framework contract inception report · europe - identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008-2012...

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]

NOETZEL

Inception report: Exchange 2

[Type the document subtitle]

Exchange 2

[Pick the date]

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

FWC COM 2011 - Lot 1: Studies and Technical assistance in all sectors

Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe - Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008-2012

F r a m e w o r k C o n t r a c t

Specific Contract n°2013/314538-1

Final report

18 November 2013

Project financed by

European Union

Project implemented by HTSPE - EuroTrends

Prepared by the project team of experts from HTSPE - EuroTrends

Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe - Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008-2012 - Draft Final Report

1

Contents

Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Good practice collaborative models and effective financing mechanisms ........................................................... 7

1.3 Impact ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Success criteria ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Gaps, barriers and challenges. ............................................................................................................................. 8

2 Approach and organization of the report ...................................................................................................... 10

3 Overview of Africa-Europe STI Cooperation, and JAES P8 .............................................................................. 11

3.1 The landscape ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 The Joint Africa-EU Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 The private sector ............................................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Financial support ................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.5 Impact ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

4 Collaborative models .................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

4.2 Overview of collaborative arrangements ........................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Collaboration between the AU and the EU ............................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Collaborative arrangements between the AU and one or several EU member states ............................. 16 4.2.3 Collaboration between the EU as a whole and one or several AU member states .................................. 16 4.2.4 Collaboration between African RECs and the EU or EU member states ................................................... 17 4.2.5 Collaboration between AU member states and EU member states ......................................................... 17 4.2.6 Institutional and individual collaboration ................................................................................................. 18

4.3 Africa-Europe collaboration involving the private sector ................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Public-private partnerships ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.3.2 STI collaboration involving SMEs .............................................................................................................. 21

4.4 Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 4.4.1 Features of successful partnerships .......................................................................................................... 22

4.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

5 Financial mechanisms and instruments: ........................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

5.2 Overview of financing mechanisms: ................................................................................................................... 28 5.2.1 Non-returnable conditional grants ........................................................................................................... 28

5.3 European Union instruments: ............................................................................................................................. 29

5.4 National and regional research / research and innovation programmes .......................................................... 33

5.5 The African Development Bank (AfDB) ............................................................................................................... 35


2

5.6 The private sector contribution and relevant financial mechanisms .................................................................. 35 5.6.1 Pooled instruments: Challenge funds ....................................................................................................... 36 5.6.2 Pooled instruments: Pull mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 38

5.7 Conclusions: Effective finance mechanisms ........................................................................................................ 39

6 Outputs and Impacts..................................................................................................................................... 42

7 Success criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 44

8 Gaps, barriers and challenges ........................................................................................................................ 46

8.1 Gaps .................................................................................................................................................................... 46

8.2 Barriers and challenges ...................................................................................................................................... 46

9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 49

10 Sustainability of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 51

11 Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................... 52

11.1 Annex 1: Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................... 52

11.2 Annex 2: Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 61

11.3 Annex 3: Interview framework ...................................................................................................................... 65

11.4 Annex 4: Interviewees .................................................................................................................................... 73

11.5 Annex 5: Questionnaire respondents: ............................................................................................................ 79

11.6 Annex 6: Stakeholder opinions about effective financing mechanisms. ........................................................ 80

11.7 Annex 7: Stakeholder opinion of success criteria and good practice lessons ................................................. 83

11.8 Annex 8: Stakeholder opinion on gaps and barriers in Africa-Europe STI cooperation ................................. 91

11.9 Annex 9: Project profiles ................................................................................................................................ 94 11.9.1 Research collaborative projects ........................................................................................................... 94 11.9.2 Innovation collaborative projects. ....................................................................................................... 99 11.9.3 Capacity building projects. ................................................................................................................. 101 11.9.4 Technology transfer projects ............................................................................................................. 115 11.9.5 Projects promoting awareness and networking (includes information exchange). .......................... 117

11.10 Annex 10: Validation workshop participants ............................................................................................... 121


3

Abbreviations

AfDB African Development Bank

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

AECF African Enterprise Challenge Fund

AIRD Inter-Agency Research Institute for Development

AMCOST African Ministerial Conference on Science and Technology

AMCOST African Ministerial Council on Science and Technology

ARAPKE African Regional Action Plan on the Knowledge Economy

ARGP African Union Research Grants Programme

ASIF African Science and Innovation Fund

AU African Union

AUC African Union Commission

BMBF German Federal Ministry for Education and Research

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

CPA Consolidated Plan of Action

CSP Concentrated Solar Power

DCI Development Cooperation Instrument

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DEVCO Directorate General for Development Cooperation

DFID Department for International Development

DG Directorate General

DST Department of Science and Technology

EC European Commission

EAC East African Community

ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EDCTP European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership

EDF European Development Fund

EU European Union


4

FP Framework Programme

FWC COM Framework Contract Commission

FSTP Food Security Thematic Programme

GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

GBS General Budget Support

GIZ German Society for International Cooperation

HLPD Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI

ICT Information and Communications Technology

JAES Joint Africa-EU Strategy

JTI Joint Technology Initiative

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LHP Lighthouse Projects

MENA Middle East and North Africa

NRCG Non-returnable, conditional grants

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

P8 Eighth partnership of the JAES

PAEPARD Platform for African-European Partnerships for Agricultural Research and Development

PDP Product Development Partnership

R&D Research and Development

RCUK Research Councils UK

REC Regional Economic Community

SADC Southern African Development Community

SBS Sector Budget Support

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

SOM Senior Officials’ Meeting (terminology no longer in use, formerly referred to meetings of senior officials of the HLPD)

S&T Science and Technology

STI Science, Technology and Innovation

ToR Terms of Reference

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union


5

Definitions

Initiative: Throughout the study the term ‘initiative’ is used to cover any type of collaborative venture such as projects and networks that fall under the scope of the study. The term ‘project’ is used almost interchangeably in this framework with the term initiative.

Typology: The study recognises that bi-regional STI can be broadly classified according to their main purpose. The study is limited to a range of typologies specified in the TOR which include the following:

Research projects: this includes scientific research and knowledge production.

Innovation projects: this includes technology development and/or knowledge application, technological innovation and application, & commercialization.

Capacity building projects: with 4 sub-categories, (1) human capital development, including knowledge exchange, mobility of scientists and engineers, training; (2) physical research infrastructures, including R&D equipment; (3) policy development, including knowledge application and policy learning; and (4) institutional development.

Technology transfer projects.

Projects promoting awareness and networking, including information exchange.

Financial mechanism: The broad level classification of the means by which an initiative is resourced, such as conditional non-returnable grants, loans, equity sharing.

Financial instrument: Specific instances of a financial mechanism such as the EU’s Framework Programme, EDF, and the Development Cooperation Instrument.

Delivery modality: the way money is disbursed, e.g. grants, procurement contracts, budget support.

Implementing Partners: Beneficiaries of the financial instrument. Typically the partners of a consortium.

Partnership: The association of a group of agencies for the purpose of designing, implementing, funding or in other ways supporting initiatives, be they projects, platforms, networks of other types of initiative.

Multilateral: For the purpose of this study the term refers principally to initiatives and partnerships with partners from multiply countries, and particularly including those from Africa and Europe.


6

Acknowledgement

The study team wishes to express its gratitude to all those who contributed to this study through attending interviews, completing questionnaires and participating in the validation workshop.


7

1 Executive Summary

Responding to the conclusions of the first meeting of Senior Officials of the High Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), and also based on the objectives of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES), the overall objective of this study is to assess existing bi-regional STI cooperation initiatives and to identify successful, best practice models of Africa and Europe cooperation, as well as identifying gaps and effective financial mechanisms that have a positive impact. Outcomes will provide an evidence-base for policy choices and financing decisions for future cooperation and will be at the basis of a new action plan of Africa-Europe cooperation on STI.

1.1 Overview

Africa-Europe STI cooperation has a rich and prolific past, present and future, reflected in the extensive web of bilateral and multilateral relationships and activities that we see across the landscape today, driven by shared values and policy objectives. That multidimensional web of cooperation operates via a multiplicity of initiatives in a continuum of collaborative arrangements and project typologies between diverse actors, supported by a generous body of resources channelled from public and private purses through a wide range of financial instruments. The endurance of the Africa-Europe partnership rests, in a competitive globalised environment, on the quality and relevance of its outputs.

The JAES provides a structure and specific agenda within the wider S&T relationship that focusses cooperation particularly, although not exclusively on development policy priorities for leveraging faster socio-economic growth in Africa. A clear role for a regional public sector strategy is the design, implementation and governance of a suite of co-owned high-level initiatives whose collective goal is reinforcing the bi-regional relationship, employing exemplary, innovative and high-risk collaborative models, partnerships and financing arrangements. A complementary role in bi-regional STI collaboration is assuring an appropriate policy and regulatory environment, the scientific and technical infrastructure, and the human and institutional capacity to increase the efficiency and optimise the outputs of the full range of collaborative engagements pursued by the wider STI relationship.

1.2 Good practice collaborative models and effective financing mechanisms

Co-ownership is a core value of bi-regional cooperation. The single most important factor in fostering co-ownership is co-financing, whether through joint financing with existing instruments, or through the creation of new, dedicated co-funded instruments. The current funding landscape for bi-regional cooperation is however rather dependent on European and, to a lesser extent, on international instruments, weakening the potential of genuine co-ownership. Nevertheless, promising co-financing models for common research priorities are being piloted, most notably by the ERAfrica consortium (EU FP7) and the potential for models to be applied in more diverse scenarios should be fully explored, specifically for example in the transition to a pan-African research grants programme, fully funded and owned by Africa. An independent pan-African research programme would then be available for co-financing bi-regional cooperation with regional EU instruments such as the FP, DCI or EDF. The European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is also held up as an example of a good practice model of co-financing.

Within the current financing landscape, potential exists for encouraging better adaptation of existing instruments to supporting bi-regional cooperation. Adaptations might include adding features that foster partners’ financial independence. To avoid losing initiatives in the pipeline, actors also want to see adaptation of instruments to project cycles, to different project typologies, to providing coordinated schemes that assure resourcing over the full cycle from preparatory phases through research, translation to implementation, piloting and scale-up of new goods, services and technologies.

Collaborative arrangements are diverse with effectiveness dependent on a range of factors and circumstances. Moreover, what works well in one situation may not be appropriate in another. Rather than one collaborative model being more effective than another, there are features and components of collaboration which are viewed as good practice and appear to be key to effective collaboration. Partnerships and personal relations are supremely important, with effective partnerships seen as a key criterion of effective collaboration. Joint funding, strong leadership and effective governance; clarity and understanding of joint objectives; strong interpersonal relations, equitable resource and benefits sharing, full transparency and communication all build mutual trust and foster co-ownership as necessary conditions for optimal efficiency. Asymmetries in partnerships do nevertheless exist, notably around financial contributions and coordination and in coordination and management responsibilities, and hence in overall project ownership. Indeed for the majority of projects studied these asymmetries pertain, while any negative impact is partially mitigated by other good practice features.


8

Attention to sustaining effective partnerships, investing in their capacity to deliver, is likely to enhance the overall quality and effectiveness of cooperation. Collaborative models that support the consolidation of long-lasting partnerships are hence seen by many experts as a way to follow. Conversely, lack of equity in partnerships is corrosive and factors that perpetuate inequity imperil their efficiency.

The private sector is engaged in bi-regional STI cooperation to develop public goods, services and technologies, as funder, and also as participant but often as a third party to avoid contractual obligations and conflicts of interest. Statistics demonstrate that the private sector is successfully using instruments such as the EU FP but stakeholders draw attention to the weakness of Africa’s SMEs and their poor participation record. The promotion of tripartite partnerships, involving the SMEs to define research needs, universities to carry-out corresponding research activities, and the public sector to financially support this collaboration may be one route to engaging SMEs in bi-regional cooperation.

Distinction is made between the role and engagement of international companies, and SMEs. Parts of the private sector struggle with restrictive conditions and cumbersome processes, and with lack of acceptance of the profit motive. The profit motive is not incompatible with delivering public goods and major funds should adapt their instruments to widen private sector involvement. Conditions permitting de-risking encourage commercial and industrial sectors to invest in public goods that might otherwise be unprofitable. The product development partnership model of collaboration is, as exemplified by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, a specialized manifestation in the pharmaceutical sector of generic public private partnerships for overcoming such constraints that should be wholly applicable to other domains for the delivery of public goods and/or services. The EDCTP collaborative model, like the PDP model, is in principal wholly transferable to the S&T cooperation context to serve domains other than pharmaceuticals for neglected diseases, and as such represents a potential instrument for the JAES STI partnership. Results and prize based pull mechanisms such as AgResults foster innovative approaches. Restrictive conditions and cumbersome bureaucratic processes are widely disliked, and stifle cooperation.

1.3 Impact

Cooperation between Africa and Europe in STI is generating tangible outputs and contributing to the knowledge economy. For many projects in the study’s inventory implemented between 2008 and 2012, it is too early to objectively assess meaningful impact. However, many hold out the promise of socially important outputs, with potential for longer term impact on the economy and social welfare. The potential impact of projects studied appears anecdotally to be causally linked to the subject matter, its maturity and the demand, the drive of the coordinator with effectiveness of the partnership playing a key role.

Few projects in the study are contributing directly to economic growth as estimated by job creation, one of the study’s KPI, although they may do so in the longer-term and in more indirect ways, especially by building capacities and strengthening scientific networks that may offer employment opportunities. A much larger number of initiatives are contributing to the development of skills and building of institutional capacities and thus are opening up new job opportunities or facilitating job promotions. Finally, some other initiatives are contributing to the development of and/or improving of policies in Africa. On the whole, the cooperation is dynamic and effective.

1.4 Success criteria

Key criteria of success include operational, institutional and political parameters. At the project level, effective partnerships with full and committed partner engagement, strong interpersonal relations, mutual trust, institutional diversity and complementary skills, visionary leadership and coordination are critical. Successful collaborative STI initiatives tend to be built on lessons learned from prior initiatives, underlining the significance of partnership continuity. Shared ownership, as a core value of cooperation is widely cited as a success criteria, although causality is intangible. At the programme and regional level, MS commitment, the policy and regulatory environment and national commitment to STI create a conducive environment. High-level political and executive support for bi-regional cooperation is often behind successful initiatives and evidence from some initiatives suggest that formal instruments of collaboration such as MoUs and STI agreements facilitate successful programmes.

1.5 Gaps, barriers and challenges.

Aside from a range of topics suggested by and reflecting the interests of stakeholders, the most prominent gaps in the Africa-Europe STI cooperation system reflect the barriers and challenges revealed by the study. The absence of an established joint funding mechanism, or of co-financing arrangements is most


9

prominent among the gaps, particularly at the political level. The participation of SMEs, and notably those in Africa, the industry-academia relationship, translational as well as cross cutting activities, and the association of STI policy to other domains, notably higher education, and investment in partnerships, all represent gaps in the current partnership which together with research on socio-economic aspects of STI cooperation merit inclusion in a future Africa-Europe STI roadmap, as complementary to the existing agenda.

A shortage of skilled human resources in both technical and administrative functions, weak societal institutions, institutional capacity, poor infrastructure, fragmented policy and weak regulatory environment are poor conditions for optimal collaboration.

Among the most important barriers to effective collaboration is dependence on a skewed funding landscape, contributing to a cascade of issues around access to financing and suitability of instruments. The design, piloting and scale-up therefore of co-financing arrangements between existing instruments and joint financing of new instruments are among the highest priorities for collaboration.


10

2 Approach and organization of the report

In view of the imminent end of the current action plan of JAES P8, and in recognition of the support for continued cooperation in STI at the bi-regional level, the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on STI requested the HLPD Bureau to commission a study with the aim of informing a future STI cooperation roadmap, to map existing cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives with the view to reinforcing successful models and identifying potential gaps, and to identify effective financial mechanism(s) based on equal partnership that would deliver significant impact taking into account experience gained with other initiatives/instruments.

The study, comprising four phases (inception, structuring, field research, and communication & dissemination) was conducted between May and October 2013. It draws principally for its conclusions on data from a diverse inventory of bi-regional STI initiatives between 2008 and 2012, and on the opinions of stakeholders in the Africa-EU bi-regional STI cooperation landscape, including public and private sector practitioners, representatives of civil society organisations, decision- and policy makers and commentators. The study’s detailed terms of reference and methodology can be found in Annexes 1 and 2 respectively.

This report presents the results of the field research and communication phases and is structured to reflect the focus of the terms of reference. The inception and structuring phases have been separately reported to the contracting authority.

Following the executive summary in chapter 1, and this 2nd

chapter on approach and organisation of the report, chapter 3 presents a brief overview of the Africa-Europe STI cooperation landscape drawing on the inventory of bi-regional cooperation initiatives. Chapter 4 discusses collaborative models, starting with an overview of collaborative arrangements encountered in Africa-Europe STI cooperation illustrating each with examples taken from a subset of the inventory, highlighting good practice and successful initiatives where they are apparent. Many projects referenced in the report are profiled in Annex 9. It then discusses the diversity and different forms of partnerships identified and covered in the survey, drawing on stakeholder views and opinions gathered through interviews and questionnaire. The focus primarily lies on the issue of equitability, the governance and leadership, composition, interpersonal relations and exchanges as well as investments in view of identifying features that positively influence a partnership’s capacity to deliver outputs, performance and impact. The section draws concise conclusions about collaborative arrangements relevant to the future STI of cooperation.

Chapter 5 considers the financing arrangements for multilateral cooperation, focusing on a range of instruments under the principal mechanism of non-returnable conditional grants, illustrating instruments by reference to individual initiatives drawn from a subset of the inventory and highlighting where evident the successful models and examples of good practice, and then draws conclusions relevant to STI cooperation. The chapter is complemented by Annex 6, a selection of stakeholder views and opinions around finance mechanisms

Chapters 6, 7 and 8 deal respectively with Impact, Success Criteria, and Gaps and Barriers. Chapter 10 draws together the conclusions of the preceding chapters, adding others that reflect wider perspectives and insights of the study team. Core conclusions, most pertinent to the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue are carried forward to the executive summary. A short final chapter, chapter 11, presents suggestions for the sustainability of the study.

A series of annexes provide background information and supplementary data. The methodological approach summarizes the different phases of the study, including the compilation of an inventory of regional and multi-country STI projects conducted around the 2008-2012 period, the collection of data from personal and remote expert and stakeholder interviews, a questionnaire and a series of field missions in Africa and Europe, and the assessment of a selection of relevant STI initiatives according to pre-defined key performance indicators (KPI). It draws attention to some of the limitations encountered that have relevance for the sustainability of the study.

Additional annexes present the terms of reference; the questionnaire and interview format, the interviewees and questionnaire respondents; selected opinions of stakeholders on collaboration, financing and gaps & barriers; a series of profiles of the projects in the subset of the inventory, highlighting pertinent achievements against the agreed KPI, that provide much of the raw material for the study; and finally the participants in the validation workshop of 18 September 2013.


11

3 Overview of Africa-Europe STI Cooperation, and JAES P8

3.1 The landscape

Scientific and technological cooperation between Africa and Europe has a long and dynamic history. The landscape we see today of Africa and Europe’s cooperation around science, technology and innovation is a snapshot of a continuing process of change. Comprising a rich, multi-dimensional web of interconnected multi-lateral and bilateral relationships, it contains a huge quantity and range of STI cooperation activities responding to a diversity of personal, institutional, national and regional policy drivers and interests.

The landscape today in its totality is not the product of a coherent or deliberate partnership in any structured sense. Yet it represents a loose, well established, and long-term relationship between the two regions that has been evolving over decades.

With a lack of overall coordination there is inevitably much fragmentation, duplication, and competing interests within and between countries, as well as between countries and regional / continental organisations. Despite systemic weaknesses, the relationship is extensive and prolific, and there is widespread acknowledgement of the concrete products as well as support for the intangible values represented by this Africa-Europe relationship, often based on historical ties. That said, there is a large pool of untapped talent across the continents that either rarely or never engages in bi-regional cooperation.

Two broad policy spheres are responsible for the greater part of the STI relationship – research and innovation policy and the knowledge economy on the one hand, and development cooperation policy on the other. Policy domains such as trade, employment, and equal opportunities have important influence on cooperation.

This study’s inventory of 150+ multilateral cooperation initiatives over the period 2008-2012 drawn from the STI cooperation landscape suggests that, while the wider cooperation relationship embraces a broad spectrum of topics, from astronomy to nanotechnology, the focus remains on Africa’s development agenda, articulated most clearly in the AU/NEPAD Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA), and built around the pillars of better infrastructure, enhanced technical competence, and enhanced entrepreneurship. Cooperation on food security, on health and on the environment dominate, with projects such as AfricanSNOWS, ACP Non-Food Oils and the UK-Africa Partnership on Chronic Disease typifying the high quality implementation–level initiatives broadly addressing this agenda. Yet as that agenda itself evolves to increasingly embrace the contributions of scientific and technological knowledge and innovation in addressing priority development objectives, and as that agenda increasingly aligns with global societal challenges, so the development cooperation relationship evolves to become one heavily based on mutual interest and mutual benefit, and so the distinction between policy drivers of cooperation is blurred. Indeed, many projects now populating the landscape do not fit into discrete typologies of capacity building, or research, or innovation, instead fulfilling multiple roles.

While the volume of region to region cooperation, mediated by the AU and EU commissions, and supported by major instruments such as EDF and the FP is significant, the bulk of what comprises the loose Africa-EU STI relationship is conducted in a bilateral framework, hence the complex and fragmented landscape. Both EU and AU policies have had modest success in promoting a multi-lateral approach and encouraging MS policy alignment, yet bilateral interests prevail and continue to dominate the relationship and significant change is unlikely.

Many objectives of the Africa-Europe STI relationship, notably those centred on Africa’s development priorities could be delivered in a diverse range of scenarios that do necessarily require Africa-Europe partnerships. It is without any doubt the full prerogative of Africa’s, and Europe’s institutions and nation states to develop the most beneficial channels for delivering on their respective agendas. The Africa- Europe partnership is very much part of a global STI partnership, and as such must, more than ever, earn its sustainability through the quality and quantity of its outcomes.

While it is collaboration at the individual and institutional level that yields the bulk of the projects and initiatives we see today as perhaps the most tangible and visible element of the STI relationship, collaboration at regional and national levels around shared policy goals generates valuable programmes and specific initiatives that influence and shape the wider relationship to varying degrees.


12

3.2 The Joint Africa-EU Strategy

The signing in 2007 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, with its explicit inclusion of science and technology in the form of the eighth partnership (P8) and its associated rolling action plan, formalised what is becoming an increasingly significant component of Africa-Europe relations. Reflected in this new geo-political relationship is the global trend towards seeing scientific and technological RDI as a driver of economic growth, moving away from a focus in the 20th century on capital, natural resources, and labour

1.

The interlinking of three priorities of African development policy in P8, placing them at the heart of the JAES, recognises the contribution of science, information society and space to Africa’s socio-economic development and the value placed on international cooperation in addressing these priorities.

The cross-cutting nature of the priorities of P8 mean that, through articulating a broad range of key capacity building activities under each of the three priorities, the P8 framework aims to contribute to a wider set of African development objectives (notably research capacity building, knowledge production, and technological innovation), and particularly those expressed in the AU/NEPAD CPA and ARAPKE.

A critical challenge for P8, and specifically for the JAES and P8 governance structures, has been to establish the modalities for translating the proposed P8 activities into concrete projects which can deliver on the articulated objectives. It was this challenge which, in 2008, the AUC addressed through the identification and design of 19 large outline projects, constituting the so-called Book of Lighthouse Projects

2. The LHP

constitute the initial basis for implementing the P8, translating key P8 objectives into capacity building outcomes for Africa, consistent with CPA and ARAPKE.

The JAES and its 8th partnership in particular, create a bi-regional framework for STI cooperation within the

wider Africa-EU STI cooperation relationship, with an agenda that is driven by Africa’s development priorities. Led by the African and European Union Commissions in collaboration with interested member states, it is this collaboration at the bi-regional level that has led to implementation of a suite of the Light House Projects such as the Africa Research Grants Programme (ARGP), the African Virtual Campus (AVC), African Leadership in ICT (ALICT), and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) for Africa. Not only does the bi-regional cooperation itself offer valuable lessons, but so do the individual initiatives that arise from it. Many aspects of the implementation of these LHP are referred to in the sections that follow, as key milestones in P8, and illustrative of successful models and financing arrangement.

It is important not only for this study to recognise however that JAES P8 is illustrative of, but not representative of the scale and scope of cooperation in the wider Africa-Europe STI relationship. While JAES P8 offers a framework for STI collaboration, its influence does not extend deep into the wider relationship, and there is a rich landscape of bi-lateral and multilateral cooperation initiatives operating across and between the two continents addressing mutual interests across a range of scientific and technological domains which is operating largely in ignorance of the JAES and of the political bi-regional partnership (but see the BMBF Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa as an exception to this general rule).

Parties to P8 appear to have divergent views of the primary purposes it fulfils. The divergence broadly, but by no means exclusively, follows a geographic division. While P8 is able to accommodate such divergence, the absence of a unified vision and the widespread confusion around expectations may undermine the potential of the partnership.

A clear role for a regional public sector strategy in bi-regional STI collaboration is assuring an appropriate policy and regulatory environment, the scientific and technical infrastructure, and the human and institutional capacity to increase the efficiency and optimise the outputs of the full range of collaborative engagements pursued by the wider STI relationship. A complementary role would be the design, implementation and governance of a suite of co-owned high-level initiatives whose collective goal is reinforcing the bi-regional relationship, employing exemplary, innovative and high-risk collaborative models, partnerships and financing arrangements.

1 European Commission 2002. Capitalising on people and institutions. Ten years of EC scientific cooperation for the transition towards

sustainability. EUR 20351. ISBN: 92-894-3717-0. 24pp. Publ. European Commission. Luxembourg. 2 The 19 projects are consistent with Africa’s Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action developed by the AUC and the New

Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and published in 2005. The Book of Lighthouse Projects can be found at http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/sites/default/files/090515_p8lighthouse_1.pdf

http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/sites/default/files/090515_p8lighthouse_1.pdf


13

3.3 The private sector

The private sector is engaged in the agenda of the Africa-Europe STI relationship and the more specific objectives of P8, but serendipity rather than design appears to play a significant role. Stakeholders acknowledge almost universally, and indeed welcome significant contribution of the private sector. Engagement operates through the types of partnerships and financing instruments addressed in this study but also through non-partnership scenarios using instruments other than typical non-returnable conditional grants.

In many scenarios, the private sector participates in partnerships as a service provider on a commercial basis, offering services such as ICT, communications and media to projects, or to provide their expert knowledge of a sector. ResearchAfrica for example provided media and communication services to CAAST-Net, while TechnoScene provided expert knowledge of the African infrastructure sector to the PAERIP consortium.

Statistics demonstrate that the manufacturing and industrial commercial sector does participate in research, capacity building and technology transfer projects, funded for example by the EU’s framework programme for research and innovation. In some scenarios, notably around the delivery of low-profit public goods, the design of financing instruments is an important factor in facilitating the private sector’s participation. Nevertheless, evidence from this study points to parts of the sector, notably Africa’s SME’s, that tend to avoid direct participation, mainly due to their limited capacities and resources, difficulties to estimate benefits as long as STI project outcomes are not yet there or the inappropriateness of funding instruments or mechanisms. The non-returnable conditional grant mechanism was often reported in this study as unsuited to participation by this category of private sector.

The manufacturing / industrial sector may associate via an intermediary to research or technology projects rather than participate directly. The FP7 ‘AFTER’ project provides an example of the food manufacturing sector participating via the agency AAFEX in Senegal. Such a route of participation allows the private sector to benefit from research outputs without the encumbrances of contractual obligations and bureaucracy of project processes and IP conflicts. The AvecNet project, for similar reasons, associated the private sector (insecticide companies for example) via an intermediary representative, acknowledging that their role is nevertheless critical to project outputs and eventual impact.

3.4 Financial support

Financial support for STI cooperation comes both from the public and private purse. Almost all cooperation is supported through the single mechanism of non-returnable conditional grants, and this is illustrated in a later section. To the regret of all parties consulted in this study, the funding landscape for bi-regional cooperation remains highly skewed. The majority of financial instruments employed in support of Africa-Europe STI cooperation are of European and international origin and this feature of the landscape appears, from this study, to be a contributory factor in the persistent perception of inequitable individual and bi-regional partnerships that themselves undermine co-ownership, a key goal of cooperation. Compounding the impact of the skewed funding landscape is the complete absence of a dedicated funding instrument for the objectives of the specific Africa-Europe STI cooperation partnership. However, notable examples of African instruments being mobilised in support of bi-regional cooperation are emerging that have the potential to start the process of rebalancing the skewed landscape. The unique ERAfrica project has tremendous value as an exemplar of bi-regional cooperation to mobilise national research fund in Europe and Africa for supporting a jointly funded research programme.

3.5 Impact

The impact of the multilateral STI cooperation projects implemented during the 2008-2012 window examined in this study remains, in general terms, to be realised. New knowledge has yet to be fully translated into goods, services and technologies, new and adapted technologies have not gone to scale, and the effect of enhanced human and institutional capacity hasn’t yet transformed the systems that those capacities serve. For the most part, considering the short time span since the 2008-2012 window relative to the perhaps usual 10-20 year interval between project implementation and the realisation of impact, it is more appropriate to refer to outputs and outcomes rather than impact on ultimate beneficiaries.

The direct contribution to economic growth for example of most STI projects assessed in this study is rather limited, and largely incidental. Many of the projects explored in this study have no directly measurable indicators of economic impact such as job creation, particularly in consideration of such a recent time frame


14

for the projects under examination. Although many projects employ staff, few projects examined by the study can be said to have led to permanent job creation in the economy. In some cases, however, it can be assumed that training and capacity building measure may open up new job opportunities or facilitate job promotions. Large scale projects employ proportionately greater numbers of staff, with up to 1000 employed on EDCTP supported projects but with no indication of whether those staff will go on to occupy new permanent employment. Projects such as EDTP and PDPs in the health domain for example may have long term economic impact by directly improving human health, reducing morbidity and thereby making more people available for work. However, in these examples of course, attribution is not wholly to EDCTP since for many EDCTP projects, products in clinical trials will have undergone extensive product development before entering EDTP trials.


15

4 Collaborative models

4.1 Introduction

The cooperative relationship in STI between Africa and Europe operates in a diversity of collaborative arrangements addressing separate but related dimensions of the overall partnership. Perhaps most tangibly collaboration operates at the complementary levels of strategic policy, programmation and implementation, and overlaying these levels are the dimensions of multilateral and bilateral cooperation. While the focus of this study is on the multilateral engagement that JAES P8 principally represents, cooperation at the bi-lateral level accounts for a large proportion of the total range of cooperative initiatives. The distinction between multilateral and bi-lateral cooperation at the level of detail is blurred but it is evident that bilateral processes illustrate many examples of good practice that can be adopted and adapted for the multilateral environment. Each level of collaboration engages different institutional actors, and in each there are differences of duration and intensity, in the use of financial instrument and the activities conducted. They can differ according to an initiative’s typology, a partnership’s composition, or internal governance structures. And they can reflect the shared values, policy objectives, and personal dedication that are driving the collaboration. As a gross generalisation, collaboration at the level of strategic policy and programmation between regions and member states results in funding programmes and schemes that support implementation level collaboration.

No one level of collaboration is systematically more effective than another based on the outcomes of this study, each being complementary to the others. Within levels however, successful models of good practice do exist from which lessons can be learned for future cooperation. Judgement of effectiveness and success is however a subjective process, particularly when viewed with the short term perspective of the study’s window of 2008-2012. Impact, as defined by a range of possible indicators, as a measure of success, is largely unrecorded as yet for many of the initiatives studied, obliging subjective interpretation of intermediate outputs and outcomes to predict likely impact. On the other hand, legitimate political expediency defines the success of some initiatives as being important models to the collaborative process, irrespective of eventual impact on ultimate beneficiaries.

This section aims on the one hand to reflect the diversity of collaborative arrangements under which multi-lateral bi-regional STI cooperation between Africa and Europe is currently conducted, and on the other hand to discuss different factors that impinge on the effectiveness and success of collaboration models. In its first part, the chapter presents the principle levels at which Africa Europe STI cooperation is taking place, and proposes a categorization of partnerships according to their purpose. By referring to points of view, experiences and opinions gathered during the interviews with informed project coordinators, project partners, and experts, as well as to projects analysed as part of this study, the second part then discusses what particular aspects contribute towards making specific models and arrangements particularly effective and successful, in terms of their capacity to deliver outputs and impact and what advantages particular collaboration arrangement specificities may have.

The section ends by drawing conclusions on the relevance of partnership parameters to the achievement of Africa-EU STI partnership objectives, such as those articulated by JAES P8.

4.2 Overview of collaborative arrangements

4.2.1 Collaboration between the AU and the EU

In broad terms the fruits of collaboration between the AU and EU, administered by the respective Commissions, are joint policy statements, agreements and cooperative frameworks that may lead to new programmes and initiatives. The JAES P8 itself represents a major policy level bi-regional partnership between AU and EU, with some involvement of member states from both regions. Arising directly from the JAES P8 policy level collaboration between the unions and MS are programme and implementation level collaborative arrangements.

The African Union Research Grants Programme (ARGP) is a major initiative jointly developed and implemented by the AU and the EU. The programme, as one of the early deliverables among the Light House Projects has high political visibility and significance. The ARGP has been financed in its initial phase through an agreement between the EU and the ACP Group of States, under the ACP Research for Sustainable Development Programme of the 10th EDF Intra-ACP Envelop. It is administered through the AUC Department of Human Resources, Science and Technology, acting as delegated regional authority for the African component of the programme. ARGP is implemented through grants awarded to research consortia and networks composed of at least three organisations out of which a majority should be member


16

states in the ACP Group of States, from at least two different African countries, and jointly carrying out STI activities on the African continent. It is too early to assess or determine specific outcomes of the grants awarded by the programme.

4.2.2 Collaborative arrangements between the AU and one or several EU member states

There are several examples of STI collaboration involving the AU as a whole and/or its constituent bodies such as the NEPAD Agency, and one or several EU member states. All primarily represent routes for delivering on STI objectives of JAES and those of associated African continental frameworks such as CPA, CAADP and ARAPKE, yet mutual interest is always a key feature. Collaborative models developed for this kind of partnerships are varied. Whereas in many cases the involved member state(s) is taking a central role as financing partner, activities under these initiatives are often jointly implemented by African and European institutions / researchers as well as through international organisations such as UNESCO.

ASTII is an initiative developed and implemented in the framework of the CPA, aiming at improving the quality of national STI policies in Africa. It builds national capacities to develop and use STI indicators. ASTII is coordinated by the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency, guided by an Advisory Committee composed of African and international STI experts. Within the participating countries, implementation is managed by national focal points coordinated by the ministries in charge of STI and involving experts from these ministries and the National Statistical Offices. Funding for the ASTII initiative is provided by the Government of Sweden through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA. A key European partner in the Initiative is Lund University that provides technical backstopping. The university was instrumental in developing methodological tools for conducting STI surveys. Another key partner in ASTII is the Secretariat of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that has been a source of lessons for African countries. ASTII is represented as an observer in the OECD STI indicators working group.

The African Network of Centres of Excellence in Water Sciences and Technology Development was initiated by NEPAD, following the acknowledgement at the first AMCOST meeting of Water Science and Technology as one of the main flagship programmes of NEPAD. The aim is to establish within the five African regions networks of research centres working in water sciences and thereby assess and reinforce STI capacities in Africa. Appropriate research institutions are identified through calls launched on the regional level. The initiative is administered by South Africa’s Water Research Commission and the NEPAD Agency and funded by the Government of France through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Apart from the European Commission, through its Joint Research Centre, a major partner involved in the implementation of the initiative is the French Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD). Other African partners include the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa and the Abuja-based African Ministerial Commission on Water (AMCOW).

4.2.3 Collaboration between the EU as a whole and one or several AU member states

Up to now, four AU member states – Algeria, Egypt, the Republic of South Africa and Tunisia – have concluded bilateral science and technology agreements with the EC. The agreements have been set up in order to identify common interests, priorities, policy dialogue, and the necessary tools for S&T collaboration. Most of the projects implemented under these agreements are development oriented. Funding mainly comes through mechanisms such as Sector Budget Support (SBS) and General Budget Support (GBS), whereas in most cases the implementation is managed at the national level.

The Innovation for Poverty Alleviation Programme arises from the SA-EU STI bilateral agreement (see financing section). It presents a promising exemplary collaborative arrangement. The programme is funded by the EU with €30 million through SBS. It is implemented and managed by the South African Department of Science and Technology (DST). The aim of the programme is to promote the application of technological innovations in order to reduce poverty in South Africa, through a series of projects, dealing with connectivity in remote areas, the setup of technology transfer partnerships. It represents a good model of partnerships that involve academic institutions, national science councils, private companies, provincial and national departments of science and technology, social development, ICT water and energy.

The main collaborative initiatives that involve both EC and the Government of South Africa are policy dialogues and exchange of information on how best to promote technology application to create jobs and SMEs. Two policy dialogues on water and access to ICT have been held involving representatives of the Government and the EC. In September 2012 a high level conference was held in Brussels involving the EU presidency and the President of the Republic of South Africa. This demonstrates the high level political support that the programme enjoys.


17

4.2.4 Collaboration between African RECs and the EU or EU member states

Africa-Europe STI collaboration on the level of the African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) involves as partner either the EU as a continental body or one of the EU member states. STI cooperation between the EU and one of the RECs, such as ECOWAS, COMESA, EAC and SADC can be under different arrangements, through specific initiatives or projects, with or without the engagement of the AUC, etc. Regarding EU member states entering in cooperation with an African REC, there are different forms of partnerships, mainly depending upon the financial mechanisms that are supporting the cooperation. Collaboration may also be focused on a single specific project or initiative, or take place in form of a long-term partnership aimed to cover a series of joint STI activities.

The Southern Africa Innovation Support (SAIS) programme is jointly implemented in four SADC states; Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia and Zambia, forming ‘the southern cross of innovation’. South Africa participates in the programme as a reference country or source of policy lessons on how best to configure a national system of innovation. The programme’s aim is to support the strengthening of national innovation systems and policies of SADC member states and to unite and guide innovation across the region. Whereas the management is carried out by a central project office located in Windhoek, Namibia, and by one SAIS

3

country coordinator within each partner country, funding is provided by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in the amount of €6.1 million, over the period 2010–2014.

In April 2001, the Partnership Agreement for sustainable development of the Lake Victoria Basin was signed between the East African Community (EAC) and the governments of Sweden (through Sida), France, Norway (through Norad), the World Bank and the East African Development Bank. Finland joined the partnership in 2010. The agreement is implemented through projects and initiatives, in line with the objectives of the EAC and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission, and covered by annual work plans. For the purpose of this arrangement, a specific Partnership Fund has been created and fed by the partners.

A third example is the collaboration arrangement established between the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and the French Inter Agency Research Institution for Development (AIRD) in 2012. The so called Consortium for research, innovation and training in Central Africa (CRIFDAC) is to provide a frame for joint research projects and activities.

4.2.5 Collaboration between AU member states and EU member states

Collaborative arrangements between EU and AU MS abound, often bilateral and often reflecting long-term historical ties, for the design and implementation of regional initiatives in Africa. Equally important and productive are the relatively new relationships between countries without such long-term historical foundation. There are several such STI cooperative arrangements and anecdotal evidence suggests they are effective. These include Finland-South Africa bilateral ST cooperation agreement used to produce regional public goods in biosciences for SADC; and South Africa-UK bilateral cooperation used to support SADC countries—Lesotho and Malawi—to establish tissue culture facilities. It also includes Germany-Egypt and Germany-South Africa bilateral ST cooperation agreements.

