at the BSc level has also increased in some countries in recent
years. In addition, female participation has improved in many countries. Nevertheless, many
of the region’s smallest countries still have very low, and in a few cases declining, levels of
human resource capacity. The region’s universities, and particularly its faculties of
agriculture, have been going through a quiet revolution that has improved the quality of
education. Changes in governance have facilitated greater autonomy for universities and
allowed tuition fees to be adjusted to secure the necessary operational income
(http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/ASTI-FARA-Conference-Synthesis.pdf).
A long-term civil service hiring freezes in many countries within SSA, has resulted in an
aging pool of agricultural R&D staff in national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), often
combined with disproportionately young and inexperienced teams of recent recruits. In
addition, salary levels, conditions of service, and facilities and equipment continue to be poor
in NARIs, prompting researchers to pursue more attractive opportunities in higher education,
the private sector, or abroad. The potential to fill the resulting staffing gap through graduate
training in the North, as was done in the 1980s, is limited, partly because of the cost and
partly because curricula are often not relevant to the unique needs of smallholder agriculture
in the Region. The region’s universities are also facing a number of constraints; in particular,
increased workloads due to growth in the number of universities and in student intakes are
putting pressure on staff and in turn affecting the quality of teaching and student supervision
(http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/ASTI-FARA-Conference-Synthesis.pdf).
22
Capacity-building for Agricultural research, training, development planning, and policy
management primarily involves the creation of an adequate stock of top-level skills (Delgado
in Seckler, 1993). Unfortunately, past investments in national universities and overseas
graduate training have failed to properly address these challenges throughout Sub-Sahara
Africa. Thus, today, top-level indigenous capacity is too scarce to find and expatriate
technical assistants continue to fill gaps for all kinds of scientific, teaching, managerial and
advisory roles and functions in many countries (Bossuyt et al., 1992; Jaycox, 1993; Ikpi,
1999).
The process of gradual accumulation of top-level scientific and managerial skills in Africa has
always been hampered by the "brain drain" phenomenon. It has been recorded that in 1985,
the US alone trained 34,000 African students, only some of whom would unlikely return to
Africa, while more than 70,000 trained Africans had already opted to remain in Europe
(Eicher, 1989; Ikpi, 1999). There has also been an exodus of senior academics to
nongovernment organizations (NGOs), to the private sector and to attractive international
positions (Lynam and Blackie, 1994). The brain drain, especially of associate and full
professors, has been especially crippling for many African universities that are trying to build
MSc and PhD programs. Senior scholars are needed to set both the research direction and
the intellectual base for their departments, and they are ultimately responsible for the
mentoring of postgraduate students and the overall quality of local MSc and PhD programs
(Inter Academy Council, 2004).
The overriding cause of all the above identified high draining rates of the best brains is the
inability of African governments to create an enabling environment and working conditions
capable of promoting professional excellence and paying salary levels that can attract and
retain national experts. It is difficult to shy away from the fact that the best African scientists
and managers are driven away from their countries and the SSA region by extremely low
salaries, lack of fulfilling career prospects and poor working conditions. Dramatic falls in real
incomes under structural adjustment have contributed to further increase the attractiveness
of overseas employment, as most governments fail to change local salary structures to
reflect new realities for the people in upper-skill categories (Berg, 1993; Jaycox, 1993; Ikpi,
1999).
One way that could help in alleviating shortage of senior researchers in agricultural research
institutions is by linking university academic staff (with advanced degrees) with scientists in
national agricultural research institutes to work together on problems of mutual interest
(Michelsen et al., 2003). This has arisen because universities often have more PhDs in
agriculture than the government research system. In 1995, for example, universities
employed around 550 African scientists with PhDs in agriculture while the NARS in Eastern
and Southern Africa employed around 360 (Mrema, 1997; InterAcademy Council, 2004).
3.7. Staff Turnover and Retention in NARS in Africa
Staff turnover describes the number of employees who leave an organization compared with
the number of people who remain employed. It is generally considered undesirable to have
high employee turnover, because this means the office is made up of mostly new hires
without many years of experience at the company. The result of high turnover is that new
employees constantly need to be hired and trained, which can get expensive and time-
consuming. A few types of turnover - internal and external, as well as voluntary and
23
involuntary are generally considered when figuring turnover rates. Turnover is usually
calculated by adding up the number of employees who have left the company within a year,
dividing that number by the number of current employees, and multiplying that total by 100. A
high rate of turnover usually indicates a problem that needs to be addressed
(http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-staff-turnover.htm).
Many public agricultural research systems in Africa and specifically in SSA have been
dealing with reduced recruitment due to structural adjustment programs and lack of funding,
resulting in an aging population of researchers, and in some cases a disproportionate
number of newly hired junior researchers. Poor conditions at many institutions have made
attracting and retaining highly qualified staff extremely difficult, and this has only been
exacerbated by a lack of training and other opportunities necessary to enable the
advancement of younger scientists. Building and maintaining a pool of well-qualified
researchers is an even more serious problem in many small countries of SSA (Sène et al.,
2011).
Specifically, conditions at many NARIs in Africa are poor in terms of salaries, benefits, and
retirement packages, as well as other incentives, such as the necessary infrastructure,
operating budgets, collaborators, and management structures to successfully conduct
research. As a result, many research agencies have difficulty retaining researchers,
especially as they obtain higher degrees and are in a position to explore more attractive and
more lucrative opportunities in the higher education and private sectors both within and
beyond the region (World Bank, 2007; Beintema and Stads, 2011; Sène et al., 2011).
For example, the Agricultural research council (ARC) of South Africa reported extremely high
and volatile turnover of its researchers for most of the last 10-years (2001 - 2010). The
average rate of turnover was 24 percent. After a period of high resignations during 2000-04,
ARC doubled its recruitment efforts, which lowered the turnover rate for a few years. After
2007 recruitment levels normalized, but the level of resignations remained high, so the
turnover rate once again increased. In the most recent report, 44 percent of all departing staff
(not just researchers and scientists) resigned voluntarily. Of these, 38 percent indicated their
reason for leaving to be salary levels and service conditions, 16 percent indicated working
conditions and organizational culture, and a significant 29 percent chose not to provide a
reason (Sène et al., 2011).
The Environmental and Agricultural Research Institute (INERA) in Burkina Faso also lost
close to half of its researchers between 2001 and 2010. The researchers left to take up
positions in regional or international organizations or in other departments or ministries.
About 20 percent of the departing senior researchers, for example, were appointed to senior
management positions in ministerial departments during 2005‒10, and many of the
agricultural engineers left for better opportunities in the private sector. The reasons provided
by the researchers for leaving INERA were low salary levels, inadequate equipment and
facilities, and lack of individual recognition. The government of Burkina Faso took measures
to improve the salary levels of its researchers, and a new salary and benefit package was
adopted in 2009. Nonetheless, salaries remain low compared with those offered by
nongovernmental agencies, so staff departures have continued (Sène et al., 2011).
Similarly, the average rate of turnover of researchers at the Senegalese Agricultural
Research Institute (ISRA) was 13 percent during 2001‒10, but it fluctuated substantially from
year to year. The rate fell from 14 percent in 2001 to 4 percent in 2003, and then increased
24
to 25 percent in 2009 due to low recruitment levels combined with a high number of
retirements and resignations, or temporary reassignments to ministries or international
organizations. Although the aging of ISRA’s researchers is a concern for the future, the
relatively high level of resignations is an even more serious issue. During 2001‒10, in
addition to the retirement of 22 researchers, an additional 41 researchers resigned. This
exodus was particularly severe during 2007‒09, during which time about eight percent of all
ISRA’s researchers resigned per year. Almost all of these researchers were interviewed for
the country case study, indicating that low salary levels and poor service conditions were
their main reasons for leaving. In an attempt to halt this exodus, ISRA instituted a set of new
rules and regulations in efforts to improve researchers’ working conditions. Female
researchers represent only 15 percent of the researchers who resigned (less than the share
of female researchers employed), which is consistent with the trend in various African
countries (Beintema and Di Marcantonio 2010; Sène et al., 2011).
However, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KERI), recorded the lowest and most
constant average rate of turnover of researchers over the years between 2001 and 2010, at
3 percent, stemming both from low departure levels, in part due to an increase in the official
retirement age, and from low recruitment levels, largely based on a hiring freeze. About half
of the 168 researchers that did leave KARI during 2001‒10 were transferred to other
government departments, were dismissed, or took a leave of absence (often to pursue higher
education at American or European universities); 18 percent of these researchers retired, 18
percent died, and 14 percent resigned. Overall the share of researchers that either retired or
resigned was less than 1 percent of all researchers employed at KARI during the period, on
average. Of the researchers who resigned, some accepted positions at local universities with
similar salary packages but more flexible working environments, and some secured positions
at regional or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or in the private sector, or at centres
of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Given that more
than half of KARI’s researchers were 50 years or older as of 2010, losses to retirement will
rise in the coming years (Sène et al., 2011).
3.8. Agriculture in Ethiopia
Agriculture in Ethiopia is dominated by small-holder and largely subsistence farming with low
productivity on fragmented and highly degraded lands. But Agriculture still remains to be
crucial for Ethiopia’s food security. Ethiopia is characterized by great geographic and climatic
diversity. It has vast, untapped agricultural potential, but the agricultural sector, dominated by
small -scale farmers with low productivity, is confronted with increasing population and food
insecurity, very low-and declining-levels of agricultural productivity, and worsening natural
resource degradation (Demel, 2002). The sector is the largest contributor to overall economic
growth and poverty reduction. It accounts for about 47 percent of national GDP, almost 90
percent of the foreign exchange earnings, and 85 percent of employment. The livelihood of
about 90 percent of the poor is fully or partly dependent on agriculture (World Bank, 2010).
The Government of Ethiopia recognizes the importance of agricultural development and has
shown a long-standing and strong commitment to the sector. The national strategy for
“agricultural development-led industrialization” (ADLI) puts agriculture at the forefront of
Ethiopia’s development process. This strategy is reflected in the Plan for Accelerated and
Sustainable Development to End Poverty (PASDEP). A central theme of the PASDEP is a
call for accelerated market-based agriculture development with a focus on Ethiopia’s 13
25
million smallholder farm households producing around 98 percent of the country’s agricultural
output. The focus of the Government’s efforts to promote agricultural growth has been to
strengthen rural capacity (including extension, support to farmer associations, training, and to
a lesser extent, facilitating linkages between private investors in agriculture and
smallholders), expansion of agricultural extension and research, and investment in rural
infrastructure, particularly roads. Additionally, the Government has established important
initiatives to address environmental degradation and climate change threats. It has also
increased its commitment to reducing exposure to chronic food insecurity and shocks,
although vulnerability to adverse weather remains significant challenge for Ethiopia (World
Bank, 2010). In summary, the focus given to agricultural development in Ethiopia is paying a
decisive role in income growth, food security, and poverty alleviation; gender empowerment
and the supply of environmental services.
Leading the sector to higher productivity and increased commercialization is not just
fundamental to poverty reduction and food security, but can also contribute to meeting a
number of other key development challenges that Ethiopia faces. For example, Ethiopia’s
high population growth requires increased agricultural production to ensure food security. If
this is achieved with full involvement of and benefits for women, this can have significant
impacts on household nutritional status and contribute to reduced birth rates. Increased
agricultural productivity and commercialization, and in particular the increase in related
upstream and downstream economic activities that are part of this development, can also
provide some employment opportunities for the many “landless youth” in Ethiopia as well as
creating export growth. Similarly, the big environmental challenges that Ethiopia faces due to
degradation of productive land and increasing climate variability can only be addressed
through higher productivity of crop and livestock production in those areas where it can be
done sustainably (World Bank, 2010).
3.9. NARS in Ethiopia
Ethiopian farmers, from time immemorial, worked hard to increase agricultural productivity
and production using the dynamics of their indigenous knowledge. They collected and
selected high-yielding varieties and improved cultivation and organic fertilization techniques
in the effort to secure household food supply and generate income. However, the growth in
total production was mainly attributed to the expansion of cultivated areas (Abate et al.,
2004). As farmer’s effort had not been sufficiently supported by outputs of modern research
until very recently, agricultural productivity in the country remained to be low.
