Organizations involved in the Development of Underutilized Species

 

 

 

An Analysis of

Institutional Areas of Interest

In Relation to Competative Advantages

 

 

 

For

 

The Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species

Via dei Tre Denari 472/A
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

Tom Hazekamp

Via L. Bonincontri 79

00147 Rome

Italy

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 2004

 

Table of Contents

 

Introduction................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology................................................................................................................. 3

Analysis......................................................................................................................... 4

Overview of main categories.................................................................................. 4

Global Organizations............................................................................................... 5

Regional Organizations........................................................................................... 7

National and local organizations.......................................................................... 10

Interaction between organization levels.............................................................. 12

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 13

Introduction

This study is based on the data collected from a 2003 survey of stakeholders involved in the development and promotion of underutilized species. The respondent organizations were categorized in 4 groups: Global, Regional, National or Local (=sub-national) organization. The study investigates the areas of organizational interest, in how far there are differences between the groups, which areas show overlap or are neglected and which role the different groups play.

 

Methodology

Data from the 2003 stakeholder survey was taken and organizations were classified in 4 groups: Global, Regional, National and Local (i.e. sub-national).

 

Table 1 shows the number of organizations in each group.

 

Table 1. Number of organizations per group.

 

The organizations were compared on their areas of organizational interest: Genetic Resources Conservation, Applied Research, Post Harvest, Marketing, Policy/Legal, Extension/Technology dissemination, Training, Documentation/Information/Public Awareness, Socio-economics. The data taken from the 2003 survey were checked by staff of the Global Facilitation Unit. In some cases additions or modifications were proposed to make the dataset as comprehensive as possible.

It is realized that an analysis of areas of interest does not tell the whole story. An overlap in areas of interest does not automatically imply a duplication of efforts. The areas indicated are so wide that they would cover a whole range of different orientations within it. E.g. the area of Genetic Resources Conservation would include animal and plant genetic resources and within the latter include the conservation of wild flora and agriculturally important species.  Obviously to determine duplication of effort more detailed data should be used to get a firm handle on this issue. Within the timeframe of this study this was not feasible. However the areas of interest can provide oversight at a global level on where interests, and supposedly the related organizational expertise, are concentrated or, maybe more importantly, where they seem to be lacking. Likewise by looking at the distribution of areas of interest between the 4 main categories, Global, Regional, National and Local organizations, we hope to obtain an insight in where they complement each other.

 

Analysis

 

Overview of main categories

Figure 1 shows the groups of organizations and the percentage of each group mentioning a specific area of interest. The figure shows that some of the areas of interests persistently receive high scores across the categories while others have equally persistent low scores. It also shows that there is complementarity between the groups. E.g. Training are really top priorities for local and national organizations while as a group regional and International organizations have their main focus on other aspects.

Figure 1 Groups of organizations and their area of interest (%)

 

In table 2 the top 3 areas per organizational category have been shaded. This shows that the clustering is apparent in areas of interest such as Genetic Resources Conservation. These issues are definitely on the agenda of International, Regional and National organizations. Likewise Applied Research, Technology dissemination, Training and Information aspects receive quite some attention. At the other end of the scope we notice that Policy and Post-harvest issues receive relatively little attention closely followed by Marketing and Socio-Economic issues. This seems to indicate that the development of underutilized species is still very much driven from an (agricultural) supply perspective (Genetic Resources, Applied research, Training). This while the marketplace, socio economics and policy and legal issues, which between them determine how income is generated and which layers of the population will benefit directly, are still not receiving due attention.

Category of organization	Applied Research	Information/PA	Technology diss.	Gen. Res. Cons.	Marketing	Policy/Legal	Post Harvest	Socio-economics	Training
Global (n=14)	28	28	42	57	35	28	21	35	28
Regional (n=22)	63	59	50	77	40	22	54	31	31
National (n-47)	68	38	44	61	27	23	31	34	57
Local (n=13)	30	69	69	53	38	15	23	46	76
Average (equal weight of 4 cat.)	47.3	48.5	51.3	62	35	22	32.3	36.5	48

Table 2. Areas of interest per organizational category (Shaded cells belong to the top 3 interests)

 

This would indicate that either there are opportunities for new organizations to enter the process particularly in areas that are currently under-represented or that existing organizations should consider strengthening their involvement in these areas. This is essential as without sufficient attention to all parts of the value chain on cannot expect to realize the full ecomonic potential of underutilized species. If we compare the groups based on all areas of interest it seems that the National and Regional groups have the most in common. This makes sense since regional and national organizations work in close proximity and would be natural partners for each other. Likewise if we rank all areas of interest there is quite some similarity between National and Local organizations although, as we see in table 2, their top priorities show a certain amount of complementarity. Global organizations are quite different from the other categories. In principle this increases their potential to provide complementarity inputs. As a group they show a more even distribution in areas of interest (i.e. less peaks in figure 1) than the other groups. In general they have a more focused area of interest (average 3.07 areas of interest per organization) while organizations in the other categories have a slightly wider orientation of resp. 4.32, 3.87 and 4.23 for Regional, National and Sub-National organizations.  This would mean that Global organizations in particular would be appropriate partners to deliver specific expertise.

 

Global Organizations

Table 3 shows the areas of interest for a number of Global organizations. The organization with the broadest stated interest is IPGRI (9 out of 9), followed by ICUC (7 of 9) and FAO (6 of 9). Although their respective areas of interest are broad and show some apparent overlap they all have a very different focus. IPGRI’s broad interest is firmly grounded in its focus on the conservation and use of germplasm for underutilized species. FAO’s focus in a sense follows on from that in that it is more focused on food production. ICUC promotes the use of underutilized species in its widest sense. Its coverage of these species goes much more beyond e.g. IPGRI’s coverage.

Name of Organization	Applied Research	Information/PA	Technology diss.	Gen.Res. Cons.	Marketing	Policy/Legal	Post Harvest	Socio-economics	Training
Department for International Development (DFID)			X						X
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)			X	X	X	X	X	X
Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, BMZ/GTZ Sectoral Project Managing Agrobiodiversity in Rural Areas	X	X	X	X		X