mapping of best practice - european commission · · 2015-08-114 mapping of best practice...

Identification offinancial mechanism(s)

2008–2012

Mapping of

regional and multi‑country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe

best practice

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978‑92‑79‑35064‑1doi:10.2777/60534

© European Union, 2014

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union and of the African Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor the African Union institutions and any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Prepared by the project team of experts from HTSPE - EuroTrends

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

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

18 November 2013

Final report

Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008–2012

Mapping of

regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives

between Africa and Europe

best practice


2MAPPING OF BEST PRACTICE REGIONAL AND MULTI-COUNTRY COOPERATIVE STI INITIATIVES BETWEEN AFRICA AND EUROPE — IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL MECHANISM(S) 2008–2012 — FINAL REPORT

CONTENTSAbbreviations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4Definitions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 6Acknowledgement � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 71 Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7

1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2 Good practice collaborative models and effective financing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 Success criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.5 Gaps, barriers and challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2 Report approach and organisation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 113 Overview of Africa‑Europe STI Cooperation, and JAES P8 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 13

3.1 The landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133.2 The Joint Africa-EU Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143.3 The private sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.4 Financial support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163.5 Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

4 Collaborative models � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 184.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184.2 Overview of collaborative arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

4.2.1 Collaboration between the AU and the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2.2 Collaborative arrangements between the AU and one or several EU Member States . . . . . 19

4.2.3 Collaboration between the EU as a whole and one or several AU Member States . . . . . . . .20

4.2.4 Collaboration between African RECs and the EU or EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

4.2.5 Collaboration between AU Member States and EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.2.6 Institutional and individual collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

4.3 Africa-Europe collaboration involving the private sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

4.3.1 Public-private partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.3.2 STI collaboration involving SMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

4.4 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.4.1 Features of successful partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335 Financial mechanisms and instruments: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 35

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .355.2 Overview of financing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

5.2.1 Non-returnable, conditional grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

5.3 European Union instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375.4 National and regional research/research and innovation programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .425.5 The African Development Bank (AfDB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .455.6 The contribution of the private sector and relevant financial mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . .45

5.6.1 Pooled instruments: Challenge funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.6.2 Pooled instruments: Pull mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.7 Conclusions: Effective finance mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

3MAPPING OF BEST PRACTICE REGIONAL AND MULTI-COUNTRY

COOPERATIVE STI INITIATIVES BETWEEN AFRICA AND EUROPE — IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL MECHANISM(S) 2008–2012 — FINAL REPORT

6 Outputs and Impacts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �537 Success criteria � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �558 Gaps, barriers and challenges � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �58

8.1 Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588.2 Barriers and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

9 Conclusions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �6110 Sustainability of the Study � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �6311 Annexes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �65

11.1 Annex 1: Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6511.2 Annex 2: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7711.3 Annex 3: Interview framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8211.4 Annex 4: Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9011.5 Annex 5: Questionnaire respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9311.6 Annex 6: Stakeholder opinions about effective financing mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9411.7 Annex 7: Stakeholder opinion of success criteria and good practice lessons . . . . . . . . . 9711.8 Annex 8: Stakeholder opinion on gaps and barriers in Africa-Europe STI cooperation . . 10411.9 Annex 9: Project profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

11.9.1 Collaborative research projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

11.9.2 Innovation collaborative projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

11.9.3 Capacity building projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

11.9.4 Technology transfer projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

11.9.5 Projects raising awareness and promoting networking (including information exchange). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

11.10 Annex 10: Validation workshop participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141


Abbreviations

AfDB African Development Bank ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of StatesAECF African Enterprise Challenge FundAIRD Inter-Agency Research Institute for Development AMCOST African Ministerial Council on Science and TechnologyARAPKE African Regional Action Plan on the Knowledge EconomyARGP African Union Research Grants ProgrammeASIF African Science and Innovation FundAU African UnionAUC African Union CommissionBMBF German Federal Ministry for Education and ResearchCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCOMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaCPA Consolidated Plan of ActionCSP Concentrated Solar PowerDCI Development Cooperation InstrumentCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityDEVCO Directorate General for Development CooperationDFID Department for International DevelopmentDG Directorate GeneralDST Department of Science and TechnologyEC European CommissionEAC East African CommunityECCAS Economic Community of Central African StatesECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesEDCTP European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipEDF European Development FundEU European UnionFP Framework ProgrammeFWC COM Framework Contract CommissionFSTP Food Security Thematic ProgrammeGAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition GBS General Budget SupportGIZ German Society for International CooperationHLPD Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STIICT Information and Communications TechnologyJAES Joint Africa-EU StrategyJTI Joint Technology InitiativeKPI Key Performance IndicatorLHP Lighthouse ProjectsMENA Middle East and North AfricaNRCG Non-returnable, conditional grantsNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentP8 Eighth partnership of the JAESPAEPARD Platform for African-European Partnerships for Agricultural Research and

Development



PDP Product Development Partnership R&D Research and DevelopmentRCUK Research Councils UKREC Regional Economic CommunitySADC Southern African Development CommunitySBS Sector Budget SupportSME Small and Medium EnterprisesSOM Senior Officials’ Meeting (terminology no longer in use, formerly referred to meet-

ings of senior officials of the HLPD)S&T Science and TechnologySTI Science, Technology and InnovationToR Terms of ReferenceUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union


Definitions

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

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

● Research projects: this includes scientific research and the production of knowledge.● Innovation projects: this includes technology development and/or the application of know-

ledge, technological innovation and application, and commercialization.● Capacity building projects, with 4 sub-categories: (1) human capital development, including

the exchange of knowledge, mobility of scientists and engineers, and training; (2) physical research infrastructures, including R&D equipment; (3) policy development, including the ap-plication of knowledge and policy learning; and (4) institutional development.

● Technology transfer projects.● Projects promoting awareness and networking, including the exchange of information.

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

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

Method of delivery: The way money is disbursed, e.g. grants, procurement contracts, or 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, whether projects, platforms, networks or other types of initiative.

Multilateral: For the purposes of this study, the term refers principally to initiatives and partner-ships with partners from multiple countries, particularly those from Africa and Europe.



Acknowledgement

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

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the conclusions of the first meeting of Senior Officials of the High-Level Policy Dia-logue (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 cooperation be-tween Africa and Europe, as well as to identify gaps and effective financial mechanisms that have a positive impact. The outcomes will provide a base of evidence for policy choices and financing decisions for future cooperation and will form the basis of a new action plan for Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

1.1 Overview

Africa-Europe STI cooperation has a rich and prolific past, present and future, as reflected by the extensive web of bilateral and multilateral relationships and activities that we see across the land-scape today, which are driven by shared values and policy objectives. That multidimensional web of cooperation operates via a multiplicity of initiatives in a continuum of collaborative arrange-ments and project typologies involving diverse actors, supported by a generous body of resources channelled from public and private purses by means of 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 focuses cooperation particularly, although not exclusively, on development policy priorities for leveraging faster socio-economic growth in Africa. One of its clear roles for a regional public sector strategy is the design, implementation and governance of a suite of co-owned high-level initiatives, the collect-ive goal of which is reinforcing the bi-regional relationship, employing exemplary, innovative and high-risk collaborative models, partnerships and financing arrangements. A complementary role it plays in bi-regional STI collaboration is ensuring the proper policy and regulatory environment, the scientific and technical infrastructure, and the human and institutional capacity needed to increase 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 fos-tering 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 for bi-regional cooperation is, however, rather dependent on European and, to a lesser extent, international instru-ments, weakening the potential for genuine co-ownership. Nevertheless, promising co-financing models for shared research priorities are being piloted, most notably by the ERAfrica consortium (EU FP7). The potential for these models to be applied to more diverse scenarios should be fully explored, specifically for example in the transition to a pan-African research grants programme that is fully funded and owned by Africa. An independent pan-African research programme would then be available for co-financing bi-regional cooperation alongside regional EU instruments such as the FP, DCI or EDF. The European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is also worth mentioning as an example of a good practice co-financing model.

Within the current financing landscape, potential exists for encouraging an improved adaptation of existing instruments to support bi-regional cooperation. These adaptations might include add-ing features that foster partners’ financial independence. To avoid losing initiatives in the pipeline, actors also want to see instruments that adapt to project cycles, to different project typologies, and that provide coordinated schemes that ensure resourcing over the full cycle — from preparatory phases through the research, translation to implementation, piloting and scale-up phases for new goods, services and technologies.

Collaborative arrangements are diverse and their effectiveness depends on a range of factors and circumstances. Moreover, what works well in one situation may not be appropriate in another. Rather than identifying one collaborative model as more effective than another, this study pre‑sents features and components of collaboration viewed as good practice and which appear to be key to effective collaboration� Partnerships and personal relations are supremely important, and effective partnerships are seen as a key criterion for effective collaboration. Joint funding, strong leadership and effective governance; clarity and understanding of joint objectives; strong interpersonal relations; equitable resource and benefits sharing; and full transparency and commu-nication all build mutual trust and foster co-ownership, which are necessary conditions for optimal efficiency. Nevertheless, asymmetries in partnerships do exist, notably in the context of financial contributions and coordination and in the coordination and management responsibilities, and hence in overall project ownership. Indeed these asymmetries hold true for the majority of projects stud-ied, while any negative impact is partially mitigated by other good practice features.

A focus on sustaining effective partnerships, investing in their capacity to deliver, is likely to en-hance the overall quality and effectiveness of cooperation. Collaborative models that support the consolidation of long‑lasting partnerships are therefore seen by many experts as ideal� Conversely, lack of equality 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 in the capacity of 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. Promoting tripartite partnerships, which involve SMEs in defining research needs, universities in carrying out the corresponding research activities, and the public sector in financially supporting collaboration, may be one strategy for engaging SMEs in bi-regional cooperation.



It is important to distinguish between the role and engagement of international companies, and that of SMEs. Parts of the private sector struggle with restrictive conditions and cumbersome processes, and with the lack of acceptance of the profit motive. The profit motive is not incompat-ible with delivering public goods, and major funds should adapt their instruments in order 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 for collaboration, exemplified by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, is an example specific to the pharmaceutical sector of generic public private partnerships that over-come such constraints. This model 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. Restrict-ive conditions and cumbersome bureaucratic processes are widely disliked and stifle cooperation.

1�3 Impact

STI Cooperation between Africa and Europe is generating tangible outputs and contribut‑ing to the knowledge economy� For many projects in the study’s inventory, taken between 2008 and 2012, it is too early to objectively assess their meaningful impact. However, many prof-fer the promise of socially important outputs, with potential for long-term impacts on the economy and social welfare. The potential impact of the projects studied appears anecdotally to be causally linked to the subject matter, the project’s maturity, demand, and the drive of the coordinator, with the effectiveness of the partnership playing a key role.

Few projects in the study are contributing directly to economic growth as measured by job cre ation, one of the study’s KPI. However, they may do so over the long 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 improve-ment of policies in Africa. On the whole, the cooperation is dynamic and effective�

1�4 Success criteria

The key success criteria include operational, institutional and political parameters� At the pro-ject level, effective partnerships with full and committed partner engagement, strong interper-sonal 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 importance of partnership continuity. Shared owner-ship, a core value of cooperation, is widely cited as a criterion for success, although causality is intangible. At the programme and regional level, MS commitment, the policy and regulatory envi-ronment 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 collaboration instruments such as MoUs and STI agree-ments 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 re-vealed by the study. The absence of an established joint funding mechanism or of co‑financing arrangements is most prominent gap, particularly at the political level. The participation of SMEs, notably those in Africa; the industry-academia relationship; translational as well as cross-cutting activities and the links 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 supplements to the existing agenda.

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

Among the most important barriers to effective collaboration is the dependence on a skewed fund-ing landscape, contributing to a slew of issues linked to access to financing and the suitability of instruments. Therefore, the design, piloting and scale‑up of co‑financing arrangements using existing instruments and the joint financing of new instruments are among the highest prior‑ities for collaboration.



2 REPORT APPROACH AND ORGANISATION

In view of the imminent end of the current JAES P8 action plan, and in recognition of the support for continued STI cooperation 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. The goal is to map existing cooperative initiatives in science, technology and innovation in order to reinforce successful models and identify potential gaps, and to identify ef-fective financial mechanism(s) based on equal partnership that would deliver significant impacts, taking into account the experience gained with other initiatives/instruments.

The study, comprising four phases (inception, structuring, field research, and communication and dissemination), was conducted between May and October 2013. It draws its conclusions mainly from data from a diverse inventory of bi-regional STI initiatives between 2008 and 2012, and from the opinions of stakeholders in the Africa-EU bi-regional STI cooperation landscape, including pub-lic and private sector practitioners, representatives of civil society organisations, decision-makers and policymakers and commentators. The details of the study’s terms of reference and methodol-ogy 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 re-ported on separately to the contracting authority.

After the executive summary in Chapter 1 and this chapter on the approach and organisation of the report, Chapter 3 presents a brief overview of the Africa-Europe STI cooperation landscape, draw-ing on the inventory of bi-regional cooperation initiatives. Chapter 4 discusses collaborative mod-els, starting with an overview of the collaborative arrangements encountered in Africa-Europe STI cooperation and 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. The chapter then discusses the diversity and different forms of part-nerships identified and covered in the survey, drawing on stakeholder views and opinions gathered through interviews and questionnaires. The focus primarily lies on the issues of equitability, gov-ernance and leadership, composition, interpersonal relations and exchanges as well as investments in order to identify 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 of STI cooperation.

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

Chapters 6, 7 and 8, respectively, address impact, success criteria, and gaps and barriers. Chapter 10 synthesizes the conclusions of the preceding chapters, adding others that reflect wider per-spectives and insights of the study team. The 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 section summarizes the different phases of the study, including the compilation of an inventory of regional and multi-country STI projects conducted during the period 2008–2012; 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 from stakeholders on collaboration, financing and gaps and barriers; a series of profiles of some projects inventoried, which provide much of the raw material for the study, highlighting pertinent achievements as measured by the agreed KPI; and finally the participants in the validation workshop of 18 September 2013.



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. Today’s landscape of cooperation between Africa and Europe’s on science, technology and innov-ation is a snapshot of a continuing process of change. Comprising a rich, multi-dimensional web of interconnected multilateral and bilateral relationships, this landscape contains a huge quantity and range of STI cooperation activities responding to diverse personal, institutional, national and regional policy drivers and interests.

Today’s landscape as a whole 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.

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

The greater part of the STI relationship falls under two broad policy spheres — research and innov-ation 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 also have important influence on cooperation.

This study’s inventory of 150+ multilateral cooperation initiatives drawn from the STI cooper-ation landscape over the period 2008-2012 suggests that while the wider cooperation relation-ship 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 initiatives are built on the pillars of better infrastructure, enhanced technical competence, and enhanced entrepreneurship. Cooperation on food security, on health and on the environment prevails, 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 contribu-tions of scientific and technological knowledge and innovation as tools for addressing priority de-velopment objectives, and as that agenda increasingly aligns with global societal challenges, the development cooperation relationship evolves to become heavily based on mutual interest and mu-tual benefit, and the distinction between the policies driving cooperation is blurred. Indeed, many projects now populating the landscape do not fit into the discrete categories of capacity building, research, or innovation, but instead play 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 majority of the loose


Africa-EU STI relationship plays out in a bilateral framework, hence the complex and fragmented landscape. Both EU and AU policies have had modest success in promoting a multilateral 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 met in a diverse range of scenarios that do necessarily require Africa-Europe partnerships. It is without a doubt the full prerogative of the institutions and nation states of Africa and Europe to develop the most beneficial channels for accomplishing 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 collaboration at the individual and institutional level yields the bulk of the today’s projects and initiatives and is perhaps the most tangible and visible element of the STI relationship, collabor-ation at regional and national levels based on shared policy goals generates valuable programmes and specific initiatives that influence and shape the wider relationship to varying degrees.

3�2 The Joint Africa‑EU Strategy

The signing in 2007 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, with its explicit inclusion of science and tech-nology in the form of the eighth partnership (P8) and its associated rolling action plan, formal-ised what is becoming an increasingly significant component of Africa-Europe relations. This new geo-political relationship reflects the global trend towards seeing scientific and technological RDI as a driver of economic growth, a move away from a 20th century focus on capital, natural re-sources, and labour1.

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

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

A critical challenge for P8, and specifically for the governance structures of JAES and P8, has been establishing the modalities for translating the proposed P8 activities into concrete projects which can accomplish the articulated objectives. This challenge was tackled in 2008 by the AUC, which identified and designed 19 large outline projects which constituted the so-called Book of Light-house Projects2. The LHP constitute the initial plan for implementing the P8, translating key P8 ob-jectives into capacity-building outcomes for Africa, which are 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. Their agenda is driven by Africa’s development

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. 24 pp. 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



priorities. Led by the African and European Union Commissions in collaboration with stakeholder Member States, this collaboration at the bi-regional level has led to the implementation of sev-eral of the LHP, such as the Africa Research Grants Programme (ARGP), the African Virtual Cam-pus (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 following sections as key milestones in P8, illustrative of successful models and financing arrangements.