The NARS is about a cross section of stakeholders whether in public or private sector; and
comprises of the organization, public agricultural research institutes, universities and other
tertiary institutions, farmer groups, civil society organization, private sector and any other
entity engaged in the provision of agricultural research services
(http://www.naro.go.ug/About%20NARO/aboutnars.html). The Ethiopia National Agricultural
Research System (NARS), composed of most of the above stakeholders, is a relatively
recent phenomenon, which is still in the making to fulfil public expectations towards poverty
reduction and food security by accelerating production gains. It has been growing in the face
of several challenges, opportunities and expectations (Abate et al., 2004).
In Ethiopia, the NARS is mainly about the public institutions including the federal agricultural
research centres, the regional research centres and the universities. The establishment of
26
IAR in 1966, currently known as the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), and
several other nationally mandated research centres over the 1970s and 1980s marked a
significant development in the history of the national agricultural research system of Ethiopia.
This development involved a rapid transition in the system from a limited start with some
college- and ministry-based research activities to an institutionally networked, nationally
coordinated, policy-oriented and modestly full-fledged national research system in many
aspects. This section briefly accounts some of the major historical accounts of the research
system during this period based on key institutional developments and trends (Abate et al.,
2004). In the past decade, the long-established colleges of agriculture in Ethiopia have been
restructured and expanded to include additional agriculture-related departments expected to
be involved in agricultural research. (http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Ethiopia-Note.pdf).
During the 1970s through the early 1990s, several agricultural research institutions evolved.
These were established either as research projects, departments or national research
centres of agricultural ministries or agencies. The main contribution that these initiatives
made to the development of the national agricultural research system was a rapid expansion
into new subject areas of research. Subjects that were not previously addressed by IAR such
as fishery, forestry and animal health were included in the national research agendas. Over
time after their establishment, however, most of these research centres were victims of
frequent structural reforms in their ministries or agencies or during changes of government.
The dilemma between the dual duties of research and provision of development services
also significantly affected most of the centres to grow, and contribute to the country, as
research institutions in their specialized areas (Abate et al., 2004).
The educational attainment of agricultural research staff in Ethiopia has improved over the
1990s. In1991, only 37% of the total number of research staff held postgraduate degrees
(Beintema and Solomon, 2003). Whereas in 2000, out of the 728 fulltime Ethiopian
researchers in 27 agencies surveyed, slightly more than half held postgraduate degrees.
Researchers with PhD-level training, however, accounted for less than 10% (Abate et al.,
2004).
The total agricultural research and development (R & D) capacity in Ethiopia increased from
the 1990s onward at a relatively steady rate, resulting in a total capacity of 1,318 full-time
equivalent (FTE) research staff in 2008. This growth, however, was driven by the regional
agricultural research agencies (RARIs) and the higher education sector, both of which almost
doubled in size (http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Ethiopia-Note.pdf). The Ethiopian NARS often
relies heavily on government funds. Between 1993 and 2000, government’s share accounted
for about 80% of the federal research and 90% of the regional research centres funding
(Abate et al., 2004).
The Ethiopian NARS underwent a significant structural reform in the early 1990s as a result
of the decentralized political system introduced by the new government which led to the
creation of federal and regional governments. This period is marked by the evolvement of
federal and regional structures in the history of the NARS. A number of national research
centres were transferred to the respective regional governments in 1993, thereby becoming
independent centres coordinated by regional agricultural development offices (Abate et al.,
2004).
In 1997, the federal agricultural research system was significantly restructured, leading to the
establishment of the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). EARO was
27
established by the merger of the remaining federal research centres of former IAR (nine) with
the Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Centre (ZARC) of the then Alemaya University (now
Haramaya University) and five national research centres. The national research centres
included Ambo Plant Protection Research Centre (APPRC), Forestry Research Centre
(FRC), Sebeta Fish and Other Living Aquatic Resources Research Centre (NFLARC),
National Soil Research Centre (NSRC), and Sebeta Animal Health Research Centre
(SAHRC). The Essential Oils Research Centre was subsumed by EARO later in December
2002 (Abate et al., 2004).
EIAR, which accounts for about half of Ethiopia’s agricultural R&D spending, conducts
research through a coordinated but decentralized system encompassing a headquarters and
15 research centres located across the country. EIAR’s mandate is broadly defined to
include crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, and other natural resources. The institute’s
spending was relatively low in the 1990s but more than doubled between 2000 and 2001
from 72 to 161 million birr (http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Ethiopia-Note.pdf).
Regarding institutional distribution, the former EARO (currently EIAR) employed relatively
more researchers with post-graduate training (59%). Among EARO’s research centres,
however, the distribution had a wide variation. Out of a total of 232 fulltime researchers
employed by regional research centres, only 5 (2%) attained PhD. Three-quarters of the
researchers employed by HLIs were trained to a postgraduate level. This was a high
proportion compared with EARO and regional centres (Abate et al., 2004).
3.10. Staff Turnover and Retention in the Ethiopian NARS
The National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in Ethiopia is facing a serious challenge
in terms of managing research staff mainly due to staff turnover for higher pay and better
work station and place. This could be due to the fact that most research centres of the NARS
are located in remote areas far from towns. The financial incentives are not also attractive
enough to retain researchers and reduce staff turnover.
4. Materials and Methods
During the study, the following methodologies have been deployed for data collection and
analysis.
Data Collection Methods:
4.1. Literature Review
Literature review has been carried out on recent situations on global, regional and national
agriculture and agricultural research systems to get background information about NARS for
the study. Agricultural research experiences of some African countries at similar stage of
development (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Zambia Agricultural Research
Institute (ZARI), Burkina Faso Environment and Agricultural Research Institute (INERA),
Senegal Agricultural Research Institute (ISRA) and South Africa’s Agricultural Research
28
Council (ARC) has been assessed. Some books have been also referred on concepts and
principle of human resource management, staff turnover and incentive systems.
4.2. Data Collection
Data on human resource status, staff turnover and incentives have been mainly collected
from EIAR (because it is believed RARIs have very similar peculiarities), with additional
inputs from RARIs. For the purpose of data collection, a reference period of 2003 – 2012 was
chosen and based on the already developed standard list of research questions, human
resource data such as number of researchers by qualification, gender and age were
compiled from EIAR. Additional data on issues such as the main reasons why researchers
have left EIAR and recruitment status of the institute were also collected.
4.3. Field Visits
Field visits were made to Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, Oromiya Agricultural
Research Institute, Jimma Agricultural Research Centre, Melkassa Agricultural Research
Centre, and Werer Agricultural Research Centre. The purpose of these visits was to get first-
hand information on the existing conditions. During the visits, discussions have been held
with Director Generals, Research Directors and other Researchers.
4.4. Collection of Opinions from Senior Researchers
In order to substantiate the study further, opinions have been collected from about 50
researchers through face to face contacts, telephone calls and e-mail
messages/communications. Some of these researchers are currently working for Agricultural
Research Institutes and some are retirees. The other researchers involved were those who
worked for EIAR and RARIs but who have left the institutes for various reasons and are
currently working in different national and international NGOs and those running their own
businesses. Opinions were also collected from officials and researchers working at
universities (Jimma, Mekele, Haramaya and Addis Ababa Universities). Among these, eighty
percent (80%) are working for EIAR & RARIs and twenty percent (20%) are those who left
EIAR and currently working for universities or local/international NGOs.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. The Concept of National Agricultural Research System (NARS)
National Agricultural Research System (NARS) is an important organized system in
mobilizing the contribution of stakeholders in agriculture, which incorporates research
institutions (public, private and professional), universities and professional training
institutions, farmers’ organizations, private companies and their organizations, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSO).
In the Ethiopian context, the Ethiopian National Agricultural Research System (NARS)
comprises the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Regional Agricultural
29
Research Institutes (RARIs) and Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs). The private sector and
some NGOs involved in agricultural research may also be considered part of the system.
Structurally, RARIs are administered by their respective National Regional Governments and
EIAR is accountable to the Ministry of Agriculture and runs research centres at the federal
level. In addition to conducting research at its federal centres, EIAR is charged with the
responsibility of providing the overall coordination of agricultural research countrywide and
advising the Ethiopian Government on agricultural research policy and strategy formulation.
On the other hand, universities which are considered to be part of the NARS (Haramaya,
Mekele, Jimma, and Hawassa) are under the Ministry of Education.
Practically, there is no coordinated agricultural research system in the country. The EIAR,
RARIs, Universities and other private sectors and NGOs engaged in agricultural research are
moving on their own way. Although all parties are striving for the same goal, there are no
formal linkages in their agricultural research programs. This, unfortunately, leads to
duplication of efforts and wastage of the available meagre resources.
For instance, the existing linkage between universities and agricultural research centres is on
the basis of goodwill and personal relations. EIAR should formally establish clear linking
mechanism with universities to harmonize and align the research programs as well as to
increase its new recruits by attracting students from these universities.
BOX I
“...There is no formal linkage between universities and the agricultural research centres. It is only based on my personal connection with the centres that I could arrange and send my students for further practical field research at the agricultural centres”.
Opinion of a senior lecturer at Haramaya University
Due to the existing constitutional set up (federal structure), there is no direct linkage between
EIAR and RARIs as well. Similar duplication of efforts are being observed due to lack of
coordination.
BOX II
“...I see duplication of efforts among EIAR and RARIs. For instance, in Amhara Region there is Kobo Agricultural Research Centre and in Tigray Region, Alamata Agricultural Research Centre. Although both centres are in very close proximity and in the same agro-ecological zone, they are there because of the regional arrangements. And yet, another federal agricultural research centre is recently established in Mohoni, Tigray. I think it could have been good to establish agricultural research centres based on agro-ecology instead of regional set ups”.
Opinion of a senior researcher retired from EIAR
Recently, a proposal document is developed by EIAR in consultation with other stakeholders
based on Indian experience to establish National Agricultural Research Council that will
comprise all parties involved in the National Agricultural Research System. No doubt, the
30
establishment of a coordinating body at national level is very much supported by EIAR,
RARIs and the Universities. However, it is worth noting that the institutional arrangements for
this coordination body to be established should be clear in further consultation with all
concerned actors.
On the basis of the above definition, National Agricultural Research System (NARS) is even
much broader. This study, however, focuses on undertaking a desk-based study on the
existing human resource management practices, incentive systems, root causes of staff
turnover, and retention mechanisms mainly at EIAR level with some input from other parts of
the NARS (RARIs and Universities).
5.2. The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) has evolved through several stages
since its first initiation during the late 1940s, following the establishment of agricultural and
technical schools of Ambo and Jimma. Until the mid-1960's, the then Imperial College of
Agricultural and Mechanical Arts (now Haramaya University) with its Agricultural Experiment
Station at Debre-Zeit (now Debre-Zeit Research Centre) was the major research entity.
The establishment of the Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) in 1966 saw the first
nationally coordinated agricultural research system in Ethiopia. In 1997, it was designated as
the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). Currently, the institute is renamed
as the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR).
The vision of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) is inspiring to see
improved livelihood of all Ethiopians engaged in agriculture, agro-pastoralism and
pastoralism through market competitive agricultural technologies. EIAR has a mission to
conduct research that will provide market competitive agricultural technologies that will
contribute to increased agricultural productivity and nutritional quality, sustainable food
security, economic development, and conservation of natural resources and the
environment.
Its mandates include: availing improved agricultural technologies, multiplication of initial
agricultural technologies, popularization (pre-scaling up) of improved technologies and
coordination of the National Agricultural Research System.
Structurally, EIAR is accountable to the Ministry of Agriculture and is led by a Director
General and Deputy Director General. The Director General is the Chief Executive officer of
the institute. Based on main intervention areas, it has five core research directorates (Crop,
Livestock, Soil and Water, Forestry and Agriculture Mechanization), five coordinating units
and nine support services. EIAR leads 15 Federal Research Centres located in different
agro-ecological zones and undertakes researches in various commodities and disciplines.
