Presented by Ecuru J., Virgin, I., Omari J., Chuwa P., Teklehaimanot H., Alemu A., Komen J., Nyange N., Ozor N., Opati L., Karembu M., Nguthi F., Gasingirwa C. at the First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27 February 2013

1. Moving Bio-innovations
from the Laboratory to the Market
A Comparative Study of Four Bio-Innovate
Technological Clusters
First Bio-Innovate Regional Scientific
Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-27
February 2013
BIPCEA
Ecuru J., Virgin, I., Omari J., Chuwa P., Teklehaimanot
H., Alemu A.,Komen J., Nyange N., Ozor N., Opati
L., Karembu M., Nguthi F., Gasingirwa C.

2. Outline
• Introduction
• Conceptual & methodological considerations
• Results
• Discussions and recommendations

3. Introduction
• Governments, stressing increased agricultural
production, value addition and agro-processing.
• There is evidence of bio-innovations in
universities & public R&D orgs, but they are
unable to move to the market.
• Moving bio-innovations to market need well
functioning innovation system;

4. The Study
Studies on four Bio-Innovate technological clusters with the aim
to:
• Understand, from a technological innovation systems
perspective, enabling conditions and barriers to moving
bio-innovations from the laboratory to the market in
eastern Africa
• Compare the different innovation systems and highlight
similarities and dissimilarities between the four systems.
• Suggest actions and policy measures to improve the
conditions for bioscience innovation in the region.

5. The Technological clusters include:
1. Crop improvement technologies (especially for
cassava, sweet potato and potato)
2. Bio-energy and mushroom production from
agro-industrial waste
3. Value added products from sorghum and millet
4. Industrial Enzymes for Sustainable Bio-
Economy

6. The Conceptual framework
• Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework.
• “[…] a network or networks of agents interacting in a
specific technology area under a particular institutional
infrastructure [e.g. norms and regulation] to
generate, diffuse, and utilise technology or product.”
• TIS approach enables analysis of how different parts
of the innovation system functions.

7. Conceptual framework…
Using seven processes to broadly map the strengths and
weaknesses of the innovation system :
1. Knowledge development and diffusion .
2. Entrepreneurial activity
3. Guidance visions, policies and strategies
4. Market creation
5. Getting legitimacy
6. Resource mobilisation
7. Positive externalities
An important part of the TIS analysis is also the
characterisation of the structural components (actors in the
system, infrastructure)

8. Conceptual framework…
In order to describe the strength the functions and the
structural components of the innovation system, we
have used a quantitative scale of 1-4,
1- Very poor. The function is fulfilled in an inadequate
manner, or there are serious weaknesses.
2 - Poor. While the function is partly fulfilled, there are
major weaknesses.
3 - Fair. While the function is broadly fulfilled, there are
still serious weaknesses.
4 - Good. The function adequately fulfill

9. Study Method
Mixed methods in gathering qualitative data, based
on:
1. Review of national and regional policy
documents and institutional reports,
2. Observations
3. One focus group discussion and least five
interviews with key actors in each technological
cluster (including industry) in
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, Rwanda
and Burundi

10. Results

11. Structural components of the
innovation system: The Actors
• From the results, it appears the actors and organizations
needed to move bio-innovations to the market largely exist
in the region.
• However, the actors are not interlinked to function
properly.
• But, as has been seen in other related innovation
systems, the number of involved actors and especially new
entrants can change the dynamics of the innovation system
fast.

12. Knowledge development
• Knowledge development in all the studied innovations
systems is at a relatively high level.
• The knowledge base is no longer a major limiting
factor in any of the four innovation systems studied.
But……
• In all the systems, marketing skills and the ability to
make assessment of economic potential of
commercialization of technologies and products is still
weak.
• Skills in developing cost effective production and
distribution regimes are also weak

13. Entrepreneurial activity
• The entrepreneurship skills at public R&D institutions
still limited
• Few private sector actors are investing in R&D. Close
collaboration between academia and the private sector is
not common.
• Actors in innovation consortia seldom properly
interlinked and supported to play complimentary roles.
• New entrants are making impact(especially in the case of
crop improvement/tissue culture)