It is important, however, for this study to recognise that JAES P8 illustrates, but does not repre-sent, 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 re-lationship. There is a rich landscape of bilateral and multilateral cooperation initiatives operating across and between the two continents which address mutual interests across a range of scientific and technological domains and which operate largely in ignorance of the JAES and of the political bi-regional partnership (however, see the BMBF Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa as an exception to this general rule).

P8 partners appear to have divergent views of the primary purposes it fulfils. The divergence broad-ly, but by no means exclusively, aligns with a geographic division. While P8 is able to accommodate this divergence, the absence of a unified vision and the widespread confusion regarding expect-ations may undermine the potential of the partnership.

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

3�3 The private sector

The private sector is engaged with the agenda of the Africa-Europe STI relationship and the more specific objectives of P8, but the engagement appears to be led more by serendipity than by design. Stakeholders almost universally acknowledge, and indeed welcome, the significant contribution of the private sector. Engagement takes the form of the types of partnerships and financing instru-ments addressed in this study but also comes through non-partnership scenarios using instru-ments other than typical non-returnable conditional grants.

In many scenarios, the private sector participates in partnerships as a service provider on a com-mercial basis, offering services such as ICT, communications and media to projects, or providing their expert knowledge of a sector. ResearchAfrica, for example, provided media and communica-tion services to CAAST-Net, while TechnoScene provided expert knowledge of the African infra-structure sector to the PAERIP consortium.

Statistics demonstrate that the commercial manufacturing and industrial 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 in the case of


delivering 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 SMEs, that tend to avoid direct participation, mainly due to limited capacities and resources, difficulties when estimating benefits as long as STI project outcomes have not materialized, or inappropriate funding instruments or mechanisms. The non-returnable conditional grant mechanism was often reported in this study as unsuited to the participation of this private sector category.

The manufacturing/industrial sector may take part in research or technology projects via an inter-mediary rather than participate directly. The FP7 ‘AFTER’ project provides an example of the food manufacturing sector participating via the agency AAFEX in Senegal. This mode of participation allows the private sector to benefit from research outputs without the encumbrances of contrac-tual obligations and the bureaucracy of project processes and IP conflicts. The AvecNet project, for similar reasons, involved the private sector (insecticide companies for example) via an intermediary representative, acknowledging that its role is nevertheless essential to the outputs and eventual impact of the project.

3�4 Financial support

Financial support for STI cooperation comes from both public and private funds. Almost all co-operation is supported through the single mechanism of non-returnable conditional grants, illus-trated 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 fea-ture of the landscape appears, from this study, to contribute to the persistent perception of the inequality of individual and bi-regional partnerships. This undermines 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 cooper-ation partnership. However, notable examples of African instruments being mobilised in support of bi-regional cooperation are emerging and have the potential to start the process of rebalanc-ing the skewed landscape. The unique ERAfrica project has tremendous value as an exemplar of bi-regional cooperation to mobilise national research funds in Europe and Africa in support of a jointly funded research programme.

3�5 Impact

The impact of the multilateral STI cooperation projects implemented during the 2008–2012 period examined in this study generally remains to be seen. 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 has not yet transformed the systems that those capacities serve. For the most part, considering the short time span of the 2008–2012 window relative to the more usual 10–20 year interval between project implementation and the materialization of its 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 given the



recentness of 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 measures may open up new job opportunities or facilitate job promotions. Large-scale projects employ proportionately greater numbers of staff, with up to 1 000 employed on EDCTP supported projects, but there is no indica-tion of whether those staff will go on to occupy new permanent employment situations. Projects such as EDCTP and PDPs in the health domain for example may have a 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, the impact cannot be wholly attributed to EDCTP, since for many EDCTP projects, products have undergone extensive product development before entering EDTP trials.


4 COLLABORATIVE MODELS

4�1 Introduction

The cooperative STI relationship between Africa and Europe is embodied in diverse collaborative arrangements addressing separate but related dimensions of the overall partnership. Perhaps most tangibly, collaboration is undertaken at the complementary levels of strategic policy, programming 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 princi-pally represents, cooperation at the bilateral level accounts for a large proportion of the total range of cooperative initiatives. Upon close scrutiny, the distinction between multilateral and bilateral cooperation is blurred, but it is evident that bilateral processes illustrate many good practices that can be adopted and adapted to the multilateral environment. Each level of collaboration engages different institutional actors, and each involves different durations and intensity levels, financial instruments and activities. These can differ based on an initiative’s typology, a partnership’s com-position, or internal governance structures. They can reflect the shared values, policy objectives, and personal dedication driving the collaboration. To make a gross generalisation, collaboration at the level of strategic policy and programming between regions and Member States results in fund-ing programmes and schemes that support implementation-level collaboration.

Judging from the outcomes of this study, no one level of collaboration is systematically more ef-fective than another; each complement the others. Within levels, however, successful models of good practice from which lessons can be learned for future cooperation do exist. Judging effective-ness and success is, however, a subjective process, particularly when considering the brevity of the four year period under study. Impact, as defined by a range of possible indicators, as a measure of success, is largely still unrecorded for many of the initiatives studied. This necessitates subjective interpretations 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 of the collaborative process, irrespective of eventual impact on ultimate beneficiaries.

This section aims on the one hand to reflect the diverse collaborative arrangements used in mul-tilateral bi-regional STI cooperation between Africa and Europe, and on the other hand to discuss different factors that impinge on the effectiveness and success of collaboration models. The chap-ter’s first section 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 the points of view, experiences and opinions gathered during interviews with informed project coordinators, project partners, and experts, as well as to the projects analysed as part of this study, the second part then discusses particular aspects that contribute to the effectiveness and success of specific models and arrangements, in terms of their capacity to deliver outputs and impact and the advan-tages of specific parts of collaboration arrangements.

The section ends by drawing conclusions on the relevance of partnership parameters for achieving 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

Broadly speaking, the products of collaboration between the AU and EU, administered by the re-spective 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. Programme- and implementation-level collaborative arrangements arise directly from the JAES P8 policy-level collaboration between the unions and MS.

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 admin-istered through the AUC Department of Human Resources, Science and Technology, which acts 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 organisa-tions, of which a majority should be Member States in the ACP Group of States, from at least two different African countries, which are 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 modes of meeting the STI objectives of JAES and of related 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) plays 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 within 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, which is 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 involves experts from these ministries and the National Statis-tical 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, which provides technical backstopping. The university was instrumen-tal in developing methodological tools for conducting STI surveys. Another key partner of ASTII is the Secretariat of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which 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 networks of research centres working on water sciences within the five African regions and thereby assess and reinforce STI capacities in Africa. Suitable 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 Minis-try of Foreign Affairs. In addition to 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, areas of policy dialogue, and the tools necessary 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 is a result of the SA-EU STI bilateral agree-ment (see the financing section). It promises to be an 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. It consists of a series of projects dealing with connectivity in remote areas and the setup of technol-ogy transfer partnerships. It represents a good model of partnerships involving academic institu-tions, 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, and involved representatives of the government and the EC. In September 2012 a high-level conference at-tended by the EU presidency and the President of the Republic of South Africa was held in Brussels. This demonstrates the high-level political support that the programme enjoys.

4�2�4 Collaboration between African RECs and the EU or EU Member States

Africa-Europe STI collaboration at the African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) level involves the partnership of either the EU as a continental body or one of the EU Member States. STI cooper-ation between the EU and one of the RECs, such as ECOWAS, COMESA, EAC or SADC, can be under different arrangements — through specific initiatives or projects, with or without the engagement of the AUC, etc. There are different forms of partnerships for EU Member States entering into cooperation with an African REC, mainly depending on the financial mechanisms supporting the cooperation. Collaboration may also be focused on a single specific project or initiative, or take the shape of a long-term partnership designed to encompass 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 — which form ‘the southern cross of innov ation’. 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 sup-port the strengthening of the national innovation systems and policies of SADC Member States and to unite and guide innovation throughout the region. The programme is managed by a central pro-ject office located in Windhoek, Namibia, and by one SAIS3 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 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. Fin-land joined the partnership in 2010. The agreement is implemented through projects and initiatives aligned with the objectives of the EAC and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission and includes annual work plans. For the purpose of this arrangement, a specific Partnership Fund has been created and contributed to 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 framework for joint research projects and activities.

4�2�5 Collaboration between AU Member States and EU Member States

Collaborative arrangements for the design and implementation of regional initiatives in Africa be-tween EU and AU Member States abound. Often they are bilateral and reflect long-term historical ties. Equally important and productive are the relatively new relationships between countries with-out such a long history. There are several such STI cooperative arrangements, and anecdotal evi-dence suggests they are effective. These include the Finland-South Africa bilateral ST cooperation agreement used to produce regional public goods in biosciences for SADC, and the South Africa-UK bilateral cooperation used to support SADC countries — Lesotho and Malawi — in establishing tissue culture facilities. Also worth mentioning are the Germany-Egypt and Germany-South Africa bilateral ST cooperation agreements.

The Finnish‑Southern Africa Partnership Programme for Biosciences (BioFISA) is a unique col-laborative initiative established jointly between the Government of South Africa and that of Finland to support SADC countries, through the NEPAD Southern Africa Network for Bioscience (SANBio), in conducting scientific research and promoting 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 resources to support a REC in its engagement in research and innovation. The Govern-ment of South Africa contributed approximately €1 million while Finland provided a grant of €3 mil-lion. This is one of the few cases of an African country contributing to a regional initiative together with a 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 Member States can be found in the ERAfrica project (Annex 9) mentioned several times elsewhere in this report. In the first

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

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

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


and only example of its kind, collaboration between national research programme owners across Af-rica and Europe has resulted in three jointly financed calls for research proposals (ongoing 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 as it has resulted in the first true joint financing instrument, one in which the sums committed by African and European programme owners are ap-proximately equal, thus creating a suite of co-owned projects. The challenge, given adequate political will, rests in both scaling up this first pilot and 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 multilat-eral and bilateral agreements, programmes and schemes supporting individual initiatives. National and regional programmes, trusts and private sector funds all support collaborative implementa-tion-level initiatives. A few of these fall under JAES P8 directly, and while the majority operate independently, their purposes may closely align.

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

Successful STI collaborations financed by European Union Member State national funding instru-ments 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 or 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 SIDA among others, or DRUSSA, funded by the British DFID.

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

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

At the same time, the fact that several EU and European national agencies do not allow resources to be allocated to third countries or limit the percentage of the grant to be spent on international collaboration4, has led to the development of collaboration arrangements that circumvent this

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



restriction. Within the project AFRINT, for instance, supported by SIDA in cooperation with the Swed-ish Research Council and the Bank of Sweden, collaboration has been based on sub-contracts made between the University of Lund, as project coordinator and sole European partner, and partner insti-tutions 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. As research funds provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) are 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 in both an implementing and finan-cial capacity, and there is widespread support for the private sector’s role in the delivery of tech-nologies 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 non-exist-ent in or complementary to 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, technology trans-fer and adaptation, service delivery, and product development. It does so as part of both individual collaborative partnerships and consortia (whether multilateral, bilateral or bi-regional) delivering projects, but it also engages independently.

While the private sector does participate in and contribute to the objectives of the Africa-EU STI partnership, it does not always do so deliberately. The private sector will enter into partnerships and participate in projects to deliver a service or 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 of 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 for 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 indeed are being, effectively and efficiently delivered under a commercial, profit-making model. Nevertheless, some components at the bottom of pyramid, such as social welfare for example, will not be commercially viable, and will need to be subsidized, although the private sector can still be used 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 indicating a generally weak consultative re-lationship for fulfilling Africa-EU STI objectives and overcoming challenges. Some donors treat the private sector differently. The Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions’ Initiative for instance does not allow support for private sector project participants. However, generalizations about private sector participation only hold true for broad issues, while the details reveal 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 relation-ship. Among the most prominent examples are the Product Development Partnerships (PDPs), most notable in the pharmaceutical sector, which emerge in response to the failure of the market to produce drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and health technologies for (infectious) diseases of the devel-oping world, where drugs are old and dangerous (such as for filariasis and onchocerciasis) or 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 with support from donors. The business drivers of these partnerships are intrinsically different from those of lucrative contracts in the mainstream drug industry5.

The World Bank and the 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 the pharmaceut-ical industry, academia and donors. They have grown substantially to become established entities with long-term strategies and product pipelines. They enter into multiple and diverse collaborative agreements with public and private partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, in aca-demia and in public health institutes. Their 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. The Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDI) is illustrative of PDPs including European and African partners. DNDI’s partners include universities in Ethiopia, Uganda and South Africa in Africa, as well as universities in the UK, Spain, and Belgium in Europe.

An example of an Africa-Europe multilateral partnership within DNDI is the development of a com-bination 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, and reflects the benefits of South-South and North-South collaboration in making a new treatment available to patients in need6. 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). 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 example of a PDP that brings together expertise and funding from both the private and public sectors, as well as from academia and civil society, in

5 http://www.dndi.org/partnership/overview-partnership.html6 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



order to ensure the development of lifesaving products which would otherwise offer limited commer-cial incentives.

Partnerships are implicit to the PDP operational model and Europe-Africa research partnerships are very often central to PDPs’ projects. For instance IAVI is a contributor to EuroCOORD7, the EC-funded epidemiology project tracking HIV outcomes, by virtue of its membership in CASCADE. IAVI has contributed a very significant portion of the African data, which has made possible a publication comparing outcomes for Africans living in Europe with Europeans living in Europe and Africans liv-ing in Africa.

IAVI and the British Medical Research Council (Uganda) both made significant contributions of in-kind support to a ground-breaking study, sponsored by EDCTP, on HIV in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi fishing communities.

The PDP collaboration model is an example specific to 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) also focuses on developing 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 aims to overcome 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. How-ever, 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 to incorporate the private sector more fully 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 to register 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 King-dom’s 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 itself receives significant financing from EDCTP, with additional support from TB Alliance, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Sequella and the South African Medical Research Council.

7 www.eurocoord.net


The EDCTP Article 185 model, like the PDP model, can in principal be transferred in its entirety to the JAES STI cooperation context to serve domains other than pharmaceuticals for neg‑lected diseases, and as such represents a potential instrument for the JAES STI partnership�

4�3�2 STI collaboration involving SMEs

Stakeholders draw distinctions between the roles and capacities of large multinationals on the one hand and local SMEs/VSMEs on the other hand. Both have roles, but the gap between them in terms of capacities and potential contributions to STI is significant 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 the experts and scientists interviewed. 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 to be either too weak for 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 partner in STI research projects that produce useful results only after several years. According to these interviewees, rais-ing 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 for SMEs and micro-enterprises may include insufficient human, institutional and administrative capacities and experience to contribute to multilateral STI cooperation and to meet project reporting requirements. Another potential constraint for SME engagement can be divergent interests, in areas like water, energy or food supply, between scientists and public authorities who seek affordable technological solutions driven by limited resources on the ground on the one hand, and the profit-oriented private sector on the other.

Proponents of African companies’ involvement in Africa-Europe STI collaboration stress the ad-vantage of the 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 re-quirements on the ground; and their familiarity with the local market and economic situation. In some cases, the involvement of local SMEs may also be a result of the absence of other suitable partners. In the FP7 project CLARA, two Ethiopian micro-sanitation enterprises were integrated into the consortium to carry out implementation activities and compensate for the absence of any suitable public body.

Future directions for involving African SMEs in STI activities include strengthening links between the private sector and universities, as well as between the private sector and governments. The potential of private sector-university partnerships lies in SMEs’ capacity to identify research needs and indicate what kind of new products, technological solutions or technologies are required and must be developed. However, 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 an environment conducive to the success of pri-vate sector contributions to the production of goods and services and innovation. The promotion of tripartite partnerships, involving the private sector (SMEs) to define research needs, universities to carry out corresponding research activities, and the public sector to financially support this col-laboration, are often seen as ideal.



University‑Private Sector PartnershipsAn 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 postgradu-ate 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 Af-rican students in electronic engineering. The programme has attracted funding from private South African companies such as MTN and Vodacom and from 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 on collaboration, and the success of the relationship is therefore predi-cated on the participants’ collaborative capacities. Partnerships are the vehicle for collaboration, although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Factors that either encourage or hinder partnerships have profound impact on the success of projects and therefore on the productivity of the wider STI relationship.

Partnerships may be created for single initiatives. They may also endure and outlive individual initiatives, creating and running multiple initiatives over many years. Partnerships exist at the im-plementing agency level, at the funding agency level, and occasionally between funders and imple-menters. However, partnerships between countries, regions and continents are also referred to. 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 achieving shared or common goals and designing, implementing, funding or otherwise supporting initiatives, whether projects, platforms, or networks of other types of initiatives. They involve sharing responsibilities and re-sources, such as research facilities and 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 policymakers, donors and even scientists, but its precise mean-ing is less explored. Often it is used interchangeably with STI collaboration and/or STI cooperation.


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 the exchange of information and building awareness. Indicators for defining these forms of partnerships in-clude regularity of seminars/workshops, number of newsletters, and electronic connectivity.