The research centres vary in their experience, human resource, infrastructure/facility, and
other resource capacities. Some of the research centres have one or more sub-centres and
testing sites.
In Ethiopia, as in many other African countries, agriculture will remain a key sector in
socioeconomic development for a long time to come not only because a very high proportion
of the population lives in rural areas where agriculture is the primary source of livelihood but
31
also it is the main sprinter to the development of other sectors. Hence, the need for a strong
and organized research and innovation capacity is unquestionable.
5.3. Government Budget Allocation to EIAR
According to the five years Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, one of the seven strategic pillars for sustaining rapid and
broad-based economic growth path is maintaining agriculture as major source of economic
growth. This strategy will support strongly the intensified production of marketable farm
products for domestic and export markets, by small farm holders and private agricultural
investors.
To ensure that agriculture becomes the main source of growth for the next five years, the key
strategy that will be presumed concerns scaling up of best practices of model small holder
farmers. Thus, the best technologies and practices of the model farmers will be scaled up for
use by all other farmers during the GTP period. This will in turn increase agriculture
productivity and production. It is very essential also to strengthen the government structures
at all levels so as to provide effective services that increase agricultural productivity.
Although the emphasis will be on scaling up of the best technologies and practices of model
farmers, new technologies will also be developed and disseminated to farmers and
pastoralists (MOFED, 2010).
During the past nine years, government budget allocation to EIAR has shown a steadily
increase from 81 million birr in 2004/05 to 295 million birr in 2012/13. The allocated capital
budget is more than the recurrent budget (Figure 1 and Annex I). This shows that the
Government has significant interest in the agricultural research and development sector.
In fact, due to the increase in budget allocation, the number of research centres and
recruitment of staff (all types – researchers, technical support and administrative) have been
increasing.
Figure 1. Trends of Government budget allocation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Bu
dge
t al
loca
tio
n
Budget Year
Budget Allocation by Government
Capital budget
Recurrent budget
Total
32
Literature review shows that many African countries are not allocating as huge amount of
budgets allocated to EIAR to their respective research institutes. Usually, they are used to
mobilizing research funds from donors through preparation of project proposals. In Kenya, for
instance, the government allocates only limited recurrent budget to Kenyan Agricultural
Research Institute (KARI) and other research funds are mobilized by the researchers
themselves. Although the steady increase of budget allocation to EIAR is encouraging, it is
advisable that the Government of Ethiopia also puts appropriate mechanism in place so that
agricultural research scientists write more project proposals so as to win research grants
from international donors.
5.4. Human Resource Development & Management at EIAR:
Human Resource Management is a strategic and coherent approach to the management of
organization’s most valued assets, the people working there who individually and collectively
contribute to the achievement of its goals. It is a distinctive approach to employment
management which seeks to obtain competitive advantage through the strategic deployment
of a highly committed and skilled workforce. In fact, effective management of human
resources, like the effective management of all other organizational resources, lead to
competitive advantage. (Armstrong, 1999)
Human resources are the most important resources in any organizations, but this is
especially so in the field of research and innovation. Agricultural research organizations in
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are making concerted efforts in the development and
management of human resource by building the capacity of their research staff, but they face
a number of social and economic challenges in addressing the pressing issues of alleviating
poverty, increasing agricultural production, and ensuring food security and food self-
sufficiency. Research institutes have been confronted with significant departure of well-
qualified and experienced researchers to more attractive positions in other sectors and
abroad, a phenomenon that seriously compromises their ability to implement viable research
programs (Sène et al., 2011).
Human resource capacity forms the foundation of agricultural research and development
institutions and is the basis for the efficient and effective use of all other institutional
resources. Many countries in Africa have renewed their commitment to agricultural research,
development and innovation, recognizing the importance of agriculture to rural livelihood,
poverty reduction and economic growth. In Kenya for instance, as in many countries in the
region, remuneration, incentive packages and conditions of service for research scientists
were generally poor, but through time, they were able to institute staff retention strategies in
an effort to address this problem and are now seen as a model for Sub-Saharan Africa in
their human resource retention mechanisms (Murithi and Minayo, 2011).
5.5. An Overview of Staffing in EIAR
EIAR’s staff comprises researchers, technical support and administrative staff. The technical
staff actually do not conduct a research but assists researchers in conducting laboratory and
field-based studies and collection and processing of data. They are also involved in the
maintenance of research equipment. At the end of the year 2012, the institute employed a
33
total of 3,372 staff, out of which 717 are researchers (21%), 1094 are technical support staff
(33%) and 1561 are administrative staff (46%) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. EIAR’s Staff in 2012
Of the total of 717 researchers, only 80 are female, representing about 11%. While female
technical support staff represents about 20%, female administrative staff represents about
27%. The share of female researchers at all levels is significantly low as compared to the
share of male researchers. By comparison, the total number of female researchers employed
at EIAR is about 21.5%. Share of female researchers at Research Director and Senior
Researcher levels is even worse, representing less than 2%. This implies that the EIAR is
required to work more in narrowing down the existing gender gap.
The study also indicates that the number of researchers decreased from 625 in 2003 to 518
in 2009 and 572 in 2010. However, it again showed a rise, where it has increased to 632 in
2011 and 717 in 2012. Similarly, the number of technical support staff decreased from 1213
in 2003 to 849 in 2009 and 912 in 2010. Recently, it increased to 1052 in 2011 and 1094 in
2012. The number of administrative staff constantly increased from 1028 in 2003 to 1551 in
2012. The decline of the number of researchers and technical support staff in 2009 and 2010
is attributed to the institutional restructuring with implementation of BPR which resulted in
reduction of staffing (Annex III).
5.6. Staff Training and Development
Researchers are likely to be motivated when they are given the opportunity for further
training and more so when they are paid their salary in addition to their training grants. When
researchers are trained, their social status and prospective salary levels are improved
through the increase in their level of qualification; and their improved degrees broaden
employment opportunities both within the country and abroad.
Researcher 21%
Technical Support staff 33%
Admin Staff 46%
Staffing in 2012
34
In this regard, EIAR and RARIs have a policy where staff members enter into a commitment
to give two years of service in their respective institute for every year they spend in training
up on completion of their training. In practice, however, the policy has faced challenges.
Many researchers are leaving the institutes after completion of their training without fulfilling
their commitment.
EIAR and RARIs have been known for their staff training and development for several years.
Very many professionals were highly interested to join EIAR leaving other institutions mainly
for training and research opportunities. For instance, about 110 and 354 research staff were
trained at PhD and MSc levels respectively through Agricultural Research Training Program.
About 47 and 217 staff at PhD and MSc levels respectively were also trained through Rural
Capacity Building Project (www.worldbank.org). However, most of the trained researchers
never come back after training or leave their respective institutions after re-instatement.
Though training opportunities in EIAR are still there, the current trend is relatively lower than
before. The existing training opportunities are project specific and their relevance to EIAR is
seen as basic criteria for selection. The availability of researcher for replacement is also
another selection criteria. Some researchers are not happy with such types of criteria and
tend to leave and look for other opportunities at universities.
5.7. Staff Recruitment, Transfer and Promotion
EIAR’s recruitment process follows government policy with a high involvement of recruiting
units based on set criteria. Final employment of any researcher is subject to six months’
probation period. After a researcher has been recruited, he/she is mentored by his/her
immediate supervisor. At the end of the probation period, an evaluation report is submitted to
the Director General either recommends approval of the researcher for permanent
employment or recorded a second trial period for additional three months. Alternatively,
although extremely rare in practice, the contract could be terminated if the evaluation report
is not satisfactory. Recruitment efforts during the year 2012 had a greater impact on the
increase of researchers and technicians. However, Research Centre Directors have
concerns on recruitment of employees as it is highly centralized fully handled by EIAR HQ
(irrespective of post level).
In examining the human resource capacity of EIAR, a review has been made on the status of
all staff type (administrative/technical/researcher). However, the focus was mainly on
researchers. During recruitment, the entry level to a researcher post is Junior Researcher I
post. The minimum educational requirement for this level is BSc/BA degree with a cumulative
score of at least 2.75 for male and 2.5 for female graduates from universities. No work
experience is required for this post. Up-on completion of the first year of work, a junior
researcher I is automatically prompted to Junior Researcher II. EIAR has a vertically strong
hierarchical structure and junior researchers have the opportunity for advancement to higher
posts (Assistant Researcher I, II, III, Associate Researcher I, II, etc) (Figure 3 and Annex VI).
In fact, this can only occur when vacancies are available and through fulfilment of required
criteria and based on performance evaluation.
35
Figure 3. Recruitment of Researchers and Technicians in 2012
The majority of newly recruited researchers are at Junior Researcher and Assistant
Researcher levels. At 2010, 2011 and 2012, the number of researchers recruited by EIAR
was 141, 46 and 189 respectively. When it comes to the level of qualification of these newly
recruited researchers, 4 of them (1%) held PhD degrees, 139 of them (37%) held MSc/MA
degrees, 8 of them (2%) held DVM and the remaining 225 (60%) held BSc/BA degrees. Such
low level of recruitment of highly qualified researchers is really worrisome. This shows that
finding experienced researchers with PhD and MSc degrees from the market is a challenge
for NARS and the only viable strategy is therefore retaining the existing ones by creating
conducive working environment. Out of the newly recruited researchers, the number of
female staff recruited is 48, which is about 13% only, another aspect that requires due
attention by the NARS.
Retirement age of EIAR’s employees is 60 years, which is in line with the government policy.
In the past ten years 25 researchers have been retired. The highest loss of researchers
because of retirement was in the year 2012; out of the 5 departing researchers, all of them
held senior research fellow or higher. One means of dealing with succession is to have a
senior researcher nearing retirement mentor a younger researcher with the same discipline
as a prospective replacement. In addition, job descriptions are necessary aspects of securing
succession, and need to be documented, preferably as part of a mentoring process (Sène et
al., 2011).
One of EIAR’s drawbacks in its human resource management practice is related to transfers.
Regardless of relatively encouraging achievements in recruitment, there is no clear internal
transfer rules and this has made researchers working at centres in the remotest areas of the
country hopeless. Actually, transfer is not totally closed, but there is no written transfer rule
and hence makes it less transparent. Researchers at research centres don’t really expect
transfer opportunities to other centres or to EIAR Headquarters irrespective of the number of
years they serve and hence prefer to look for opportunities elsewhere.
Another weakness of EIAR is its inability to fill the existing Lead Researcher Post. Although
the post is already approved by the Ministry of Civil Service, it has never been implemented.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Directors Lead Res Senior Res Res I & II Asso. Res I& II
Assi. Res I, II& III
Junior Res Technicians
nu
mb
er
of
recr
uit
em
en
t
Category of researchers
Recruitment of researchers and Technicians in 2012
36
Hence, there is no single researcher that has reached to the level of Lead Researcher.
During the review, it has been learnt that some senior researchers have left the institute for
same reason and others working for the institute are not yet clear why this vacant post is not
filled. Had it been implemented based on a clearly set criteria, it could have been a very good
motivating factor specifically for senior researchers.
5.8. Qualification Level of Researchers by Gender
The analysis on the educational level of EIAR’s research staff (Figure 4 and Annex V) shows
that 43% were qualified to BSc level, 44% to MSc level, 2% to DVM level and 11% to PhD
level. Despite the reduction of number of senior and qualified researchers, EIAR still has high
number of research staff in part because recruitment of new researchers has been very
active. The problem here is most of the newly recruited researchers are qualified to the levels
of BSc and MSc. Actually, when it comes to human resource capacity, it is not only a matter
of quantity, but also of quality. Hence, the major concern at EIAR and the RARIs is the high
staff turnover of highly qualified and experienced researchers.
In terms of gender, in 2012, female staff were only 2 PhD holders, 44 MSc and 34 BSc
holders. As compared to males, the female’s share is still very low.