The Finnish-Southern Africa Partnership Programme for Biosciences (BioFISA) is a unique collaborative initiative that was established jointly between the Governments of South Africa and Finland to support SADC countries through the NEPAD Southern Africa Network for Bioscience (SANBio) to conduct scientific research and promote innovations in biosciences. It is a good model of two countries—one African and the other European—using their bilateral STI cooperation agreement to mobilize their resources to support a REC to engage in research and innovation. The Government of South Africa’s contributed approximately €1 million while Finland provided a grant of €3 million. This is one of the few cases where an African country contributes to regional initiative together with an European partner. BioFISA has been instrumental in building capacity for bioinformatics in the SADC region.

Another outstanding example of multilateral cooperation between AU and EU MS is presented in the ERAfrica project (Annex 9) mentioned several times elsewhere in this report. In the first and only example of its kind, collaboration between national research programme owners across Africa and Europe has concluded in three jointly financed calls for research proposals (on-going at the time of writing) on topics of mutual interest. ERAfrica provides the proof of concept. While relatively modest in scale, and while the projects to be financed have yet to be identified, the collaborative process itself has major significance for the JAES STI partnership by creating the first truly joint financing instrument, notably one in which the sums committed by African and European programme owners are approximately equal, and thus creating a suite of co-owned projects. The challenge, given adequate political will, rests in both scaling up this first pilot and

3 http://saisprogramme.com/?page_id=317

http://saisprogramme.com/?page_id=317




18

applying the model in other contexts; this is perhaps one of the most promising avenues of exploration for future JAES STI cooperation.

4.2.6 Institutional and individual collaboration

The bulk of implementation level collaboration falls under this heading. Collaboration between the Unions, between the Unions and MS, between RECs and Unions and between MS leads to multilateral and bilateral agreements, programmes and schemes supporting individual initiatives. National and regional programmes, trusts and private sector funds all support collaborative implementation-level initiatives. A few of these fall under JAES P8 directly, and while the majority operate independently they may have close alignment of purpose.

The section on financing mechanisms illustrates many projects assessed in this study so they are not presented again here.

Successful STI collaborations covered by European Union member state national funding instruments include projects such as BIOTA AFRICA, SASSCAL, WASCAL and The Future Okavango, all jointly implemented by German research institutions such as the University of Hamburg, the University of Bonn and partner institutions in Africa, with financial support from the German BMBF. Other examples include CAPAQUA II funded by the Austrian Development Cooperation, AFRINT funded by, among others, SIDA, or DRUSSA funded by the British DFID.

In general, projects falling into this category tend to be coordinated by European partners, usually in accordance with requirements by the funding partner. Nevertheless, a distinct trend towards African-led initiatives has emerged in recent years. Among the projects funded under EDCTP, for instance, approximately 70% have principle investigators coming from African institutions. Also some smaller national grant programmes, such as the Austrian APPEAR programme, or the Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions Initiative are strongly encouraging southern coordination. Out of the 17 projects funded under APPEAR, 7 are currently coordinated by institutions in the South, including Africa.

Moreover, there exist some examples where the project management is clearly shared between one European and one African coordinator. Within the BMBF funded ZEI-WAI bi-regional research initiative, the mirrored management structure comprises both German and West African coordinators with shared responsibilities. The different levels of experience are nevertheless clearly acknowledged, as the project includes specific training and other support measures in project management as well as administrative staff exchanges, besides the main research activities.

At the same time, the circumstance that several EU and European national agencies do not allow resources to be allocated to third countries, or are limiting the percentage of the grant to be spent on international collaboration

4, has led to the development of collaboration arrangements allowing to circumvent this

restriction. Within the project AFRINT, for instance, supported by SIDA, in cooperation with the Swedish Research Council and the Bank of Sweden, the collaboration has been based on sub-contracts made between the University of Lund as project coordinator and only European partner, and partner institutions in nine African countries. A similar sub-contract-based arrangement has been established in the project Global Monitoring for Food Security (GMFS), coordinated by the Belgian research institute VITO. Research funds provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) being restricted to institutions from member states, African partners are involved in GMFS on a sub-contractual basis, whereas the European partners are direct grant beneficiaries.

4.3 Africa-Europe collaboration involving the private sector

The private sector is engaged in Africa-Europe STI cooperation, as both implementing agency and funder and widespread support exists for the private sector’s role in the delivery of technologies and services. In broad terms, stakeholders understand and acknowledge that the private sector has skills, capacities (such as the ability to scale-up for example) and knowledge that do not exist in, or which complement those of the public and other sectors engaged in the STI partnership.

Statistics demonstrate that the private sector engages in domains and activities of relevance to the broad objectives of the Africa-EU partnership, within and beyond JAES P8, and is making vital contributions. It engages in scientific and technological research and innovation, in technology transfer and adaptation, in service delivery, and product development. It does so both as part of individual collaborative partnerships and consortia (whether multi-lateral, bi-lateral or bi-regional) delivering projects, but it also engages independently.

4 see: Paul Boyle (2013) Policy: A single market for European research. In: Nature, 7466, vol: 501 (pp.157-158). doi:10.1038/501157a.


19

While the private sector is participating in and contributing to the objectives of the Africa-EU STI partnership it is not always doing so deliberately. The private sector will enter partnerships and participate in projects to deliver a service or to develop a product, to scale-up a pilot, to enhance the profitability of an opportunity, to develop a market, or to de-risk an otherwise unattractive venture. It is axiomatic however, yet perhaps often forgotten or side-lined that for the private sector the primary driver for engagement is profit (or factors that lead to profit such as improving market information). Corporate social responsibility agendas can provide a secondary driver but the limits of CSR in delivering on the partnership agenda are acknowledged. The public sector in fact has no choice but to accept that the profit motive is a fully legitimate prerequisite for private sector engagement. Many components and outcomes of the Africa-Europe STI partnership can be, and are being effectively and efficiently delivered in a commercial, profit making setting. Some components at the bottom of pyramid nevertheless, such as social welfare for example, will not be commercially viable, and will need subsidy, although can still use the private sector as a delivery mechanism.

There is a commonly held view that the public sector and donors have little understanding of the private sector, and there is much anecdotal evidence pointing towards a generally weak consultative relationship for addressing Africa-EU STI objectives and solving challenges. Some donors treat the private sector differently. The Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions’ Initiative for instance does not allow support for project participants from the private sector. However, generalizations about private sector participation only hold true around broad issues while detail reveals a complex spectrum of private sector participation scenarios and opportunities that defy generalization.

The following section provides brief illustrations of collaboration involving the private sector.

4.3.1 Public-private partnerships

PPP are included here as a distinct class of collaborative arrangement under the broad STI relationship. Among the most prominent examples are the Product Development Partnerships (PDPs), notably employed in the pharmaceutical sector, emerging to fill the failure of the market around drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and health technologies for (infectious) diseases of the developing world where drugs are old and dangerous (such as for filariasis and onchocerciasis), where drugs don’t exist, and where diagnostics are poor. Big pharmaceutical companies have little financial incentive to develop products for the market because of lack of commercial returns. PDPs emerged to fill this gap based on the principal of reduced or shared risk with the public sector and supported by donors. The business drivers of these partnerships are

intrinsically different from those of lucrative contracts in the mainstream drug industry5.

The World Bank, Gates and Rockefeller Foundations have been significant supporters of PDPs. There’s now a PDP funders’ group with about six providing significant sums and many others providing smaller amounts, although there is no common pot or global governance of PDP funding.

PDPs started off as small, virtual initiatives / organisations that brought together pharmaceutical industry, academia and donors. They have grown substantially to become established entities with long-term strategies and product pipelines, that enter into multiple and diverse collaborative agreements with public and private partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, academia and public health institutes. Business and operational models are diverse. Most PDPs are said however to have delivered only incremental innovations and low-hanging fruit, products already in the development pipeline, or developed for other markets.

PDPs are typically international in terms of their partnership. The Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDI) is illustrative of PDPs including European and African partners. DNDI includes among its partner universities in Ethiopia, Uganda and South Africa in Africa, as well as universities in UK, Spain, and Belgium in Europe.

Illustrative of an Africa-Europe multilateral partnership within DNDI is the development of a combination therapy for visceral leishmaniasis in East Africa. The combination therapy (SSG&PM) is the result of a collaborative partnership over a period of six years that reflects the benefits of South-South and North-South collaboration in making a new treatment available to patients in need

6. Partners include Kenya Medical

Research Institute (KEMRI); IEND, University of Khartoum, Sudan; University of Makerere, Uganda; Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia; Gondar University, Ethiopia; LSHTM, UK; Ministries of Health of Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, and Uganda; MSF; i+solutions, The Netherlands; OneWorld Health (OWH/ PATH), USA; LEAP (Leishmaniasis East Africa Platform).

5 http://www.dndi.org/partnership/overview-partnership.html

6 http://www.dndi.org/diseases-projects/portfolio/new-vl-treatments-ssg-pm.html

http://www.dndi.org/partnership/overview-partnership.html

http://www.dndi.org/diseases-projects/portfolio/new-vl-treatments-ssg-pm.html


20

Funding is provided by Department for International Development (DFID), UK; Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), the Netherlands; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the KfW Development Bank, Germany; Fondation André & Cyprien, Switzerland; Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders, International; Medicor Foundation, Liechtenstein; Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MAEE), France; Region of Tuscany, Italy; Republic and Canton of Geneva, Institution Department, International Solidarity, Switzerland; Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), Spain; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Switzerland; the Wellcome Trust, UK; .

The International Aids Vaccine Initiative is another PDP example which is bringing together expertise and funding from both the private and public sectors, as well as from academia and civil society, in order to ensure the development of lifesaving products which there would otherwise be limited commercial incentive to pursue.

Partnerships are explicit in the PDP operational model and examples of Europe-Africa research partnerships are very often central to PDPs’ projects. Thus IAVI is a contributor to the EC-funded epidemiology project to track HIV outcomes, EuroCOORD, by virtue of its membership in CASCADE. IAVI has contributed a very significant portion of the African data, which has made possible a publication to compare outcomes for Africans living in Europe with Europeans living in Europe and Africans living in Africa. www.eurocoord.net.

IAVI and the British Medical Research Council (Uganda) both contributed significantly with in-kind support to a ground-breaking study of HIV in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi fishing communities that was sponsored by EDCTP.

The PDP collaboration model is a specialized manifestation for the pharmaceutical sector of generic public private partnerships but should be wholly applicable to other domains for the delivery of public goods and/or services.

The European and Developing Country Clinical Trials Partnership (Phase 1, 2003-2012) is also about development of new products, also in partnership with the private sector. Unlike PDPs, EDCTP operates as an initiative of Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union enabling the EU to participate in research programmes undertaken jointly by several EU member states. Like PDPs, EDCTP is about overcoming market failure. Malaria and TB, two of the three focal diseases of EDCTP (the other being HIV/AIDS) are not attractive markets for drug producers. However, although the private sector has participated in EDCTP phase I projects, this participation has been indirect, largely through the provision of products free of charge, or at cost. Reluctance in the public sector to use public funds to support the private sector is also partly the reason for weak private sector participation. The EDCTP secretariat intends for the private sector to be more fully incorporated in EDCTP phase II projects.

One example of an EDCTP-funded initiative with private sector involvement is the REMox TB trial. REMox TB is a global clinical trial, which may result in the registration of the first new drug approved for the treatment of drug-sensitive TB in nearly 50 years. If the results are positive, the TB Alliance and the pharmaceutical company Bayer will seek registration of moxifloxacin as part of a multi-drug regimen for drug-sensitive TB.

Approximately 70% of the patients are in Africa and there are clinical trial sites in Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia, and South Africa. Led by the TB alliance, the REMox TB trial was funded by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), Irish Aid, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry. The African component of the REMox TB study is also part of the Pan African Consortium for Evaluation of Anti-tuberculosis Antibiotics (PanACEA), a network of six European research organisations, twelve sub-Saharan clinical trial centres, and three pharmaceutical companies (EDCTP annual report, 2012). PanACEA is itself a network very significantly financed by EDCTP, with additional support from TB Alliance, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Sequella and the South African Medical Research Council.

The EDCTP article 185 model, like the PDP model, is in principal wholly transferable to the JAES STI cooperation context to serve domains other than pharmaceuticals for neglected diseases, and as such represents a potential instrument for the JAES STI partnership.

http://www.eurocoord.net/


21

4.3.2 STI collaboration involving SMEs

Stakeholders draw distinctions between the roles and capacities of large multinationals on the one hand and local SME / VSME on the other hand. Both have roles but the gap between them in terms of capacities and potential contributions to STI is important and has to be acknowledged.

Opinions on and experiences of involving the African private sector in the form of SMEs or micro enterprises in STI projects diverge among interviewed experts and scientists. Some consider the African private sector to be vibrant in Africa yet not sufficiently engaged in Africa-Europe research cooperation and product development. Others consider the African sector as either too weak or not interested in research activities.

According to this second group, SMEs and micro-enterprises need fast results and outcomes and, particularly for those with limited resources, may be hesitant to invest or become involved as a partner in STI research projects that produce useful results only after several years. According to these interviewees, raising awareness of examples of successful partnerships that involved SMEs or micro companies might provide an incentive to encourage the participation of more SMEs in STI initiatives.

Other constraints of SMEs and micro-enterprises may include lack of sufficient human, institutional and administrative capacities and experience to contribute to multi-lateral STI cooperation and to meet requirements of project reporting. Another potential constraint for SME engagement can be the divergent interests in areas like water, energy or food supply between scientists and public authorities on the one hand who seek affordable technological solutions driven by limited resources on the ground, and the profit oriented private sector on the other hand.

Proponents of African companies’ involvement in Africa-Europe STI collaboration stress the advantage of proximity of local SMEs and micro-enterprises to potential end-users of products or technologies developed or adapted in a project, their awareness of needs, capacities and requirements on the ground, and familiarity with the local market and economic situation. In some cases, the involvement of local SMEs may also result from absence of other appropriate partners. In the FP7 project CLARA, two Ethiopian micro-sanitation enterprises were integrated in the consortium to carry out implementation activities and compensate for the absence of any suitable public body.

Future directions of involving African SMEs in STI activities are seen in strengthening the links between the private sector and universities, as well as between the private sector and the government. The potential of private sector-university partnerships lies in the capacity of SMEs to identify research needs and indicate what kind of new products, technological solutions or technologies are required and have to be developed. However, especially SMEs or micro-enterprises generally do not have the capacities and resources to pre-finance such applied research activities. Governments, on the other hand, have a structuring and facilitating role, and can create a conducive environment for the private sector to contribute to the production of goods and services and innovation to take place and be successful. A way to follow is often seen in promoting tripartite partnerships, that involve the private sector (SMEs) to define research needs, universities to carry-out corresponding research activities, and the public sector to financially support this collaboration.

University-Private Sector Partnerships

An example of an STI partnership between European and African universities and private sector institutions is South Africa’s Graduate Skills Development Programme (GSDP). Developed by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), the programme focuses on graduate and postgraduate training in science and engineering. Three South African universities (Tshwane University of Technology, University of Pretoria and the Cape Peninsula University of Technology) have partnered with the French Chamber of Commerce and several French electronics companies to train South African students in electronic engineering. The programme has attracted funding from private companies such as MTN and Vodacom from South Africa and several French companies. Some of the graduate students of this programme have created spin off electronics companies.

4.4 Partnerships

The STI relationship is built around collaboration and the success of the relationship is therefore predicated on our collaborative capacities. Partnerships are the vehicle for our collaboration, although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Factors that either encourage or hinder partnership have profound impact of the success of projects and therefore on the productivity of the wider STI relationship.


22

Partnerships may be created for single initiatives; they may endure and outlive individual initiatives, formulating and running multiple initiatives over many years. Partnerships exist at the level of implementing agencies, and equally at the level of funding agency, and occasionally between funders and implementers. However, we also speak of partnerships between countries, regions and continents. Thus the Africa-Europe STI partnership is a prime example that has persisted over decades and one could argue that the JAES P8 represents an initiative of the wider bi-regional partnership.

STI partnerships are designed by actors or partners for the purpose of designing, implementing, funding or in other ways supporting initiatives, be they projects, platforms, networks of other types of initiatives, and achieving shared or common goals. They involve sharing responsibilities and resources such as research facilities and exchange of expertise. Partnerships take different forms, depending on the purpose for which they are created. Over the past decade, the concept of ‘STI partnerships’ has gained currency in the lexicon of policy-makers, donors and even scientists but its precise meaning is less explored. Often it is used interchangeably with STI collaboration and/or STI cooperation.

Text box 2: Typology of Partnerships

TYPOLOGY OF PARTNERSHIPS

It is possible to identify at least five types of partnerships based on the intensity of cooperation:

Consultative partnerships—these are mainly collaborations aimed at promoting exchange of information and building awareness. Indicators for determining these forms of partnerships include regularity of seminars/workshops, number of newsletters, electronic connectivity.

Coordinative partnerships—these are collaborations that are formed to avoid duplication of R&D efforts, synchronise activities, etc. Each institution or country has its own initiatives that complement those of the others. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of these include existence of inter-institutional committees, awareness campaigns, etc.

Complementary partnerships—these involve separate initiatives but guided by a common framework with the aim of purposely supporting each other. They involve resource sharing and use of agreed approaches. Key indicators include existence of MoUs.

Collaborative partnerships—this form of partnerships entails joint activities and efforts with common vision and goals. Key indicators for these partnerships include long-term programmes, shared vision, existence of mutual trust, clear delineation of tasks and responsibilities, participatory leadership, etc.

Critical partnerships—these are about interdependence, with each actor being indispensable. They are long-term in nature and based on shared decision-making and implementation of activities.

The EU - Africa STI relationship embraces all forms of partnerships while focussing on strengthened collaborative partnerships. These partnerships tend to be guided by principles such as (a) joint agenda setting, including determining research goals and questions; (b) securing all stakeholders’ interests and interactions or generally ownership (c) having rules and procedures that stipulate responsibilities/obligations based on varied responsibilities (d) promoting mutual learning, including the capacity and willingness of those involved to engage in dialogue and learning (e) sharing outcomes of the STI initiatives (f) building mutual confidence and enhancing transparency.

Collaborative partnerships are articulated through projects and related processes. The effectiveness of the partnerships is dependent to a large measure on the design, execution and implementation of project activities, the leadership, interpersonal and inter-institutional relationships and good collaboration between the partners, as well as the overall context in which the cooperation evolves.

4.4.1 Features of successful partnerships

The following section reflects the opinions and experiences of stakeholders interviewed for this study around partnerships and collaboration. In collated format, the key features of effective collaboration include:

Equitability in all aspects (incl. conception, budgets, responsibilities, decision making, coordination and management);


23

Strong leadership, coordination & management, and governance; Clear purpose, appropriate composition, division of responsibilities & understanding of roles; Good communication, transparency and information exchange Strong interpersonal relationships and mutual trust; and Long-term investment.

4.4.1.1 Equitability

The notion of equitable partnerships has much traction, with equitability widely viewed among stakeholders as the core feature of good collaboration. Among the interviewed experts and scientists, there is wide consensus that for collaboration to be effective and successful, it should be balanced and based on an ‘equal footing’.

Absence of equitability is a corrosive feature of partnerships causing detrimental asymmetries. Projects such as CAAST-Net have recorded widespread concern of the detrimental effects of asymmetries through its stakeholder consultations.

However, asymmetries in partnerships do currently exist, notably around financial contributions, budget distribution and coordination and management responsibilities, and hence in overall project ownership. Addressing this challenge through appropriate collaborative arrangement is considered as an essential prerequisite towards optimizing and further promoting STI cooperation between African and European partners. Collaborative models may promote equitability by building cooperation upon joint financial contributions or at least contributions in any other form, such as in kind, foreseeing an equal distribution of roles and responsibilities in implementing scientific and management activities, and ensuring shared decision making within the consortium.

Among the more progressive funding instruments there is anecdotal evidence that asymmetries of the past are no longer relevant and that equitability in partnership is well established. EDCTP was often cited as illustrative of a multilateral project with optimal and equitable partnership arrangements, and it is worth underlining that EDCTP fosters equitability and co-ownership through an elegant joint finance mechanism. Until joint funding mechanisms are more widespread, or until there is a more balanced availability of financing instruments / programmes in both regions with mutual access, the issue of asymmetry in partnerships is unlikely to recede.

The most frequently mentioned example of a collaborative model perceived as equitable is ERAfrica. The effectiveness of ERAfrica’s collaboration is mainly linked to the establishment of a financial instrument that is to be jointly supported by all African and European partners.

4.4.1.2 Governance: leadership, coordination & management

Governance in this study refers to the frameworks for decision making around consortium and project management including technical coordination.

Strong, visionary leadership and coordination are widely held as key criteria for effective partnerships and successful project outcomes. Strong leadership comes from individuals and successful partnerships will often have dedicated champions. For bi-regional partnerships, the importance of strong African leadership is underlined as a particular feature for effective collaborative arrangements.

In most cases, the way governance is handled within collaborative arrangements is on the one hand linked to the nature of the partnership, especially the relationship among partners and the presence of a suitable leader. On the other hand, it may also be determined – at least to some extent – by the financial instrument. The projects evaluated show that most, but not all donors require projects to have governance mechanisms for project management and / or for consortium management. Large scale initiatives such as EDCTP tend to have more sophisticated, formalized and rigorously managed governance and reporting arrangements than small projects which manage with informal processes. Both extremes are suited to purpose and there is no evidence that governance mechanisms are systematic causal factors in partnership success.

Coordination of bi-regional multilateral projects still tends to be much more frequently the responsibility of a European partner and this remains a legitimate regret among stakeholders, a regret prevalent among partners from Africa. However, as mentioned above, there is distinct trend towards more southern-led initiatives, led by innovative and forward thinking financing mechanisms /


24

programmes, such as illustrated by projects funded under EDCTP or under several smaller framework programmes, The Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions Initiative, or the Austrian APPEAR programme that clearly emphasizes or even encourage the possibility for southern partners to take the lead of a North-South cooperation project. ASTII is another example of an initiative that is coordinated in Africa by NEPAD but its governance includes Swedish institutions, UNESCO and individual experts from Europe and Canada. However, as pointed out during the field mission to Dakar, while leadership and coordination can be taken on by any partner, from North or South, it is the creation of truly equitable partnerships that is critical.

EU FP7 international cooperation projects such as CAAST-Net and ERAfrica have taken the deliberate step of formalising the position of an African coordinator in the consortium. Although not a condition of the grant, the shared coordination responsibility assures the principal, even if not the practice of full and equal representation by African partners in what are by definition European instruments. The same projects take the shared approach further by including shared coordination of work packages. While the joint approach is well intentioned and welcomed by partners, it may not be, in all cases, the most efficient means to manage work packages.

Decision making is almost universally a democratic process with most initiatives governed by an executive board comprising all partners. However, a number of projects fail to separate decision making from consortium management with the risk that the decision making processes become inefficient and reduced to information exchange forums for less informed partners. This however is a more general challenge that many projects are facing. Regarding Africa-Europe STI cooperation, strong, complementary and visionary leadership from both regions is strongly recommended by most interviewees.

Effective governance.

While many stakeholders cite strong coordination as a criterion of success, few refer to governance mechanisms. One best practice example can be seen in the BMBF-funded project BIOTA AFRICA. The effectiveness of the collaborative model of the BIOTA AFRICA project is mainly related to the democratic governance structures through which the consortium has jointly taken major decisions. Each participating institution elected one representative for a national BIOTA steering committee. Decisions on the national level were taken among these representatives and reported to the project coordinator. Regular meetings were held between the different national committees and the project coordinator. The set up and maintenance of these democratic management structures, is considered by the former coordinator as one of the major factors of the cooperation’s success that has also positively influenced the project’s scientific outcomes and the strength and sustainability of the partnership.

Most initiatives have some form of external advisory body, whether formally constituted or not, but the relationship is often weak and there is no systematic evidence pointing to the critical contribution of these bodies to the success of partnerships and projects. Some isolated cases however exist. In the above mentioned ZEI-WAI cooperation project, for instance, emphasis is put on the establishment of a network of so-called WAI Fellows, renowned professors and scientists from Europe and West Africa. The role of these external advisors is not only to contribute to research activities during the implementation, but also to promote and facilitate new partnerships once the project has ended.

4.4.1.3 Purpose, composition, roles and responsibilities

At the level of implementation, collaborative models and arrangements are to a large extent determined by the project typology.

Thus projects such as CAAST-Net, ASTII and ERAfrica which exist as policy & programming support and coordination instruments are run by partnerships comprising representatives of nationally mandated authorities in association with specialized service agencies. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged at least implicitly that while national authority partners strengthen the ability of projects to influence national policy, such partners are in many cases not well adapted to delivering project tasks. On the other hand, an institutional research capacity strengthening project such as AfricanSNOWS (UK’s Wellcome Trust, African Institutions Initiative) is run by a partnership of African and European universities. Technology transfer and dissemination projects might have significant CSO / NGO participation. Projects intended to generate and market public goods, technologies and services will often be run by partnerships with significant private sector participation, for example the ACP non-food oils (ACP S&T programme call II) project, or the FP7 AFTER and AvecNet projects.


25

There is unanimity among interviewed experts and stakeholders that appropriate composition is critical to success. Inappropriate partnership composition creates inefficiencies, wastes resources and may lead to project failure.

Collaborative models that are built on multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary partnerships are frequently mentioned as relevant and desirable for Africa-Europe STI cooperation. ROSA (FP6) and CLARA (FP7) for instance are promoting the collaboration of universities and municipalities (which are also consortium members), in view of setting up more efficient and adapted sanitation solutions, with the involvement of local private sector in implementation of solutions. Some of the interviewed experts and scientists moreover stressed the importance of engaging partners with different backgrounds as early as possible, preferably already in the project design and conception phase, in order to make the best use possible of complementary experiences, skills and capacities. However, anecdotally at least, evidence suggest that partnership composition should be driven by project purpose and not by process, and that multi-disciplinarity is not a necessary condition for all projects and project types. As succinctly explained by one questionnaire respondent “’Window-dressing’ by including disinterested parties in programmes and projects in order to try to transmit the image of broad interest for an initiative can be damaging and eventually self-destructive”.

4.4.1.4 Communication, information exchange and interpersonal relations

As with other parameters, communication among partners and the choice of suitable means of communication are cited extensively as a key feature of successful partnerships and effective collaboration. Communication within partnerships varies between initiatives, each employing varying combinations of a diversity of available channels including face-to-face and virtual meetings, newsletters and email, project websites, intranets and blogs, and social media. As with governance, there is a tendency for larger projects (in terms of budget, or consortium size) and those focussed on networking to have more diverse, more sophisticated and structured communication strategies, and for smaller projects to reply on ad hoc approaches. While many cite good communication as a key feature of successful partnerships, few suggest it to be a constraint. Widespread internet and 3G mobile network penetration, extensive digitization of resources, the multiplication of communication channels and notably the widespread use of mobile platforms have undoubtedly contributed to improved communication among partners and served to reduce asymmetries in this key area. Nevertheless, there is general consensus that digital communication can only complement but not completely substitute physical meetings among project partners. A frequently raised concern has been the limited budget that is generally foreseen for the mobility, networking and exchange of a consortium’s partners. Mobility, both in form of consortium meetings and of longer term missions, exchanges and visits of scientists, is considered to be crucial for promoting interpersonal relations and strengthening networks, jointly conducting research activities and contributing to capacity building. As several scientists moreover underlined frequent mutual visits are essential for consolidating mutual trust and promoting commitment and responsibility among all partners.

Beyond the discussion of key features of successful and effective collaboration, stakeholders referred to some other aspects of partnerships that are related briefly here.

Partnerships for capacity building

Many stakeholders considered partnerships and networks to have a role in creating the right environment in which projects can be conducted and long-term partnerships established and consolidated. In particular there is significant support for the notion of sustainable partnerships acting as crucibles of capacity building outside the project environment, especially as regards the human capital development through exchange of knowledge and experiences, mobility of scientists and engineers, and specific training activities. Collaborative models that support the consolidation of long-lasting partnerships are hence seen by many experts as a way to follow.

The UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease provides a model of good practice. With just a small grant of £30k from the British Academy in 2006 to an individual scientist for three years, a network of dedicated scientists with a common interest in advocacy but who had not previously collaborated, was set up to address a lack of capacity for tackling emerging crisis of non-communicable disease (NCD) in Africa. The initial focus was on publishing on NCDs to build wider awareness, to training graduate students, conducting international meetings for networking and mobility, and with the intention of using the BA grant as seed funding to leverage additional resources for research. The network’s extensive publication record allowed it to provide training in writing to graduate student. The partnership drew the attention of researchers in US and enlarged, leading to a spin-off collaboration for community based research and to train Masters, MPhil and


26

PhD students on NCD research. Restricted funds enforced creativity but also created reliance on the goodwill of individuals to provide in-kind services to the network. For starting the network, the funding was essential, so in that sense the financial instrument was a determinant of success. But in the view of the network’s champion, it’s the people that matter, people with a shared passion willing to devote their time to seeing NCD research adequately funded. Although BA funding has ended, the network persists and is even being formalised with a governance structure and professional management.

Enduring partnerships

One key potential advantage of long-term consortia is that they build on strong and good relations among the partners who are considered as a well-established and efficient team, the continuity and progression of research activities over a long period and the ability to resort to and build upon research findings and results from previous projects. The other side of the coin is that in many cases such partnerships relate to the initiative and efforts of specific persons, and their ability to persist once a project is over may easily be affected by personnel changes. Their survival moreover depends upon the availability of appropriate funding and framework programmes with a long-term strategic (research) agenda. Scientists often complain that they have to spend much time in writing proposals, adapt to the requirements of new financial instruments and wait for new funding to start before being able to continue research activities. Long gaps between projects and their follow-ups challenge the flow of activities and achievements. In the specific case of STI cooperation between European and African partners, interruptions in funding between the end of previous and the start of new projects are likely to lead to financial difficulties at African institutions with no or only little basic funding and the inability to extend working contracts.

The study came across a relatively limited number of examples of enduring partnerships in the Africa-Europe cooperation landscape which are sustainably delivering projects. EDCTP was here again held up as an exemplary partnership between member states to support a long list of collaborative projects. Repeated reference was made to the CAAST-Net partnership and although it exists almost exclusively in the context of the FP7 project it has indirectly stimulated a number of spin off partnerships and initiatives based on the mutual awareness and trust build in the partnership. Regarding nationally funded initiatives, examples such as the Swedish AFRINT or several BMBF funded and interrelated projects– BIOTA AFRICA, SASSCAL, The Future Okavango deserve mention.

4.5 Conclusions

Evidence suggests effective collaboration and successful models rely on strong partnerships. Partnerships are supremely important and greater attention to them is likely to enhance the overall quality and effectiveness of cooperation.

In most cases, strong partnerships have champions at the helm, strong individuals with clear vision and leadership skills, backed by a well-constructed consortium of partners each with clear roles and responsibilities, around a demand-led topic.

Successful models are based on democratic and equitable partnerships that promote an integration of complementary skills and expertise.

Regarding the diversity of partnerships, much emphasis is placed on trans- and multi-disciplinary collaborations. Involving stakeholders with different backgrounds during the entire project duration or at relevant stages allows integration of complementary experiences, skills and capacities, and helps to promote the societal relevance of STI activities, the economic exploitability of results and the sustainable impact on socio-economic development.

Co-ownership is core value of bi-regional collaboration. Democratic and equitable Africa-EU partnerships, with transparency and common values, shared knowledge, resources and benefit, and mutual trust foster co-ownership, but joint financing is widely held as a core determinant of co-ownership. Asymmetry and lack of equity in partnerships, deriving from absence of the core values and financing referred to above, is corrosive, undermining co-ownership.

Compared to short term collaboration, long-lasting partnerships that build upon strong relationships or create links and synergies between existing Africa-Europe STI project consortia are generally seen as being better suited for achieving sustainable outcomes and impact.


27

The ability of partnerships to endure beyond the life cycle of typically short collaborative projects and to jointly implement further initiatives or follow-up projects is the results of a variety of factors, including strong leadership and sound governance, the composition of the consortium and the distribution of roles and responsibilities, interpersonal relations and communication, the complementarity of interests and mutual trust and transparency. Key for long-lasting partnerships is however, besides a committed coordinator, the availability of funds with a long-term strategic (research) agenda that is transparent, reliable and predictable.

Long-term funding programmes and programme-level cooperation between Africa and Europe in specific fields, as well as the division of large-scale projects into several interlinked sub-projects with individual grants may present an approach to follow that limits undesirable gaps between projects and their follow-ups and to promote the sustainability of partnerships and their achievements.

The PDP collaboration model is a specialized manifestation for the pharmaceutical sector of generic public private partnerships but may be wholly applicable to other domains for the delivery of public goods and/or services.

Similarly, the EDCTP article 185 model is in principal wholly transferable to domains in Africa-Europe STI cooperation other than pharmaceuticals for neglected diseases, and as such may represent a potential instrument for the JAES STI partnership.


28

5 Financial mechanisms and instruments:

5.1 Introduction

This section explores the range of financing instruments currently being used to support bi-regional, multilateral STI cooperation. Features of the mechanisms and specific instruments within the mechanisms are illustrated by reference to specific projects and initiatives in the cooperation landscape, drawing particularly on the experiences of project personnel. The chapter is complemented by a selection in Annex 6 of the views of interviewed stakeholders on diverse aspects of financial mechanisms and specific instruments. Drawing on these views and on an appraisal of the profiled projects, the chapter presents conclusions about the utility of the current range of financing mechanisms and specific instruments, highlighting any merits and shortcomings.

5.2 Overview of financing mechanisms:

Funding for STI cooperation comes from both public and private sources. In the public sector, two broad policy spheres dominate the funding landscape: research and innovation policy on the one hand, and development cooperation policy on the other. However, the distinction between the two spheres is not black and white. Research instruments can, and do support research for development and capacity building objectives, while development instruments can, and do support research cooperation. Forward-thinking policy makers are forging ahead with alignment between these policy spheres, exploring suitable instruments for supporting aligned policy. Thus for example, the BMBF is emphasizing that STI collaboration projects between German and Africa partners, funded by their instruments, should follow less of a development cooperation logic and more a logic of equitable partnerships. Other policy areas such as trade and external relations / foreign policy do present opportunities for bi-regional STI cooperation but generally on a far smaller scale.

Large institutions, such as the EU in particular, employ a wide range of instruments to address the diversity of EU policies, and while very few are dedicated specifically to Africa-EU STI cooperation, there are a number of instruments which either have significant opportunities or which deliberately target STI cooperation in their programmes and schemes. These instruments include Framework Programmes for research and innovation, the European Development Fund (EDF), the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and its geographic and thematic programmes, and the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South Africa.

It is not unusual for national funding instruments to outsource programmes and schemes for example to councils, agencies and academies and even to private sector bodies creating a sometimes confusing and obscure funding landscape. Partnerships between implementing agencies and financial instruments, sometimes for political imperatives, sometimes for purposes of policy coherence and testing of cooperation models can obscure the landscape still further.

Asymmetry is a feature of the public sector funding landscape for Africa-EU STI cooperation, with most of the financial instruments available for supporting Africa-Europe cooperation being of European or international origin, much to the regret of all sides. Indeed, many of the interviewees in this study linked this situation to the broadly perceived lack of equitability in partnerships and to the weak level of co-ownership. It is of particular note that there is no funding instrument specifically dedicated to the implementation of the specific objectives of JAES P8.

5.2.1 Non-returnable conditional grants

Non-returnable, conditional grants account for the vast majority of financial support for bi-regional, multilateral STI cooperation. Almost all, if not all the commonly used financial instruments adhere to this broad financial mechanism in which the essential feature is the transfer of financial resources from the financing party to the implementing party in exchange for specified activities / services that contribute to the policies of the financing party and aim at meeting priorities of the implementing party. NRCG operate commonly in service of individual initiatives but is also employed for programme, sector as well as for general budget support at institutional, national, regional and continental levels. Thus for example the EU framework programme, the AU research grants programme, the ACP-EU S&T programme, foundations such as the Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions’ Initiative, the Sector Budget Support for South Africa from the EU, as well as many member state research and development cooperation programmes all conform to variants of the NRCG mechanism.


29

Within the NRCG mechanism is a diverse array of funding instruments. Distinguishing NRCG instruments from one another are the grant conditions, the delivery modalities, the collaborative arrangements they serve, and the services rendered. The diversity of conditions, modalities, collaborative arrangements and services is extensive and would allow categorisation by several operational or technical parameters. Detailed categorisation is beyond the purpose of this study, but moreover, the study revealed no systematic evidence for the greater efficiency of one instrument category over another as regards their impact on bi-regional STI cooperation. Nevertheless, individual instruments illustrate features that have benefit to bi-regional cooperation, features that may be considered as ‘good / best practice’, and this section of the report attempts to illustrate these and other pertinent features by reference to a range of instruments and some of the projects and programmes they support. Using the projects, reference is made where pertinent to the advantages and disadvantages of instruments highlighted by project partners, stakeholders and informed commentators.

Forward thinking, innovative financing partners, keen to break away from traditional reliance on the NRCG mechanism are exploring and in some cases piloting alternative financing mechanisms, although not necessarily for the specific Africa-Europe STI cooperation context. Thus the UK government’s DFID for example is keen to explore co-financing and more returnable forms of capital using equity and IP-sharing mechanisms, and to offer convertible and concessional loans. Such approaches are viewed as better both from the tax-payers’ and more general perspectives. These latter mechanisms fundamentally change the relationship between financing and implementing partners and are among a range of options that become available once the ‘free money’ paradigm is broken. Some are seen as more adapted to alternative vehicles for delivery of STI cooperation objectives, notably the commercial sector. These mechanisms are however rarely, if ever used by, or available to bi-regional multilateral STI cooperation partnerships and the current study revealed no instances of their use.

Few NRCG instruments are wholly dedicated to Africa-EU bi-regional STI cooperation activities, although some instruments and some organisations run specific programmes, schemes or individual calls with a focus on bi-regional and often bilateral STI cooperation, or with geographically targeted opportunities. The Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions’ Initiative, the BMBF’ Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa and the EU’s FP7 2009 Coordinated Call for Africa are just three such examples.

5.3 European Union instruments:

European Union funding instruments have been extensively employed in both direct and in indirect support of JAES P8 objectives specifically, but also much more widely in support of the broad Africa-Europe STI cooperation relationship. None however have been designed as specific JAES P8 support instruments and this absence of dedicated instruments, irrespective of origin, is a significant impediment to progress of projects under the specific remit of P8, and to the capacity of P8 governance structures to commission new projects.

The EU’s Framework Programme (FP) for research and innovation is the largest and most sophisticated NRCG instrument which has been used for supporting bi-regional STI cooperation. African institutions and scientists have a long and improving track record of participating in successive FP. Primarily a research instrument based on criteria of excellence, the FP supports international cooperation in scientific research, innovation and technology development as well as cooperation in STI policy and areas of STI capacity building. Much of the Africa-Europe cooperation supported by FP6/7 aligns with JAES P8 objectives.

About 800 African researchers participated in FP6 research projects, with funding of about €95 million. African participation statistics for the current FP (FP7, 2007-2013) will exceed those for FP6, and not only because of the longer period of FP7 relative to FP6. FP7 has had more emphasis on international cooperation in STI than FP6. It is fully open to international third country participation via partnerships in all thematic topics but also routinely employs targeted geographic calls in its special programmes to focus on specific regions’ priorities

In Horizon 2020, the next FP for 2014-2020, like its predecessor will be fully open to international cooperation with third countries, but a new, more targeted international cooperation strategy may affect specific openings for Africa.

