Mongolia – a Reviewmongolia of the Agricultural Research System and Extension

Mongolia – A reviewMongolia of the agricultural research system and extension

Mongolia A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Please address comments and inquiries to: Investment Centre Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla – 00153 Rome, Italy ISBN 978-92-5-109545-4

[email protected] 32 No. Report www.fao.org/support-to-investment

9789251 095454 Report No. 32 – January 2017 I6571EN/1/11.16

Mongolia A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar Agricultural Extension Officer, FAO Charles Annor-Frempong Senior Rural Development Officer, World Bank Ganchimeg Gombodorj Mongolian University of Life Sciences

country highlights

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2017 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-109545-4

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected].

Cover photo: @ FAO/Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword v Acknowledgements vii Acronyms and abbreviations ix Executive summary xi

1 Introduction 1 1.1. Objective 2 1.2. Methodology and data limitations 2 2 Mongolia’s agricultural research and extension system in the past 5 2.1. Research 5 2.2. Extension 8 2.3. Transition period 11 3 Current status of the research and extension system 15 3.1. Extension subsystem 16 3.2. Research subsystem 44 3.3. Coordination and linkages: agricultural research and extension system 62 4 Conclusion and recommendations 67

Bibliography 71

Annex 1 Organizations providing extension and research services 75 Annex 2 Major policies related to extension 81 Annex 3 Main policies for Mongolian science and technology 86 Annex 4 Projects with extension components 90 Annex 5 Ongoing international projects in the agriculture sector 93 Annex 6 Results from the stakeholder mapping exercise: key stakeholders of the Agricultural Innovation System 97 Annex 7 Comparison of agriculture production, current and desired level 99

Foreword

The Government of Mongolia is committed to ensuring sustainable development of the food, agriculture and livestock sectors, serving both domestic and export markets. Agriculture, including livestock, accounts for the majority of the country’s rural labour force. Livestock activities in particular account for about 8.5 of every 10 jobs (Zoljargal, 2014).

More than any other sector, the food and agriculture industry has the potential to reduce poverty and drive economic growth in rural areas. Mongolia’s poverty rate declined from 38.8 percent in 2010 to 21.6 percent in 2014, yet there is still much room for improvement.

The World Bank1 advocates that sustainable and inclusive growth and poverty reduction in Mongolia will require strengthened governance and increased institutional capacities to manage public revenues efficiently.

Modern, efficient food and agricultural systems can substantially increase production and competitiveness, resulting in improved rural livelihoods. Achieving Mongolia’s agricultural growth potential will require a significant increase in quality value addition and competitiveness within the agrifood market, particularly through the establishment of food preparation, processing, storage, transportation and sale systems,2 all of which require skilled and well informed farmers and other stakeholders.

However, this can only be effective when the weakest link in the system has been addressed. For Mongolia, the weakest link since the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy has been between agricultural research and extension services and agricultural producers.

To date, investment in research and extension remains very low. Free competition for information and technology and a demand for better production systems have arisen. At the same time, the number of inexperienced and less knowledgeable farmers has increased, and the linkages between researchers and farmers have weakened. To improve agricultural performance over time for a sustainable agrifood system, a continuous commitment to building and maintaining institutional and individual capacities in agricultural research and advisory services will be required. The role of effective advisory service systems must not be underestimated

1 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mongolia/projects/results 2 Part of the Government’s plan

v in accelerating agricultural innovation, which is fundamental in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

This report is the result of an in-depth review of the research and extension services within Mongolia between 2014 and 2015. It outlines the then status of the system and identifies key constraints to be addressed. The report was part of a larger sector review of Mongolian agriculture undertaken by the World Bank, beginning in 2014, to provide the Government with practical recommendations to use in its medium- and long-term strategies for agricultural development.

The report was commissioned by the World Bank within the framework of its cooperative programme with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), facilitated by FAO’s Investment Centre.

For more information on FAO’s work to support agricultural and rural investments visit: www.fao.org/support-to-investment

vi Acknowledgements

This report was prepared as part of the Mongolian agriculture sector review, at the request of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). A World Bank team, led by Charles Annor-Frempong (senior rural development specialist, World Bank) and Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar (agricultural extension officer, FAO, and main author), carried out the review.

The team is grateful to Dr Lkhasuren Choi-sh (Director-General) and his team at the Strategy Planning and Policy Department of the MoFA, as well as Khanimkhan Ivirai from the National Agricultural Extension Centre, for their support in organizing stakeholder meetings and workshops, and collecting data from the relevant institutions.

Special thanks go to Ganchimeg Gombodorj from the Mongolian University of Life Sciences for her diligent efforts in liaising with key stakeholders, collecting data and information and providing logistical support.

The authors would like to acknowledge Boldsaikhan Usukh (Director of ENSADA Company) and the staff of the National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives for their participation and collaboration on this study.

The authors would also like to thank Mark Lundell, Iain Shuker and Coralie Gevers (country manager, Mongolia) for their support on this study, and are especially grateful to Steven Jaffee (lead rural development specialist, World Bank) for providing guidance and useful comments that helped improve the quality of the report.

Finally the authors would like to thank everyone else who contributed to this study and made this report feasible.

vii

Acronyms and abbreviations

ABVSC Animal Breeding and Veterinary Service Centre ADB Asian Development Bank AEC Aimag extension centre AIS Agricultural Innovation System ATMA Agricultural Technology Management Agency CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CNIC Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la Competividad FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FIC Fondo de Innovación para la Competividad FIG Farmer interest group GDP Gross domestic product IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria ITTC Innovation and Technology Transfer Centre JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MECS Ministry of Education, Culture and Science MFFA Mongolian Female Farmers’ Association MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MoIT Ministry of Industry and Trade MSUA Mongolian State University of Agriculture MULS Mongolian University of Life Sciences NAEC National Agricultural Extension Centre NAMAC National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives NCART National Committee for Agricultural Research and Technology NGO Non-governmental organization NPCD National Program for Cooperative Development NSO National Statistics Office PSARTI Plant Science Agricultural Research and Training Institute RIAH Research Institute for Animal Husbandry RIPP Research Institute for Plant Protection RIVM Research Institute for Veterinary Medicine SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation STC Science and Technology Committee STF Science and Technology Fund SST Subcommittee for Science and Technology UN United Nations

Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Executive summary

Sustainable rural development is a high priority for Mongolia. Agriculture is the main source of employment for rural people and is central to the livelihoods and culture of rural families. Despite the sector’s importance, the potential for agricultural growth and development has not been fully realized, and investment in research and extension remains very low. The provision of agricultural services, particularly extension services, nearly collapsed during the country’s transition to a free market economy in the 1990s.

The objective of this review is to outline the current status of Mongolia’s agricultural research and extension system and identify key constraints. This report contributes to comprehensive medium- and long-term strategies for the agriculture sector and is part of an overall agriculture sector review undertaken by the World Bank.

Since the breakdown of the centrally planned economy and the privatization of state-owned collective farms, the agricultural production system in Mongolia has changed dramatically. The old top-down technology transfer system has fallen apart, replaced by free competition for information and technology and a demand for better production systems. At the same time, there are more inexperienced and less knowledgeable farmers, and the linkages between researchers and farmers have weakened.

Realizing this gap, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided a loan to the Government of Mongolia to establish agricultural extension services that bridge the gap between farmers and researchers. Since then, the number of stakeholders providing extension and advisory services has increased (Annex 1).

The main players in the Mongolian research and extension system are:

xi with training programmes and other activities, rather than linking farmers with other stakeholders, including researchers, based on their needs; • Private sector – providing goods and services to farmers for profit, mainly input suppliers and veterinary medicine services; • Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – implementing government and non-governmental programmes and international projects, and bidding on tenders for input importation; • International projects – providing funding for inputs and equipment, and expertise and support for technology transfer; • Farmer associations and commodity groups – often formed by politicians for lobbying purposes, involved in implementing international and national projects (when funding is available); and • Farmers and agricultural producers – traditionally receiving research and extension services.

Agricultural extension subsystem The National Agricultural Extension Centre (NAEC), established in 1996 under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) and located in Ulaanbaatar, is the main public extension service provider. Its legal status is defined in the Laws on Science and Technology. The NAEC was established by Government Resolution 286 and assigned to “develop a sustainable food and agriculture sector by motivating and educating rural citizens through an effective technology transfer system.” (Buyandelger, 2004)

Although the NAEC’s mandate is significant, the actual activities it can implement today are limited. Its main products and services include organizing events and producing information products such as brochures and booklets. The NAEC lacks institutional support, adequate budget allocation, incentives and an effective governance and management system. The current status of the NAEC is neither clearly understood by stakeholders within the extension system nor by NAEC staff. This negatively influences attitudes towards the Centre and undermines the morale of its extension staff.

The public extension system in Mongolia currently uses a mostly top-down, linear approach for decision-making and other extension-related activities. The administrative structure of the public extension system is more theoretical than functional. The MoFA funds the NAEC, but its public budget allocation is minimal. Over 80 percent is spent on salary and insurance, while training and meetings account for barely 2 percent of the total NAEC budget. By 2014, it had a total of 26 full-time staff and over 60 part-time scientific advisers in different agricultural disciplines.

In addition to the public extension services, many private companies and civil society organizations work with farmers in Mongolia and provide various xii Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system services. In general, private sector services in Mongolia are quickly moving towards more modern technology and higher investment. However, there are few linkages in place to connect public institutions with private companies, and incentives to facilitate such linkages are limited.

Some 867 civil society organizations are registered to operate in the field of agriculture in Mongolia. NGOs in Mongolia are very active and their involvement and recognition are increasing significantly at different levels. Some of the NGOs are politically driven, some are fund (project) driven and some are service driven by their members. They also vary in size and level of activity. Some are relatively small and tend to have a targeted group of members and services.

Agricultural research subsystem The agricultural research system in Mongolia is top-down; farmers and producers do not generally have a meaningful role to play. Because the research process is not demand driven, participatory or inclusive, research results are often irrelevant to the needs of farmers and difficult to disseminate and apply in practice. Research projects tend to be discussed and allocated jointly by the MoFA and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS), which allocate assignments to research institutions. The criterion for assigning a project is not clear. There are four public agricultural research institutions in operation: the Plant Science Agricultural Research and Training Institute (PSARTI); the Research Institute for Animal Husbandry (RIAH); the Research Institute for Veterinary Medicine (RIVM); and the Research Institute for Plant Protection (RIPP). Together these employ just over 400 researchers. The role of the private sector in agricultural research in Mongolia is limited. Following the transition to a free market, investment in research and development nearly stopped altogether.

The Science and Technology Law of 2006 provides the fundamental basis and principles for all government policy and decision-making on issues related to science. The Science and Technology Master Plan, covering the period between 2007 and 2020, is an integral part of the broader national development strategy, and guides policy on research for development. Its purpose is to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of scientific research institutions, promote science and technology-based partnerships and systematically contribute to the development of a knowledge-based economy.

In 1996, the Ministry of Education was renamed the Ministry of Science and Education. It was also assigned responsibility for Mongolia’s entire research and education system, including the four primary agricultural research institutes, the agricultural university and its technical schools. The agricultural research system’s planning and implementation process is realized through Government Resolution 301 (2014) and the Food and Agriculture Minister Decree A/26, procedure for implementation of science and technology (research projects). The process does not involve farmers or their representatives at any stage, neither

xiii at the beginning when priorities are set and research requests made, nor at the end when research results are reported and transferred to the MoFA.

There are nearly no linkages between the research and extension system, and very few between researchers and producers who rely on informal personal connections. Researchers do not have resources allocated to disseminate research results to producers.

The Science and Technology Fund (STF) under the MECS is the main public organization responsible for mobilizing and distributing financial resources, monitoring expenditures, compiling and reporting research results and codifying and archiving reports for basic and applied research projects in Mongolia. Between 2008 and 2015, about 130 agricultural research projects were funded by the STF, accounting for about 19 percent of all STF-funded projects.

Although public investment in science and technology appears to be increasing, it remains very low in terms of a gross domestic product (GDP) percentage. Public investment in science and technology was equal to 0.26 percent of the national GDP in 2012 and declined to 0.17 percent in 2013 (National Statistics Office [NSO], 2013). Most of the funding (57 percent) is for staff costs, with about 30 percent for actual research activities.

From the study, it is understood that: a) the Mongolian Government sets the priorities and allocates the budget for research and development annually without other stakeholder participation, including farmers; b) research institutions run on limited budgets, but researchers are very dedicated; c) the public extension system is failing to deliver and the current status is unknown; d) the private sector sells its goods and services to the farmers; e) international projects continue to provide external resources and expertise with respect to technologies and inputs; f) a few active NGOs provide services to their members; and g) farmers tend to be seen as passive recipients of extension services and research products, rather than active agents capable of voicing their needs and preferences for training and research. Producers’ involvement in the planning and development of research and extension activities is weak and often ignored.

The existing research and extension system is constrained by a number of factors, including lack of governance, finance and capacity. Addressing these challenges requires continued political and institutional commitment and increased investment for building the long-term capacity of the sector in each dimension. Recommendations based on the study include:

• Developing a national strategic framework and investment plan for an Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) in Mongolia, with clear functions and roles of stakeholders, in line with innovation capacity;

xiv Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

• Reforming public extension in the context of the AIS, with strengthened capacity at the decentralized levels; • Increasing public investment in research and extension, using innovative funding mechanisms; • Establishing AIS networks and platforms; • Promoting a market-oriented and demand-led research and extension system that ensures farmers’ participation; • Providing incentive mechanisms; and • Promoting social inclusion.

In developing policies to support these recommendations, it is important to recognize:

• The role of farmers as innovators; • The role of the market as an incentive for the adoption of new technologies; • The need to strengthen government capacity to create a conducive enabling environment for innovation, including the need to change attitudes among policy-makers; and • Increased pluralism in the extension and advisory service system.

xv xvi Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The importance of agriculture to Mongolia’s economy, and to its rural economy in particular, makes sustainable agricultural development a national priority. Agriculture provides employment to an estimated 29 percent of the population, and as of 2013, 14.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). This makes it the third largest contributor to GDP after retail (17.7 percent) and mining (16.6 percent) (Erkhembayar and Batzorigt, 2014). Within the agriculture sector itself, livestock activities account for about 8.5 of every 10 jobs (Zoljargal, 2014). The transition from collective socialism to a market economy in the 1990s nearly caused the collapse of the entire agriculture sector. The situation was aggravated by severe weather (dzud) and drought in 1999/00, and again in 2009/10. Since privatization, the number of livestock animals, mainly sheep and goats, has increased dramatically, reaching 45.1 million in 2012. The country was self-sufficient in crop production, but following privatization, crop production declined significantly; by 2007 the country could supply only 27.5 percent of wheat, 48.8 percent of vegetables and 88.7 percent of potatoes for domestic needs. Only 32.3 percent of the arable land was cultivated and an additional 3.6 percent was irrigated in the same year (Ministry of Food and Agriculture [MoFA], 2014). Mongolia currently produces 138 percent of potato, 130 percent of meat, 100 percent of wheat and 42 percent of vegetable demand locally (Zoljargal, 2014).3 This growth in both livestock and crop production was enabled by a number of factors. Budgetary allocations to agriculture increased from 1.6 percent to 4.6 percent between 2003 and 2011, and the number of national and international programmes at work in Mongolia rose (National Statistics Office [NSO], 2013). Between 2003 and 2013, the area under cultivation increased from 225 800 hectares to 415 400 hectares. Major national programmes that contributed significantly to this growth include the ATAP-III Campaign for Crop Production, a price stabilization programme; subsidy programmes for agricultural products and producers; and investment programmes to support the purchase of agricultural equipment. Yet investment in research and extension remains very low. Many of the recent policy initiatives introduced by the Government have been supply driven and uninformed by analysis of production costs or market opportunities that producers and rural communities could respond to. Most of these policy initiatives were based on product subsidies and short-term activities targeting

3 The percentage of agricultural production demand was calculated based on the optimum food consumption rate per day, according to the Ministry of Health in Mongolia (Resolution 257, 2008).

1 a boost in production rather than an enabling environment that would improve agricultural performance over time. Achieving this longer-term outcome will require sustained commitment to develop and then maintain the capacity of the institutions responsible for agricultural research and extension services. It will also require agricultural institutions to be more generally accessible to farmers and herders, and for educational and information services to inform those farmers and herders on how to avail themselves of those institutions. Mongolia’s agricultural producers include many owner operators who went into agriculture as a means of economic survival after the demise of collectivization in the 1990s. Most lacked the technical background or training in farming. The provision of agricultural services, in particular extensions services, almost collapsed during the same period. After the end of communism, farmers and farm workers experienced a considerable reduction in government support, which is essential in a demanding and fragile agricultural and rural economy. Without sufficient government backing for research and development, extension services and veterinarians, information about weather and prices or access to markets and credit, agricultural producers found themselves in an increasingly precarious position.

1.1. Objective The specific objective of this review is to outline the current status of Mongolia’s agricultural research and extension service system and to identify its key constraints. The report is intended to add to the larger sector review of Mongolian agriculture undertaken by the World Bank, beginning in 2014, and to provide the Government with practical recommendations for medium- and long- term strategies for agricultural development. The report should also be useful for the Bank’s partners engaged in agricultural development in Mongolia. The review focuses on three general areas:

• The current situation and history of the public agricultural extension and research system; • Key research and extension service providers in the Agricultural Innovation System (AIS), including linkages among them, and with farmers and herders; and • The requirements for creating an enabling environment for agricultural innovation, with a focus on government policy and regulatory frameworks for agricultural extension and research services.

1.2. Methodology and data limitations The review was conducted in close collaboration with MoFA staff, the National Agricultural Extension Centre (NAEC) and the Mongolian University of Life

2 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Sciences (MULS). The following approaches were used to collect, analyse, synthesize and document primary and secondary data as inputs into the report.

Desk review of existing documents:

• National agriculture sector strategies, policies, plans and laws, particularly those related to agricultural research and extension; • Institutional structure and programmes on research and extension services; • Project reports and other documents contributing to the national agricultural research and extension system; and • Secondary information and literature.

Interviews with key stakeholders:

• Over 45 key informant and stakeholder representatives working in areas of the research, extension and innovation system were interviewed, including from the MoFA, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS), NAEC, MULS, Plant Science Agricultural Research and Training Institute (PSARTI), other research institutions, farmer associations, cooperatives, private service providers, international projects involved in research and extension, donors, key international agencies (e.g. Mercy Corp, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation [SDC], Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], Asian Development Bank [ADB], Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA]) and producers, with the use of interview guides and questionnaires; • Observation and site visits to the provincial and soum level extension offices; and • Additional interviews with retirees knowledgeable about the system’s historical evolution.

Participatory approaches (workshop and focus group discussions):

• A one-day focus group discussion with farmers was organized to discuss their views on current available research, as well as the extension services and their effectiveness; the workshop was organized in Darkhan, with assistance from the agricultural department of the provincial government. In total, 32 agricultural producers from five provinces attended. • A two-day stakeholder workshop was organized in Ulaanbaatar to discuss innovation system concepts and map out the existing AIS in Mongolia. The workshop was organized at the World Bank office, with assistance from the MoFA and the World Bank. In total, 36 stakeholders representing the Government, research institutions, extension centres, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector participated.