Figure 4. Qualification level of Researchers in 2012
The above figure shows that the EIAR’s research system is dominated by young researchers
qualified to BSc and MSc levels. EIAR’s researcher pool is disproportionately in favour of
young and inexperienced. The comparatively high number of low qualification level of
researchers indicates that there may not be sufficient mentoring by the senior researchers.
This calls for more efforts to be made to train, mentor and retain senior researchers to effect
the desired impact through agricultural research and development.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
BSc/BA MSc/MVSc/MA DVM PhD
Nu
mb
er
of
rese
arch
ers
Qualification level
Qualification level of Researchers in 2012
37
5.9. Category of Researchers by Post and Gender
In 2012, while there were 13 professionals at the Director level, there was no one at the Lead
Researcher level and only 44 were Senior Researchers. Out of these 58 researchers
(Directors and Senior Researchers), surprisingly, there was only 1 female staff. The number
of Researchers is 62. Large proportion of professionals are at the Assistant Researcher level
(217) about 30%, Associate Researcher level (193) about 27% and Junior Researcher Level
(188) about 26% (Figure 5 and Annex VI).
Figure 5. Category of Researchers in 2012
5.10. Age Distribution of Researchers
In 2012, the majority of EIAR’s researchers were below 30 years of age, which is about 39%,
next big number was 30-39 years of age, 34 %. In total, the age of 523 researchers is less
than 40 years of age (73%). Only 3 senior researchers were at the age of retirement (Figure
6 and Annex VII). The advantage of having young staff is that they may have vision, energy,
stamina and ambition for professional advancement. With proper handling, training, and
mentoring, they could do most of the research activities to materialize the goals of the
research institute. However, they lack experience to carry out advanced independent
research and hence the need to align them with senior researcher for skill transfer and
experience sharing.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Directors
Lead Res
Senior Res
Researche I & II
Asso. Res I & II
Assi. Res I, II & III
Junior Res I &II
Technicians
Number of researchers
Category of Researchers and Tehnicians in 2012
38
Figure 6. Age Distribution of Researchers in 2012
5.11. Location of Staff
In terms of distribution of staff by location, 422 of the staff are based at Holetta Research
Centre (13%), 394 are located at Melkassa Research Centre (12%), and 327 are situated at
Debre-Zeit Research Centre (10%), which are the largest centres in terms of research
infrastructure (Annex IV).
5.12. Length of Service Years of Researchers
Out of the 717 researchers, 159 about 22% have a service of less than 2 years, 205 about
29% have a service of 2-5 years and 134 about 19% have a service of 6-10 years. Hence, a
total of 498 about 70% of the researchers have less than 10 years of service with EIAR
(Figure 7 and Annex X). As agricultural research usually involves longer time to produce an
output, the figures indicate that most of the researchers are yet expected to get more
experiences from senior researchers in their respective disciplines.
Figure 7. Length of Services of Researchers in 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
≤ 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥ 60
Nu
mb
er
of
rese
rch
ers
Age level
Age distribution of Researchers in 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
< 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26-30 years > 30 years
nu
mb
er
of
rese
arch
ers
Service level
Length of Services of Researchers in 2012
39
5.13. Staff Turnover
In human resources context, staff turnover is the rate at which an organization gains and
losses employees. Staff turnover describes the number of staff who leave an organization
compared with the number of people who remain employed. It is generally considered
undesirable to have high employee turnover, because this means that the organization will
be made up of mostly new hires without many years of experience. High turnover may be
harmful to an organization’s productivity if experienced and qualified staff are often leaving.
The result of high turnover is that new employees constantly need to be hired and trained,
which can get expensive and time-consuming. If an organization is said to have a high
turnover relative to its competitors, it means that staff of that organization have a shorter
average tenure than those of other organizations (www.wisegeek.com/what-is-staff-
turnover.htm).
High staff turnover rates constitute the most undesirable situation for any organization.
However, it is unavoidable and the aim/efforts should be to minimize the effects of the staff
turnover rather than preventing it. Even with an incentive in training opportunities in a number
of countries, research organizations have difficulty in keeping researchers once they attain
higher degrees and can attract offers of better remuneration and conditions of work either in
the higher education or private sector or abroad (FARA 2006; World Bank, 2007).
Both EIAR and the RARIs are left with junior agricultural researchers due to loss of senior
researchers trained at MSc and PhD level. This in turn, obviously, will lead to low
performance in the national agricultural research and development system, compromising
the rate of development and delivery of innovations. With the increasing demand for high-
quality research output by the government and beneficiary farmers, the loss of highly
qualified researchers has a considerable negative effect.
EIAR and RARIs will face two main challenges due to the loss of senior and qualified
researchers:
1) There will be significant hindrance in the execution of the institute’s strategic plan. In the
agricultural sector, Ethiopia has a comprehensive and consistent set of policies and
strategies, which reflects the importance of the sector in the Nation’s development
aspirations. Some of the strategies include sustainable increase in agricultural
productivity and production, accelerating agricultural commercialization and agro-
industrial development, and reducing degradation and improve productivity of natural
resources. Institutions such as EIAR and RARIs that are mandated to implement these
huge strategies of national importance need to have adequate human resource equipped
with the necessary knowledge, skill and experience. Therefore, turnover of senior
qualified staff will have an impact on the Institute’s undertakings.
2) Young researchers may not have the opportunity to benefit from the experience of the
senior researchers. This situation may also create discontinuity among some of the
institute’s research programs, which will negatively affect performance. Some crop
improvement programs, for example, require the involvement of various experts in
40
different disciplines and may take several years before a variety is released for use by
farmers. Hence, the loss of the experienced researchers is the most threatening and thus
a need for urgent interventions to retain them as much as possible.
According to almost all of the researchers contacted for opinions, the existing salary rate,
benefit package, and working conditions of services such as housing, availability of field
vehicles, internet connections, lab and cafeteria facilities, etc are poor. They indicated that
there is lack of enabling working environment and low morale among senior researchers.
Some of the researchers who left EIAR and RARIs similarly indicated that the reason for their
departure from the institute is mainly due to the dissatisfaction with the existing incentives,
both monetary and poor working conditions. Because of these, it has become difficult to
retain researchers once they attain higher degrees as they are being attracted by offers for a
better remuneration and condition of work either by universities or local and international
NGOs in the country or abroad.
One underlining issue has been the inability of the institutes to retain experienced and
qualified researchers, and to train and mentor those who are lately employed at a junior
level. Employees who are joining the research centres right after graduation from Agricultural
colleges/universities will have no research experience and will then have difficulty carrying
out independent research. But if they are associated with senior researchers, they will benefit
from the accumulated wealth of experience of their mentors and would be able to continue
the research even in the absence of the seniors. The institutes are not also overcoming
dissatisfaction because of poor service conditions at the centre levels. Researchers are
evaluated on annual basis through the performance appraisal system, but not followed by
tangible rewards, and opportunities for promotion.
5.14. Common Influencing Factors for Staff Turnover
These days, the impact of turnover has received considerable attention by senior
management and human resources professionals. It has proven to be one of the most costly
and seemingly intractable human resource challenges confronting organizations. The high
cost of losing key staff has long been recognized. There are a number of costs incurred as a
result of staff turnover, which include recruitment/replacement costs, administrative hiring
costs, loss of productivity, high costs of training, discontinuity of research programs, training
costs for new recruiters, etc.
In principle, there are a number of common factors that contribute to staff turnover. The main
once are:
Economic factor: staff may leave their work positions due to low pay or when the
availability of higher paying jobs is high (remuneration, benefits, imbalance between
performance and reward);
Performance of the Organization: when an organization is perceived to be in economic
difficulty, staff believe that it is rational to seek other employment. A secure future is an
important factor having impact on the decision to leave a work position;
The organizational culture: the reward system, the strength of leadership (trust in
leaders/management), the ability of the organizations to elicit a sense of commitment on
the part of staff, and its development of a sense of shared goals, among other factors,
will influence turnover intentions and turnover rate;
41
The characteristics of the job: some jobs are intrinsically more attractive than others.
A job's attractiveness will be affected by many characteristics, including its
repetitiveness, challenge, danger, perceived importance, and capacity to elicit a sense of
accomplishment;
Unrealistic expectations: Another factor is the unrealistic expectations and general
lack of knowledge that many job applicants have about the job at the time that they
receive an offer. When these unrealistic expectations are not realized, they become
disillusioned and they decide to quit;
The person: there are also factors specific to the individual that can influence turnover
rates. These include both personal and trait-based factors. Personal factors include
things such as changes in family situation, a desire to learn-new skill or trade, or an
unsolicited job offer. In addition to these personal factors, there are also trait-based or
personality features that are associated with turnover;
Relationship: relationships such as at work places (if there is cooperation, treatment,
fairness, tolerance, helpfulness, etc among workmates, there will be less staff turnover);
Others: such as roles and positions (recognition, prestige, opportunities, development)
and communication style (feedback, sincerity, ethics, awareness, respecting opinions).
It is important to note that the factors listed above can be classified as being within or beyond
the control of the employing organization. Obviously, a certain degree of staff turnover is
unavoidable, but with a small amount of efforts, organizations can make a major difference.
In order to actively participate in reducing costs associated with turnover, organizations need
to identify those factors over which they do have some control and initiate necessary
changes to reduce staff turnover (http://top7Business.com/?expert=greg_smith).
5.15. Researchers Turnover by Reason
Data extracted from EIAR shows that in the past 10 years about 503 researchers have left
the organization. The highest number of researcher (327) left the institute for reasons that
are not recorded by the institute human resource department but according to the opinions
collected from those who left EIAR/RARIs, the main reason for the turnover is due to low pay
and poor incentives. The second bigger number of researchers (108) left by presenting
resignation letters and the third left due to retirement (25) (Figure 8 and Annex VIII). High
researcher’s turnover is specifically observed in 2010 and continued in the consecutive
years. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the number of researchers who left the institute is 86, 63 and
73, respectively. Specifically, 10 and 14 PhD holders have left EIAR in 2011 and 2012,
respectively. Similarly, 35 and 38 MSc holders have left the institute in 2011 and 2012,
respectively (Annex XII). The number of female researchers left the institutes is very small
comparing to male. It could probably be because they are few in number in general. It also
seems that the rate of turnover among female researchers is not high as that of male. To this
end, the institution may give due attention during the recruitment of researchers. When we
see at the above figures, the rate of staff turnover might look very low. However, when the
staff who left are found to be those with high qualification and many years of research
experience, the loss is damaging to the institutes.
From the data extracted and the opinions collected from researchers, the reason for leaving
from EIAR and RARIs is mainly economic factor and to some extent in search of enabling
environment and better training opportunities. Out of the 50 researchers contacted for
42
opinion, 99% of them indicated that the existing salary payment is not commensurate to the
work they are doing and the incentive schemes are also very poor.
Figure 8. Researchers Turnover by Reason
5.16. Where do the Researchers Go?
It is difficult to get concrete figures that show the where about of the researchers who left
EIAR and RARIs. This is because there is no an exit interview or information documented
that show why a researcher is leaving and where he/she is going to. In the future, it will be
very much useful for Research Institutes to develop a simple exit interview format to
document data from researchers concerning reasons for leaving, where he/she is leaving for
and so on.
However, as per the assessment made during this study and as per the information obtained
from most of the contacted researchers, most of the senior and qualified researchers have
left NARS for better opportunities elsewhere. Some of them joined international organizations
within the country and abroad (e.g. ASARECA, CIMMYT, ECARDA, ECRISAT, IRLI and
IFPRI) while others joined universities and local NGOs For instance, many of the researchers
who left Amhara Agricultural Research Institute have moved to different universities mainly to
Bahir Dar, Gondar, Debre Berhan, Wollo and Debre Markos Universities that are located
within the same Region. Similarly, some of the researchers from Jimma Agricultural
Research Centre have joined Jimma University.