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

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

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

Critical partnerships — These involve 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) setting a joint agenda, including determining research goals and questions; (b) securing all stakeholders’ interests and interactions or general ownership; (c) establishing rules and procedures that stipulate responsibilities/obligations based on varied responsibilities; (d) promoting mutual learning, includ-ing the capacity and willingness of those involved to engage in dialogue and learning; (e) sharing outcomes of the STI initiatives and (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 degree on the design, execution and implementation of project activities; the leadership, interpersonal and inter-institutional relationships; and good collab-oration between the partners. It also depends on the overall context in which the cooperation evolves.

4�4�1 Features of successful partnerships

The following section reflects the opinions about, and experiences of, partnership and collabor ation of the stakeholders interviewed for this study around partnerships. In collated format, the key fea-tures of effective collaboration include:

• Equitability in all aspects (including conception, budgets, responsibilities, decision-making, coordination and management);

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



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

A lack of equitability is a feature that corrodes partnerships, causing detrimental asymmetries. Stakeholder consultations for projects such as CAAST-Net have revealed widespread concern about the detrimental effects of asymmetries.

Nevertheless, asymmetries in partnerships do currently exist, notably in the areas of financial contributions, budget distribution and coordination and management responsibilities, and hence in overall project ownership. Addressing this challenge through appropriate collaborative arrange-ments is considered as an essential prerequisite for optimizing and further promoting STI cooper-ation between African and European partners. Collaborative models may promote equitability by building cooperation upon joint financial contributions or at minimum another form of joint contri-butions, such as in-kind; planning an equal distribution of roles and responsibilities in implementing scientific and management activities; or ensuring shared decision-making within the consortium.

For the more progressive funding instruments, anecdotal evidence shows that the asymmetries of the past are no longer relevant and that equitability in partnership is well established. EDCTP was often cited as an example of a multilateral project with optimal and equitable partnership ar‑rangements, 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 and managementGovernance in this study refers to the decision-making frameworks for consortium and project management, including technical coordination.

Strong, visionary leadership and coordination are widely held to be key criteria for effective partner-ships and successful project outcomes. Strong leadership comes from individuals, and successful partnerships will often have dedicated champions. For bi-regional partnerships, strong African lead-ership is underlined as an important feature of effective collaborative arrangements.

In most cases the way governance is handled within collaborative arrangements is linked to the nature of the partnership, especially the relationship among partners and the presence of a suit-able leader. However, 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 gov-ernance and reporting arrangements than small projects, which manage with informal processes. Both extremes are suited to their purposes, and there is no evidence that governance mechanisms are systematic causal factors in the success of partnerships.


Coordinating bi‑regional multilateral projects more often than not still tends to be the respon‑sibility of a European partner, and this remains a legitimate regret among stakeholders, a re‑gret prevalent among partners from Africa� However, as mentioned above, there is a distinct trend towards more southern-led initiatives guided by innovative and forward-thinking financing mech-anisms/programmes. Examples are projects funded under EDCTP or under several smaller framework programmes, The Wellcome Trust’s African Institutions Initiative, or the Austrian APPEAR programme, which clearly emphasizes or even encourages the possibility of southern partners taking the lead in a North-South cooperation project. ASTII is another example of an initiative 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 coordin-ation may be taken on by any partner, from North or South, it is the creation of truly equitable partner-ships 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, if not the practice, of the full and equal representation of African partners in what are by definition European instruments. The same projects take the shared approach further by including the shared coordination of work pack-ages. While the joint approach is well-intentioned and welcomed by partners, it may not be, in all cases, the most efficient way to manage work packages.

Decision-making is almost universally a democratic process, with most initiatives governed by an executive board on which all partners are represented. However, a number of projects fail to sep-arate decision-making from consortium management, with the risk that the decision-making pro-cesses become inefficient and is reduced to forums for transmitting information to 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 governanceWhile many stakeholders cite strong coordination as a success criterion, few refer to govern-ance 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 re-lated to the democratic governance structures the consortium has used to jointly make major decisions. Each participating institution elected one representative to a national BIOTA steering committee. Decisions on the national level were made by these representatives and reported to the project coordinator. Regular meetings were held between the different national committees and the project coordinator. The former coordinator believes the setup and maintenance of these democratic management structures to be one of the major factors of the cooper ation’s success, and that it 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 linking the contributions of these bodies to the success of partnerships and projects. However, some isolated cases do exist. The above-mentioned ZEI-WAI cooperation project, for instance, emphasizes the establishment of a net-work 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 implementation, but also to promote and facilitate new partnerships once the project has ended.

4.4.1.3 Purpose, composition, roles and responsibilitiesAt the level of implementation, collaborative models and arrangements are to a large extent deter-mined by the nature of the project.

Thus projects such as CAAST-Net, ASTII and ERAfrica, which exist as policy and programming sup-port and coordination instruments, are run by partnerships comprising representatives of nationally mandated authorities in association with specialized service agencies. Nevertheless, it is acknow-ledged at least implicitly that while national authority partners strengthen projects’ ability to influ-ence national policy, such partners are in many cases not well suited to accomplishing 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 include 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. Examples of this include the ACP non-food oils (ACP S&T programme call II) project, or the FP7 AFTER and AvecNet projects.

Interviewed experts and stakeholders unanimously agree that appropriate composition of the partnership is critical to success. An inappropriate partnership composition creates inefficiencies, wastes resources and may lead to the failure of the project.

Collaborative models 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 collaboration between universities and municipalities (which are also consortium members) in order to set up more efficient and suitable sanitation solutions. The local private sector is involved with implementing solutions. Furthermore, some of the experts and scientists interviewed stressed the importance of engaging partners with different backgrounds as early as possible, preferably 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 the compositions of partnerships should be driven by projects’ purpose and not by process, and that a multi-disciplinary aspect is not a necessary condition for all projects types. As one questionnaire respondent succinctly explained, “’Window‑dressing’ — including disin‑terested 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 relationsAlong with other parameters, communication between partners and choosing a suitable means of communication are cited extensively as a key feature of successful partnerships and effective col-laboration. Communication within partnerships varies between initiatives, each employing varying combinations of a diversity of available channels, including face-to-face and virtual meetings, news-letters 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 net-working to have more diverse, more sophisticated and more 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 in actuality. 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 complement but not completely substitute physical meetings between project partners. A frequently raised concern has been the limited budget that is generally allocated for the mobility, networking and exchange between a consortium’s partners. Mobility, in the form of both consortium meetings and 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 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 re-ferred to some other aspects of partnerships that are briefly related here.

Partnerships for capacity buildingMany stakeholders considered partnerships and networks to have a role in creating the right en-vironment for executing projects and establishing and consolidating long-term partnerships. In particular, there is significant support for the notion that sustainable partnerships act as crucibles of capacity building outside the project environment, especially as regards the human capital de-velopment 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 therefore seen by many experts as ideal.

The UK‑Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease provides a model of good prac-tice. With just a small three-year grant of £30k from the British Academy in 2006 to an individual scientist, 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 the emerging crisis of non-communicable disease (NCD) in Africa. The initial focus was on publishing information on NCDs to build wider awareness, training graduate students, con-ducting international meetings for networking and mobility. The intention was to use 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 students. The partner-ship drew the attention of researchers in the US and grew, leading to a spin-off collabor-ation for community based research and to train Masters, MPhil and PhD students on NCD research. Restricted funds compelled creativity but also created a reliance on the goodwill of individuals to provide in-kind services to the network. The funding was essential for starting the network, 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 the BA fund-ing has ended, the network persists and is even being formalised with a governance structure and professional management.

Enduring partnershipsOne key potential advantage of long-term consortia is that they build on the continuity and progression of research activities over a long period, the ability to resort to and use research findings and results from previous projects, and the strong and good relations among the partners, who are considered to be a well-established and efficient team. The flipside is that in many cases such partnerships are based on the initiative and efforts of specific people, and their ability to continue once a project is over may easily be affected by personnel changes. Their survival moreover depends upon the availability of ap-propriate funding and framework programmes with long-term strategic (research) agendas. Scientists



often complain that they waste a lot of time writing proposals, adapting to the requirements of new financial instruments and waiting for new funding to start before being able to continue research ac-tivities. Long gaps between projects and their sequels block 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 one project and the start a new one are likely to lead to financial difficulties at African institutions with little to no basic funding and the inability to extend working contracts.

The study came across a relatively limited number of examples of enduring partnerships in the Af-rica-Europe cooperation landscape which are sustainably delivering projects. Here again EDCTP was praised as an exemplary partnership between Member States supporting 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 partner-ships and initiatives that capitalize on the mutual awareness and trust built in the partnership. Re-garding 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. Part‑nerships are extremely important and greater attention to them is likely to enhance the over‑all quality and effectiveness of cooperation�

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

Successful models are based on democratic and equitable partnerships that promote an integra-tion 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 duration of the project or at relevant stages allows complementary experiences, skills and capacities to be integrated, and helps ensure the societal relevance of STI activities, the economic exploitability of results and their 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 seen as a core determinant of co-ownership. Asymmetry and lack of equity in partnerships, derived from an absence of the core values and financing referred to above, is corrosive and undermines co-ownership.

Compared to short-term collaboration, long‑lasting partnerships that build on strong relation-ships or create links and synergies between existing Africa-Europe STI project consortia are gener-ally seen as better suited to achieve sustainable outcomes and impact.

The ability of partnerships to endure beyond the lifecycle of typically short collaborative projects and to jointly implement further initiatives or follow-up projects is the result of a variety of factors, including strong leadership and sound governance, the composition of the consortium and the dis-tribution of roles and responsibilities, interpersonal relations and communication, complementarity


of interests, and mutual trust and transparency. In addition to a committed coordinator, the avail‑ability of funds with a long-term strategic (research) agenda that is transparent, reliable and predictable is essential for long-lasting partnerships.

Long‑term funding programmes and programme‑level cooperation between Africa and Eu‑rope in specific fields, as well as the division of large‑scale projects into several interlinked sub‑projects with individual grants may represent an approach that limits undesirable gaps between projects and their sequels and promotes the sustainability of partnerships and their achievements.

The PDP collaboration model is a specific example from the pharmaceutical sector of generic pub-lic-private partnerships which may be applied in their entirety to other domains and used to deliver of public goods and/or services.

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



5 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS AND INSTRUMENTS

5�1 Introduction

This section explores the range of financing instruments currently being used to support bi-region-al, multilateral STI cooperation. Features of the mechanisms and specific instruments within the mechanisms are illustrated by referencing specific projects and initiatives in the cooperation land-scape, drawing particularly on the experiences of project personnel. The chapter is complemented by Annex 6, a selection 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 pro-filed 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 devel-opment and capacity building objectives, while development instruments can, and do, support research cooperation. Forward‑thinking policymakers are forging ahead with aligning these policy spheres, exploring suitable instruments for supporting aligned policy� Thus for example, the BMBF emphasizes that STI collaboration projects between German and Africa partners, which are funded by their instruments, should follow less of a development cooperation logic and more of 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. While very few are dedicated specifically to Africa-EU STI cooper-ation, there are a number of instruments which either present 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.

Often national funding instruments outsource programmes and schemes to councils, agencies and academies, for example, and even to private sector bodies, creating a sometimes confusing and ob-scure funding landscape. Partnerships between implementing agencies and financial instruments, sometimes for political imperatives, sometimes for the purposes of policy coherence or to test cooperation models, can obscure the landscape still further.

Asymmetry is a feature of the public sector funding landscape of Africa‑EU STI cooper‑ation. Most of the financial instruments available for supporting Africa-Europe cooperation are 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 specif-ically dedicated to the implementation of the specific objectives of JAES P8.

5�2�1 Non‑returnable, conditional grants

Non-returnable, conditional grants constitute the vast majority of financial support for bi-regional, multilateral STI cooperation. Almost all, if not all 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 are designed to the meet priorities of the implementing party. NRCG are commonly used for individual initiatives but are 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 Insti-tutions’ Initiative, the Sector Budget Support for South Africa from the EU, as well as many Mem-ber State research and development cooperation programmes all employ variants of the NRCG mechanism.

There is a diverse array of funding instruments within the NRCG mechanism. The grant conditions, the delivery modalities, the collaborative arrangements they serve, and the services rendered dis-tinguishing NRCG instruments from one another. The conditions, modalities, collaborative arrange-ments and services are very diverse and can be categorised according to several operational or technical parameters. Detailed categorisation is beyond the scope of this study. Moreover, the study revealed no systematic evidence of the greater efficiency of one instrument category over another as regards its impact on bi-regional STI cooperation. Nevertheless, individual instruments illustrate features that benefit bi-regional cooperation, features that may be considered ‘good/best practice,’ and this section of the report attempts to illustrate these and other pertinent features by referencing 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 instru-ments highlighted by project partners, stakeholders and informed commentators.

Forward‑thinking, innovative financing partners, keen to break away from traditional reli‑ance on the NRCG mechanism, are exploring and in some cases piloting alternative financing mechanisms, although not necessarily in the specific Africa‑Europe STI cooperation context� The UK government’s DFID for example is eager 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 preferable both from a tax-payer’s and more general perspective. The latter mechanisms fundamentally change the relationship between financing and implement-ing partners and are among a range of options that become available once the ‘free money’ para-digm is broken. Some are seen as more suited to alternative vehicles for the accomplishment of STI cooperation objectives, such as the commercial sector. However, these mechanisms are rarely, if ever, used by or made 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 organisations run specific programmes, schemes or individual calls with a focus on bi-regional and often bilateral STI cooperation, or with geographically targeted opportunities in mind. 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 three such examples.

5�3 European Union instruments

European Union funding instruments have been extensively employed in both direct and in indir-ect 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, of any origin, is a significant impediment to the 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 so-phisticated NRCG instrument to have been used to support bi-regional STI cooperation. African institutions and scientists have a long and improving track record of participating in successive FPs. Primarily a research instrument based on criteria of excellence, the FP supports international cooperation on scientific research, innovation and technology development as well as cooperation on 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 of FP6, and not only because of the longer period of FP7 in comparison with FP6. FP7 has placed more emphasis on international STI cooperation than FP6. It is fully open to international third country participation via partnerships on all thematic topics, but also routinely employs targeted geographic calls in its special programmes in order to focus on specific regions’ priorities.

Horizon 2020, the next FP for 2014–2020, like its predecessor will fully allow international co-operation with third countries, but a new, more targeted international cooperation strategy may affect specific opportunities for Africa.

Coordinated Call for Africa: Calls for proposals from FP7 thematic programmes have been opened to all parties, offering opportunities for Africa-EU cooperation, and some thematic programmes on some occasions 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 Nile basin, in combination with support for broader shared interests related to health, water and food security. In total 26 separate multilateral research and research capacity building cooperation projects were funded under the Coordinated Call, and total FP7 funding in the region amounted to €65m. An example 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 equitable Africa-Europe STI cooperation partnerships. One of the few examples of a genuine jointly funded (i.e. funded by both European and African parties) STI cooper-ation instrument has been created and managed by the EU FP7 ERAfrica initiative. 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, Portu-gal, 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 to be funded by the instrument’s calls, 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 ERAf-rica II to support a transition phase to full African ownership of ARGP.

ERAfrica — views from two African participants in the pool of fund owners.

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

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 identify-ing joint programme priorities alongside EU MS, aligning them with National Science and Technology Policy priority areas. It even allowed individual MS programmes to decide the amounts they would commit to each of the priority areas.

For Burkina Faso, participating in the ERAfrica pool of programme owners above all reflected the political will to finance its own research. This will was 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 sole contributor. ERAfrica represented a good opportunity for Burkina Faso to demonstrate that political will externally. With ERAfrica, the contributors make group decisions about topics and where to invest funds. This transparency is reassuring and easy to manage in comparison with pan-African initiatives.

EDCTP: As an Article 185 initiative, the financing model of EDCTP phase 1 is based on joint funding from EU (FP6) and EDCTP country members. The funding model, viewed by many as good practice, allows contributions from African and European members, although in the current programme African members are encouraged to contribute but not obliged. Although financial contributions from African members have been limited, there are examples of in-kind contributions such as salary costs, labora-tory space and utilities. 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 con-crete example of a jointly funded initiative supporting the objectives of the broader partnership, and in principal could be extended to other domains.

As the above initiatives testify, the FP has a proven track record as a support instrument for financ-ing JAES P8 objectives, and although the FP it is not directly aligned with P8, all evidence points to the continued financial support of H2020 for 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 the STI cooperation objectives articulated under a restructured JAES.



The Framework Programme supports and encourages private sector participation, notably for ex-ample through Article 187 Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). However, engagement of third coun-tries and regions is very limited in the few JTIs currently operational8.