3 • A semi-structured survey was sent to about 30 stakeholders to assess staffing and management and the number, quality and effectiveness of services; however, only five surveys were completed and returned to the consultant. The remaining surveys were not followed up and therefore not included in this report.

The review of the research and extension system was carried out partially in 2013 and completed in 2015. Due to limited available data, the report only focuses on the main agricultural research institutions under the national Science and Technology Fund (STF) and the main agricultural extension organizations such as the NAEC. In general, information and secondary data available on the research and extension system in Mongolia are limited and often not accessible. It is impossible to find historical data on the system. Frequent management changes are another reason for the lack of data, making it difficult for consistency and continuity. @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean A young boy from the grasslands near Dundat-Urguu Forest.

4 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Chapter 2 – Mongolia’s agricultural research and extension system in the past

Between 1957 and 1960, Mongolia transitioned from an individual herder-based livestock system to a collective/cooperative livestock farming system managed by a centrally planned socialist government. Around the same time, between 1959 and 1961, Mongolia began cultivating land for crop production for the first time. These farms were also managed and owned by the national Government through a centrally planned system, including research and extension services.

2.1. Research Prior to 1990, public research institutions undertook agricultural research. This began in 1926, following an exploratory visit by a team of scientists from Russia. The visit led to the establishment of a number of research stations. In accordance with Government Resolution 93/94 of 1961, the National Science Academy was established along with several research institutions, including an agricultural research institute in Ulaanbaatar with three main research departments: animal husbandry; veterinary medicine; and crop production. In 1963, the crop production department was separated from the agricultural research institute and became the PSARTI. It was relocated to Darkhan in 1978 (Mongolian State University of Agriculture [MSUA], 2008). In 1968, a research institute for pasture and fodder was established and later merged with the research institute for animal husbandry. Eventually, the Agricultural Research Institute was renamed the Research Institute for Animal Husbandry (RIAH). Later, in 1987, in accordance with Government Resolution 9, the RIAH was separated into two research institutes: one for animal husbandry, and another for veterinary medicine. At the same time, a research institute for agricultural economics was established in order to link agricultural technology development with economic implications.

Initially, experts from Russia were closely involved in the setup of the research institutes and early research and training, until Mongolia started preparing its own experts in these fields in 1958. By the 1970s, all of the Russian experts had been replaced by national experts.

2.1.1. Organizational framework By 1990, seven agricultural research institutions were in place in the areas of animal husbandry, plant science, agricultural mechanization and plant protection, with 11 field stations in rural areas across the country (Figure 1). In addition, there were 53 state farms for crop production, 255 negdels (state-owned livestock farms) and 20 fodder farms in Mongolia (Byambaa, 2010).

5 Administratively, all agricultural research institutions were under the MoFA. It was therefore easier to align research programmes with national agricultural policies and government programmes. It was also easier for researchers to link their work to practice through the demonstration farms assigned to them, even though the adoption of research results was compulsory. This allowed them to test the research results on a farm and for farmers to scale up, if appropriate.

According to Figure 1, the National Committee for Agricultural Research and Technology (NCART), under the MoFA, was responsible for providing guidance, developing policies and allocating resources for research activities and institutions in general. In line with the NCART, the MoFA also had its Subcommittee for Agricultural Research and Technology led by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. During this period, the MoFA was responsible for agricultural education and the dissemination of research results and new practices.

Figure 1: Structure of national agricultural research system during socialist era

MoFA

Subcommittee for National Committee for Agricultural Research Agricultural Research and and Technology Technology

RI: Plant Science RI: Plant Protection RI: Pasture & Fodder RI: Animal Husbandry RI: Ag. Mechanization University of Agriculture RI: Veterinary Medicine RI: Agricultural Economics

Eleven field stations in different agro-ecological zones

In the 1980s, in order to strengthen research institutions and enhance the dissemination and application of research results, the Government established a formal link between the research institutions and relevant state farms in different agro-ecological zones. There, researchers would conduct their field

6 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system demonstrations in areas such as testing and breeding. These farms were responsible for breeding and storing new crop varieties and animal breeds (from both national and international sources, particularly Russia and Kazakhstan) that were tested and adapted at the research institutions to Mongolian agro-ecological conditions.4 In 1982, the Research Institute of Pasture and Fodder merged with the RIAH. The purpose of research stations in the field was threefold: field demonstration and application of the research; field adaptation of research projects in different agro-ecological zones; and dissemination of research results (Byambaa, 1982).

2.1.2. Planning and implementation The overall national planning process used to be made for a three-to-five-year period at the parliament level, which would then trickle down to the ministries and then to the research institutes. The Government of Mongolia would determine and plan major areas of agriculture sector development and assign (called the state assignment) the MoFA for its implementation. The MoFA would set subsectoral priorities and address other relevant issues as needed in order to carry out the state assignment. The Ministry of Finance would then allocate funding to the responsible research institutes to conduct the research projects contributing to the major areas of the sector development plan (Figure 2) (Sereeter, 2002).

Figure 2: Planning process for agricultural research and development

National Major areas of Development agriculture sector Main issues to Research Programme development be addressed project (3-5 year Parliament plan) (State assignment, MoFA)

Even though the Government provided the necessary funding for research facilities, equipment and experts, the capacities of the researchers and their facilities were limited to basic applied research, based heavily on the examples of the Soviet experts. It is estimated that there were about 3 500 researchers in Mongolia during the socialist period (STF, 2015). The main research areas

4 After the privatization of state farms, the investment for these seed/breed development farms was stopped, meaning they had to be self-financed even though they remained as public goods. Many of these farms sold their elite varieties and high-quality seeds in order to survive, leading to a lack of high-quality seeds nationwide.

7 included: animal disease; diagnostics; veterinary medicine development; plant and animal gene bank study; breeding; animal and plant nutrition; fertilization; new variety development; crop and animal production and protection technologies; soil erosion and soil protection studies; and identification of plant, insect and other species.

While the Government tried to align research projects with its policy and programmes, and disseminate research results to farmers in a timely way, the needs of the researchers and farmers were not considered as research priorities. This top-down and non-participatory system was significantly limited in its ability to innovate and adopt good practices. International relations and collaboration with other research institutes in areas of expert exchange, capacity development and advanced education were limited to Soviet Republics.

2.2. Extension Although there was no explicit extension system and structure during the socialist era, the Government had a number of formal training and capacity development channels targeting researchers, managers, farmers and new graduates. This programme was planned through the Parliament’s three-to-five-year national planning process. The Subcommittee for Agricultural Research and Technology at the MoFA was responsible for planning, implementing and disseminating research results and new practices, as well as agricultural training activities; however, farmers and farm specialists,5 such as agronomists, were not consulted and did not participate in the decision-making and priority-setting processes for training and extension services. Instead, the Government, namely the MoFA, made decisions about which technology should be implemented and what topics farm specialists should be trained on, in consultation with senior researchers in the main thematic areas. Farm specialists and workers would have to then implement the recommendations made. Agricultural extension services during the socialist era did not have a clear structure or institutional setup.

2.2.1. Planning and implementation Agricultural extension services focused on two issues: a) dissemination of research results, new practices and technologies; and b) re-training of state farm employees. The dissemination of research results and new technologies was rather straightforward compared with today. Once research results were finalized and agricultural technologies and practices were ready to be disseminated, researchers were requested to prepare field application guidelines to be distributed to the field practitioners and agricultural specialists.

5 Each farm had its own specialists in each subject matter, including agronomists, agricultural engineers, veterinary medics, zootechnologists, farm economists, seed and breeding specialists and accountants.

8 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Department heads of the MoFA would then send a formal letter of order with guidelines from researchers to the provincial agriculturalists and state farm specialists to be implemented on their respective farms. Following the order, researchers would work closely with the farm specialists and provide support in their implementation. The main research activities were focused on intensifying agriculture and mechanizing the crop and livestock sectors. As a result of this technology transfer system, about 50 percent of the negdels and other state farms were mechanized by 1959, and farm technicians were trained with skills such as artificial insemination, the use of electric milkers and mechanized hay makers (Oyun, 1960).

There were also regular trainings and re-trainings of agricultural human resources. Farmers received training and technical backstopping support with “up-to-date” information and timely advice on their agricultural production systems. Formal training programmes worked as follows:

• First, the Government would organize two annual national farmer conferences, one before spring planting and another before fall harvesting. At these meetings, the Government would discuss and present new agricultural practices, technologies and varieties, along with agroclimatic information and forecasts, agricultural policies and recommendations. Participants would include policy-makers, all provincial agriculture specialists, state farm representatives (farm agronomists or agro-engineers, etc.), researchers and university professors. The meeting would be replicated at the provincial level in order to cover all areas and farmers. • Secondly, the Government would allow the state farm agricultural specialists to attend trainings and certificate courses over the winter months at the MSUA,6 in order to ensure continuous updating of knowledge and skills. For example, all farm brigade7 managers in Mongolia used to be trained in Ulaanbaatar twice a year on issues related to farm management and new production technologies. In addition, approximately 1 000 field technicians of the state farms were re-trained on 24 subject matters related to advanced technologies and farm mechanization every year at the Re-training Centre for Brigade and Farm Managers (Dashtseren, 2015).8 • Thirdly, the Government would also send selected managers, professionals, farm workers, farmers and herders abroad (often to various Soviet Republics)

6 Mongolian State University of Agriculture is currently named Mongolian University of Life Sciences (MULS). 7 Brigade is a subdivision of a state farm, typically comprising a brigade manager, brigade technical specialists (veterinarians, agronomists, etc.) and farm workers (tractor drivers, herders, truck drivers and others). Typical brigades have about 15 000 hectares of cultivated land. 8 The Re-training Centre for Brigade and Farm Managers was established in 1973 through Government Resolution 145. The Centre merged with the MSUA in 1990.

9 for study tours, short trainings and practical exchanges to learn advanced techniques and technologies to introduce in Mongolia. • Finally, university students would participate in training on a state farm during seeding, harvesting and sometimes the summer to strengthen their academic knowledge with practical farm know-how. This programme not only gave university graduates an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skills, but also connected academia with farmers through these students. Farms also benefited from this additional help during the peak labour seasons. Upon completion of their university programme, the graduates would then be assigned to certain state farms or agricultural organizations to work.9

During the 1980s, the Government agreed to let the state farms have their own accounting system. This created an incentive for farm managers to look for better technologies, better varieties and innovative ways to manage a farm to improve their production and profit, without government instructions. Linked to this demand, in 1983 a number of research institutes such as the PSARTI in Darkhan established for the first time a technology transfer sector for disseminating their research results and providing services to farmers in the areas of new varieties and technologies for soil erosion, rotation and summer fallow. Through this sector, researchers would make special arrangements with farms on the condition that if the farmers used their advice and new technologies and improved their production, the research institute would take 10 to 30 percent of the profit. But if the production did not improve, the research institute would be responsible for reimbursing the additional costs associated with implementing the new technologies. In this way, the research institute was able to make 15 to 20 percent of its total budget. Researchers would also get a portion of additional income from the profit made (Byambaa, 2010).

The state farms and farm managers were evaluated by their adoption of new technologies and practices recommended by the Government. This system was effective in convincing farmers to adopt new technologies as well as in linking farmers with researchers and experts. In addition, individuals’ performances were evaluated against a national three-to-five-year plan, which was linked with a reward system. There was a strong social and public reward system for those individuals and institutions that excelled in their sectors. This reward system was applied at all levels, from the research institutions to farm workers. It had little economic impact at the household level, but rather focused on social recognition and status, which created an incentive to adopt the new practices and implement the recommended technologies.

9 During the socialist era, a number of university entries were closely determined by the demand for certain professions. Thus, employment issues were decided upon the completion of the educational institutions. This process applied to all levels of education, including universities, technical institutions, etc.

10 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

2.3. Transition period In 1990, the National Law of Mongolia declared that Mongolia had made the transition to a free market economy. This was followed by government decisions to privatize most of the state owned public goods and services, including those in the agriculture sector. As a result, all of the state farms and negdels (collective livestock farms) were privatized: crop farms were divided into different sized commercial farms. Negdels were disbanded and the livestock redistributed to individual herders.10

By 1995, all of the state farms had been privatized. Business owners, many of whom were based in the capital and had no agricultural experience or expertise, often bought the farm stocks. This resulted in a lack of much needed hands- on management and technical guidance on the farms. At the same time, the Government began to significantly reduce agricultural input imports while simultaneously beginning to privatize input suppliers. This sudden transition to a market economy and an uncoordinated policy of rapid privatization with the instant removal of public services not only reduced agricultural production significantly but also increased rural unemployment and poverty.

Figure 3: Decline in the crop sector 1985-1995 (Statistics, 1996)

Following privatization, government investment in research and training- related activities was cut significantly (Table 1), and seven research institutions were reduced to four. Two research institutes were restructured into a faculty of agricultural economics and a faculty of engineering. The majority of the researchers became university teachers in the late 1990s. The main focus of

10 This redistribution of livestock to individuals with no governance increased the number of livestock in the country; but the lack of pasture and animal husbandry management resulted in overgrazing and degraded pastures.

11 the institutes shifted from research to teaching (MSUA, 2008). The technology transfer sectors at the research institutes were also affected by this transition and eventually closed. As a consequence, public advisory and training services stopped, since the Government no longer funded researchers and experts providing advice to farmers. As for the farmers, they were barely surviving, lacking the means to obtain new technologies or advice to improve their practices.

Table 1: Government investment in research, number of researchers and research projects in agriculture

Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Total number of researchers in 2,716 2,806 2,427 2,498 2,575 2,825 2,636 3,575 3,575 3,917 3,599 3,411 Mongolia

Total funding for research (million 58 82 81 90 119 112 n/a n/a n/a 812 1,132 1,683 MNT)

Total number of 0 0 15 75 199 237 27 40 60 5 113 76 research projects

Number of agricultural 0 0 0 5 14 30 0 0 1 1 4 1 research projects

Percentage of agricultural 0 0 0 6% 7% 13% 0 0 1.6% 20% 3.5% 1.3% research projects

Source: (STF, 2015)

Prior to 1990, about 326 researchers, or 12 percent of all researchers in Mongolia, were engaged in agricultural research, and about 24 percent of total research expenditure went to agricultural research activities, including salaries and facilities. Again, prior to 1990, only about 6 to 13 percent of the total research projects funded were in areas of agricultural research, whereas in 2013, 21.7 percent of total research projects were agricultural (STF, 2015). According to Table 1, investment in agricultural research projects started up again following the Government’s establishment of the STF in 1993. It was set up as a tool to conduct scientific projects through both selection criteria and requests made from thematic ministries. In 1993, the Government decided to fund research institutes and their activities through a “competitive” research project financing system (Erdenesuren, 2004). This meant that only researchers able to have their research project funded by the STF would have financial resources to carry out their activities and obtain a salary.11 This process limited

11 If one has a research project financed by STF, the researcher has a job and salary; if the project cannot be financed by STF, the individual researcher does not have a source of income.

12 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

the opportunities for young people to enter research institutions, as it was harder for new researchers to compete for funding. @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean The ger district in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

13 14 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Chapter 3 – Current status of the research and extension system

The transition to a free market economy significantly affected research and extension services and institutions. The current agricultural research and extension system is diverse. The main players in the Mongolian research and extension system are:

• The Government – developing agricultural production, extension and research policy, setting priorities of agricultural research and extension activities and partnering with external agricultural players/donors; • Public research institutions and agricultural universities – carrying out long- and short-term research projects, testing different varieties and technologies and offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees in agriculture. Both research institutions and universities have extension centres that offer some training sessions; • National extension centres (public) – organizing training and extension activities across the country through their aimag and soum branches. They often liaise with and provide international projects with training programmes and other activities, rather than linking farmers with other stakeholders, including researchers, based on their needs; • Private sector – providing goods and services to farmers for profit, mainly input suppliers and veterinary medicine services; • NGOs – implementing government and non-governmental programmes and international projects, and bidding on tenders for input importation; • International projects – providing funding for inputs and equipment, and expertise and support for technology transfer; • Farmer associations and commodity groups – often formed by politicians for lobbying purposes, involved in implementing international and national projects (when funding is available); and • Farmers and agricultural producers – traditionally receiving research and extension services.

This chapter will discuss the current status of the research and extension systems in Mongolia and its legal and regulatory framework, operational structure, planning and implementation process, financial mechanisms and human resource management.

15 3.1. Extension subsystem Since the breakdown of the centrally planned economy and the privatization of state-owned collective farms, the agricultural production system in Mongolia has changed dramatically. The old top-down technology transfer system has fallen apart, replaced by free competition for information and technology and a demand for better production systems. At the same time, there are more inexperienced and less knowledgeable farmers, many of whom need technical as well as farm managerial guidance to properly manage their farms and make a profit.

After the transition and the privatization of Mongolia’s agriculture sector, the interface between researchers and farmers weakened (NAEC, 2011). As a consequence, very little information and new technology are currently disseminated from research institutions to producers, and most of the research projects are not responsive to farmers’ needs. This lack of relevance further weakens this vital relationship. Research organizations, perhaps in order to survive, are preoccupied with securing funding rather than serving farmers. Realizing this, the ADB provided a loan to the Government of Mongolia to establish agricultural extension services that bridge the gap between farmers and researchers. The Government also acknowledged the importance of an extension organization through the establishment of the NAEC at the MoFA in 1996. Since then, the number of stakeholders providing extension and advisory services has increased. This includes public institutions such as the NAEC, NGOs, farmer associations, private companies such as agricultural machinery dealers, international organizations and development projects (Annex 1).

3.1.1. Legal and regulatory framework for extension Three main laws indicate the need for extension and advisory services, including:

• Law of Science and Technology (28/12/2006); • Law of Technology Transfer (07/05/1998); and • Law of Innovation (22/05/2012).

The common focus of these laws is to emphasize the importance of information and technology transfer and dissemination of new research to agricultural production systems in order to intensify production and improve competitiveness in national and international markets.

Under the framework of these laws, the Government develops the National Policy on Food and Agriculture every four to six years. The current Policy on Food and Agriculture (2003-2015)12 states the importance of strengthening

12 The first phase of the policy was developed and implemented between 2003 and 2008, and the second phase was from 2009 to 2015. The Government of Mongolia, mainly the MoFA, is currently developing a feasibility study for the Food and Agriculture Policy for the next four years (2016-2020).

16 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system mechanisms for transferring new technologies, disseminating research results and innovative practices and training rural people for improved agricultural productivity and profitability. This policy was the main foundation of extension services and the existence of the NAEC. In addition to this, the Government has adopted a number of national programmes to put agriculture back on track as a lead sector of the economy, address constraints to agricultural development and improve national food security in the country. The main programmes include the:

• Mongolian National Programme for Food Security, 2009-2016; • Mongolian National Livestock Programme, 2010-2021; • National Millennium Development Goals, 2009-2015; • Agriculture Sector Development Strategy, 2006-2015; • National Programme for Innovation Development, 2008-2015; and • ATAR-III National Programme 2008-2010.