14. Guidance/ Policies and an enabling
environment
• Science, technology and innovation(STI) policy frameworks in
place; but specific policies/regulations largely lacking.
• High taxation on imported equipment is a negative factor.
• Strategies, priority setting regimes and specific government
programmes supporting innovation still too few.
• Limited institutional structures & policies for innovation (e.g.
inst.IP policies/ management capacities to develop effective
contractual agreements, and abilities to link with market actors)
• Slow procurement procedures delaying implementation of projects

15. Market Creation
• Markets for all the four innovation systems are weak and affect the
four innovation systems negatively.
• Marketing techniques, marketing skills and also resources for
marketing technologies and products are to a large extent lacking
• No active market creation. Absence of focused national
goals, targets, incentives.
• As an example, in the case of biogas production unfavorable feed-
in tariffs to sell electricity generated from biogas to national
electricity grids is a negative factor.

16. Getting legitimacy
• For all of the innovation systems, a strong legitimacy for the
positive impacts these new technologies and products could
have on improving food security, climate change resilience and
converting agrowaste into something beneficial.
• At the same time other factors are acting to reduce this
legitimacy, likely based on perceptions, such as;
- some of the potential products associated with poverty,
-Running biogas digesters perceived as dirty and unattractive
.

17. Resources
• Human resources appear to be adequate to drive the
innovation process forward.
• Financial resources for moving the innovation
process forward towards commercialization and large
scale application is a limiting factor.
• What is promising is that in countries such as
Tanzania, Ethiopia and Kenya, new funding
mechanisms for innovation are under development.

18. Externalities
• Advocacy groups lacking with an exception of
tissue culture buisness network.

19. Summary Table
Innovation Actors Knowledge Entrepreneu Guidance/ Market Getting Resources Externaliti Avarage
case development rial activity Policies creation legitimacy es score
Crop improvement
technologies 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2
Value Added products
from Sorghum and 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2
Millet
Bioenergy & mushroom
production from 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2
agroindustrial waste
Industrial Enzymes for a
sustainable Bioeconomy 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2
1=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good

20. Discussion and
Recommendations

21. Public institutions able to engage in
innovation and technology dissemination
 Establishing a Foundation for Innovation and Linking with the Private
sector.
 technology transfer/dissemination capacities,
 institutional IP policies and management capacities
 ability to manage collaboration and networking opportunities including
engaging in contractual agreements.
 Rewarding & Supporting Entrepreneurship
 Strengthen entrepreneurial skills at public R&D organizations,
 Rules/policies/incentives for being innovative and entrepreneurial such as
rewards, competitive salaries, career development opportunities, etc
 Encourage the development of public R&D spin-off companies;

22. Creating Links
 Strengthening public–private partnerships
– Supporting public and private actors to meet and discuss collaboration
opportunities, technology transfer, adaptation and commercialization of
public R&D.
 Business incubation services
– Business case development, viability analysis and strategy refinement
– Market assessment and market access
– Business model validation and market testing
– Technology assessment (incl. IP assessment)
– Business plan development (feasibility; strategies)
– Assisting in finding financing sources for development and
commercialization

23. Policies, strategies, communication
Policies, regulations at national and regional
level should be supportive
Clear goals, sufficient incentives, and
strategies necessary
Communicating effectively

24. Funding R&D and Innovation
• Government innovation funds. The donor
community can complement and strengthen
government innovation funds.
• Venture capital.
• Attracting more philanthropic investments.
• Providing incentives for local private sector
investment in research.

25. Conclusion
• The actors and all functions in the four sub-innovations
systems and how they perform are weak. An exception to this
is the case on micropropagation of disease free cassava, sweet
potato and potato which is a more mature field of innovation
and where many of its functions are stronger.
• A visible pattern, although not very distinctive, is that the
number of actors involved in the systems and knowledge
formation is improving in all the cases, with the exception of
industrial enzymes.
• The Bio-Innovate programme has most probably been an
important factor behind this improvement.
• Thus, need to make these innovation systems more effective, a
more pronounced focus and investment on improving market
potentials, policies and resources for these systems would be
more effective than strengthening R&D efforts.

26. Acknowledgement
• Bio-Innovate/Sida
• Bio-Innovate Project Teams

27. Thank you