Changes in the Organization and Institutions of AKST and Consequences for Development and Sustainability Goals | 137

2005 were 2517 million from European countries, 1536 mil­lion from North America, 1488 million from international and regional organizations (including the World Bank), 731 million from Pacific Rim countries, 199 million from foun­dations and 159 million from developing countries. During the current century, the top three contributors have been (depending on the year) the World Bank, US, Japan, UK and Commission of the European Community (CEC). There has also been a notable increase of 34% in the contribution from developing countries during the last reported year.
     The funding of international agricultural R&D has fol­lowed a pattern similar to the funding of national public agricultural R&D in the contributing countries and the aid to agriculture (Table 4-6 [in Annex H]), although its expan­sion phase occurred later. During the first development pe­riod, from 1971 to 1982, real spending of CGIAR grew by 14.3% per year and further research centers covering more commodity crops were established (Alston et al., 1998). In the second phase (mid-1980s to 2001) real spending started to stagnate and finally decline, although the scope contin­ued to broaden to cover more commodities, farming systems and environmental R&D. Spending grew only by 1.4% per year from 1985 to 1991 and only 0.7% (corresponding to a decline of 1.8% in real terms) from 1992 to 2001. Si­multaneously, the share of restricted funding increased from 36% to 57% from 1992 to 2001. The budget of CGIAR has started to increase again in the present century with an av­erage annual growth rate of 6.1% (CGIAR, 2005). CGIAR currently supports 8500 scientists and staff in 16 centers and more than 100 countries. However, in 2000 CGIAR only represented 1.5% of the 23 billion US dollars' global public sector investments in agricultural R&D and 0.9% of all public and private agricultural R&D spending (CGIAR Science Council, 2005).
     The initial objective of international R&D was to in­crease the amount of food in tropical countries which faced serious scarcity. It therefore gave highest priority to research on cereals. Soon, however, the research portfolio was broad­ened to include not only wheat, maize and rice but also sor­ghum, millet, cassava, chickpea, potato, other food crops and pasture plants. Towards the end of the 1970s CGIAR branched out into several other new areas of activity such as livestock research, farming systems, conservation of genetic resources, plant nutrition, water management, policy re­search and services to national agricultural research centers in developing countries (CGIAR, 2006). During the 1980s, the environmental, multidisciplinary and systems-oriented, as well as cooperative approaches were strengthened, yet were not mainstreamed. At the end of the decade, forestry and agroforestry were also included and during the 1990s fishery and water management (CGIAR, 2006). In the 1990s the mission developed to emphasize sustainability and sus­tainable agriculture, nutrition and well-being, the interests of low-income people and food security. The productivity-enhancing  agricultural research was reduced, while the expenditures on environmental protection and policy im­provement increased (World Bank, 2003b). In the 2000s, the World Bank started to emphasize again the importance of raising agricultural productivity but stressed that a global rather than just a national or local view is crucial (World Bank, 2003b; CGIAR Science Council, 2006).


     Globally, the real value of total development aid to agri­cultural R&D in the late 1990s was only 35% of that of the late 1980s (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). Agriculture's share of the total World Bank's lending fell from 25% in the mid-1980s to 10% in 2000 (World Bank, 2003b). This trend was a more general one (Table 4-6). In 2000, 37% of the world agricultural R&D was performed by private firms, but 94% of that in developed countries; while in many developing countries the share of the private sector in agricultural re­search continues to remain insignificant (Table 4-5).
     There has been a widespread scaling back in invest­ments in public R&D in agriculture among NAE countries although this been balanced to some extent through funding of agricultural R&D through non-traditional sources. There has been a shift from public to private agricultural R&D and a shift in governmental spending priorities (Pardey et al., 2006). These developments are likely to affect productivity prospects in NAE and spillover of ideas and technologies to poor countries. The current trend in NAE agricultural R&D away from staple foods to food quality and medical (in­cluding functional foods and gene-tailored diets) and other industrial applications of food commodities may contribute to a slowdown in sustainable productivity gains applicable to poor countries.

4.5.4 Changes in structures and management
There has been a general trend in OECD countries from the traditional model, where an agricultural ministry had sole responsibility for agricultural higher education, research and extension, towards a model with a ministry coordinat­ing overall policies of KST. Especially agricultural higher education has moved to ministries overseeing higher educa­tion more generally, with some exceptions (such as Sweden where maintaining integration within AKST was considered most advantageous) (OECD, 1999). In the latter group, spe­cial coordination mechanisms between AKST and KST have often been developed.
     Universities and research organizations in NAE have to a large extent retained their disciplinary structure and indeed new disciplines have emerged. In the CEE, since the break-up of the Soviet Union, more demand for extension services has emerged to compensate for the disappearance of the centralized chain-of-command system (Miller et al., 2000). The disciplinary structure of NAE universities and research organizations has been complemented by separate, issue-centered research institutes and the functions by coop­erative, integrated educational and research programs. It has been predicted that the traditional, administration-oriented system of faculties based on basic sciences may disappear (Väyrynen, 2006).

The number of students in agricultural sciences have de­creased in North America and Western Europe during the 1990s, a process that has continued into the present cen­tury. In contrast, student enrolment in food sciences and en­gineering as well as nutrition and dietetics has increased. In Canada, for example, student enrolment in food science and engineering has increased by 62% since 1996 and student enrolment in nutrition and dietetics by 53% while student enrolment in agricultural sciences has dropped by 21 % over