Common features of these programmes, in relation to the extension and advisory services, are to improve national food security and reduce rural poverty by:

• Improving the knowledge and skills of rural people and agricultural producers; • Strengthening technology transfer and dissemination of research findings; • Establishing and strengthening institutions to provide training and advisory services; and • Educating rural people to be engaged in profitable production under market conditions.

3.1.2. Public extension system - the National Agricultural Extension Centre

3.1.2.1. Background The main public organization for agricultural extension and advisory services is the NAEC, established in 1996 under the MoFA and located in Ulaanbaatar. Its legal status is defined in the Laws on Science and Technology. The Mongolian Government Resolution 286 established the NAEC with the mission “to develop a sustainable food and agriculture sector by motivating and educating rural citizens through an effective technology transfer system.” (Buyandelger, 2004). According to the loan agreement between the Government of Mongolia and the ADB, a “mid-term development programme for agricultural extension services” was instituted on 31 December 2003 by Government Resolution A/141. The mid-term programme was directed at strengthening and making the agricultural extension service accessible in local areas. The Government agreed to finance a certain portion of this programme. The programme’s first phase ran from 2004 to 2007, and the second phase from 2008 to 2010. The programme indicated that it would expand its scope of activities by 2010. The NAEC was

17 established to be a national umbrella institution for directing and coordinating extension services. The NAEC’s main activities include: organizing training events; providing consulting services; disseminating information; transferring technology; advocating government policies; and developing international relations with global agricultural partners. Numerous investments have been made through international donor projects and programmes in agricultural development with extension and capacity development components. Some projects have focused on strengthening the NAEC and its services in rural areas. These include interventions from development organizations such as the ADB, European Union-Tacis, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UN Development Programme, FAO, SDC, JICA, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and other donor countries such as South Korea, Germany and Israel (see Annex 4 for a list of projects with extension components). Since 1998, there have been about 12 projects and programmes directly focused on strengthening the national extension system. The rest have collaborated with the NAEC on topics related to capacity development and training.

Figure 4: International projects implemented with a focus on strengthening the NAEC

SDC

CIDA JICA E C A FAO f N o

t IFAD e n m

h s i EU-Tacis b l a t

E s ADB

According to Figure 4, the period from 2004 to 2009 was a peak one in terms of external investment and projects on developing and strengthening the NAEC. These enabled the NAEC to buy office equipment, vehicles and training materials, and to provide salaries for extension staff, particularly in decentralized offices. The objective was for extension centres to become self-sufficient

18 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system by developing agroparks,13 providing services for fees and expanding their networks. In addition to building the capacity of the NAEC and its decentralized extension centres, the projects focused on improving the skills and know-how of the provincial centres, called aimag extension centres (AECs), managers and advisers.

Although the NAEC’s mandate is significant, the actual activities it can implement today are limited. Its main products and services focus on organizing events and producing information products such as brochures and booklets. Training sessions are often delivered by contracted national experts and targeted to their clients, farm employees and farm managers. Organizing training events for international projects in Mongolia is an additional activity and source of income for the NAEC, which gives more visibility and incentives to the NAEC and its staff. The NAEC is often seen as an event organizer rather than an advisory service provider, which minimizes its significance.

The current status of the NAEC is neither clearly understood by stakeholders within the extension system nor by NAEC staff. This negatively influences attitudes towards the Centre and lowers the morale of its extension staff. Since 2009, the NAEC has gone through six structural changes. The latest change, which is more significant, was by Government Resolution 55 on 5 February 2015; the NAEC was transferred to the Committee of State Properties, and its status changed to an industry based on self-financing. With this decision and transfer of the NAEC, the MoFA was left without an extension centre and a public agency for agricultural extension services; however, for the purpose of this report, the NAEC will be presented as the main public agricultural extension organization.

3.1.2.2. Organizational structure and framework The public extension system in Mongolia currently employs a mostly top- down, linear approach for decision-making and other extension activities. Its administrative structure is more theoretical than functional. At the central level is the MoFA, with the NAEC as the main public extension organization (Figure 5). At the provincial level, the Department of Agriculture in the aimag government is responsible for providing extension and advisory services. Until 2013, as a result of international project investment, each province had an extension service and

13 Based on discussions and interviews with extension agents at the AECs, agroparks were established to: a) create favourable working conditions for the AEC managers; b) intensify and expand AEC activities; c) generate additional income through diverse agricultural services; and d) be used for hands-on, practical training and demonstration activities. Considerable investment was made to develop agroparks; however, without adequate management and skilled labour to work in the agroparks, extension agents spent considerable time just maintaining the land by seeding, weeding and watering. Rather than adding value to the extension centres, this work took extension agents away from their core activities and services. In establishing an agropark or a demonstration site for training and education purposes, it is important to consider: a) the size of the park in relation to available capital and human resources; b) the type of demonstrations – commercial versus trial; and c) the possibility of involving others, including summer students, school children and agroproducers.

19 training centre with one officer in charge. Prior to 2010, about 180 soums were equipped through international projects with advisory service centres with a focal point or local adviser; however, once the international projects ended, funding for soum extension centres stopped and the centres were closed. In 2010, through the National Livestock Programme, the Government established animal health and breeding units, with three specialists, in each soum. One of those specialists was appointed as a focal point for extension, responsible for transferring new technologies and research results, in addition to his/her main duties; however, in practice, there was little activity at the soum level. In other words, the presence of extension personnel was rather symbolic.

Figure 5: Administrative structure of the public extension system

Central level National Agricultural Extension (MoFA) Centre (est 1996)

Provincial level Department of Agriculture (Aimag government, 21 aimags)

Soum level Animal Health and Breeding Unit (Soum government, 329 soums) (est 2010)

Administratively, until February 2015, the MoFA managed the NAEC, whereas local government managed the provincial and soum offices. There is no specific coordination mechanism among those three levels, since provincial and soum governments do not receive a specified budget for extension services, nor does the NAEC have a budget for coordinating extension activities at the decentralized level. Currently, collaboration and coordination between these three levels are mainly based on personal relations or through a hierarchal request from the Ministry.

3.1.2.3. Planning and implementation Before 2011, the NAEC used to conduct an extensive training needs assessment every summer in order to set priorities and plan for the next fiscal year. All extension staff at the NAEC used to be involved in this process by conducting surveys at the producer level, and then summarizing the results to identify training needs at the provincial and national levels. Based on this survey, with consideration of national programmes such as the National Livestock Programme, the NAEC made an output agreement with the MoFA, in which

20 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system they also report on the year end. Farmers’ participation in setting priorities and planning is limited to filling out a needs assessment survey.

Due to budget limitations, the needs assessment survey stopped in 2011. Identification of training needs is done through discussions with the provincial focal points for extension.

Implementation of planned activities depends on public budget allocation and collaboration with international projects. The main activities implemented by the NAEC are: a) organizing required training; b) publishing brochures and other information sources, including the quarterly extension magazine; and c) providing technical advice where needed.

Since its creation, the NAEC has gone through two main periods. The first was from 1998 to 2009, the peak period of international project implementation to strengthen national agricultural extension systems. During this period, the NAEC was able to expand its activities and increase the number of clients served in rural areas (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Number of training sessions organized and participants (NAEC)

350 16000

300 14000 12000 250 10000 200 8000 150 6000 100

4000 Number of participants

Number of trainings organized 50 2000

0 0

As a result of those projects, the AECs were strengthened and able to organize various training activities for the rural population, herders and crop farmers; however, the NAEC reduced its budget support for the operation of the AECs and began delegating this responsibility to the aimag governments for administration and budget support. Following this transition around 2010, the extension agents at the aimag and soum level were left to support their activities from their services and to become self-sufficient. Since most farmers

21 in Mongolia are not willing to pay for extension services or for the information they provide, many of these extension centres struggled to survive.

The second period began in 2010. Around this time, most of the international projects directly focused on supporting the NAEC came to an end. At the time of writing, there were still donor-funded activities in Mongolia with extension and capacity development components linked to the NAEC. International projects also continue to play a significant role in agriculture and rural development in Mongolia. Of the extension services and activities in Mongolia, roughly 45 percent are through international projects. International projects provided 39 percent of the total training activities in 2009 and 61 percent in 2012, whereas the NAEC provided 56 percent of the total training activities in 2009 and 25 percent in 2012 (Figure 7). This does not necessarily mean more investment in extension from international projects, but it indicates the NAEC’s declining role in extension training.

Figure 7: Number of training activities provided by MoFA, NAEC and international projects 14

Although organizing training is the NAEC’s main activity, lecturers and researchers from MULS and other institutions teach most of its technical trainings.

14 In Figure 7, the training activities provided by the NAEC and MoFA were counted separately, as not all of the capacity development activities of the MoFA were provided through the NAEC.

22 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 8: NAEC training activities by thematic areas (2009-2012)

5% 4% Crop production 25% Veterinary medicine

Animal husbandry 25% Food processing 4% Extension

Industry, business 7% 30% Other

According to Figure 8, most of the trainings are on crop production (25 percent), animal husbandry (30 percent) and agricultural extension (25 percent).

3.1.2.4. Extension methodologies Mongolia’s public extension system still uses a traditional top-down technology transfer approach. Most of the extension services are provided in the form of group training, news magazines, brochures, field demonstrations and national meetings and workshops. There is no indication of the use of modern communication technologies in agricultural extension, although cellular phones are widely used throughout Mongolia. Nor is there evidence of a transition towards demand-led participatory extension approaches. The use of participatory approaches seems to only be used in international projects, especially at the beginning, for identifying training needs, etc. Farmers are seen as receivers of extension services and information. They are called to come to training when organized on a “voluntary” basis. Usually, provincial extension focal points distribute training announcements and call herders and farmers to gather at the training location.

The NSO, in collaboration with the World Bank and FAO, conducted the first nationwide special survey on the agriculture sector in 2012.15 According to this survey, the main source of information for agricultural producers (including both households and companies,) is the television, followed by government organizations, newspapers and individuals.

15 According to the Parliament Resolution in 2011 and according to the Statistics Law, the Government of Mongolia first conducted a detailed survey on agriculture with over 500 criteria.

23 Figure 9: Main source of information for agricultural producers (NSO, 2012)

Mobile 8

Individuals 30

Professional organization 21

Non-governmental organization 7

Government organization 43

Internet 15

Newspaper 39

TV 91

Radio 23

Based on this survey, there are many tools and sources commonly used by agricultural producers that can be utilized for extension and information dissemination. For example, 91 percent of rural producers receive their information via television, but none of the public organizations, including the NAEC, have regular televised programmes for promoting extension and advisory services.

3.1.2.5. Sources of finance The NAEC is a government agency funded from the MoFA. The public budget allocation for the NAEC is minimal (around MNT 300 million for the last three years) (Figure 10).

24 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 10: Public budget allocation for the NAEC (2012-2015)16

400

305,6 308,9 304,4 300 85% 87% 257,9 82%

79% 200 million MNT

100

0 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total budget Wage and social insurance costs

Over 80 percent of the budget is spent on salary and insurance, which leaves little money for the NAEC to run its activities. The budget allocation for training and meetings accounts for barely 2 percent (about MNT 6 million = roughly USD 3 000) of the total NAEC budget in the last three years (Figure 11). About 10 percent of the budget is allocated for information and advertisement, which include the costs of their publications and quarterly extension magazines.

16 According to the exchange rate on 10 February 2015, USD 1 is equal to MNT 1 960.

25 Figure 11: NAEC budget allocation by percentage (NAEC 2015)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% Budget allocation by percentage

0% 2012 2013 2014 2015

Other operational costs 7 6 4 13

Information/ads 12 10 10 0

Training, meetings, etc. 1,9 1,6 1,0 0

Salary 79 82 85 87

This budget is only for the NAEC’s central office at the MoFA in Ulaanbaatar. The decentralized AECs do not receive public funding for their extension activities from either the national or provincial governments. As a result, extension officers in the decentralized offices are often taken away from their extension duties and given other responsibilities. Thus the AEC and soum level extension offices, which were established through international projects, are used for different purposes.

Due to this lack of funding for their activities, the NAEC tries to collaborate with other institutions, particularly with international projects, mainly in organizing events and training. This offers the NAEC an opportunity to stay in touch with its clients and be involved in the wider extension services in the country.

3.1.2.6. Human resource management The NAEC has four units: administration and management; projects and partnerships; training and information; and science and technology. It has 26 full-time staff and over 60 part-time scientific advisers in different agricultural disciplines.

26 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 12: Number of staff at the NAEC (NAEC, 2015)

From the time the NAEC was established in 1996, it had roughly 11 staff in Ulaanbaatar, until the MoFA merged with the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) in 2009. As a result of this transformation, the NAEC also merged with the Technology Transfer Centre of the MoIT, and the number of staff more than doubled. However, not all staff members were providing services in agriculture. In 2012, the NAEC went through another structural change and the number of staff was reduced to 26 because of limited financial resources. This included administration and managerial staff as well as service staff, such as drivers and caretakers.

According to Figure 13, most staff members (54 percent) work in administration, management, accounting, general services and maintenance. The remainder (46 percent) are agricultural specialists who provide extension and advisory services. Among the agricultural specialists, 90 percent have a master’s degree and 10 percent have a bachelor’s degree.

27 Figure 13: NAEC staff by professional background (NAEC, 2015)

4% 9% Veterinarian

8% Zootechnician

Agronomist

54% 17% Economist

Agricultural product processing 8% Other

Figure 14: NAEC staff by age and gender (NAEC, 2015)

14% 33% 46%

67% 33%

up to 30 31-40 41-50 50 plus Male Female

Most of the NAEC’s staff are new university graduates. According to Figure 14, 46 percent of the staff is under 30 years of age, and 33 percent is between 31 and 40 years. Only 8 percent of the staff (three people) is over 50. In terms of gender, most (67 percent) are female (NAEC, 2015).

In general, there is a high staff turnover. The NAEC is often seen as a stepping- stone to a career in the Government rather than a recruiter of committed people interested in serving rural producers and contributing to agricultural development.

28 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

As a result, the reputation and quality of the services provided by the NAEC are diminishing. In addition, the NAEC lacks stable leadership with vision and knowledge in agricultural extension and innovation systems. For example, during the last six years, the NAEC went through five different directors. This instability creates confusion and a lack of commitment within the organization.

In terms of facilities, the NAEC is currently not well suited to provide services at the Centre. The location is difficult to find, there is no meeting room to meet with clients and there is only one vehicle, which is for the director’s use.

At the aimag level, the capacity to provide extension services is very low, and in many cases non-existent. According to the symbolic structure, all 21 provinces have one extension worker (Figure 15). This, in reality, is an officer appointed as a focal point for agricultural extension, but with full-time responsibilities for something else (e.g. animal husbandry or veterinary medicine). Since 2009, according to the output agreement between the MoFA and provincial governors, extension officers at the aimag centres were given the dual responsibility of agricultural extension and cooperative development.

Figure 15: Number of extension staff at the aimag level (NAEC, 2015)

21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 19

8 8 8 8

0 0

In most cases, these extension workers carry additional responsibilities above and beyond their primary duties. The extension staff at the aimag level are paid by aimag governments, thus they often carry out other tasks related to the provincial priorities.

29 Figure 16: Aimag extension officers by profession

8% 19% Veterinarian 14% Zootechnician

6% Agronomist 5% Engineer

Economist

48% Other

Unlike the NAEC staff in Ulaanbaatar, most staff at the provincial extension offices have an agricultural/technical background. Out of 21 officers in 21 provinces, ten have agronomy backgrounds and five have livestock backgrounds (Figure 16). All of the extension officers at the provincial level have a Bachelor of Science degree, primarily from MULS.

All of the AECs were equipped with phones, faxes, vehicles and email connections through investments from international projects; however, there is little knowledge exchange and sharing among extension agents in the different aimags and soums, and the NAEC at national level. The mechanism for the NAEC and AECs to work and network together effectively has not yet been established. This is due in part to the different reporting systems and additional workloads and responsibilities of extension staff at the aimag level. Furthermore, with high staff turnover, both the NAEC and AECs fail to maintain their institutional relationships with individual service providers. Establishing an NAEC and AEC network that includes current and former staff would benefit newer and younger staff, providing them with the opportunity to connect with more experienced staff and exchange ideas, learn and develop capacity. Focusing on building local capacity, strengthening local linkages and creating incentives for collaboration among all levels is important.

At the soum level, there are no full-time staff for extension services, although a structure presented in Figure 5 indicates that there is one officer in each of the 329 soums. In 2010, through the National Programme for Livestock Development, Animal Breeding and Veterinary Service Centres (ABVSC) were established in each soum with three staff. At the same time, the Government abolished soum extension officers and made a verbal agreement with the soum government that one of those three officers at the ABVSC would be a focal point for extension; however, providing extension services is not part of their

30 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system terms of reference and this responsibility is not yet legally or administratively binding. The concern is that if extension services are to be provided by soum ABVSCs, then the services provided may continue to be veterinary medicine and animal husbandry at the expense of areas related to crop production.

Capacity development of extension staff More recently there have been numerous special training sessions organized for extension agents at all levels, both inside and outside of Mongolia. External training sessions on improved extension services were carried out in Japan, Egypt, China, Thailand, Germany and Canada (Figure 17) through numerous international projects and government partnerships. Since the establishment of the NAEC, extension-related topics have become popular, and extension methodologies and concepts have entered the curriculum of the MULS as an optional course. Although the extension curriculum has advanced over the last few years, significant improvement is needed to keep pace with developments in innovation and new agricultural extension approaches such as market-oriented and demand-led extension services.

Figure 17: Number of extension staff who obtained additional training (NAEC, 2015)

Training abroad Training in Mongolia

Despite the many interventions and trainings provided to the NAEC and its staff, its capacity and competency remain low, especially at the aimag and soum levels, where the demand for agricultural extension services is highest. This may be because local governments lack the resources or simply do not see public agricultural extension services as a priority. A relevant question then is

31 why are so many staff (26-30) needed at the national level in Ulaanbaatar? Is it because the Government can afford to pay numerous staff, whereas the local governments cannot? Is it not possible to create out-posted positions for the extension staff, assigning national extension staff to the aimags and soums for a certain period of time in order to exchange and learn? Such a policy may enable better linkages and collaboration between national and local level services, and increase the effectiveness of the services provided.

The services that extension personnel need to provide have changed dramatically during the last couple of decades, becoming much broader than the traditional technology transfer functions of the past. They now include:

• Linking farmers to domestic, regional and international markets; • Advising on farm and small rural enterprise development; • Reducing vulnerability and enhancing the voice of the rural poor; • Advising on and promoting environmental conservation, and supporting farmers with climate uncertainty and variability; • Responding to food security and nutrition challenges; • Building linkages between farmers and other stakeholders, and brokering innovation; and • Empowering farmers and improving bargaining positions through appropriate institutional and organizational development.

These new roles call for a new set of skills not yet developed by the agricultural extension personnel in Mongolia. Thus it is necessary not only to strengthen their capacity in those new skills, but also to increase awareness at the political level of the demand for new extension approaches.

3.1.3. Mongolian University of Life Sciences: Innovation and Technology Transfer Centre The MULS is the main agricultural university in Mongolia, and offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees in agriculture sciences.17 It is actively engaged in agricultural research and extension; the four main research institutes are under its administration. Until February 2015, the MULS had its own extension centre and had little collaboration with the NAEC or other institutions. It was called the Innovation and Technology Transfer Centre (ITTC). The ITTC opened in 2006 with support from the CIDA-funded Training for Rural Development Project; however, the MULS rector decided to close it in February 2015.