Coordinated Call for Africa: While calls for proposals from FP7 thematic programmes have been open to all parties, offering opportunities for Africa-EU cooperation, and while some thematic programmes on some occasion included geographically targeted topics in annual calls for proposals, the 2009 FP7 Africa Coordinated Call mobilised direct support for the AU Light House Project on water and food security in the


30

Nile basin, in combination with support for broader shared interests around health, water and food security. In total 26 separate multilateral research and research capacity building cooperation projects were funded under the Coordinated Call with total FP7 funding in the region of €65m. Illustrative of these projects is AvecNet (Annex 9), a translational pipeline for evaluating and scaling a new generation of malaria control tools to overcome evolving drug resistance.

ERAfrica: Joint funding, as a means of demonstrating commitment to the bi-regional partnership and of fostering co-ownership of individual initiatives, is a highly desirable goal of bi-regional STI cooperation policy. The almost total absence of jointly-funded multilateral cooperation instruments is a significant impediment to an equitable Africa-Europe STI cooperation partnership. One of the few examples of a genuine jointly-funded (i.e. funded by both European and African parties) STI cooperation instrument has been created and managed by the EU FP7 ERAfrica initiative in which the consortium has established a group of funding agents from African and European countries (Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ivory Coast, Kenya, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey) which have promised to contribute to joint calls via a virtual pot mechanism. While the ERAfrica instrument remains unproven in terms of the success of the bi-regional cooperation projects the instrument’s calls will fund, the collaborative process between European and African funding programmes resulting in the jointly-funded instrument for bi-regional cooperation creates a model whose significance cannot be overstated and which merits further piloting in other cooperation contexts. Examples might include creating Africa-regional ERA-Nets for cooperation between interested EU parties and individual RECs, or creating an ERAfrica II to support a transition phase of ARGP to full African ownership.

Text box 3: ERAfrica – views from two African participants in the pool of fund owners.

The contribution of African programme owners to the ERAfrica common fund throws into stark relief the lack of an African owned continental research fund.

From the Kenyan perspective, while there is full support for a pan African instrument like ASIF, the ERA-NET model of ERAfrica provided a flexible consultative model for identifying joint priorities for the programme with EU MS which were aligned with National Science and Technology Policy priority areas, even allowing individual MS programmes the decision over the sums to be committed to each of the priority areas.

For Burkina Faso, participating in the ERAfrica pool of programme owners was above all about the political will to finance its own research. This will, implemented through the creation of the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation in 2011, followed by the creation of the National Fund for Research and Innovation for Development to which the state is so far the only contributor. ERAfrica represented a good opportunity for Burkina Faso to demonstrate that political will externally. Better, with ERAfrica, the contributors decide collectively about topics, and where to invest funds. This transparency is reassuring and easy to manage relative to pan-African initiatives.

EDCTP: The financing model of EDCTP phase 1, as an article 185 initiative is based on joint funding from EU (FP6) and EDCTP country members. The funding model, viewed by many as good practice, is open to contributions from African and European members although in the current programme African members are encouraged to contribute, but are not obliged. Although financial contributions from African members have been limited, in-kind contributions such as salary costs, laboratory space and utilities are recorded. Third party contributions (from the private sector and other donors such as foundations for example) to EDCTP phase 1 have been significant. In EDCTP 2, all full members may be invited to make a certain minimum contribution. If this comes to fruition, it will be a second concrete example of a jointly-funded initiative for supporting objectives of the broader partnership, and in principal could be extended to other domains.

As a support instrument for financing JAES P8 objectives, the FP has a proven track record as the initiatives above testify and although the FP it is not directly aligned with P8, there is every reason for H2020 to continue to offer financial support to projects that themselves align with P8 objectives. When incorporating international cooperation opportunities into future H2020 thematic and cross-cutting work programmes, programme committees may wish to take note of articulated objectives of STI cooperation under a restructures JAES.


31

The Framework Programme supports and encourages private sector participation, notably for example though Article 187 Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). Engagement of third countries and regions is however very limited in the few JTIs currently operational

7.

Among the stakeholders interviewed, the EU FP was the most well-known instrument and many were happy to express opinions. Africa-EU cooperation stakeholder opinions on the effectiveness of the FP are varied. Many respondents to the questionnaire for this study considered FP7 to be an improvement over FP6, with greater awareness and engagement in the programme among African researchers and policy makers through initiatives such as CAAST-Net, ESASTAP and ERAfrica. For example, ESASTAP, funded through FP7, is credited for building awareness and skills of South African researchers on EU funding opportunities as well as contributing to the strengthening of EU-South Africa bilateral STI cooperation. CAAST-Net (and now CAAST-Net Plus) provided a platform on which European and African researchers could raise mutual awareness around policies and priorities, as well supporting both informal and formal institutional bi-regional STI policy dialogues. FP7 has also been identified as having promoted relatively flexible and decentralized governance of project implementation. Partner organizations from Africa are involved in making decisions pertaining to project implementation.

Nevertheless, the EU’s FP appears to be widely misunderstood in Africa if interviewees are representative of wider opinion. On the one hand the FP is by definition an EU instrument addressing the EU research and competitiveness agenda. On the other hand it is made available to serve JAES P8 objectives, in which from an African perspective particularly, though not exclusively, capacity building is a significant priority. The conflict is easy to appreciate. Among the limitations of the FP, from the perspective of Africa participation, the following emerged from interviews:

Short-term nature of the projects. Most projects have a life-span of two to four years. For many scientific research projects/initiatives, this causes discontinuity and raises questions about their sustainability;

Complex and highly bureaucratic proposal submission and project reporting requirements that challenge in particular the participation of smaller institutions in Africa;

High competition and relatively limited success rates; Relatively long negotiation phases, before first payment is made; Long intervals between financial reporting and reimbursements causing cash flow crises for cash-

poor institutions.

The European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing EU development cooperation in the ACP region. Consisting of several constituent instruments / programmes, it has been extensively employed for financing Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

Notable EDF support for individual projects is provided by the ACP-EU S&T programme under the intra-ACP budget of which there have been two calls for proposals (one in each of EDF9 and EDF10). An exemplary project financed under calI 1 of the ACP S&T programme is the ACP non-food oils initiative (Annex 9) which as a collaborative venture has valuable lessons for bi-regional cooperation. A mid-term review of the ACP S&T programme

8 revealed a number of operational shortcomings in the first ACP-EU S&T call, some of

which are also confirmed by the ACP non-food oils project. Notable in regards to bi-regional cooperation is that opportunities for EU delegations to use the programme to discuss S&T policy issues with national decision-makers and practitioners have not been taken, and that the programme has supported academics almost to the exclusion of other eligible actors, with governments seldom involved and with few projects addressing national S&T policies. It is perhaps notable that while the programme’s objectives align closely to those of P8, there seems to be no explicit indication of synergy or that the programme could be used in support of P8. Future ACP calls could be more explicitly used in support of P8 objectives.

Also from the EDFs intra-ACP budget is the AU Support Programme. Among the activities of the AU Support Programme is the implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy action plan(s) in collaboration with stakeholders.

African Union Research Grants Programme. Like the ERAfrica initiative, and the AU Support Programme, the ARGP (see Annex) represents a significant milestone and building block in the Africa-Europe STI partnership, although for different reasons. Another component of an equitable Africa-Europe STI partnership and the co-financing of common interests is the mutual capacity to manage and finance continental research programmes which can be leveraged in support of common research interests, again

7 http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/index_en.cfm?pg=home

8 ACP SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMME MID TERM REVIEW, Final Report [Revised Version] 25th June 2012.

Framework Contract Beneficiaries Lot 9 – Culture, Education, Employment and Social. EUROPEAID/127054/C/SER/MULTI – LOT 9.


32

overcoming the current dependency of cooperation on European instruments. Ultimately, joint calls between the ARGP and the EU FP, ACP-EU S&T programme or indeed many other EU and EU MS instrument could be a potent vehicle for creating the co-ownership of multilateral STI initiatives under the future JAES.

Formulated as one of the early deliverable Light Houses Projects under the science priority of JAES P8, the ARGP is the result of collaboration between the EC and AUC to create capacity at the AUC to manage and eventually self-finance a continental STI research programme. Resourced in the pilot phase by EDF under the ACP Research for Sustainable Development Program of the 10th EDF Intra-ACP envelope, ARGP is now executing its second call for research in post-harvest and agriculture, renewable and sustainable energy, and water and sanitation themes or programme areas of the CPA. The ARGP instrument operates much like the EU’s FP and indeed is serving as a pilot for an Africa-wide Framework Programme for research.

Projects financed by ARGP calls are in principal open to partnerships between African and European countries but these projects have not been reported in this study. Nevertheless, there are some issues of governance raised by interviewees that need to be addressed to improve ARGP implementation. These include:

The need for greater involvement of African researchers in the evaluation of project proposals: Currently the evaluation of proposals is handled by the EC and EU based consultants with minimal African engagement;

The need to improve AUC capacity for administering the initiative as well as increasing African financial and technical investments.

Continued EU financial support for ARGP is not currently anticipated beyond the second ARGP call. However, the ARGP carries with it high political significance for the Africa-Europe STI partnership, as well as being much in demand at the AUC. It will nevertheless be critical to determine the extent to which current funding for AGRP has allowed for the management capacity and for African resourcing of ARGP to be embedded at the AUC to assure its sustainability. If, for instance, EDF support is halted before capacity to finance and manage is fully embedded, the collaboration risks failing in its primary objective, with clear implications for the STI partnership. Premature ARGP closure should be avoided.

The AMCOST resources working group is, among other objectives, examining the resourcing of ARGP and the establishment of the proposed African Science and Innovation Fund (ASIF). The initial or exploratory process to determine the feasibility of establishing ASIF was funded by DFID and coordinated by AUC and the then NEPAD Office of Science and Technology (OST). Concept papers were prepared and a workshop organized by NEPAD OST. Partners in the exploratory process included the African Development Bank (AfDB), UNESCO, experts from the University of Edinburg in the UK, AUC, NEPAD and the Bureau of AMCOST. To date the fund has not been established because modalities for ensuring that AU member states make financial contributions have not been established. Some of the interviewees for this study noted that the slow progress or almost inaction on ASIF is due to absence of dedicated leadership from AUC and AfDB focused on this initiative. The AMCOST working group has not meet frequently as had been envisaged because of resources constrains..

In the absence of alternative short-term arrangements for continuing ARGP, the on-going exploration of transitional arrangements via the AMCOST resources working group may wish to consider application to Horizon 2020 for support to an ERAfrica style project, even to invite the existing ERAfrica consortium to specifically support bi-regional cooperation activities of an ARGP. The pan-African instrument proposed for supporting JAES may be suitable for financing ARGP transitional arrangements but few details of the PAI’s operational programmes have yet reached a wide audience. The extent to which the pan African instrument will be available to support capacity for and governance mechanisms of the partnership versus support for specific technical initiatives is unclear.

The national and regional indicative programmes of the EDF account for more than 80% of the total EDF budget and in principal can be used to support STI initiatives. However, their role in bi-regional multilateral STI cooperation is believed to be small and is not considered further in this report.

Like the EU’s FP, the EDF has a proven track record for providing financial support to initiatives directly under P8, and to many that align more broadly with its objectives and, as for the FP, there is every reason for the EDF to continue to offer support, although that support ought ideally to be complementary to a dedicated, jointly funded instrument and to AU and AU MS instruments.


33

The thematic programmes of the EU’s Development Cooperation Instrument on food security (FSTP); investing in people; and environmental and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy (ENRTP) each have significant scope for supporting components of the Africa-EU STI relationship. The Investing in People TP for instance, through its ‘good health for all’ pillar focuses on the critical lack of personnel in many developing countries' healthcare systems. It also pays particular attention to the leading poverty-related diseases: HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. It is through the DCI FSTP for example that the EU provides block grants to CGIAR multiannual programmes and of course the CGIAR programme in Africa aligns with and supports that of CAADP, affiliated to P8 by virtue of association to the CPA. The second phase of PAEPARD is also funded via FSTP.

In the context of this study the geographic programmes of the EU’s DCI are relevant only to South Africa. South Africa and the European Union share the policy conviction that science and technology are critical instruments for sustainable growth and development and can play an essential role in poverty alleviation efforts. One of the flagship programmes of the South Africa – European Union (EU) Strategic Partnership’s development cooperation instrument is therefore the sectoral budget support (SBS) programme, funded for an amount of €30 million by the EU and implemented by the DST, to complement and enhance the department’s programmes to deploy science and technology and harness innovation to fight poverty in South Africa

9.

SBS as an instrument is used for EU bilateral development cooperation with developing country partners and is based on an approved sector policy and programme, medium-term financing, pull-funding or common basket funding from a group of donors and an agreed performance monitoring system. The instrument is largely used to support development initiatives and not scientific research projects and there are few African STI initiatives financed through SBS. The Innovation for Poverty Alleviation programme in South Africa, mentioned above (also see Annex 9), is an exceptional success that has private sector and local communities’ participation, is creating jobs and enterprises and generally contributing to the improvement of livelihoods. The programme enjoys high level political support from the country’s presidency and provincial governments. It also provides a platform for South Africa-EU policy dialogues on a wide range of technology and innovation policy issues pertaining to sustainable development. It is an example of how SBS can be instrument for promoting technology development and diffusion for development. Effectiveness of SBS is delivered through the existence of national sector policy and strategy, better donor coordination and local ownership and leadership.

5.4 National and regional research / research and innovation programmes

National instruments particularly, but also foundations and the private sector support an extensive quantity of bi-regional STI cooperation initiatives, operating a plethora of instruments offering support for both dedicated Africa-Europe cooperation, as well as non-specific international STI cooperation. Instruments correspond to a narrow range of mechanisms, mostly representing conditional non-returnable grants. Just a small selection of programmes and some of their projects is illustrated here.

The Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa has been recently developed by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) as an incentive for German universities and non-academic research institutes and companies to develop new co-operation approaches with partner institutes in Africa. The JAES and CPA provide political context for the instrument that has primarily been developed within the framework of the German Federal Government’s Strategy for the Internationalization of Science and Research.

To date there have been two calls launched, one in 2010 and one in 2012, both with high response rates, suggesting good resonance with needs. Although it seems too early to draw lessons, the programme has been effective in encouraging and promoting cooperation between German and African scientists and has a number of interesting features that can be viewed as good practice:

Initiatives funded under the Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa are exploratory or pilot projects with duration of up to 6 and 24 months respectively intended to prepare the ground for larger STI collaboration. Eligible activities include meetings,

9 http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=30464&tid=82682

http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=30464&tid=82682


34

workshops and targeted personal and institutional capacity building measures.

Topics covered include health and medicine, environmental technologies (including land management, protection of climate and natural resources in East and Central Africa, and renewable energies) and applied ICT.

The programme has a strong focus on capacity-building: each project should contribute to capacity-building in Africa, especially for young African students and scientists.

Built upon the principles of individual responsibility, equal standing of all parties and accepting moderately divergent interests within the framework of joint objectives

10, the

programme combines research, investment in infrastructure, and investment in human capacity building.

The programme also encourages North-South-South partnerships, e.g. in form of trilateral cooperation between German, African and partners from other developing or emerging countries, or by encouraging "regionalisation" of activities in Africa, i.e. regional approaches and solutions through S-S cooperation.

There are relatively few funding instruments for multi-lateral STI cooperation with Africa that are jointly operated by two or more member states. In 2009, within the framework of the 3rd German-French Research Forum, an agreement was signed between the German and the French governments on improved coordination and linking of national research initiatives with Sub- Sahara Africa. As a result, the Joint German-French financial mechanism was developed for solution-oriented cooperation in science and research between Germany, France and the countries in Sub-Sahara Africa. The idea is to build upon synergies emerging from linking existing competences and experience and the joint use of established networks and research infrastructures. The first call was issued in spring 2011. A project funded under this programme is ‘Ecosystem approach to the management of fisheries and the marine environment in West African waters (AWA)’, implemented by German, French and West African partners, under the joint coordination of the Thünen Institute for Fisheries in Hamburg and IRD, over the period 2013 – 2017. As with the Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa, it is too soon to speak about lessons learned. Moreover, a major challenge of joint funding instruments is likely to lie in aligning administrative aspects of the national programmes involved.

Although beyond the scope of this study, the bilateral cooperation environment may offer examples of good practice to be replicated and/or scaled at multilateral level. The Kenya-Germany bilateral cooperation in funding of doctoral and post-doctoral research, related during the draft report validation workshop of 18 September 2013, is one such example but the study did not gather detail.

Both DRUSSA and LABLITE (Annex 9) are multilateral collaborations funded by DFID’s Research into Evidence Division. Both were supported not through a call for proposals but by direct invitation from DFID to an existing consortium or organisation to prepare a proposal for a specific topic. Such an approach creates an alternative relationship between donor and recipient compared to that in a general call for proposals, creating a more intimate association that, in the view of recipients, is wholly beneficial to implementation and outcomes. The relationship between funding and implementing partners is viewed as an important feature and anecdotal evidence gathered by the study suggests that instruments that foster pro-active and stable relationship with their projects may encourage better outcomes.

The UK’s DFID does issue calls for proposals that can support Africa’s development priorities but these tend to be managed as collaborations between DFID and the UK’s several research councils, or between DFID and other UK organisations such as the Royal Society. In partnership with UK research councils the quality of the science is usually the main criteria for selection of the successful parties. Africa is rarely a focus as calls have been around development challenges e.g. sustainable agriculture, poverty alleviation, combating diseases in livestock, ecosystem services, and health systems. Although outside the study window, it is worth noting a current call in development between NERC and DFID called Climate Change and Africa. Furthermore NERC and ESRC recently announced an African Groundwater programme with DFID on unlocking the potential for groundwater for the poor (UpGro)

11 for £12m over 7 years, and lastly MRC and

DFID also have an African leadership scheme12

. In these arrangements research councils fund UK participants and DFID funds the developing country partners. Research councils provide the management of the call and awards and of course the peer review process (usually includes user views too). DFID get the

10 http://www.bmbf.de/en/furtherance/18242.php 11

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/upgro/ 12

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Fundingopportunities/Calls/ARL2013/MRC008917

http://www.bmbf.de/en/furtherance/18242.php

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/upgro/

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Fundingopportunities/Calls/ARL2013/MRC008917


35

benefit of a trusted partner committed to high quality science and RCUK gets the benefit of sizable leverage. (Carter, UKCDS, personal communication).

The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building Initiative is a relatively small scheme for scientists who want to develop collaborative research consortia between scientists in sub-Saharan Africa and a research institution in the UK. The scheme supports small consortia comprising a single UK partner with three African partners. The UK’s Royal Society operates a number of small funding schemes in support of Africa’s research base each exploring and piloting optimal ways to impact on the research system.

Implementation of ALICT illustrates the mobilisation of individual EU MS national funds in direct support of a specific P8 Light House Project. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Finland allocated a €3m grant from the regional budget of the African department to finance ALICT phase 1 in collaboration between the Finnish Ministry, the African Union, and the international organisation GESCI as the implementing partner.

In a similar example the African Virtual Campus, another of the AU/NEPAD LHP, but substantially different to ALICT, also draws on dedicated EU MS funds. Financing from the Government of Spain, together with the government of Japan, in collaboration with UNECO is supporting the development of four e-learning centres in West Africa (see Annex 9). With so few examples of this arrangement no substantive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness. However, in the case of ALICT, the strength of the Finland-AU partnership in ALICT Phase I was critical to the decision not only to provide a grant from Finland for a second phase, but also to seek additional Phase II resources from AfDB. It’s apparent that well placed individuals in the partnership, acting as champions for the initiative, were able to influence the process.

5.5 The African Development Bank (AfDB)

The African Development Bank (AfDB) is an important source of various financial mechanisms and resources that should be leveraged to support Africa-EU STI cooperation. In 2008 the AfDB adopted an institutional strategy for higher education, science and technology in Africa. The strategy focuses on supporting the establishment of national and regional STI centres of excellence, strengthening infrastructure for research and innovation, and linking education, research institutions and private sector. The Bank’s strategy puts emphasis on building partnerships with European donors such as SIDA, DFID and the EU in order to achieve its strategic goals.

AfDB is already contributing to some of the Africa-Europe STI initiatives such as African Virtual University (AVU) that is also funded by Germany and France as well as DFID. It has allocated about USD 124.3 million for centres of excellence in Mali, Uganda and Rwanda. In 2009 the AfDB approved a grant of US$ 17.60 million to finance a Network of African Institutions of Science and Technology Project in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The grant is from the African Development Fund (ADF), the concessionary window of the AfDB Group. The African University of Science and Technology (AUST) in Abuja and the International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering (2iE) in Ouagadougou are key partners in the project. AUST is funded by several European donors and the World Bank while the 2iE is also funded by France.

There are four AfDB financial mechanisms available for financing collaborative STI initiatives. These are: (a) African Development Fund (ADF) Loans & Grants – African ADF countries such as Nigeria and Kenya can secure loans and grants, (b) Middle Income Countries (MIC) Grants to be used to undertake research, (c) ADB Loans – ADB countries can access loans to support the establishment of techno-poles and techno-parks (d) multinational Window that the Bank uses to support regional cooperation, mobility of skilled labour, and collaboration in research and technological innovation, and (e) Private Sector Loans – the Bank’s private sector department provides sovereign guarantees to African governments to enable them secure loans from private sources. In addition, AfDB administers a wide range of trust funds e.g. the AfDB’s Nigeria Trust Fund that are sources of ‘soft loans’ to African countries.

5.6 The private sector contribution and relevant financial mechanisms

The private sector is not only engaging in cooperation as an implementing partner but also providing resources to support objectives broadly associated with the bi-regional partnership in a diversity of schemes, some examples of which are given here.

One example of a private sector programme directly focused on promoting and supporting STI cooperation between African and European researchers is the ‘Knowledge for Tomorrow’- programme of the Volkswagen Foundation. The Volkswagen Foundation developed their Africa initiative in 2003 based on


36

recommendations collected during a series of events during which the pertinent parameters were discussed by African and German scientists. The programme supports research projects that are developed and implemented by African scientists, in close cooperation with German partners. The main objective is to promote and foster local capacity building and especially help young African scientists enhance their skills and academic qualifications. Young African scientists are encouraged to develop and conduct their own research projects, under the coordination of a German partner, but based at African academic institutions. In line with the objective to promote research with and not on Africa, the programme puts particular emphasis on establishing a balanced partnership and the development and strengthening of academic networks between German and African scientists and within the African continent. Although the programme is smaller, compared to most public funding programmes, it is characterized, according to interviewees, by more flexibility and allows for adaptation to unforeseen changes and circumstances.

Building research capacity in Africa via research partnerships is core to the international strategy of the UK’s Royal Society. In partnership with Pfizer, the world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company, the Royal Society has been working to build the capacity of science academies in Africa, under the Royal Society-Pfizer African Academies’ programme, as part of a shared commitment to help build a sustainable and prosperous Africa

13. Although not addressing research cooperation per se, the programme has been

supporting science academies to strengthen science in Africa through activities such as institutional capacity building, engaging with policy makers, engaging with younger scientists, communicating science effectively, and collaborating regionally and internationally. The programme helps academies forge better links with their own research communities, championing their research bases, giving African science a voice in partner countries, and appealing to their governments to fund their research bases, reducing dependency on external funds. The UK’s Royal Society and Pfizer also collaborate to offer awards to scientists working in the biological sciences to promote capacity-building in Africa.

The AfricanSNOWS (Annex 9) project is illustrative of a suite of projects supported by the Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions Initiative that aims to develop institutional capacity to support and conduct health-related research vital to enhancing people's health, lives and livelihoods. The £30 million initiative will strengthen Africa's universities and research institutions and help develop research networks. More than 50 institutions from 18 African countries are partnered in seven international and pan-African consortia. Each is led by an African institution and includes research and higher education partners as well as research

institutes from Europe, the US and Australia14

.

In the following section the report illustrates examples of the financing instruments employed through which the private sector is already contributing to the objectives of the Africa-Europe STI partnership. The examples are not exhaustive of the full diversity of scenarios.

Trust in Science from GSK is a research funding programme designed to build a sustainable, long-term scientific research base in Africa, to deliver medicines that are specific to patient needs. Initially, it is open to scientists working in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda

15.

5.6.1 Pooled instruments: Challenge funds

Challenge funds have emerged in recent years as a new aid instrument and modality which can be used in support of working with the private sector in a more direct approach (Enterprise Challenge Fund – Mid-Term Review, 2009

16). A diverse mechanism, challenge funds can be employed to address a range of objectives,

but in the context of this study the interest is in their utility for supporting private sector and non-state actor delivery of innovative solutions to pressing societal challenges and public goods. Not a mechanism specifically dedicated for promoting partnerships, challenge funds are nevertheless a proven and legitimate mechanism for delivering Africa-EU STI partnership objectives. Some, such as the African Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF) are built around a long-term common multi-donor funding platform, while others such as DFID’s Girls’ Education Challenge (GEC) are established for a specific challenge and supported unilaterally in a time-limited window.

The AECF, hosted by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), is one of a number of similar financing instruments supporting private sector engagement in delivery of public goods and services in

13 Royal Society-Pfizer African Academies Programme, final report, January 2012.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Pages/about-us/international/2012-04-23-Pfizer-Report.pdf. 14

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/International/African-Institutions-Initiative/index.htm 15 http://www.gsk.com/partnerships/academic-collaborations/trust-in-science---africa.html 16

http://www.springfieldcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Springfield-Final-ECF-Review-Report-19-11-09.pdf

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Pages/about-us/international/2012-04-23-Pfizer-Report.pdf

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/International/African-Institutions-Initiative/index.htm

http://www.gsk.com/partnerships/academic-collaborations/trust-in-science---africa.html

http://www.springfieldcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Springfield-Final-ECF-Review-Report-19-11-09.pdf


37

diverse domains and based around the idea of a pooling instrument with funds disbursed as up-front conditional grants. It operates in several respects in similar fashion to the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Like GAIN, AECF operates a large pool of funds from multiple donors (current funders include some of the biggest names in development finance: UK AID, DANIDA, Australian AID, IFAD, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA) to engage for-profit companies in delivering public goods and services in Africa through the market, stimulating rural economies and creating jobs, increasing productivity or reducing costs. The sums of money are significant, with AECF reported to be operating a fund of $200m providing grants in the region of $0.25m-$1.5m.

The AECF field of implementation comprises value chains linking rural economies to international markets. Like GAIN, AECF injects funds into realising elements of public policy such that the risk-benefit equation operates in favour of making a return on investment.

Working only with for-profit companies, AECF sets the briefs to make a difference to the lives of the poor in three broad areas – agribusiness, rural finance and renewable energy. As a challenge fund using public funds, AECF operates as a competition, anywhere in Africa – continent wide, or country specific - to which companies submit tenders and in which eligibility criteria always include company capacity, the viability of the business deal, the development benefit (the number of households affected), and the innovative nature of the project. Agenda are thus largely set by the companies, while the broad parameters are set by the mechanism and/or the donor.

There is a significant level of risk taking involved on the part of AECF and not all projects succeed in significant fashion with large scale impact. However, rules of engagement of the six year contracts allow potential losses to be minimised through an AECF get-out clause after one year. Furthermore, participating companies must accept to share the costs and have a greater share of the risks than AECF.

KPI differ from one project to the next and are agreed with donors, but job creation is core as is demonstrated scale-up. The potential impact of AECF is illustrated by the success of MPESA, a proposal put to a predecessor fund. MPESA went to scale because it makes money for its parent company Vodafone, yet it has transformed the lives of subscribers.

Like GAIN, AECF appears to have a projectised approach, driven by the interests of the pool of donors. Funding from donors tends to be responsive, often supplied at the last minute and may be tied to specific activities.

Housed originally in the UN but now independent and with international status, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) began operating about 10 years ago with a trust fund managed by the World Bank to channel funds from multiple donors to national governments responding to calls for proposals. With a focus on fortifying staples to improve nutrition, GAIN has had a strongly projectised approach to introducing new and improved products to the market in Africa. The scope of GAIN’s work has widened to embrace preventative programmes and disaster preparedness for example. But increasingly, GAIN seeks to catalyse the system rather than broker individual partnerships as a way of stimulating business investment. However, the common thread is always to work in partnership with the private sector, national governments, CSO and academia. This approach has allowed GAIN to build a substantial body of experience around PPP for delivering public goods in Africa. GAIN differentiates itself from challenge funds such as AECF (above) in that it invests heavily in the design of its own projects and partnerships.

GAIN sees risk-aversion creating hesitancy among the private sector to invest in new products and in market development. Markets are poorly understood, the regulatory environment can be non-conducive, and infrastructure inadequate. They see that companies need consistency and stability to make investment decisions, for example to give the assurance that a new fortified product will be accepted by a country’s public health system, or that a pricing point on a new product is aligned to the target consumers’ median income levels, or that health claims on packaging can be upheld.

Essentially the approach employed is to develop sustainable business models in tailored partnerships with the private sector, with their scales of operation and technical know-how, to de-risk and incentivize long-term investment in public sector goods for improved population nutrition. The approach takes many forms, perhaps requiring long-term subsidy for de-risking, but when done correctly, GAIN’s expertise creates market opportunities for companies to enjoy long-term channels of investment and return which are not subsidy dependent. Many models for engaging with companies have been employed, each offering learning on the role businesses play, and the incentives required to create stable conditions for long-term investment and return.


38

By working with national governments in areas of the system that can be influenced by policy / decision makers GAIN can offer de-risking without direct subsidy. Such areas might include identifying in the delivery system the elements of infrastructure which, regardless of product, are necessary for products to reach consumers, improving the regulatory capacity of governments to keep fraudulent products of shelves, or monitoring and enforcing food safety and quality standards. However, GAIN notices a reluctance, even a lack of sophistication, among policy makers to engage with the private sector in the policy process for perceived fear of conflict of interest and have even witnessed backlash.

Another approach employed by GAIN is to encourage cooperation among companies, with academia, on pre-competitive issues that do not influence downstream commercial interests, generating an evidence base for investment decisions. The recently emerged Business Platform for Nutrition Research

17 addresses two

main areas currently hampering the creation of efficient and impactful solutions: 1) Gaps in the global evidence base for good nutrition; 2) Barriers to entry for new products and technologies instrumental in helping against under-nutrition.

While GAIN doesn’t yet foresee a time when donor support is not needed for de-risking in some areas, it does expect that leveraging private sector resources will enable reductions in donor contributions over time. Ultimately aspects of GAIN, such as the BPNR, could be funded by the private sector as a service, but that remains some way off.

GAIN’s pool of donors, in the current environment, exhibit a reluctance to see funds used unconditionally on, for example, intangible system-wide policy approaches, and as a result there tends to be an over-reliance on tangible project / product approaches in the GAIN portfolio, allowing donors to see the fruits of their investment in the short term.

Common challenge fund elements may include low bureaucratic burden, the fostering of innovative solutions, a highly competitive approach, and the de-risking or risk sharing of otherwise non-profitable ventures, the requirement for matched funding and the condition of commercial sustainability in the short-term. They can be seen as route towards allocating state resources to businesses. A major challenge however lies in the fact that especially small companies are generally not used to innovation funds and often not aware of and familiar with their modalities and requirements.

5.6.2 Pooled instruments: Pull mechanisms

In variants of the challenge fund’s up-front grant mechanism, pull mechanisms along with results-based mechanisms are gaining traction among donors.

Differing from challenge funds like AECF, the delivery modality of pull mechanisms is a results-based financial incentive or prize rewarding successful innovations and their adoption. By design, there are no upfront payments to participating companies and there may be several companies competing on individual challenges at any one time. Pull mechanisms are designed to overcome market failures, and encourage private and public sector innovators to develop products and services that they would not otherwise bring to the market. Well-crafted pull mechanisms can be used to close the gap between the need for socially desirable goods and services and their supply by the private sector in developing countries

18.

AgResults is an example of a privately operated pooled fund (managed by Deloitte Consulting LLP) offering prizes to the private sector for solving significant national, regional and continental challenges, for example around solutions to the loss of grain in Kenya during storage. In this example, the challenge is to produce a pilot system that incentivizes the adoption of on-farm storage technology for smallholder farmers that 1) allows grain storage to be extended by a few months per year, thereby reducing smallholder expenditure on staple grains in non-harvest periods, and 2) lowers post-harvest losses suffered by smallholder farmers. The prize is based on 50% of the value farmers gain by storing more and longer. The challenge is suited to local companies but probably not to SMEs.

AgResults started 18 months ago, but use of pull mechanisms has long track record. Pull mechanisms tend to be favoured under certain situations

19:

17

http://www.gainhealth.org/sites/www.gainhealth.org/files/Business%20Platform%20for%20Nutrition%20Research_N4G_FINAL.pdf 18

link : http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/CFPEXT/0,,contentMDK:23005969~pagePK:64060249~piPK:64060294~theSitePK:299948,00.html 19

Vivid Economics, 2009; “Pulling Agricultural Innovation into the Market,” Center for Global Development, 2010.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CFPEXT/Resources/WEB_AGPM_When__to_use.doc.pdf

http://www.gainhealth.org/sites/www.gainhealth.org/files/Business%20Platform%20for%20Nutrition%20Research_N4G_FINAL.pdf

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/CFPEXT/0,,contentMDK:23005969~pagePK:64060249~piPK:64060294~theSitePK:299948,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/CFPEXT/0,,contentMDK:23005969~pagePK:64060249~piPK:64060294~theSitePK:299948,00.html


39

When markets do not adequately reward innovators for their investments; When information gaps and uncertainties prevent supply and demand from coming together in a

market; When markets do not function because of imperfect competition; When innovators are willing to accept some of the outcome risk.

5.7 Conclusions: Effective finance mechanisms

Determining what constitutes an effective financing mechanism, and the indicators to measure it, is, like other parameters considered in this study, open to subjectivity. A project’s impact might be considered as the most obvious and relevant indicator of a finance mechanism’s utility. Chapter 6 however suggests that the impact of projects implemented during the 2008-2012 window remains, by and large, yet to be registered and the study revealed no systematic evidence for one mechanism or instrument being better than another in terms of impact, anticipated or actual. In the absence of means to define and measure effectiveness of finance mechanisms, the conclusions presented here draw on common subjective opinions among stakeholders about desirable features of financing mechanisms. However no assumptions are made about causal association between these features and the effectiveness of a mechanism or instrument.

The single most important conclusion to emerge in regard to financing instruments for a future STI cooperation roadmap is the widespread support and desire for co-ownership of bi-regional initiatives, mediated most particularly by co-financing arrangements and/or jointly-financed funding instruments. Not only is there widespread ambition on the part of African research community to see jointly funded bi-regional research, but owners of European instruments are increasingly anxious to see some level of financial commitment from African partners.

It is relevant to separate two closely linked strands to this conclusion. On the one hand is the aspect of co-financing arrangements and / or jointly owned instruments for serving the wider Africa-Europe STI cooperation relationship and fostering co-ownership of bi-regional initiatives. On the other hand is the more specific aspect of dedicated and co-funded instruments for the specific context of JAES STI cooperation. With regard to the latter, the ERAfrica project has particular political and operational significance as the only current example of multilateral Africa-Europe co-financing of mutually agreed STI topics. While ERAfrica has not been created as a specific JAES P8 instrument, and is not owned by JAES P8 governance structures, the close overlap of the MS actively supporting JAES P8 processes with those active in the ERAfrica funders’ pool assures alignment to P8 objectives.

As the sole example of its kind, the significance of ERAfrica places high expectations not only on the model but on the individual project. The ERAfrica model appears in principal flexible enough to be repeated with other MS architectures, and applied to other topics and purposes. A number of potential applications are suggested by the study’s findings. In particular the model might be applicable to other groupings of African and Europe MS for thematic or geographically focussed co-financing arrangements, for example around a sub-regional or REC agenda. The model might also be used to encourage an expansion of the currently limited range of EU-AU bilateral co-financing arrangements, or to encourage intermediate arrangements of small groups of AU and EU MS with common interests.

While ERAfrica represents a good-practice model for co- / joint-financing among EU and AU MS, co-financing between AU and EU instruments merits exploration. The emergence of the ARGP holds the promise of future joint and coordinated calls and other co-financing arrangements for the JAES STI cooperation agenda between regional African and European instruments. Even though ARGP is currently supported by EU instruments, consideration could be given to piloting co-financing arrangements such as joint or coordinated calls between Horizon 2020 or for example a future EDF ACP-EU S&T programme and the ARGP for the specific purpose of supporting a JAES STI cooperation agenda.

In the context of ARGP, an ambitious application of the ERAfrica model is already gaining currency. In the transition from an ARGP supported by EU funding to a fully African-funded programme, there is potential scope for the existing ERAfrica consortium, in a second phase, to mount a jointly financed call or to create a co-funded instrument in service of the ARGP.

For JAES to not only provide a framework for bi-regional STI cooperation around shared objectives and priorities but also to serve as a project implementing agency for collaborative initiatives it must either continue rely on existing national and regional instruments, encouraging regular dedicated support and greater alignment with JAES STI objectives, or create its own independent instruments which are ideally jointly-funded.


40

Without a clearly articulated agenda for STI collaboration in a new JAES architecture post-2013, conclusions about optimal, dedicated JAES STI financing instruments are premature. However, in view of the current P8 agenda and the breadth of vision among stakeholders, a suite of JAES financing instruments, or a single instrument with flexibility of purpose, would be called upon to meet the multiple interests of the cooperation agenda.

In the absence of dedicated and jointly-funded instruments, either for the wider cooperation relationship of the JAES P8 context, cooperation will continue to draw on a diversity of international, national, regional and private funding instruments as it does today. While few of these instruments deliberately align with and support the STI objectives of JAES, many do so indirectly through commonality of objectives. Much could and should be done by JAES STI governance structures in particular to raise greater awareness of JAES STI collaboration, its objectives, achievements and mutual benefits and in particular to encourage more direct support from existing funding instruments, and where possible to adapt schemes and programmes to the specific needs and priorities of the JAES context. For example, ACP-EU S&T calls, already closely aligned with JAES P8, could in future be more explicitly used in support of JAES STI cooperation.

The current distribution of funding instruments across the landscape however creates an asymmetry and so continued reliance on the existing suite of instrument tends to undermine co-ownership, central to the notion of an equitable bi-regional STI partnership. With joint funding a key political goal of the Africa-Europe STI partnership, all the financing arrangements illustrated in this section bar one suffer the same drawback of not being jointly owned, thereby perpetuating the existing asymmetry.

Conclusions about the effectiveness of a financial mechanism or instrument should take account of the capacity to facilitate objectives of the bi-regional STI partnership, such as those articulated by P8, and this should include policy level objectives such as fostering co-ownership. However, with few instruments being mobilised in support of specific P8 objectives, no systematic evidence emerges from this study, drawing on stakeholder views and KPI metrics, for the greater effectiveness of one financing mechanism or instrument over another in terms of its capacity to support bi-regional cooperation. In the absence of commonly agreed parameters to define the effectiveness of financing mechanisms in a collaborative context, notions of effectiveness draw almost exclusively on subjective stakeholder opinion.

With regard to the design or adaptation and suitability of new or existing instruments for bi-regional cooperation, stakeholder opinion as users of instruments is instructive and the list of comments in the preceding section merits attention. Many financing instruments demonstrate features that are appreciated by partnerships, that encourage better outcomes, and which could be emulated by dedicated JAES STI instruments or used for better adapting existing instruments to bi-regional cooperation particularly with regard to minimising asymmetries and maximising co-ownership. Some of the points are summarised below; many more appear in the box of stakeholder opinions in Annex 6:

Stakeholders want a greater diversity of funding instruments in the cooperation landscape, responding to a greater diversity of objectives and partnership needs, in particular there is strong appetite for greater ease in ‘mixing and matching’ by partnerships, in other words for partnerships to be able to more readily access and more readily combine grants from different instruments to match the complexities of the trend towards multi-disciplinary, cross cutting and multipurpose projects, notable to employ both capacity building and research cooperation instruments in synergy.

