The study involved consultations with project leaders for a number of recent ACIAR projects in countries where ACIAR is currently active (Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu). The results of these consultations were discussed with representatives of stakeholders in agricultural research at a workshop, where factors affecting rural development and the impact of research were considered, along with possible strategies that ACIAR could adopt for dealing with them.
The ACIAR project leaders identified a range of problems that affected conduct of research and the probability of adoption of research results. Many of these, such as lack of appropriate extension capabilities, constrained access to chemicals and fertilisers, and inadequate regulation of natural resource use, were readily linked to factors identified in the diagnostic studies used to frame the approach in this study.
The workshop with stakeholders focused on a range of constraints including:
lack of secure property rights; inadequate government funding of agricultural research and extension, and inherent weaknesses of government institutions supporting agriculture (including agencies responsible for sanitary and phytosanitary systems, and weak capacity to absorb and use policy analysis)
low levels of trust across different communities - this, together with weak formal institutions to support commercial contracting, erodes development of forward and backward linkages in supply chains and disables growth of contract growing
the impact of regulation, taxation and inadequate transport infrastructure on costs and availability of inputs
limited capacity and willingness to enforce legislation, distortions created by government involvement in marketing, and a deteriorating law-and-order situation.
Project leaders and workshop participants suggested a number of strategies for ACIAR to work within the prevailing policy and institutional framework. By and large they did not advocate that ACIAR should only work on projects where the constraints are not so acute (for example, where commercial operators are driving the industry, or where a biological control agent can be developed and allowed to operate without need for a supporting policy/institutional environment). Rather, they suggested extending ACIAR projects to address adoption and technology transfer, and/or to embed projects in broader initiatives that are tackling key constraints. Participants sent a fairly strong message that ACIAR may have to consider more comprehensive project scoping and identification activities, and add components to technical projects that deal with some of the socio-economic dimensions of technology uptake in the Pacific.
There were also suggestions for policy linkage and scoping studies that could help inform development of ACIAR's portfolio in the Pacific and that could provide input into attempts to improve the policy and institutional environment for rural investment in new technology. Specifically, it was suggested that ACIAR consider a more detailed assessment of its Pacific portfolio to assess factors bearing on project impact, undertake a study of the funding and delivery of services to the primary sector in the Pacific, and undertake a further study on the environment for contract farming in the South Pacific.