The ITTC, governed by the Council of Agricultural Sciences of the MULS, had five staff, including the director. The ITTC was better able to provide extension services as it was under the same administration with the MULS’ eight

17 Previously known as Mongolian State University of Agriculture

32 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system thematic schools (Schools of Agrobiology, Engineering, Natural Sciences, Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology, Ecology and Technology Development, Economics and Business, Biological Resources and Management and the Graduate School), four research institutes (RIAH, Research Institute for Veterinary Medicine [RIVM], PSARTI and Research Institute for Plant Protection [RIPP]) and their regional branches. It provided the following four main services:

• Training and learning events (five to six trainings a year); • Consulting and advisory services (about six consultancy services a year); • Technology transfer; and • Agro- and business tourism.

The ITTC was involved in mobilizing resources and implementing projects through tenders, donor investments and international grants. Training and advisory services were provided in crop and livestock production intensification, agribusiness development, new technology adaptation and adoption, agricultural investment and small-scale farming (poultry, beekeeping, etc.). On average, the ITTC organized: five to six trainings; seven to ten field days and study tours; two to three exhibitions; and one television programme a year (MULS, 2015). Its consulting and advisory services focused on three areas: a) agribusiness; b) policy advising; and c) consulting for development cooperation. The advisory services targeted short-term consultancy assignments with development organizations in Mongolia. Providing consultancy services through its staff had become an additional income source for the ITTC. Major activities in technology transfer included creating and publishing a catalogue of new technologies, and organizing exhibitions and fairs to promote new technologies.

The main purpose for ITTC was to work with international projects, NGOs and farmers directly in delivering technical training in required areas. The extension centre also organized customized training based on requests from clients, and hired MULS professors to provide the technical inputs when needed; however, it was uncommon for agricultural producers to put forward a request for training. The main clients of the MULS extension centre were international projects, NGOs, private companies and urban and semi-urban farmers.

It was fully funded by the MULS. Compared with the NAEC, the ITTC was more resource rich as it had direct access to researchers and professors at the university; however, it tended to function independently and was less interested in working with other research and extension service providers. Since the ITTC’s closure in February 2015, the MULS has not had a separate unit for extension and advisory services.

33 3.1.4. Private sector in extension18 The sources and types of information on agriculture have become more diverse and available to farmers. Farmers can learn through various modes apart from the formal training sessions organized through public extension agents such as the NAEC. Many private businesses are starting to invest in agriculture, and the role of the private sector in agriculture is growing, mainly in areas of veterinary medicine, agricultural machinery and equipment and agricultural input supply. But few within the private sector are involved in providing extension and advisory services to producers. There are few who have some services closely linked with their main business activities, such as equipment sales.

The State Policy on Agricultural Development (2009-2015) and the Government Policy on Public-Private Partnership, approved on 15 October 2009 through Government Resolution 64, govern private sector involvement in agriculture. Based on those umbrella policy documents, the Government launched a number of policies that enable private sector development in agriculture, including (www.legalinfo.mn, 2015):

• A waiver for a value-added tax on agricultural products, and 50 percent subsidized from profit tax (from 2012 to the end of 2016); • A waiver for customs tax for agricultural equipment and input imports (until the end of 2016); and • Low interest loan policy in the agriculture sector.

There is no clear policy that directly supports the private sector to be engaged in agricultural extension and advisory services, although the innovation law indicates the importance of a multistakeholder process and public-private partnerships. The private sector feels unsupported by the Government, and in competition with it because of subsidy programmes for agricultural goods and services. While the private sector is trying to promote high-quality technologies and products, the Government imports subsidized, lower cost inputs with no particular targeting strategy.

It is difficult to gather empirical evidence or organized data on the private sector’s role in agricultural extension, although there are cases/companies that provide agricultural services related to their business. Private sector services tend to be targeted and effective, though they are rarely free. Such services tend to exclude those farmers who cannot afford to pay, or are unable to invest in high cost technologies.19 Agribusinesses often have more frequent contact

18 This category of the private sector does not include farms and farmers, but rather non-farm agribusinesses and private companies making business in the agriculture sector, including agricultural machinery dealers, input importer/supplier and veterinary service providers, etc. 19 This is where public research and extension services should focus through an inclusive agricultural policy to ensure that those who are not well off also have the means to innovate.

34 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system with farmers than the Government, and are therefore in a good position to participate in the extension service activities; however, because businesses exist to make a profit, there is a tendency to promote technology associated with their own products.

There are a few leading agribusinesses in Mongolia that have integrated extension services into their main activities, such as Gatsuurt, a comprehensive agriculture company, and ENSADA, an agricultural machinery dealer.

In order to demonstrate the private sector’s role in extension, an interview was carried out with ENSADA (Boldsaikhan, 2015).

ENSADA is one of the biggest private sector actors in agriculture in Mongolia. It was first established in 2010 as an agricultural machinery dealer. With progressive success in the business, ENSADA established a number of sister companies, including Ensada Service LLC in 2012, which is located in Darkhan.

Ensada Service LLC was set up to provide technical support and extension services to their clients. Their services are channelled through scheduled and unscheduled services. Scheduled services include annual field demonstrations, technical trainings and promotional activities on the product and services by ENSADA. Unscheduled activities include ongoing technical services, on-call advisory services on technical issues and tailored training packages on request. When necessary, they also bring international experts in from Canada, Ireland, Belgium, etc., to provide training and services.

Since it was established in 2012, over 180 agricultural producers/farms have received extension services from Ensada Service LLC. Annual trainings cost about MNT 150 000 (approximately USD 75), and last two to three days. In addition, Ensada Service LLC organizes training abroad. During 2013 and 2014, 14 engineers and technicians attended training in China, South Korea, Holland and the United States of America.

Ensada Service LLC has 25 staff, including an engineering team of 18 people, who provide most of the extension services and training. By comparison, the NAEC has about ten technical officers who provide extension services.

Another example of such private investment in agriculture is Gatsuurt (Jargal, 2013).

Gatsuurt is one of the largest mining companies in Mongolia. In 2003, Gatsuurt invested MNT 1 billion in agricultural land that had been abandoned. In doing so it provided employment to over 100 Mongolian nationals. Gatsuurt in the northern Selenge aimag now has the largest integrated crop and livestock farm, complemented by meat and crop processing plants. Such large-scale farmers, employing modern technologies and international expertise, play a significant role in influencing their fellow farmers, and introducing new trends in farming

35 practices to Mongolia. Throughout the years, Gatsuurt has held many study tours and training sessions and agricultural machinery demonstrations. This process facilitates farmer-to-farmer learning and stimulates the demand for advanced farming technologies and practices. More importantly is the principle of “seeing is believing”, as these companies provide opportunities for farmers to see for themselves what is possible and what can work. Although it was not possible to get detailed information on other companies, it is important to mention that there are farms that facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning in Mongolia.

In general, services provided by the private sector are quickly moving towards more modern technology and higher investment. But public-private partnerships are missing in Mongolia. There are limited linkages between public institutions (e.g., research and extension organizations), and private companies, and few incentives and enabling mechanisms in place to facilitate such linkages. In the current booming economy, the private sector is quickly moving forward in many areas, including in its capacity to learn and perform. Private companies are more willing to invest in their human resources to keep services up-to-date. They feel that the capacity of public institutions in research and extension is not keeping pace with the speed and needs of the agricultural industry, and as such, are not able to collaborate effectively and efficiently.

3.1.5. NGOs and producer organizations NGOs in Mongolia are very active and their involvement and recognition are increasing significantly at different levels. There are many farmer organizations and associations formed around certain commodities, production systems and geographical areas. According to the NSO, 6 468 NGOs were registered in Mongolia in 2013. From this, about 13.4 percent (867 NGOs) are operating in areas related to agriculture and rural development (NSO, 2013). About 75 percent of those NGOs have fewer than five staff and about 60 percent of them are funded from international projects and donors (OSF, 2015). Although the total number of NGOs registered is high, there are not many functionally active NGOs and producer organizations (Annex 1). Finding collective, organized data on NGOs and farmer organizations in agriculture is a challenge.

Some of the NGOs are politically driven, some are fund (project) driven and some are service driven by their members. They also vary in size and level of activity. Some are relatively small and tend to have a targeted group of members and services. For example, the Mongolian Female Farmers’ Association (MFFA) works with female urban and semi-urban vegetable growers primarily involved in backyard gardening. The head of this NGO is well recognized and respected. The MFFA provides a significant amount of training to vegetable growers and supplies seeds, seedlings and other essential garden supplies; however, these services are not free. The NGO is self-funded from

36 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system the sale of seedlings, garden tools, seeds and pesticides, and from training and advisory service fees.

Politically driven NGOs and farmer organizations are often affiliated with, or led by, senior politicians in the Government and thus tend to support their particular political agenda and lobby. However, it is important to note that there is no government funding allocated to farmer organizations, though they do receive political support for various opportunities, especially for public tenders and project nominations.

International projects play a significant role in farmer organizations and NGOs, particularly in project implementation. For some NGOs and farmer organizations, unless there is an external financial source such as a project to carry out their activities, they are more or less inactive. This financial dependency tends to limit their capacity and will to promote and defend the interests of farmers with respect to research and technology.

Partnerships between NGOs and public institutions, including line ministries, vary significantly depending on the motive and coverage of their activities. Larger NGOs with wider membership coverage or activities often participate in some government activities such as policy and programme development, monitoring and evaluation and project implementation. Partnerships between the Government and NGOs are coordinated by two main policies, the Mongolian Law of NGOs (1997) and the State Policy on Public-Private Partnership (2009). In addition, Parliament Resolution 93 concerning partnerships between the Government and NGOs reinforced the need for more public services and goods to be carried out by NGOs (National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives [NAMAC], 2015). Since this resolution in 2009, the MoFA made 35 contracts in 2009, 108 contracts in 2010 and 71 contracts in 2011, in some cases with NGOs, to carry out public services and activities (MoFA, 2015).

Since the National Programme for Cooperative Development (NPCD) (2009-2017) was launched, the cooperative movement has increased significantly in Mongolia. With 2012 designated as the International Year of Cooperatives, even more attention was given to the work of cooperatives. The Programme is implemented through the National Cooperative Federation, which coordinates other member associations such as NAMAC. Under the NPCD, each aimag has developed its provincial level programme to support cooperative development. This has been well supported by the development agencies and donors in Mongolia. Also, in support of cooperative movements, the Government of Mongolia launched various subsidies and loans to coops, such as the wool subsidy, at an interest rate of 7 to 8 percent. Such subsidy programmes have led to an artificial increase in the number of cooperatives.20

20 It is artificial because people form groups and coops to get benefits from the subsidy programmes, but in reality, there is no activity carried out by them as coops.

37 Furthermore, most of the international projects in agriculture seem to promote group formation and/or cooperative development.

Within this movement, NAMAC plays an important role in organizing producers, linking them to markets and inputs and advocating principles of cooperative action. NAMAC is one of the largest agricultural NGOs in Mongolia. Its objective is to be a national body to support cooperation and mutual trust among rural producers and to promote a favourable environment for cooperative development. In the case below, an attempt was made to illustrate the potential contribution from NGOs in agricultural development.

NAMAC, founded in 1967 and restructured in 1992, has played a significant role in increasing agricultural production efficiency, improving the living standards of rural populations and promoting educational and cultural welfare. As of 2012, NAMAC had 21 branch associations (one in each aimag), 8 secondary cooperatives and more than 500 primary cooperatives engaged in multipurpose operations in 365 soums throughout the country. The member cooperatives of NAMAC comprise more than 100 000 individuals from 38 000 households throughout Mongolia; approximately 200 000 people benefit from NAMAC cooperative activities.

NAMAC currently has 18 staff, nine of whom are responsible for training and extension services. In October 2010, based on increased demand for training and education, NAMAC opened a training centre for cooperative development, mainly to:

• Conduct training needs assessment surveys; • Organize trainings for strengthening cooperative human resources; • Provide advisory services for business development and agricultural production; • Prepare handouts and information sources; and • Transfer timely information to member cooperatives.

NAMAC is financially self-sufficient, with almost 80 percent of the budget financed from its services and sales (property rent), 15 percent from donor projects and only 5 percent from membership fees (Figure 18). NAMAC spends 30 percent of its income on salaries, 13 percent on research and thematic studies, 5 percent on rewards and incentives and 52 percent on operational costs such as building maintenance.

38 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 18: Financial resources and expenses of NAMAC (NAMAC, 2015)

Throughout the year, NAMAC provides various trainings (Figure 19), with most focused on cooperative and agricultural business development.

Figure 19: Trainings and consulting services by NAMAC

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Basics of coop Business planning Local training for coops Coop finance Agricultural production English & IT Coop leader Coop governance Province leaders of coop associations

39 Not only have training sessions increased since NAMAC opened a training centre in 2010, but the number of people who received training from NAMAC has increased significantly since 2011 (Figure 20). NAMAC training services are often free of charge, especially to their members.

Figure 20: Number of people who received training from NAMAC (NAMAC, 2014)

NAMAC participates in the implementation of projects in partnership with national and international organizations, research institutions and other agricultural NGOs in Mongolia. It has recently collaborated with JICA, ADB, German Technical Cooperation Agency, Gobi Initiative, European Union-Tacis and Canadian Cooperative Alliance. In addition to those national level collaborations, NAMAC has maintained good relations with the Cooperative Agricultural Organization since 1998 and has been a member of the East Asian Agricultural Organization Council since 1997.

Even though NAMAC provides good extension services to its members, it faces a number of constraints, such as: lack of professional human resources in rural areas; lack of financial resources; government instability; and decreasing foreign investment (Ganbaatar G., 2015).

3.1.6. International organizations and projects International organizations and projects contribute significantly to agricultural extension services and capacity development activities in Mongolia. They are the main source of training programmes and funding in the agriculture sector. The majority of extension services in Mongolia are provided by international projects. International projects often collaborate with NGOs and extension centres where training-oriented activities are concerned. Sometimes, international projects play an important role in bringing stakeholders together. Currently, there are 17 ongoing international agricultural projects in Mongolia

40 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

(MoFA, 2015). Each has activities and components on capacity development and training on agriculture and rural development, depending on the project focus.

International projects are funded for only two to five years on average. Many of these projects target grassroots producers and work directly with farmers, providing many benefits for those invited or able to participate. Although some international projects occasionally invite Mongolian research institutions to participate in their activities, seldom do they work directly with researchers and research institutions. These short-term collaborations among international projects, NGOs, extension centres and farmers have serious limitations that need to be taken into account, including:

• Unsustainable technical and institutional support; • Interruption in learning due to the fact that the completion of any given project often means an end to the training and demonstration activities; • Lack of capacity development and learning at national level due to lack of involvement from national agricultural researchers and government officials; • Confused farmers with no guidance and follow-up. This is due to the lack of local capacity to provide continued support on new technologies and practices learned, and the removal of external experts who are only present for short-term training activities; and • Lack of wide coverage and targeting due to the project’s limited resources and capacity.

Unless integrated into the national agricultural system and programmes, the introduction of new agricultural technologies and practices based on short-term interventions are ineffective and unsustainable. Therefore, to develop an effective and efficient agricultural extension system, all parties, including government- based research and extension institutions, service-based organizations and farmer groups, need to be involved systematically, including in decision-making about technological and methodological approaches, priority setting, research and demonstration activities, training and capacity building. The limitations can be addressed by involving relevant national stakeholders, including decision-makers, from the beginning of the intervention in order to familiarize them with the issue and to develop national awareness and capacity at all levels.

41 Box 1: Agricultural Technology Management Agency in India The Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) is a market-oriented, decentralized approach to extension that many regard as a successful model of extension reform. The ATMA model attempts to increase farm income and rural employment by integrating extension programmes across line departments, linking research and extension and using bottom-up planning. Building blocks of ATMA include empowerment of farmers through farmer interest groups (FIGs), delivery of services to FIGs by diverse service providers, use of bottom-up planning relying on FIG representatives (consultation on farmers’ needs and demands) and autonomy of the extension system. Coordination of extension service providers is an essential element. The impact of ATMA is well detailed (Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010). Among the many lessons learned from ATMA, one of the most valuable is that extension should be more decentralized and bottom-up for the following reasons: • Like agro-ecological conditions, markets for high-value crops and products are location-specific. Extension and farmers must identify and consider which high- value crops have the highest potential for success in each area. The most effective approach is to identify innovative farmers within similar areas who have started producing and marketing specific products. • Extension must formally establish steering or advisory committees to identify the specific needs and priorities of representative farmers in each district, including rural women. For example, under the ATMA model, 30 percent of the places on each farmer advisory committee and governing board were allocated for rural women. • Extension can better serve male and female farmers by allowing private firms to play a role in “disseminating” product innovations and focusing public extension services more on process innovations, in which extension personnel serve as facilitators or innovation brokers. • Innovative farmers play a key role in identifying and then scaling up process innovations (in farmer-to-farmer extension). Scaling up of the ATMA model has been attempted with varying success. Successful scaling up often relies on sufficient attention to capacity building of public extension providers (bottom-up planning, group formation, new extension methodology) and allocation of sufficient resources for operational costs. In the absence of these characteristics, the model was less successful. Sources: Singh et al. 2006; Anderson 2007. In the World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation System: an investment sourcebook. Washington, D.C.

42 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean Food market in Mongolia. Box 2: Promoting innovation and competitiveness in agriculture in Peru In the late 1990s, the Peruvian Government decided to reform its extension system and adopt an innovative approach to agricultural development. Through the Innovation and Competitiveness for Peruvian Agriculture Programme, the World Bank provided a loan to establish a modern and decentralized agricultural science and technology system that is pluralistic, demand driven and led by the private sector. Farmers played a pivotal role in managing the programme. Agriculture service providers were contracted to implement specific activities, and farmers contributed in cash and in kind to the projects. The programme generated a demand driven market for agricultural innovation by enhancing the power of its clients – family farmers – in formulating, co-financing, regulating, implementing and monitoring and evaluating extension services through competitive funding mechanisms. Over eight years of implementation, thousands of farmers demanded and received extension support. A Ministry of Agriculture study showed that 56 percent of producers had adopted new technologies, 86 percent showed productivity increases and 77 percent were willing to pay at least part of the cost of extension services. In addition, the number of extension and research providers grew by 23 percent, and the range and quality of the services offered expanded. The same study estimated the rate of return on investments in extension at between 23 and 34 percent. The World Bank has estimated the economic rate of return at 39 percent. The competitive grant funds owed their success to transparent policies and rigorous selection and monitoring. A small staff functioning as agricultural innovation brokers throughout Peru promoted efficiency and effectiveness within the agricultural innovation market; however, equity was a concern, as the greatest beneficiaries were male farmers and medium- to large-scale producers rather than female farmers and smaller, more disadvantaged producers. Source: John Preissing, State of Food and Agriculture 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

43 3.2. Research subsystem Agricultural science and technology play an important role in the overall development of the sector. Following the transition to a free market economy, the number of researchers dropped by 25 percent, and investment in research and development nearly stopped. Since 1997, universities and research institutes have been reorganized, and the number of researchers and the amount of research funds have slowly increased (Ganerdene, 2012). However, research institutions decreased from seven to four, and field stations decreased from eleven to three. Four main public agricultural research institutions currently operate in Mongolia: PSARTI, RIAH, RIVM and RIPP.