Among the stakeholders interviewed, the EU FP was the most well-known instrument, and many were happy to express opinions. The opinions of Africa-EU cooperation stakeholders on the effect-iveness of the FP are varied. Many respondents to the questionnaire for this study considered FP7 to be an improvement over FP6, with greater awareness of, and engagement with, the programme among African researchers and policymakers through initiatives such as CAAST-Net, ESASTAP and ERAfrica. For example, ESASTAP, funded through FP7, is credited for building awareness among South African researchers of EU funding opportunities and their skills related to those opportunities. It is also viewed as having helped strengthen EU-South Africa bilateral STI cooperation. CAAST-Net (and now CAAST-Net Plus) provided a platform allowing European and African researchers to raise mutual awareness about policies and priorities, and also supported both informal and formal insti-tutional 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 repre-sentative 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, which, from an African perspective particularly, though not exclusively, promote cap-acity building as a significant priority. The conflict is easy to appreciate. Among the limitations of the FP, from the perspective of African 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, an obstacle in particular to the participation of smaller institutions in Africa;

• High competition and relatively limited success rates;• Relatively long negotiation phases before the 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 co-operation in the ACP region. Consisting of several constituent instruments/programmes, it has been extensively employed to finance Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

Significant EDF support for individual projects is provided by the ACP-EU S&T programme un-der the intra-ACP budget, for which there have been two calls for proposals (one each for EDF9 and EDF10). An exemplary project financed under call 1 of the ACP S&T programme is the ACP non‑food oils initiative (Annex 9), which, as a collaborative venture, provides valuable lessons for bi-regional cooperation. A mid-term review of the ACP S&T programme9 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. As regards bi-regional cooperation, it is worth noting that EU delegations

8 http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/index_en.cfm?pg=home9 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.

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


have not taken advantage of opportunities to use the programme to discuss S&T policy issues with national decision-makers and practitioners, and 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 may perhaps be observed that while the programme’s object-ives align closely with those of P8, there seems to be no explicit indication of synergy or that the programme could be used to support P8. Future ACP calls could be more explicitly used to support P8 objectives.

Also funded by 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 Pro-gramme, the ARGP (see Annex) represents a significant milestone and building block of the Af-rica-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 overcoming cooperation’s current dependency on European in-struments� 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 co‑ownership of multilateral STI initiatives under the future JAES�

Formulated as one of the first 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 issuing its second call for research on the following themes or programme areas of the CPA: post-harvest and agriculture, renewable and sustainable energy, and water and sanitation. The ARGP is similar to the EU’s FP and indeed is serving as a pilot for an Africa-wide Framework Programme for research.

Projects financed by ARGP calls in principal allow the possibility of partnerships between African and European countries, but no examples of these projects have been found in this study. Neverthe-less, interviewees raised some issues of governance that need to be addressed to improve them implementation of ARGP. These include:

• The need for greater involvement of African researchers in the evaluation of project pro posals. Currently proposals are evaluated by EC- and EU-based consultants with minimal African engagement;

• The need to improve the AUC’s capacity to administer the initiative as well as to increase African financial and technical investments.

Continued EU financial support for ARGP is not currently anticipated beyond the second ARGP call. However, the ARGP entails high political significance for the Africa-Europe STI partnership, and is also much in demand at the AUC. It will nevertheless be critical to determine the extent to which current funding for AGRP has allowed the management capacity and African resourcing of ARGP to become embedded at the AUC, thereby assuring its sustainability. If, for instance, EDF support is halted before financial and management capacity is fully embedded, the collaboration could fail to meet its primary objective, with clear implications for the STI partnership. Premature ARGP closure should be avoided.



One of the objectives being pursued by the AMCOST resources working group is to examine the re-sourcing 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 former NEPAD Office of Science and Technology (OST). Concept papers were prepared, and NEPAD OST organized a workshop. 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 methods to ensure financial contributions from AU Member States have not been established. Some of the in-terviewees for this study noted that the slow or almost non-existent progress of ASIF is due to absence of leadership from AUC and AfDB devoted specifically to this initiative. The AMCOST working group has not met frequently as had been envisaged because of resource constraints.

In the absence of alternative short‑term arrangements for continuing ARGP, the AMCOST re‑sources working group, in their ongoing exploration of transitional arrangements, may wish to consider applying to Horizon 2020 for support for an ERAfrica style project, as well as inviting the existing ERAfrica consortium to specifically support the 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 the partnership’s capacity and governance mechanisms instead of specific technical initiatives is unclear.

The EDF national and regional indicative programmes 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 mul-tilateral 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 of providing financial support to initiatives directly under P8, as well as to many that broadly align with its objectives. 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.

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 potential for supporting components of the Afri-ca-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. For example, the EU uses the DCI FSTP to provide block grants to CGIAR multian-nual programmes, and of course the CGIAR programme in Africa aligns with and supports that of CAADP, affiliated with P8 by virtue of association with the CPA. The second phase of PAEPARD is also funded via FSTP.

In the context of this study, the geographical 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. As a result, one of the flagship programmes of the development cooper-ation instrument of the South Africa-European Union (EU) Strategic Partnership is the sectoral budget support (SBS) programme, with €30 million of funding from the EU and implemented by


the DST. Its objective is to complement and enhance the department’s programmes deploying sci-ence and technology and harnessing innovation to fight poverty in South Africa10.

SBS as an instrument is used for EU bilateral development cooperation with developing coun-try 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. It implements an agreed per-formance monitoring system. The instrument is largely used to support development initiatives rather than 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 the participation of the private sector and local communities. It 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 an instrument for promoting the development and diffusion of technol-ogy for development. SBS is most effectively delivered in tandem with a national sector policy and strategy, good 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, offering a plethora of instruments that support both dedicated Africa-Europe cooperation and non-specific international STI cooperation. The in-struments represent a narrow range of mechanisms, which in most cases are conditional non-re-turnable grants. A small selection of programmes and some of their projects is given below.

10 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



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 cooperation approaches with partner institutes in Africa. The JAES and CPA provide polit-ical context for the instrument, which 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 issued, one in 2010 and one in 2012. Both had high re-sponse rates, suggesting good resonance with needs. Although it seems too early to draw conclusions, the programme has effectively encouraged and promoted cooperation between German and African scientists and has a number of interesting features that can be viewed as good practice:

• The initiatives funded under the Partnerships for Sustainable Solutions with Africa are exploratory or pilot projects with a durations 6 and 24 months, respectively. They are de-signed to prepare the way for larger STI collaboration. Eligible activities include meetings, 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 targeting 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 objectives10, the programme combines research, investment in infrastructure, and investment in human capacity building.

• The programme also encourages North-South-South partnerships, e.g. through trilat-eral cooperation between partners from German, Africa and other developing or emerg-ing countries, or by encouraging the ‘regionalisation’ of activities in Africa, i.e. regional approaches and solutions through S-S cooperation.

There are relatively few funding instruments for multilateral STI cooperation with Africa that are jointly implemented by two or more Member States.11 In 2009, within the framework of the 3rd German–French Research Forum, an agreement was signed between the German and the French governments for improved coordination and interconnection of national research initiatives with Sub-Saharan 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 coun-tries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The idea is to build upon synergies that emerge from linking exist-ing competences and experience and from 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 admin-istrative aspects of the national programmes involved.

Although beyond the scope of this study, the bilateral cooperation landscape may offer examples of good practice to be replicated and/or scaled at multilateral level. The Kenya–Germany bilateral

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

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


cooperation to fund 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.

DRUSSA and LABLITE (Annex 9) are both multilateral collaborations funded by DFID’s Research into Evidence Division. They were not supported through a call for proposals but rather were directly invited by DFID into an existing consortium or organisation to prepare a proposal for a specific topic. Such an approach creates an alternative donor-recipient relationship to that set up by a general call for proposals, creating a more intimate association that, in the view of recipi-ents, 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 fostering 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 partnerships with UK research councils, the quality of the science is usually the main section criteria. Africa is rarely a focus as calls have been related to development challenges, for example sustainable agricul-ture, poverty alleviation, combating diseases in livestock, ecosystem services, and health systems. Although beyond the timeframe of the study, a current call related to development by NERC and DFID called Climate Change and Africa is worth noting. Furthermore NERC and ESRC recently an-nounced a seven year £12m African groundwater programme with DFID focused on unlocking the potential for groundwater for the poor (UpGro)12. Lastly, MRC and DFID also have an African leadership scheme13. Under these arrangements, research councils fund UK participants and DFID funds the developing country partners. Research councils manage the call, awards and of course the peer review process (which usually includes user views too). DFID get the 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 sci-entists who want to develop collaborative research consortia of 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 offers a number of small funding schemes to support Africa’s research base, each exploring and piloting optimal ways to impact the research system.

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

In a similar example, the African Virtual Campus, another project of the AU/NEPAD LHP but sub-stantially different to ALICT, also draws on dedicated EU MS funds. Financing from the Govern‑ment of Spain and the Government of Japan, in collaboration with UNESCO, 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 its effectiveness. However, in the

12 http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/upgro/13 http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Fundingopportunities/Calls/ARL2013/MRC008917

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

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



case of ALICT, the strength of the Finland-AU partnership in ALICT Phase I was a critical part of Finland’s decision not only to provide a grant for a second phase, but also to seek additional Phase II resources from AfDB. It is apparent that well-placed individuals in the partnership, acting as champions of 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 fo-cuses on supporting the establishment of national and regional STI centres of excellence; strength-ening infrastructure for research and innovation; and linking education, research institutions and the private sector. The Bank’s strategy emphasises 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 the African Virtual University (AVU), which 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 USD 17.60 million to finance the 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 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 Country (MIC) Grants to be used to undertake research, (c) ADB Loans — ADB countries can access loans to support the establish-ment of technopoles and technoparks (d) multinational window used by the bank to support re-gional cooperation, the mobility of skilled labour, and collaboration in research and technological in novation, 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, for example the AfDB’s Nigeria Trust Fund, which are sources of ‘soft loans’ to African countries.

5�6 The contribution of the private sector and relevant financial mechanisms

The private sector not only engages in cooperation as an implementing partner but also provides 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 co-operation between African and European researchers is the Volkswagen Foundation’s ‘Knowledge for Tomorrow’ programme. The Volkswagen Foundation developed their Africa initiative in 2003 based on recommendations collected during a series of events at 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, coordinated by 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 on developing and strengthening academic networks between German and African scientists and within the African continent. Although the programme is smaller than most public funding programmes, it is characterized, according to interviewees, by more flexibility and allows for adap-tation to unforeseen changes and circumstances.

Building research capacity in Africa via research partnerships is a key part of 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 through the Royal Society-Pfizer African Academies’ programme, as part of a shared commitment to help build a sustainable and prosperous Africa14. Although not targeting research cooperation per se, the programme has been supporting science academies’ efforts to strengthen science in Africa through activities such as institutional capacity building, engaging with policymakers, engaging with younger scientists, instruction on communicating science effectively, and collaborating regionally and internationally. The programme helps academies forge better links with their own research communities by championing their research bases, giving African science a voice in partner countries, and appealing to their governments to fund their research bases. This reduces 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 illustrates 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 Australia15.

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 specific to patient needs. Initially, it is open to scientists working in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda16.

The following section the report illustrates examples of the financing instruments already em-ployed by the private sector which contribute to the objectives of the Africa-Europe STI partnership. The examples do not exhaust the full diversity of scenarios.

14 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.

15 http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/International/African-Institutions-Initiative/index.htm16 http://www.gsk.com/partnerships/academic-collaborations/trust-in-science---africa.html

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



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 to support work with the private sector with a more direct approach (Enterprise Challenge Fund — Mid-Term Review, 200917). A diverse mechanism, challenge funds can be used to meet a range of objectives, but in the context of this study the interest is in their utility for supporting the delivery of innovative solutions to pressing societal challenges and public goods by private sector and non-state actors. Although not a mechanism specifically dedicated to promoting partnerships, challenge funds are nevertheless a proven and legitimate mechanism for accomplishing Africa-EU STI partnership objectives. Some, such as the African Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF) are built on 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 for a limited period of time.

The AECF, hosted by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), is one of a number of similar financing instruments supporting the engagement of the private sector to deliver public goods and services in diverse domains. The basic idea is a pooling instrument with funds disbursed as up-front conditional grants. It functions in several respects in similar fashion to the Global Alli‑ance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Like GAIN, AECF manages a large pool of funds from multiple donors (current funders include some of the biggest names in development finance: UK AID, DA-NIDA, Australian AID, IFAD, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA) to engage for-profit com-panies in the delivery of public goods and services in Africa through the market, thereby stimulating rural economies and creating jobs, increasing productivity or reducing costs. The sums of money are significant, with AECF reported to be implementing a fund of $200 m providing grants in the vicinity of $0.25 m – $1.5 m.

The AECF uses funds to support value chains linking rural economies to international markets. Like GAIN, AECF injects funds into configuring elements of public policy that allow the risk-benefit equa-tion to favour returns on investments.

Working only with for-profit companies, AECF sets the briefs to make a difference in 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 competitive tendering process, open to companies anywhere in Africa — continent-wide, or country-specific. The eligibility criteria always include company cap-acity, the viability of the business deal, the development benefit (the number of households af-fected), and the innovative nature of the project. Agendas are thus largely set by the companies, while the broad parameters are set by the mechanism and/or the donor.

AECF takes on a significant level of risk, and not all projects succeed in significant fashion with large scale impacts. However, the 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 share the costs and take on 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 central as is demonstrated scale-up. The potential impact of AECF is illustrated by the success of MPESA, a proposal submitted 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.

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

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


Like GAIN, AECF appears to have a project-oriented 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.

Originally run as part of 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 that channels 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 markedly project-oriented approach to introducing new and improved products to the market in Africa. The scope of GAIN’s work has widened to encompass preventative programmes and dis-aster 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 gain a substantial experience with PPP for delivering public goods in Africa. GAIN is different from challenge funds such as AECF (above) in that it invests heavily in the design of its own projects and partnerships.

GAIN sees that risk-aversion is causing the private sector to hesitate to invest in new products and market development. Markets are poorly understood, the regulatory environment can be non-con-ducive, and infrastructure inadequate. They see that companies, in order to make investment deci-sions, need consistency and stability, such as the assurance that a new fortified product will be accepted by a country’s public health system, or that the price point of a new product lines up with 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 partner-ships with the private sector, using 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, and can require long-term subsidies 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 com-panies have been employed, each offering lessons on the role businesses play and the incentives required for creating stable conditions for long-term investment and return.

By working with national governments in areas of the system that can be influenced by policy- or decision-makers, GAIN can de-risk without using direct subsidies. Such work might include identify-ing infrastructure elements in the delivery system which, regardless of the product, are necessary for products to reach consumers, improving governments’ regulatory capacity to keep fraudulent products off shelves, or monitoring and enforcing food safety and quality standards. However, GAIN notices a reluctance, even a lack of ability, among policymakers 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 and with aca-demia on pre-competitive issues that do not influence downstream commercial interests, generat-ing an evidence base for investment decisions. The recently created Business Platform for Nutrition Research18 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 prod-ucts and technologies instrumental in helping combat under-nutrition.

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

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

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



While GAIN doesn’t yet foresee a time when donor support will not be needed for de-risking in some areas, it does expect that leveraging private sector resources will enable reductions in donor con-tributions 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.

In the current environment, GAIN’s pool of donors exhibit a reluctance to see funds used uncondi-tionally 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.

Elements characteristic of challenge funds may include low bureaucratic burden, the fostering of innovative solutions, a highly competitive approach, de-risking or sharing the risk 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 a means of allocating state resources to businesses. A major challenge however lies in the fact that small companies are generally not accustomed to innovation funds and often not aware of and familiar with their modalities and requirements.

5�6�2 Pooled instruments: Pull mechanisms

Among the variants of the challenge fund’s up-front grant mechanism, pull mechanisms and re-sults-based mechanisms are gaining traction among donors.

In contrast to challenge funds like AECF, the method of delivery of pull mechanisms is a re-sults-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 com-panies competing on individual challenges at any one time. Pull mechanisms are designed to over-come 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 countries19.

AgResults is an example of a privately managed pooled fund (managed by Deloitte Consulting LLP) offering prizes to the private sector for solving significant national, regional and continental chal-lenges — for example 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 by 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 gained by farmers by storing more and longer. The challenge is suited to local companies but probably not to SMEs.

AgResults started 18 months ago, but the use of pull mechanisms has a long track record. Pull mechanisms tend to be favoured under certain situations20:

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

a market;

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

20 Vivid Economics, 2009; ‘Pulling Agricultural Innovation into the Market’, Centre for Global Development, 2010.

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


• 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, a subjective process. A project’s impact might be considered the most obvious and relevant indicator of a finance mechanism’s utility. Chapter 6 however suggests that the impact of projects implemented during 2008–2012 remains, by and large, yet to be registered and the study revealed no systematic evidence that one mechanism or instrument was better than another in terms of impact, anticipated or actual. In the absence of means to define and measure the effectiveness of finance mechanisms, the conclusions presented here draw on common subjective opinions among stakeholders about desirable features of financ-ing mechanisms. However, no assumptions are made about causal associations between these features and the effectiveness of a mechanism or instrument.

The single most important conclusion to emerge in regard to financial instruments for a future STI cooperation roadmap is the widespread support and desire for co-ownership of bi-regional initiatives, mediated in particular by co‑financing arrangements and/or jointly‑financed funding instruments. Not only is there widespread ambition on the part of the 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 of 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 oper-ational significance as the only current example of multilateral Africa-Europe co-financing of mu-tually agreed STI topics. While ERAfrica as not created as a specific JAES P8 instrument and is not controlled by JAES P8 governance structures, the close overlap of the MS actively supporting JAES P8 processes and those active in the ERAfrica funders’ pool assures alignment with P8 objectives.