During the collection of opinions from researchers, most of them confirmed that they are very
much satisfied with their jobs at agricultural research centres. However, the reason for
leaving to other organizations is for better payments and exposures, while the move to the
universities is highly related to having flexible time, enabling environment, better training
opportunities and existing attractive incentive systems as compared to the Agricultural
Research Institutes.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Dismissal Death Transfer to Gov Retirement Resignation Unknown
Nu
mb
er
of
rese
arch
ers
left
Reasons
Researchers Turnover by Reason in the past ten years
43
5.17. Incentives Systems/Benefit Packages
5.17.1. Staff motivational factors
Given the existing competitive job market and greener pastures, motivation of researchers to
remain in their position is not easy. It actually depends on satisfying a combination of needs.
In this regard, improving salary level is one thing. But salary level alone is not sufficient.
Apart from the salary improvement, providing research staff with an appropriate working
environment and incentive mechanism such as loan facilities, hardship allowance, medical
insurance, housing allowance, etc play a significant role in improving the overall lifestyle of
researchers and their families. They are recognised as important aspects of the benefit
packages for retaining well qualified and experienced staff. To this effect, EIAR’s and RARI’s
existing incentive packages are poor and inadequate, which need to be improved by taking
appropriate actions. The institutes must introduce innovative ways of motivating their
researchers to keep them within the institutes. Facilitating health insurance and offering
personal loans are good examples of benefits that would encourage researchers to stay.
Another important point is that the research itself has the potential to either motivate or
frustrate researchers in terms of providing professional challenge and a satisfactory
mentorship plays a greater role. In terms of performance based recognition and rewards,
researchers indicated that they underwent evaluation. However, it is only in the past two to
three years that EIAR in cooperation with Ministry of Science and Technology has started
provision of recognition and rewards of certificate, medals and trophy along with small
amount of money to the winning individuals and group of researchers.
Providing a conducive working environment, where output is recognized and rewarded, is an
important factor in retaining researchers, but it is understandable that the government may
not accomplish all these at present. EIAR and RARIs should however look for partnership
with a view to leveraging additional needed resources.
5.17.2. Existing incentives at EIAR and RARIs
Salary payment
There are two ways of getting salary increment. The first is promotion, which is a change in
academic title and the second through every two-year increment, which required fulfilment of
a minimum requirement. The monthly salary of a Junior Agricultural Researcher (entry
salary) is birr 2,483 and a Senior Researcher gets a maximum of birr 6,802. Comparing to
the existing government staff (civil servant) salary, it is somehow better. Contrasting to salary
payments of Academic Staff of Universities, where many agricultural researchers are moving
to it is not also bad. But it is a bit lower than the salary payment to Health and IT
Professionals. When compared with Revenue and Customs Staff salary, the Agricultural
Researchers are by far paid very low.
44
Table 1. Comparison of minimum and maximum salary of selected professional posts of some public
organizations.
Positions/areas of services
Minimum salary in birr
Maximum salary in birr
Remarks
Civil Servants
1,499
6,460
Health Professionals
2,250
9,973
IT professionals
2,240
10,034
Academic staff (universities)
2,250
9,604
Agricultural Researchers
2,483
6,802*
.
Revenue & Customs Staff
3,145
22,667
*Normally, the approved salary scale shows that the upper salary limit for Senior Researcher
is birr 8,500. However, due to the termination of the every two-year increment, their salary
has stopped at birr 6,802. Similarly, the upper salary limit for Lead Researcher is birr 9,711,
but not implemented since approval.
On the other hand, the salary being offered to researchers by NGOs is non-comparable. Not
to mention offers by international organizations within and abroad even offers by local NGOs
are lucrative. A researcher who is getting an average salary rate at EIAR may be offered at
least double of his monthly salary by local NGOs.
One very important point to be underlined here is that the government cannot afford to offer
researchers with similar salary scales comparable to those paid by local and international
NGOs. Almost all researchers contacted for opinions fully understand the financial capacity
of the government and they don’t have such expectations.
However, they believe that given the overall increased cost of living and taking into account
the contributions of the researchers for the attainment of economic growth and development,
the government can improve the existing salary scale to make it as fairly attractive as
possible. They also believe that they can be fairly compensated by designing other incentive
mechanisms and benefit packages.
Incentives
EIAR’s and RARI’s research staff are fulltime-employees. They are required to work more
than 8 hours a day. However, there is almost nothing that can be considered as a benefit or
an incentive to the long hours of work. Comparing to incentives provided by universities,
EIAR and RARIs incentives are almost nil.
Researchers at EIAR and RARI have no time to look for other means of earning additional
money to support themselves. There are no provisions such as sabbatical leave and leave
without pay, which are practiced in the universities. Most of the researcher staff are working
and living in very remote areas with very harsh working environment like Werer, Pawe,
Sinana, Bako, etc. They are highly exposed to malaria and other diseases and yet they don’t
have any medical insurance. It is not uncommon in EIAR that when the research staff get
sick, even those at the prime time of their career and thus supposedly to be self-reliant, have
45
to wait for the contributions of their fellow staff for simple in-country hospitalization and
medication.
BOX III
“...I have worked in one of the research centres for more than 20 years and have been sick from malaria for more than 30 times. There is neither medical insurance nor hardship allowance and I used to pay from my small salary for all the treatments. There are many researchers at the centres who faced similar problems. I like my research job but when I am sick and in short of money, it is really de-motivating”.
An opinion provided by a senior researcher currently working at EIAR
There is no hardship allowance and because of lack of clear rule, there is no hope of transfer
to other places where better working conditions/environment are available. Most of the
researchers like to be engaged/married and lead family life, have children, etc, but they
cannot do that as they live in remote centres. There are no schools and other facilities
around. On the other hand, they don’t have education grant for their children and cannot
afford to pay housing rent and education fees in bigger towns/cities.
Facilities at most of the research centres are very poor. There are only limited houses and
these are occupied by limited researchers, while others are forced to pay for house rents
from out of their meagre salaries. Surprisingly, even under such incongruous circumstances
there is no provision of housing allowances. Another very serious problem is, in some of the
research centres, the existing field vehicles are old enough and most of the time taken to
garages and exposing the institute for a very high maintenance cost.
BOX IV “...As a researcher, I am always devoted to spend my life in helping farmers by developing practical and improved technologies. Because the vehicles we have are very old and spent most of their time in garages, I sometimes travel up to 15 kms on foot to reach the farmers. The government cannot always afford to buy and provided vehicles. We know the capacity of our government. However, we could have designed other income generating systems. For instance, Jimma Research Centre is a centre of excellence for coffee. Coffee growers and exporters are granting huge amount of money to coffee football club. But they don’t contribute a coin to the research. Why not? I am sure if we take it in to consideration, it could be good source of income at least to cover cost of such facilities”.
An opinion provided by a researcher working in Jimma Research Centre
Provision of transport services from towns to research centres and vice versa is very weak
as the services cars are becoming older. This is really a serious issue that most of the
researchers are not happy about and, therefore, requires a strong attention by the institutes.
There are issues related to per-diem payments and development of project proposals.
Researchers are paid per-diems as per government rules and they benefit nothing from that
whether they mobilize funds from donors or not. They are not motivated to design project
proposal and mobilize funds (foreign currency) which is beneficial not only to the institute in
particular but also to the country in general. University researchers/lecturers are paid per-
46
diems based on project agreements with donors and benefit from writing project proposals
and winning research grants.
Literature shows that in many countries research institutes generate their research funds
from donors by developing research project proposals. In Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute, for instance, government allocates only limited recurrent budget and much of the
research funds are mobilized by the researchers themselves. Because they are allowed to
benefit/share from the funds they mobilize based on already set rule, they are highly
encouraged to prepare project proposals and look for funds. If EIAR and RARIs move
towards this end, no doubt, the attrition of their researchers will be reduced and the institutes
will be benefited (Murithi and Minayo, 2011).
5.18. Benchmarking EIAR/RARIS Incentive to Incentives at Universities
In contrast to the research staff in EIAR and RARIs, researchers/lecturers at universities
have very flexible time to look for other opportunities, from teaching opportunities at private
colleges to other consultancy works on part time basis. The existing incentive mechanisms in
some of the universities are relatively attractive. They have sabbatical leave, research leave
and leave without pay. They are engaged in the provision of summer, distance and evening
courses from where they can collect additional income. They advise post graduate students
and earn additional payments. They are provided either with a house or housing allowances.
Compared to the EIAR and RARI research centres, universities are relatively located in
bigger towns/cities with much better conditions not only for them to work at ease but also for
their families to thrive contentedly. In universities, there is recognition of research loads. This
means when a researcher/lecturer is participating in committee works and community
services, his/her time is calculated and counted as part of his/her teaching or research load.
Hence, when the service is above the maximum load, she/he is paid for the extra work.
Another motivating factor at universities is that based on their publications and other
requirements, they can be promoted to associate or full professorship in addition to other
recognitions. To the contrary, lead researcher post at EIAR and RARIs has never been
materialized since the establishment of the current career structures.
When university researchers/lecturers are engaged in an official consultancy services and
generate income, the major proportion of that income goes to them. No such provisions are
available at EIAR and RARIs. Some universities have full-fledged schools for the children’s
of the university community (from kindergarten to elementary and preparatory), e.g. Jimma
and Mekele universities. This by itself is a very good retention mechanism for researchers
and lectures.
5.19. Project Proposal Development Related Benefits
As indicated above, in Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, researchers are highly engaged
in the development of project proposals in their respective disciplines. They are required to
mobilize research funds for the institute as much as possible. Because they are allowed to
get a certain percentage from the fund they mobilize, they are highly motivated for preparing
project proposals and therewith generating research funds to the institute. In each of the
47
project proposals, they are encouraged to include part of the fund to be used for purchase of
some facilities such as vehicles and laboratory equipment. At the same time, researchers are
benefiting in terms of per diems related to the projects as agreed with donors.
In the Ethiopian universities, the trend is moving towards this direction. A number of projects
are in place where they are able to mobilize research funds and some additional facilities
from resource partners. The benefits are not only to the researchers/lecturers but to the
universities as well by way of acquiring additional facilities, e.g. vehicles and laboratory
equipment.
In EIAR and RARIs, there are no such incentives. There is no benefit to the researchers
whether they mobilize funds by preparing project proposals or not. Per diem rates are paid
according to government rules and no percentage is paid to researchers from funds
mobilized.
BOX V
“...I have about three to four projects at hand to manage. I will continue writing additional project proposals and I am sure we will get more projects approved by donors. But you know when you mange projects, you have to properly follow up their implementation, have to prepare reports, and so on.. The burden is huge and you have to be fairly compensated. In this regard, there are some de-motivating factors. The per-diem rate is the government’s rate and there is nothing to benefit from income generated through developing project proposals. You know what! Sometimes we design regional projects, for instance, covering Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. If the agreed per-diem in the project agreement is $25 a day, researchers from Kenya and Tanzania get same while the per-diem rate in Ethiopia is $6”.
An opinion provided by a senior researcher working at EIAR
These days, Information Communication Technology (ICT) is crucial. This is even more
crucial to researchers to cope up with the latest innovations. In this regard, universities are
by far in a better position to provide ICT facilities to their researchers/lecturers. Jimma and
Mekele universities are good examples. They are trying to the extent of providing wireless
connection facility to each of the researchers/lecturers at their home as much as possible.
This is really encouraging and very attractive. When it comes to EIAR and RARIs, let alone
to provide wireless facilities at researchers homes’, some of the research centres have
serious problem in getting the normal connection facility at their offices.
In terms of training, universities provide more freedom. When researchers/lecturers find
training opportunities (short term or long term) through their own efforts, they are fully
supported. In EIAR and RARIs, criteria for training opportunities are somehow stringent and
not relaxed.
Universities have more autonomy in many respects. They have full freedom in the
implementation and utilization of research budgets than EIAR and RARIs. In these institutes,
most of the administrative and financial procedures are centralized. Managers of research
centres have very limited autonomy in recruitment, procurement and other financial
decisions. For instance, procurement procedures are lengthy and usually done by EIAR HQ.
In general, the existing working conditions are so cumbersome and are rather a source of
dissatisfaction for some researchers.
48
As indicated above, when university researchers/lecturers are engaged in official consultancy
services, the major portion of the income goes to them and only small part of it to the
university. In EIAR and RARIs, there are many income-generating options through provision
of consultancy services. However, there is no provision to compensate researchers.