3.2.1. Legal and regulatory framework for agricultural research The main policies that govern science and technology in Mongolia are as follows (see Annexes 2 and 3 for greater detail):

• Technology Transfer Law (1998); • State Policy on Science and Technology (1998-2015); • Science and Technology Law (2006); • Science and Technology Master Plan (2007-2020); and • National Programme for Innovation System Development (2008-2015). The Science and Technology Law of 2006 provides the fundamental basis and principles for all other policies and government decisions on issues related to science. The Science and Technology Master Plan was developed in collaboration with the MECS and the Mongolian Academy of Science, along with assistance from UNESCO. This Master Plan is an essential and integral part of the broader national development strategy and guides overall research policy in Mongolia. The purpose of the Master Plan is to strengthen capacity for science and technology, increase effectiveness, promote partnerships and contribute to a knowledge-based economy.

According to the Law, major priority areas for science and technology will be set every four years. In accordance with the Master Plan, the Government identified four priority areas for science and technology between 2010 and 2014: natural resource use; agricultural intensification; human development and quality of life; and advanced information technology. Priority areas for 2015 to 2019 were still under discussion at the time of writing.

The priority areas are divided into 15 core areas of science and technology, three of which relate to agriculture: livestock and animal health; new crop varieties and cultivation technologies; and raw agricultural material development (Government Resolution 173, 2010-2014). The process of setting major priority areas is in accordance with Government Resolution 359, 2007. According to this Resolution, MECS is the main coordination body and the Minister of MECS is the chair of the Science and Technology Committee (STC). All research

44 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system institutions develop their action plans and priorities based on the major priority areas determined by the Government.

To improve the effectiveness of research activities and increase their impact on social and economic development, the Innovation Law and the National Programme for Innovation System Development (through Government Resolution 374, 2014) enable research institutions and universities to establish a “start-up company.” This will help research institutes engage with the private sector and provide business-oriented services for profit (additional income).

3.2.2. Organizational structure and framework In 1996, the Ministry of Education was renamed the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS) and was given responsibility for the country’s entire research and education system. With this decision, all of the agricultural research and education institutions, including the four primary agricultural research institutes, the agricultural university and technical schools, were removed from the remit of the MoFA and reassigned to the administration of the MECS. Following this transition, and in accordance with Government Resolution 359, the key stakeholders of the administrative structure include:

• MECS – the head of the system, responsible for implementation of government policies on research, development of priorities, plans and strategies; selection and approval of research projects (through the STC) and investments (through the STF); development of information centres and databases for research and monitoring; and evaluation of public expenditure on research; • MoFA – responsible for the preparation and submission of research requests in areas of agricultural development; implementation of those research project results and monitoring and evaluation.21 The Subcommittee for Science and Technology (SST) at the MoFA was also established to identify research priorities and projects in the field of agriculture that will intensify agricultural production, improve market access and contribute to overall economic growth;22 • The Mongolian Academy of Agricultural Sciences – established in 2009 under the MULS, and responsible for development of agricultural research policies, priorities and strategies; implementation of research projects; and support; and • Research institutes – responsible for implementation of research projects; field experimentations; and dissemination of research results and education training. There are currently four research institutions and three field research stations.

21 MoFA makes the list of research project requests each year, and submits the requests to the MECS for approval and funding. 22 The Secretariat of the SST is in the Department of Policy and Strategic Planning, MoFA. It has five to seven members/experts who are called on demand. Members are selected from various research and academic institutions, such as agricultural universities, research institutions and government ministries.

45 Figure 21: Administrative structure of the agricultural research system in Mongolia, 2015

The STC, hosted by the MECS, is also involved in the day-to-day administration of the research programme in selecting, monitoring, reporting and funding research projects through the national STF. Likewise, the MoFA also has a subcommittee for science and technology in agriculture, which is hosted in the Department of Strategic Planning and Policy and chaired by the Deputy Minister of the MoFA. The MoFA is seen as a client of agricultural research projects, responsible for making research requests to the MECS, as well as disseminating research results to the producers. However, neither the MECS nor the MoFA has a clear mechanism or resource allocation for disseminating research results and providing technical support and advice to farmers. Because the MoFA has no direct structural linkages with research institutions and universities, there are limitations to working together effectively and supporting each other’s programme as one agriculture sector.

3.2.3. Planning and implementation The planning and implementation process of the agricultural research system is realized through Government Resolution 301 in 2014 and the Food and Agriculture Minister Decree A/26, procedure for implementation of science and technology (research projects). The process follows five main steps, including: a) making research requests; b) selecting and funding research projects; c) implementing research projects; d) reporting research results; and e) submitting research results to the MoFA (Figure 22).

46 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 22: Workflow of the current agricultural research system in Mongolia (Dolgorsuren, 2015)

1. Research request

By: MoFA (SST)

5. Transfer of 2. Selection, research approval, results to & funding

MoFA

By: MECS By: MECS

(STC/STF)

4. Reporting research 3. Implementation of results to STC/MECS research projects

By: Research institutes By: Research institutes

Step 1. The process of making research requests is carried out by the MoFA’s SST. It starts with a review of research project proposals from researchers or research groups from various research and academic institutions, according to the state priorities set by Government Resolution 173 in 2010. Following the review, the SST includes those that best fit projects in the request, and submits it to the STC at the MECS for funding.

Step 2. The selection, approval and funding processes are done by the STC and STF at the MECS. Following the request made by the MoFA, STC advertises the priority research projects on public media (often in a daily newspaper). Then, researchers submit their proposals accordingly. After the review of the proposals, the STC approves the projects for funding. The fund is granted by the STF. Currently, research project funding lasts a maximum of three years.

Step 3. Researchers are responsible for implementing the projects and successfully conducting the research and field experiments. During the process, researchers are required to report to the STC (monitoring and evaluation) on the implementation progress. This is often done through annual presentations in Ulaanbaatar of progress made.

Step 4: In terms of reporting research results, researchers produce technical and financial reports once implementation is complete, and submit them to the STC at the MECS.

Step 5: In terms of transferring research results, once the results have been reviewed, the STC hands the reports to the MoFA for acceptance and further implementation/dissemination. The MoFA officially accepts if it feels the results are technically adequate.

Farmers or producer representatives are not involved in any stage of the current agricultural research system, neither at the beginning when priorities are set and research requests are made, nor at the end when the research results are reported and transferred to the MoFA. In addition, this process includes neither funding nor activities for disseminating research results. The funding of projects

47 includes only the hard input costs, such as seeds, fertilizer, lab expenses, equipment rentals, etc.

In order to link the agricultural research with practical needs and government policies, the MoFA issued a decree on 23 February 2015, directing the SST to submit a list of priority topics for the selection of research projects to the MECS, instead of the list of research projects. In this way, the researchers prepare their research projects according to the priority topics, rather than the SST fitting their priorities according to the project proposals submitted (Dolgorsuren, 2015). In addition, Government Resolution 301 in 2014 states that: a) the client institution of STC (in this case the MoFA) is responsible for implementing research results in practice; b) if the research results are not implemented and absorbed by the industry, the client institution (MoFA) will be required to pay back the cost of the research to the STF; and c) if the research results are not satisfactory or fail to deliver results, the lead researcher of the project will be suspended for research funding for three years. However, the resolution does not clearly describe how to determine that the research results are transferred and absorbed by the industry.

Between 2008 and 2015, about 130 research projects were funded by the STF and implemented in areas of agriculture, which equals 19 percent of the total research projects funded by the STF (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Number of research projects funded by the STF (2008-2015) in five disciplines (STF, 2015)

250

29% 200

22% 150 19% 17% 14% 100

Number of projects 50

0 Medical Natural Social science Technical Agriculture science science science

Since 2008, the number of research projects in the agriculture sector has been increasing steadily. In 2008, only two agricultural research projects were funded, whereas in 2014, 27 projects were funded by the STF (Figure 24).

48 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 24: Number of research projects funded by STF in agriculture23

30 27 26 25

20 16 15 15 12 11 10 6 5 2 2 1 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Research projects are funded for a maximum of three years – an inadequate amount of time to produce results, particularly in areas such as plant and animal breeding. In addition, agriculture and agricultural research are seasonal, depend on climate and involve a high level of risk. The uniqueness and vulnerabilities of agricultural research are not considered and exceptions are not made in order to produce relevant and reliable results. Looking at all research projects implemented from 2001 to 2014, 34 percent involved animal husbandry, 35 percent crop science (including plant protection) and 24 percent veterinary medicine (Figure 25). Figure 25: Percentage of agricultural research projects, funded by STF, in different disciplines (2001-2014)

4 3 7 Animal husbandry

Veterinary medicine 34 Crop science

28 Plant protection

Technical science

24 Agricultural economics

23 The number of projects in 2015 and 2016 are only those that were funded in 2013 and 2014. This means the actual number of projects in those years will be higher than what is indicated in this figure.

49 As mentioned earlier, agricultural research projects are implemented by four main research institutions as well as by researchers at the MULS. From 2001 to 2014 the RIAH had the highest number of agricultural projects implemented at 29 percent, followed by the PSARTI with 22 percent, MULS with 22 percent, RIVM with19 percent and RIPP with 8 percent (Figure 26). Although the MULS has four research institutions under its administration, researchers at the MULS (under its teaching faculties) implement one-fifth of the agricultural research projects in Mongolia.

Figure 26: Percentage of research projects implemented by different research institutions (2001-2014)

29 %

22 % 22 % 19 %

8 %

RIAH PSARTI MULS RIVM RIPP

Regrettably, the wealth of information and knowledge produced through these research projects sits on a bookshelf at the MoFA library and is often not utilized (Dolgorsuren, 2015). The authors, however, do retain ownership of the results, and, at the very least, share them through their personal networks. Some of it is theoretical research that does not necessarily serve farmers directly, but some is applied research that could benefit farmers. The question now is how to make this wealth of knowledge available to producers and farmers – the ultimate users of agricultural knowledge. Based on this system and procedure, there is a systemic (institutional and operational) issue concerning the linking of research priorities and project requests with demand from producers in alignment with agricultural policies and programmes.

There is a need for a systematic change in order to provide the institutional support necessary for researchers to collaborate with other actors and to communicate research results to producers. This does not imply that researchers themselves take the research data and results forward to the producers. It only suggests that policy support and provision of funding need to be considered for building linkages and collaboration among researchers,

50 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system extension agents, producers and other stakeholders in the agricultural system to communicate research results to producers and understand their needs. Currently, there are no linkages between researchers and the extension system, and limited ones between researchers and producers, mainly via informal personal connections. From the perspective of an agricultural innovation system, a number of stakeholders with different but complementary roles and contributions are involved in the process of disseminating information, sharing learning and ultimately enabling innovation. But this system requires a set of policies defining the rules and responsibilities, providing incentives to create institutional linkages within and across sectors and financing demand-led extension and dissemination activities.

In short, the research system is top-down, with farmers and producers out of the picture. The research projects are treated like a deal between two ministries, which are implemented at the research institutions. The process is not demand- led, participatory or inclusive. Therefore, research results are often irrelevant to the needs of farmers and difficult to disseminate and apply in practice.

3.2.4. Financial mechanism The STF under the MECS is the main public organization responsible for mobilizing and distributing financial resources, monitoring expenditures, compiling and reporting research results and codifying and archiving reports for basic and applied research projects in Mongolia. The Government of Mongolia increasingly realizes the significance of research and technology, and public investment for science and technology has been steadily increasing (Figure 27), though actual expenditure on research projects remains low.

Figure 27: Total public expenditure for science and technology and percentage of investment in agricultural research (NSO, 2013)

51 Although public investment in science and technology seems to be increasing in terms of quantity in Mongolian MNT, it remains very low in terms of a percentage of the GDP. Public investment in science and technology was equal to 0.26 percent of the national GDP in 2012, but declined to 0.17 percent in 2013 (NSO, 2013). It is stated that 1.5 percent of the GDP will be invested in research and development in the National Law of Special Funds (2006). Actual investment in research and development in Mongolia is quite low compared with other countries (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Research and development expenditure as percentage of GDP (Kuchler, 2011)

As indicated, the main source of funding for science and technology (research) in Mongolia is the STF at the MECS. This funding covers staff costs, research projects and other operational costs such as rent and utilities.

52 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Figure 29: Budget allocation of the STF, 2012

Other operational costs 7%

Actual research expenses Staff costs 36% (salary and insurance) 57%

Most of the funding goes toward staff salaries (Figure 29). Until 2008, researchers were paid from their actual research project budget, meaning that only those researchers with a project would have a fund salary. But this policy changed in 2008, in that researchers are now paid from a regular science and technology budget regardless of their research projects. This new policy has created a sense of security and continuity in the research staff.

The STF does not cover general maintenance of the research institutes, their research equipment, laboratories or building renovations, nor does it cover the development and capacity building of the researchers themselves. As a result of this lack of public funding and investment, the capacity of research institutions is decreasing, particularly at field stations in remote areas. Approximately 15 percent of the operational costs of these research institutions are funded from their own products and services, mostly through agricultural production and research products.

In recent years, research organizations have also been mobilizing resources through international projects. For example, PSARTI collaborates with SDC’s Mongolian Potato Project on development of elite potato seeds in Mongolia. Through this project, PSARTI was able to develop a greenhouse for elite potato seed production, financed by the SDC project. The number of joint initiatives and activities with international organizations or other research and education institutions abroad has been increasing, especially at the MULS (Figure 30). But not all those activities make a financial contribution.

53 Figure 30: Number of joint initiatives and activities with international partners24 (MULS annual report, 2012-2014)

0 RIVM RIAH PSARTI RIPP MULS

2012 2013 2014

This funding mechanism creates competition for the same pot of money (STF) among stakeholders and research institutes rather than enabling collaboration. Thus, these research institutes tend to be independent from one another. There is a need to explore innovative funding mechanisms for research, including through public-private partnerships.

3.2.5. Human resource management Prior to 1990, Mongolia had about 4 000 researchers, but currently there are only about 1 500. Of this, about 30 percent are affiliated with four agricultural research institutes and the MULS. There are about 500 researchers per one million inhabitants in Mongolia, whereas the international average is about 1 500 researchers per one million inhabitants. By comparison, America has 4 600, China has 1 020, Italy has 1 680 and Kazakhstan has 652. According to Government Resolution 27, issued on 27 January 2015, RIAH will have 98 staff, RIVM will have 88 staff and PSARTI and RIPP together will have 154 staff. The resolution also indicated that up to 20 percent of the staff may be in administration and support services.

24 This information is not from an official source. The data were collected through interviews and telephone calls.

54 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Table 2: Total number of research staff at research and education institutions by the end of 2014

2014 RIVM RIAH PSARTI RIPP MULS

Total number of employees at 105 93 102 53 1 200 agricultural research institutes

Total number of researchers 79 68 68 42 41225

Percentage of researchers with 43 22 24 26 34 Ph.D degree or higher (%)

Percentage of researchers aged 73 78 59 64 53 40 or younger (%)

Percentage of female 51 50 62 83 57 researchers (%)

Figure 31: Total number of research staff at different research and education institutions by the end of 2014

100

60 40

20 0 RIVM RIAH PSARTI RIPP MULS 1 2 3 4 5 RIVM RIAH PSARTI RIPP MULS

Total number of researchers Total number of researchers Total number of researchers in agriculture in agriculture in agriculture

Researchers with Ph.D Researchers aged 40 or Female researchers (%) degree or higher (%) younger (%)

In general, the education level of professionals in Mongolia is high. Most of the researchers are able to read and understand both Russian and English. All of the researchers have at least a Bachelor of Science degree. According to the 2014 annual report by agricultural research institutions, about 30 percent of the researchers in agriculture have a Ph.D. or higher, 65 percent of the researchers are under 40 years of age and 60 percent are female (Figure 31). It was also noted during the interview that young people are not always looking

25 The total number under the MULS includes the total number of teaching and research staff; however, not all teaching and research staff conduct research every year.

55 for a high paying job, but for opportunities to learn, develop and be exposed to both national and international environments, including capacity development programmes. In general, researchers seem very diligent and dedicated despite low wages and lack of incentives.

The average wage of a researcher has doubled from MNT 330 000 in 2008 to MNT 630 000 in 2013. In 2014, the average wage for a researcher was MNT 705 602 per month (approximately USD 400) and for teaching researchers at the MULS was MNT 1 018 717 (approximately USD 560) (Figure 32).

Figure 32: Average wage of a researcher at a research institute and the MULS (USD 1 = MNT 1 800)

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000 Monthly salary by MNT 200000

0 2012 2013 2014

researchers at research institutes teaching researchers at MULS

Researchers at a research institute and researchers at the MULS have different administration mechanisms for their payroll and their salaries are calculated differently. The main responsibilities of the “teaching” researchers include lecturing and teaching, while research is their secondary responsibility.

3.2.5.1. Capacity development of research subsystem The capacity of researchers and their organizations to process (obtain, assess, adapt, develop and disseminate) information and new technologies to facilitate learning and innovation among all stakeholders, including farmers, is the most important issue. FAO’s capacity development framework indicates that for a system to sustainably address emerging issues efficiently and effectively, capacities are required at three levels or ‘dimensions’: the individual,

56 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system organizational and enabling environment dimensions (FAO, 2012).26 Additionally the capacities required need to be functional or technical, for example, expertise in a given agricultural topic (such as plant breeding), but also expertise in others areas such as people and project management, negotiation and communication skills. The current human resource capacity of researchers at the individual level is relatively high, especially in their technical areas; however, capacity at the organizational level and the enabling environment are low in Mongolia, especially for functional capacity.

Agricultural research institutes currently do not have a budget for activities for individual, organizational and institutional capacity development. Although international relations and external investment in agricultural research, research facilities, equipment and researchers have been improving, opportunities for researchers to go abroad to share and learn from other research initiatives are limited. There need to be more opportunities for exchange and partnerships with researchers and research institutions at the bilateral, regional and international levels. This not only results in learning and capacity development, but also creates an incentive and inspires the researchers. It was evident that research institutions need financial and institutional support to build their individual and organizational capacity to be relevant and competitive in Mongolia’s emerging and fast growing economy. This will have a positive spill-over effect on agricultural development. It was also clear that research institutions need to be business- and market- oriented. This includes a change in governance, management, products and services. This also means a shift needs to take place in the research system’s financial mechanism, including partnerships with the private sector.