As the sole example of its kind, ERAfrica engenders high expectations not only for the model but also for the individual project. The ERAfrica model in principal appears flexible enough to be repeated with other MS architectures and applied to other topics and purposes� The study’s findings suggest a number of potential applications. In particular the model might be applicable to other groupings of African and European MS for thematic or geographically focussed co-financing arrangements, for example addressing 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 ar-rangements, 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-financing or joint financing among EU and AU MS, co‑financing with 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 pilot‑ing co‑financing arrangements such as joint or coordinated calls between Horizon 2020 or



a future EDF ACP‑EU S&T programme and the ARGP for the specific purpose of supporting the 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 for the existing ERAfrica consortium, in a second phase, to mount a jointly financed call or to create a co‑funded instrument to be used by ARGP�

For JAES to not only provide a framework for bi-regional STI cooperation on shared objectives and priorities but also to serve as a project implementing agency for collaborative initiatives, it must ei-ther continue relying on existing national and regional instruments, encouraging regular dedicated support and greater alignment with JAES STI objectives, or create its own independent instru‑ments which would ideally be jointly funded�

With no clearly articulated agenda for STI collaboration under 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 fi-nancing 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 rela-tionship or 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 due to shared objectives. Much could and should be done by JAES STI governance structures in particular to raise greater awareness about 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 JAES. For ex‑ample ACP‑EU S&T calls, already closely aligned with JAES P8, could in the future be more explicitly used in support of JAES STI cooperation�

However, the current distribution of funding instruments creates asymmetry, so continued reliance on the existing suite of instruments would tend to undermine co-ownership, a key component of an equitable bi-regional STI partnership. Joint funding is a key political goal of the Africa-Europe STI partnership. However, all the financing arrangements illustrated in this section barring 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 into ac-count its capacity to facilitate the 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 the small number of instruments mobilised in support of specific P8 objectives, no systematic evidence emerges from this study. Stakeholder views and KPI metrics are used to deter-mine the relative effectiveness of one financing mechanism or instrument as compared to another in terms of its capacity to support bi-regional cooperation. In the absence of commonly agreed parameters for defining the effectiveness of financing mechanisms in a collaborative context, notions of effectiveness drawn almost exclusively from subjective stakeholder opinion.

With regard to the design or adaptation and suitability of new or existing instruments for bi-re-gional cooperation, the opinion of stakeholders, as users of instruments, is instructive, and the list of comments in the preceding section merits attention. Many financing instruments have features


that are appreciated by partnerships, that encourage better outcomes, and which could be emu-lated by dedicated JAES STI instruments or used to better adapt existing instruments to bi-regional cooperation, particularly in order to minimise asymmetries and maximise 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 land-scape, responding to a greater diversity of objectives and partnership needs. In particular there is strong desire among partnerships to be able to ‘mix and match’ more easily. In other words partnerships need to be able to more readily access and combine grants from different instruments to match the complexities of increasingly frequent multi-disciplinary, cross-cut-ting and multipurpose projects, and especially to employ both capacity building and research cooperation instruments in synergy.

• Broadly, instruments which foster engagement and dialogue between donors and the im-plementing partnership are favoured by stakeholders and tend to be more conducive to ini-tiative 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. They are also 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 meeting JAES STI objectives. Pooled challenge funds, pull mechanisms, concessional loans, equity and IP sharing are all options to be explored.

• There is significant venture capital in the financial markets awaiting responsible investment opportunities.

• Conditional grant mechanism instruments that are free of contractual obligations and have non-restrictive conditions, where the grant may be delivered as a reward/prize for example, are preferred 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 how to make a more direct transfer of financial resources to partners in Africa to avoid financial depend-ence on the coordinating (often European) partner.

• Partnership do not appreciate the short-term project-oriented approach adopted by most in-struments. There is very widespread desire for longer‑term or more flexible approaches to funding cycles, with attention to components for supporting effective partnerships them-selves, to pre- and post-project funding phases, to follow-up and translational activities, as well as to grant durations that match project purposes/typologies.



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 type of initiative or project. For example, scientific research projects usually produce new knowledge or apply existing knowledge, as well as test existing technologies. Capacity building projects develop skills and institutional capabilities. Innovation-type initiatives are usually associated with introduc-ing new technologies and tend to open up new job opportunities, create SMEs and may contribute explicitly or directly to developmental goals such as the reduction of poverty. Networks tend to mo-bilize and promote the sharing of existing capabilities — experts, institutions and related resources such as laboratories — in research, technology development and innovation. Some research initia-tives focus on generating evidence for policymaking and the aim of some networks is to promote policy dialogue and learning.

In addition, the outputs and impacts of projects/initiatives are influenced by factors such as the nature of the partnership, internal project coordination and governance processes, and external factors, such as the political and socio-economic context. As stated earlier, certain projects/initia-tives’ effectiveness is largely dependent on the political context and nature of existing policies of each 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 collaborative projects focused on innovation, there is a wide range of projects that are further developing, applying and adapting existing technologies by paying particular attention to specific factors, such as local en-vironmental conditions, limited resources or level of acceptance by the community. Some of these initiatives build upon and synthesise technological findings from previous STI projects, allowing them to rely on a broad inventory of technologies and experiences. The FP6 project ROSA and its follow-up CLARA (FP7) can be mentioned here as examples.

It is also important to note that the impacts of research, capacity building and innovation projects are by nature long-term. In many cases their contributions to socio-economic development unfold 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 within the framework of the South Africa-European Union Strategic Partnership and is an example of programme-level cooperation 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 1 200 jobs by the end of 2014. Although an impact assessment is yet to be conducted, according to some interviewees, the programme’s activities 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 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 the institutional capacities of national regulatory agencies to process 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, par-ticularly through training. Many projects include training activities targeting leaders, scientists, scientific personnel or PhD and MA students in African partner institutions. They include, among others ALICT, which provides a tailored course that builds the capacity of future African leaders to contribute effectively to the development of knowledge societies; EnerMENA, which trains en-gineers 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 collabor-ation with UNESCO. This project aims to develop four e-learning centres in West Africa — in Sen-egal, Benin, Togo and Cote d’Ivoire — that offer courses on engineering and producing online mul-timedia courses.

Collaborative initiatives with the direct or explicit aim of policy development or improving the qual-ity 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 Ma-lawi, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and Senegal. In Kenya for example the initiative has led to the integra-tion of 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 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 building social capital among African researchers and between African and European scientists and policymakers. These include CAAST-Net, which is credited for providing platforms for policy dialogues between AU and EU decision-makers and researchers. Many interviewees identified this initiative as enhancing social capital. Other collabor-ative initiatives, such as ASTII, ERAfrica and BioFISA, also contributed to the creation of social capital among scientists and policymakers.

On the whole, the analysis of the impact of STI cooperation between Africa and Europe over the period 2008–2012 performed in order to assess 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 in order to meet the requirements of financial mechanisms and instruments, a comparative approach and analysis in most cases appears difficult; (2) the direct impacts of joint activities may differ for Africa and Europe; therefore different perspectives and points of view must be considered to assess a multilateral or bi-regional initiative’s effects and performance; and (3) impacts can be long-term and only emerge and become measurable years after a project or initiative has formally ended.



7 SUCCESS CRITERIA

The success of recent Africa-Europe STI collaborative initiatives is a loosely defined, diverse and subjective parameter, determined by interpreting one or more factors which may or may not be related to one another and which may have different respective weights. Furthermore, a distinc-tion can be drawn between factors which may appear to be causally linked to success and those which appear to be desirable features and values for 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. However, as understood in this study, success can also be perceived in inter-mediate project phases as well as in the demonstration or testing of novel processes and policies. As the preceding chapter indicated, the impact of projects implemented during the 2008–2012 window is, by and large, yet to be felt, and hence the link between impact and success criteria for these projects is conjectural.

Establishing success criteria is therefore problematic. The study has revealed no fixed set of fac-tors which, if in place, would assure the success of an initiative. However, the following paragraphs relate the views of stakeholders and assessments 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 to be necessary criteria or determinants of success.

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

Expectations: This means 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 into the collaboration after the goals, scope and outcomes have already been defined, implementation tends to suffer and success is compromised. When projects’ goals, activities and expected outcomes are unclear and not collectively agreed, success may likewise be compromised. In this regard, a crucial element is also a clear call text and precise requirements and instructions from the funding authority. Misunderstandings based either on different interpreta-tions of the call 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 help-ful or required to ensure the success of collaborative STI initiatives. An 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 the implementation of the pro-gramme. 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 prov-inces. Contrarily, weak political support may present a challenge, as is the case with BIOTA AFRICA.

Co‑ownership: Initiatives in which all parties share ownership and bring their different capacities to the implementation process tend to be viewed as more successful than those in which some parties are alienated from an initiative or in which certain parties dominate the implementation and governance. Among the initiatives mentioned by some interviewees in this study as demon-strating 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 deci-sion-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. The initia-tive that best illustrates this dynamic is ASTII. According to interviewees and a review of the ASTII evaluation report, the relative success of the initiative is in no small measure due to 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: Closely linked to the preceding policy environment factor is the role of formal instruments in collaboration — for example Memoranda of Understanding, and bilateral STI agree-ments — which may be helpful for or even a determinant of the success of collaborative STI initia-tives. Though evidence is still scant, it suggests that the existence of formal bilateral STI cooper-ation agreements between South Africa and the EU, and between South Africa and individual EU MS, has been conducive to the country’s active engagement with several European partners on a wide range of joint STI activities and initiatives. South Africa has leveraged some of these formal agreements for collaborative initiatives such as the Innovation for Poverty Alleviation Programme and BIOFISA. South Africa used its bilateral STI cooperation agreement with Finland in order to secure funding for BIOFISA, a multi-country collaboration initiative involving many SADC countries. This may be viewed as a case of good practice in the use of a formal bilateral cooperation agree-ment to stimulate a broader multi-country STI collaboration. Formal agreements are not guaran-tees of success, however. The WAMI (Spanish Development Agency, Annex 9) project had a full MoU signed by the two West African institutions involved, yet the project failed to achieve its objectives.

Diversity: Institutional diversity appears to influencing the success of collaborative STI initiatives. Initiatives that are successful, particularly in generating outcomes, often involve multiple diverse institutions including academia, private sector entities, policy agencies, local communities and sci-ence councils. This institutional diversity is important as it provides the differentiated multi-disciplin-ary capacities required to implement many of the collaborative projects or initiatives. It is key that complementarity be acknowledged and reflected in the distribution of roles and responsibilities for the 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), national bureaus of statistics, and ministries of science and technol-ogy. Similarly, some of the coordinators interviewed link their project’s success at least partly to a good level of collaboration and exchange between partners with different backgrounds, combin-ing 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. This allows lessons learned to be consolidated and applied. Examples of such initiatives, even within the study’s inventory, are many, including ROSA (FP6) and its follow-up project CLARA (FP7); an ARGP project under negotiation at the time of the 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/


8 GAPS, BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES

The study sought to identify systemic gaps, barriers and challenges for bi-regional Africa-Europe STI cooperation which might point to actions needed in order to enhance 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 provided 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 out thematic areas which, in their views, merit the attention of bi-regional cooperation.

8�1 Gaps

Cooperation continues to focus on the key development themes of agriculture and food security, health (with emphasis on neglected and infectious diseases), water and energy and ICT. More re-cently, climate change and environmental management (with an emphasis on biodiversity conser-vation and sustainable use) have become priority areas. While these remain priority thematic areas for cooperation, interviewees noted that social sciences and humanities, including cross-cutting social issues, receive inadequate attention. While the EU is increasingly emphasizing the need to promote multi-disciplinary research and integrate or mainstream social issues pertaining to gender and youth in its programmes, more needs to be done to ensure that collaborative initiatives focus on the social aspects of STI. Gender and youth considerations need to be better mainstreamed into the design and implementation of collaborative STI initiatives. New instruments such as the African Research Grants Programme are starting to take gender considerations into account, 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 formula-tion and implementation of STI policies are critical priorities. The few collaborative initiatives focus-ing on STI policy analysis and capacity building include ASTII, funded by Sweden, and the Southern Africa Innovation Support Programme (SAIS), supported by Finland.

Apart from these thematic topics, stakeholders proposed additional priorities for enriching bi-re-gional cooperation: horizon scanning and foresight exercises; alignment with the post-2015 agen-da; alignment of STI cooperation and HE policies and interactions between African and EU innov-ation 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 is still the broad set of human, institutional and infrastructural capacity limitations of African partners. This set of capacity limitations has many dimensions (see Annex 8). Among those cited are the limited access of African scientists/researchers to information and knowledge about EU STI funding opportunities and procedures; limited awareness of alterna-tive 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. Many scientific research and technology development networks exist, covering a wide range of fields. However, most of them do not have a critical mass of expertise, and tend to be small and reli-ant upon a few individuals. Many networks have been established in anticipation of external donor funding, are mainly focused on short-term projects and have a short lifespan. 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 are dependent on external donor funding and some are now dormant because short-term projects ended. NAB-Net, WAB-Net and SANBio, 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 re-lated collaborative initiatives may be linked to national policy environments in Africa and prevailing EU policies in various fields such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and ICT. At the moment cooper-ation is constrained by the absence of explicit national STI policies in most African countries. Coun-tries (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 and the accompanying institutions are often inactive in the cooperation in general and in collaborative initiatives.

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

A key challenge to Africa-Europe STI cooperation, described 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 very strategic ones such 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 returned any tangible results to date. On the whole, most of the budget of AUC’s programme’s work on STI is funded or covered by external non-African 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 they 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, the continuation of BIOFISA after the expiry of most activities in 2012 is uncertain.


The engagement of individual African countries and national institutions in Africa-Europe STI co-operation 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 ways to establish national mechanisms for financing international STI cooperation.

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

Other challenges for effective Africa-Europe STI cooperation include:

• Limited institutional capacities of AUC and RECs to engage with the EU and EU Member States to design and execute collaborative initiatives;

• Political instability in some countries (for example Egypt and Libya) causing collaborative initiatives to be discontinued;

• Weak political leadership for continental plans such as the CPA and weak coordination capaci-ties, 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, which constrain private sector participation in Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

Addressing the gaps and barriersA number of suggestions related to addressing these gaps and barriers were offered by 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 the smooth functioning of the partnership and to giving more attention to scientific topics that currently receive inadequate attention.

• Awareness raising so that the partnership can 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 the good will of interested parties or some Member States.

• A focus more on ensuring conditions that allow Africa-EU STI cooperation to thrive, instead of only on how it aligns with JAES.



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, characterised by a wide range of pro-ductive collaborative initiatives spanning diverse fields of development, scientific research, technol-ogy development and application, technological innovation, policy dialogue, training and capacity building.

The study has shown partnerships to be absolutely essential as the vehicle for collaboration. Of the many factors leading to success, perhaps the most significant is a strong partnership, char‑acterised by effective leadership with visionary champions, strong interpersonal relationships, and equitability in 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, arising from lack of equality and the absence of core values, under-mines co-ownership, eroding the prospect that initiatives will generate the desired outputs, out-comes, and impacts.

Joint financing is widely seen as the major determinant of co-ownership. The effectiveness of the Africa-Europe STI cooperation is dependent in no small measure on the nature of financial instru-ments deployed to resource collaborative initiatives. This study shows that a wide range of financial instruments is 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 instru-ments 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, STI cooperation between Africa and Europe is largely dependent on European resources. This is an obstacle to co-ownership and equality in partnership as well as to the sustainability of some high-level initiatives such as the ARGP.

The absence of a permanent, wholly self-funded pan-African financial instrument supporting con-tinental research weakens the prospects of jointly financed and therefore co-owned bi-regional STI cooperation between Africa and Europe. The AfDB is a potential source of a range of funding in-struments and resources but is not adequately involved or engaged by the AU to support collabo-rative 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 depends on the creation or establishment of resourced African financial mechanisms�

The study reveals that the most effective collaborative initiatives are configured to involve trans‑disciplinary and multi‑disciplinary teams, as well as a diversity of institutions with dif-ferentiated capacities. Involving stakeholders with different backgrounds throughout the entire life-time of the project or at relevant stages allows complementary experiences, skills and ca-pacities to be integrated and helps promote the societal relevance of STI activities, the economic exploitability of results and their sustainable impact on socio-economic development.


The private sector increasingly participates in Africa-Europe STI cooperation through a range of initiatives. Whereas large (European or international) companies can be and already are to some extent a source of financial and technical resources for many collaborative initiatives, SMEs in Af‑rica could make substantial contributions as they are closer to potential end‑users; aware of needs, capacities and requirements on the ground; and familiar with the local market and economic situation. However, the participation of the sector in general and companies in particular is still hindered 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 intel-lectual 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 impacts can only be assessed in the long run, typically after a project has ended. Few recent collaborative initiatives are creating jobs and enterprises directly or in a way sustainable beyond the duration of the project, thus contributing directly to the reduction of poverty in some African countries. A much larger number of initiatives are contributing to skills development and institutional capacity building and thus are opening up new job opportunities or facilitating job promotions. Finally, some other initiatives are helping develop and/ improve pol-icies in Africa. On the whole, the cooperation is dynamic and effective. It can be strengthened and enriched through increased co-ownership of investments in collaborative initiatives and by secur‑ing high‑level political leadership from the African side.