Broadly, instruments which foster engagement and dialogue between donor and implementing partnership are favoured by stakeholders and tend to create a more conducive environment for an initiative and positive attitude within a partnership. The use of project officers / contact points is valuable in that regard.

Instruments with restrictive conditions and cumbersome bureaucratic processes are widely disliked, and may disincentivise participation, as well as being less suitable for certain categories of partner, notably SMEs in Africa.

More innovative mechanisms are required for engaging a wider diversity of actors, notably the private sector, in delivering JAES STI objectives. Pooled challenge funds, pull mechanisms, concessional loans, equity and IP sharing are all options to be explored.

Much venture capital exists in the finance markets looking for responsible investment opportunities.


41

Conditional grant mechanism instruments that are free of contractual obligations and with non-restrictive conditions, where the grant may be delivered as a reward / prize for example, are well viewed by the private sector.

Broadly speaking, financial mechanisms either do not interfere with project implementation or make only a modest effort to encourage outputs, outcomes and impact.

European instruments supporting bi-regional cooperation should consider routes for more direct transfer of financial resources to partners in Africa to avoid financial dependence on the coordinating (often European) partner.

The short-term projectised approach adopted by most instruments is not appreciated by partnerships. There is very widespread desire for longer-term or more flexible approach to funding cycles, with attention to components for supporting effective partnerships themselves, to pre- and post- project funding phases, to follow-up and translational activities, as well as to grant durations that match project purposes / typologies.


42

6 Outputs and Impacts

STI cooperation between Africa and Europe and the associated specific collaborative initiatives reviewed for this study generate diverse outputs and impacts that vary depending on the typology of the initiatives or projects. For example, scientific research projects usually produce new knowledge or apply existing knowledge as well as test existing technologies, while capacity building projects develop skills and institutional capabilities. Innovation types of initiatives are usually associated with the introduction of new technologies and tend to open new job opportunities, and create SMEs and may contribute explicitly or directly to developmental goals such as the reduction of poverty. Networks tend to mobilize and promote the sharing existing capabilities—experts, institutions and related resources such as laboratories—in research, technology development and innovation. Some research initiatives focus on generating evidence for policy-making and some networks tend to aim at promoting policy dialogue and learning.

In addition, outputs and impacts of projects/initiatives are influenced by factors such as the nature of partnership, internal processes of project coordination and governance, and external factors, such as the political and socio-economic context. As stated earlier, certain projects/initiatives’ effectiveness is largely dependent on the political context and nature of existing policies of the country as well as on the capacities of institutions involved as partners in the project.

The scientific impact of STI cooperation can first be measured by the creation of new technologies, products or services. While we could only identify a rather small number of innovation collaborative projects, there is a wide range of projects further developing, applying and adapting existing technologies by paying particular attention to specific factors, such as local environmental conditions, limited resources or community acceptability. Some of these initiatives build upon and synthetize technological findings from previous STI projects which allows them to resort to a broad inventory of technologies and experiences. The FP6 project ROSA and its follow-up CLARA (FP7) can be mentioned here as examples among others

It is also important to note that impacts of research, capacity building and innovation projects are long-term in nature. In many cases their contributions to socio-economic development unfolds in several steps, with immediate direct but often very local improvements, and indirect ones that may become visible only years after research activities have ended.

Few collaborative projects examined by the study can be said to have led to job creation in African economies. The Innovation for Poverty Alleviation programme (Annex 9) arose in the framework of the South Africa-European Union Strategic Partnership and is an example of programme level cooperation however that is explicitly generating developmental impacts in terms of employment and SMEs creation. By August 2013 the programme had created 859 jobs and expects to have created 1200 jobs by end 2014. Although an impact assessment is yet to be conducted, according to some interviewees interventions of the programme are contributing to the reduction of poverty in some of South Africa’s provinces.

The EDCTP is an example of a collaborative initiative that is considered to have contributed directly to building of skills and institutional capacities for clinical research and trials in Africa. More than 400 African researchers and technicians have been trained through projects funded by this programme. In addition, institutional capacities of national regulatory agencies for processing applications for clinical trials have been enhanced in countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Botswana and Rwanda.

There are other many collaborative initiatives that have contributed to STI capacity building, particularly through training. Many projects include training activities targeted for leaders, scientists, scientific personal or PhD and MA students in African partner institutions. They include among others ALICT that provides a tailored course that builds the capacity of future African leaders to contribute effectively to the development of knowledge societies; EnerMENA that trains engineers and technicians in Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Technologies in the MENA region; and the African Virtual Campus, one of the Lighthouse projects implemented within JAES P8 in collaboration with UNESCO for the development of four e-learning centres in West Africa, in Senegal, Benin, Togo and Cote d’Ivoire that offer courses on the engineering production of online multimedia courses.

Collaborative initiatives that directly or explicitly aim at policy development or improving the quality of national STI policies are few. They include among others ASTII which, during 2008-2011, was instrumental in stimulating evidence-based national policy processes in countries such as Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and Senegal. In Kenya for example the initiative has led to the integration on STI considerations into national statistical and economic policy reports. Initiatives such as CAAST-Net have stimulated policy dialogues on a wide range of issues of common interest to both African and European partners. As stated earlier, the


43

Innovation for Poverty Alleviation Programme has fostered policy dialogues on the nature and effectiveness of technology policies for water, and on the promotion of access to ICT.

Many collaborative initiatives contribute to the building of social capital among African researchers and between African and European scientists and policy-makers. They include CAAST-Net that is credited for providing platforms for policy dialogues between AU and EU decision-makers and researchers. Many interviewees identified this initiative with enhancing social capital. Other collaborative initiatives such as ASTII, ERAfrica and BioFISA also contributed to the creation of social capital among scientists and policy-makers.

On the whole, analyzing the impact of STI cooperation between Africa and Europe over the period 2008–2012 in view of assessing effective financial mechanisms and cooperation models needs to take into account a number of considerations. (1) As outputs and impacts are mainly determined and defined by specific cooperation initiatives and their objectives, or even responding to requirements of financial mechanisms and instruments, a comparative approach and analysis may in most cases appear difficult. (2) Direct impacts of joint activities may differ for Africa and Europe, which requires considering different perspectives and points of view to assess a multi-lateral or bi-regional initiative’s effects and performance. (3) Impacts can be long term and only emerge and become measurable years after a project or initiative has formally ended.


44

7 Success criteria

The success of recent Africa-Europe STI collaborative initiatives is a loosely defined, diverse and subjective parameter, determined by interpretation of one or more of a range of factors which may or may not be related to one another and which may have different contributing weight. Furthermore, distinction can be drawn between factors which may appear to be causally linked to success, and those which appear to be desirable features and values of cooperation but which, in this study, have less tangible links to success.

Success is perhaps most commonly conceived of in terms of the impact of an initiative on the ultimate beneficiaries, yet as this study has understood, success can also be perceived in intermediate project phases as well as in the demonstration or testing of novel processes and policies. As the preceding chapter has indicated, the impact of projects implemented during the 2008-2012 window has, by and large, yet to be felt and hence the link between impact and success criteria for these projects is conjectural.

Establishing criteria for success is therefore problematic. The study has revealed no fixed set of factors which, if in place, would assure the success of an initiative. However, the following paragraphs collate the views of stakeholders and the assessment of initiatives to present a series of broad factors that appear to be either desirable features of collaboration, or factors which may have a causal link to success. Not all can be considered as necessary criteria or determinants of success.

Partnerships. Chapter 4 presented effective partnerships as a critically important element of successful collaboration and described a series of features of successful partnerships: equitability; effective governance, leadership, coordination & management; clear purpose, composition, roles and responsibilities of partners; and effective communication, information exchange and interpersonal relations. It’s evident from the data that success isn’t necessarily predicated on these partnership features, but their presence may contribute to greater likelihood of success. Effective partnership as important factor for success has been mentioned with reference to several projects, such as ZEI-WAI, BIOTA AFRICA or SASSCAl, among others.

Expectations: The extent to which initiatives’ goals, activities and expected outcomes are clearly defined, understood and agreed upon by all partners. There’s wide support for the notion that all parties or partners should be adequately involved in the inception and design of projects in order to build mutual agreement and understanding of goals, scope and outcomes. In cases where parties are brought to the collaboration after goals, scope and outcomes have already been defined, implementation tends to suffer and success is compromised. Where projects’ goals, activities and expected outcomes are unclear and not collectively agreed, success may likewise be compromised. A crucial element at that point is also a clear call text and precise requirements and instructions from the funding authority. Misunderstandings based either on different call interpretations among the partners or on divergent expectations between the consortium and the funding authority are likely to significantly undermine a project’s success.

Political support: High level political and executive support may in some circumstances be required or helpful to ensure the success of collaborative STI initiatives. An illustrative example is the Innovation for Poverty Alleviation Programme in South Africa. In this case high level political support has come from the country’s president, cabinet ministers, and from leaders of all the provinces in which activities are being implemented. The leadership has over the past years been actively engaged in mobilizing local communities and private companies to support programme implementation. The president was a key speaker at the programme’s workshop in Brussels in September 2012 and the ministers have been involved in launching various programme activities in the provinces. Contrarily, weak political support may present a challenge, such as in the case of BIOTA AFRICA.

Co-ownership: Initiatives in which all parties share ownership and bring their differentiated capacities to the implementation process tend to be viewed as more successful than those in which some parties experience alienation from an initiative or in which certain parties dominate in implementation and governance. Among the initiatives mentioned by some interviewees in this study to demonstrate good practice with regard to partners’ sense of collective ownership and engagement in governance are CAAST-Net, and the Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development (PAEPARD) coordinated by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). These two initiatives have decentralized governance mechanisms, including decision-making processes.

Policy environment: The overall national policy environment and national commitment to STI may influence the success of collaborative STI initiatives. African countries that have good STI policies and related institutional leadership tend to champion and drive collaborative initiatives. One initiative that best illustrates


45

this is ASTII. According to interviewees and a review of the evaluation report of ASTII, the relative success of the initiative is in no small measure accounted for by the active engagement of countries such as Kenya, South Africa, Malawi, Ghana and Nigeria and also due to the active participation of their focal points and permanent secretaries in the governance of ASTII. Some of these countries, particularly South Africa and Kenya, were able to mobilize their own resources to support others and worked with Sweden to ensure the success of phase 1 of ASTII.

Formal agreements: Associated to the preceding factor on policy environment is the role of formal instruments of collaboration e.g. Memoranda of Understanding, and bilateral STI agreements which may be helpful for or even a determinant of the success of collaborative STI initiatives. Though evidence is still scant it suggests that the existence of formal bilateral STI cooperation agreements between South Africa and the EU, and between South Africa and individual EU MS has been a conducive factor for the country’s active engagement with several European partners on a wide range of joint STI activities and initiatives. South Africa has invoked some of these formal agreements to leverage collaborative initiatives such as the Innovation for Poverty Alleviation Programme and BIOFISA. South Africa invoked its bilateral STI cooperation agreement with Finland in order to secure funding for BIOFISA, a multi-country collaboration initiative involving many SADC countries and may be viewed as a case of good practice in the use of a formal bilateral cooperation agreement to stimulate a broader multi-country STI collaboration. Formal agreements are not guarantees of success however: the WAMI (Spanish Development Agency, Annex 9) project had full MoU signed by the two W. African Institutions involved yet the project failed to achieve its objectives.

Diversity: Institutional diversity appears to be a factor influencing the success of collaborative STI initiatives. Initiatives that are successful, particularly in generating outcomes, are often those that involve multiple diverse institutions including academia, private sector, policy agencies, local communities and science councils. This institutional diversity is important as it is the source of differentiated multi-disciplinary capacities that are required to implement many of the collaborative projects or initiatives. It is key that complementarity is acknowledged and reflected in the distribution of roles and responsibilities in order to make the best use and most effective combination of skills and competences. The success of the South African Innovation for Poverty Alleviation programme is in part due to the engagement of a diverse range of institutions and good coordination from the DST. The relative success of NEPAD’s ASTII is also due to the involvement of a diverse range of institutions including universities, UNESCO, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and national bureaus of statistics as well as ministries of science and technology. In a similar way, some of the interviewed coordinators relate their project’s success at least partly to the good collaboration and exchange between partners with different backgrounds, combining a variety of complementary expertise and experience. The EU FP7 project ROSA, for instance, brought together African municipalities and universities who had never worked together before to jointly implement sanitation solutions. The success of the ACP non-food oils project (ACP-EU S&T programme) is, according to the coordinator, due at least in part to the appropriate and diverse composition of the consortium, designed to meet the multiple objectives of the project.

Continuity: The study and stakeholders suggest a tendency for new and / or successful initiatives to be built on previous collaborative success or existing networks, notably allowing the consolidation and application of lessons learned. Examples of such initiatives, even within the study’s inventory are many, including for example ROSA (FP6) and its follow-up project CLARA (FP7) and an ARGP project under negotiation at the time of interview, AFRINT 1, AFRINT 2 and now AFRINT 3 (Swedish SIDA and others), LABLITE and DART (DFID), ZEI-WAI and its inception phase (BMBF); The UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease (British Academy) and follow-on projects by members of the partnership; ALICT 1 and ALICT 2 (Finnish government), EDCTP 1 and EDCTP 2 (EU FP); EnerMENA and its follow up (German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs), DEVCOCAST and the FP7 AGRICAB project; and CAPAQUA II (Austrian Development Agency/ Austrian Development Cooperation) and previous ADC projects. While the evidence base from this study is not conclusive, the suggestion of a causal association merits more systematic investigation over a longer period. Should the link be demonstrated more rigorously, programme owners may wish to consider greater investment in proven, experienced partnerships.

http://www.devcocast.eu/


46

8 Gaps, barriers and challenges

The study sought to identify systemic gaps, barriers and challenges in bi-regional Africa-Europe STI cooperation which might point to actions needed for enhancing the overall value of the cooperation landscape. As with the chapter on success criteria, this chapter draws on stakeholder opinion (see Annex 8) and an overview of the cooperation landscape permitted by an earlier phase of the study. Many perceived gaps and barriers are conceptually the converse of success criteria. While the study’s primary interest is in cross-cutting and horizontal issues, stakeholders were also keen to point to thematic areas which, in their views, merit the attention of bi-regional cooperation.

8.1 Gaps

Cooperation retains a focus on key development themes of agriculture and food security, health (with emphasis on neglected and infectious diseases), water and energy and ICT. More recently climate change and environmental management (emphasis on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use) have become priority areas in the cooperation. While these remain priority thematic and sectoral areas for the cooperation, interviewees noted that social sciences and humanities, including cross-cutting social issues receive inadequate attention. While the EU is increasingly putting emphasis on the need to promote multi-disciplinary research and integration or mainstreaming of social issues pertaining to gender and youth in its programmes, more needs to be done to ensure collaborative initiatives focus on the social aspects of STI. Gender and youth considerations need to be better mainstreamed in the design and implementation of collaborative STI initiatives. New instruments such as the African Research Grants Programme are starting to take into account gender considerations and some interviewees indicated that several ARGP projects will explicitly support young African researchers.

Similarly, STI policy analysis receives limited attention, yet for many African countries the formulation and implementation of STI policies are critical priorities. The few collaborative initiatives focusing on STI policy analysis and capacity building include ASTII funded by Sweden and the Southern Africa Innovation Support Programme (SAIS) supported by Finland.

Other than these thematic topics, stakeholders proposed additional priorities for enriching bi-regional cooperation: horizon scanning and foresight exercise; alignment to the post 2015 agenda; alignment of STI cooperation and HE policies; interactions between African and EU innovation systems;

8.2 Barriers and challenges

In addition to these gaps, there are a number of barriers to effective STI cooperation between Africa and Europe. There is a widely held view among study interviewees that one of the primary constraints to richer cooperation remains the broad set of human, institutional and infrastructural capacity limitations on the part of African partners. This set of capacity limitations has many dimensions (see Annex 8): among those cited are for example the limited access to information and knowledge of EU STI funding opportunities and procedures among African scientists / researchers; limited awareness of alternative instruments such as Sector Budget Support (SBS) and the AfDB as potential sources of funding for STI; weak research capacity; a weak regulatory environment exemplified for instance by the absence of a patent regime; and a lack of research infrastructure.

Another capacity limitation cited is the fragmentation of African research networks and initiatives. There are many scientific research and technology development networks covering a wide range of fields. However, most of these do not have a critical mass of expertise, tending to be small and reliant upon a few individuals. Many networks have been established in anticipation of external donor funding, are mainly focused on short-term projects and tend to have a short life span. Several examples illustrate this point: in the domain of biosciences there are more than ten networks focusing on various aspects of agricultural research and innovation. These include among others Biosciences for Eastern and Central Africa (BECA), BIOFISA, West African Biosciences Network (WAB-Net), North African Biosciences Network (NAB-Net), Southern African Network for Biosciences (SANBio), and the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF). All of them are dependent on external donor funding and some are in dormancy because short-term projects ended. NAB-Net, WAB-Net and SANBio that were initiated with funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) are inactive after the expiry of the grant.

As chapter 7 suggests, the success of Africa-Europe STI cooperation and the effectiveness of related collaborative initiatives may be linked to national policy environments in Africa and prevailing EU policies in


47

various fields such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and ICT. At the moment cooperation is constrained by the absence of explicit national STI policies in most African countries. Countries (such as Egypt, Tunisia, Senegal, Ghana, Kenya and South Africa) with national STI policies and institutions tend to engage in and sometimes provide leadership for collaborative initiatives with Europe. Those without national STI policies and priorities as well as related institutions are often inactive in the cooperation in general and collaborative initiatives.

EU’s policies on various aspects of STI may also constrain the cooperation with Africa. According to a number of scientists/researchers interviewed for this study, EU policies on biotechnology in general and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in particular influence Africa-Europe cooperation in fields of biosciences. Some of the interviews in Kenya and South Africa noted that the EU’s anti-GMO policies are responsible for discontinuity of collaborative initiatives in the field of biotechnology since the mid-2000s. One example of programme discontinuity is the Biotechnology in Eastern Africa (BIOEARN) that was funded by Sweden until around 2005 when research priorities had to change because of the broad EU policies on biotechnology. EU policies on GMO may also have restrained collaborative initiatives such as BIOFISA from focusing on African biotechnology priorities.

A key challenge to Africa-Europe STI cooperation, raised in earlier chapters, is the paucity of African funding or financial mechanisms at continental, regional and national levels that could be employed to support activities of STI cooperation. At the continental level, the AU and AUC have neither their own nor domestic resources to invest in the implementation of the CPA or to contribute to collaborative initiatives including such strategic ones as the AU Research Grants. Efforts by the AUC, NEPAD and AMCOST to establish a continental fund—the proposed African Science and Innovation Fund (ASIF)—have not realized any tangible results to-date. On the whole, most of the budget of AUC’s programme of work on STI is funded or covered by non-African external resources.

At the regional level, Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have designed STI frameworks and most are engaged in collaborative initiatives with Europe. However, few have adequate funding and are not investing their own resources in the implementation of collaborative initiatives. Regional collaborative initiatives such as BIOFISA have been dependent on European funds. Their sustainability is questionable. For example, there is uncertainty about the continuation of BIOFISA after the expiry of most activities in 2012.

The engagement of individual African countries and national institutions in Africa-Europe STI cooperation in general and their participation in bilateral and multilateral STI collaborative initiatives are also largely dependent on European funding. Few African countries have adequate resources to fund domestic, national research programmes let alone collaborative STI initiatives. South Africa is a notable exception and countries such as Kenya and Nigeria are working on the modalities of establish national mechanisms for financing international STI cooperation.

The relative weakness of continental, regional and national funding for intra-African and international STI cooperation undermines Africa’s prospects of engaging equitably with Europe and other continents to secure public goods through STI, eroding the potential to demonstrate co-ownership of collaborative initiatives and to influence priority setting in STI cooperation. It is evident however from rich landscape of on-going cooperation that the paucity of funding in Africa does not present a total barrier.

Other challenges to effective Africa-Europe STI cooperation include:

Limited institutional capacities of AUC and RECs to engage with the EU and EU member states in the design and execution of collaborative initiatives;

Political instability in some countries (for example Egypt and Libya) leading to discontinuity of collaborative initiatives;

Weak political leadership for continental plans such as the CPA and weak coordination capacities making it difficult to ensure that P8 explicitly focuses on CPA implementation; and

Ambiguous regulatory and policy regimes for intellectual property protection, and the absence of explicit fiscal and economic incentives in many countries that constrain private sector participation in Africa-Europe STI cooperation.


48

Addressing the gaps and barriers

A number of suggestions related to addressing the gaps and barriers were offered by the experts during interviews and in questionnaire responses. These merit inclusion and are paraphrased below:

Jointly funded and/or common financing instruments to address existing gaps, especially with a view to assuring smooth functioning of the partnership and giving more attention to scientific topics that currently receive inadequate attention.

Awareness raising for the partnership to leverage external funding.

Adequate programmes and instruments for targeted capacity building.

More complementary financing instruments, whether jointly funded or not, to support both early project phases (such as inception and pilot studies) and the uptake of project results and translational activities.

A permanent independent secretariat (for STI) at the JAES level to avoid dependence on good will of interested parties or some member states.

A focus set more on ensuring conditions that allow Africa-EU STI cooperation to thrive, and not only on how to align it with JAES.


49

9 Conclusions

This study vividly shows that STI cooperation between Africa and Europe continues to evolve. In spite of many challenges, the cooperation landscape is rich, characterized by a wide range of productive collaborative initiatives covering diverse fields of development, scientific research, technology development and application, technological innovation, policy dialogue, training and capacity building.

The study has shown the absolute centrality of partnerships as the vehicle for our collaboration. Of the many determinants of success, perhaps the most significant is a strong partnership, characterised by effective leadership with visionary champions, strong interpersonal relationships, and equitability around governance, communication and resource and benefits sharing.

Co-ownership is a fundamental value for bi-regional collaboration and there is strong belief in a causal association between co-ownership and the success of collaborative initiatives. Democratic and equitable Africa-EU partnerships, with transparency and common values, shared knowledge, resources and benefit, and mutual trust foster co-ownership.

Asymmetry in partnerships, deriving from lack of equity and the absence of the core values undermines co-ownership, eroding the prospects of initiatives generating desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts.

Joint financing is widely seen as the core determinant of co-ownership. The effectiveness of the Africa-Europe STI cooperation is dependent in no small measure on the nature of financial instruments that are deployed to resource collaborative initiatives. This study shows that there is a wide range of financial instruments available for supporting cooperation in general and collaborative STI initiatives in particular, but it also confirms the skewed nature of the funding landscape. The main instruments are of European and international origin, notably the EU’s FP, EDF and DCI, plus a range of EU member states’ instruments. On the whole, the STI cooperation between Africa and Europe is largely dependent on European resources. This challenges co-ownership and equity in the partnership as well as the sustainability of some of the high level initiatives such as the ARGP.

The absence of a permanently established, wholly self-funded pan-African financial instrument for supporting continental research weakens the prospects of jointly financed and therefore co-owned bi-regional STI cooperation between Africa Europe. The AfDB is a potential source of a range of funding instruments and resources but is not adequately involved or engaged by the AU to support collaborative initiatives with Europe. While rich and productive cooperation is evidently being pursued, the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of equitable STI cooperation between Africa and Europe is thus dependent on the creation or establishment of resourced African financial mechanisms.

The study reveals that effective collaborative initiatives are those that are configured to involve trans-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary teams and a diversity of institutions with differentiated capacities. Involving stakeholders with different backgrounds during the entire project life-time or at relevant stages allows integration of complementary experiences, skills and capacities, and helps to promote the societal relevance of STI activities, the economic exploitability of results and the sustainable impact on socio-economic development.

The private sector is increasingly participating in the Africa-Europe STI cooperation through a range of initiatives. Whereas large (European or international) companies can be and partly are already a source of financial and technical resources in many collaborative initiatives, SMEs in Africa could make substantial contributions by being closer to potential end-users, aware of needs, capacities and requirements on the ground, and familiar with the local market and economic situation. The participation of the sector in general and companies in particular is however still challenged by a number of factors, ranging from the nature of financial instruments and mechanisms to the absence of clear incentives and a conducive environment. It could be enhanced or increased by improving regulatory and policy measures such as those pertaining to the protection of intellectual property, as well as by creating other incentives, for instance in form of adapted financial instruments.

Lastly, this study has also shown that STI cooperation between Africa and Europe is generating tangible outputs although most impact can only be assessed in the long term, typically after a project has ended. Few recent collaborative initiatives are creating jobs and enterprises in a direct or sustainable way, beyond the project duration and thus contributing directly to the reduction of poverty in some African countries. A much larger number of initiatives are contributing to the development of skills and building of institutional capacities and thus are opening up new job opportunities or facilitating job promotions. Finally,


50

some other initiatives are contributing to the development of and/or improving of policies in Africa. On the whole, the cooperation is dynamic and effective. It can be strengthened and enriched by enlarging co-ownership of investments in collaborative initiatives and securing high level political leadership from the African side.


51

10 Sustainability of the Study

Establishing and maintaining a visionary roadmap of priority topics and actions would be a valuable core component of the formalised framework for bi-regional STI cooperation to assure maximum relevance and optimal use of available resources. A study such as this, sustained and repeated at regular intervals, provides useful input to the process and this first iteration points to some lessons that could be taken on board for the future.

Terms of reference for such a study will require regular review and revision in order to remain relevant and to respond to the evolving needs and priorities of cooperation. It might for instance be helpful to assure there is clarity with regard to focus by such a study on either the broader cooperation relationship across the entire landscape, or on the more specific relationship around STI cooperation within the JAES and its future revision. This specific example is of particular relevance as it impinges on the anticipated role and relationship of formal, structured STI cooperation under JAES to the wider informal less unstructured cooperation relationship.

Studies such as this rely on robust methodologies to generate reliable evidence on which to develop cooperation policies. In the current study, more robust and reliable assessment of collaborative models and effective finance mechanisms could, for example have been assured through greater use of empirical data, backed up by subjective qualitative opinion, rather than the opposite. What this example points to is the need for the methodological approach in a study of this magnitude and significant to be subject to thorough peer review ahead of implementation, and it would be a recommendation for future studies that such a step be included. Implicit in a rigorous review of methodology is the objective selection of an adequate data sample for reliable conclusions, in this case the inventory of bi-regional initiatives.

The scope of any future such studies merits consideration. The current study focuses on multilateral STI cooperation. It became evident during the study that the bilateral STI cooperation environment offers many examples of good practice in collaborative arrangements and financial mechanisms that could be adopted in a multilateral context for reinforcing bi-regional Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

Assuring the domestication by AU and EU partners of such a study should be considered. It is for instance crucial that the study be put in the public domain as a contribution to on-going formal and informal policy dialogue on STI cooperation between Africa and the EU. Study reports should be made available to ministerial councils such as AMCOST and other high-level policy bodies in Africa and Europe for enriching and informing the policy and decision making processes around bi-regional cooperation.

Institutionalising the study is important but impartiality and distance from MS agendas is critical. In the medium to long term, the study could be fully incorporated into the JAES STI cooperation priority agenda, under the governance of an STI secretariat, included for example within a socio-economic research chapter and resourced alongside other initiatives for a public sector joint research strategy. In the absence of a common funding instrument for JAES STI actions, future iterations could for example be financed through joint calls between H2020 and future phases of the ARGP (irrespective of the course of funds for the latter), or consideration could be given to proposing such a study for example within future calls of an ERAfrica-style instrument supported by a broad pool of EU and AU MS instruments.

In the short term, and as a purely transitional arrangement, existing bi-regional policy support platforms such as CAAST-Net Plus, which exist to serve the bi-regional partnership, although supported by EU funds, could be tasked with developing and repeating the study, developing / reformulating the TOR and working in direct collaboration with the HLPD Bureau for example and engaging with the AMCOST resources working groups. CN+ objectives already embrace the notion of monitoring bi-regional cooperation and this study therefore aligns well with its objectives. Moreover, as resources are already available, there would be less short-term pressure to identify additional budgets.


52

11 Annexes

11.1 Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Specific Terms of Reference

Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe

Identification of effective financial mechanism(s) 2008-2012

FWC COM 2011 - Lot 1: Studies and Technical assistance in all sectors

FWC COM 2011 2012/314-538

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. BACKGROUND

In 2007 the Heads of States of the member states of the European Union and African Union decided to join their forces and set up the Joint EU-Africa Strategy, which developed in a partnership approach a long term vision on how to ensure peace and security and leverage faster socio-economic growth and sustainable development. Eight thematic partnerships were set up outlining this shared long term vision, dealing with peace and security, governance, trade, energy, migration, climate change and, within the 8

th Partnership

(P8), science, information society and space. In 2010 these 8 partnerships were reconfirmed by the third African EU Summit.

The first Action Plan (2008 – 2010), set up for the implementation of Partnership 8, supported research, science and technology capacity building for the implementation of Africa's science and technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA). The CPA articulates Africa’s common objectives and commitments to collective actions to develop and use science and technology for enhancing the socio-economic transformation of the continent and its integration into the world economy. These objectives are: (a) research capacity building (b) knowledge production, and (c) technological innovation. Research capacity building in this context refers to the creation, improvement and mobilization of human skills, physical infrastructures, financial resources and the necessary policies for science and technology to be produced and used to enhance the socioeconomic development of Africa. Knowledge production is about the conduct of science – the generation of scientific and technical knowledge about Africa's problems and identification of specific ways to solve the problems. Technological innovation entails the generation of specific products, processes and services.

The implementation of the first Action Plan of the 8th Partnership showed significant advances in the Africa-

EU-cooperation. It had a pioneering character as it had to pave the ground for this new sort of cooperation. In terms of fund raising Partnership 8 was the second most successful of all Partnerships, supporting projects like the African Union Research Grants, the Scientific Awards, the African Union STI Observatory and the Africa Call under the Seventh Research Framework Programme of the European Commission (FP7). These funds were predominantly provided by the European Commission.

In 2010 the Joint Africa-EU Summit agreed on a Second Action Plan (2011 – 2013), building on the progress which had been achieved and introducing innovation. The implementation of the Second Action Plan is now on the way, while the projects from the first action plan are still on-going.

This Second Action Plan reaffirmed the role of science, technology and innovation (STI) as key motors of social economic growth and sustainable development and stipulated again the character of STI as cross-cutting in nature, contributing to the attainment of all other development objectives, notably the MDG's. Again, research, innovation and capacity building in support of the implementation of Africa's CPA is the main goal for the science part of Partnership 8.

However, while in the implementation of the First Action Plan cooperation between the two Commissions was in the foreground, in this second phase of EU-African cooperation on STI, more emphasis is put on the involvement of member states of the EU and AU. An Africa-EU STI policy dialogue has started in which member states officials of both sides and the Commissions meet to ensure a coherent approach in the implementation of STI actions by both the member states and the Commissions and to strengthen the overall cooperation framework and to define common priorities for future research, development and innovation collaborative activities.


53

A first High Level Policy Dialogue on S&T with the participation of senior officials (SOM) of the EU- and AU member states and of both Commissions took place on 10-11 Oct 2011 in Addis Ababa.

The senior officials acknowledged the on-going projects and the main achievements of the activities for the implementation of the First Action Plan and confirmed the main objectives of the Second Action Plan. Beyond these specific efforts, they stipulated the importance of establishing a clear vision of the future African-EU cooperation in STI after 2013 and stated the need for a road map to this end.

In this perspective the SOM requested the newly established Bureau of the High Level Policy Dialogue:

• To map existing cooperative Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) initiatives with the view to

reinforcing successful models and identifying potential gaps.

• To identify effective financial mechanism(s) based on equal partnership that would deliver

significant impact taking into account experience gained with other initiatives/instruments.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Global objective

To identify successful models of regional and multi-country cooperative science, technology and innovation (STI) initiatives between Africa and Europe, as well as to identify gaps and effective financial mechanisms that have a positive impact. This is to ensure evidence-based policy choices and financing decisions for future cooperation and be at the basis of a new roadmap or action plan of Africa-Europe cooperation on STI. This roadmap or action plan will be endorsed at the next Senior Official Meeting of the Africa-EU High Policy Dialogue on STI that is likely to take place in the second semester of 2013 and at the next Africa-EU Ministerial on STI. The results of the study could as such also feed into future work programmes of the Pan-African Programme of the European Commission, the European Union Research and Innovation Framework Programme Horizon 2020, the implementation of the African Consolidated Plan of Action, a future African Research Fund of the African Union as well as into work programmes and financing mechanisms of other actors. Therefore, the study should map, analyse and assess qualitatively and quantitatively the different STI initiatives and financial mechanisms of regional and multi-country cooperation between Africa and the EU, prioritised over the period 2008-2012. It will identify results and impact as well as problems and difficulties, which may have hindered the implementation and have limited the impact. Specific attention should be given to activities which involve the private sector and to financial mechanisms based on a partnership approach (e.g. co-financing by African and European partners).

2.2 Specific objectives

- Based on the objectives of the Partnership 8 of the JAES and its Actions Plans, to identify successful models of and identify potential gaps in existing cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives, the study shall present:

- an overview of regional and multi-country cooperative research and innovation projects as well as projects aiming at capacity building (human capital development, physical research infrastructures, policy development, institutional development) and technology transfer, implemented over the period 2008-2012 and financed by African and European public and private stakeholders including the European Commission (financing instruments of different DGs), the African Union Commission, African Regional Economic Communities (RECs), NEPAD and other financing bodies such as national governments, national research organisations, non-governmental organisations, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Investment Bank and the private sector. This overview should also include a list of existing activities to promote awareness and networking between organisations, institutions or scientists on both sides and between the two continents. The overview should build on existing mapping exercises (CAAST-Net, MIRA, ERAfrica, IST Africa).

Activities of non-European and non-African institutions and stakeholders like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) or the World Bank should be considered if there is a specific overlap or synergy with EU-Africa STI cooperation initiatives and financial mechanisms or if it is an example of good practice.

- a quantitative assessment of a representative selection of the above activities, establishing their results and impact using key performance indicators (e.g. creation of x number of jobs, development of policy initiatives, training x number of people).

- a qualitative analysis of the same representative selection of the above activities, including the promotion of awareness and networking. The qualitative analysis should identify the criteria of success (criteria that allowed for the achievement of the objectives set and the expected impact). The analysis should also


54

cover difficulties and problems related to the implementation of the activities including how they have been addressed or why they could not be addressed.

- In the qualitative and the quantitative assessments it will be important to consider both, the EU-perspective as well as the perspective of the African partners in order to identify the mutual benefit of the co-operation.

- To identify effective financial mechanism(s) the study should:

- Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives, identify the best-practice financial mechanisms supporting these initiatives that are based on equal partnerships (e.g. co-financing by African and European partners). This identification must include the financial instruments, the delivery modalities and the implementing partners. Specific consideration should be given to models with public-private partnerships and the participation of the private sector ensuring the sustainability of STI activities once public funding is phasing out. Experience gained with European initiatives such as the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) and ERA-Net Africa and relevant non-European initiatives should be taken on board.

- The identification of effective financial mechanisms should provide a basis for the development of innovative financial instruments, which will allow for an enhanced sustainability of current cooperative initiatives, e.g. financing mechanisms by public-private partnerships, EU- and AU member states, the African Regional Economic Communities.

- To ensure the sustainability of the study, it should provide concrete basic ideas on how to systemise the mapping of STI cooperation including its financial mechanisms between the African Union and the European Union, as requested by the Joint Expert Group (JEG) 8 in its meeting in Dar-Es-Salaam in 8-11 May 2012. This should include a catalogue of criteria of success for Africa-EU cooperation activities in STI and their effective financial mechanisms.

- Based on the above analysis and assessment, a validation workshop will be organised by the consortium during which the results will be presented and discussed with African and European experts. The results of the workshop will feed into the final report.

- The consortium will prepare a final report in which it will present analysis, main findings and conclusions. The report will be presented to and endorsed by the next Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High Level Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation that is likely to take place in the second half of 2013. The final report will be the basis of a roadmap or action plan of Africa-EU cooperation on science, technology and innovation.

Geographical scope of the study:

The study targets cooperation on a regional and multi-country level, financed by the public and private bodies as described in point 2.2, including cooperation between: - the European Union and the African Union - the European Union or a group of EU member states and the African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) or groups of countries in Africa - the African Union, the REC(s) or group(s) of countries in Africa and regions in Europe or a group of EU member states - Between one single country from the EU or AU and a group of countries from the other union, a region from the other union or the other union as such This means that the study excludes any type of bilateral cooperation between individual member states. Other existing information to be taken into account:

The study will take into account objectives of Africa's Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA), the first and second Action Plans of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) Partnership 8, the Book of Lighthouse projects, the work of the African financing working group on the establishment of an African Research Fund, the recommendations of the CAAST-Net workshop on "Good practice for EU-Africa STI cooperation: lesson learnt about international cooperation from regional cooperation activities" (Marseille July 2010), the Mombasa Conference on "Africa-Europe S&T Cooperation: status and ways forward (July 2009), the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) and relevant other initiatives.

2.3 Requested services, including suggested methodology

In its offer, the consortium will propose a succinct methodology for carrying out the assignment and to demonstrate adequate understanding of the present Terms of References.

The assignment will comprise the following phases:


55

Phase 1: Inception phase The aim of this phase will be to: - Further elaborate the focus of the study and a more detailed plan of activities - Present the inception report Phase 2: Structuring phase The aim of this phase will be to: - Conduct a literature review and desktop research to:

- compile an overview of regional and multi-country cooperative research and innovation projects as well as projects aiming at capacity building and technology transfer, implemented over the period 2008-2012 as described in point 2.2. For each project the outline should include the title of the project, a short description of the project, the geographical scope, the financing period, the financing- and implementing partner(s), the delivery modality and the financing instrument. The overview should cover at least 1 type of project (e.g. research and innovation cooperation, capacity building, technology transfer) for each financing partner and a maximum of 10 projects per financing partner unless there is clear added-value in covering additional projects. - compile an overview of existing activities to promote awareness and networking between organisations, institutions or scientists on both sides and between the two continents. For each activity, the outline should include a short description of the activity, the geographical scope, the financing period, the financing- and implementing partner(s), the delivery modality and the financing instruments. The overview should contain a minimum of 10 activities.

- Propose a representative selection of activities from the above overview, with the aim of finding successful models and identifying potential gaps, to assess and analyse and outline the selection criteria used, for approval by contracting authority - Compile a questionnaire for the interviews and to be send out to stakeholders foreseen in phase 3 as well as a list of people to be contacted for an interview or for participation in the questionnaire and a choice of destinations for the mission in Africa and EU member states, for approval by contracting authority. Phase 3: Field research phase The aims of this phase will be to: - Send out the questionnaire and organise and conduct interviews with key stakeholders in Africa and in Europe. The list of stakeholders will be determined during phase 2. Questionnaires shall be send preferably remotely (phone or internet, and questionnaires submitted electronically) or, alternatively, intuitu personae through field missions and the interviews shall be organised The interviews/questionnaires should cover on the African side: the African Union Commission, the RECs headquarters, the NEPAD agency, the African Bank for Development, UNESCO regional office in Dakar and a selection of national governments, research organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector and on the European side: the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and a selection of national governments, research organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector. - Field missions will take place as follows: maximum 4 field missions to a diverse selection of African countries and a maximum of 2 field missions to a representative selection of European countries. - Analyse the results of the field research, (remote) interviews and questionnaires. - Conduct a quantitative assessment of a representative selection of activities as proposed in phase 2. The impact and the results should be assessed using key performance indicators (KPI):

- Propose a set of key performance indicators, for approval by contracting authority, based on existing material/criteria such as those presented in the revised version of Africa's Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA).