In terms of facilities, there is limited funding available through the STF for the maintenance and procurement of new equipment. Funding received from the STF is only for staff salaries and capital research costs and does not include the cost of buying new instruments or building new laboratories, etc. Therefore, the state of the research institutions’ facilities varies depending on their connection with external projects and their ability to mobilize external funding to establish

26 Capacities developed in the individual dimension lead to changes in skills, behaviours and attitudes of the individual. Training, knowledge sharing and networking are ways of strengthening capacities in this dimension. Strengthening capacities in the organizational dimension consists of taking measures to improve the overall functioning and performance of an organization. This dimension has a direct impact on how individuals within the organization develop their competencies and use their capabilities. The enabling environment is the context in which individuals and organizations put their capabilities into action. It includes: political commitment and vision; policy, legal and economic frameworks; budget allocations and processes; governance and power structures; and incentives and social norms. These three dimensions are interlinked; individuals, organizations and the enabling environment are parts of a whole. Capacity development often involves the enhancement of knowledge of individuals, although the output of individuals relies greatly on the quality of the organizations in which they work. Furthermore, the effectiveness of organizations and networks of organizations is influenced by the enabling environment. http://www.fao.org/capacitydevelopment/the-three- dimensions-of-the-fao-capacity-development-framework/en/

57 and improve their laboratories or other research facilities. For example, several of PSARTI’s sectors (research teams) are equipped with modern research equipment and facilities, mainly funded from various international projects such as SDC’s Potato Programme. Likewise, RIVM has advanced up-to-date equipment and modern facilities made possible through numerous international investments, including JICA funding. Whereas, the RIPP does not have its own building, and its laboratories are not as modern or equipped with all the necessary instruments. Investment and interventions through external sources are not well coordinated with national funding through STF. For example, it is not synchronized in the reporting system, thus it is more difficult to track the actual total number of investments. In general, institutional funding, including for infrastructure, is critical for long-term research capacity. Currently, there is no consistent system for the maintenance and improvement of the research facilities.

Formally, researchers are not accountable to farmers. There is no proper monitoring and evaluation system based on the research impact at the grassroots level. Instead, the monitoring and evaluation process is mainly focused on expenditures against activities (quantity of the activities rather than quality), which results in organizations that are accountable to the Government and funding sources, rather than to farmers. But informally, in Mongolia, researchers and professors are usually asked to provide advice to farmers as side activities, in their spare time during holidays and weekends. In most cases, researchers and professors provide extension services on a voluntary basis or for a small fee. But the arrangements are made outside of their full- time responsibilities. Formalizing this advisory service process and creating an enabling environment for researchers to link with extension services and producers will enhance the capacity of the system as a whole.

In general, many stakeholders share the responsibility of helping agricultural producers innovate and improve their production and livelihood. It is not possible to achieve a positive impact on farmers, rural communities and the overall development of the national agriculture sector without working together as partners with the same objectives. It requires system-level capacity with supporting mechanisms, such as joint funding and joint programmes with clear mutual objectives.

3.2.6. Role of the private sector in the research subsystem Although the current agricultural innovation system in Mongolia is diverse, the role of the private sector in agricultural research is limited. The private sector mainly plays a role in importing goods such as fertilizer, herbicides and equipment. In addition, they find that the public research system cannot keep up with the speed of private sector change and development. At present, collaboration between the private sector and public research institutions is limited to testing soils, seeds, etc. Through informal channels, some farmers/ companies participate in the testing of new varieties and breeding programmes.

58 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean Agriculture is the main source of income for rural communities in Mongolia.

59 Box 3: Mechanisms to Articulate Producers’ Needs in Uruguay Producers have a significant role to play in the financing, governance and research priority setting of Uruguay’s main agricultural research institute, the Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA). Formal mechanisms foster producers’ participation in identifying, prioritizing and planning research. Producers are active members of the board of directors, regional advisory councils and working groups. They are involved in planning, primarily through wide participation in identifying and analysing problems. Specific mechanisms to articulate producers’ demands and transfer technology have been developed as well, such as experimental units for validation and demonstration. The five regional advisory councils set up in 1990 act as “antennae” for capturing local demands in the area served by each experiment station. The councils are an important forum for regular exchange of views and close contacts between producers and INIA staff. INIA also created working groups for major commodities at each regional experiment station to strengthen farmers’ role in guiding commodity research. In these groups, INIA staff and farmers discuss research plans and results for specific commodities and production systems. Meetings are open to all producers interested in attending, as well as other stakeholders (extension agents, representatives from industry and policy-makers). The working groups have become a useful mechanism for formally incorporating inputs for research planning, monitoring and evaluation. INIA also has close links with its clients through a specialized unit for diffusing technology. For instance, INIA has a long-term agreement with a producer association to demonstrate new intensive cropping and livestock production technologies. The arrangement has validated promising technologies at the commercial level, facilitating their transfer and providing feedback to reorient research. It has been expanded to support new technological developments in extensive livestock production. Round tables are a third means of incorporating producers’ demands into national research programmes. Comprising specialists from INIA, other public research institutes, the university faculty of agronomy and representatives from different stages in the agro-industrial chain (from producers to consumers), the round tables operate as self-directed working groups to identify relevant vertically integrated problems. Source: Allegri 2002. In the World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation System: an investment sourcebook. Washington, D.C.

60 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Box 4: Research and Development Tax Incentive Law in Chile Chile was one of the first Latin American countries to introduce competitive funding programmes for agricultural research. These programmes have helped increase the volume and quality of Chilean agricultural and non-agricultural research significantly. Another step was to introduce tax incentives. The main objectives of the incentives are to: a) increase private investment in research and development; and b) strengthen the links between research centres and companies. The research and development tax incentive works as follows: a) companies hire registered research and development centres through a previously approved research and development contract; b) 35 percent of the payments private companies make to the research centre against a research and development contract are considered as credit against corporate taxes; and c) the remaining 65 percent of the payment is automatically considered as expenses for tax purposes. To qualify: a) research centres need to be registered, with criteria including years of operation, research capabilities and good accounting practices to ensure appropriate enforcement; b) contracts need to be approved by CORFO, the Chilean development and innovation agency; and c) the company and research centre cannot be related. Source: Adapted from Noe 2007. In the World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation System: an investment sourcebook. Washington, D.C @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean Agricultural extension in Mongolia.

61 3.3. Coordination and linkages: agricultural research and extension system An agricultural research and extension system will become effective and efficient only when there is collaboration among key stakeholders, including farmers. This can be accomplished by:

• Circumventing an ineffective linear top-down research and extension system and decision-making structure; • Encouraging better utilization of public-private partnerships; and • Promoting increased participation of producer groups in decision-making processes. Currently, all actors appear to be doing their own thing with their own limited resources. Poor linkages result in limited collective impact on the ground. Unfortunately, public investment in research, development and extension barely reaches the target clients: Mongolia’s agricultural producers. As Figure 33 shows, there is a major gap between public sector research and extension system and producers. This means that the investment made in research returns to the Government in the form of a report, but fails to reach farmers.

Figure 33: Relationships, information, power flow and gaps among stakeholders in Mongolia’s agricultural research and extension system

62 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

In Figure 33, the arrows with dotted lines represent limited interactions and relationships. Farmers and producers are at the bottom of the information and technology chain, and, as a result, are not involved in research planning, implementation and reporting. In contrast, modern agricultural research and extension systems suggest that farmers should be at the beginning of the chain and the centre of the system, rather than considered recipients at the end. Often, the non-public sector has the most connections with producers, acting as a bridge; however, their focus and target are limited: NGOs to their members, private companies to bigger producers. Also, the implementation of international projects is often patchy, geographically as well as thematically.

Almost all Mongolian farmers are literate and educated with at least a high school diploma (Erdenebaatar, 2006). This means they have the capacity to learn, understand and participate. This suggests that there is a real potential for increased impact from the research and extension services in the agricultural production system, especially when the services are appropriately linked to other key players in the system such as farmers, agrifood processing factories, academics, researchers and NGOs. The current lack of linkages between research and extension institutions and other agricultural stakeholders further devalues the efficiency and effectiveness of the research and extension system in Mongolia.

According to the producer group discussions held in Darkhan in 2013, farmers consider other fellow farmers, friends and local producer groups as their first point of call for information and exchange, followed by soum technical specialists. In addition, smallholder farmers (mainly vegetable growers and small poultry and chicken farmers) do not seem to have access to or be connected with the research and extension organizations, whereas, large-scale grain farmers seem to have better interactions with researchers and extension personnel (farmer workshop discussion, 2013). This indicates the need for tailored research and extension services for different types of producers, as well as inclusive agricultural research and an extension policy that ensures access for smaller-scale farmers through incentives.

This also suggests the need for better recognition of the role of soum level specialists and lead farmers. Strengthening the capacity of the soum level specialists and extension personnel will help farmers address their farming issues more efficiently and effectively. Local level specialists also need to be trained to play a role in innovation brokering, since they are the focal point for farmers. This will also help strengthen linkages between local level AIS players and those stakeholders at the national level, and enable more local innovation to occur.

Effective coordination among the various actors and organizations is critical for achieving successful innovation capacity. The coordination and organization of stakeholders serve many purposes, such as building coherence, setting consensus-based priorities, strengthening knowledge and resource sharing, strengthening collaboration through joint processes and products, reducing

63 transaction costs, generating economies of scale in extension and market activities and eliminating gaps and duplication of services.

Although there are some linkages between and among these stakeholders, there are clearly missing connections with respect to sharing information and coordinating roles and responsibilities. Most stakeholders are connected to the farmers on an individual basis, providing services, transferring technologies and selling agricultural inputs. No one has a clear coordination or facilitation role defined in any regulatory framework. Often in many other countries, extension personnel, NGOs, farmer associations and cooperatives take on this coordination role. While active facilitation/coordination can help to develop partnerships between stakeholders, including farmers, incentives are central. These could include policy and institutional changes, such as changing rules and linking funding for collaborative work with demand-led services. @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean Sustainable rural development is a priority in Mongolia.

64 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Box 5: Advantages and Impacts of Learning Alliances Learning alliances rely on an iterative learning process jointly undertaken among multiple stakeholders with a common interest or goal. Typically, stakeholders might include research organizations, development and cooperation agencies, universities, policy-makers and private businesses. Learning alliances facilitate the development of cumulative, shared knowledge between these stakeholders about what works, what doesn’t and why, in temporal and spatial contexts. Shared and accessible knowledge in this sense contributes to improved development outcomes as lessons are quickly identified and learned. Improved links among research and development actors improve both research focus and development practice. As funds diminish, increased efficiency becomes paramount in achieving positive livelihood change. Finally, jointly developed proposals are also more attractive for funding agencies as they have a higher potential for scaling out and up and therefore achieving broader impact. A well-functioning learning alliance achieves the following outputs: • Cumulative and shared knowledge about approaches, methods and policies that work in different places, cultural contexts and times (as well as those that do not), and the reasons for success or failure; • Learning opportunities across organizational and geographical boundaries through the establishment and support of communities of practice around specific topics; • Synergy among multiple actors by providing a vehicle for collaboration, helping to highlight and develop diverse solutions to problems that may appear intractable to the individual actors; • Contribution to healthy innovation systems by building bridges between islands of experience, helping to assess how those results were achieved and what others can learn from these experiences; and • Capacity development for implementing, scaling up and improving innovative approaches and methods.

Types of learning alliances

Type Need Focus

1 Building capacity and skills base Training and learning to use concrete, practical approaches and proven methods

2 Developing new methods, tools and Action research that generates approaches methodological guides based on good practice, then validated through capacity development learning cycles

3 Generating information that can Conventional socio-economic research to influence policy understand principles and lessons across experiences

Source: Best, Ferris, and Mundy 2009. In the World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation System: an investment sourcebook. Washington, D.C

65 Box 6: Chile’s Innovation Strategy Following a long period of stagnation from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s, Chile’s economy started to take off, and for the past 25 years, has been one of Latin America’s better performing economies. The opposition parties elected to Government after 1988 continued the free market policies introduced by the military junta to a substantial extent but with a greater appreciation of the Government’s role in economic development, including its role in stimulating innovation. Chile’s economy has been booming partly because of high revenues from copper exports. To invest those revenues wisely, the Government decided to invest heavily in moving away from a predominantly resource-based economy (agriculture and mining) toward a knowledge-intensive economy. For this purpose, it created a national innovation fund for competitiveness (FIC, Fondo de Innovación para la Competividad), funded by a new tax on mining in 2005. A newly created national innovation council for competiveness (CNIC, Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la Competividad), in which the various sectors and interest groups are represented, advises FIC on how to allocate its resources, while an inter-ministerial committee on innovation (Comité de Ministros para la Innovación) is responsible for implementation. As part of this new initiative, CNIC has formulated a national innovation strategy. After extensive study and consultation, CNIC selected five economic clusters on which to focus science, technology and innovation investments: agrifood; aquaculture; mining; tourism; and global services. For each selected cluster, a strategic board with public and private representation was created to set cluster-specific priorities. The Strategic Board of the agrifood cluster identified the following subclusters as the most promising for further development and knowledge intensification: fruit; wine; processed food; pigs and poultry; and red meat. These priorities were passed to the various science, technology and innovation funding agencies, which are organizing calls for proposals. Moreover, despite their name, competitive funding schemes are being used to cement stronger links within the innovation system by promoting cross-institutional collaboration between universities and research institutes as well as public-private partnerships in the form of “technology consortia.” The latter not only cements collaboration between a research agency and the private sector but between companies that share a common technology platform. Since FIC’s creation in 2005, public science, technology and innovation investments in Chile have more than doubled in real terms (reaching USD 530 million in 2009). Public science, technology and innovation investments are projected to continue to grow by 10 to 15 percent per year over the coming ten years. Parallel to the science, technology and innovation initiative, the Chilean Government established a major scholarship scheme (Becas Chile) in 2008, which will allow some 30 000 Chileans to study abroad over the next ten years. The budget for this scheme is around USD 6 billion and is financed out of mining royalties. Source: Johannes Roseboom. In the World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation System: an investment sourcebook. Washington, D.C.

66 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Chapter 4 – Conclusion and recommendations

National agricultural extension and research systems worldwide have undergone major changes in recent decades. The overall focus of research and extension systems has shifted to strengthening demand-driven and pluralistic services, where public, civil society and private sector services are all engaged. Efforts at promoting this shift to a demand-led innovation system approach have, in many countries, included a movement towards decentralization, with a growing role for local governments in fostering innovation. A common thread in virtually all of the changes underway in research and extension today is the recognition that, in order to be effective, extension and research need to be market-oriented and linked with other services, such as input and output marketing and finance (Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010). Research and extension are just two pieces of the puzzle, and the complexity of this puzzle is what makes an AIS approach different from the past technology transfer approach of tighter research and extension linkages. An important first step for establishing an effective AIS through institutional and organizational reforms, capacity development efforts and new investments may be the development of a national policy for agricultural innovation through broad consultation with stakeholders.

In most countries, government plays a central role in guiding the evolution of the research and extension system. The role of government remains central in AIS through sets of policies and regulatory frameworks that enable innovation. Creating conducive enabling environments is an important promoter of innovation and innovation capacity; however, it is not a given that more marginal, socially and geographically vulnerable and poor farmers are able to benefit from this environment. Therefore, the government and donors have a special responsibility to support research and extension that are targeted towards less privileged farmers.

From the study, it is understood that: a) the Mongolian Government sets the priorities and allocates the budget for research and development annually without other stakeholder participation, including farmers; b) research institutions run on limited budgets, but researchers are very dedicated; c) the public extension system is failing to deliver and the current status is unknown; d) the private sector sells its goods and services to the farmers; e) international projects continue to provide external resources and expertise with respect to technologies and inputs; f) there are a few active NGOs that provide services to their members; and g) farmers tend to be seen as passive recipients of extension services and research products, rather than as active agents capable of voicing their needs and preferences for training and research. Producers’

67 participation in the planning and development of research and extension activities is weak and often ignored.

The existing research and extension system is constrained by a number of factors, including a lack of governance, finance and capacity. Addressing these challenges requires continued political and institutional commitment and increased investment for building the long-term capacity of the sector in each dimension. Developing policies that shape innovation and innovation capacity by affecting both the production of knowledge as well as the productive use of that knowledge is vital (Rajalahti et al., 2008). The following are the key policy recommendations from the review of Mongolia’s agricultural research system and extension services.

• Develop a national strategic framework and investment plan for an AIS in Mongolia, with clear functions and roles of stakeholders in line with innovation capacity. A well-functioning enabling environment, including policies and rules that govern the mandates and operations of research and extension organizations and their engagement with other stakeholders in the system, is vital for individuals and organizations to perform more efficiently and effectively. Weak public and private sector organizations dealing with research and extension, and the lack of collaboration between them, hinder agricultural innovation by farmers. • Reform public extension in the context of the AIS. There is a need to revisit and redefine the status and role of the agricultural extension system and to develop policy and regulatory frameworks to provide institutional and political support at all levels (national, aimag and soum), including decentralized extension services providers. • Increase public investment in research and extension. Investing in research and extension is one of the most effective strategies for supporting innovation to enhance sustainable agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods. The current short-term and project-based funding mechanism of research in Mongolia can be useful to promote competition within the research system, but it is crucial to ensure long-term investment for human resources, infrastructure and strategic programmes through appropriation. • Develop smart investment plans and funding mechanisms. Investment and funding mechanisms need to be developed, which incentivize and promote collaboration, communication and partnerships for better impact on the ground. This could include co-funding mechanisms through public- private partnerships and competitive funding mechanisms where farmer participation is increased. • Develop a strategy to build capacity for an AIS at the national level. A comprehensive capacity development strategy and national programme for an effective AIS is needed in order to address increasingly complex challenges and growing demand in the agriculture sector. This includes new sets of skills, new approaches and ways of delivering services, new

68 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

incentive mechanisms and monitoring and evaluation systems for individual, organizational and enabling environment dimensions. Efforts should target soum and bag (subdistrict) governments and farmer groups as crucial frontline stakeholders of the system and farmers’ proximate sources for information and point of call for enhancing innovation capacity. • Establish AIS networks and platforms. It is crucial to strengthen the AIS stakeholders and increase linkages among them, and identify a dynamic coordinating body with leadership characteristics for this network. Use national programmes and government funds to bring stakeholders together and facilitate collaboration among key stakeholders such as NGOs, research institutes, extension agents and the private sector. • Promote market orientation in research and extension. The reorientation of the research and extension system to become more responsive and linked to market forces is crucial for enabling innovation. Supporting and promoting agribusinesses and market-driven services to farmers should be one of the objectives of the public research and extension system, while at the same time ensuring that less well-off farmers have access to information and services. • Provide incentive mechanisms. Create policies that incentivize collaboration in creating technologies and scaling up innovation and private investment in research. Public sector research and extension organizations need to be revitalized, private sector service providers incentivized to invest and research and extension and businesses encouraged to integrate through public-private sector collaboration. Effective incentives will foster linkages and coordination among stakeholders in the system. • Promote social inclusion. Public sector services should include facilitation of smallholder and socially excluded groups of farmers, such as women and poor and more remote farmers, to access the necessary means to innovate, including technology, knowledge and credit. • Establish a joint monitoring and evaluation systems. Such a system should include the participation of stakeholders, including farmers. The current monitoring and evaluation system for research and extension should be reviewed and a new more effective model developed. • Develop criteria for research and extension programmes and projects. Develop a set of criteria for planning, implementing and disseminating research and extension products and services, in accordance with public policies such as Government Resolution 301. • Ensure farmers’ participation through a demand-led service system. Central to all of the above is the key role farmers play in contributing to the research and extension agenda. Empowering farmers and ensuring their participation in decision-making and priority setting increases the relevance and effectiveness of the programme. For AIS to sustainably improve farmers’ production and livelihoods, agricultural research and extension services must respond to farmers’ needs and demands.