10 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE STUDY

Establishing and maintaining a visionary roadmap of priority topics and actions would result in valuable core component of the formalised framework for bi-regional STI cooperation. It would help assure maximum relevance and optimal use of available resources� A study such as this one, 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�

The terms of reference for such a study would require regular review and revision in order to main-tain their relevance and to respond to the evolving needs and priorities of cooperation. It might for instance be helpful to ensure a clear focus for the study on either the broader cooperation relation-ship across the entire landscape or on the more specific relationship of STI cooperation within the JAES and its future versions. This specific example is of particular relevance as it touches on the anticipated role and relationship between formal, structured STI cooperation under JAES and the wider, informal, less unstructured cooperation relationship.

Studies such as this one rely on robust methodologies to generate reliable evidence on which to develop cooperation policies. In the current study, a more robust and reliable assessment of collab-orative models and effective finance mechanisms could have been achieved, for example, through greater use of empirical data, backed up by subjective qualitative opinion, rather than the opposite. This example points to the need for the methodological approach of a study of this magnitude and significance to be subject to thorough peer review before it is implemented. It is recommended 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 studies merits consideration. The current study focuses on multilateral STI cooperation. It became evident during the study that bilateral STI cooperation environment offers many examples of good practice in collaborative arrangements and financial mechanisms that could be adopted in a multilateral context to reinforce bi-regional Africa-Europe STI cooperation.

Consideration should be given to ensuring the domestication by AU and EU partners of this sort of study. It is for instance crucial that the study be put in the public domain as a contribution to ongoing 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 to enrich and inform the processes of making policies and deci-sions about bi-regional cooperation.

It is important to institutionalise the study, but impartiality and distance from MS agendas is cru-cial. Over the medium to long term, the study could be fully incorporated into the JAES STI cooper-ation priority agenda, under the governance of an STI secretariat, and 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 sup-ported by EU funds, could be tasked with developing and repeating the study and developing/reformulating the TOR. They could work in direct collaboration with the HLPD Bureau, for example, and engage with the working groups of AMCOST resources. CN+ objectives already embrace the no-tion 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.



11 ANNEXES

11�1 Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Specific Terms of ReferenceMapping of best practice regional and multi‑country cooperative STI initiatives

between Africa and EuropeIdentification of effective financial mechanism(s)

2008–2012FWC 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 de-cided to join their forces and set up the Joint EU-Africa Strategy, which in partnership developed a long-term vision on how to ensure peace and security and promote faster socio-economic growth and sustainable development. Eight thematic partnerships were set up to implement this shared long-term vision, dealing with peace and security, governance, trade, energy, migration, climate change and, within the 8th Partnership (P8), science, information society and space. In 2010 these eight partnerships were reconfirmed by the third African EU Summit.

The first Action Plan (2008–2010) established to implement Partnership 8 supported research, science and technology capacity building in order to implement Africa’s Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) for science and technology. The CPA articulates Africa’s common objectives and commit-ments to collective actions to develop and use science and technology to further the socio-econom-ic 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 policies necessary for science and tech-nology to be produced and used to enhance the socioeconomic development of Africa. Knowledge production is about how to conduct science — generating scientific and technical knowledge about Africa’s problems and identifying 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. Played a pioneering role as it had to pave the way for this new sort of cooperation. In terms of fund raising, Partnership 8 was the second-most successful of all Partner-ships, 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 Second Action Plan is now being implemented, while the projects from the first action plan are still ongoing.


This Second Action Plan reaffirmed the role of science, technology and innovation (STI) as key driv-ers of socio-economic growth and sustainable development and stipulated again the cross-cutting nature of STI due to its contributions 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 Com-missions was in the foreground, in this second phase of EU-African STI cooperation, 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 co-herent approach to the implementation of STI actions by both the Member States and the Commis-sions, to strengthen the overall cooperation framework and to define common priorities for future collaborative research, development and innovation activities.

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

The senior officials acknowledged the ongoing projects and main achievements of the activities to implement 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 future African-EU STI cooperation after 2013 and stated the need for a roadmap to this end.

With this perspective the SOM requested that the newly established Bureau of the High-Level Policy Dialogue:

• Map existing cooperative Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) initiatives with the view to reinforcing successful models and identifying potential gaps�

• Identify effective financial mechanism(s) based on equal partnership that would de‑liver significant impact, taking into account experience gained with other initiatives/instruments�

2� Description of the assignment

2�1 Global objective

To identify successful models for regional and multi‑country cooperative science, technology and innovation (STI) initiatives between Africa and Europe, as well as to identify gaps and ef‑fective financial mechanisms that have a positive impact. This objective is meant to ensure evi-dence-based policy choices and financing decisions for future cooperation and be the basis of a new roadmap or action plan for Africa-Europe cooperation. This roadmap or action plan will be endorsed at the next Senior Official Meeting of the Africa-EU High Policy Dialogue on STI, likely to take place in the second half 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 the work programmes and financing mechanisms of other actors. Therefore, the study should map, analyse and qualitatively and quantitatively assess the different STI initiatives and financial mechanisms of regional and multi-country cooperation between Africa and the EU, and prioritise them over the period 2008–2012. It will identify results and impacts, as well as problems and difficulties which may have hindered implementation and have limited the



impact. Specific attention should be paid 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 Partnership 8 of the JAES and its actions plans, in order to identify successful models for cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives, and identify po-tential gaps in existing ones, the study shall present:

— An overview of regional and multi-country cooperative research and innovation projects, as well as projects designed for capacity building (human capital development, physical research infrastruc-tures, 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 Devel-opment Bank (AfDB), the European Investment Bank and the private sector. This overview should also include a list of existing activities promoting 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, devel-opment of policy initiatives, training x number of people).

— a qualitative analysis of the same representative selection of the above activities, including raising awareness and promoting networking. The qualitative analysis should identify the success criteria (criteria indicating the achievement of the objectives set and the expected impact). The analysis should also address difficulties and problems related to the implementation of the activ-ities, including how they have been addressed or why they could not be addressed.

— In the qualitative and quantitative assessments, it will be important to consider both the EU-per-spective and the perspective of the African partners in order to identify the mutual benefit of the cooperation.

— 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 information must in-clude the financial instruments, the delivery modalities and the implementing partners. Specific consid-eration should be given to models with public-private partnerships and the participation of the private sector, which ensures 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 Partner-ship (EDCTP) and ERA-Net Africa and relevant non-European initiatives should be taken into account.


— The effective financial mechanisms identified should provide a basis for developing innovative financial instruments, which will enhance the sustainability of current cooperative initiatives, for example financing mechanisms by public-private partnerships, EU- and AU Member States, and 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 between the African Union and the European Union, including its financial mechanisms. This is in accordance with the requested of the Joint Expert Group (JEG) 8 in its meeting in Dar-Es-Salaam on 8–11 May 2012. This should include a catalogue of success criteria for Africa-EU STI cooperation activities 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 be incorporated in the final report.

— The consortium will prepare a final report in which it will present its analysis, main findings and conclusions. The report will be presented at and endorsed by the next Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High-Level Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation, likely to take place in the second half of 2013. The final report will be the basis of a roadmap or action plan for 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 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 Com-munities (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 the 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 establishing 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: sta-tus and ways forward’ (July 2009), the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partner-ship (EDCTP) and other relevant initiatives.



2�3 Requested services, including suggested methodology

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

The assignment will comprise the following phases:

Phase 1: Inception phaseThe aim of this phase will be to:

— Further elaborate on the focus of the study and a more detailed plan of activities

— Present the inception report

Phase 2: Structuring phaseThe 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 method of delivery 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 financ-ing partner unless there is clear added value in covering additional projects.

— compile an overview of existing activities to raise awareness and promote 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 method of delivery and the financ-ing instruments. The overview should contain a minimum of 10 activities.

— Propose a representative selection of activities from the above overview, with the aim of find-ing successful models and identifying potential gaps, to assess, analyse and outline the selection criteria used, all for approval by the contracting authority.

— Compile a questionnaire for the interviews and to be send out to the stakeholders 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, all for approval by the contracting authority.

Phase 3: Field research phaseThe 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 and inter-views shall be send preferably remotely (phone or internet, and questionnaires submitted electroni-cally) or, alternatively, intuitu personae through field missions, and the interviews shall be organised


On the African side the interviews/questionnaires should cover: the African Union Commission, the RECs headquarters, the NEPAD agency, the African Bank for Development, UNESCO regional of-fice in Dakar and a selection of national governments, research organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector. On the European side they should cover: the European Com-mission, the European Investment Bank and a selection of national governments, research organi-sations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

— Carry out field missions as follows: a maximum of four field missions to a diverse selection of African countries, and a maximum of two 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 explained 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 the contracting authority. They should be 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 representative selection described in phase 2 should identify the success criteria (criteria indicating the achievement of the objectives set and the expected impact). The analysis should also cover difficulties and problems related to the implementation of the activ-ities, 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 co-operative STI initiatives, identify the best-practice financial mechanisms. This information 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, which ensures the sustainability of STI activities once public funding is phased out. Experience gained through European initiatives, such as the European and Developing Coun-tries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) and ERA-Net Africa, as well as from relevant non-European initiatives should be taken into account.

— Compile a draft study report indicating successful models, gaps in existing initiatives and effect-ive financial mechanisms.

— Submit and discuss the draft study report with the contracting authority.

Phase 4: Communication and dissemination of resultsThe aim of this phase will be to organise and participate in a day-long validation workshop with European and African experts, to be held in Brussels in conjunction 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 attended by a maximum 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 for covering the per diems and travel costs of at least eight participants.

— The logistical arrangements for renting the meeting room, supporting material and catering will be taken care of by the European Commission.

— The consortium should draw up a report on the results of the workshop.

— The consortium will be also responsible for compiling a final report, including ideas on how to systemise mapping in the future. It will present the final study report at the next Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI (second half of 2013). The consortium will be in charge of disseminating results to relevant stakeholders in Africa and European Commis-sion after the SOM meeting (EC and AUC websites, other relevant websites, distribution by email).

2�4 Required deliverables/outputs

1. An inception report, providing a detailed plan for the assignment and identifying main issues and the anticipated methodology, as well as a detailed timeline, will be submitted within one week of the start of the contract. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue 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 used to make that proposal, a draft questionnaire and list of stakeholders in Africa and Europe to be sent the questionnaire and/or to be interviewed, and a list of destinations chosen for the missions to Africa and EU Member States will be submitted within 30 days from 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. Key performance indicators must be submitted in week 9. Comments will be given in week 10. The draft report must be submitted within three months of the start date. The Bureau of the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI will provide comments within two weeks, whereupon the consortium must modify the report within one week. The draft shall include the quantitative (based on key performance indicators to be used) and qualitative as-sessment of a selection of cooperation activities as described in point 2.3. It should identify success criteria 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 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 organising the workshop, providing supporting documents, communicating with and inviting experts, as well as the travel and accommoda-tion arrangements for five sponsored participants. This will NOT include catering and booking 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 with 30 days of 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 work-ing days. The consortium should draw up a report on the results of the workshop within one week of the workshop.

5. A revised study report taking into account the outcome of the validation workshop, to be sub-mitted no 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 two weeks whereupon the Consortium has one week to modify and present the final study report. The main section of the report should be prefaced by a summary of two pages or less.

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

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 expert on the topic (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 — shall have the following credentials:Qualification and education:

At least a master’s degree in sciences and technology, international cooperation or a 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’s degree).



Specific professional experience:

• The team leader shall have sound and proven experience in Africa-EU science, technology and innovation projects; shall be familiar with the European and African science landscape, includ-ing its respective institutions and policies; and shall be familiar with the relevant international organisations.

• Experience with animation and facilitation methods and team leadership.• Experience and a proven track record in delivering services, including administrative and lo-

gistic issues.• Excellent report-writing and communication skills.

Language skills:

• Professional knowledge of English and French.

The senior thematic expert — 29 working days — shall have the following credentials:Qualification and skills:

• At least a master’s degree in sciences and technology, international cooperation or a 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’s degree) related to financing pro-jects in developing countries, especially Africa, possibly in a partnership approach. Expertise in financial mechanisms and financial institutions actively financing projects in the area of science, technology and innovation in Africa, including the private sector.

Specific experience:

• At least five years of experience in a research institute or similar body in Africa.• Excellent report-writing and communication skills.

Language and skills:

• Professional knowledge of English.

The two junior thematic experts, experts 3 (22 days) and 4, (20 working days) shall have the following credentials:Qualification and skills:

• At least a master’s degree in sciences and technology, international cooperation or a related field;

Professional experience:

• Professional experience of at least three years in Africa-EU international cooperation in sci-ence, technology and innovation, including expertise in financial mechanisms and projects.

• Experience and a proven track record in delivering services, including administrative and lo-gistic issues.


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).

• Excellent report writing and communication skills.

3�3 Working language(s)

The working languages are English and French.

4� Location and duration

4�1 Start date:

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

4�2 Anticipated end date or duration

The overall assignment shall be completed within nine months from the date on which the contract is signed, and no 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 se-mester of 2013 (date tbc).



4�3 Planning

Approximate activity and resources timeline

Activity PlaceDura-tion

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)

HB 7 days 4 3 5 7 W4–5 (W6–7 for approval proposals)

Overview of regional and multi-country STI cooperation initiatives

Selection of initiatives to be as-sessed with selection criteria

Draft questionnaire and list of stakeholders to interview/send questionnaire and proposal of mission destinations in Africa and Europe

Draft agenda and list of experts for workshop

Field research phase:

Conducting interviews and sending questionnaires, including travel

5 days 5 3 3 0 W8–9

Max. 4 missions to Africa Africa 8 days 8 4 4 0 W8 -9

Max. 2 missions Europe Europe 1 days 0 1 0 1 Proposal of key performance

indicatorsHB W9

(comments W10)

Quantitative assessment and qualitative analysis

HB 12 days 12 4 0 2 W11–12

Draft study report HB 11 days 11 5 3 3 W13–14 (comments W15–16)

Revised version of draft study report

HB 2 days 2 1 1 1 W17

Communication and dissemina‑tion phase Validation workshop Brussels 1 days 1 0 1 0 W18 (tbc)

Workshop report HB 2 days 2 0 1 0 W19

Final report HB 5 days 5 3 2 3 W20 (comments W21–22)

Revised version of final report HB 2 days 2 1 0 1 W23

Presentation of findings at 2nd SOM

Brussels 2 days 1 1 0 0 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 align with the outputs described in Section 2.

5�2 Language

Reports will be in English, except for the final report, which should be presented in English together with a translation into French.

5�3 Submission/Comments timeline

Reports shall be submitted to the Bureau of the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI accord-ing to the timeline outlined in point 4.3.

5�4 Number of reports

The final report must be submitted in five hard copies plus an electronic version. The main section of the report should be prefaced by a summary of two pages or less. The final report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding annexes.

6� Administrative information

• The selection will be based on EC rules for FWC 2011: — CVs of the proposed experts and backstopping team. — A succinct note explaining the methodology and approximate timeline for carrying out the

assignment, 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 considered reimbursable costs:

— Field missions of experts to Africa and EU Member States (see phase 3 under point 2.3). A maximum of four missions to Africa will last a maximum of 16 day. A maximum two missions to EU Member States will last a maximum of two days.

— Participation of two recruited experts (one senior, and one junior) in the validation work-shop in Brussels and two senior experts in the Senior Officials Meeting of the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI (second half of 2013) for a total of four days maximum.

— Per diems for recruited experts’ travel to Africa and EU Member States within the frame-work of the contract.

— Travel costs and per diems for eight 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 must be obtained by the DEVCO programme manager.



The contractor will provide appropriate management and backstopping mechanisms, quality con-trol systems, secretarial services and any other support staff (editors, proof-readers etc.) it con-siders necessary in order to implement the contract. The support team will provide all necessary logistical support both prior to and during the assignment to allow experts to concentrate on their primary responsibilities.

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

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

11�2 Annex 2: Methodology

1� Commissioning of the study

In view of the imminent end of the current JAES P8 action plan, and in recognition of the support for continued STI cooperation at the bi-regional level, the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on STI requested that the HLPD Bureau conduct a study with the aim of informing a future STI cooperation roadmap; of mapping existing cooperative science, technology and innovation initiatives with the view to reinforcing successful models and identifying potential gaps; and of identifying 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 ToR, and study organisation

With this background and in response 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 is to examine bi-regional and multilateral STI cooperation initiatives 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 STI cooperation at bi-regional and multi-country level between Europe and Africa financed by European and African public and private bodies and imple-mented over the period 2008–2012. Examining bilateral cooperation is not within the scope of the study. Specific attention has been paid to activities which share or display synergies with the broad goals and principles of JAES P8, involve the private sector, or are funded by any financial mech-anisms based on an equal partnership approach, such as co-financing by African and European partners. Nevertheless, following the principle of diversity, the scope of the project was intended to be extended 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 during the process 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 into four in-terrelated 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 ques-tionnaire and six field missions to Africa and Europe; qualitatively and quantitatively analyse the results; and identify best practice initiatives and financial mechanisms; and (4) a final phase to communicate and disseminate results.

3� Inception phase

After a kick-off meeting in Brussels on 21st May 2013 between representatives of the project team and the contracting authority, the project team prepared and submitted an inception report as the main deliverable of the inception phase. The inception report provides a detailed plan of the assign-ment, identifying the main issues, activities and methodology, as well as an approximate timeline. It also allocates man-days for each activity and expert.