- The qualitative analysis of the same representative selection proposed in phase 2 should identify the criteria of success (criteria that allowed for the achievement of the objectives set and the expected impact). The analysis should also cover difficulties and problems related to the implementation of the activities including how they have been addressed or why they could not be addressed. - Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives identify the best-practice financial mechanisms. This identification must include the financial instruments, the delivery modalities and the implementing partners. Specific consideration should be given to models with public-private partnerships and the participation of the private sector ensuring the sustainability of STI activities once public funding is phasing out. Experience gained with European initiatives such as the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) and ERA-Net Africa and relevant non-European initiatives should be taken on board. - Compile draft study report indicating successful models and gaps in existing initiatives and effective financial mechanisms - Submit and discuss draft study report with contracting authority


56

Phase 4: Communication and dissemination of results The aim of this phase will be to organise and participate in a validation workshop of one day with European and African experts, to be organised in Brussels back-to-back with a meeting of the extended bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI in June (tbc) or with a project event. - The workshop should be organised with a maximum participation of 30 selected experts from the EC, AUC, RECs, EU and AU member states, private sector, NGOs, other international financing bodies. - The names of experts to be invited as well as the agenda of the workshop will be proposed by the Consortium to the bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI, who will make the final decision. - The invitations will be drafted and sent out by the Consortium. - The consortium will be responsible to cover the perdiems and travel costs of at least 8 participants. - The logistical arrangements relating to the renting of the meeting room, supporting material and catering will be done by the European Commission. - The consortium should make a report on the results of the workshop. - The consortium will be also responsible to compile a final report including ideas on how to systemise mapping in the future and to present the final study report at the next Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI (second semester 2013). The dissemination of results to relevant stakeholders in Africa and European Commission after the SOM meeting (EC and AUC websites, other relevant websites, distribution by email) will be taken care of by the consortium. 2.4 Required deliverables/outputs 1. An inception report providing a detailed planning of the assignment with identification of main issues and foreseen methodology as well as a detailed indicative timeline will be submitted within one week of the start of the contract. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI will provide comments within two weeks.

2. A desktop/literature report as described in point 2.3 with a selective overview of cooperation activities, a proposal of a representative selection of cooperation activities to be assessed, an outline of the selection criteria that led to this proposal, a draft questionnaire and list of stakeholders in Africa and Europe to reply to questionnaire and/or to be interviewed and a list of chosen destinations for the missions to Africa and EU member states will be submitted within 30 days after the start of the contract. Comments will be provided within 10 working days.

3. A draft study report shall be submitted at the end of field research phase 3. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI must approve the report before the Consortium can start phase 4. Proposal of key performance indicators to be submitted in week 9. Comments will be given in week 10. Draft report to be submitted within 3 months of the starting date. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI will provide comments within 2 weeks, whereupon the Consortium must adapt the report within 1 week. The draft shall include the quantitative (based on a key performance indicators to be used) and qualitative assessment of a selection of cooperation activities as described in point 2.3, it should identify criteria of success and potential gaps. The analysis should also cover difficulties and problems related to the implementation of the activities including how they have been addressed or why they could not be addressed. The study should identify the effective financial mechanisms.

4. The organisation of and participation in a workshop with relevant experts as described in point 2.3, with a view to presenting, discussing and validating the results of the study. The Consortium will take care of logistical aspects of the organisation of the workshop, provision of supporting documents, communication and invitation of experts, as well as travel and stay arrangements for 5 sponsored participants. This will NOT include the catering and the booking of a meeting room. The names of stakeholders to be invited (around 30) as well as the agenda of the workshop will be proposed by the Consortium to the Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI 30 days after the start of the contract. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI will provide comments and make a decision within 10 working days. The consortium should make a report on the results of the workshop within 1 week after the workshop.

5. A revised study report taking into account the outcome of the validation workshop, to be submitted not later than two weeks after the end of the workshop. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI shall provide comments within 2 weeks whereupon the Consortium has 1 week to adapt and present the final study report. The main section of the report should be prefaced by a summary not exceeding two pages.

5. Presentation of the final report at the Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI in Brussels (second semester 2013).


57

3.EXPERTS PROFILE OR EXPERTISE

3.1 Number of requested experts per category and number of man-days per expert 4 experts: - 1 Senior expert team leader (55 man days). - 1 senior thematic expert (29 man days). - 1 Junior expert (22 man days). - 1 Junior expert (20 man days).

3.2 Profile or expertise required (education, experience, references and category as appropriate).

The Consortium shall appoint a team including one Senior Expert, who will act as team leader and main contact person for the liaison with the Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI, another Senior Expert and two Junior Experts.

The Team Leader, senior expert 55 man days 1 shall have:

Qualification and education:

At least a Masters Degree in Sciences & Technology, International cooperation or related field;

Or, in its absence 15 years of equivalent professional experience.

General professional experience:

General professional experience of at least 10 years (in case of Master degree).

Specific professional experience:

The Team leader shall have a sound and proven experience in Africa-EU science, technology and

innovation projects shall know the European and African science landscape including their

respective institutions and policies and shall know the relevant international organisations.

Experience of animation and facilitation methods and team leadership.

Experience and a proven track record in delivering services including administrative and logistic

issues

Excellent report writing and communication skills.

Language skills:

Professional knowledge of English and French

Senior thematic expert 2 - -29 working days shall have: Qualification and skills:

At least a Master's Degree in Sciences & Technology, International cooperation or related field;

Or in its absence 15 years of equivalent professional experience.

General professional experience:

Proven experience of at least 10 years (in case of Master degree) related to financing projects in

developing countries, especially Africa, possibly in a partnership approach; expertise on financial

mechanisms, financial institutions active in financing projects in the area of science, technology and

innovation in Africa, including the private sector.

Specific experience:

At least 5 years of experience in a research institute or similar body in Africa'


Language and skills:

Professional knowledge of English.

Two Junior thematic Experts Experts 3 (22 days) and 4, (20 working days ) shall have:

Qualification and skills

At least a Masters Degree in Sciences & Technology, International cooperation or related field;

Professional experience:

A professional experience of at least 3 years in Africa-EU international cooperation in science,

technology and innovation, including expertise on financial mechanisms and projects.

Experience and a proven track record in delivering services including administrative and logistic

issues.


58

Languages skills:

Professional knowledge of English and French (at least one should know both English and French,

the second one should at least know English).


3.3 Working language(s)

Working languages are English and French.

4. LOCATION AND DURATION

4.1 Starting period:

The contract should start as soon as possible with a tentative starting date of Early April.

4.2 Foreseen finishing period or duration The overall assignment shall be completed within 9 months from the date of the signature of the contract and not later than 31 December 2013. The final report to be presented to the SOM should be ready on 30 September the latest. Presentation to the SOM will take place during second semester of 2013 (date tbc). 4.3 Planning Activity Resources Indicative timing

Activity Place Duration Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

Expert 4

Dates

Inception phase HB 2 days 2 2 2 2 W1

(W2-3 for approval report)

Structuring phase (literature review and desktop research)

- Overview of regional and

multi-country STI

cooperation initiatives

- Selection of initiatives to

be assessed with

selection criteria

- Draft questionnaire and

list of stakeholders to be

interviewed/receive

questionnaire and

proposal of mission

destinations in Africa and

Europe

- Draft agenda and list of

experts for workshop

HB 7 days 4 3 5 7 W4-5

(W6-7 for approval proposals)

Field research phase:

Conducting interviews and sending questionnaires, including travel

- Max. 4 missions to Africa

Africa

5 days

8 days

5

8

3

4

3

4

0

0

W8-9

W8-9


59

-

- Max. 2 missions Europe

- Proposal of key

performance indicators

- Quantitative assessment

and qualitative analysis

- Draft study report

- Revised version of draft

study report

Europe

HB

HB

HB

HB

1 days

12 days

11 days

2 days

0

12

11

2

1

4

5

2

0

0

3

1

1

2

3

1

W8-9

W9 (comments W10)

W11-12

W13-14 (comments W15-16)

W17

Communication and dissemination phase

- Validation workshop

- Workshop report

- Final report

- Revised version of final

report

- Presentation of findings

at 2nd SOM

Brussels

HB

HB

HB

Brussels

1 days

2 days

5 days

2 days

2 days

1

2

5

2

1

0

0

3

1

1

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

W18 (tbc)

W19

W20

(comments W21-22)

W23

W24 (tbc)

TOTAL 55 29 22 20

4.4 Location (s) of assignment

Work will be home based with missions to European and African countries (see phase 3 under point 2.3). 5 REPORTING

5.1 Content Reports will have to be in line with the outputs described in section 2. 5.2 Language Reports will be in English except the final report that should be presented in English together with a translation into French. 5.3 Submission/Comments timing Reports shall be provided to the Bureau of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI according to the timing outlined in point 4.3. 5.4 Number of reports The final report must be submitted in 5 hard copies plus electronic version. The main section of the report should be prefaced by a summary not exceeding two pages. The final report should not exceed 30 pages excluding annexes.


60

6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

The selection will be based according to EC rules for FWC 2011:

- CVs of the proposed experts and backstopping team. - A note providing succinct methodology and indicative timeline for carrying out the assignment and clearly indicating the expertise described in section 3.2 - Fees

The language of the proposal should be English

No sub-contracting is allowed.

The following items are foreseen under reimbursable costs :

- Field missions for experts to Africa and EU member states (see phase 3 under point 2.3). Maximum 4 missions to Africa will last a maximum of 16 day. Maximum 2 missions to EU member states will last a maximum of 2 days. - Participation of 2 recruited experts (1 senior, and 1 junior) in validation workshop in Brussels and 2 senior experts in Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on STI (second semester 2013) for a total of 4 days maximum. - Per diems for recruited experts travel to Africa and EU member states in the framework of the contract. - Travel costs and per diems for 8 participants invited to the validation workshop (see phase 4 under point 2.3) - All other administrative costs linked to the organisation of the workshop as specified in points 2.3 and 2.4.

Saturday and Sunday shall be included as working days if requested by the consultant. However, a preliminary authorisation needs to be obtained by the DEVCO programme manager.

The Contractor will make available appropriate management and backstopping mechanisms, quality control systems, secretariat and any other support staff (editors, proof readers etc.) that it considers necessary in order to implement the Contract. The support team will provide all necessary logistical support both prior and during the assignment to allow experts to concentrate on their primary responsibilities.

Regarding the specific assignment, secretariat/office renting costs both in Headquarters and during field missions, which may include rental, communications (fax, phone, mail, internet, courier etc.), report production and secretarial services both in the Contractor’s home office and during field missions are considered an overhead included within the fee rates of experts.

Experts shall be fully equipped with portable computers, necessary software and portable printer including paper necessary for printing reports and other documentation.


61

11.2 Annex 2: Methodology

1. Commissioning of the study

In view of the imminent end of the current action plan of JAES P8, and in recognition of the support for continued cooperation in STI at the bi-regional level, the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI requested the HLPD Bureau to conduct a study with the aim of informing a future STI cooperation roadmap, to map existing cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives with the view to reinforcing successful models and identifying potential gaps, and to identify effective financial mechanism(s) based on equal partnership that would deliver significant impact taking into account experience gained with other initiatives/instruments.

In agreement with the EU and AU Commissions, the study was implemented as a short contract supported under the 2011-2015 Framework Contract (FWC COM 2011) of the EC’s DG DEVCO. The study was commissioned according to the general and specific rules governing all contracts under FWC COM 2011. Terms of reference for the study were prepared by the HLPD Bureau, and agreed by the AU and EU Commissions (Annex 1).

2. Aim of the study interpretation of the TORs and study organisation

Against this background and responding to the conclusions of the first Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM) of the Africa-EU High Level Policy Dialogue on S&T in October 2011, the overall aim of this study has been to examine bi-regional and multi-lateral cooperation initiatives in STI between Africa and Europe with a view to identifying successful models and effective financial mechanisms, as well as major gaps and barriers. The scope of the study is on STI cooperation at bi-regional and multi-country level between Europe and Africa, financed by European and African public and private bodies, and implemented over the period 2008–2012. Examination of bilateral cooperation is excluded from the study. Specific attention has been given to activities which share or synergize with the broad goals and principles of JAES P8, involve the private sector, or are covered by any financial mechanisms based on an equal partnership approach, such as co-financing by African and European partners. Nevertheless, following the principle of diversity, the project was intended to extend its coverage to illustrate as complete a range of STI cooperation and financing models as possible. The outcomes of this study are to provide evidence-based inputs for policy choices and financing decisions in view of preparing a future roadmap for Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

The study has been carried out in accordance with the ToR (Annex 1) and organized in four interrelated phases: (1) an Inception phase to further elaborate the focus of the study and prepare a more detailed work plan; (2) a Structuring phase to compile a representative overview of relevant regional and multi-country STI cooperation initiatives; (3) a Field research phase to collect data from experts and stakeholders, through a series of remote and face-to-face interviews, a questionnaire and six field missions in Africa and Europe, qualitatively and quantitatively analyse the results and identify best practice initiatives and financial mechanisms; and (4) a final phase of Communication and dissemination of results.

3. Inception phase

Further to a kick-off meeting in Brussels on 21st May 2013 between representatives of the Project Team and the contracting authority, the Project Team has prepared and submitted an Inception Report as the main deliverable of the Inception Phase. The Inception Report provides detailed planning of the assignment with identification of the main issues, activities and methodology as well as an indicative timeline and allocation of working days per activity and per expert.

4. Structuring phase

a. Literature review, project inventory and selection, definition of KPIs

In pursuit of the objective, an inventory was compiled of approximately 150 representative regional and multi-country STI cooperation initiatives whose period of implementation fell partly or entirely in the 2008-2012 window. Emphasis was placed on individual projects but programmes meeting the selection criteria have been included where appropriate.


62

Besides the time frame of 2008–2012 and the focus on multi-lateral initiatives, a principle criterion for inclusion has been around diversity, ensuring both geographic and thematic representativeness, while at the same time reflecting the diversity of

cooperation and partnership models, as regards the origin of the coordinator, the composition and regional balance of the consortium, the involvement of partners from the private sector.

financing mechanisms and instruments, including EU programmes, EU member states public STI funding programmes, African programmes, international, regional or co-funded multilateral programmes, private or public-private mechanisms; and

initiative typology, including research collaboration projects, innovation collaboration projects, capacity building projects (focussed on human capital, research infrastructures, institutional capacities or policy development), technology transfer projects and projects promoting awareness and networking among others.

Within the inventory, the initiatives are categorized by the nature of their financing mechanism and instrument, grouping those covered by EU programmes, those covered by EU member states based public or private STI funding mechanism and those operated by AU member states, regional and continental programmes, irrespective of the origin of funds.

For each initiative, the inventory provides comprehensive information including the title of the project, a short description of the project, the geographical scope, the financing period, the financing and implementing partner(s), the delivery modality and the financing instrument.

Following the ToR, a subset of approximately 30 initiatives was selected from the inventory for in-depth analysis. Selection criteria included perceived success based somewhat subjectively on anticipated or actual outputs/outcomes and their sustainability, balanced collaboration and the need to achieve a representative balance of initiatives in terms of regional / geographical distribution, diversity of financing mechanisms / instruments and project typologies.

A set of quantitative and qualitative key performance indicators (KPI) were defined against which to assess the selected initiatives. The KPIs, agreed with the contracting authority, were selected primarily to evaluate the balanced nature of the partnership, the initiatives’ short term and long term scientific, social and economic impact as well as the sustainability of impact.

Quantitative KPIs:

Number of new jobs created directly or indirectly by the project, and number of jobs that could be maintained after the project’s end;

Number of new technologies, products, services or processes created; Number of scientists, MSc or PhD students trained within the project; Number of scientists, MSc or PhD students who have participated in any project-related mobility or

networking activities; Number of joint scientific publications; Number of participants in local capacity building measures (e.g. trainings, workshops); Number of SMEs directly or indirectly created; Number of events or other activities aimed to raise public awareness of the role of STI, or of a specific technology issues.

Qualitative KPIs:

Contribution to new or amendment of existing STI or specific technology policy; Involvement of private sector organisations in the project (e.g. as partner, recipient of outputs, or

direct stakeholder in project activities); Links with the local economy; Contribution towards strengthening existing networks, or creation of new (scientific) networks,

including African and European partners; Existence of shared goals, values and norms on which the project has been established; Perceived equal distribution of responsibilities among partners; Perceived balanced governance within the project; Perceived equal sharing of information/ transparency among partners; Perceived equal sharing of project outcomes among partners.

b. Design of interview framework and questionnaire


63

A two-part semi-structured interview framework and parallel questionnaire (Annex 2) was designed and piloted in order to gather (a) KPI metrics and empirical data on the selected initiatives from project coordinators and partners where they were available within the study timeframe, and (b) qualitative data from key stakeholders (see Annex 3 for a list of interviewees and questionnaire respondents) on aspect of bi-regional cooperation with emphasis on the nature and effectiveness of partnerships and financing mechanisms, as well as gaps, challenges and key criteria for success and sustainability of Europe-Africa STI cooperation under JAES and P8The field research phase

c. Data collection through interviews and questionnaire

Interviews were the method of choice for data gathering. Interviews were conducted in English, French and German with experts and stakeholders in Africa and Europe, either by telephone or Skype, or face-to-face in the Project Team members’ own countries of residence and during the field missions.

In total 108 stakeholders participated in interviews. Interviewees were selected on the strength of their involvement in relevant STI policy processes and their experience with Africa-Europe STI financial mechanisms and programmes of interest. Coordinators and project partners were identified from the subset of the inventory of projects and initiatives. The preliminary list of interviewees was elaborated in consultation with the contracting authority. During the interviews, additional experts and stakeholders were recommended which led to significant revision and extension of the originally agreed list.

Thirty interviews were conducted during the six field missions. These missions, each lasting between one and four days, were undertaken to Nairobi, Accra, Dakar, Tunis, Bonn and Helsinki. Destinations were selected to ensure wide geographic and linguistic coverage of STI experts and representatives from relevant STI bodies, programmes, initiatives and projects. Emphasis was put on countries that actively participate in AMCOST and / or AU-EU STI policy processes, present a high STI status based on the African Innovation Outlook 2010, and are politically stable. During the missions, interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis or in groups. In some cases, visits to local research facilities took place.

In addition to these interviews, the questionnaire was sent to 35 experts / stakeholders in Africa and Europe. In order to increase the coverage of the questionnaire, the document was translated into French and distributed where appropriate. With only 19 responses, despite personally addressed letters and reminders, and including those who piloted the questionnaire, the response rate was low as anticipated and as is typical with such online questionnaires. Of the returned questionnaires, many have responses which are lacking sufficient detail to be useable (see Annex 4 for a list of questionnaire respondents).

d. Data analysis and preparation of draft report

Data and information collected through the review of documents and internet research, interviews and questionnaires was highly variable in quality and content, and in large part represented opinion rather than fact. Sample sizes for comparative analysis of models and mechanisms were too small, precluding objective, rigorous and systematic quantitative or qualitative analyses. All conclusions emerging from this study are therefore based on subjective appraisal of the data and information gathered.

5. Communication and dissemination phase

e. Validation workshop

A draft version of the final study report has been presented at a one-day validation workshop in Brussels on 18 September 2013. The workshop’s agenda has been proposed by the Project Team and approved by the contracting authority. In consultation with the contracting authority and in accordance with the HLPD Bureau, 30 experts from the EC, AUC, RECs, EU and AU member states, private sector, banks, NGOs, other international financing bodies were identified and invited to attend the event. The workshop provided a valuable platform to discuss the study’s findings and refine and enrich its preliminary conclusions. Outcomes have been used to produce the final version of the report.

f. Preparation of the final report

Following the validation workshop and based on the experts’ critiques, comments and recommendations, the draft version of the study report was revised and resubmitted. A final round of revisions followed comments


64

from the contracting authority. The overall report structure has been more closely aligned to the ToR structure. An additional chapter on sustainability of the mapping of STI cooperation has been included.

The final report will be circulated to the HLPD and a summary presented at the next meeting of the Africa-EU HLPD, scheduled for 28-29 November, 2013.

6. Limitations of the study

A number of limitations were encountered during the study, some conceptual, some operational. All those cited here have relevance for the sustainability of the study in future iterations:

Study data. In retrospect, emphasis on the use of stakeholder views and opinions, gathered through interviews and questionnaires, as a principal source of data for an analytical study weakened the study’s conclusions. Opinion is highly subjective, qualitative, varied in quality, and related to personal experience and therefore biased, and so poorly suited to rigorous analysis which would require a more systematic approach to collection and greater focus on quantitative data. Moreover, few interviewees have detailed knowledge of JAES or P8, limiting the contextualisation of their contributions.

KPI. While the agreed KPI are valid, few among the subset of initiatives considered yet have systematically collected data and therefore KPI metrics, whether qualitative or quantitative, were of little value in assessing project performance or success as required. Assessment of project performance therefore relied heavily on subjective opinion of project partners, on non-peer reviewed information in the public domain, and on study team intuition.

Outcomes and impact assessment: Initiatives whose period of implementation falls wholly or partly during the 2008-2012 window, depending on typology, generally have limited data on outcomes and impact such that any assessment of these parameters tends to be drawn from projections based on actual and anticipated outputs (in the case of on-going projects). In many cases, it has therefore been difficult to assess and analyse any relevant impact, to compare outcomes and to draw any significant conclusions on the effectiveness of financial mechanisms. In these cases, the Project Team has focused on expected outcomes and asked coordinators and participants for estimations and anticipation.

Questionnaire response rate and utility: Response rate was approximately 50%, partly explained by holiday-related absence. But moreover the usability of questionnaire responses was limited. While a minority offered excellent quality data, many provided responses with inadequate detail to be of value to the study. The short duration of the study restricted the opportunity for follow-up. The time spent in administering the questionnaire was lost.

Availability of experts and stakeholders: The coincidence of the field phase with the summer holiday period limited the availability of experts and stakeholders. This demanded significant flexibility, and investment of time in the conduct of interviews and missions and a general extension of the interview period. Field missions could only be concluded by end of August, having a knock-on effect for the period of report preparation.

Duration of the assignment: The study addresses important questions requiring detailed investigation for reliable evidence-based responses. The short duration of the assignment, the significant amount of time spent on transactional issues such as organising interview and mission schedules, and restricted flexibility in a number of aspects of the study, presented considerable constraints and inevitably restrict the quality of study outputs.

The bilateral environment: The Africa-EU STI relationship and the JAES P8 are intimately linked to and reliant on bilateral relations. To restrict the scope of the study to multilateral initiatives is to severely restrict the input from the rich landscape of bilateral cooperation.


65

11.3 Annex 3: Interview framework

Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative science, technology and innovation (STI) initiatives between Africa and Europe & Identification of effective financial

mechanism(s), 2008-2012.

Framework for stakeholder interviews, July/August 2013

Version of 17/07/2013

Notes to interviewees:

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for a study into mapping Africa-Europe cooperation in science, technology and innovation (STI). As a stakeholder involved in Africa-Europe STI collaboration initiatives and/or policy processes your opinions are valued.

The questions listed in parts one and two are indicative only. It is not necessary to answer all questions. Other questions may be suggested, or existing one altered. The interview focus will be in your areas of experience. A member of the study team will guide you through the questions in this framework.

Please try to illustrate your responses by referring to examples, or to offer explanations for your opinions.

The context of the questions is EU-Africa STI cooperation conducted in the framework of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy. Your experience in other contexts however may be relevant to future STI cooperation framework under JAES.

Questions in part 1 target any stakeholder with experience relevant to Africa-Europe multilateral STI collaboration. These questions focus on general aspects of multilateral Africa-Europe STI collaboration, with emphasis on the nature and effectiveness of partnerships and financial instruments. Questions are general in nature, and seek the opinion and suggestions of interviewees rather than concrete facts and data. There are no right or wrong responses.

Questions in part 2 target project coordinators and partners and are specific to individual multilateral initiatives, the responses to which form part of the study’s analytical component. . As in part 1, interviewees are encouraged to illustrate response by reference to examples, or to offer explanations for opinions held. It is not necessary to answer all questions. The focus should be on your areas of experience and expertise.

Throughout the questions we use the term ‘initiative’ to cover any type of collaborative venture such as projects and networks that fall under the scope of the study. The term ‘project’ is used almost interchangeably in this framework with the term initiative.

The term ‘partnership’ is used to refer to relationships between a group of agencies for the purpose of designing, implementing, funding or in other ways supporting initiatives. Partnerships may be created for single initiatives; they may outlive individual initiatives, and may lead to the creation of many initiatives.

Background & scope

In 2007 heads of state and government of the African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) member states agreed on the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) as an overarching political framework guiding relations between the two continents. JAES is being implemented through eight thematic partnerships with associated action plans. The eighth partnership (P8) focuses on science, technology and innovation (STI). If JAES is unfamiliar to you, you can find much useful information at http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/.

The past decade has seen renewed emphasis on Africa’s collaboration with Europe in various fields of research, technology development and innovation. The African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) are promoting various partnerships in STI for the mutual benefit of the two continents/regions. One of the eight thematic JAES partnerships focuses on Africa-EU cooperation in science technology and innovation (STI).

As the current action plan of the STI partnership draws to a close, consultations are taking place with a view to building a common vision for a future STI roadmap under JAES.

http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/


66

The current study was commissioned by the Africa-EU STI High-Level Policy Dialogue platform to contribute to the process of identifying ways and means of strengthening collaboration between the two continents. The study’s global objective is to identify successful models of regional and multi-country cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives between Africa and Europe, as well as to identify gaps and effective financial mechanisms that have positive impact(s).

More specifically the study will provide an overview of regional and multi-country cooperative research and innovation projects as well as projects aiming at capacity building and technology transfer, implemented over the period 2008-2012 and financed by African and European public and private stakeholders.

The study will conduct quantitative and qualitative assessments of a selection of Africa-EU cooperation initiatives, identifying criteria of success as well as barriers to implementation. It will also examine the effectiveness of diverse finance mechanisms with a view to developing innovative financial instruments.

Interviews with key stakeholders form a central part of the study to gather informed opinion about the cooperation landscape and about representative initiatives in the landscape.

The study and the interviews have the following scope:

o Time frame: 2008-2012

o Principal thematic focus: Environment, water, biosciences, climate change, food security, heath,

mathematics, energy, engineering, STI indicators, STI policy and policy dialogues.

o Project typologies:

Research collaborative projects/initiatives.

Innovation collaborative projects/initiatives.

Capacity building projects.

human capital development (this also included knowledge exchange, mobility of

scientists and engineers, training);

physical research infrastructures (this also includes R&D equipment);

policy development (this also includes knowledge application and policy

learning);

institutional development;

Technology transfer projects

Projects promoting awareness and networking (includes information exchange).


67

Interview Part 1. Overview of regional and multi-country cooperative projects over 2008-2012: General questions.

Section 1. Model projects in EU-Africa STI cooperation

a. Are you aware of EU-Africa STI cooperation projects which, in your view, represent good models

of cooperation in terms of the outcomes or impact, the partnership, the financing mechanism, or

any other relevant parameter? (We are particularly interested to hear about novel initiatives,

those that involve the private sector, or that have innovative features around funding or the

partnership for example, and those that demonstrate sustainability).

b. What in your view constitutes a good or bad EU-Africa STI cooperation project?

c. Are there any features of these or other joint initiatives that lend them to success (where

success is seen through any parameter of relevance to achieving the objectives)?

d. Conversely, what negative traits are to be avoided in EU-Africa STI cooperation projects that

may increase the likelihood of failure?

e. What would you consider to be key performance indicators for EU-Africa STI cooperation

projects?

Section 2. Partnerships

a. Are you aware of enduring EU-Africa partnerships (vs. projects / initiatives) that are successfully

and sustainably delivering on EU-Africa joint priorities?

b. What opinions do you have on the types of EU-Africa partnerships, particularly in terms of their

relative ability to successfully deliver outcomes? Bear in mind that partnerships may have

different functions (financing vs. implementation for example).

c. Are there any features of partnerships that lend them to success?

d. Conversely, what negative traits are to be avoided in EU-Africa STI cooperation?

Section 3. Private sector participation

a. Do you have any experience of the participation of the private sector in EU-Africa STI

cooperation initiatives?

b. In your view, what is the role of the private sector in delivering STI public goods and services?

c. Are you aware of any private sector companies or enterprises that are/were involved in the

Africa-EU STI cooperation? Please name or list the company/enterprise.

d. What are/were the inputs of the companies/enterprises involved in the STI cooperation?

e. What challenges, if any, are/were experienced in the partnership(s) with private sector?

f. How could the role of the private sector be enhanced, particularly with regard to the types of

partnerships and financing mechanisms appropriate to their participation?

Section 4. Gaps, future direction and priorities

a. In your view, what are the main gaps in EU-Africa STI cooperation?

b. What do see as the likely direction of future EU-Africa STI cooperation?

c. Do you have any views on the priorities for EU-Africa STI cooperation under JAES?

d. What changes might be necessary for your vision to be implemented (for example, in terms of

funding instruments or other policy decisions)?

Section 5. Financial mechanisms and their delivery modalities

20.

a. Are you aware of, or familiar with the financing mechanisms, instruments and delivery modalities

used for supporting EU-Africa STI cooperation? If ‘yes or maybe’, proceed to the following

questions. If ‘no’ go to the next section.

i. What do you consider to be the principal African and European financial

instruments/mechanisms for STI collaboration?

ii. Do you consider them to be effective, or suitable for purpose?

iii. Which financial mechanisms / instruments and delivery modalities are most effective in

ensuring strong STI collaboration and in delivering outputs?

20 For example grants (competitive and non-competitive) from EU/EC and Africa, grants from private foundations and companies (e.g. Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation), Loans (European Development Bank, African Development Bank), Trust funds (e.g. Global Environment Facility), Endowment funds, Venture capital funds, blended arrangements.


68

iv. Which aspects of a finance mechanism and/or its delivery modality suit it to EU-Africa

STI cooperation?

v. Reflecting on the gaps and future priorities, does the current landscape of funding

adequately serve anticipated needs?

Section 6. Barriers, solutions and reinforcing cooperation.

a. What do you consider to be principal barriers and challenges to EU-Africa STI cooperation under

the broad P8 framework?

b. What are some of the typical problems encountered by project partners in EU-Africa

collaborative initiatives cycles?

c. What do you see as the solutions to overcoming these barriers and addressing these problems

and how might they be implemented?

d. What do you consider to be the key criteria for success in EU-Africa STI cooperation under P8?

e. What is critical to ensure the sustainability of EU-Africa STI and their outcomes?

f. What needs to be done by both AU and EU to reinforce STI collaboration for better outcomes?


69

Interview Part 2. Assessment of individual multilateral EU-Africa projects / initiatives.

Section 1. A quantitative and qualitative assessment

Notes for interviewees : These questions target coordinators and participants of specific EU-Africa STI cooperation projects / initiatives. Please try to answer the following questions referring to the specific initiatives you have been involved in. Where possible, please illustrate your answer with relevant examples and offer as much quantitative data as possible. If the initiative/ project is still on going, please refer to what has already been achieved, and if possible, provide information about any expected outcomes.

a. Briefly describe the Africa-EU collaborative project/initiative that you coordinate(d).

Do you categorize or classify it as: (a) a scientific research (b) training or capacity building (c) technology development and innovation (d) other….please specify.

b. What would you consider to be suitable key performance indicators for the project(s) you

are or were involved with?

Could you provide a brief evaluation of your project against those KPI?

c. Has the project / initiative contributed, directly or indirectly, to the creation of new jobs?

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please provide details of an example:

i. What kinds of jobs?

ii. How many jobs (approximately)?

iii. If jobs were created, were they in Europe and/or in Africa?

1. Have these jobs been created within / directly for the project (e.g. research positions,

administrative staff linked to project implementation) or outside the project (i.e. jobs in local

economy, etc)?

2. Have these jobs been maintained after the project’s end?

d. Has the project / initiative contributed to the creation of a new technology, a new product

(e.g. any new crop variety or vaccine) or service, or a new process?


1. Nature and number of products: goods, services, technologies, processes, plus

modifications to existing goods and services etc.?

2. Do any of these products / services have associated IPR?

3. Could you describe the relative roles of African and European partners in the production

and IPR processes?

e. Has the project / initiative contributed to the formulation of any new STI or specific

technology policy? Or any other impact on STI policy formulation?


1. For example, have there been policy briefs produced and disseminated to policy- / decision

-makers?

2. Have policy-makers been involved in any project activity or event and has that influenced

policy in any way that you are aware of).

f. Has the project / initiative contributed to human skills development?


70

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, could you please provide any details? For example,

1. What activities have been carried out (e.g. training of students, PhD. students, scientific

staff, etc.)?

2. How many people have participated (in Europe/ in Africa)?

3. Have any measures been taken to ensure the sustainability of the skills developed?

g. Has the project / initiative contributed to scientific knowledge?

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please explain briefly in what way(s) it has contributed?

1. Has the initiative produced any peer-reviewed (scientific) publications

i. If yes, approximately how many?

ii. Can you give an example of one of the publications?

h. Has the project / initiative provided any possibilities for African and European scientists’

mobility and / or networking?

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please provide detail of an example.

1. The nature of the activity: exchanges of scientists, conference attendance…

2. How many scientists / staff participated in that example, or how many have benefited

altogether?

i. Has the project / initiative contributed to local social capacity building?

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please try to provide some detail of a particular highlight:

i. Nature of the event (training, workshops for local communities)

ii. How many people participated (approximately)?

iii. What were the outcomes?

iv. What measures have been taken to ensure the sustainability of this capacity building?

(e.g. training of trainers)

j. Has the project / initiative led, directly or indirectly, to the creation of new SMEs?


i. How many new SMEs were created?

i. Where were they created: in Africa, or in Europe?

ii. Please describe one of the SMEs and the process that led to its creation.

k. Has the project involved the private sector, perhaps as a partner, a recipient of outputs,

or as a direct stakeholder in project activities?


i. Briefly describe the private sector’ involvement or role in the project / initiative.

ii. Name the organisations involved, or highlight some of the key organisations.

iii. Describe any challenges as well as advantages (barriers and constraints, positive

outcomes) encountered by the project or by the private sector organisations themselves

due to their involvement– for example related to adequate financing, to participation in a


71

consortium, to engagement, conflicts of interest, translation of outputs into goods and

services….

iv. How could the role of the private sector in the project have been be enhanced?

l. Does the project have links to the local economy (e.g. via local SMEs)?


1. Has the private sector been engaged in the design, funding and execution of the project

/initiative?

2. Why have these links been established?

3. How have these links been established (e.g. SME is project participant, associated, sub-

contracted, etc.)?

4. What has been the role of these links for the project’s outcomes and success?

m. Has the project / initiative raised public awareness of the role of STI or of specific

technology issues?


i. material for the general public,

ii. how project outcomes or other project related information been disseminated through

the media,

iii. public events/ workshops.

n. Has the project / initiative contributed to strengthening of existing networks, or to the

creation of new (scientific) networks, including African and European partners?


1. Has the sustainability, persistence, and functionality of the example been assured?

o. What particular features of the project lent it to success, or to failure?

Section 2. Financial mechanisms

With regard to the financial mechanism / instrument supporting the project / initiative that you took part in, please try to answer the following questions.

a. Do you consider that the instrument / mechanism enables the project / initiative to

leverage additional financing from other funding partners, particularly from private

sector?

b. Do you consider that the instrument / mechanism allows sufficient flexibility (i.e. is it

possible to make changes and adaptations in the project to respond to changing needs

or conditions?

Please explain in particular with regard to private sector funding.

c. Do you consider that the instrument / mechanism promotes project sustainability?

1. As or was the project replicated elsewhere? Please briefly describe.

d. Do you consider that the instrument / mechanism enables

1. Institutional capacity building (i.e. administrative or managerial capacity building, office

infrastructure, etc)


72

2. to engage or invest in learning (e.g. trainings, etc)?

e. Was the funding mechanism effective in facilitating outcomes?

f. To what extent was the finance mechanism a determinant of the project’s success /failure or

impact.

Section 3. The partnership

This set of questions seeks information about the partnership and relationship between members of the consortium of partners.

a. Could you describe the nature of the Africa-EU STI partnership that you are involved in?

b. Who are your African/European partners?

c. Has the project /initiative been established on common and shared goals, values and norms? 1. How have they been established and agreed upon?

d. How have responsibilities been distributed among the partners?

1. What were/are your specific responsibilities in the implementation of the project / initiative?

2. And how were/are the responsibilities shared with your African/European partners?

3. Have all partners been involved in project design, in the different implementation activities?

4. Have all partners agreed on funding responsibilities?

e. How was/is the project / initiative governed?

1. Has there been a steering committee or an advisory panel or anything similar? Who has

been involved?

2. In your view, was the governance mechanism effective? Please explain briefly.

f. Could you please briefly explain how the sharing of information has been handled in the

project / initiative?

1. Have there been any specific measures to ensure transparency? Have these changed

during the project implementation?

2. What has been the frequency (approximately) of communication among the partners during

the project implementation?

3. What has been the main mean of communication (e-mail, telephone, skype, personal

meetings, etc). Was this efficient from your point of view? Please explain.

4. Have there been problems or difficulties related to communication during the project? If yes,

how have they been handled?

g. Do you consider that benefits and outcomes have equally been shared (e.g. joint

publications)?

1. What measures have been taken to ensure equal sharing?

2. Have there been any problems or difficulties related to benefit/ outcomes sharing? If yes,

how have they been handled?

h. To what degree do you consider that the project’s success is related to the nature of the

partnership? Please explain briefly.

1. Is the nature of the partnership suited to the project’s goal and objectives?

We would be grateful if you can provide the study team with any relevant documentation on the Africa-EU STI project/initiative that you were/are involved in/with. Once again, thank you for your participation in the study.


73

11.4 Annex 4: Interviewees

(Including those interviewed on mission)

Family name Given name

Title Affiliation Country

Adekunle Wale Prof FARA Ghana

Affinito Francesco

Mr EC DG DEVCO Belgium

Agumya Aggrey Dr Forum for Agricultural Research In Africa Ghana

Aikins de-Graft

Ama Dr. London School of Economics UK / Ghana

Alonso Pedro Prof. Barcelona Center for Int. Health Research Spain

Ambali Aggrey Dr NEPAD agency South Africa

Annor-Frempong

Irene Dr Forum for Agricultural Research In Africa Ghana

Arafa Salah Prof. American University, Research Council on Environment and Development at the Egyptian Academy for Scientific Research and Technology

Egypt

Awauh Esi Prof Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Ghana

Bahri Sonia Dr. UNESCO France

Brito Lidia Dr UNESCO France

Bydekerke Lieven Mr. VITO Belgium

Cairncross Sandy Prof. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine UK

Carter Andree Dr UK Collaborative of Development Sciences UK

Davoux Dominique

Mr EU Kenya

Diallo Aminita Sall

Prof Ministry of Scientific Research Senegal

Dixon-Fyle Kanyhama

KDF consulting Switzerland

Djurfeldt Göran Prof. University of Lund Sweden

Du Toit Lisa Ms South Africa Department of Science and Technology

South Africa

Elliot Tracey Dr The Royal Society UK

Freeman Matt GAIN - Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Switzerland

Gilson Lucy Prof London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine UK

Grimaud Patrice Dr. CIRAD Cameroun

Grundy Caroline Ms. Imperial College UK


74

Hanne Detlef Dr. KfW Develpment Bank Germany

Harvey Patricia Prof NRI, University of Greewch UK

Haverig Anika Dr. Volkswagen Stiftung Germany

Jürgens Norbert Prof. Universitaet Hamburg Germany

Kiamba Crispus Prof University of Nairobi, Kenya Kenya

Kirrane Declan ISC Belgium

Kolodziejski Christoph Dr. Volkswagen Stiftung Germany

Kouakou Roland Mr ECOWAS Secretariat Nigeria

Kubata Bruno Prof NEPAD-COHRED, Kenya Kenya

Lal Radhika Dr UNDP Pretoria (South Africa) South Africa

Langergraber Guenter Dr. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)

Austria

Larsen Mattias Dr. KEF, Commission for Development Studies Austria

Laurie Sophie Dr Research Councils UK UK

Liamine Alessandro

Mr EU, Kenya Kenya

Linton John Mr Natural Resources Institute, UK UK

Malebogo Bowe Ms UNESCO France

Meredith Stephanie Global Health Consulting Switzerland

Meyer Ralf Mr ZEI, Bonn Germany

Mgone Charles EDCTP Netherlands

Morgado Ana Dr Department of Tropical Research Institute of Portugal

Portugal

Morgan Anneline Ms South Africa Department of Science and Technology

South Africa

Mugabe Jones Dr FARA Ghana

Mühlberg Christoph Dr DFG, Germany

Mushwana Tinyiko Ms South Africa Department of Science and Technology

South Africa

Mutero Clifford Prof ICIPE Kenya

Newman Kirsty Dr Department for international development UK

Nguku Evelyn Dr ICIPE Kenya


75

Obrecht Andreas Dr. KEF, Commission for Development Studies Austria

Okhoya Christine Ms FAO Ghana

Oteng Albert Prof University of Ghana Ghana

Ouedraogo Mahama HRST, AUC Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

Pepper Michael Prof University of Pretoria South Africa

Ranson Hilary Dr Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine UK

Sanders Karrine Association of Commonwealth Universities UK

Sangale Crispin Rondo

Dr. Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS)

Gabon

Santana Afonso

Ana Elisa Dr. UNESCO France

Sawadogo Natewinde

University of Nottingham UK

Scott Hugh African Enterprise Challenge Fund Kenya

Senna Victor Mr South Africa Department of Science and Technology

South Africa

Snewin Val Dr Wellcome Trust UK

Sohn Rike ZEI, Bonn Germany

Tabuna Honoré Dr ECCAS Secretariat Gabon

Taole Nthabiseng

Dr NRF South Africa

Thamsborg Stig Milan Prof. University of Copenhagen Denmark

Tlhagale Mamohloding

Ms South Africa Department of Science and Technology

South Africa

Torres-Rahman

Zahid Business Action for Africa / Business Fights Poverty UK

Tzinova Kornelia UNESCO France

Waage Jeff Prof London International Development Centre UK

Wickstead Myles Prof. Open University. Former UK Ambassador to Ethiopia.