5.20. Assignment of Directors and Centre Managers
Assignments of Directors at all levels are currently done by the Director General. Most of the
researchers contacted for their opinion have somehow different opinion in this regard. They
recommend assignments to be based on merits and by election. Their argument is that
researchers should have a say on the assignment for the sake of efficient and effective
research programs. The idea is not new and the experience was there before.
It is obvious that EIAR and RARIs are government institutions. After all, they are there to
support and implement government strategies. Hence, if at all there is political interest by the
government in the assignment of directors, it has to be limited to the Director General and
Deputy Director General level only. Other directors should be selected by the research staff
based on their merits and given/specified terms of reference. As EIAR and RARIs are
Knowledge institutions, the person to be assigned as a director should have the quality or
characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a
source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. This is a matter of moral authority.
A recent experience of Addis Ababa University is worth to mention and is very much in line
with this proposal. College deans, Institute directors, etc are selected by staff
researchers/lecturers based on merit through a search and screening committee formed for
this purpose. First, invitation for competition for the post of for example, a dean, is
announced by the Office of the President and competitors submit an application along a
proposal indicating what they intend to do during their terms. Other supporting documents
related to the applicant will be collected including performance appraisal, peer evaluation,
student evaluation, letters of recommendation from referees and other experiences relevant
to the post. Then, after evaluating and raking by the Search and Screening Committee,
candidates that stood 1-3 will be submitted to the university president for final selection and
approval. This kind of assignments would then bring highly motivated and capable staff to the
advertised post which could be a good lesson for EIAR and RARIs given the present trend
which is not favoured by the research staff.
5.21. Performance Appraisal and Rewarding System
Performance evaluation of researchers is conducted annually according to the performance
appraisal system for civil servants. However, the results of the evaluation for well performing
researchers led to neither provision of incentives/benefits nor to an accelerated promotion.
Other benefits such as provision of service vehicles depend on the position held (DG, DDG,
Directors) than performance. The lack of performance based incentives could be a source of
frustration and can cause high rate of staff turnover/departure. In fact, the reason for recent
departure from the institute vary from low salary level to lack of incentives and recognition of
individual merit, to the lack of adequate facilities and equipment.
49
6. Main Findings of the Study
6.1. Like in many other countries, the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in
Ethiopia is considered to include the Federal and Regional Agricultural Research Institutes,
HLIs and some NGOs and the private sector that are engaged in agricultural research and
development activities. However, because of the absence of coordinating body of agricultural
research in the country, the above indicated actors are working their research activities in
uncoordinated manner that could lead to duplication of efforts and wastage of meagre
resources. The disparity among these institutions in terms of salary scales, incentive
packages, development of professional careers, etc might also pay a role to the
fragmentation of research activities.
6.2. Agriculture is the main sprinter of our economy and will remain to be a key sector in
socioeconomic development in Ethiopia for a long time to come. As clearly indicated in the
Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of the country, agriculture will be maintained as
major source of economic growth to sustain rapid and broad-based economic development.
In this regard, agricultural research will have great contribution in availing, multiplying and
pre-scaling up of agricultural technologies. In fact, the emphasis will be on scaling up of best
technologies and practices of model farmers, but new technologies will also be disseminated
to farmers and pastoralists. Hence, the need for having an effectively organized research
and innovation system is unquestionable.
6.3. Many of the NARS organizations, mainly the EIAR, RARIs and HLIs were used to be
known for their highly qualified and experienced staff. Since recently, however, many of the
staff members are leaving these institutions for various reasons. For instance, EIAR has lost
about 503 researchers in the past ten years, and the Amhara Region Agricultural Research
Institute lost 123 researchers in the past seven years. A recent press release from the
Ministry of Education has also indicated that in the year 2004 E.C. about 650 academic
professionals have left HLIs. The fact that high number of senior and qualified researchers
are leaving agricultural research institutions could result in significant negative impact on the
quality of the agricultural research and innovation of the country.
6.4. The existing salary pay for researchers by the EIAR and the RARIs is somehow
similar to the existing salary paid to academic staff and a bit less compared to that of health
and IT professionals working under universities and health institutions. However, when their
salaries are compared with that of the staff of Revenue and Customs Authority (one of the
public organizations), it is by far low. Opinions gathered from most of the contacted
prominent researchers, indicate that the existing salary pay is not enough and has not taken
into account the professional contribution of researchers.
6.5. The existing benefit/incentive packages at EIAR and the RARIs are inadequate and are
becoming major reasons for the high staff turnover.
7. Recommendations
There are several reasons for Agricultural Research Staff members in Ethiopia to leave their
jobs. Thus, immediate measures are needed to be taken to avert the situation. Searching for
50
and training of newly recruited staff is not only a time consuming and costly business but also
an action that does not have much contribution towards continuity and productivity of the
already started agricultural research endeavours. Therefore, taking an extra step to retain
and keep qualified and experienced research staff around would to a large extent help the
expected research and innovation development.
In line with the findings of the study, the following recommendations are proposed for action.
The first part of the recommendations is to be dealt by EIAR and the RARIs. These
recommendations are for improvements and are believed to be within the mandate of the
institutes. The second part of the recommendations is directed to the Government for policy
considerations.
7.1. Recommendations to be Dealt with by Agricultural Research Institutes
7.1.1. Introduce better hiring process
Resolving of staff turnover problem begins with the hiring process. The research institutes,
specifically EIAR is increasingly recruiting research and other staff from time to time.
However, recruitment of applicants based on qualification levels alone may not be sufficient.
Applicants should have respect and interest to the values, principles and goals of the
institute. It is recommended that during recruitment additional strategy is needed to identify
applicants who have real interest in the agricultural research and are really committed to
serve the institute rather than using it as a steppingstone for the purpose of getting
scholarships or other opportunities.
7.1.2. Establish transparent internal staff transfer rules
At the research institutes, transfer of staff from place to place is not totally locked. Seldom,
there are transfers of staff. However, the way a staff member is transferred from one
research centre to another is not clear. There is no written internal staff transfer rule and
some researchers working at the remotest centres have less hopes to be transferred
regardless of their years of service. Hence, it is recommended to develop a clear internal
transfer policy among the research institutes.
7.1.3. Implement the Lead Researcher post:
Although a lead researcher’s post is already approved by the Ministry of Civil Service, no
single researcher is assigned for the post. In our review, it was a point of discussion among
the senior researchers. They could not understand why this post, like the other posts, has not
been made open for qualified researchers to assume the post. As it is the most senior post, it
could be used as one mechanism to retain senior researchers. We, therefore, recommended
for its implementation based on set criteria. Apart from the above, every two-year salary
increment has been terminated and hence become one of source of dissatisfaction. We,
therefore, recommend the every two-year salary increment be implemented as it give due
importance to experience.
7.1.4. Arrange frequent visits to researcher centres by top management
Research Centres are the primary research areas where practical research activities are
conducted. They are more close to the beneficiary community and are located in different
51
agro-ecological zones. They have different level of development in terms of infrastructure
and availability of facilities. Some of the research centres have a number of inconveniences
related to facilities and need full support of their respective top management. In order to
further understand the actual conditions of the centres and their day to day operational
problems, it is recommended that top management of institutes (EIAR and RARIs) need to
periodically visit their respective centres.
7.1.5. Develop a proper succession plan
It is a known fact that senior researchers of the institutes will leave their respective offices
when they reach their retirement ages. They may also leave the institutes for other reasons.
One way of mitigating the loss of experienced and qualified senior researchers is by having a
succession plan. When succession plan is in place, senior researcher nearing retirement will
have a chance to mentor younger researchers in their respective areas of disciplines as
prospective replacements. In addition, job descriptions are necessary aspects of securing
succession, and need to be included as part of a the mentoring process. Hence it is
recommended that agricultural research institutes should have a good succession plan.
7.1.6. Create more enabling environment
During our study, many researchers confirmed that they like their research job and are
satisfied with that. The Government in general has invested quite a huge amount of fund on
building the human capacity of the research system. A large number of research staff
graduated in PhD and MSc as a result. But many researchers raised that research facilities
especially laboratory facilities have remained stagnant. The assignment of researchers on
single crop basis rather than discipline was also mentioned as source of dissatisfaction by
some research staff. They argue that discipline based approaches create more ground for
establishing competitive and motivating incentive mechanisms. There are also many other
influencing factors that push researchers towards dissatisfaction, specifically those working
at the research centres. For example, there is shortage of vehicles for field works and lack of
potable water. There are also problems in connection with house maintenance, ICT
connection related services, and canteens. Hence, it is recommended that EIAR and RARIs
management should review and identify the most impeding problems at each research
centres and try to create enabling environment by resolving such problems as soon as
possible.
7.1.7. Establish exit interview system
Researchers and many other staff left the institutes at different times. However, there is no
documented evidence why these staff left the institutes. It is recommended to design and
implement an exit interview system and document the reasons for leaving and other
comments provided about the institutions.
7.1.8. Encourage and support participation of researchers in local/international
workshops
EIAR and RARIs are working with several national, regional and global partners and donors.
Apart from their regular research works using Government funds, they undertake projects
through the support of different donors/partners. At same time, opportunities of short term
trainings, post docs and workshops are given through the support of donors/partners from
time to time. Participation of researchers in such workshops and trainings may help to create
52
more partnerships, meet senior scientists and share their research experiences. Hence, it is
recommended that researchers engaged in the actual research works be given more
opportunities to participate in a global, regional and national scientific workshops and
trainings.
7.1.9. Assignment of Senior Researchers in nearby centres to cities/towns
Assignment of senior researchers to main centres located near to major cities/towns as
required may help to easily move them to research centres to coordinate research activities
and mentor junior researchers by sharing their experience in the field. Such assignment will
possibly help to reduce the turnover of senior researchers because of absence of transfer
opportunities.
7.2. Recommendations to be Dealt with by the Government
7.2.1. Establish an organizing body for NARS
Finding of the study show that there is no organizing body that coordinates the different
actors who are engaged in agricultural research and development. Actors of NARS are
moving in unorganized way and this may lead to duplication of efforts and wastage of
resources. Having a NARS coordinating body at the national level may have benefits
including creation of possible retention mechanisms of highly qualified and experienced
researchers, common use of modest laboratories and other research infrastructure
established by NARS at different centres, collection, organization and proper utilization of
research outcomes from the NARS, mobilization of funds from international donors in an
organized manner and using it in an equitable basis and establishment of strong relationship
among the NARS and broaden the opportunities in resource mobilization, training and
technology transfer from international partners. In order to bring real impact in the
agricultural research and development, it is recommended to expedite the initiative of EIAR
on the establishment of a coordinating body of the NARS at the country level.
7.2.2. Revise the existing salary scale
Our study proved that many senior and experienced researchers are leaving the NARS.
Specifically, the agricultural research institutes are losing highly qualified researchers. The
main reason for the current high attrition is an economical one, i. e., low salary scale. Almost
all agricultural researchers believe that the existing salary scale doesn’t commensurate their
level of work and is unable to cover the high cost of living. We recommend the existing salary
scale to be objectively studied and revised.
7.2.3. Improve incentive mechanisms
Another reason for the high turnover in agricultural research institutes is the lack of adequate
incentive schemes. There are no motivating incentives such as medical benefits, house
allowances, hardship allowances, provision of personal loans, school fees, etc. Even
compared to universities, the incentive packages at agricultural research institutes are
extremely poor. Hence, we recommend to objectively study the existing incentive schemes
and make improvements at least to the level of that of the universities.
53
7.2.4. Create formal linkages between agricultural research institutes and universities
Currently, the linkages between universities and the agricultural research institutes is based
on personal relations. There is no as such formal linkage mechanisms. If linkages are
formally established, for instance in the exchange of researchers, communication will be
eased and their productivity increased. We recommend for the establishment of mechanisms
to formally link agricultural research institutes and the universities.