4� Structuring phase

a. Literature review, project inventory and selection, definition of KPIsTo meet the objective, an inventory was compiled of approximately 150 representative regional and multi-country STI cooperation initiatives whose period of implementation fell partly or en-tirely within the 2008–2012 window. Emphasis was placed on individual projects, but programmes meeting the selection criteria have been included where appropriate.

Besides the 2008–2012 timeframe and the focus on multilateral initiatives, a principle criterion for inclusion was diversity, thereby ensuring both geographic and thematic representativeness and at the same time reflecting the diverse

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

• financing mechanisms and instruments, including EU programmes; EU Member State public STI funding programmes; African programmes; international, regional or co-funded multilat-eral programmes; private or public-private mechanisms; and

• types of initiatives, including research collaboration projects, innovation collaboration pro-jects, capacity building projects (focussed on human capital, research infrastructures, insti-tutional capacities or policy development), technology transfer projects and projects raising awareness and promoting networking among others.

Within the inventory, initiatives are categorized according to the nature of their financing mech-anism and instrument, grouping those funded by EU programmes, those funded by EU Member State-based public or private STI funding mechanisms and those funded by AU Member States’ regional and continental programmes, irrespective of the origin of funds.



The inventory provides comprehensive information on each initiative, including the title of the pro-ject, a short description of the project, the geographical scope, the financing period, the financing and implementing partner(s), the method of delivery and the financing instrument.

As per 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, and diversity of financing mechanisms/instruments and project typologies.

A set of quantitative and qualitative key performance indicators (KPI) were defined in order to assess the selected initiatives. The KPIs, agreed with the contracting authority, were selected pri-marily to evaluate the balanced nature of the partnership; the initiatives’ short- 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 or MSc or PhD students trained within the project;• Number of scientists or 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 designed to raise public awareness regarding the role of

STI, or regarding 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 to the local economy;• Contribution to strengthening existing networks, or the creation of new (scientific) networks

which include 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 questionnaireA two-part semi-structured interview framework and a parallel questionnaire (Annex 2) were de-signed and piloted in order to gather (a) KPI metrics and empirical data on the selected initia-tives from project coordinators and partners where available within the study timeframe, and (b) qualitative data from key stakeholders (see Annex 3 for a list of interviewees and questionnaire respondents) related to aspects of bi-regional cooperation, with an emphasis on the nature and effectiveness of partnerships and financing mechanisms, and to gaps, challenges and key criteria for the success and sustainability of Europe-Africa STI cooperation under JAES and P8.


c. Collecting data through interviews and questionnairesInterviews were the method of choice for gathering data. Interviews were conducted in English, French and German with experts and stakeholders in Africa and Europe. They were done by tele-phone, Skype, or face-to-face in the project team members’ own countries of residence and during the field missions.

A total of 108 stakeholders were interviewed. Interviewees were selected based on the strength of their involvement with relevant STI policy processes and their experience with Africa-Europe STI financial mechanisms and programmes of interest. Coordinators and project partners were identi-fied from the subset of the inventory of projects and initiatives. The preliminary list of interviewees was elaborated in collaboration with the contracting authority. Additional experts and stakeholders were recommended during the interviews, which led to significant revision and expansion of the originally agreed list.

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

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

d. Data analysis and preparation of draft reportThe quality and contents of the data and information collected by the document review and in-ternet research, interviews and questionnaires varied significantly, and to a large degree reflected opinion rather than fact. Sample sizes were too small for a comparative analysis of models and mechanisms, precluding objective, rigorous and systematic quantitative or qualitative analyses. All conclusions emerging from this study are therefore based on a subjective appraisal of the data and information gathered.

5� Communication and dissemination phase

a. Validation workshopA draft version of the final study report was presented at a one-day validation workshop in Brussels on 18 September 2013. The workshop’s agenda was proposed by the project team and approved by the contracting authority. In collaboration 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 and 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.



b. Preparing the final reportAfter the validation workshop and based on the experts’ critiques, comments and recommenda-tions, the draft version of the study report was revised and resubmitted. A final round of revisions followed comments from the contracting authority. The overall report structure was adjusted to more closely match the ToR structure. An additional chapter on the sustainability of mapping STI cooperation was included.

The final report will be sent 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, an emphasis on the use of stakeholder views and opinions, gath-ered through interviews and questionnaires, as a principal source of data for an analytical study weakened the study’s conclusions. Opinions are highly subjective, qualitative, vary in quality, and are tied to personal experience and therefore biased. They are therefore 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, so far there is little systematically collected data for the subset of initiatives considered, and therefore KPI metrics, whether qualitative or quantitative, were of little value in assessing project performance or success as required. Assessments of project performance therefore relied heavily on the subjective opinion of project partners, on non-peer reviewed information in the public domain, and on the intuitions of the study team.

• Outcomes and impact assessment: Initiatives whose period of implementation falls wholly or partly within the 2008–2012 window, depending on their nature, generally offer limited data on outcomes and impact, so any assessment of these parameters tends to draw on projections based on actual and anticipated outputs (in the case of ongoing 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 mech-anisms. In these cases, the project team has focused on expected outcomes and asked coord-inators and participants for estimations and projections.

• Response rate and utility of the questionnaire: The response rate was approximately 50 %, which may be partly explained by holiday-related absence. Moreover, the usability of ques-tionnaire responses was limited. While a minority offered excellent quality data, many pro-vided responses with inadequate detail to be of value to the study. The short duration of the study restricted opportunities for follow-up. Time was lost in administering the questionnaire.

• Availability of experts and stakeholders: The coincidence of the field phase with the sum-mer holiday period limited the availability of experts and stakeholders. This demanded sig-nificant flexibility and investments of time in order to conduct of interviews and run missions, and led to a general extension of the interview period. Field missions could only be concluded by the end of August, which in turn affected the report preparation period.

• 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 the restricted flexibility in a number of aspects of the study presented considerable constraints and inevitably restricted 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. Restricting the scope of the study to multilateral initiatives severely restricted input from the rich landscape of bilateral cooperation.

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 and Identification of effec‑

tive financial mechanism(s),2008–2012.

Framework for stakeholder interviews, July/August 2013Version of 17/07/2013

Notes to interviewees:Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for a study mapping Africa-Europe cooperation on sci-ence, 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 ones altered. The interview will focus on 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 offering explanations of your opinions.

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

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

The questions in part 2 target project coordinators and partners and are specific to individual mul-tilateral initiatives. Their responses form part of the study’s analytical component. As in part 1, in-terviewees are encouraged to illustrate response by referencing examples or offering explanations for their opinions. 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 refer to any type of collaborative venture, such as projects and networks, that falls within the scope of the study. In this framework, the term ‘project’ is used almost interchangeably 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 also may outlive individual initiatives and lead to the creation of many initiatives.

Background and scopeIn 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 partner-ships with associated action plans. The eighth partnership (P8) focuses on science, technology and innovation (STI). If you are not familiar with JAES, 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 STI partnerships for the mutual benefit of the two continents/regions. One of the eight thematic JAES partnerships focuses on Africa-EU cooperation on science technology and innovation (STI).

As the current action plan for 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.

This study was commissioned by the Africa-EU STI High Level Policy Dialogue platform to contrib-ute 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-coun-try 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 during the period 2008–2012 and financed by African and European public and private stakeholders.

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

Interviews with key stakeholders will form a central part of the study in order to gather informed opinions about the cooperation landscape and representative initiatives within that landscape.

The study and the interviews will have the following scope:

• Timeframe: 2008–2012• Principal thematic focuses: Environment, water, biosciences, climate change, food security,

heath, mathematics, energy, engineering, STI indicators, and STI policy and policy dialogues.• Types of projects:

— Collaborative research projects/initiatives. — Collaborative innovation projects/initiatives. — Capacity building projects.




— human capital development (this includes knowledge exchange, mobility of scientists and engineers, training);

— physical research infrastructures (this includes R&D equipment); — policy development (this includes knowledge application and policy learning); — institutional development;

— Technology transfer projects — Projects raising awareness and promoting networking (includes information exchange).

Interview Part 1. Overview of regional and multi‑country cooperative projects, 2008–2012: General questions.

Section 1. Model projects in EU‑Africa STI cooperationa. 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 financ-ing mechanism, or any other relevant parameter? (We are particularly interested to hear about novel initiatives: for example those that involve the private sector or that have in-novative features with regards to funding or the partnership, 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 set them up for success (de-

fining success as any parameter relevant 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. Partnershipsa. Are you aware of enduring EU-Africa partnerships (as opposed to projects/initiatives) that

are successfully and sustainably delivering on joint EU-Africa 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 set them up for success?d. Conversely, what negative traits are to be avoided in EU-Africa STI cooperation?

Section 3. Private sector participationa. Do you have any experience related to 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 contributions of the companies/enterprises involved in STI cooperation?e. What challenges, if any, are/were experienced in the partnership(s) with the private

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

of partnerships and financing mechanisms suited to their participation?



Section 4. Gaps, future direction and prioritiesa. 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 modalities21

a. Are you aware of, or familiar with the financing mechanisms, instruments and methods of delivery used to support 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. In your opinion, are they effective, or suited to their purpose?iii. Which financial mechanisms/instruments and delivery modalities most effectively en-

suring strong STI collaboration and the delivery of outputs?iv. Which aspects of a specific finance mechanism and/or its method of delivery make it

suitable for EU-Africa STI cooperation?v. Reflecting on the gaps and future priorities, is the current funding landscape adequate

to meet anticipated needs?

Section 6. Barriers, solutions and reinforcing cooperationa. What do you consider to be the principal barriers and challenges to EU-Africa STI cooper-

ation under the broad P8 framework?b. What are some of the typical problems encountered by project partners in EU-Africa col-

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

outcomes?

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

Section 1. A quantitative and qualitative assessment

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

21 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.


a� Briefly describe the Africa‑EU collaborative project/initiative you coordinate(d)� Do you categorize or classify it as: (a) scientific research (b) training or capacity building

(c) technology development and innovation or (d) other… please specify.

b� In your opinion, what would 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 describe 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. Were these jobs created within/directly for the project (e.g. research positions, admin-istrative staff linked to project implementation) or outside the project (i.e. jobs in the local economy, etc.)?

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

d� Has the project/initiative contributed to the creation of new technology, a new prod‑uct (e�g� any new crop variety or vaccine) or service, or a new process?

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

1. Nature and number of products: goods, services, technologies, processes, plus modi-fications to existing goods and services etc.?

2. Do any of these products/services have associated IPR? 3. Could you describe the respective roles of African and European partners in the pro-

duction and IPR processes?

e� Has the project/initiative contributed to the formulation of any new STI or specific technology policy? Has it had any other impact on STI policy formulation?

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

1. For example, have there been policy briefs produced and presented to policymakers or decision-makers?

2. Have policymakers been involved in any project, activity, or event, and has that in-volvement influenced policy in any way that you are aware of?

f� Has the project/initiative contributed to human skills development? If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, could you please provide any details? For

example,

1. What activities were carried out (e.g. training students, PhD students, scientific staff, etc.)?

2. How many people 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 the way(s) in which 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 enabled mobility and/or networking opportunities for Afri‑can and European scientists?

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

1. The nature of the activity: exchanges of scientists, conference attendance… 2. How many scientists/staff participated in that activity, or how many 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 on a par-

ticular 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 trainers)?

j� Has the project/initiative led, directly or indirectly, to the creation of new SMEs? If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please describe an example.

i. How many new SMEs were created?ii. Where were they created: in Africa, or in Europe?iii. 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 out‑puts, or as a direct stakeholder in project activities?

If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please describe an example.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 or advantages (barriers and constraints, positive outcomes)

encountered by the project or by the private sector organisations themselves due to their involvement. These could be related for example to adequate financing, to par-ticipation in a 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 enhanced?

l� It the project linked to the local economy (e�g� via local SMEs)? If no, skip to the next set of questions. If yes, please provide details. 1. Has the private sector been engaged in the design, funding and execution of the

project/initiative? 2. Why were these links established? 3. How were these links established (e.g. SME is project participant, associated, sub-con-

tracted, etc.)? 4. What role did these links play in the project’s outcomes and success?


m� Has the project/initiative raised public awareness about the role of STI or about spe‑cific technology issues?


i. material for the general public,ii. How were project outcomes or other project-related information disseminated through

the media,iii. public events/workshops.

n� Has the project/initiative contributed to strengthening existing networks or to creat‑ing new (scientific) networks which include African and European partners?


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

o� What particular features of the project set it up for success, or for failure?

Section 2. Financial mechanisms

Please try to answer the following questions on the financial mechanism/instrument supporting the project/initiative that you took part in:

a� In your opinion, does the instrument/mechanism enable the project/initiative to le‑verage additional financing from other funding partners, particularly from the pri‑vate sector?

b� In your opinion, does the instrument/mechanism allow sufficient flexibility (i�e� is it possible to make changes and adapt the project to respond to changing needs or conditions)?

Please explain in particular with regard to private sector funding.

c� In your opinion, does the instrument/mechanism promote project sustainability? 1. As or was the project replicated elsewhere? Please briefly describe.

d� In your opinion, does the instrument/mechanism enable: 1. Institutional capacity building (i.e. administrative or managerial capacity building, of-

fice infrastructure, etc) 2. engagement or investment in learning (e.g. training, 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 relationships between members of the consortium of partners.

a� Could you describe the nature of the Africa‑EU STI partnership in which you are involved?

b� Who are your African/European partners?

c� Has the project/initiative been established based on common and shared goals, values and norms?

1. How were they established and agreed upon?

d� How were/are responsibilities distributed among the partners? 1. What were/are your specific responsibilities in the implementation of the project/

initiative? 2. How were/are the responsibilities shared with your African/European partners? 3. Were all partners involved in designing the project, in the different implementation

activities? 4. Did all partners agree on funding responsibilities?

e� How was/is the project/initiative governed? 1. Was/is there a steering committee or an advisory panel or anything similar? Who was/

is 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. Are/were there any specific measures to ensure transparency? Have these changed during the project implementation?

2. How frequently (approximately) have partners communicated during the project implementation?

3. What was/is the main method 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 were they handled?

g� Do you consider benefits and outcomes to have been equally 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 were they handled?

h� In your opinion, to what degree is the project’s success related to the nature of the partnership? Please explain briefly�

1. Does the nature of the partnership suit the project’s goal and objectives?

We would be grateful if you could provide the study team with any relevant documentation on the Africa-EU STI project/initiative with which you were/are involved.

Once again, thank you for your participation in the study.


11�4 Annex 4: Interviewees

(Including those interviewed on mission)

Family name Given name Title Affiliation Country Adekunle Wale Prof. FARA GhanaAffinito Francesco Mr. EC DG DEVCO BelgiumAgumya Aggrey Dr. Forum for Agricultural Research In Africa GhanaAikins de‑Graft Ama Dr. London School of Economics UK/GhanaAlonso Pedro Prof. Barcelona Centre for Int. Health Research SpainAmbali Aggrey Dr. NEPAD agency South AfricaAnnor‑Frempong Irene Dr. Forum for Agricultural Research In Africa Ghana

Arafa Salah Prof.

American University, Research Council on Environment and Development at the Egyp-tian Academy for Scientific Research and Technology

Egypt

Awauh Esi Prof. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ghana

Bahri Sonia Dr. UNESCO FranceBrito Lidia Dr. UNESCO FranceBydekerke Lieven Mr. VITO Belgium

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

Carter Andree Dr. UK Collaborative of Development Sciences UKDavoux Dominique Mr. EU KenyaDiallo Aminita Sall Prof. Ministry of Scientific Research SenegalDixon‑Fyle Kanyhama KDF consulting SwitzerlandDjurfeldt 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 UKFreeman Matt GAIN — Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Switzerland

Gilson Lucy Prof. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine UK

Grimaud Patrice Dr. CIRAD CameroonGrundy Caroline Ms. Imperial College UKHanne Detlef Dr. KfW Development Bank GermanyHarvey Patricia Prof. NRI, University of Greenwich UKHaverig Anika Dr. Volkswagen Stiftung GermanyJürgens Norbert Prof. Universitaet Hamburg GermanyKiamba Crispus Prof. University of Nairobi, Kenya KenyaKirrane Declan ISC BelgiumKolodziejski Christoph Dr. Volkswagen Stiftung GermanyKouakou Roland Mr. ECOWAS Secretariat NigeriaKubata Bruno Prof. NEPAD-COHRED, Kenya KenyaLal 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 AustriaLaurie Sophie Dr. Research Councils UK UKLiamine Alessandro Mr. EU, Kenya KenyaLinton John Mr. Natural Resources Institute, UK UKMalebogo Bowe Ms. UNESCO France



Meredith Stephanie Global Health Consulting Switzerland Meyer Ralf Mr. ZEI, Bonn GermanyMgone 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 GhanaMühlberg Christoph Dr. DFG Germany

Mushwana Tinyiko Ms. South Africa Department of Science and Technology South Africa

Mutero Clifford Prof. ICIPE KenyaNewman Kirsty Dr. Department for international development UKNguku Evelyn Dr. ICIPE KenyaObrecht Andreas Dr. KEF, Commission for Development Studies AustriaOkhoya Christine Ms. FAO GhanaOteng Albert Prof. University of Ghana Ghana

Ouedraogo Mahama HRST, AUC Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

Pallet Dominique Mr. CIRAD FrancePepper Michael Prof. University of Pretoria South AfricaPetithuguenin Philippe Mr. CIRAD FranceRanson Hilary Dr. Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine UKSanders Karrine Association of Commonwealth Universities UK

Sangale Crispin Rondo Dr. Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Gabon

Santana Afonso Ana Elisa Dr. UNESCO FranceSawadogo Natewinde University of Nottingham UKScott Hugh African Enterprise Challenge Fund Kenya

Senna Victor Mr. South Africa Department of Science and Technology South Africa

Snewin Val Dr. Wellcome Trust UKSohn Rike ZEI, Bonn GermanyTabuna Honoré Dr. ECCAS Secretariat Gabon Taole Nthabiseng Dr. NRF South AfricaThamsborg 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 FranceWaage 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 UKOn missionAdekunle Wale Prof. FARA GhanaAgumya Aggrey Dr. FARA GhanaAlonso Guiomar UNESCO SenegalAnnor‑Frempong Irene Dr. FARA GhanaBabiker May Ali Ms. African Bank for Development TunisiaBahati Prince Mr. IAVI Kenya


Cisse Made Ecole Superieure Polytechnique SenegalColy Emile Victor Inst de Recherche Agricole SenegalDavoux 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 GhanaFofana 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 Tech-niques of Senegal (ANSTS). Senegal

Kherraz Khatim Mr. OSS TunisiaKiamba 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 TunisiaKubata Bruno Prof. NEPAD-COHRED KenyaLal Radhika Dr. UNDP Pretoria South AfricaLiamine Alessandro Mr. EU KenyaMane Sitapha Mr. ISRA Senegal

Mann Petra-Ruth Dr.