69 The Government is also responsible for identifying and removing barriers to innovation. This could be done by: a) ensuring a stable macro-economic environment and well-functioning markets; b) setting appropriate regulations in a transparent way; and c) fostering human capital.

In developing policies to support these recommendations, the following need to be done:

• Recognizing the role of farmers as innovators; • Recognizing the role of the market as a source of incentives for the adoption of new technologies; • Strengthening government capacity to create a conducive enabling environment for innovation, including the need to change attitudes among policy-makers; and • Increasing pluralism in the extension and advisory service system. @ FAO/Sean Gallagher @ FAO/Sean Mongolian vegetable farmer.

70 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Bibliography

1. Amanuel Assefa, Ann Waters-Bayer, Robert Fincham and Maxwell Mudahara.”Comparison of Frameworks for Studying Grassroots Innovation: Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS)”. Innovation Africa Symposium. Kampala, Uganda, 2006. 2. Batzorigt, Erkhembayar. “Future Trend of the Agricultural Sector in Mongolia” New approaches for investment in agriculture conference proceeding Mongol Bank, 2014. Ulaanbaatar, 2014. 3. Bayambaa, T. Agriculture of Peoples of Republic Mongolia in 60 years. Ulaanbaatar: State press, 1982. 4. Byambaa, B, MAAS. Intensive development of agricultural science. Ulaanbaatar: MSUA, Solongo press, 2010. 5. Boldsaikhan, O. interview by Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar. Overview of ENSADA’s involvement in rural advisory services and extension. 2015. 6. Dashtseren, D., interview by Ganchimeg, G. Retraining Center for State Farm Managers. (02 22, 2015). 7. Davaadorj, D, Saranchimeg, G. interview by Ganchimeg. G. Data of NAEC (02 03, 2015). 8. Dolgorsuren, Ch. interview by G. Ganchimeg Ch, Delgermaa. Ministry of Food and Agriculture (02 06, 2015). 9. Enkhee, N. “Introduction of National Agricultural Extension Centre.” Ulaanbaatar, 2011. 10. Enkhtuvshin, B. National Innovation System of Mongolia. http://www.icsti. su/uploaded/200906/praha2009/mong_rpt.pdf (accessed 02 2015). 11. Ensada. http://www.ensada.mn/. 2009. http://www.ensada.mn/ (accessed 02 2015). 12. Erdenesuren,B. Tsookhuu, Ts. “Financing and Efficiency in Science and Technology Activity of Mongolia.” Science and Technology Fund. Ulaanbaatar, 2004. 16. 13. FAO. www.fao.org. 2012. http://www.fao.org/capacitydevelopment/ the-three-dimensions-of-the-fao-capacity-development-framework/en/ (accessed 03 2015). 14. Ganbaatar, G. interview by Delgermaa.Ch Ganchimeg, G. NAMAC (02 2015). 15. Ganerdene, T. tech.news.mn. 2012. http://tech.news.mn/content/118964. shtml (accessed 01 25, 2015).

71 16. Gantulga, G. MULS.edu.mn. 2014. http://www.msua.edu.mn/view_news_ page.php?id=1214 (accessed 01 18, 2015). 17. Government of Mongolia. “Government resolution 152/223, ” Ulaanbaatar, May 22, 1963. 18. “Government Resolution 93/94,” Ulaanbaatar, June 03, 1961. 19. Government of Mongolia. Millennium Development Goal Implementation Report. Ulaanbaatar: Government of Mongolia, 2013. 20. Kuchler, Hannah. “New demographic dividends for Asia.” 2011. http://tilt. ft.com/posts/2011-02/13561/new-demographic-dividends-asia. 21. Hall, Andy. “Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: an innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it” 2005. Journal of International Development, 17(5), 611-630 22. Jargal. interview by Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar. Overview of Gatsuurt company and its role in extension services. 2013 23. Legalinfo. Government order for setting and renewing priority list and core technology of science and technology Mongolia. 2007 #359. 24. Legalinfo. Law of Science and Technology. 02 20, 2006-12-28. 25. Legalinfo. Law of Science and Technology. Ulaanbaatar, 12 18, 2006. 26. Legalinfo. legalinfo.mn. 2014. http://www.legalinfo.mn/annex/ details/6590?lawid=10779 (accessed 02 2015). 27. Legalinfo. “Master plan for Science and Technology (2007-2020).” Ulaanbaatar: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001514/151490E.pdf, 2007. 28. Legalinfo. “Parliament of Mongolia, Law of Science Academy legal status.” Ulaanbaatar, 05 23, 1996. 29. Legalinfo. “Resolution of Government of Mongolia, 2014-09-18 -301.” Procedure for science and technology project implementation. Ulaanbaatar, 2014. 30. Legalinfo. “Rule for Government order for identify and renewing priority list and core technology of science and technology Mongolia.” Government of Mongolia, Resolution. #359 2007. 31. Legalinfo. www.legalinfo.mn. 01 26, 2015. http://www.legalinfo.mn/law/ details/10904?lawid=10904 (accessed 02 10, 2015). 32. Legalinfo. “www.legalinfo.mn.” Law of Government special found. 2006. http://www.stf.mn/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=44:2011-08-02-17-12- 46&catid=16&Itemid=141&lang=mn (accessed 02 18, 2015). 33. Mongolian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Current status and future goals of the agricultural science and development. 2010. www.maas.edu. mn (accessed 01 2014). 34. Mongolian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. “Research Activities Annual Report-2013.” Annual, Ulaanbaatar, 2014.

72 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

35. maas.edu.mn. Mongolian Academy of Agriculture Sciences. 2010. http:// www.maas.edu.mn/ (accessed 01 04, 2015). 36. MAS. Annual Report 2013. Ulaanbaatar, 2014. 37. MoFA. www.mofa.gov.mn. 2015. http://www.mofa.gov.mn/mn/images/ stories/tailan/2011/togtool20122.pdf (accessed 01 2015). 38. MoFA, ADB. “Agriculture sector development strategy 2006-2009.” Ulaanbaater, 2006. 39. MoFALI. National Agricultural Extension Centre 15 year. Ulaanbaatar, 2011. 40. Summary documents for Food, Agriculture and Light Industry-II. Ulaanbaatar: Od Swit, 2012. 41. MSUA. History of Mongolian State University of Agriculture. Ulaanbaatar, 2008. 42. MULS. Annual report of MULS 2012, 2013, 2014. 02 2015. 43. muls.edu.mn. 2014. http://muls.edu.mn/view_news_sub. php?id=254&sub=201 (accessed march 2015). 44. NAEC. “Anket of local extension workers.” Ulaanbaatar, December, 2014; August, 2012; December 2005, 2014, 2012, 2005. 45. NAEC 15th anniversary. Ulaanbaatar, 2011. 46. NAMAC. “National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives.” Introductory leaflet. 2014. 4 7. National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives. www.namac. mn (accessed 02 25, 2015). 48. NSO. “Science and technology.” Ulaanbaatar: State press, 1987, 1988, 2003. 49. Science and technology. Ulaanbaatar: State press, 1987,1988, 2003. 50. NSO. “Services for agriculture sector.” In First National Agriculture Census 2011, 133. Ulaanbaatar, 2012. 5 1. Statistical year book of Mongolia 2013. Ulaanbaatar, 2014. 52. Nyamdavaa, interview by E. Anudari. (02 26, 2015). 53. Open Society Foundation, OSF. “Information about Mongolian Non- Governmental Organization (Study report). ”Ulaanbaatar, 2005. 54. Oyun, L. “Agriculture development.” Agriculture, 1960 (3): 5. 55. Regdel, D. www.gogo.mn. 03 03, 2015. http://news.gogo.mn/r/157096 (accessed 03 04, 2015). 56. Sciences, Academy of. www.paleo.mas.ac.mn/ 2014. http://www.paleo. mas.ac.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28:tsalin&ca tid=12&Itemid=119 (accessed 03 2015). 57. Sereeter, Ch., Tserev, Kh., Chadraa, B. History of Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Ulaanbaatar: Bembi san, 2002. 58. STF. Mongolian Foundation for Science and Technology. 01 2014. www.stf. mn.

73 59. www.stf.mn. http://www.stf.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=art icle&id=123&Itemid=110&lang=mn (accessed 03 01, 2015). 60. Tamir, A. “VIP76.mn.” Parliament members. 01 15, 2015. http://vip76.mn/ content/29259 (accessed 03 2015). 61. Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.com. 04 2014. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (accessed 03 10, 2015). 62. www.legalinfo.mn. Government Policy on Private Public Partnership. 02 2015. http://www.legalinfo.mn/law/?cat=28 (accessed 02 2015). 63. www.meds.gov.mn. http://www.meds.gov.mn/sciencestrategy (accessed 12 26, 2014). 64. Zoljargal, Kh. “Current cituation of Mongolian Agriculture. ”New Financial Tools for Agriculture Sector of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Bank, 2014.

74 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Annex 1 – Organizations providing extension and research services

75 www.sme.gov.mn www.mongolia.coop.mn www.namac.mn www.dvab.gov.mn www.provincename.gov. mn www.maas.edu.mn Email/Web page Email/Web Engages in policy-making, business development services,Engages in policy-making, business development training and consulting Provides training, seminars and consulting services members, Provides for associations of cooperatives different connecting seven Provides regular training, consulting and marketing services regular training, consulting and marketing for Provides of training, types and levels and different member cooperatives, regional meetings, policy-making, delivery lobbying, of government areas, etc. policies to rural Engages in disease diagnosis and confirmation; works out control Engages in disease diagnosis and confirmation; works and specificity of the livestock strategies in accordance with OIE rules implements control geographical zones; husbandry in different system and disinfection surveillance,measures (disposal, zoning, vaccination, services consulting and some extension control) and provides movement Provides administration, policy implementation, some training and Provides consulting Provides training, consulting and technology transfer training, consulting and technology Provides training, consulting, role in research, out an administrative Carries publishes the Mongolian transfer; and technology innovation countryside and periodical magazine, Market, monthly newspaper Sciences Agriculture of and Journal Agriculture Main activity Division of Small and Medium Enterprises National Association National Association of Cooperatives National Association National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives Veterinary and Breeding Veterinary Soum Unit Departments for Industry, Industry, Departments for and Small Agriculture Medium Enterprises in 21 provinces Mongolian Academy of Mongolian Academy Sciences Agricultural National Agricultural Extension National Agricultural Centre N ame of organization emi-autonomous governmental organizations organizations emi-autonomous governmental 3 2 on-governmental organizations, associations organizations, N on-governmental 1 2 S 1 2 Government or ministry-based extension organizations or ministry-based Government 1 N .

76 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system chatsargana.mn www.risc.org.mn www.msrm.mn www.asrd.mn www.mongolchamber.mn www.mongoltextile.mn Email/Web page Email/Web Supports crop producers; promotes their activities to the public; training and consulting provides Provides training and consulting regarding sea buckthorn and other training and consulting regarding sea buckthorn Provides and out research carries crops to members, individuals and farmers; sector in the agriculture studies Promotes comparatively new development concepts such as public- concepts such development new comparatively Promotes business clusters and capacity chain, value partnerships, market private among its target groups human and technical) building (institutional, and clients Largest association in Mongolia representing smallholder and family Largest association in Mongolia representing smallholder and family farming and small-scale livestock engaged in horticulture farmers engagement on the proper use and collective Supports herders’ methodological and lands and provides preservation of pasture management advisory services;providing measures for organizes necessarymethodologies and information to support self-evolving unions, societies and partnerships that protect herders’ institutes, scientists and by and study rights and interests; promotes research issues and supports them in raising specializing in pasture researchers their competency and qualification Provides professional consulting for agricultural businesses, rural businesses, rural agricultural consulting for professional Provides and community development small and medium enterprises rural issues and community development rural programmes; researches on international standards; implements or co-implements projects for reduction and poverty development sustainable rural Supports domestic producers by helping to establish a good legal Supports domestic producers by and supporting producers to enter the market business environment, Produces high-quality Mongolian wool and cashmere products, high-quality Mongolian wool Produces services training, producers consulting and marketing provides for Main activity Mongolian Soy Association Mongolian Association Soy Mongolian National Association and Growers of Sea Buckthorn Producers Rural Investment Support Investment Rural Centre Mongolian Society for Mongolian Society for Management Rangeland Mongolian National Association Agriculture and of Food Association for Sustainable for Rural Association Development Mongolian Chamber of Commerce and Trade Mongolian Wool and Cashmere Wool Mongolian Association N ame of organization 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 N .

77 http://www.monapi.mn/ www.greengold.mn http:// www.greengold.mn www.organicmongol.mn/ http://www.dsmongolia. org/index.php/mn/ www.msard.mn www.urtaria.mn Email/Web page Email/Web Provides training, consulting and information to members training, consulting and information Provides training, consulting, event annual conferences, Supports exhibitions, organization and connecting partners Provides training for herders training for Provides training and consulting services members and individual for Provides prints booklets and guidebooks beekeepers; Provides microloan services interest rates and no collateral with low Provides requirements, training, recommendations and project improvement, business mediation and marketing Provides training and consulting Provides training and consulting Provides Supports potato planting, plantation selling, training, consulting and business development and training, business consultancies, Supports business development financing,corporate training, business linkages, public information, NGO capacity and and group development, business cooperative needs assessments Provides veterinary services,Provides consulting and training on strengthening capacity building Focuses Helps members produce higher-quality wheat; promotes their in the sector training on implementing innovation activities; provides Main activity Mongolian Food and Agriculture Agriculture and Mongolian Food Association Mongolian Milk Farmers Mongolian Milk Farmers Association Mongolian Beekeepers Mongolian Beekeepers Association Lock Picking for Development Development for Picking Lock ) ( Hugjliin onison tulkhuur Organic Mongol Programme, Organic Mongol Programme, Green Green Development National Campaign NGO Future Seed Breeders Association Mongolian Women Farmers Association Solution NGO Development Pig Breeders Association Mongolian Society of and Rural Agricultural Development National Veterinary National Veterinary Association of Mongolia Mongolian Association of Crop Association Mongolian Producers N ame of organization 23 22 21 20 19 16 17 18 15 14 13 12 N .

78 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system www.aud.edu.mn http://www.maas.edu.mn/ www.maas.edu.mn www.maas.edu.mn www.agroculting.mn https://www.facebook. com/agroconsulting.mn www.ulaanbaatar.edu.mn Email/Web page Email/Web By the end of 2013, 53 public technical and vocational schools, and schools, and vocational 53 public technical By the end of 2013, Those functioning. were schools and vocational technical 26 private in players are key thousand teachers, with a total of 1.6 79 schools, short-term training). (especially for extension Engages in research, education, training and innovation in the crop education, training and innovation Engages in research, cooperates with domestic and sector in Darkhan-Uul province; international donor agencies in projects and policy-making Conducts research and studies on plant science, environmental and studies Conducts research cooperates with safety; resource usage and food protection, natural domestic and international donor agencies in projects policy-making Conducts research on agriculture and animal veterinary; implements on agriculture Conducts research technology and advanced innovation Coordinates science and technology projects, innovation programme projects, innovation Coordinates science and technology sciences in accordance agricultural develops studies; and research intensifies economy; with the principles and conditions of market activities at domestic and international levels; research collaborative their results and studies, basic research monitors and evaluates activities; publications; disseminates and promotes results of research sector; elaborates in the agriculture transfer coordinates technology and institutions strengthening research and implements policies for sector human resources in the agriculture Conducts research on the current situation of Mongolia’s agriculture agriculture of Mongolia’s situation on the current Conducts research sectors and livestock acts as an intermediary consulting and project development; Provides businesses agricultural for Provides education and training for farming, agriculture and livestock; and livestock; farming, agriculture education and training for Provides certificates and diplomas provides Main activity Vocational training centres Vocational PSARTI PPI, MSUA IVM, MSUA IVM, MSUA RIAH, MSUA RIAH, MSUA Agroconsulting NGO Agroconsulting Agro “ Agro Intensive Agriculture ” Association Devshil Agricultural Training Training and Agricultural Centre Research N ame of organization 5 4 3 2 Public research institutions without extension units research Public 1 27 25 24 N .

79 Email/Web page Email/Web www.ensada.mn www.wagnerasia.com http://ammac.eu/ mongolisch/ammac-gmbh www.gatsuurt.mn www.tsagaanmurun.khas.mn www.khanbank.com www.xacbank.mn www.agrotrak.ru www.belarus-tractor.com www.agromachtech.mn www.msm.mn www.evergreenland.mn www.mbengineering.mn www.montruck.mn www.nuudelchin.mn Provides consulting, training and field training on agricultural consulting, training and field on agricultural Provides and equipment machinery and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture livestock, are agriculture, branches main four company’s The international and domestic trade construction. and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and credit and loan services farmers consulting for for Provides herders and credit and loan services farmers consulting for for Provides herders and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture and equipment dealer machinery Agriculture production and services, farming Engages in agriculture intensive training Main activity Agromashtech LLC Agromashtech Ensadatractron LLC Asia LLC Wagner LLC AMMAC Gatsuurt LLC LLC Tsagaan Murun Khaan Bank Khas Bank LLC Agrotrack Tractor LLC Belarus Intose LLC MSM LLC Munkhnogoontal LLC MB Engineering LLC LLC Montruck Group, Nuudelchin Khishigtennuudelchin N ame of organization 11 Private sector organizations or firms Private sector organizations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 N .