7.2.5. Create opportunities for joint appointments
More or less, researchers at the NARS are engaged in similar research and development
activities. However, the human resource capacity available at one agriculture research centre
may not be available at another. In this regard, it is highly beneficial for the NARS actors:
to share the existing limited number of qualified researchers both at NARS and
universities outside of the NARS for both quality research and education
to ensure a good incentive for those researchers and educators not only in financial terms
but also in terms of academic ranks.
We recommend a mechanism to be developed for joint employment of researchers at the
NARS.
7.2.6. Institute/design rewarding system
Usually, agricultural research systems take longer time to produce an output. It requires that
the researcher has to stay in that research activity for long time, depending the nature of the
research. For this, hardworking, committed and ethical researchers should be appropriately
recognized. It is important to recognize and reward a researcher when he/she produces
visible output that benefits the farming system by investing his/her time, skill and knowledge.
In this regard, we came to understand that starting the past two to three years, there have
been awards be given to winning researchers. We recommend such types of reward to
continue in an organized and strengthened manner.
7.2.7. Assignment of Research Directors
Currently, Director Generals and other Research Directors are assigned by the Government.
Most of the researchers are not very much comfortable on such type of assignment. They
rather argue that assignment of Directors should be merit based and by election. This
practice of assignment allows researchers to have a say on the assignment for the sake of
efficient and effective research programs. It would also help in bringing highly motivated and
capable researchers to leadership post, which in turn motivates other hard-working,
committed and skilled researchers. As EIAR and RARIs are Knowledge institutions, the
person to be assigned as a director should have the quality or characteristic of being
respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an
exemplar of proper conduct. Thus, we recommend assignment of research directors to be
merit based and by election.
It is believed that no major potential challenges will be faced in the implementation of
recommendations proposed to be dealt by the institutes. Probably, recommendations
proposed to be addressed by the Government, specifically revision of salary scale and
introduction of incentive mechanisms may have some challenges. There are some instances
where the Government is improving the salary scale of some public organizations as the
need arises on a case-by-case basis (e. g. Customs and Revenue Authority). Therefore,
54
taking into account the vital role of senior agricultural researchers play in fulfilling the
ambitious plan of doubling agricultural production, the Government needs to put reasonable
salary and incentive packages to retain them based on thorough review of existing salary
scale.
55
References
Abate, T, Deressa, A. and Molla, A. (2004). ASARECA STRATEGIC PLANNING PAPER
NO. 1: The Ethiopian NARs: Evolution, Challenges & Opportunities. Paper presented to the
Meeting of ASARECA/NARS/World Bank Retreat on Reform of Agricultural Research and
Technology Dissemination Systems in Eastern Africa, 26-28 February 2004, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Adelman, I. (1984). Beyond export-led growth. World Development 19: 937-949.
African development Bank Group (2010). The African Development Bank’s (AfDB)
Agricultural Sector Strategy (AgSS) for 2010-2014: Agriculture and Agro-industry department
and Operational resources and Policies Department.
Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice.
Kogan Page, London.
Barrett, C.B., Carter, M.R. and Timmer, C. P. (2010). A Century-Long Perspective on
Agricultural Development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92: 447-468.
Beintema, N. and Solomon, M.(2003). Agricultural science and technology indicators:
Ethiopia. ASTI Country Brief No. 9. IFPRI, ISNAR and EARO.
http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pubsafrica.htm (PDF). Accessed 10 February 2004.
Beintema, N. and Stads, G. (2011). African Agricultural Research and Development in the
New Millennium. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Beintema, N. M., and Di Marcantonio, F. (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, and Nairobi: International Food Policy Research Institute and African
Women in Agricultural Research and Development.
Berg, E.J. (1993). Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity Building in Africa.
New York, N.Y.: UNDP and DAI.
Binswanger, H and Landell-Mills, P. (1995). The World Bank's strategy for reducing poverty
and hunger: A report to the development community. World Bank, Washington DC.
Bossuyt, J., Laporte, G. and van Hoek, F. (1992). New Avenues for Technical Cooperation in
Africa: Improving the Record in Terms of Capacity Building. Maastricht: ECDPM.
Demel, T. 2002. Evolution and strategic plan of agricultural research in Ethiopia. Paper
presented at the second committee of directors retreat of the Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Kigali, September 30–May
4.
Diao, X., Hazell, P, Resnick, D. and Thurlow, J. (2007). The Role of Agriculture in
Development: Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), Research Report 153.
Diao, X., Hazell, P., Resnick, D. & Thurlow, J. 2006. The role of agriculture in development –
Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI Research Report no. 153.
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/role-agriculture-development-0.
Eicher, C. K. (1989). Sustainable Institutions for African Agricultural Development. Working
Paper No. 19. (ISNAR, The Hague).
56
Evenson, R.E. & Gollin, D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the green revolution: 1960-2000.
Science, 300: 758-762.
FAO (1996). Role of research in global food security and agricultural development. Technical
background document.
FAO (2012). The State of Food and Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),
Rome.
FARA (2006). Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa). Accra, Ghana. 72 pp.
Gabre-Madhin, E. Z. and Haggblade, S. (2003). "Successes in African agriculture,"MSSD
discussion papers 53, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Gallup, J. L. and Sachs, J. D. (2000). Agriculture, climate, and technology: Why are the
tropics falling behind? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(3): 731-37.
Gollin and College (2009).Agriculture as an Engine of Growth and Poverty Reduction: What
We Know and What We Need to Know. A Framework Paper for the African Economic
Research Consortium Project on “Understanding Links between Growth and Poverty
Reduction in Africa”.
Hårsmar, M. (2006). Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Expert Group on
Development Issues Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Workshop Proceedings March 2006.
Frösundavik, Sweden.
http://top7Business.com/?expert=greg_smith.
http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/ASTI-FARA-Conference-Synthesis.pdf.
http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/Ethiopia-Note.pdf.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e04.pdf).
http://www.naro.go.ug/About%20NARO/aboutnars.html.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-staff-turnover.htm.
IAC (2004). Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture: Science and
technology strategies for improving agricultural productivity and food security in Africa. Inter-
Academy Council, Amsterdam.
IFPRI (2006). Building an Agricultural Research for Development System in Africa. ISNAR
Division Discussion Paper 8.
Ikpi, A. (1999). Building African Scientific and Managerial Capacity for Transforming
Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. An invited Paper presented at the 4th Workshop on
Transformation of African Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, June 27-30, 1999.
InterAcademy Council (2004). Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture.
Jaycox, E.V.K. (1993). Capacity Building: The Missing Link in African Development.
Transcript of the Address to the African-American Institute Conference on "African Capacity
Building: Effective and Enduring Partnerships", Reston, Virginia, May 1993.
Johns Hopkins Press.
Juma, C. (2011). The new Harvest: Agricultural Innovations in Africa. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Juma, C. (2011). The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovations in Africa. Oxford University
Press, Inc., New York.
57
Lynam, J.K. and Blackie, J.M. (1994). Building Effective Agricultural Research Capacity: The
African Challenge. In: J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the
International Community. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 106-134.
Masters, W.A. and McMillan, M. (2000). Climate and Scale in Economic Growth, Center for
International Development, Harvard, University.
Mellor, J. (2001). Reducing poverty, Buffering Economic Shocks – Agriculture and the Non-
Tradable Economy. Paper prepared for FAO consultation on the Roles of Agriculture in
Development, 19-21 March 2001, Rome.
Michelsen, H., Zuidema, L., Hoste, C.Shapiro, D. (2003). Improving agricultural research at
universities in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study guide. The Hague: International Service for
National Agricultural Research.
Mrema, G. C. (1997). Agricultural research systems in the ECA sub-region. In: Mrema, G.C.
(Ed.) Development of a long-term strategic plan for agricultural research in the eastern and
central African region. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa (ASARECA). Kampala, Uganda.
Murithi, F. and Minayo, C. (2011). Staff Aging and Turnover in African Agricultural Research:
A Case Study on Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. ASTI, Accra, Ghana.
Seckler, D. (1993). Agricultural Transformation in Africa. Proceedings of the Seminar on
Agricultural Transformation in Africa, Baltimore, Maryland, May 27-29, 1992. Arlington, VA:
Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development.
Sène, L., Liebenberg, F., Mwala, M., Murithi, F., Kaboré, S.S., and Beintema, N. (2011).Staff
Aging and Turnover in African Agricultural R & D: Lessons from Five National Agricultural
Research Institutes. Conference Working Paper 17 prepared by the ASTI/IFPRI-FARA
Conference, December 5-7, 2011, Accra, Ghana.
Singer, H. (1979). Policy implications of the Lima target. Industry and Development 3: 17–23.
Stringer, R. (2001). How important are the 'non-traditional' economic roles of agriculture in
development? Discussion Paper No. 0118. School of Economics and Centre for International
Economic Studies University of Adelaide, Australia.
Timmer, C.P., Falcon, W. and Pearson, S. (1983). Food Policy Analysis, Baltimore:
UNECA (2005). Emerging issues in science and technology for Africa’s development. Fourth
Meeting of the Committee on Sustainable Development. United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October.
World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development.
Washington, DC.
World Bank (2010). Ethiopia - Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) Project Information
Document (PID) Appraisal Stage.