UK

Winkler Gerold Mr University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)

Austria

Wong Jonathan Department for International Development UK

On mission

Adekunle Wale Prof FARA Ghana

Agumya Aggrey Dr FARA Ghana


76

Alonso Guiomar UNESCO Senegal

Annor-Frempong

Irene Dr FARA Ghana

Babiker May Ali Ms African Bank for Development Tunisia

Bahati Prince Mr IAVI Kenya

Cisse Made Ecole Superieure Polytechnique Senegal

Coly Emile Victor

Inst de Recherche Agricole Senegal

Davoux Dominique

Mr EU Kenya

Diack El Hadji Abdoulaye

AAFEX Senegal

Dieye Alioune Prof University of Cheik Anta Diop Senegal

Diop Amadou Tamsir

Dr Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Senegal

Du Toit Lisa Ms DST South Africa

El Ayni Foued Dr. Centre International des Technologies de l'Environnement de Tunis

Tunisia

Essegby George Dr CSIR Ghana

Fofana Cheikh Mr. OSS Tunisia

Gaye Amadou Thierno

Dr UCAD Senegal

Guedegbe Corbin Michel

Dr. African Bank for Development Tunisia

Guizani AmenAllah

Prof Centre de Recherches et Technologies de l’Energie Laboratoire des Procédés Thermiques

Tunisia

Holopainen Heikki Academy of Finland Finland

Jebara Moez Dr. Centre de Biotechnologie Borj Cedria/ NCP Tunisia Tunisia

Kane Ousmane Prof National Academy of Sciences and Techniques of Senegal (ANSTS).

Senegal

Kherraz Khatim Mr. OSS Tunisia

Kiamba Crispus Prof University of Nairobi Kenya

Korres Marion Dr.

International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)at the Project Management Agency c/o German Aerospace Centre (DLR)

Germany

Kouakou Marc Kofi Mr. African Bank for Development Tunisia


77

Kubata Bruno Prof NEPAD-COHRED Kenya

Lal Radhika Dr UNDP Pretoria South Africa

Liamine Alessandro

Mr EU Kenya

Mane Sitapha Mr ISRA Senegal

Mann Petra-Ruth

Dr


Germany

Mawoko Philippe Dr AU/AOSTI Equatorial Guinea

Mboup Souleymane

Prof. Dantac hospital & University of Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar

Senegal

Morgan Anneline Ms DST South Africa South Africa

Mugabe Jones Dr FARA Ghana

Mushwana Tinyiko Ms DST South Africa South Africa

Mutero Clifford Prof ICIPE Kenya

Mwangi Eric Dr Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Kenya

Ndir Babacar Dr AAFEX Senegal

Nguku Everlyn Dr ICIPE Kenya

Noetzel Roman Dr.


Germany

Okhoya Christine Ms FAO Ghana

Oteng Albert Prof University of Ghana Ghana

Pepper Michael Prof University of Pretoria South Africa

Pflug Anne Dr


Germany

Pulkkinen Jyrki Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) Finland

Raina Suresh Prof ICIPE Kenya

Rohde Oliver Dr


Germany

Sambou Maurice Michel

Mr ASSOCIATION AFRIQUE AGRO EXPORT Senegal


78

Seck Moamar Talla

Dr Inst de Recherche Agricole Senegal

Senna Victor Mr DST South Africa South Africa

Silvestre Garcia

Kerstin Dr


Germany

Sonnenburg Joern Dr


Germany

Taole Nthabiseng

Dr NRF South Africa

Tlhagale Mamohloding

Ms DST South Africa

Trebossen Hervé Dr. OSS Tunisia

Vihma-Purovaara

Tiina Ministry of Education and Research of Finland Finland

Virey Jean Pierre

Institut Pasteur Dakar Senegal

Wagener Stefan Dr.


Germany


79

11.5 Annex 5: Questionnaire respondents:

Family name

Given name

Title Affiliation Country

Albergel Jean Dr Institute de Recherche pour le Developpement France

Bahati Prince Mr International Aids Vaccine Initiative Kenya

Barugahara Ismail Mr Ugandan National Council of Science and Technology

Uganda

Bonfin José Mr Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia Portugal

Caron Patrick CIRAD France

Edwards Danny Mr COHRED UK

Essegby George Dr CSIR Ghana

Faye Arame Boye

Prof MRS / UCAD Senegal

Haakonsen Jan Mr Research Council of Norway Norway

Hansen Christian Mr Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems VINNOVA

Belgium

Kachedwa Mike Dr Malawi National Council for Science and Technology Malawi

Mawoko Philippe Dr AU/AOSTI Equatorial Guinea

Mergen Patricia Dr. Africa Museum Belgium

Mpanza Funda Mr South Africa Department of Science and Technology South Africa

Mumba Luke Dr NEPAD agency South Africa

Munck Ronnie Prof. Dublin City University Ireland

Mwangi Eric Dr MoHEST Kenya

Pereira Fabio Verein zur Förderung des Technologietransfers an der Hochschule Bremerhaven E.V.

Germany

Raina Suresh Prof ICIPE, Kenya Kenya


80

11.6 Annex 6: Stakeholder opinions about effective financing mechanisms.

Stakeholders were asked during interviews and via questionnaire to offer opinions about effective financing mechanisms for Africa-Europe STI cooperation. As the box below shows, responses were diverse and rather than collate them, losing content, many of the opinions gathered are presented here, verbatim, but anonymised. The views of project partners on the specific financing arrangements of their own projects are not included.

MS co-funding is a model that can work.

In more recent FP, the way work programmes come together is complicated and clearly written by someone with an agenda. That’s not a good way to build a portfolio

Immense difficulties in any partnership bringing in any additional funds and needs a more strategic approach as to how countries collaborate in this space. Longer term vision – political and budget cycles longer than idea cycles

Multilateral regional development banks – most of their money is for projects not involving research but there’s small amount for technical inputs, consultancies, etc – Univs and research orgs are not as familiar as they should be.

Has to be variety of mechanisms, established partnerships need less lead in time From research and exchange, pilot studies, pump priming research ideas to full scale programmes

With respect to SMEs, innovation funding via Technology Strategy Board – lead partner has to be industry – brings researchers and industry together – industry only gets 50%

Business is about national interest. What’s going to help the national economy – so we have to find mutual benefit.

Collective type funding like crowd sourcing (incl ideas) is interesting and worth pursuing. We need to be more adventurous, dwindling northern budgets

Grants mechanism works for problem solving but the way grants are used is not optimal – what needs to change is the context of it really being driven by the south.

EU is constrained to multiple EU partner initiatives and often multiple Africa initiatives – they can be fundamentally flawed

Big companies don’t need loans or debt finance, or repayable grants.. There’s case for grant finance in parallel to corporate finance

For SMEs often the ceiling are too high – processes are too complicated – transaction costs too high to disperse funds. For smaller companies its always harder.

The challenge fund is interesting model. Innovation is left to the company.

For companies, co-funding R&D is interesting.

Less bureaucratic processes for innovation are needed.

I would argue that the science agenda is new to EDF, DCI and ACP. The 3 of them have only just understood the importance of science in addressing development challenges. The policy basis for science is just about there. Science chapters are appearing in these instruments. They probably won’t learn from the FP although there could enormous beneficial impact if the various DGs could work together.

An effective [financing instrument] would be coordinated with other programmes, EU and MS programmes, that’s a challenge; everyone sits in silos, change is happening only slowly. Then the next is simplified procedure.

Instruments should be defined very clearly at the policy level, rather than being determined on the ground, and there should be synergies with other instruments.


81

The challenge is to define policy objects and making projects fit for purpose – apt in Africa because of divergence between systems and different levels of development.

To what extent does EU get balance right between funding projects and funding people?

Having longer term perspective.

[We] donor X generally don’t give grants – there’s a preference for contracts. The difference is that we are defining the service we want, and we have a contractual arrangement with the provider to deliver on contractual arrangement to get paid.

The other big push is payment by result, and watered down versions – milestone based contracts – paid by outputs. Works well with a partner who’s delivering, if you have partner who’s not delivering its tricky.

We have many contracts with UK institutes, I think there have been a number we’ve not paid in full, causes controversy- people are used to grant funding – grant funds are based on trust, ok for academia, but is it right for development?

Projects and programmes are not the way forward for EU – have to look at the bigger level if you are the EU.

The COSTECH model works I think – we talk about a common pot model – DFID and WT put in money and we want COSTECH to put money in too.

Most governments in Africa have something like a national commission for R&T – but often there are no research funds, only funds for staff costs.

Don’t fund projects – have a scheme where the [donor] puts money into national research councils, allow countries to pitch in open competition to get support for national health research, and capacity that goes with it, for staff to manage it.

WAHO (http://www.wahooas.org/?lang=en) is an interesting model – it has MS support and money.

What if we were to give conditional, returnable loans, and a whole range of financing mechanisms to support innovation? Does not make sense for [donor X] to give grants away to purely private sector organisations without co-funding from their side because we might just be funding their R&D, but if we were to give conditional loans, or take out equity.

Also there’s the emergence of development impact bonds (look up on web), unlocking the commercial capital that’s out there, catalysing the amount of investing in development, using [donor X] funds for pump-priming.

Business model innovation is where there’s lots of potential around making these things affordable, allowing [donor X] to step away from initial funding.

Traditionally governments give grants. From a venture capital background there’s equity sharing, convertible and conditional loans, a whole host of options. In many ways, when you stop giving free money away the relationship changes, I’m interested in taking equity, or co-owning IP, exploring it now, but sticking to a grant-based approach is out-dated thinking, look at more returnable forms of capital as well, would be great if we could get something back instead of giving grants away all the time, better from tax-payer perspective and from more general perspective.

Matching grants to SMEs to bring in technical assistance to SMEs.

Government grants take so much hassle.

What I find frustrating is that EC system is unnecessarily complicated and assumes everyone’s out to screw the system, system predicated to excluding the dishonest.

Participative funding at 50% is a problem for research organisations. Targets organisations that have core funding.

http://www.wahooas.org/?lang=en


82

‘Partnership for African Fisheries’ uses an equity investment fund – increases the contribution of fisheries to overall good of Africa. We worked with banks, the private sector etc, to accelerate funding to SMEs in fisheries and aqua sector.

Public money can’t be given to private sector companies – in its normal process it would tender, public money can’t be given without some kind of competition, in government to government you run a tender, but to incentivise the PS to have to set up some kind of competition, and let best win.

Look at the amount of money donors have thrown at agricultural research services and extension services, pitiful outcomes. Average yields haven’t changed.

Message is that funding is needed – for capacity development and for food production, most cost effective way of getting needed crops should be used regardless of capacity and if not, price will be high.

It’s easier for us [an EU MS] to get national funds for our Africa portfolio than to go for EU funds, and given the nature of the projects. Our money goes for research, We’re unlikely to go for EU money unless content is right.

If you broaden the idea that P8 is just between the two commissions, then you broaden the funding base. If you keep it as commission to commission then you have only commission instruments and you don’t recognise all the other development and research instruments out there. Sweden for instance decided not to come on to the programme at all, and they fund the science commission with Africa with their own bilateral programme, they don’t discuss with other stakeholder at P8 level, they just do it.

The problem with most EU and European MS funding instruments is that they do not really allow for a balanced partnership. The reason is that most of them imply that a European institution is the coordinator. Of course, this is more convenient and easier for them. But that leads to a situation where the European partner gets the payment and has to transfer it to the partners in Africa has some power and control over them.

Instruments that promote strong Africa-Europe cooperation are where where Africans and Europeans are equal partners (reflecting the change in paradigm, on the one hand from development aid to cooperation, and on the other hand from funding for excellence towards supporting consortia that jointly address global changes and build capacities: this may require that funding not only comes from European side but also from African side e.g. ERAfrica could be an example here, provided that it works out. Contributions may be in-kind at the beginning, but there should be some contributions from Africa.

Instruments that aim at motivating and encouraging European scientists to start STI cooperation with Africans, means support to start projects, to conceptualise research, find African partners and set up consortia, i.e. all the pre-project work.

Instruments that promote the applicability and exploitation of research results.

Funding from [EU donor X] is suitable [for cooperation], although it creates of course some kind of dependency of the African partner institutions. The [EU] partner (coordinator) receives the funding and has to transfer it to the African partners. The [EU] partner in a way monitors and controls the African partners, and has the power over the budget and spending. On the other hand, [EU donor X] does not see any other possibility how to handle this. It is much easier for them to give the budget to the [EU] partner who then has the responsibility to transfer it to its consortium partners in Africa.

[Effective instruments] allow for long-term research cooperation, that promote follow-up projects, if a consortium and partnership is effective.

Many good initiatives fail because at the end, when it comes to the application and implementation of products, there are no funds available. More funds [needed] for implementation of what has been developed in projects.


83

11.7 Annex 7: Stakeholder opinion of success criteria and good practice lessons

The following are extracts from over 60 of the interviews and questionnaires conducted with stakeholders and selected projects’ partners in response to questions about success criteria of projects and partnerships and features that constitute good cooperation projects. The responses relate to the actual and perceived success criteria.

In collaboration between funding programmes partners must have clear strategic ambition, participation must add to their programmes.

At a programme level, if your calls are not bringing in the best parts of the research community it means the call wasn’t properly written.

Programmes must have flexibility to change objectives / direction if and when circumstances change, this requires a constructive relationship [of the implementing agencies] with funding agency.

Evolution of good collaboration comes from an individual.

Partnerships are more important than projects. Good collaboration happens when a partnership can access a range of funds to continue its agenda. Capacity and intelligence of partnership is maintained. Has to be flexible and mobile to look for funds, and because it’s international it has access to many resources.

Understanding how to collaborate, how to encourage, share and mentor, [jointly write] genuine publications, grant applications, etc., but research application funding rarely includes those elements.

Until we get better recognition of collaboration with developing countries as being good for science we’ll struggle with having a better environment in which to conduct that collaboration.

One [success] feature [of our project] is that we’ve been able to involve our administrative staff in training administrative staff in African partners [to] help us over some systemic problems. E.g. the senior accountant at XXX didn’t attend the course offered by [the funder] thinking it beneath him. Sending our ‘mature’ administrator helped matters. We’ve put huge effort into supporting admin staff.

When we put the bid in, the number of universities accredited by [the funder] as having adequate administrative procedures was 6 in whole of Africa. That meant originally the grant would have to be held in London, with African leadership on use of that grant money. [The funder] eventually changed its mind and ‘allowed’ money to go to Africa.

There are features of the partnership that contribute to success: The three EU universities have a genuine commitment to capacity building and not just to ivory tower research.

In a recent DFID-BBSRC call that GATES has co-financed there’s been an initiative to assure the principal investigator is southern. That drives whole project so they have to be responsible for budget and management. Was hard – had to find PI candidates and then train them. GATES doing this a lot. Help southern researchers become leaders

Principal investigators from Africa, and commitment from African institutes to making research-based appointments.

Working in partnership with the Ministry of Health in each country.

For us it (the finance instrument) is crucial. The project was funded on an outline proposal as we didn’t know how it was going to work and it’s constantly adapting, DFID staff are fabulously flexible.

Investment in a team / partnership that has delivered in the past is sensible. [Using a] Proven team as a criteria for funding is good.

[Using the] Best of both worlds – each partner brings its strengths to a joint programme – relating projects to specific needs. Values, if focus is on scientific knowledge in Africa then Africa has the advantage of being on the ground, on the inside. Need to make sure these contributions feature in any joint initiative.


84

Success is thanks to member states which were provided with the means via the project [budget]. We managed to make the process move ahead. We managed to get many other funds since we started organising ourselves. It’s not that complicated to invest in it. If we show we are organised. We got AUC / DG Entr, DEVCO money. We got interest from communities.

Project management - our manager is relentless. Key skill is her technical understanding, able to follow technical progress, follow EU rules and help partners.

The fact that it was a call for Africa with strict rules on the split of financing was positive, it made us really think – the salary differences between EU and Africa meant a huge amount of work is done in Africa relative to EU – as it should be.

Relationships between partners are absolutely key to the project’s success.

Obvious things are roles and responsibilities, what each partner brings to the party.

I think communication is key.

Good management, the proper engagement of the locals – i.e. the target countries – real cooperation, addressing real needs

I would emphasise that partners need training and education on how to manage and perform. It’s a practicality. I think USAID does this for example.

In future there’s need to invest in the level of capability and skills to deliver objectives before work starts. Non-science skills need cultivating.

I’d call it [private sector participation] critical, necessary – broadly because you need private sector actors to deliver.

Gaps: We need to work on translational research.

We need to integrate the things we are doing – medics and social sciences, engineering and social sciences, Africa’s problems are very interconnected.

I think the people that we put together mattered – people already working on NCD in Africa had great passion – people willing to devote their time. Contributing to writing special issues showed commitment. We all shard the passion to see NCD research funded adequately.

We succeeded because of the money. So yes, it was a determinant [in that sense].

The project’s success is fully related to the nature of the partnership.

Issues of Technology Transfer, Technology Acquisition, Capacity Building, development of Centres of Excellence, development of indicators and policy in STI are key features. These features are necessary conditions for success on STI cooperation

The fact that there were pre-existing relationships is important – common purpose, proposal was written in dialogue with all partners, trust between partners exists. All passionate about our goal.

We try to have collective level of activities and engagements, enabling partner-level engagement with their own networks – so there are two levels of engagement.

I think regular annual meetings and face to face engagement is important – have conversations etc, we meet more often than at our annual meetings.

Devolved responsibilities, in different elements of the collective, as well as leading in their own networks.

The funds will enable us to do the things we have to do. Has been helpful. Activities could have been done with another partnership under another programme, so the FP was not vital.


85

We started off as a network with common interests, what we’ve achieved has drawn on the partnership – I’ve driven hard at times, you need a pusher, a cajoler. That’s only possible if the partnership allows it. Here is an example of success related to partnership – we have come together to think about practice of curriculum development and then gone on to develop curricula – that has gone on to influence partner organisations’ own practices.

Multi-disciplinarity of the partnership, diverse countries.

Making sure programmes are designed properly, jointly.

Dialogue between partners.

Clearly articulated at every level that both sides have something to gain and learn.

What Swedish SIDA is doing with African universities is good. They are not just focusing on the obvious problem of research informing policy – they have discovered there are root problems and they are dealing with them – if researchers don’t have institutional support they can’t do what’s expected of them.

Comes back to high entry requirements. It’s a false economy to lower standards of expectation, if we do that at the beginning it will only get worse. Premise operates at institutional and individual levels. Only take the best. Want to have aspiration. Have to be humble about what one can achieve.

Our own examples at WT are good – African institutes are in the driving seat, they bring in the northern partners, and it’s been successful. It’s complicated, lot of work for the African partner who sub-award to other African partners, and WT gives money to northern partners.

Now that people are skilled up – we’ve invested lots of time it makes sense to re-invest. Having a track record is the key for us, and it opens up other opportunities. [A funding pattern for partnerships of] 5+5 yrs is a good period – it works for us.

Personal relationships are critical, even with the most difficult framework, personal relations are vital. Even with perfect institutional relations an initiative can fail without good personal relations. Implication is the need for resources for face to face contact and discussion. One has to put proper weight on the relationship and put financing in to make it work. You have to have a good project and proposal of course, but relations are essential.

It works because it’s meeting a need of participants – that’s a key, and because it’s driven by participants. They have interest in it. Relative to other projects at the same universities they get very little remuneration from this project, they also know the [coordinator] – there’s loyalty.

The funding mechanism is structured to support the success of the project. The regular – quarterly - reporting means that you are constantly evaluating yourself.

It’s [the partnership is] beyond what I expected. Initially there was scepticism. At start it was seen as difficult. Because of the universities and the way we are facilitating, it’s successful, the universities are engaged, they determine the areas to fix and are putting in plans.

I think we were far-sighted in the topic. Looking now at FP7 calls, it’s exactly the same topic yet we did this 3 yrs ago. Good project area to be in.

We were fortunate in having strong company in SA who acted as intermediaries between European ideas and African implantation, even though they only went for big projects.

Most important is the relationship between partners, the topic on which they work, and the extent to which they money is for not only research, but includes equipment and other academic activities around conferences, workshops – these are key to scientific activity. Not only communication.

Equitability.

The research domain is also important, it should have an impact on Africa, on our countries.


86

One has to be participant from the start, not invited to participate at a later stage. Not same as being co-investigator, consulted from the outset. Has to be opportunity to learn how to manage our finances according to EU rules, be in charge to build our own capacities.

A good project is when both commissions can really agree on objective, recruit a good team and see project carried through. INCO NETs and ERA Nets are good.

the Finland–SA partnership has been good experience.

The key success factor [of P8] is the involvement of MS in EU and Africa. We can end up in situation where the 2 commissions speak to each other in a bilateral arrangement without the MS participating, or just endorsing the Comms’ operations and that’s not really optimal. It’s not really bi-regional cooperation.

The blended learning methodology has been very successful [ref ALICT] and is applicable to other domains.

Partners have to work closely together. Not one side giving the money and the other side implementing the project. There has to be a common project.

The impact has to be kept in mind as a central element.

Good networking.

Interest and commitment from the scientists.

Funding, legal frame, institutional context that all allow to promote a balanced and equal partnership.

Partnership on the same level.

Any project that includes the following three components: 1) scientific research, 2) capacity-building: both human and institutional, both management and professional; 3) applicability: meaning that use and benefit of research for the society have to be clear.

There needs to be some sustainability, meaning that something remains, once the funding is over. Projects should put into action something that continues also after the project’s end. Either regarding outcomes and findings, or regarding the partnership (the consortium).

[Success is] If consortia for instance remain and are successful in acquiring new funds and start new or follow-up projects. If project consortium funded by one of our programmes is successful in acquiring a new or fellow-up project, funded either by us or by any other funding authority and financial instrument.

The call has to be very clear, aims and objectives must be evident, to show clearly where the projects are supposed to go. It has to encourage the involvement of partners in a way that the partnership is an equal one and leads to the realization of the set goals.

Topics that are relevant and important for addressing the big challenges that Africa is facing and that are of course global. The benefits for research in Africa have to be demonstrated and evident.

Partnership has to be on the same level, equal. We have to be clear that we are not talking about development aid. This in return requires that Africans do also contribute: financially or otherwise in-kind, such as in form of infrastructure, staff, etc.

There are many well-trained African scientists in Germany and other European countries who still have links to research institutions in Africa. Their involvement presents a potential to promote the quality of research in Africa.

High or even highest quality of research. This is in particular essential if cooperation is international.

Long term partnerships. The number of university institutes in [EU MS] which are able to respond to specific Africa calls is rather limited. So the success of these projects is closely linked to well-established and long-term partnerships between [EU MS] and African research institutions.

Long-term, focused & targeted, combining institutional and personal capacity building.


87

Development of institutions (support small institutions, help them to grow).

Adapt capacities also to small institutions.

Promote ownership, mentorship, soft skills, networks.

Involve companies and private sector, as much as possible.

Create and ensure sustainability.

Consider that institutions [in Africa] generally have no own funding: so when funding ends, this is a problem that should be taken into account from the beginning on in order to ensure sustainability.

The African universities involved are very committed to raise public awareness about the role of STI.

Cooperation [in project X] is based on a contractual form that clearly specifies the role and responsibility of each partner. This makes it possible to create a climate where partners can cooperate on an equal footing.

[Success] is very much related to the kind of partnership that we established.

The success and quality of a multi-lateral cooperation project are always closely related to the persons involved. If these persons are committed, then the partnerships works fine and the project can be successful.

Transparency in activities.

Most impressive and innovative is the fact that the African project partners wanted to cover themselves the costs of participants in project submitted under ERAfrica and originally from their country. This has never happened before.

Yes, [success] is to a very large degree related to the partnership, and here in particular to the good and balanced cooperation between the European and the African partners.

Project that is built on mutual trust within the consortium, as this may ensure sustainability of results and of the partnership, also after the end of the project and funding.

Project that takes into consideration the heterogeneity that exists between the partners and the intercultural dimension.

Project where expectations, needs and objectives are made clear from the beginning.

Trust among the partners. Without trust, a project cannot function and deliver any sustainable results. Trust is key for a good and continuing partnership.

Sustainability of results, in form of infrastructure that is maintained also after the project’s end.

The project’s interdisciplinary and esp. transdisciplinary approach (by involving local community members, interacting with the policy level).

The partnership, good collaboration within the consortium; The involvement of local communities from the beginning of the project, the interest and commitment of these local communities.

Project success very much related to the nature of the partnership.

A project that takes into consideration the needs of the majority of the REC’s member states.

Strong ownership, commitment on both sides.

Sustainable planning, beyond the project’s ending, the ability to promote new partnerships (here the role of external experts is important)

Networking of scientists, and maintaining of these networks, through master programmes.


88

A project that strengthens science in a sustainable way, e.g. by involving and supporting young researchers

Successful projects are projects where African researchers are working in their country, independently and in an equal partnership with European researchers (researchers are on a par).

The object of research should be adapted to the conditions, needs and concerns on the ground, i.e. responds to what is really needed in Africa

Joint publications (where African and European partners equally contribute)

African partners have to be involved in the project design in order to best bring in their expectations and also take responsibility.

The independence of African partners has to be ensured. This means that their part in the budget is exactly defined and transferred to them (even if the transfer can be done via the coordinator).

Cooperative projects are less likely to succeed if they fail to build lasting, meaningful partnerships between Europe and Africa. A true partnership cannot consist only of short-term projects and international conferences; it must leverage strengths on both sides in order to exchange expertise, train cohorts of future researchers and build durable scientific capacity. Ideally, partners will include not only scientists but also national governments, academics and civil society. Outreach to local communities is also critical – failure to engage with them and answer their questions can be deeply damaging.

A very high priority is long-term engagement with the partners in Africa, to provide sustained employment and career development for African professionals and to sustain community engagement with the projects.

With respect to capacity building the outputs should correspond to real needs of target beneficiaries (and not just to “exportation” of European equipments or know-how).

As regards Networking and Mobility of researchers, actions should be designed in such a way that might enable further collaboration. In particular, the actions to be supported should be the ones showing a larger potential to give rise to more robust collaboration.

Concerning Bi-regional dialogue, the critical point for success lies on the mobilization of key players (at policy making level and programme implementation) of both regions.

In relation to Collaborative projects, a key aspect is the extent to which the project contributes to create and reinforce real and sustained collaboration and not just an occasional cooperation.

Regarding Infrastructures, it is important to take into due account the feasibility in terms of maintenance and conditions of access which should be open enough and at a fair cost.

In the case of Technology Transfer projects, a key factor for success is the absorptive capacity of the country(ies) benefiting from the transfer operations.

Joint, equal Africa-EU ownership.

Clear elaboration and understanding of the benefits and costs for each partner.

Investment (financial) from both partners, according to a fair agreement of capacity to contribute.

Transparency.

Systematic monitoring and evaluation, with clear follow up actions taken on the basis of the evaluation.

Financial sustainability (the golden ticket).

Capacity development oriented beyond simple training of scientists, and towards the ability for both parties to manage the scientific process independently – management of grants, facilities, ability to prioritise research – towards establishment of independent, functioning research system (=sustainability).

Equity in negotiation capacity – ensuring equal access to the benefits of the research project.


89

Strengthening human and structural capacities.

Multiple partnerships (institutions du nord et du Sud, société civile, privé, communautés économiques régionales).

Inclusive approach (participation en amont de toutes les parties prenantes).

Adequate financing-( permettant un bon taux d’exécution du budget).

Collaborative research.

Researcher and student mobility.

Technology transfer and adaptation to the local context.

Good cooperation projects are to a large extent based on historical ties and past bilateral relations.

The collaborations have to be focused.

Mutually negotiated and signed MOU or Agreement that fosters mutual co-operation and needs, terms and conditions.

Realistic output based projects to be delivered within a realistic time frame with a clear denominator

Clear performance indicators for each of the outputs.

Sustainability of the project where after external funding, the project scope of work would proceed and be properly institutionalised into the structure of a coordinating institution.

Participation and ownership from both sides

Expected outputs should include: joint EU-Africa publication of project results; mutual accountability with regards to expenses of finances

You have to base your initiative on stable, long term collaborations, but with sufficient flexibility to adapt and bring innovation and new blood into the system. The partnerships have to be carefully chosen, based on previous experiences and have a mix of calls that are open to all with very formal selection procedures to enable new comers to join and remain fair and open, but also long term collaborators and those who have proven their value with good partnerships and results.

Benefits in terms of cooperation and collaborative initiatives ranging from training to specific research areas

Sustainable capacity building.

Relevance of outputs for both Africa and Europe (or specifically the partners in the project);

Outputs addressing specific needs of African people and Europeans.

That the relationship among the collaborative partners is enhanced and sustained even after the project and goodwill is maintained.

Transparency in the management of the project.

For partnership: key characteristics are co-construction and co-ownership (transparent shared governance); co funded by partners (but not necessarily equally funded); long term (5 to 10 years) commitment of the partners ; be opened to diversity of stakeholders ; not limited to research but also including training; focussed on a specific topic/theme which is locally relevant, which can be impacted and which also prone to the production of generic knowledge.

increase level of funding to support collaboration between Scientific communities in Europe and in Africa, especially through long term partnership mechanisms (like the EDCTP Article 185 initiative) and not only


90

short term projects ; better visibility and recognition at the global level of the EU –AU collaboration in STI; increase % of publications co –signed by African and European scientists.

Commitment from all stakeholders and parties and good representation from the African side also.

Projects to be properly embedded into the existing governance structures of the implementing organisations as opposed to setting up parallel structures to implement the project.

Properly negotiated MOU/Agreement specific for a project under the STI co-operation as opposed to having rigid rules and procedures /instruments which are only specific to a specific region.

Similarly, any project must be nested in the appropriate and relevant section within the established structure of the implementing organisation to ensure proper sustenance and take-over of the project activities.

Mutual understanding, agreed aims and ambitions.

Financial commitment is a key indicator in this regard.

The dissemination and valorisation of results may be of critical relevance for enhancing the impact and sustainability of the STI cooperation.

One of the most important criteria is the creation of strong partnerships between African and European partners, leveraging the strengths of both in order to address common challenges. Equally important are strong partnerships between the public, private, academic and non-governmental sectors, addressing the greatest burdens and building lasting scientific capacity. Successful research and innovation cannot be done in isolation; it must draw on the expertise of others and be linked closely with those who will ultimately benefit from the fruits of that research.


91

11.8 Annex 8: Stakeholder opinion on gaps and barriers in Africa-Europe STI cooperation

Stakeholders were asked during interviews and via questionnaire to offer opinions about gaps and barriers in Africa-Europe STI cooperation. Responses are shown here, verbatim, but anonymised.

Gaps:

Better thinking – research into horizon scanning / foresight and for that to feed agenda. It takes up to two years to get funds, then 3-5 yrs to deliver, then a few more yrs to do papers, then time for scaling-up and then impact comes later – means a cycle of 15-20 yrs. 20yr from now, what will be the issues we should be researching today? Geopolitically – climate change, energy, populations? Are we researching the things now that we’ll need in 20 years’ time? Long term thinking is essential.

PPPs and pre-competitive collaboration are becoming more important in EU funding priorities because of sustainability and need for industry–academia collaboration.

The post-2015 framework is a priority gap. Our work, our key metrics are around the MDGs and post 2015 agenda.

Translational research

Absence of co-financing: Africa governments need to put the money in. Political will is needed. We haven’t encouraged political will / co-investment in these high level governmental agreements – you hardly ever see the word ‘research’.

Investment in HE, but with the caveat that it’s thinking about learning. In 1o and 2

o education, we now know

how to get more kids in schools, but they’re not learning better. Need to think about pedagogic approach.

HE: Synergies between the sectors: science and IST, science and HE should be natural partners. The partnership should be more aligned with HE.

Collaboration with HE, scientific community, and private sector together, but not very easy.

Management of collaborative research activity. The skill set is absent. It’s in the donor’s interest to fund the skill set. Can’t be project specific.

Joint degrees. Easy to get EU and African universities to link up but they never offer joint degrees: too much to lose due to quality differential. Lots of capacity building but no joint degrees.

Innovation systems: Lack of understanding of how the two systems of innovation can interact and what is the mutual interest – there’s not sufficient undersanding of how the two should operate. We are rushing because of political commitment, but in fact there are lots of gaps – not a well thought out strategy . Even tho it’s a big initiative, it’s a small community, often the same crowd – its stalling.

Scientific and institutional infrastructure and capacities should be the focus, then the whole spectrum of scientific research can be put on top of that. But that doesn’t create equal partnership, so there’s still an ideological issue.

Thematic areas: Global challenges. Human interaction in cities, impact of disasters, climate change, sustaining well-being in megacities in EU or Africa. Health diagnostics. neglected disease, nutrition – traditional foods, solar energy.

Barriers:


92

Capacity & knowledge. Good people in Africa are in huge demand. But there’s lack of coordination. Not many really good people. There are so many organisations knocking on door of Africa, multiply that x20 EU countries.

One of the key challenges is a lack of funding. In the global health field, resources are often skewed towards the diseases and products which present the greatest commercial opportunities or have the greatest impact in Europe and North America. Specific EU initiatives – such as EDCTP - have helped address this, but there remains a relative lack of funding for poverty-related diseases and for early-stage translational research.

Clinical and laboratory investigators in Africa do not, in general, have ‘backup support’ mechanisms to carry them between grants and to sustain them during funding delays and gaps.

Lack of long-term funding for medical research and education institutions to provide career development for Africans within their own countries.

Lack of capacity in project management

Logistics: Money transactions, fuel shortages, Infrastructure – labs for example, but also physical infrastructure like roads.

Not having an equal partnership – means time required to develop trust and relationship –

Administrative and cultural practices – differ within EU partners as well as between EU and Af partners.

Research capacity: we’re working in institutes in Africa that don’t have institutional capacity.

Conservatism. Those from Africa are thinking like they are in the 1970’s and those from funding countries also, in practice it leads nowhere. How do we overcome this? Just vary the composition of the consortium. Elder scientists behave as they are used to. Design schemes for juniors who are really starting, it’s this generation that’s up to date with philosophy of cooperation today. Words have changes, practice hasn’t.

Lack of common goals means policy objectives are muddled, and then implementation mechanisms reflect this.

Weak regulatory / enabling environment, STI investment in Africa is increasing, but it will be fraught if the regulatory environment isn’t sorted for medical devices, clinical trials and data protection. Until there is resolution for clinical trials and related IP in Africa then STI isn’t going anywhere. It’s a disincentive for investment in Africa – there’s no patent regime & the absence of IP environment undermines all investment in STI in Africa.

The way we continue to compartmentalise challenges. Water, food security, energy are all interdependent. For example there are a lot of new energy technologies – fracking for example – is water dependent.

The procedures [of the FP], there needs to be a more flexible frame, there are many constraints in the procedures, it’s an enormous machine, and many people don’t want to get involved because it’s so heavy.

Just a small proportion of European countries are interested in cooperating with Africa. This is not necessarily very negative since the ones ready to cooperate might be really committed to do it.

The low intensity of Research and Innovation in most African countries is an important barrier to cooperation. Yet a more developed knowledge base of a few African countries and the real interest and commitment of a few European countries may constitute a basis for building a reinforced cooperation and evolving towards more intensive cooperation

The lack of dedicated calls to Africa in FPs is an important barrier to a more robust cooperation.

The low level of commitment of a few partners may be a problem.

The apparent complexity on the preparation of proposals and financial rules as perceived by the partners less acquainted with the rules and mainstream approach of each programme may be a problem.


93

Lack of research infrastructure in many African countries.

When the projects are large scale consortia, there appears to be a lack of direct accountability for individual project partners. Also, similarly in large-scale consortia there seems to be a divergence of opinions about the project objectives, which can hinder progress.

Weighting of priorities and outcomes towards EU funder priorities and needs.

Main barriers include lack of funding commitments from some of the countries involved and limited political backup. Particularly in Africa, there is only a handful of countries that really provide the necessary resources, both financial and human, to allow for a strong interregional cooperation.

A lack of trust requiring much more interaction between partners which must be based on building up long-term relationships.

Expectations. On both the European and African sides there are different and somewhat false expectations on outcome and long term results of the cooperation. Member states in EU do participate to some extent for the sake of Europe, but to a larger extent for its national interest. Member states expect to gain access to markets for national enterprises. African partners on the other hand mainly expects to learn from European research community and that the projects includes capacity building.

Corruption is still present and it is difficult to cope with. You are forced often to invite the people in the highest position to meetings, trainings,to be your project partner, while the scientists, IT people or other staff maybe your more appropriate contact and collaborator

Face to face meetings are needed, e-conference can happen, but do not always work well due to poor internet in some regions. The costs of travel is very high and difficult to get enough funds on the EU partner side for the needed travel. Some partners in Africa are not pro active and await a bit too much that the EU part takes all initiatives.

Lack of commitment by many African countries to invest in their research and higher education communities.

Insufficient coordination between “foreign affair/Aid” instruments (DEVCO) and Research/Science instruments (RTD), opening a funding “gap” where applied research between Europe and developing countries will fall.

The very high level of competition in EU calls added to the disappearance of the SICA instruments will limit the willingness of “strong” scientific partners to include in their consortia “weaker” partners from developing countries.


94

11.9 Annex 9: Project profiles

11.9.1 Research collaborative projects

AVECNET

AvecNet (EU’s FP7) is a large scale collaborative research and training project between African and European researchers emerging from the Coordinated Call for Africa to develop and evaluate new tools for malaria control in Africa. Objectives include:

1. Ensuring the sustainability of existing interventions such as LLINs and IRS. 2. Developing new tools for malaria vector control. 3. Generating the knowledge necessary to adapt control strategies to changing disease transmission

dynamics.