80 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Annex 2 – Major policies related to extension

81 elevance for extension Provide direction to manage start-up company, national direction to manage start-up company, Provide results of projects and research innovation system, innovation state budget. science projects funded by unit or transfer technology Science organization can have start-up company. R Establishing incubator and of priority a network setting, and adaptation diffusion best technology park for technology Support interrelated science Support interrelated activities to and technology support knowledge-based activities of innovation the national development strategies Oversee innovation system system innovation Oversee management, main principles, financing and government innovation support for Main objectives Define the rights and duties of participants in scientific and activities and technological regulate relations concerning the management, principles and financing thereof Since 1998/05/07 Since 2012/05/22 Effective period Effective Since 2006/12/28 Mongolian Law of Mongolian Law Transfer Technology Mongolian Law of Mongolian Law Innovation Name of document Law on Science and Law Technology 3 2 N . Mongolian N ational L aw 1

82 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system elevance for extension R support policies of SMEs and Government Article 15. guidelines. of SMEs work will support the productive Government 15.1.1. businesses and of establishing new as the initiatives as well restoration; general capacitysupporting by Strengthen the SMEs’ 15.1.4. financial capacity; of initiatives work, Support the productive Article 16. businesses and restoration of SMEs establishing new to the SMEs: support provided Follow 16.2. trainings and organize latest information Provide 16.2.1 business establishment; the new needed for about SMEs; knowledge citizens’ Improve 16.2.2. the business the financial source needed for Provide 16.2.3. start; managerial capacity: Strengthen SMEs’ Article 17. to: Support the management resources provided 17.1. Support building houses and buildings, purchasing, 17.1.1. installing, and fixing equipment; development, on technology Support SME research 17.1.2. them in government and involve and transfer innovation work; research public and Support cooperation with universities, 17.1.3. training and on technology local organizations focused private studies; practice and capacity quality of workers’ Improve 17.1.4. training; development on Engage directors and managers in training focused 17.1.5. of their professional their capacity building and development skills; and SMEs with consultation and advisory Provide services 17.1.6. about building their management resource. Main objectives Promote in a comprehensive in a comprehensive Promote small manner measures for and medium enterprises (SME) establishing by the basic principles, policies and other related to measures matters SMEs and clarifying the for responsibilities, etc., of the state and local public entities, so as to contribute to the sound development and of the national economy in people’s improvement quality of life Effective period Effective Since 2007/07/27 Name of document Law on Small and Law Medium Enterprises N . 4

83 elevance for extension R industry and food agriculture policy for Development 5.2.1.4. Phase One (2007-2015): animal nomadic and intensive Both 1. Strategic Objective taking into account regional husbandries shall be developed, peculiarities, decreasing the outbreak and spread of contagious animal diseases substantially and increasing the production, of animal products. Strategic Objective processing and export processing will be introduced in food technology Advanced 3. of products shall be improved. and competitiveness lish and make operational a comprehensive base of information on herders, herder base of information Estab operational a comprehensive lish and make (3.3.4); and supply herders with information production and markets, households, livestock of economic and levels different training programmes that match Establish and develop business skills of herder households, and training specialization trainers in all soums (3.3.8); and of herder training, and facilitate training provision Establish and strengthen organizations for and transfer training on technology activities, inclu ding both basic training and advanced etc. (3.3.9) transfer, adaptation, innovation The ‘Government Policy on Herders’ (2009 to 2015) includes the following strategic goals related includes the following (2009 to 2015) on Herders’ Policy ‘Government The of veterinary and livestock and quality improvement Development extension: to agricultural science (3.2.1); of agricultural breeding services achievements and the service transferring for • • • Main objectives Protect and strengthen Protect and sovereignty, Mongolia’s it into a middle income develop its country through achieving Goals Millennium Development 2009-2020 Effective period Effective 2007-2021 Government Policy Policy Government on Herders Name of document Mongolian National Development Strategy based on Millennium Goals Development 3 N . overnment Policy G overnment 1

84 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system elevance for extension Provide age and gender-sensitive trainings on nutrition age and gender-sensitive Provide Train on planting and fertilizing sea buckthorns, and provide and provide sea buckthorns, on planting and fertilizing Train advisory services farmers for Support domestic ideas and financing, and share the ideas scientific institutes through foreign and experience R and and education of professionals knowledge Improve 3.1.3 technology herders and introduce advanced Supply and train veterinary and breeding specialists 3.1.3.1 based on requests from aimags , soums bags and private them. companies and ensure continuous education for Establish in every aimag centre a temporary school 3.1.3.2 herders on traditional and contemporary educating young for animal herders on effective Train management. livestock husbandry legal and market management and provide information; technology adapt and introduce advanced Transfer, 3.1.3.3 based on sector demand; and and veterinary Apply outcomes from livestock 3.1.3.5 into practice through state and scientific studies innovations projects and inclusion in various support, economic incentives and programmes. Provide information on intensive animal farming to society, train specialists in universities and train specialists in universities to society, animal farming on intensive information Provide training to herders animal farming intensive provide Sustain population with nutritious, guaranteed products Provide information and basic knowledge training to cooperatives every year, support NGO every year, training to cooperatives and basic knowledge information Provide activity the cooperatives for for sea buckthorn Grow domestic use, prevent the desertification and provide population with quality fruit Develop national innovation national innovation Develop to support Mongolian system economic and social competitiveness Main objectives Develop a livestock sector a livestock Develop climatic adaptable to changing and social conditions where create an environment the sector is economically in the viable and competitive a to provide economy market supply to food and healthy safe quality the population; deliver materials to processing raw industries; and increase exports 2003-2015 2010-2021 2009-2017 2010-2016 2008-2015 Effective period Effective 2010-2021 Programme “To “To Programme support development of intensive livestock” National Programme National Programme Security Food for National Programme National Programme on Sea Buckthorn National Programme National Programme Cooperative for Development “Developing “Developing System Innovation in Mongolia “ Programme Name of document National Mongolian Livestock Programme 6 5 4 3 2 N . N ational Programmes 1

85 Annex 3 – Main policies for Mongolian science and technology

86 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system elevance for agricultural research R park, districts; cluster, Establish scientific and technological the laboratory the database; environment improve develop meet general outlook to ensure they and sectors’ international standards Increase funding sources to support collaboration and research and private government partnership between activities innovation organizations; support knowledge-based strategies; establish the of the national development and technology as the basis of research science system international science and and improve development; collaboration technology technology; innovative develop system; innovation Constitute and research scientific studies encourage public university scientists and and prepare encourage young work; researchers and projects research science and technology Select new Main objectives Enhance science and capacity; technology increase innovation effectiveness; system promote industry-academia collaboration; contribute by to economic growth establishing an enabling social, economic and legal establish a environment; national technology basis for promote the development; of high technology- growth based industries; and a for establish the foundation economy knowledge-based system the innovation Develop in Mongolia Establish the main concepts of the science and technology project implementation process, and regulate relations Effective period Effective Since 1998 Since 1998 Since 2007 2008-2015 Resolution: since 2007 in 2014 Renewed Name of document State Policy on State Policy Science and Technology Government 2 on Resolution “Master Plan of Science and 2007- Technology, 2020” Government on Resolution National Program Developing for System Innovation on Regulation Science and Project Technology Implementation N . 1 2 3 4

87 elevance for agricultural research R and within this the regulation is renewed Every years four period the projects are selected. the confirmation of top priorities science Regulate project list sector and core technologies and technology main directions of the science and technology four The resource usage and natural approved; sector were are directly protection, and intensification of agriculture, sector. related to the agriculture three separate subdirection goals, in which In total, 4 of 15 The defined. were sector, related to the agriculture were animal enhancement; development three main goals were: to produce crops; and technology of new and growth centres and study research The materials. raw agricultural set their plans according to these main directions. union is an organization that Scientific and technological and experiments and studies, combines production, research inventions. National Council is a freelance Technological Scientific and activities organization that connects the development on state a scheme hatches of science and technology, and evaluates regulations regarding science and technology the implemented state regulations. Main objectives Implement top priorities in science and technology, and core technologies on ensuring and focused encouraging economic growth, acclimation competitiveness, and secure technologies Confirm the science and top sector’s technology priorities and core technologies project list Estimate the results, implementation and financing work, of scientific research and inventions experiments the rights, functions Regulate and financial management of the union scientific and technological the rights, functions Regulate and financial management of the scientific and technological national council Effective period Effective 2006 N. 142 Renewed in Renewed N. 146 2007, Since 2010 2008.04.09 N. 167 2007 N. 146 Name of document Rule of Scientific Rule and Technological Union Production Regulation on Regulation National Council of Science and Technology 173: Regulation Sector Technology and Priorities Top Core Technologies Project List Approval on Regulation Implementing, Financing, and Estimating Results of Science and Technological into Activities Production of the Scientific Rule and Technological National Council N . 8 5 6 7 9

88 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system Renew the science and technology sector’s management sector’s the science and technology Renew strategy and capacity at every level; and combine the the functions and structure Renew and social sciences research agriculture, technology, council; and research scientific organizations as study organizations and Direct the scientific research coherence; to one main direction and improve universities Encourage and implement activities combining science and and technology-production-business; Establish a scientific park and incubator jointly with and international organizations other private countries. in the science and Build a multiple source funding system sector; and technology Enhance the possibilities of scientific and research centres to generate more income. in scientists and researchers professional Prepare and scientific organizations and universities; to top young post-doctorate scholarships providing Begin scientists. elevance for agricultural research R Ensure activity coherence: • • • • • the funding system: Improve • • generation: Encourage scientists and prepare the next • • Main objectives the science and Approve management technology plan renewal Regulation is pursued when Regulation establishing a start-up company determining the under MSUA, managerial issues, company’s liquidation and reorganizing distributing dividends. Effective period Effective 2010.07.07 N. 174 Since 2013 Name of document Regulation on Regulation Encouragement of Methods Science Developing and Technology Sector Rector’s Resolution Resolution Rector’s on Establishing a Start-up Company under the MSUA N . 10 11

89 Annex 4 – Projects with extension components

90 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system Established agriculture extension centre in extension Established agriculture Bulgan, Khovd, Tuv, 8 aimags (Darkhan-Uul, Khentii, Selenge) Dornod, Khuvsgul, centres in extension Established agriculture Umnugobi, Bayanulgii, 7 aimags (Bayankhongor, Dundgobi, Uvurkhangai, Orkhon, Dornogobi) centres in 3 aimags Established extension soum s Khentii, Selenge) and in 10 (Khuvsgul, (3 soums in Darkhan-Uul, 4 Khuvsgul, and 3 soums in Selenge) Established centres in 4 aimag extension GobiAltai, Uvs, Khovd Zavkhan, Established centres, 64 bag 69 soum extension in 4 aimags (Arkhangai, Khuvsgul, herder schools Bulgan, Khentii) Established centres in 3 aimag extension Sukhbaatar and in Dornogobi, Gobisumber, 7 soums 6 aimags and 21 soums (Bayanulgii, Dundgobi, Umnugobi, Orkhon, Bayankhongor, Uvurkhangai) centres in 3 aimags , 8 soums extension Renew and 24 model entities O utput EU TACIS-1 and Ministry of Food Agriculture EU TACIS-2 ADB IFAD EU TACIS-2 UN FAO JICA Japan, D onor countries/ organizations 2002 2002-2007 2002-2007 2003-2010 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2009 1998-2001 Year Comprehensive Crop-Livestock Crop-Livestock Comprehensive Production Sector Agriculture for Programme Development Project Poverty Rural Reducing Service Development Agriculture Project Extension Capacity Development Project Enhancing the Extension System Crop-Livestock Comprehensive for Management Supporting Crop Production N ame of project 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 N .

91 Strengthen extension capacity; Uvurkhangai Strengthen extension 10 soums centres in 6 aimags and extension Develop Tuv, 14 soums (Bulgan, Darkhan-uul, Selenge, Orkhon, Khentii) and consulting in 4 aimags Training aimag, Khovd Bulgan and Mankhan soum 6 aimags Western O utput ADB JICA Japan, Canada CIDA Government Australian SDC Switzerland, D onor countries/ organizations 2010-2013 2005-2010 2013-2014 (2013-2016) 2009-2011 Year Enhancing the Extension System Enhancing the Extension System Crop-Livestock Comprehensive for Management Phase II Development Rural for Training Sector Livestock Improving Climate Change Adaptation for through Strengthening Extension Services Extension Agricultural Green Gold - Component Water Point and Extension Station Point Water Herding Poor Establishment for Families N ame of project 10 11 12 13 9 N .

92 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Annex 5 – Ongoing international projects in the agriculture sector

93 Main activity Sustainable potato seed multiplication from piloting to scaling up and the to reflect the shift is revised PDO The is to ascertain PDO revised The sustainability. on building capacity for focus Insurance in Mongolia to reduce the Livestock the viability of Index-Based livelihoods. mortality herders’ for impact of livestock of the livelihoods and improve programme will reduce poverty The Mongolia, through Western 000 in semi-nomadic herder families 100 management and income generating action, sustainable pasture collective activities. addressing project will complement the SDC portfolio livestock This productivity and production management issues (health, breeding, livestock management). specialists of animal breeding, artificial and consulting for Training insemination, greenhouses and bee production sustainable improving herding productivity by livestock Improve management proposed assistance This will help herders, the most vulnerable group recurrent to strengthen their preparedness for climate change, by affected their livelihoods. dzud , and rehabilitate and/or improve Donor Switzerland SDC Bank, World Switzerland SDC Switzerland SDC Switzerland SDC & Food Asian Agriculture Cooperation Initiative FAO South Korea KOICA Switzerland SDC ADB Year 2012-2015 - 01.10.2011 30.06.2016 2013-2016 - 01.01.2012 31.12.2015 2010-2013 2014-2016 2012-2015 2014-2017 2012-2015 2012-2016 Name of project South-South Cooperation in Mongolia II Animal Health Potato Seed Potato Improvement Livestock Index-based Insurance Additional Financing Green Gold Sustainable Livestock Management Project Establishing Agricultural Technology Network Information in Asia Establishing International Project Agriculture Center Establishment of Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Rural N. 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 7 9

94 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system Main activity incomes increasing rural by poverty Reduce security in selected aimags and and food livelihoods rural Improve access and market in enhancing productivity, soums through investment production systems in livestock-based diversification sector to the Mongolian agriculture best practices from Germany Transfer the planning and and community participation for governance Improve areas of Mongolia in rural delivery of priority investment are issues of serious concern and could waste losses and food Food security of the countryseriously threaten the food if measures are not taken causes and impacts. about their occurrence, to raise awareness security in selected aimags and and food livelihoods rural Improve access and market in enhancing productivity, soums through investment production systems in livestock-based diversification the disaster preparedness of Ulaanbaatar and reduce the impact of Improve livelihoods dzud on rural thereby management in the northern forests, community forest Develop of those forests and the ecological status livelihoods improving security in selected soums by household incomes and food Increase rural in livestock-based access and diversification market productivity, improving and extension animal production (50%); agricultural systems: farming (50%) research Donor IFAD Bank World Germany Bank World FAO Bank World Bank World FAO Bank World FAO Year 2012-2016 2012-2017 2013-2016 2014-2018 2014-2017 2012-2015 2014-2018 2012-2016 Name of project Market and Pasture and Pasture Market Management Mongolia Livestock and Agricultural Project Marketing Sustainable in Agriculture Mongolia Sustainable Third project Livelihoods Mongolia Support to Awareness on Food Raising and Food Losses Waste & Mongolia Livestock Marketing Agricultural Project Disaster Improving Risk Management in Mongolia Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation, SFM and Carbon Sink Enhancement into Productive Mongolia’s Landscapes Forest Integrated Livestock- Livelihood Based Support Project N. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

95 Main activity Management in of Participatory Forest Management within the Framework Mongolia participation of to encourage the active an enabling framework Develop and wildlife population, in forest stakeholders, more specifically the rural through the sustainable use of their livelihoods management to improve resources these natural to Strengthen the plant protection sector at national and regional level practices and ensure implementation of environmentally sound agricultural commodities at global and regional levels of agricultural trade facilitation nutritional and health condition of the Mongolian people through Improve greater consumption of fish, with increased fish production through in the country of aquaculture development of stakeholders with knowledge, sustainable Promote capacity development in Mongolia about organic or eco-friendly farming skills and legal frameworks in order to harness their potential raise incomes and living standards recognition of GIAHS, Although Mongolia has a number of potential sites for to be used establish strengthened its feature the importance of GIAHS, is limited in the country. security food and sustainable development Donor FAO FAO FAO FAO FAO Year 2014-2016 2013-2015 2014-2016 2014-2016 Name of project Capacity Building and Institutional for Development Wildlife Strengthening of Plant Protection Capacity Institutional Developing for Aquaculture Fish Supply Improved in Mongolia Assistance to Mongolian Organic Agriculture on the Globally Study Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) N. 19 20 21 22 23

96 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Annex 6 – Results from the stakeholder mapping exercise: key stakeholders of AIS

Summary of the stakeholder mapping exercise showing the perceived importance of 11 key stakeholders and the strengths of linkages between them

Parliament

Private Ministries: Gov. NAEC sector Organizations

Local MULS: government NGOs/FO universities

Agricultural

producers Financial institutions Research Investors Institutions Donors, International organizations

Red shapes – indicate stakeholders identified as most significant Blue shapes – indicate stakeholders identified as less significant for the AIS in Mongolia

Shapes represent different groups as indicated below: Government representatives NGO representatives Researchers Private sector representatives Extension agents – NAEC managers

Strong linkages between stakeholders No strong linkages between stakeholders Occasional add hoc linkages based on short-term assignments, etc.

97 From the most to least significant From the most to least connected stakeholders stakeholders Extension (NAEC) Ministry/government (9 connections) Research (institutes) Farmers/producers (8 connections) NGOs Donors/international organizations Ministries and government organizations (7 connections) Research Private sector and agribusiness Extension (4 connections) Universities NGOs Financial institutions Private sector (3 connections) Local governments Donors/international organizations Financial institutions (2 connection) Farmer/producers - Universities (MULS) Parliament (1 connection) Local government Parliament

Innovation triggers identified at the stakeholder workshop in Ulaanbaatar, 10-11 April 2013:

• Climate and environmental factors, including natural disasters • Political support and incentives • Political stability and geopolitics • Capacity and competitiveness • New research inventions/discoveries and new technologies • Agricultural profitability • Farmer and agricultural producer demand • Market demand • Infrastructure, especially in rural areas

Barriers identified at the stakeholder workshop in Ulaanbaatar, 10-11 April 2013:

• Lack of financial mechanisms to support linkages between actors • Lack of human resource and capacity development strategy • Weak regulatory and institutional framework to enable collaboration • No public policy to support agricultural innovation • Lack of policy and services to support pluralistic extension services • No incentive mechanism • Corruption and lack of transparency • Lack of understanding of the concept and benefits for collaboration • Lack of vision

98 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system

Annex 7 – Comparison of agriculture production, current and desired level

99 verage international level 000 14 months 14 590 371 Canada 300 30 9 15 months, 300 kilogram 15 30% 6-8 months 50 23 Canada 48% A 95% loss: 5% Australia 60% 27% 000 18-24 months 18-24 350 200-250 20 6 50 20 Best case 2012 loss 15% 85% (2012), 24% 315 118 150-200 7.5-10 2 500 36-46 months 18% 24 months 45 16 41% 20-30 months 70% (2009-2012 70% (2009-2012 loss 30% average), Sheep 46%, goat 45% 20% N ormal case 2011 Kilogram Kilogram Day Litres/day Litres/day Percent Kilogram Kilogram Percent Kilogram Percent Percent U nit Slaughtering weight weight Live Milk (intensity) Milking day Production production Norm of yearly Slaughtering percentage of total herd in slaughtering Age Slaughtering weight Carcass weight Beef percentage Breeding stock Starting breeding age for Animal husbandry productivity Survival animals/ of young breeding stock Mutton percentage Breeding stock Slaughtering percentage of total herd in slaughtering Age Indicator

100 Mongolia - A review of the agricultural research and extension system verage international level A 2.7 110-120 65 with 49 without irrigation, irrigation 52 with 37 without irrigation, irrigation oat 6-8 bear, Best case 2012 2-2.5 140 30 20- all types of vegetables transition 4.5 - before 1. 6 160-180 15 - all types of 12.5 vegetables 3.3 N ormal case 2011 Tonne/ha Kg/ha Tonne/ha Tonne/ha Tonne/ha U nit Crop production Cereals Yields Seed norm Other crops Potato Carrot plants Fodder Indicator

101

Mongolia – A reviewMongolia of the agricultural research system and extension

Mongolia A review of the agricultural research and extension system

[email protected] No.Report 32 www.fao.org/support-to-investment

9789251 095454 Report No. 32 – January 2017 I6571EN/1/11.16