World Bank. (1990). World Development Report, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank. (1996). Reforming agriculture: The World Bank goes to market, Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
58
ANNEX I LIST OF RESEARCHERS WHO PROVIDED OPINIONS
S/N
Name of Researcher
Current Address
1 Dr. Abebe Atilaw Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
2 Dr. Adefris Teklewold Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
3 Dr. Adugna Wakjira Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
4 Dr. Alemu Yami Food and Agriculture organization
5 Dr. Assefa Taa Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute
6 Dr. Dawit Alemu Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
7 Dr. Eshete Dejen Food and Agriculture organization
8 Dr. Fantahun Mengistu Amhara Agricultural Research Institute
9 Dr. Fikre Lemessa Jimma University
10 Dr. Frew Mekbib Haramaya University
11 Dr. Gebrehiwot Tadesse Mekele University
12 Dr. Getachew Ayana Melkassa Research Centre
13 Dr. Getnet Assefa Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
14 Dr. Kidane Giorgis Retiree
15
Dr. Lemma Gizachew Food and Agriculture organization
16
Dr. Mirutse Giday Addis Ababa University
17
Dr. Mohamed Yosuf Melkassa Research Centre
18
Dr. Nigussie Alemayehu Food and Agriculture organization
19
Dr. Solomon Assefa Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
20
Dr. Taye Tolemariam Jimma University
21
Dr. Teklehaimanot H/selassie Addis Ababa University
22
Dr. Tesfay Belay Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
23
Dr. Tilahun Gelete Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute
24
Dr. Tolosa Debele Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
25
Dr. Wubalem Tadesse Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
26 Mr. Daniel Dauro Hawassa Agricultural Research Centre
27
Mr. Alemayehu Tekle Jimma Agricultural Research Centre
59
S/N
Name of Researcher
Current Address
28 Mr. Awet Estifanos Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
29 Mr. Beyene Dimtsu Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
30 Mr. Embaye Kidanu Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
31
Mr. Feseha Zegeye Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
32
Mr. G/hiwot H/mariam Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
33
Mr. G/silassie Gebru Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
34
Mr. Gebrehiwot Bezabih Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
35
Mr. Getachew Alemu Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
36
Mr. Girma Moges Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
37
Mr. Hintsa Gebre Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
38
Mr. Knife Mezgebe Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
39
Mr. Mekonnen Hailu Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
40
Mr. Solomon Kebede Jimma Agricultural Research Centre
41
Mr. Tadesse Benti Jimma Agricultural Research Centre
42
Mr. Tadesse Eshetu Jimma Agricultural Research Centre
43
Mr. Tafa Jobie Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute
44
Mr. Tesfu Kebede Jimma Agricultural Research Centre
45
Mr. Tsegaye Chala Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
46
Mr. Woldegebrael T/mariam Were Research Centre
47
Mr. Zeray Seyoum Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
48
Mr. Zerihun Kebede Melkassa Research Centre
49
Ms Azeb Kassa Tigray Agricultural Research Institute
50
Professor Chali Jira
Jimma University
60
Annex II Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
Government Budget Allocation in Million Birr
Description
Budget Year
2012/13 2011/12 2010/1
1 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06 2004/05
Capital Budget 173 136 91 87 84 56 60 49 42
Recurrent Budget 122 113 73 74 68 63 49 47 39
Total 295 249 164 161 152 119 109 96 81
61
Annex III Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Number of Staff by Title and by Gender
Title Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Researcher (Including DG,DDG and Directors) Male 584 621 597 578 540 512 479 518 561 637
Female 41 38 37 34 37 38 39 54 71 80
Technical Support Male 1001 989 995 999 963 962 690 738 850 875
Female 212 217 216 216 201 199 159 174 202 219
Administrative Support Male 736 755 803 821 759 1032 824 880 1005 1135
Female 292 314 325 333 303 402 305 336 381 426
Total 2866 2934 2973 2981 2803 3145 2496 2700 3070 3372
Summary
Gende
r
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 2321 2365 2395 2398 2262 2506 1993 2136 2416 2647
Female 545 569 578 583 541 639 503 564 654 725
Total 2866 2934 2973 2981 2803 3145 2496 2700 3070 3372
62
Annex IV Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Number of Staff by Location and Gender
Location Gender YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ambo Male 74 74 84 82 85 109 83 90 93 99
Female 14 14 17 18 18 33 27 34 36 37
Asosa Male 5 20 27 46 43 57 74 106
Female 0 4 4 8 6 8 15 16
Awasa Male 15 15 12 17 20 24 19
Female 5 5 9 8 10 8 7
Bako Male 37 37 36 36 39 49 44 42 53 54
Female 5 5 4 6 4 6 4 4 8 8
D/Zeit Male 246 252 253 244 239 249 210 215 236 239
Female 68 71 72 70 74 85 72 81 89 88
Essential Oil Res. Male 14 14 29 36 39 63
Female 2 2 9 11 13 24
Fish & Aquatic Life Male 23 23 25 26 28 34 27 37 47 47
Female 9 9 7 7 9 13 10 14 22 22
Forestry Male 119 121 125 122 116 152 121 115 155 164
Female 45 47 44 44 43 64 52 52 59 68
Holetta Male 326 336 333 331 325 381 302 296 324 337
Female 67 71 71 71 70 79 66 68 76 85
HQ Male 140 144 156 147 150 144 113 118 128 132
Female 81 83 92 91 98 95 66 69 83 90
Jima Male 442 442 424 422 410 424 283 269 287 338
Female 26 26 26 27 26 28 24 25 24 45
Kulumsa Male 190 196 193 188 179 194 169 169 178 181
Female 24 26 25 26 26 34 28 35 35 36
Location Gender YEAR
63
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mehoni Male 32
Female 5
National Animal Health Male 70 70 73 72
Female 25 25 27 28
National Soil Research Male 36 36 41 40
Female 26 26 25 25
Nazreth Male 286 296 295 295 285 309 269 282 320 309
Female 58 66 56 55 55 69 58 64 83 85
Pawe Male 81 81 80 83 92 95 87 104 117 126
Female 10 10 13 11 14 13 12 18 23 22
Tepi Male 35 55 66
Female 3 9 7
Werer Male 222 228 231 237 228 233 174 187 183 215
Female 80 83 81 81 77 80 57 59 56 68
Wondogenet Male 49 120 166 202
Female 14 30 36 43
Total 2866 2934 2973 2981 2803 3145 2496 2700 3070 3372
Summary
Gender YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 2321 2365 2395 2398 2262 2506 1993 2136 2416 2647
Female 545 569 578 583 541 639 503 564 654 725
Total 2866 2934 2973 2981 2803 3145 2496 2700 3070 3372
64
Annex V Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Qualification level of Researchers by Gender
Location Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BSc/BA Male 304 313 290 272 239 205 182 208 216 275
Female 21 19 19 12 17 17 21 24 26 34
MSC/MVSc/MA Male 209 222 211 197 204 213 197 208 247 269
Female 16 14 14 15 17 17 15 28 42 44
DVM Male 12 11 9 8 2 2 14 14 12 12
Female 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
PHD Male 59 75 87 101 95 92 86 88 86 81
Female 1 3 3 6 3 3 3 2 3 2
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
Summary
Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 584 621 597 578 540 512 479 518 561 637
Female 41 38 37 34 37 38 39 54 71 80
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
65
Annex VI Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Category Level of Researchers by Title and by Gender
Category Gender YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
DG,DDG & Directors Male 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 12
Female 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Lead Researchers Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Senior Researchers Male 25 31 37 33 28 36 34 38 39 44
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Researchers (I & II) Male 45 54 57 64 56 65 58 59 66 59
Female 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3
Associate Researchers (I & II) Male 166 161 147 160 148 149 141 140 170 177
Female 15 15 11 13 13 10 10 14 17 16
Assistant Researchers (I, II & III) Male 135 178 227 221 212 179 168 182 169 178
Female 10 12 15 12 13 14 14 18 37 39
Junior Researchers (I & II) Male 211 191 123 94 90 77 72 90 108 167
Female 14 7 7 5 7 10 11 19 14 21
Technicians Male 242 253 260 264 231 228 192 238 239 271
Female 44 46 47 50 40 36 33 34 55 56
Summary
Category Gender YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Researchers Male 584 621 597 578 540 512 479 518 561 637
Female 41 38 37 34 37 38 39 54 71 80
Total Researchers 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
Technicians Male 242 253 260 264 231 228 192 238 239 271
Female 44 46 47 50 40 36 33 34 55 56
Total Technicians 286 299 307 314 271 264 225 272 294 327
66
Annex VII Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Age distribution of Researchers by Gender
Age Level Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
< 29 Male 266 242 251 241 210 191 178 181 188 234
Female 19 10 12 12 19 19 19 24 39 46
30-39 Male 174 228 215 203 217 217 208 210 218 224
Female 10 14 11 11 10 10 10 18 18 19
40-49 Male 110 113 99 100 75 67 60 87 111 123
Female 12 9 10 8 5 6 7 7 8 8
50-59 Male 31 34 29 30 34 34 30 37 40 53
Female 0 5 4 3 3 3 3 5 6 7
> 60 Male 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
Summary
Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 584 621 597 578 540 512 479 518 561 637
Female 41 38 37 34 37 38 39 54 71 80
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
67
Annex VIII Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Researcher's Turnover by Reason and by Gender
Reason for Turnover Gender
YEAR Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Retirement Male 0 2 0 2 3 0 4 7 2 4 24
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Resignation Male 1 10 10 11 12 5 1 17 10 16 93
Female 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 1 3 3 15
Medical reason Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dismissal (disciplinary measure Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfer (Govt Assignment) Male 1 3 1 5 0 0 7 0 5 1 23
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Death Male 1 3 4 5 1 2 0 0 0 1 17
Female 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Unknown Male 1 19 19 35 22 30 40 59 38 42 305
Female 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 4 4 22
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
Summary
Year
Gender 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Male 4 37 34 58 38 37 52 83 56 65 464
Female 1 3 2 1 6 3 5 3 7 8 39
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
68
Annex IX Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Recruitment of Researchers
Title Gender Year
Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Research Director
Male _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
Female _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
Sub total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead Researcher
Male _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
Female _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
Sub total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Senior Researcher
Male 1 1 3 2 1 _ 2 _ _ 1 11
Female _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
Sub total
1 1 3 2 1 2 1 11
Researcher (I & II)
Male 1 2 2 1 _ _ 1 3 _ _ 10
Female _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ 2
Sub total
1 2 3 1 1 4 12
Associate Researcher (I & II)
Male 22 29 5 8 12 3 12 10 6 9 116
Female _ 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 _ 10
Sub total
22 30 6 9 14 4 13 12 7 9 126
Assistant Researcher (I, II & III)
Male 38 28 10 22 47 7 25 67 20 53 317
Female _ _ 2 1 10 2 10 10 16 6 57
69
Sub total
38 28 12 23 57 9 35 77 36 59 374
Title Gender Year
Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Junior Researcher (I & II)
Male 22 15 2 15 12 2 3 46 3 109 229
Female 1 1 1 3 1 _ _ 2 _ 11 20
Sub total
23 16 3 18 13 2 3 48 3 120 249
Technicians
Male 55 10 28 23 57 1 _ 59 48 67
348
Female 11 4 4 4 27 _ _ 6 7 18 81
Sub total
66 14 32 27 84 1 65 55 85 429
Total Researchers 85 77 27 53 85 15 54 141 46 189 772
Total Technicians 66 14 32 27 84 1 0 65 55 85 429
70
Annex X Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Length of Services of Researchers
Year of Service at EIAR
Gender Year
Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Less than 2 years
Male 170 130 81 59 76 44 46 111 135 131 983
Female 4 4 4 6 10 7 9 21 28 28 121
Sub total 174 134 85 65 86 51 55 132 163 159 1104
2 - 5 years
Male 175 247 235 259 196 149 143 97 100 175 1776
Female 13 11 9 9 7 10 16 18 23 30 146
Sub total 188 258 244 268 203 159 159 115 123 205 1922
6 – 10 years
Male 32 34 81 77 105 166 148 145 145 130 1063
Female 5 5 6 4 8 8 4 5 7 4 56
Sub total 37 39 87 81 113 174 152 150 152 134 1119
11 – 15 years
Male 75 64 56 37 29 22 20 42 55 72 472
Female 4 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 4 8 33
Sub total 79 67 59 39 30 24 23 45 59 80 505
16 – 20 years
Male 56 60 58 59 61 50 41 35 25 14 459
Female 9 6 6 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 29
Sub total 65 66 64 64 63 51 41 35 25 14 488
21 – 25 years
Male 45 54 42 48 36 67 46 50 55 60 503
Female 4 7 5 5 5 8 3 3 3 3 46
Sub total 49 61 47 53 41 75 49 53 58 63 549
26 – 30 years Male 18 18 30 30 29 14 29 24 29 32 253
Female 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 24
71
Sub total 20 19 33 32 31 16 32 26 33 35 277
Year of Service at EIAR
Gender Year
Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Over 30 years
Male 13 14 14 9 8 0 6 14 17 23 118
Female 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 4
14
Sub total 13 15 15 10 10 0 7 16 19 27 132
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
Summary
Gender
YEAR
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 584 621 597 578 540 512 479 518 561 637
Female 41 38 37 34 37 38 39 54 71 80
Total 625 659 634 612 577 550 518 572 632 717
72
Annex XI Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Researcher's Turnover by Directorate
S/N Directorate Year
Total Gender 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Agri-economics Extension &
Farmers linkage Coordination
Male 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 3 4 15
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Agri-Mechanization R/P
Directorate
Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Agri-technology Intellectual
Property Mgt Office
Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Biometrics, GIS & Agrometerology R
Coordination
Male 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
Female 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
5 Crop R/P Directorate Male 4 37 34 56 37 34 37 36 32 30 337
Female 1 3 2 0 6 2 4 0 4 3 25
6 Forestry R/P Directorate Male 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 2 4 20
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
7 Gender & Focal Office Male 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Inform. Commu.&PR Process Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Livestock R/P Directorate Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 6 8 29
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4
10 Plan, Monitoring, evaluations Male 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 10
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
11 EAAPP/RCBP Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
73
12 Soil & Water R/P Directorate Male 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 14 8 16 42
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
Gender YEAR
Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 4 37 34 58 38 37 52 83 56 65 464
Female 1 3 2 1 6 3 5 3 7 8 39
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
74
Annex XII Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Researcher's Turnover by Qualification Level
S/N Directorate Year
Total Gender 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 BSc/BA
Male 3 18 16 24 17 7 11 25 16 17 154
Female 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 16
2 DVM
Male 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 3 1 2 14
Female 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 MSc/MVSc/MA
Male 1 11 16 23 12 23 27 42 30 32 217
Female 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 6 18
4 PHD
Male 0 6 1 10 5 7 14 13 9 14 79
Female 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
Gender
YEAR
Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male 4 37 34 58 38 37 52 83 56 65 464
Female 1 3 2 1 6 3 5 3 7 8 39
Total 5 40 36 59 44 40 57 86 63 73 503