Products / technologies / services. The project’s own principal KPI is having a product that is ready for roll-out at the end of the project. Running from 2011 to 2016 it is too early to evaluate the project based on this indicator although the commercially approached triage of options at the start of the project selected products that are close-to-market, and the project is currently on-track to roll-out bed-nets with improved slow-release insecticide technology with 5 year persistence. Other marketable tools are also under evaluation.

Policy influence: Not applicable at this stage.

Jobs creation: The project is currently creating jobs, some seasonal, some permanent although only among project partner organisations in order to run project activities. Numbers are not available. Jobs in the economy will be created if the product(s) are successful; however, since the bed-net manufacturer is in Japan, the prospect for jobs in Africa or Europe is unclear.

Skills development: The project has a work package to run training courses and PhD studentships. Course success has been variable. Six PhD students are currently being trained.

Knowledge development. The project has produced about eight publications so far.

Networks and mobility: PhD students must have African and EU supervisors. All work packages have multiple partners from EU and Africa. There is a lot of exchange between postdocs. Many EU partners travel to Africa, equally important as the reverse. Four African scientists in AvecNet have applied for Wellcome Trust fellowships.

The partnership is a new group of people who have not worked together as a network before. The exchange of partners is creating linkages / partnership that will survive beyond the project. Senior African partners are starting sponsor / mentor junior ones.

Social capacity building: The project is undertaking lots of stakeholder user analysis, aiming at understanding communities’ perceptions before going in with new tools. The analysis has revealed interesting perspectives at different socio-economic that may help the choice of tools in different settings.

Private sector participation: AvecNet has two associate partners, Bayer and Syngenta, and because the project is testing insecticides for public health it also works with a Gates consortium (IVCC, a product development partnership) working with insecticides for public health so there is lots of private sector interest.

Local economy / SME creation: Attempts to date to develop products using local economy actors failed mainly because of quality concerns so the project is having products shipped in.

Awareness raising: AvecNet is working in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, and to a lesser extent in Kenya, and in each the local partners have set up sensitization projects before doing field work, meeting with village chiefs for example.


95

Key success features. Rigorous project management.

Finance mechanism: FP7 grant of €12m over 5 years providing 75% of research and 100% of management and training costs. The grant permits partners to achieve activities but is not an effective facilitator of outputs. Additional resources are needed and the grant presents no restrictions but neither does it afford opportunities. Three grant amendments required much work and time.

Partnership: Well-functioning relationships, established around common interests, with good communication, a management committee, a board of partners and an external advisory board, all working well. The nature of the partnership is seen as a key determinant of the project’s success.

Challenges: Private sector invovlement wawas essential to achieveing the goal but finding an optimal model for working with the private sector was a challenge. Using a broker allowed project to overcome the challenges, but the project was forced to think in more commercial terms in order for the collaboration between academia and private sector to function.

LABLITE:

LABLITE is an implementation project funded by the UK government’s Department for International Development investigating strategies to roll out HIV treatment safely and cost-effectively in real-life settings in sub-Saharan Africa. LABLITE was born out of DART, a clinical trial on HIV treatments that showed it was safe to deliver HIV treatment without routine toxicity testing. DART was criticised because those receiving treatment were in a clinical trial setting and so getting better care than the general population, biasing the results. LABLITE was born to show treatment can be decentralised.

Project KPI: The number of people accessing care who were not previously able to . The project is already measuring this indicator and over time intends to examine it more widely. No data available.

Key outcomes:

Products / technologies / services: Services: Point of care diagnostics, a technology allowing decentralisation. :

Jobs creation: Within the project there have been 12 people employed as country coordinators, health economists and statisticians. In the wider economy there have been no jobs created. The project is ultimately about saving lives so contributing to the economy in that way.

Policy influence: The project works with the Ministry of Health in each partner country, and they are part of the project’s decision making process. There is some suggestion that their exposure to the project could inform national policy changes.

Human skills development: LABLITE trains all members of staff that come into contact with the project. It is developing novel training materials, and mentoring using Training of Trainers models, and hub and spoke model. Hub is district hospital; spokes are level 3 health centres. Training is provided locally by locals.

Furthermore, the (clinics in the) project has accreditation to deliver HIV treatment in each partner country Uganda, Malawi and shortly in Zimbabwe. This is an outcome that will be sustained after the project ends

Capacity building: See above

Production of scientific knowledge: The project is about capacity building and new services, technologies, not new knowledge.

Networks and mobility: The project provides resources for project staff to attend meetings and conferences. The project has about 30 clinical staff, coordinators and principal investigators. LABLITE works with networks of health economics across Africa which it is trying to strengthen. It works with ADAC – a network of respected clinicians in HIV/AIDS who champion best practice.

Private sector participation: There are no private sector partners in LABLITE but the project works with GSK and Abbott, using their products. The companies provide drugs for DART and maintain an interest in triple nukes combination therapy. In US or Eu toxicity tests are required for side effects, so to know drugs can be used without testing is of interest to them.

The project works with named representatives in each company & that makes a big difference. GSK have a section of the company looking at humanitarian aspects of drug trials Company participation is driven by


96

CSR at the corporate level, but at the individual level there is personal commitment. Ethical aspects of our relationship to the drug companies is very delicate, in terms of testing drugs on African populations.

Local economy / SME creation: VSMEs arose out of the LABLITE precursor DART: Community groups arose out of people disclosing their HIV status & peer support groups emerged. Many SMEs were borne from this process, providing services, catering, driving, i.e. ‘VSME’s. It is anticipated that anticipate these service VSMEs will emerge also as a by-product from LABLITE.

The project supports local drug making companies but doesn’t work with them directly, and is not using their products.

Finance mechanism: DFID Research Into Evidence Division, funded on the basis of an invitation to prepare a proposal to continue a previously successful project. No indicative budget. Funds provided quarterly in arrears. Finance is considered a crucial aspect of the project’s success.

Partnership: Lablite is being carried out in collaboration with national Ministries of Health in Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe. It is led by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London. The partners in the project are - Dignitas International, Zomba, Malawi; the Joint Clinical Research Centre, Kampala, Uganda; the Medical Research Council / Uganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda; University of Zimbabwe Clinical Research Centre, Harare, Zimbabwe; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK; Imperial College London, UK; the Centre for Health Economics, York University, UK; University College London, UK. Well established, built on previous project.

Challenges: None mentioned.

Key success factors: Working in partnership with Min of Health in each country. Very collaborative process. Mins of Health are approaching LABLITE team to ask how international policy, such as ‘Prevention of mother to child transmission’ (PMCT) in new WHO guidelines‘ can be implemented. Knowing the LABLITE team are attending national MoH meetings where this is being discussed is an indicator of the trust placed in the project – that the project is reliable. Good relationship to donor. Investment in a team that has delivered in the past.

ZEI-WAI

The ZEI-WAI (BMBF) Research Cooperation on "Sustainable Regional Integration in West Africa and Europe" is a bi-regional research project. ZEI/ WAI is jointly coordinated by the Center for European Integration Studies (ZEI) at the University of Bonn (Germany) and the West African Institute located in Cape Verde. The cooperation between the two institutes already started in 2008 with an inception phase; the current project is being implemented between 2012 and 2016.

Objective: The project deals with the challenges of the West African regional integration process in the fields of politics, economics and institutional capacity development, taking into account a comparative perspective. The West African Institute is supported by ECOWAS and WAEMU and approved by UNESCO as category II institute.

Project KPI: (1) The establishment of the library at WAI; (2) The existence of a strong and broad network of ZEI and WAI scientists, as well as other West African and European scientists; (3) The setup of an expert database; (4) The number of WAI fellows; (5) The number of joint publications; (5) The strengthening of other networks, especially within West Africa (e.g. between ZAI and the Open Society Institute in Senegal (OSIWA); (6) WAI’s financial sustainability.

Capacity building: Whereas the project’s main focus is on research, it includes both personal and institutional capacity building. Personal capacity building mainly takes place in form of West African post-graduates trainings at ZEI and the parallel establishment of an Africa-specific “Master in African Regional Integration” in cooperation with WAI, UNU-CRIS and the University of Cape Verde. The administrative staff at WAI is trained in project management, exchanges of scientific and administrative personal are foreseen during the project. In terms of institutional capacity building, the project supports the establishment of a library at WAI.

Partnership: Bi-regional partnership built upon the shared commitment for regional economic and political integration. The partnership between ZEI and WAI dates back to 2008 and is increasingly expanded by strengthening links to other African and European institutes and involving them in project activities


97

Policy: The project intends to strengthen the links between scientists and political stakeholders, by actively involving policy makers in events, such as summer schools or public events. Research results are to be used to advise West African policy-makers.

Creation of jobs: New staff members have been employed at both institutions: 2 coordinators at WAI and 2 project coordinators at ZEI; 2 coordinators of the research programmes at WAI and ZEI, 2 research assistants at ZEI and 2 research assistants at WAI.

Knowledge development: A joint publication series, the WAI-ZEI papers has been created for joint scientific publications.

Networks and mobility: As regional research institute supported by ECOWAS and WAEMU, WAI is set upon a wide network of scientists, scholars, policy-makers and experts from all West African countries. To foster a bi-regional network, well-known research institutions in regional integration are progressively involved in the project’s implementation. In Europe, joint activities are carried out with UNU-CRIS and the University in Avignon. In West Africa, contacts have been made with the Open Society Institute in Senegal (OSIWA). A WAI Fellows network has been established that involves renowned professors from West Africa and Europe to support and advise the WAI in its research and dialogue activities.

Financial mechanism: Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). The idea to set up the project was initiated in view of enhancing research funding for social sciences and humanities and supporting research cooperation between Africa and Europe. An inception phase has been carried out, with BMBF funding, from summer 2010 to the end of 2011. In spring 2009, a 2-weeks summer academy was held for participants from ECOWAS member states, the ECOWAS Commission and ECOWAS institutions, with at least one representative from each of the 15 member states.

Governance: Shared coordination, with a mirrored structure at ZEI and WAI.

Key Success Factors: Strong ownership and commitment on all sides; planning beyond the end of the project, in order to promote new partnerships and joint initiatives (with the help of WAI Fellows). Co-coordination that helps both to create ownership and equitability, and to strengthen WAI’s capacities in project management.

Challenges: The setup of a joint MA programme at ZEI and WAI is delayed and takes longer than expected. As a temporary solution, seven West African scholars have received a scholarship and study at ZEI since fall 2013. The flexibility of the funding instrument is acknowledged as important precondition.

AFRINT

AFRINT1 (2002 – 2005), investigating the possibility for an Asian style Green Revolution to take place in nine countries in Sub-Saharan Africa on the basis of household level data collected from around 4000 smallholder farms; AFRINT2 (2007 – 2009), to trace patterns of change among these households given the growing policy interest in smallholder based agrarian development in both national, regional and international circles; and AFRINT 3 (2010 - 2015), downsized to four countries – Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and Zambia – and analysing linkages between farm and non-farm sources of livelihoods as well as gendered patterns of access to income both within and outside agriculture. Coordinator: University of Lund, Sweden.

Project KPI: (1) Publication record; (2) Capacity Development; (3) Set up and maintenance of a database.

Job Creation: As a purely academic project, AFRINT has built upon existing human resources. However, African MA students involved in the project have been able to pursue their carriers in this field of research.

Products/ technologies/ services: A quantitative and a qualitative database, covering more than 100 villages in the 9 African countries and more than 3000 households have been created Instruments for collecting data were jointly elaborated. Two instruments of analysis have jointly been developed with equal participation by African and Swedish researchers.

Human Skills development: On Swedish and African side. In Africa: Research and publication skills have significantly been enhanced. Administrative staff has improved their management skills. In Europe: A core


98

team of Swedish researchers has been able to upgrade their qualifications, esp. in panel data methodologies.

Scientific knowledge: 2 books AFRINT I and AFRINT II, and a countless number of co-authored scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals have been produced. Whereas the first book has been edited by three Swedish scholars, with contributions from several of the African partners, the second book has been co-authored by the Swedish coordinator, a Ghanaian scholar and a Tanzanian scholar and contained contributions from all partners.

Mobility and networking: Swedish scholars have traveled to Africa for data collection and other project activities. African scholars have come to Sweden, only for workshops and conferences. A small number of scholarships to Lund University, partly based on the AFRINT budget, have been awarded to a African students (e.g. Ghanaian PhD student, Zambian MA student).

Social capacity building: No trainings or workshops have been organised for local communities although there has been constant exchange and communication with the villages involved in the project.

Awareness Raising: Local communities have been constantly informed about the project’s progress. The responsibility to report back to the communities who have received the researchers and supported their work in terms of time and efforts is clearly acknowledged.

Private Sector Participation: In Mozambique, a private consulting company has been integrated in the consortium, to compensate the absence of an appropriate academic partner.

Networks: AFRINT has developed into a long lasting partnership between the University of Lund and research institutions in nine African countries. Between AFRINT 1, 2 and 3, the composition of the consortium has been slightly changed, but a core network could be maintained. The network could produce spin-offs in form of new projects.

Governance: Steering committees have been established for the different main activities of the project. Advisory Board, composed of external international experts who have contributed to and participated at the workshops.

Financial mechanism: AFRINT has been supported by several funding agents: SIDA, Swedish Research Coucil (Vetenskapsrådet, VR), Tercentenary Foundation, Bank of Sweden, with small contributions from Lund University. The Grant Agreement has been established with the University of Lund, and single contracts have been established between the University and research institutions in Africa.

Partnership: The partnership is based and defined by individual contracts established between the University of Lund and the African partners. Partnership is considered to be balanced and on an equal footing, which is mainly linked to this contract-based form of cooperation.

Key success factors: Cooperation based on a contractual form, allowing to clearly specify the role and responsibilities of each partner. Considered as essential to create a climate where partners can cooperate on an equal footing.

Challenges: The partnership has been based on individual contracts established between the University of Lund as coordinator and the African project partners, which in principle is considered as the most appropriate approach to clearly define and allocate roles and responsibilities. The major challenge is however seen in the Swedish tax laws which do not allow to take into account the African scientists’ contributions as salaries but only as “other costs”. This as a consequence has made it difficult, within the project and during reporting, to make visible the working contributions from the partners.

SASSCAL

Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management (SASSCAL) - a Regional Science Service Centre (RSSC) in Southern Africa is a joint initiative of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Germany, responding to the challenges of global change. Its mission is to conduct problem-oriented research in the area of adaptation to climate and change and sustainable land management and provide evidence-based advice for all decision-makers and stakeholders to improve the


99

livelihoods of people in the region and to contribute to the creation of an African knowledge-based society. The establishment of a Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management could create added value for the whole southern African region. It should be conceptualised and operationalised to complement the excellent existing research and capacity development infrastructures and research initiatives in the region. It should be embedded in the regional and national research.

Objectives include:

1. Trans-disciplinary, applied oriented research for people 2. Services and advice for policy, decision makers and stakeholders 3. Capacity development

Products/ technologies/ services:. The aim is the establishment of a Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management that could create added value for the whole southern African region

Human Skills development: SASSCAL is to improve capacities to provide sound science-based solutions for current problems and future risks in the region, in particular regarding climate change and the associated demands concerning land management practices of local players. To this end, the centre will contribute to strengthening existing and developing new capacities for application-oriented scientific research and science-policy consultations on climate change, adapted land-use and sustainable development in the region. Capacity building is done through facilitating academic education and training of African scientists (PhD programmes, Graduate Schools, fellowships, e.g. in cooperation with existing programmes and institutions) and specific capacity building (e.g. seminars, workshops; training of local experts and disseminators including training of non-academic partners).

Scientific knowledge: Regular joint publications, presentations and communications

Policy impact: The policy level of the partner countries has been involved through two roundtables, organised in 2009 and 2010, and the establishment of MoU project between the countries.

Mobility and networking: German scientists spend several months/ year in Africa. In parallel to this initiative in southern Africa, in West Africa a West African Science Service Center on Climate change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL) is presently being developed.

Private Sector Participation: The consortium has created a company (Section 21 company) under Namibian law to channel any co-funding, e.g. from KfW.

Governance: Very democratic governance structure.

Financial mechanism: BMBF, FONA (Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung)

Key success factors: The initiative is based on a decade of successful scientific cooperation and goes beyond research projects towards a new quality i.e. the establishment of research infrastructures.

The project acknowledged the importance of a regional dialogue between scientists and decision makers as global change challenges go beyond national boundaries. Therefore SASSCAL has a regional scope and the work of the Centre is defined in partnership with the respective scientific communities, the users of science products, policy-makers, and decision-makers.

Challenges: Ensure political support of the project’s activities in South Africa

11.9.2 Innovation collaborative projects.

AFTER

AFTER (FP7, 09/2010 – 08/2014) is a scientific research project to improve African traditional food products and the know-how associated by sharing European and African knowledge and technical knowhow for the benefit of consumers and producers in Africa and Europe. By generating and sharing knowledge on food


100

technology AFTER intends, for 10 product groups, to improve, develop and create a product or a technology representing an interest shared between European and African food companies. The consortium is composed of seven African and four EU countries in the project.

Objectives include:

1) to assure the improvement of the quality of traditional products by improving manufacturing processes;

2) to develop food products, either by improving traditional materials which could be exported to EU or developing new ‘functional’ foods.

Project KPI: (1) number of communication in congress and publication; (2) positive feedback from the SMEs involved in the project with regard to their ability to improve the food production process; (3) number of publications and internal reports; (4) number of PhD theses started and submitted, number of interns.

Job Creation: New jobs have been created for young researchers at CIRAD and African partner universities. Students involved in the project are likely to have better job opportunities or be employed by the private sector (food).

Policy impact: In some countries, the project is contributing to the definition of standards in food processing from raw material to products.

Products/ technologies/ services: New food technology and manufacturing processes as wellas new food products are created. New analytical methods are developed.

Human Skills development: Human skills development is a central part of the project. Training session are organised frequently, mainly for African partners. New skills are applied immediately within the project activities. PhD and MA students are involved.

Scientific knowledge: The first part of the project was dedicated to develop knowledge on traditional Africa Food product. Significant results were presented in International Congress (around 15 posters and 4 oral communication) and scientific papers (around 5).

Mobility and networking: The project is based on a scientific network from Africa and Europe.

Social capacity building: Demonstration activities for African SMEs to present technical results and findings.

Awareness Raising: The project is presented in the media, as well as through regular dissemination activities (website, leaflet, interviews in local press, etc).

Private Sector Participation: Some project partners are from the private sector, such as e.g. AAFEX, the Association Afrique agro Export, an association of over 90 African companies that export agricultural and agro-food products. Events as well as demonstration activities to present technical results and findings to African SMEs are regularly organised. Results are shared with African SMEs, in view of contributing to SME development.

AAFEX has played a central role in approaching African companies to explain the main objectives.

The involvement of the private sector is seen as beneficial and positive, and in particular as a way to demonstrate to companies (in Senegal) how they can be involved in and benefit from basic research projects.

Creation of new SMEs: So far, no new SME has been created but the project has revealed possibilities, in case the private sector does not adopt all new outputs.

Networks: A Europe-Africa network on traditional food has been created. South-South partnership is developing among the African project partners who did not know each before.

Governance:. Frequent physical and online (Skype) meetings, within the work packages or of the whole consortium. The external advisory board with members from Africa and from Europe is consulted by the Coordinator before meetings.


101

Financial mechanism: FP7.

Partnership: The partnership is considered as very effective, with roles and responsibilities distributed according to skills and expertise. Good partnership is considered as a key element for the project’s success, as AFTER is based on the idea of sharing European and African knowledge. The seven work packages are lead either by African or European partners.

Key success factors: (1) Strong involvement and commitment of the project partners; (2) Communication within the consortium.

Challenges: For African partners, a difficulty is seen in the way the budget is disbursed in several instalments and the gap between the pre-financing and the final payment. This is likely to create financial bottlenecks and cash flow problems. The solution is seen in applying for complementary funding.

11.9.3 Capacity building projects.

human capital development (including knowledge exchange, mobility of scientists and engineers,

training);

physical research infrastructures (includes R&D equipment);

policy development (includes knowledge application and policy learning);

institutional development;

For health research capacity see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607030/

AfricanSNOWS

AfricanSNOWS (Wellcome Trust, African Institutions Initiative, 2008-2014) builds interdisciplinary capacity for research in water supply, sanitation and environmental health, bringing together universities from across the African continent, with research active universities in the North.

KPI: The number of research proposals prepared for funding from other donors.

Products / technologies / services: The purpose of the project is to create research capacity rather than to generate goods and services.

Policy influence: The project has led to new university policies.

Jobs creation: Not applicable.

Skills development: There have been training workshops (No. unspecified) for support staff in university administration and finance, but also for PhD student supervision, proposal development, and for some of those, other members of the consortium have joined in. Universities in EU respond to invitations from partners in Africa to give courses in-country, at site of universities. Technical training workshops have also been given for example on a technique developed by WaterAid called water point mapping for accountability in the water sector. Links to the DFID SHARE project have allowed project staff to apply for SHARE PhD fellowships.

Knowledge development. Indirectly only via the preparation of new research proposals by members of the consortium.

Networks and mobility: AfricanSNOWS has strength in this area. Project started with a needs assessment among participating African universities, with assessment including members of the universities themselves allowing a pairwise swapping arrangement. The process allowed mutual learning on how different universities deal with common issues. The team continue to meet. Early in 2013 the project held a conference for young researchers to learn about presenting data and getting peer criticism that led to constructive networking.

There was a small pre-existing network of South African universities but the network is mostly new, also in terms of cross disciplinary alliances.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607030/


102

Social capacity building: Only indirectly, if universities in the project transfer the ideas on hygiene to the community.

Private sector participation: Private sector not directly engaged. WaterAid is a not-for-profit private organisation that has been associated to AfricanSNOWS.

Local economy / SME creation. Not applicable. The project advocates working with SMEs and with local maintenance and construction capacity. For example people in Kumasi became interested in faecal sludge management and how enterprises can be supported to make more their operations more hygienic.

Awareness raising: Not yet.

Key success features: Strengthening university administrative and financial capacity, which represented a major barrier to project progress.

Challenges: Weak university administrative and financial capacity. Transfer of project funds in dollar denominations between partners in Africa interrupted by 3

rd party US banks led to one partner being without

funds for protracted period. Budget reduction led to loss of expectations and decision to place resources in Africa laudable but complicated and led to lost time. Lesson is to not change policies during negotiation.

Finance mechanism: £1m budget disbursed according to actual expenditure with large proportion to African partners. Each partner has their own budget. Grant does not pay time of university staff with funded positions and accountants contribute time on ‘goodwill’ basis. Grant offers flexibility but reduced budget relative to proposal requires partners seek additional funds. Wellcome Trust tries to achieve project sustainability. Additional phases are a possibility. Funding is effective in facilitating outcomes for example by transferring resources to African partners, and is supportive of capacity building.

Partnership: Established around the interests of and designed with the African partners with activities driven by African university research capacity training needs. Constructive dialogue. Constructive association of partnership with that of the DFID SHARE project, e.g. shared advisory board. Communication generally good. Regular communication among core of partners acting as decision making forum. Consortium consulted on activities. Collective decision making around strategy at annual meetings.

ACP NON-FOOD OILS

ACP non-food oils (ACP S&T programme call I; 2009-2013) is primarily a capacity building project combining technology transfer (and research?). Its purpose is to build sustainable, non-food, renewable biofuel supply chains for providing combined cooling heat and power (CCHP) electricity, and in the future, the chemical feed stocks needed to replace fossil fuels, by linking the relevant science and technology academics, professionals, decision-makers and support scheme managers Africa and Europe in a series of inter-regional and intra-regional workshops.

Project KPI: (1) Research proposals compiled, (2) Training programmes run, and (3) Stakeholder workshops held. The project prepared seven research proposals, ran 10 training programmes and conducted all planned workshops, achieving nearly all its targets.

Key outcomes: Planned CCHP systems which will deliver renewable electricity heat and cooling to small communities and provide the market for locally sourced biofuels; Large-scale microalgae production in coastal waters planned to meet increased global demand for biofuels such as glycerol; and new biofuel businesses emerging.

Products / technologies / services: Extraction of glycerol from algae. Glycerol can be produced by algae in salty water and can be put into an engine to generate electricity. Adapted and developed from existing technology.

Policy influence: Not yet. It may inform national policy in Namibia where the technology is being developed and commercialised.


103

Jobs creation21

: See SME creation. At the moment there is no permanent job created from this business model. The number of jobs available will depend on the business model. In general, if the microalgae production intensive system is chosen with more mechanisation, less jobs will be created, but higher skilled labour will be required. If the microalgae production system is more labour intensive, with less mechanisation, more labour will be created. However in either system long term vision to train and upgrade the labour skills is envisaged. In higher levels of the supply chain as at the extraction of glycerol and biorefinery, opportunities for skilled labour will be available.

Skills development: See project KPI above. No numbers available.

Knowledge development: The project has contributed to new science and to existing technologies. Most recent initiatives for which the project is being funded by FP7 will feed into the company ‘GlycAL Namibia’. Eight articles / papers have been written by partners as project outputs.

Networks and mobility: The budget for instance allows partners to participate in workshops in different counties, and for students to get trained in Plymouth and this has been a key success.

Social capacity building: Project has tried to get research projects off the ground with local communities in Namibia, for example a combined heating and power (CHP) biogas system to be run by an active citizenship project. EuropAid funding was sought. CHP systems can run systems on diverse fuels. The project ran a number of case studies to look at biofuel agenda in the different partner countries.

Private sector participation: Partners included two SMEs and one large private sector organisation.

Local economy / SME creation: GlycAL Namibia was registered in 2013. Israel expertise brought to Namibia. Entrepreneurs in Namibia saw opportunity to cultivate algae. Investors from UK and SA visited Namibia, driving further investment from SA into Namibia. UK investor pulled out. The new / expansions of existing businesses should be sustainable without EU support.

Awareness raising: 6 television broadcasts / videos. 13 articles written about the ACP Project. / 4 international conferences at which lectures / presentations have been given under the ACP banner. University of Ghana partners published its workshop events in the weekly Spectator newspaper that has national coverage. University of Ghana partners arranged coverage of the workshop and interviews with partners, on the TV3 television station, with national coverage. The workshop event was published on the University of Ghana publicity webpage.

Key success factors: Strong private sector partner, investor interest, an existing UK patent on the technology to stimulate local private sector interest, timely selection of topic and determined and visionary coordination & leadership drawing on existing networks and personal contacts.

Challenges: A complex project to manage since it was spread across 2 continents and 5 countries with different policies, attitudes and governing regimes; and it had a diverse composition of partners (2 SMEs, 1 large commercial company, 2 research organisations, 3 universities). On top of this the subject area has represented a ‘roller-coaster’ of changing attitudes and interests in bioenergy on a global scale in the course of the project.

Finance mechanism: €0.86m grant from the ACP-EU S&T programme of EDF. Funds supplied as a grant to the consortium based on actual expenditure. The grant provided the partners with the means to achieve the outputs but was not notably useful in promoting sustainability or leveraging other funds. Delays in disbursement affected partner engagement and activity schedule. Suggestion that the mechanism needs to be much clearer, particularly in respect of private sector participants. The compensation model of the EU ACP fund does not favour the participation of commercial entities, thereby excluding continental (African) intelligence that will be needed to progress from research into commercial phases for ACP initiatives.

Partnership: See challenges. Project and partnership conceived mainly by one partner. Elements of the partnership will persist but is likely to exclude the private sector partners because of constraints posed by EU grant conditions.

The UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease

21

Source: http://www.acp-nonfood.com/P-Hooks-Dunaliella-Glycerol-Swakopmund.pdf

http://www.acp-nonfood.com/P-Hooks-Dunaliella-Glycerol-Swakopmund.pdf


104

The UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease (2006-2009; British Academy) is a research partnership of medical and social scientists based in Africa (Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya), Europe (UK, The Netherlands), Asia (Malaysia) and the US. Established in 2006 with funding from the British Academy, the partnership aimed to develop interdisciplinary models for chronic disease research, intervention and policy, to address the public health challenges for Africans both in Africa and in the diaspora.

Project KPI: 1) Organisation of 3 international meetings completed; 2) Publishing to raise awareness of non-communicable disease achieved; 3) Training graduate students achieved not as anticipated by improving writing skills through authoring papers; 4) Accessing more resources, proposals prepared but without attracting funding.

Key outcomes: As above

Products / technologies / services: Not applicable. .

Jobs creation: Not directly

Policy influence. Project outputs are entering regional policy discussion. Policy makers have acknowledged project inputs. Ghanaian policy makers involved in project dissemination, but does not necessarily translate into new policy.

Skills development: Though partnership with New York University, the project has able to train MA, MPhil and PhD students, on various aspects of NCD research including diabetes.

Knowledge development. Members of the partnership have produced many articles, notably through four special issues of ‘Globalization and Health’ each of eight articles, the majority by members of the partnership.

Networks and mobility. Most notably the project has funded four international conferences allowing African researchers for example to go to London and Malaysia. The network was created from new, bringing together personal contacts of the coordinating partner but who had never worked together previously.

Social capacity building: Not applicable.

Private sector participation: Not applicable.

Local economy / SME creation: Not applicable.

Awareness raising. Indirectly. Members of the network participate in other projects, one of which for example develops material for community health workers, and lay people involved with / living with chronic diseases.

Key success factors: The people and their passion for the subject. Willingness to contribute time, write papers, at no costs.

Challenges: The network was established to confront the need for research to develop the appropriate interventions to avert an NCD crisis. The level of financing allocated meant partners had to be resourceful, drawing on other sources to support project activities.

Finance mechanism: Small grant of £30k from the British Academy international partnership scheme. Flexible and accommodating but was seed funding only for meetings and to seek additional funds. Size of grant did not allow institutional capacity building. Overall cost of project much greater than size of grant made feasible only by much in-kind contribution. Sustainability implicit in the call but no specific support to leverage additional funds.

Partnership. Partners shared common advocacy interest, all previously working on NCD. Six core partners met regularly, when schedules permitted, to lead the publication process. Administration is led by the coordinator. Papers prepared by broader group of partners. Funding mechanism did not require governance structures. Partnership persists beyond BA funding. Governance of partnership being investigated.


105

Development Research Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa (DRUSSA)

DRUSSA (2011-2016, DFID) aims to improve the accessibility, uptake and utilisation of locally contextualised development research evidence on climate change and environment, health, information, education, governance, food security, livelihoods for children, women and men in Africa, to inform Sub-Saharan and global development policy and practice. The initiative also aims to strengthen the capacity of 24 research-intensive universities in Africa by strengthening their research uptake management capacity, and by strengthening their participation in the international development scientific research system.

Project KPI: As a programme for change, the project measures institutional change: Demonstrable change in (1) strategy and policy, (2)-processes and systems, incl. HR and peoples’ job descriptions, (3) -attitudes and understanding of what people do, (4) knowledge and skills. Externally the project assesses stakeholder perceptions of the universities.

Key outcomes: Too early in project life to draw conclusions about impact.

Products / technologies / services: The project is strengthening universities’ research management systems.

Jobs creation: As a by-product of the project’s activities, there have been 12 new posts created related to research uptake in 2 universities: Legon in Ghana, and Makerere in Uganda. No jobs in the wider economy. Project relates to the universities building a presence in the social, cultural political economy, and part of that is developing partnerships with the commercial sector so in the medium to long term there may be jobs in the economy.

Policy influence: Institutional policy: All participating universities have a remit to develop new research policies. Two universities – in Rwanda and Kenya - are linked to government policy development.

Skills development: The project has a WP on skills development and runs 3 MSc, PhD and short courses, developed by CREST all around knowledge utilisation and research uptake in which all member universities participate at Stellenbosch. DRUSSA provides bursaries. There are about 60 students on DRUSSA funded courses, 23 have MSc and PhD bursaries from DRUSSA.

Knowledge development: Two papers on research uptake have been published.

Networks and mobility: The 24 universities are networked. They were not part of a prior network, but they are now and it is likely to persist. In 2014, DRUSSA intends to bring all the VCs together. DRUSA encourages networking in-country between university and stakeholders. There is a move for DRUSSA to start talking to other projects around research uptake funded by other donors to ensure synergies.

Social capacity building: Not directly, although much work done by the member universities is community based.

Private sector participation: The local private sector, key stakeholders of universities, is associated.

Local economy / SME creation: Not applicable

Awareness raising: Not yet. September 2013 conference will address this.

Key success factors: DRUSSA is succeeding because it meets a need of the participants. Relative to other projects at the participating universities they get very little remuneration from DRUSSA.

Challenges: University partners are mostly in positions where they are expected to change things and in an environment now that is different to a few years ago. HE is big business, universities have to become competitive, and in many cases entrepreneurial also.

Finance mechanism: Accountable grant of £3.7m from the Research into Evidence Division of DFID’s Research Uptake Programme, paid in arrears & conditional on results. Flexible: money can be moved across years and budget lines, with permission. Contract is between DFID and the coordinating partner. Other delivery partners are sub-contracted by the coordinating partner. Sustainability is explicitly acknowledged, the possibility of a second phase is foreseen. Funding facilitates capacity building, facilitates outcomes and is structured to support project success, notably via regular reporting to assure constant self-evaluation.


106

Partnership: There are three delivery partners and 24 universities as beneficiary partners. Set up by delivery partners only. Universities were not consulted at conception but have been and are on-board. Partnership works well, allows sharing of information, inspires competition and raises standards. Governance structures include a delivery partner committee, and oversight committee with DFID, and a four-strong external advisory board. Communication channels well established. Greater benefits accrue to the more entrepreneurial universities. The partnership is the key determinant of success.

The West Africa Malaria Initiative (WAMI)

WAMI (2009-2013; Spanish International Agency for Development Cooperation) is a regional initiative for malaria research in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). WAMI's objective is to provide regional support for strategies undertaken to control or eliminate malaria. This is done by developing regional capacities in research (strengthening research networks) and training (improving training for malaria specialists).

Project KPI: 1) Full MoU signed by the 2 West African institutes, and a plan to engage other universities in the region, 2) Academic programme to be implemented, 3) Creation of regional network, 4) Other more specific institutional indicators.

Key outcomes: None.

Products / technologies / services:

Jobs creation: Not applicable

Policy influence: Not applicable

Skills development: Not applicable

Knowledge development: Not applicable

Networks and mobility: Not applicable

Social capacity building: Not applicable

Private sector participation: Not applicable


Awareness raising: Not applicable

Key success factors: Not applicable

Challenges and factors accounting for failure to achieve objectives: Language and cultural barriers. Inadequate M&E of milestones. Partners’ priority of placing institutional interests above national and/or regional interests. Weakness in the ECOWAS regional mechanism hindering capacity to foster regional networks. Civil unrest in Mali. Economic crisis in Europe.

Finance mechanism: Grant of ca. €0.5m paid in advance from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, disbursed to all partners, fostering ownership (despite initial difficulties in the transfer to Accra). For planning purposes the grant mechanism worked well and was flexible enough to permit re-budgeting. A follow-on grant foreseen from the government of Spain in the event of success to assure long-term sustainability was not mobilised.

Partnership: As a project of just three partners with good interpersonal relations. The three lead investigators formed the project committee. No external advisory group.

Innovation for Poverty Alleviation in South Africa Programme


107

Overview: The programme for Innovation for Poverty Alleviation in South Africa is funded through the EU Sector Budget Support Programme and aims to support the Department of Science and Technology of South Africa to implement policies for promoting the application of STI to alleviate poverty by creating jobs and SMEs as well as developing human capital through training. The Programme was launched in 2009. It is one of the strategic initiatives of the collaboration under the bilateral STI agreement signed between South Africa and the EU in 2006. The programme core foci areas are: energy, ICT, sustainable livelihoods and water. It also promotes policy dialogue between South Africa and the EU on issues pertaining to the development and application of STI to promote sustainable development in general and poverty alleviation in particular. There are 14 projects currently supported in 62 sites in South Africa.

Programme KPIs: The programme’s KPIs include 1200 jobs and 10 SMEs to be created by 2014; 500 rural households supplied with energy and 45 municipalities with ICT networks by 2014; 3000 rural households supplied with water by 2014; and 3000 South Africans trained in various aspects of technology development and demonstration. Other KPI include enhanced policy dialogue between South Africa and the EU.

Key Outcomes: So far (by 2013) the programme has generated many outcomes. These include 859 jobs created, 3064 persons trained, 1775 households supplied with water and 410 with energy, 46 municipalities with ICT networks and 48 SMEs created and 13 technology demonstrations established. On the whole, the programme’s targets are being met and in some cases targets have been exceeded or performance is beyond the targets.

Products / technologies / services: No new specific products or technologies have been developed. However, existing water and energy technologies have been demonstrated or tested in many rural communities in the country.

Job creation: As stated above, so far 859 jobs have been created.

Policy influence: Under the programme, at least two policy dialogues have been organized or held. One policy dialogue focused on water technologies which have been developed and the challenges of implementing/upscaling or replicating these technologies; and another one was on extending ICT access and connectivity to rural communities in South Africa. The dialogues involved high level policy makers including ministers from South Africa and the EU Head of Delegation to South Africa.

In addition to the dialogues, a high level policy conference on the programme was held in September 2012 in Brussels. The conference was attended by President Jacob Zuma, the EC President and several ministers as well as high ranking policy-makers from South Africa and the EU. The conference demonstrated the high level political support that the programme enjoys and its influence on policy-making in both South Africa and the EU.

Human skills development: As indicated above the programme has been instrumental in training more than 3000 South Africans in various aspects of technology demonstration.

Capacity building: See above

Production of scientific knowledge: Not really applicable to this programme. It is not a scientific research programme and does not have science-focused activities.

Private sector participation: DST has leveraged private sector participation in the project using resources from the EU. For example, Sasol (an energy South African) multinational company is involved in the implementation of the project and contributed approximately ZAR 3 million (approx. €260,000) to the programme. Other companies involved include MTN that is a telecommunications company.

Local economy / SME creation: As indicated above, 48 SMEs have been created.

Finance mechanism: The programme received a grant of €30 million from the EU Sector Budget Support Programme of the EU DEVCO. According to interviewees for this study, the Sector Budget Support is a flexible mechanism that has enabled DST to promote implementation of its 10 Year Innovation Plan and other STI policy instruments without restrictions. The SBS enabled DST to leverage financial and technical resources from private sector.

Partnerships: The programme is one of the initiatives being implemented under the South Africa-EU STI partnership. It is itself a partnership involving national departments of science and technology (DST), water


108

affairs, energy and ICT as well as almost all national public universities, science councils such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), private companies (in particular Sasol and MTN) as well as community –based groups. The programme is governed by an Executive Committee that comprises of representatives from these various stakeholder groups.

Challenges: The implementation of the programme has faced a number of challenges. These include (a) initially DST had difficulties aligning its expectations with EU requirements and indicators (b) local communities had weak project management capacities sometimes causing delays in the execution of the project (c) DST internal capacity for reporting to the EC was initially limited but has improved and (d) inter-departmental coordination was initially poor (other sectoral departments were not coordinating or articulating well with the DST)

Key success factors: The success, in fact effectiveness, of the programme is largely accounted for by the following factors: (a) high level political support from the presidencies in South Africa and EU as well as the active engagement of the minister of science and technology and the EU Head of Delegation in South Africa (b) an active governance mechanism through the Executive Committee that is inclusive involving private sector and representatives of local communities (c) the flexibility of the SBS mechanism that has enabled the DST and implementing partners to adjust project activities to suit changing conditions in the communities; and (d) explicit alignment of the programme objectives and KPIs with national STI policies and strategies such as the DST 10-Year Innovation Plan.

European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)

EDCTP (2003-2013, FP6, Member state and third party funding) aims to accelerate the development of new or improved drugs, vaccines, microbicides and diagnostics against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, with focus on phase II and III clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa. The project funds clinical trials through a rolling process of calls for proposals.

Project KPI: Many KPI set up at the start of the project, some operational such as speed of processing grants. Some KPI related to scientific objectives. No KPI for soft goals such as ownership, although African coordinators and African principal investigators have been measured. About 70% of genuine PI come from the South.

Key outcomes: By the end of 2012 EDCTP had awarded 241 grants of which 106 were still active and 135 completed. Among the awarded grants 88 are clinical trials; 31 on HIV/AIDS, 25 on tuberculosis and 32 on malaria (EDCTP Annual report 2012).

Products / technologies / services: See key outcomes. The projects supported by EDCTP support the development of drugs, vaccines, microbicides and diagnostics against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Many individual case studies are available such as 1) the development of fixed doses of ARTV for children replacing the need to break up adult dose tablets; 2) the simplification of severe malaria treatment in children from use of many IV injections to fewer intramuscular injections; 3) the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV, now international policy.

Jobs creation: Approximately 1000 people are employed on EDCTP projects. Data on creation of jobs in the economy is not available.

Policy influence: Translation of research into policy takes time. WHO guidelines / recommendations tend to lag behind science, yet nations often wait for WHO. There are examples of EDCTP supported clinical trials influencing national, regional and international policy: The prevention of mother to child HIV transmission is now international policy. One major trial in West Africa was intended help national authorities to use artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in Africa which are suitable for pregnant women.

Skills development: EDCTP offers resources for training people for every clinical trial that’s done. Projects always include a WP for capacity building to provide whatever skills are needed by a trial. Individuals are recruited, then skilled. About 400 have been trained. EDCTP also gives fellowships also, so people are trained while they are working.

Knowledge development. Clinical trials automatically generates new clinical knowledge and along with that EDCTP aims to empower individuals to protect the knowledge. The weak IP regimes in Africa, affording weak knowledge protection, does not deter EDCTP from generating new knowledge.


109

Networks and mobility: EDCTP encourages South-South and North-North networking, offering incentives. The EDCTP premise is that there should be several partners in a project. The EDCTP mandate is to integrate EU programmes so there must be minimum of 2 EU partners, plus one in the South. Many EDCTP supported projects have several partners in the South and a fewer number in the North. EDCTP gives awards for networking for every clinical trial, and there are funds to allow sharing of facilities, co-monitoring, free utilisation of services.

Social capacity building: Not directly, although for instance the local investigator in a trial is required to liaise and negotiate with the test population.

Private sector participation: See the report section on private sector participation. However, although the private sector has participated in EDCTP phase I projects, this participation has been indirect, largely through the provision of products free of charge, or at cost.

Local economy / SME creation: Indirectly.

Finance mechanism EU FP6, matched by EDCTP member funds plus third party contributions. The key feature of the EDCTP financing mechanism is joint funding. For every Euro contributed by the EU, EDCTP is required to match with resources from member states. The approach fosters ownership and shares the risks, and the scale of investment between 2003 and 2012, with approximately €150m invested by the EU and a similar amount invested by member states and third parties, illustrates the success of the approach.

Partnership. ECDTP unites 14 participating European Union (EU) member states plus Norway and Switzerland with sub-Saharan African countries. The partnership is governed by the General Assembly of member state representatives and informed by various committees such as the Developing Countries Coordinating Committee and the Ethics committee, supported by the EDCTP secretariat.

Challenges: Absence of robust IP protection in Africa means weak protection of knowledge, although said not to deter generation of new products, contrary to criticisms raised. Weak private sector participation. Collaboration with the private sector can lead to delays, for example in publishing. EDCTP member state contributions come with different conditionalities.

Key success factors: Joint ownership promoted by the financing mechanism; strong South-South relationships, support for context specific capacity building in all EDCTP supported clinical trials.

African Leadership in ICT (ALICT)

ALICT (2010-2013, Finnish Foreign Ministry) is one of the African Union’s Lighthouse Projects. ALICT provides a tailored course that builds the capacity of future African leaders to contribute effectively to the development of knowledge societies by imparting new leadership skills to them. These new leadership skills provide participants with the attitudes, ideas, management tools, and strategies to act as change agents, assisting their ministries and organisations to develop coherent and well aligned polices in education, ICT and STI

22.

Project KPI: Example: Ability of course participants to jointly develop a policy coherence plan during the training.

Key outcomes: With an initial target to select 150 African leaders and have 50 of them graduate, by the end of November 2012, two cohorts of participants had applied and enrolled. In the first, 109 participated from five countries and 83 graduated. For the second cohort, 193 participants from over eight countries enrolled.

Products / technologies / services: ALICT provides a tailored course that builds the capacity of future African leaders to contribute effectively to the development of knowledge societies.

Jobs creation: Not directly applicable.

Policy influence: Trained ministry officials act as change agents, assisting their ministries and organisations to develop coherent and well aligned polices in education, ICT and STI.

22 http://www.gesci.org/african-leadership-in-ict-alict.html

http://www.gesci.org/african-leadership-in-ict-alict.html


110

Skills development: Participating ministry officials learn leadership skills providing participants with the attitudes, ideas, management tools, and strategies.

Private sector participation: The private sector was engaged in designing elements of the ALICT course. Commercial sector couldn’t be persuaded to bring private sector perspective to ALICT course.

Local economy / SME creation: Potential for indirect impact through the creation of improved policies.

Finance mechanism: Phase I: €3m from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. For Phase II, additional finances have been committed by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and AfDB funds are being sought.

Partnership: Tripartite partnership between the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, GESCI (international non-profit technical assistance organisation) and the African Union Commission.

Challenges: Poor initial programme design at LHP stage. Little interest among EU members states or EU in working with Finland to support the ALICT Lighthouse Project led to Finland working independently with GESCI and AUC. Dialogue with other funders such as AfDB was slow to evolve. Model is unsustainable because it is totally dependent on donor funding.

Key success factors: 1) blended learning model for ministry officers which allows enrolled officers to stay in their posts for the greater part of the course, 2) course quality assurance provided by Dublin City University accreditation, 3) policy coherence that ALICT engenders through the tailored curriculum and the participation by officers from all ministries which have association to the knowledge economy, 4) low drop-out rate.

Independent evaluation of ALICT conducted shortly after the first cohort had graduated concludes that the project scores highly on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and accountability

BIOTA AFRICA

BIOTA AFRICA (BMBF: Biodiversity and Global Change Programme (BIOLOG)) is a cooperative, interdisciplinary and integrative research project with partners from Benin, Burkina Faso, Germany, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia and South Africa. Outcomes are to support international networks (UNEP, IUCN, GEOSS, etc) as well as the Johannesburg Plan of Action of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and NEPAD. BIOTA is built upon three networks: BIOTA East Africa (Kenya and Uganda); BIOTA Southern Africa (RSA, Namibia) and BIOTA West Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire). Period of implementation: 2001 – 2010. Coordinator: University of Hamburg. Capacity building: Human capacity development; Physical research infrastructure development

Objectives include:

1. To develop a "Biodiversity Observation Network" in Africa; 2. To observe and develop capacities to observe land degradation, monitor biodiversity development; 3. To develop strategies for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversitiy in Africa.

Project KPI: (1) A relationship of trust is established between the partners to serve as a basis of future cooperation; (2) Sustainable infrastructure has been created; (3) The websites containing monitoring data are running and maintained after the end of the project; (4) Local communities are actively involved.

Products / technologies / services. The project’s main goal has been the establishment of biodiversity monitoring facilities in Southern, West, East and Northern Africa that are still serving to regularly collect and analyse data.

Creation of jobs: Jobs have been created for scientific personnel, directly linked to the project implementation, as well as within local communities. In local communities close to the BIOTA biodiversity observatories, the position of so-called “Para-Ecologists” has been created. These have received training in the local research centres as well as on-the-job and worked in close cooperation with the researchers to collect data from the observatories. Besides their direct contribution to the project and data collection process, the importance of these newly created positions can be seen in the Para-Ecologists’ role as


111

translators between the project (= the scientists) and the local community, and creation of local awareness and ownership.

Networks and mobility: During the entire duration of BIOTA, German scientists have regularly spent several months per year in Africa to accompany the process and work as close as possible with their African project partners.

Social capacity building and awareness raising: The project has organised a lot of trainings and information events for and with the local communities living close to the biodiversity monitoring observatories. These activities have on the one hand aimed at strengthening local capacities, notably by training people as Para-Ecologists, as described above. On the other hand, they have presented an important approach towards ensuring good relations between locals and scientists, and promoting local acceptance and ownership as a key factor for the project’s outcomes’ and achievements’ sustainability.

Finance mechanism: BMBF, Funding mechanism “Biodiversity and global change" (BIOLOG). The aim of BIOLOG is to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of biodiversity in ecosystems. BIOLOG has a budget of €9 million per year. The effectiveness of the BIOLOG mechanism for projects like BIOTA primarily lies in its focus on applied research.

Project governance: Democratic governance structure, based on the election of one representative of each participating institution for a national BIOTA steering committee. Decisions on the national level are taken among these representatives and reported to the Project Coordinator. Regular meetings of the different national committees and the Project Coordinator.

Key success factors: Transdisciplinary approach, by actively involving people from local communities into project activities and directly working with the policy level. The consortium’s joint bottom-up approach in developing the project. A long-term solid partnership between German and African scientists that already existed before BIOTA and has been pursued in several following projects (The Future Okavango, SASSCAL). The democratic governance of the project allowing for transparency, equal partnership and shared responsibilities.

Challenges: Ensure political support of the project’s activities in South Africa.

EnerMENA

EnerMENA is a capacity building project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare the ground towards a sustainable realization of CSP power plants in the MENA region and developing the DESERTEC initiative. Initial funding has been provided for 09/2009-12/2011; a follow-up funding has been agreed until 2015. Coordinator: Institute of Solar Research at the German Aerospace Center (DLR, Office in Almeria). 45 partner institutions in Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan, including international organisations. Capacity building: Human capital development.

Objectives include capacity building and optimisation to support the implementation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Technologies in the MENA region, the transfer of expert knowledge, and the dissemination of information and support of market development. By focussing on training, technical support and R&D project development, the project intents to strengthen the EU-MENA partnership in the field of CSP and bring stakeholders into an advanced stage of cooperation.

Project KPI: (1) Number of persons trained; (2) Ability to use acquired material; (3) The network is sustainable and launches new activities.

Products / technologies / services: The purpose of the project is not to develop new technologies but to train engineers and technicians as well as researchers and students in CSP technologies and hereby contribute to the optimization of the construction and operation of solar thermal power plants.

Skills Development: Trainings and workshops are organised to form highly qualified personal for present and future CSP power plants in the MENA region and support the implementation of CSP teaching at universities. The training program addresses different target groups of participants: field engineers and technicians, decision makers, project planners and managers, professors and tutors and students. To meet the specific expectations of each target group, different courses have been tailored according to their needs.


112

Training courses take place either on the Plataforma Solar de Almería/Spain or in a location of the partner country or organisation.

Creation of job: The creation of jobs is not the immediate objective of the project, although trainings are likely to offer new opportunities for employment or job promotion.

Policy: Links to the policy level are established through the involvement of political bodies or partners working under the authority of ministries in the consortium. Special trainings are provided to decision makers who seek to gain knowledge on CSP, such as representatives from independent power producers, state engineers and scientists.

Governance: Decisions are taken at the project meetings that take place every 6 months.

Skills development: Skills development presents a central part of the project and is carried out through targeted training and capacity building activities, addressing different stakeholder groups: engineers, technicians working on site, researchers, university professors and students, and technology and knowledge transfer. The trainings offered for professors and tutors aim to support the implementation of CSP teaching at the partner countries’ universities.

Knowledge development. Specific training and teaching material is produced and disseminated.

Networks and mobility: Activities are implemented in parallel in the MENA countries. Nevertheless, exchange and mobility between the partners is encouraged. A network of CSP professionals and specialists is being established and supported in the framework of the project to coordinate future activities.

Private sector participation: Trainings offered to engineers and technicians in view of preparing the DESERTEC initiative. The creation of strong human capacity base is intended to sustain the market and technology development in the region.

Finance mechanism: Budget provided by the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interests are high and the funding has been renewed until 2015.

Partnership: Large-scale partnership including 45 institutions in Europe, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan. Participants include engineers, skilled workers, and decision makers at energy centers, national energy agencies, universities, engineering companies and related ministries. Activities are implemented in parallel in the 5 MENA countries.

Key success features: The project’s success is primarily seen in the multi-stakeholder approach adopted for targeted trainings and capacity building activities, as well as in the large-scale consortium aiming at promoting networking within the MENA region and between Europe and the MENA region in the field of CSP.

Challenges: The difficulty to encourage the private sector in (Northern) Africa to take part in STI initiatives, while benefits are not evident is mentioned as a general challenge. A possible solution is seen in the financial instrument that could for instance make private sector a prerequisite.

AGRICAB

AGRICAB (FP7) is a small/medium-scale focused SICA research project to strengthen Earth Observation (EO) capacities in Africa. It partly originates from the DEVCOCAST Project (focused on GEONETCAST for and by developing countries) and is strongly linked to the ESA funded GMFS project (Global Monitoring for Food Security). Capacity building: Human capital development. Objectives include:

1. strengthen Earth Observation (EO) capacities in Africa by building on the open data sharing through GEONETCast;

2. connecting the available satellite and other data with predictive models in order to facilitate integration in agriculture and forestry planning and management processes;

3. knowledge transfer through, twinning partnerships between a European and an African partner;

http://www.devcocast.eu/

http://www.gmfs.info/


113

4. trainings for the member states of the Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel (OSS) in Tunisia, the Regional Centre for Mapping Resources for Development (RCMRD) in Kenya and the AGRHYMET regional centre in Niger, covering almost the entire African continent.

Project KPI: (1) Uptake of methods; (2) Number of joint publications.

Job Creation: No direct contributions, but trainings are likely to open new job opportunities or lead to job promotions.

Products/ technologies/ services: Free software is jointly developed by European and African scientists and stakeholders to deal with and analyse satellite data. The software’s functionality is adapted to the needs and capacities on the ground.

Skills development: Human skills development is a key component of the project. Short term trainings in Africa include on-the-job trainings for practitioners and different stakeholder groups and regional trainings conducted by African regional institutes. Long-term trainings are provided for experts, PhD and MA students from different African countries and consist in North-South and South-South exchanges of several months.

Mobility and networking: North-South and South-South exchanges to carry out longer trainings are offered for African experts, PhD and MA students.

Production of scientific knowledge: The project is producing several joint and co-authored publications, in the form of peer-reviewed STI papers, conference papers and posters, etc.

Social capacity building: Besides activities with experts and students, trainings are also provided for field agents on how to use ICT tools to record and transfer data.

Private Sector Participation: GeoSAS, an Ethiopian consulting company recently created by one of the partners in the ESA funded project “Global Monitoring for Food Security” (GMFS) has been integrated into the consortium as a measure to support its development. The importance and advantage of integrating the private sector are mainly seen in providing research the “contact to the ground”, to translate research into application and to bring in another perspective. Private sector involvement is considered as being crucial in terms of applicability, cost effectiveness, etc of research results.

Governance: Steering committee, composed of representatives from each project partner institution. Advisory Board, composed of external experts and meeting on an annual basis.

Partnership:Twinning partnerships between one European and one African partner to maximise and individualise knowledge transfer and uptake.

Communication: e-mail, telephone; Regular physical project meetings and skype conferences; monthly working group meetings; Individual visits and exchanges; Intranet.

Key success factors: (1) The project builds upon a long term partnership between some parts of the consortium; (2) The communication within the consortium is very good and efficient; (3) Transparency within the activities is of great concern and effectively handled.

AFRICAN VIRTUAL CAMPUS

AFRICAN VIRTUAL CAMPUS is one of the Lighthouse projects implemented within JAES P8 in collaboration with UNESCO. Initial financial support has been provided by the Government of Spain and Japan for the development of 4 e-learning centres in West Africa, in Senegal, Benin, Togo and Cote d’Ivoire.

First impacts so far have been the launch of the creation of the National Virtual university of Senegal by the government of Senegal, and the development of the National Virtual Networks for the universities and teacher training institutes by the Ministries of Education and of Higher Education of Cote d’Ivoire AVC’s objective is to develop a network of 54 national e-learning centres across the African continent that shall allow large-scale training of students and teachers and improve the quality of the education. The same model is developed in Iraq with a great success (13 centres only for one country). Other developments of the Avicenna e-learning network are on-going in Central Asia and Arab region.


114

The objectives of the project include:

1. To implement an online African Virtual Campus Network for Science & Technology Education based on the model of the Avicenna Virtual Campus 5 (UNESCO & European Commission Network);

2. To implement in the network the four key goals: sustainability of quality education, cost-efficiency of higher and basic education systems, easier access for teachers and greater enrolment of women; construction of open distance learning for education in Africa using the latest technology;

3. To implement a platform to be used for the sustainable development of science and technology in Africa.

Expected outcomes: (1) 54 fully operational “Distance Learning Avicenna Centres” (1 per country); (2) 162 (3 per center) experts trained in distance education; (3) 5 000 teachers trained on the engineering production of online multimedia courses; (4) 9 000 tutors trained in distance education methods; (5) 1 000 e-learning modules produced, translated and adapted; (6) 50 000 students expected to be trained online; (7) Setup of an “African Virtual Library in S&T”; (8) An African platform set up as a basis for the development of the African Virtual Campus to cover all the African countries in the end of the year 4; (9) The network will be used for training students, teachers and adults in large numbers.

KPI: (1) The virtual campus is set up and sustainable; (2) High quality online modules of 20 hours each are produced; (3) Online courses, in physics, chemistry and natural sciences and science and technology for secondary and higher educational institutions are in place by the Year 3; (4) Online high level courses in science statistics analysis; (5) At least 1000 teachers (in each region) are trained and have acquired skills in the production of online courses, so they can train teachers in their own countries; (6) Up to 2000 (in each region) tutors trained in distance teaching methods; (7) At least 10 000 students enrolled (in each region) and using the online courses of the virtual network; (8) The Virtual Library in Science and Technology with teaching resource materials is developed; (9) A national and regional open and distance learning system for the higher and secondary education; (10) Students will use and share the African Virtual Campus Network.

Job Creation: more than 520 trained e-learning and blended learning experts and technical experts shall work as permanent staff in all e-learning centres. Online education and training are expected to open new job opportunities or promotions.

Products/ technologies/ services: New methods of online teaching; A virtual science and technology library including teaching material; specific online courses covering science policy and innovation Free software is jointly developed by European and African scientists and stakeholders to deal with and analyse satellite data. The software’s functionality is adapted to the needs and capacities on the ground.

Capacity building: Institutional: Setup of 54 Knowledge Centres for e-learning in universities, engineering institutes and/or specialized scientific institutions in each of the participating countries in Africa; Set up of a virtual science and technology library including teaching material.

Human skills development: Enhancing capacities in the use of ICT in Science and Technology Education by training teachers on how to use online contents, methods and materials & research; Online distance training for students in universities, engineering institutes and/or specialized scientific institutions in Africa.

Networking: Networking and exchanges between the centres among the African Virtual Campus’ e-learning centres to develop a regional e-learning network in science and technology in Africa, as well as with universities in the Mediterranean basin belonging to the UNESCO and European Commission funded Avicenna Virtual Campus.

Awareness raising: Continuous awareness campaigns; Information & demonstration campaign in the participating universities; regional and international conferences.

Governance: Project management and communication tools for management, reporting, quality measurement and communication between partners; review meetings and intermediate and final technical and financial reports.

Key success factors: AVC is built upon the cooperation between African states, an EU member state (Spain) and UNESCO, and the implementation of a continent-wide network of e-learning centers and sharing of know-how, resources and experiences.


115

Challenges: Since 2011, the major difficulty in Africa is related to the availability of funding. Feasibility studies and technical project documents have been developed in cooperation with Regional Economic Communities (RECs), (ECOWAS, IGAD and ECCAS, representing 32 AU member states). These proposals have been submitted to the AfDB and the EC.

CAPAQUA II

CAPAQUA II, is a partnership between BOKU, UNESCO-IHE (in Delft, NL), Egerton University in Kenya and three universities in Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University, Bahir Dar University und EIAR-NFALRC.

The aim of this initiative is to strengthen institutional North-South and South-South collaboration in the field of higher education and science. The capacities of Eastern African research and education institutions shall be strengthened in the field of research on sustainable water management und policy advise. BOKU, UNESCO-IHE and Egerton University are organising and conducting a joint MA programme in „Limnology & Wetland Management“. The elaboration of an inter-university-Master programme in „Aquatic & Wetland Ecosystem Management”, involving the 3 Ethiopian Universities is supported.

Project KPI: (1) existence of a joint MA programme between BOKU and Egerton; (2) existence of a joint MA Programme of the three Ethiopian universities.

Products / technologies / services: Joint MA programmes

Job creation: (1) In form of research assistants, in Austria, Kenya and Ethiopia; (2) new job opportunities opened by trainings and capacity building.

Policy: Involvement of local policy makers in the establishment of the curriculum (consultative function).

Human skills development: . Joint MA degree of BOKU + UNESCO-IHE + Egerton, and Inter-University MA Degree of 3 Ethiopian Universities. Around 20-25 % of graduates continue with PhD. After graduation, many students work as consultants. So they apply in the field what they have learned.

Knowledge Development: In average, every MA thesis leads to 2-3 peer reviewed publications. Plus in addition, a number of other individual publications. There are continuously joint publications of European and African researchers.

Network and mobility: Every MA student enrolled in the joint MA Programme has an African and a European supervisor. The European supervisor has to spent some time in Africa in order to ensure that the student and the supervisor know each other personally. This in some cases leads to follow-up projects. Long term partnership between BOKU and Egerton.

Private Sector involvement: In some cases, graduates have created very small SMEs in the field of environmental consulting (supply in drinking water). Others are working as consultants with local companies and communities and cover the whole process, from technical issues to pricing etc…

Public Awareness Raising: The African universities involved are very committed to raise public awareness about the role of STI. Most of these activities are covered through local funds and only indirectly linked to the project. E.g.: Open house day at university, public events, science and technology fair.

Financial mechanism: Austrian Development Agency/ Austrian Development Cooperation (all different project related costs) and UNESCO (only fellowships).

11.9.4 Technology transfer projects

ROSA (FP6)

ROSA (FP6) is a Specific Targeted Research Project between European and East African partners to transfer, adapt and implement sustainable sanitation technologies in African peri-urban areas. Coordinator:


116

University for Natural Sciences and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Austria. Duration: 10/2006 – 03/2010. Capacity building: Human capacity development; institutional development.

Objectives include:

1. to promote resource-oriented sanitation concepts as a route to sustainable sanitation and to fulfil the UN MDGs,

2. to implement resource-oriented sanitation concepts in four model cities in East Africa (Arbaminch, Ethiopia; Nakuru, Kenya; Arusha, Tanzania; and Kitgum, Uganda),

3. to research the gaps for the implementation of resource-oriented sanitation concepts in peri-urban areas, and

4. to develop a generally applicable adaptable framework for the development of strategic sanitation & waste plans (SSWPs)

Project KPI: (1) Contacts and collaboration between the universities and municipalities are sustainable; (2) The number of technologies and technological solutions applied; (3) The ability to acquire a follow-up project (CLARA) to extend the cooperation and activities.

Products / technologies / services: The purpose of the project has been to transfer and adapt existing sustainable sanitation technologies to four East African peri-urban areas. ROSA’s success can hereby to a large degree be related to its approach to build upon and synthetize technological findings from several previous STI projects, which allows to drawing both on a broad inventory of technologies and a wide range of experiences.

Policy: Policy impact has mainly been achieved by actively involving local municipalities in the consortium and the transfer process.

Knowledge development: With regard to applied research approach of the project, the consortium has preferred to disseminate the project results in on-line open-source journals that directly address stakeholders, practitioners and end-users rather than publish scientific and academic papers.

Networks and mobility: Sub-groups have been formed within the consortium to connect each European partner to one specific case-study and the local project partners. This structure has encouraged a lot of exchanges and interaction among partners, beyond regular project meetings.

Social capacity building: Trainings and workshops have regularly been organised for different local stakeholder groups, including trainings for bricklayers and other craftsmen on how to build sanitation infrastructure, for farmers on how to use human waste as fertilizer, etc. Trainings have generally been well received. After the end of the projects, trainings could not be continued, due to the absence of any suitable institution and funding source.

Private sector participation: Contacts with the local private sector are mainly developed in ROSA’s follow up project CLARA that partly involves the same consortium partners. Here, two local Ethiopian solid waste collectors and composter micro-enterprises ('Wubet le Arba Minch' Solid Waste Collectors Association’ and 'Engan New Mayet' Compost Production Youth Association’) have been involved as project partners. Whereas the sanitation process (water supply, sanitation, compositing) is normally organised on the municipality level, the weak role of the municipality in the Ethiopian case study led to the involvement of these SMEs instead. Both companies have become important linkages between the scientists who implement the sanitation technologies and the local population as end-users. CLARA is also developing and offering very simple business plans to show interested stakeholders how to organize, create a company and become economically active in the sanitation sector. The idea is to provide start-up support to encourage the creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises as strategy towards poverty reduction and the consolidation of sustainable sanitation solutions.

Finance mechanism: FP6, budget of €2.9 million. The short duration of the funding is considered as a challenge for implementing this kind of technology transfer activities.

Partnership: Partnership built upon the strong commitment to transfer and set up systems that last. Between some partners, a long term relationship exists which has allowed to build upon previous outcomes


117

and experiences. Parts of the ROSA consortium are continuing their cooperation in the FP7 follow-up project, CLARA, as well as in a new project supported by the AU Research grants.

Governance: Governance within the consortium is built upon the idea of building sub-groups with European and African partners to ease and individualise the technology transfer process.

Key success factors: The success of ROSA can be largely related to its efforts in promoting cooperation and exchange between universities and municipalities in the four case study cities: Whereas collaboration between the academic and policy making level had been rather weak so far, this approach has encouraged a certain change in mind on both sides, favourable for reducing administrative and bureaucratic barriers and fostering local responsibility and ownership. By promoting the development of applied research, the scientists’ contacts to the end-users have been strengthened, making science more demand-driven and technologies more adapted to the needs on the ground. By progressively transferring more and more responsibility in the application and use of sanitation technologies and techniques to local stakeholders and providing appropriate trainings, the project has contributed to building local capacities and promoting ownership.

Challenges: A major challenge has been the need to find innovative solutions to ensure the maintenance of the transferred technologies after the project’s end: To guarantee that activities will also be financially covered once the EU funding ends, the consortium has considered a number of innovative measures, such as the involvement of European banks as guarantors for credits from local banks to municipalities, or of European companies as donors for local implementations. In ROSA’s follow-up project CLARA, the consortium takes care, already during the implementation, to create spin-offs with other, e.g. GIZ led initiatives in view of progressively transferring and integrating activities under these funding programmes and ensuring their continuity, once the project is over.

11.9.5 Projects promoting awareness and networking (includes information exchange).

CAAST-Net

CAAST-Net and its successor CAAST-Net Plus are projects supporting EU international bi-regional cooperation policy between Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. CAAST-Net objectives serve the goal of reinforcing the Africa-Europe STI relationship with particular, but not exclusive reference to JAES P8. Activities revolve around dialogue between African and European stakeholders facilitated by the CAAST-Net consortium with a view to advancing mutual understanding of regional STI policies and priorities.

Project KPI: Among others: Reinforced networks of STI actors from Africa and Europe; improved evidence base for international cooperation policy and decision making, enhancing African participation in EU FP and other major funding instruments; support for the formal bi-regional ST policy dialogue. Progress against each difficult to measure or assign attribution, except in the case of the latter where no progress was made.

Key outcomes: The project had an abundance of formal outputs though few can be said to have made tangible, quantifiable impact in the short term. Most significant outcomes are qualitative and intangible, drawing loosely on the collective foreground of the consortium and contribute to the broad direction in tide of improved bi-regional collaboration. As five year project, partners themselves developed a strong network that led to many spin-off collaborations, notably in bilateral format. Awareness and improved knowledge of opportunities for Africa-Europe collaboration was strengthened.

Products / technologies / services: Not directly applicable.

Jobs creation: Not directly applicable.

Policy influence: CAAST-Net aimed to inform or enrich national, regional and bi-regional international STI policy and decision making. Many outputs had this aim yet the extent to which change took place and can be attributed to CAAST-Net has not & cannot be measured, although informally it is widely acknowledged that any influence will have been indirect in most cases.

Human skills development: Not directly. CAAST-Net provided its partners with opportunity to raise their own knowledge of the STI cooperation environment and increase their own collaborative portfolio, through which to develop skills.


118

Capacity building: The increased knowledge and awareness provided by CAAST-Net enhanced the capacity of individuals and institutions to enter bi-regional collaborative partnerships.

Production of scientific knowledge. Not directly relevant, although the forums for thematic mutual priority setting created new opportunities for generating scientific knowledge.

Private sector participation: CAAST-Net included one private sector service provider – Research Africa – in its consortium to provide media / communication services. Private sector participation in all events was sought, although only rarely with success.

Local economy / SME creation: Not relevant.

Finance mechanism: EU FP7, grant of €4.2m over 5years, shared equitably among consortium members according to the distribution of tasks.

Partnership: The consortium of 23 partners from 21 European and African countries largely comprises representatives of nationally mandated STI authorities such as ministries of science and science councils from, because of their ability to influence cooperation policy and practice drawing on CAAST-Net foreground. Other partners in the CSO and private sector provide coordination and management and media services to the project. Central services to the project - coordination and management, communication and dissemination activities - were provided by three partners and operated in largely democratic manner. An external advisory board met annually but had no executive role.

Challenges: Weak quality control attributable at least in part to failure of the internal peer review process, & absence of accountability or effective internal and external M&E undermined outputs. Diverse levels of partner knowledge & awareness of STI cooperation, and engagement in the project activities undermined the potential of the project for change. Poor understanding among many partners of ther role in the project due to the political expediency of representativeness driving consortium composition. The project itself became a capacity building and knowledge exchange initiative for many in the partnership rather than a network of experts and a leading force for change.

Key success factors: In many dimensions, a very successful and highly regarded project, providing one of few informal forums for African and European stakeholders to meet and debate thematic, cross cutting and policy related issues of bi-regional concern. The trust established between partners, the nature of the partners as national authority representatives, and the committed engagement of a number of key individuals each played a part in any success attributed to the project.

ERAfrica

ERAfrica is an ERA-NET project supported by the EU FP7 with the principal objective of piloting the voluntary coordination of national research programmes of a group of interested AU and EU MS, leading to the launching of one or more joint or coordinated calls for proposals around topics of mutual interest. In the following, distinction is drawn between ERAfrica itself, and the projects it will fund from a co-financed minstrument.

Project KPI (as suggested by individual partners): Joint commitment and ability to find a common ground and take decisions; The number of partners committing funding (esp. those outside the ERAfrica consortium); Not just about launching the joint call, but the quality of the joint call (which is affected by things like finding common ground, identifying joint priorities, etc.)

Capacity building activities: Capacity building is taking place not through targeted capacity building activities, but by undertaking the project’s activities. Not many of the partners had experience with joint international call for proposals, so going through this process contributed to building these capacities.

Partnership: Consortium of EU and AU MS partners representing national research programmes.

Policy: The project lends support to the international cooperation policies of the members of the consortium and to members of the pool of donors to the joint calls. The project also jointly prioritizes themes for research cooperation/funding.


119

Creation of jobs: ERAfrica itself does not create jobs. The projects to be supported by the ERAfrica fund, may, over time, contribute to job creation. It is by far too early to make clear statements as these proposals are only being evaluated and projects negotiated.

Knowledge development: The project itself focusses on fostering coordination of policy, not creation of new knowledge. However, the projects to be supported by ERAfrica are expected to contribute to new knowledge, goods, technologies, innovations, processes and services.

Social capacity building: The same could be said here as above. While the project itself doesn’t focus on social capacity building, the projects arising from the joint call are expected to have some capacity building activities.

Private sector participation: Private sector cooperation did not take place in the project itself, however in the joint call private sector cooperation was possible and in some cases encouraged. For example, the Finnish funding party TEKES required Finnish applicants to be either Finnish SMEs or research organizations paired with Finnish SMEs.

Local economy / SME creation: Not relevant to ERAfrica itself, too early for the ERAfrica supported projects.

Awareness raising: Awareness raising for the project itself was mostly about attracting funding parties outside the consortium to take part in the joint call.

Networks and mobility: For ERAfrica itself, networking and mobility are critical project activities for attracting funding parties outside the consortium to take part in the joint call However, in relation to the projects to be supported by ERAfrica, this Is part of the capacity building activities to be included in projects funding under ERAfrica As above, it is too early to give any detailed information. Projects are still in the evaluation and negotiation process.

Financial mechanism: Funded through a call for ERA-NET proposals from EU FP7 INCO. Total grant of €2m against a project budget of €2.3m. Mechanism created by the ERAfrica pool of donors conforms to a virtual pot, with programme owner each committing funds for use chiefly (exclusively?) for their own researchers within joint projects. Total sum pledged by the ERAfica pool of donors mounts to €10.7m across three priorities with approximately equal sums committed by African and European programmes. The virtual pot issue was discussed extensively with the idea that this is not a project meant for EU to give money to Africa, but that each country invests in its own researchers.

Governance: ERAfrica has a strategic management board (comprising senior representatives of funding parties), a scientific advisory council (of outside advisors), and a project technical comittee (of WP leaders and task leaders). Governance structures have not been a major factor in the project’s success. Overlap of individuals is different structures undermines their value. The role of the different bodies was not necessarily clear to the participants and they were not utilized to the extent that they could have been. Moreover, programme owners have clear views on their own priorities which were not alawys open to revision.

Key Success Factors: Strong partners, with good communication, mutual will, many with a previous relationship, all of which builds trust.

Key Challenges: Differing views on how the implementation of the activities (particularly the joint call). Attracting funding parties outside the consortium. Ensuring adequate funding for the joint call with the current economic climate. More challenges can be anticipated with the negotiation of which projects to fund.

African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Initiative (ASTII)

Overview: The African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Initiative (2008-2014) was launched

by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the African Union (AU) Commission in 2007

as one of the flagship programmes of the CPA. The overall goal of ASTII is to support African countries to

build their national capacities to undertake Research and Experimental Development (R&D) and innovation

surveys and to use statistics or data from the surveys in order to improve their STI policies and policy-

making processes.

Programme KPIs: Key activities of the phase included the following: (a) establishing an intergovernmental

committee to be the overall governance structure of ASTII; (b) supporting countries to create national focal


120

points; (c) developing and implementing training workshops for building human capacities in R&D and

innovation surveys; (d) producing policy analysis papers and briefs; and (e) producing and disseminating the

first African Innovation Outlook (AIO) report.

Key Outcomes: By end of 2010, National points had been established in at least 14 countries. At least 11

countries received full NEPAD committed funding (US$ 50,000) for national implementation of ASTII.

Thirteen countries produced survey reports and submitted them to NEPAD.

Products / technologies / services: First African Innovation Outlook (AIO) 2010 report produced in early

2011 using national reports on R&D and innovation surveys as well as commissioned studies. The Outlook

was launched at regional workshop in May 2011 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Job creation: Not applicable

Policy influence: ASTII has stimulated many African countries to start reviewing their national STI policies

and some countries have established focal points dedicated to STI indicators. It is also stimulated the AU to

create the African Observatory for Science, Technology and Innovation. Some countries such as Kenya and

Ghana have started using indicators/statistics in STI policy-making.

Human skills development: By 2011, more than 50 African had been trained in STI surveys and related

methodologies.

Capacity building: In addition to training of government officials, institutional capacities for STI indicators

development have been strengthened and the creation of AOSTI will further build national capacities for STI

observatories.

Production of scientific knowledge: Not applicable

Private sector participation: No strategic approach for private sector participation. This has weakened

capacity for innovation survey and related indicators development.


Finance mechanism: A grant of US$ 2.9 million from the Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (Sida) to start phase 1 for the period 2007-2010.

Partnerships: ASTII is a partnership of African countries coordinated by NEPAD. It is a partnership involving

NEPAD Agency, UNESCO, AfDB and OECD Secretariat. It has stimulated bilateral STI partnerships for

example between Malawi and South Africa. The partnership also involves Lund University in Sweden.

Challenges: There is limited local financial input from African partners. Most countries relied on the grant

from Sida and had no own resources invested in conducting the surveys. There were also challenges of

limited technical capacity at NEPAD and AUC to provide overall intellectual leadership. In addition, there was

no strategy on how the indicators or statistics would be used in STI policy-making.

Key success factors: The success of ASTII is so far been dependent on the political support and

authorization from AMCOST and the active engagement of national ASTII focal points.


121

11.10 Annex 10: Validation workshop participants

Name and affiliation

1 Dr Prince Bahati , IAVI International AIDS vaccine initiative, DRC

2 Professor Clobite Bouka, Minister of Scientific Research, Congo

3 Professor Lidia Brito, Director STI Policy Division, UNESCO, France

4 Dr Andrée Carter, Director of UK Collaborative of Development Sciences, United Kingdom

5 Dr Andrew Cherry, Study Expert, ACU, United Kingdom

6 Dr Brigitte Decadt, Belgium Ministry of Science

7 Daan du Doit, South African DST, Science Counsellor, South African Mission to the European Union

8 Dr Hakim Elwaer, Director HRST Department, African Union Commission, Ethiopia

9 Matt Freeman, Director of Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Switzerland

10 Jan Haakonsen, Advisor, the Research Council of Norway, Norway

11 Professor A. Hamid El-Zoheiry, Senior Advisor for International Cooperation at the Ministry of Scientific Research, Egypt

12 Dr Detlef Hanne, KFW Development Bank, Germany

13 Professor Patricia Harvey, Senior lecturer, NRI, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

14 Mahamat Hassabarassoul, Coordinator for Science and Technology, Ministry of Higher Education, Chad

15 Eva Kagiri, Finnish University Partnership for International Development,, Finland.

16 Dr Ousmare Kane, President of the Commission in charge of relations with partners, National Academy of Sciences and Techniques (ANSTS), Senegal

17 Professor Crispus Kiamba, University of Nairobi, Kenya

18 Fred Kongongo, Coordinator - S&T and Innovation Programme COMESA, Zambia

19 Hambani Masheleni, African Union Commission, Ethiopia

20 Dr Angela Meyer, Study Expert, Austria

21 Anneline Morgan, Director of African cooperation - DST & SADC, South Africa

22 Dr Eric Mwangi, MOHEST, Kenya

23 Dr Neya Oble, MOHEST, Burkina Faso

24 Dr Mahama Ouedraogo, Head of division S&T, African Union Commission, Ethiopia

25 Dr Jörn Sonnenburg, Director of international cooperation, International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), at the Project Management Agency c/o German Aerospace Centre (DLR)

26 Dr Francois Stepman, EU co-manager of PAEPARD, FARA, Belgium

27 Dr Honoré Tabuna, Expert Valorisation biodiversité et Economie de l'Environnement – ECCAS, Gabon

28 Professor Tumushabe, Executive Director, ACODE: public policy research and advocacy think tank, Uganda

29 Professor Twiringiyimana, Director STI Ministry, Rwanda


122

European Commission:

1 Dr Elisabeth Lipiatou, Head of Unit D3, DG RTD

2 Dr Angela Liberatore, Deputy Head of Unit D3, RTD

3 Nienke Buisman, Policy Officer STI relations with Sub-Saharan Africa, Unit D3, RTD

4 Susanne Madders, Policy Officer, Unit D3, RTD

5 Tomas Matraia, Policy Officer, Unit D3, RTD

6 Dr Stephane Hogan, Science Councelor, DG RTD

7 Dr Francesco Affinito, STI focal point, Unit B.4, DEVCO

8 Carmen Mena Abela, Policy Officer, Unit I.2, RTD

9 Dr Giuseppe Balducci, Policy Officer, Unit E4, DEVCO

framework contract inception report · europe - identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008-2012...

Documents