Germany

Mawoko Philippe Dr. AU/AOSTI Equatorial Guinea

Mboup Souleymane Prof. Dantac hospital and University of Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar Senegal

Morgan Anneline Ms. DST South Africa South AfricaMugabe Jones Dr. FARA GhanaMushwana Tinyiko Ms. DST South Africa South AfricaMutero Clifford Prof. ICIPE Kenya

Mwangi Eric Dr. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Kenya

Ndir Babacar Dr. AAFEX SenegalNguku Everlyn Dr. ICIPE Kenya

Noetzel Roman Dr.


Germany

Okhoya Christine Ms. FAO Ghana



Oteng Albert Prof. University of Ghana GhanaPepper Michael Prof. University of Pretoria South Africa

Pflug Anne Dr.


Germany

Pulkkinen Jyrki Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) FinlandRaina Suresh Prof. ICIPE Kenya

Rohde Oliver Dr.


Germany

Sambou Maurice Michel Mr. ASSOCIATION AFRIQUE AGRO EXPORT Senegal

Seck Moamar Talla Dr. Inst de Recherche Agricole SenegalSenna Victor Mr. DST South Africa South Africa

Silvestre Garcia Kerstin Dr.


Germany

Sonnenburg Joern Dr.


Germany

Taole Nthabiseng Dr. NRF South AfricaTlhagale Mamohloding Ms. DST South AfricaTrebossen Hervé Dr. OSS TunisiaVihma‑Purovaara Tiina Ministry of Education and Research of

Finland Finland

Virey Jean Pierre Institut Pasteur Dakar Senegal

Wagener Stefan Dr.


Germany

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 PortugalCaron Patrick CIRAD FranceEdwards Danny Mr. COHRED UKEssegby George Dr. CSIR GhanaFaye Arame Boye Prof. MRS/UCAD SenegalHaakonsen Jan Mr. Research Council of Norway Norway

Hansen Christian Mr. Swedish Governmental Agency for Innov-ation 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 AfricaMunck Ronnie Prof. Dublin City University IrelandMwangi Eric Dr. MoHEST Kenya

Pereira Fabio Verein zur Förderung des Technologietrans-fers an der Hochschule Bremerhaven E.V. Germany

Raina Suresh Prof. ICIPE, Kenya Kenya

11�6 Annex 6: Stakeholder opinions about effective financing mechanisms

Stakeholders were asked during interviews and via the questionnaire to offer opinions about effect-ive financing mechanisms for Africa-Europe STI cooperation. As the box below shows, responses were diverse, and rather than losing content by outlining them, many of the opinions gathered are presented verbatim, though 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 FPs, work programmes are assembled in a complicated manner and clearly written by someone with an agenda. That’s not a good way to build a portfolio.

There are immense difficulties in any partnership in bringing in any additional funds. A more strategic approach to how countries collaborate in this space is needed. Longer term vision — political and budget cycles longer than idea cycles.

Multilateral regional development banks — most of their money is for projects that do not in‑volve research, but there’s a small amount for technical inputs, consultancies, etc. Univer sities and research organisations are not as familiar as they should be with this.

There has to be variety of mechanisms. Established partnerships need less lead time. From re‑search and exchange, pilot studies, priming the pump with research ideas to full scale programmes.

With respect to SMEs, innovation funding via the Technology Strategy Board brings research‑ers and industry together. The lead partner has to be industry and industry only gets 50 %.

Business is about national interest. It s what’s going to help the national economy, so we have to find mutual benefit.

Collective‑type funding like crowdsourcing (incl. ideas) is interesting and worth pursuing. We need to be more adventurous; northern budgets are dwindling.

The 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.

The EU is constrained to multiple EU partner initiatives and often multiple Africa initiatives — they can be fundamentally flawed.

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

For SMEs often the ceilings are too high, processes are too complicated, and transaction costs too high to disperse funds. For smaller companies it’s always harder.

The challenge fund is an 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 three 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 thing is a 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.

The challenge is to define policy objectives and design tailored projects that are apt in Africa because of divergences between systems and different levels of development.

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

Having a 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 the contractual arrangement to get paid.

The other big push is payment by result, and watered down versions — milestone based con‑tracts — paid by outputs. This works well with a partner who’s delivering. If you have partner who’s not delivering, it’s tricky.

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

Projects and programmes are not the way forward for the EU — you 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. Set up a scheme where the [donor] puts money into national research councils, allow countries to vie in open competition to get support for national health research and the staff management capacity that goes with 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 mech‑anisms to support innovation? It doesn t 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 com‑mercial capital that’s out there, catalysing the amount invested in development, using [donor X] funds for pump‑priming.

Business model innovation is where there’s lots of potential for making these things afford‑able, 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. When you stop giving free money away the relationship changes in many ways. I’m interested in taking equity, or co‑owning IP and exploring it now, but sticking to a grant‑based approach is outdated thinking. Look at more returnable forms of capital as well. It would be great if we could get something

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


back instead of giving grants away all the time. This would be better from tax‑payer perspec‑tive and from a more general perspective.

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

Government grants are such a hassle.

What I find frustrating is that the EC system is unnecessarily complicated and assumes every‑one’s out to screw the system. It is a system predicated on excluding the dishonest.

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

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

Public money can’t be given to private sector companies. The normal process would be a 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 the best win.

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

The message is that funding is needed for capacity development and for food production. The most cost‑effective way of getting needed crops should be used regardless of capacity, and if not, the 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 the 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 stakeholders at the 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 involve Africans and Europeans as 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 consor‑tia that jointly address global changes and build capacities): this may require that funding not only come from European side but also from African side. 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 designed to motivate and encourage European scientists to start STI cooperation with Africans. This 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 within the African partner institutions. The [EU] partner (coordinator) re‑ceives 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 power over the budget and spending. On



the other hand, [EU donor X] does not see any other possibility for 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 which promotes follow‑up projects if a consortium and partnership is effective.

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

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 stake-holders and selected projects’ partners in response to questions about the success criteria for pro-jects and partnerships and features that lead to good cooperation projects. The responses relate to the actual and perceived success criteria.

In collaboration between funding programmes, partners must have a 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 commu‑nity, it means the call wasn’t properly written.

Programmes must have the flexibility to change objectives/direction if and when circum‑stances change. This requires a constructive relationship [of the implementing agencies] with the funding agency.

The evolution of good collaboration comes from an individual.

Partnerships are more important than projects. Good collaboration happens when a partner‑ship can access a range of funds to continue its agenda. The capacity and intelligence of the partnership is maintained. It 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; and how to [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 to obtain 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 ad‑equate administrative procedures was six 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 its 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 ensure that the principal investigator is southern. That drives whole project, so they have to be re‑sponsible for budget and management. It 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 re‑search‑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 fabu‑lously 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 the focus is on scientific knowledge in Africa, then Africa has the advantage of being on the ground, on the inside. It is important that these contrib‑utions are a feature of any joint initiative.

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. The key skill is her technical understand‑ing, 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 the future there’s a 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 — because, broadly speaking, 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 much interconnected.

I think the people that we put together mattered. People already working on NCD in Africa had great passion. These people were willing to devote their time. Contributing to writing special issues showed commitment. We all shared 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 successful STI cooperation.



The fact that there were pre‑existing relationships is important — there was a common pur‑pose, the proposal was written in dialogue with all partners, trust between partners exists. All are passionate about our goal.

We try to have a collective level of activities and engagements, enabling partner‑level engage‑ment with their own networks, so there are two levels of engagement.

I think regular annual meetings and face to face engagement is important: having conversa‑tions etc. We meet more often than just 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. It has been helpful. Activities could have been done with another partnership under another programme, so the FP was not vital.

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 the 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. This premise holds at institutional and individual levels. Only take the best. Strive for aspiration. One has to be humble about what one can achieve.

Our own examples at WT are good. African institutes are in the driver’s seat — they bring in the northern partners — and it’s been successful. It’s complicated, lot of work for the African partner who sub‑awards to other African partners, and WT gives money to northern partners.

Now that people are skilled up, we’ve invested lots of time, and 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 years 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. This implies a 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. Compared 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. 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 form plans.


I think we were far‑sighted on the topic. Looking now at FP7 calls, it’s exactly the same topic, yet we did this three years ago. Good project area to be in.

We were fortunate to have a strong company in SA who acted as an intermediary 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 the money is for not only research, but includes equipment and other academic activ‑ities like conferences, workshops. These are key to scientific activity, not merely communication.

Equitability.

The research domain is also important. It should have an impact on Africa, on our countries.

One has to be participant from the start, not invited to participate at a later stage. This is not the same as being a co‑investigator, consulted from the outset. There has to be an opportunity to learn how to manage our finances according to EU rules, to be in charge and build our own capacities.

A good project is when both commissions can really agree on an objective, recruit a good team and see a 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 situ‑ation where the two commissions speak to each other in a bilateral arrangement without the participation of the MS, or with them just endorsing the commissions’ 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 im‑plementing 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 framework, institutional context that all allow for 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 after the project’s end. This could be outcomes and findings, or the partnership (the consortium).

[Success is] when consortia for instance remain and are successful in acquiring new funds and starting new or follow‑up projects — if project consortium funded by one of our programmes is successful in acquiring a new or follow‑up project, funded either by us or by any other fund‑ing 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 such a way that the partnership is an equal one and leads to the achievement of the goals set.

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 also contribute: financially or in‑kind, such as in the 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 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 Africa‑specific 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 and targeted, combining institutional and personal capacity building.

Development of institutions (support small institutions, help them to grow).

Adapt capacities to small institutions as well.

Promote ownership, mentorship, soft skills, networks.

Involve companies and the 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 in order to ensure sustainability.

The African universities involved are very committed to raising public awareness about the role of STI.

Cooperation [in project X] is based on a contractual form that clearly specifies the role and responsibilities 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 we established.

The success and quality of a multilateral cooperation project are always closely related to the persons involved. If these persons are committed, then the partnerships works fine and the pro‑ject can be successful.

Transparency in activities.

Most impressive and innovative is the fact that the African project partners wanted themselves to cover 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 good and balanced cooperation between the European and the African partners.

A project that is built on mutual trust within the consortium, as this may ensure the sustainability of results and of the partnership, even after the end of the project and funding.

A project that takes into consideration the heterogeneity that exists between the partners and the intercultural dimension.

A 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 the form of infrastructure that is maintained even after the project’s end.

The project’s interdisciplinary and especially trans‑disciplinary approach (involving local com‑munity members, interacting on the policy level).

The partnership, good collaboration within the consortium; the involvement of local communi‑ties 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 end. The ability to promote new partnerships (here the role of external experts is important)

Connecting scientists and maintaining these networks through master’s programmes.

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 inde‑pendently and in an equal partnership with European researchers (researchers are on the same level).

The object of research should be adapted to the conditions, needs and concerns on the ground. That is, they should respond to what is really needed in Africa

Joint publications (where African and European partners contribute equally).

African partners have to be involved in the project design in order to best bring in their expecta‑tions 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 partner‑ships 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, part‑ners 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 en‑gagement with the projects.

With respect to capacity building, the outputs should correspond to the real needs of target bene‑ficiaries (and not just to ‘exportation’ of European equipment or know‑how).

As regards networking and mobility of researchers, actions should be designed a way that might enable further collaboration. In particular, the actions to be supported should be the ones show‑ing 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 play‑ers (at the policymaking level and programme implementation level) from both regions.

In relation to collaborative projects, a key aspect is the extent to which the project contributes to creating and reinforcing 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 or countries 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 beyond the simple training of scientists, with the goal of both parties hav‑ing the ability to manage scientific process independently — management of grants, facilities,



ability to prioritise research — with the goal of establishing an independent, functioning research system (=sustainability).

Equity in negotiation capacity — ensuring equal access to the benefits of the research project.

Strengthening human and structural capacities.

Multiple partnerships (institutions from the North and the South, civil society, private sector, regional economic communities).

Inclusive approach (participation ahead of all stakeholders).

Adequate financing allowing for a good execution of the 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 cooperation and needs, terms and conditions.

Realistic output‑based projects to be delivered within a realistic timeframe with a clear denominator.

Clear performance indicators for each of the outputs.

Sustainability of the project: after external funding, the scope of work of the project 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 and mutual ac‑countability with regards to financial expenses.

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 newcomers to join and remain fair and open, but that also welcome 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 between 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‑funding by partners (but not necessarily equally funded); long‑term (5 to 10 years) commitment of the partners; being opened to a diversity of stakeholders; not being limi‑ted to research but also including training; focusing on a specific topic/theme which is locally relevant, which can be impacted and which also prone to the production of generic knowledge.

Increase the 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 merely short‑term projects; better visibility and recognition at the global level of the EU‑AU STI collaboration; increase percentage of publications co‑signed by African and European scientists.


Commitment from all stakeholders and parties and good representation from the African side as well.

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 to a project under the STI cooperation as opposed to having rigid rules and procedures/instruments which are only specific to a certain region.

Similarly, any project must be nested in the appropriate and relevant section within the estab‑lished 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 im‑pact 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‑gov‑ernmental sectors, addressing the greatest burdens and building lasting scientific capacity. Suc‑cessful research and innovation cannot be done in isolation; it must draw on the expertise of others and be closely linked to those who will ultimately benefit from the fruits of that research.

11�8 Annex 8: Stakeholder opinion on gaps and barriers in Africa‑ Europe STI cooperation

Stakeholders were asked during interviews and via the questionnaire to offer opinions about gaps and barriers to Africa-Europe STI cooperation. Responses are presented here verbatim, though anonymised.

Gaps:Better thinking: research on horizon scanning/foresight feeding the agenda. It takes up to two years to get funds, then 3–5 years to deliver, then a few more years to do papers, then time for scaling‑up and then impact comes later. This implies a cycle of 15–20 yrs. Twenty years 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 prior‑ities because of sustainability and need for industry‑academia collaboration.

The post‑2015 framework is a priority gap. Our work and key metrics are based on the MDGs and post‑2015 agenda.

Translational research

Absence of co‑financing: Africa governments need to invest the money. Political will is need‑ed. 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 primary and sec‑ondary education, we now know how to get more kids in schools, but they’re not learning bet‑ter. We need to think about pedagogic approaches.

HE: Synergies between the sectors: science and IST. Science and HE should be natural part‑ners. The partnership should be more aligned with HE.



Collaboration with HE, the scientific community, and the private sector together. This is not very easy.

Management of collaborative research activities. This skill set is absent. It’s in the donor’s interest to fund this skill set. It can’t be project specific.

Joint degrees. It is easy to get EU and African universities to link up, but they never offer joint degrees. There is 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 inter‑act and what is the mutual interest. Understanding of how the two should operate is not suffi‑cient. We are rushing because of political commitment, but in fact there are lots of gaps — not a well thought out strategy. Even though it’s a big initiative, it’s a small community, often the same crowd. It’s stalling out.

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 an 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:Capacity and knowledge. Good people in Africa are in huge demand. But there’s a lack of co‑ordination. Not many really good people. There are so many organisations knocking on Africa’s door. Multiply that by 20 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 opportuni‑ties or have the greatest impact in Europe and North America. Specific EU initiatives — such as EDCTP — have helped address this, but there is still a relative lack of funding for pover‑ty‑related diseases and for early‑stage translational research.

Clinical and laboratory investigators in Africa do not, in general, have ‘backup support’ mech‑anisms to carry them between grants and 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. It requires time to develop trust and a relationship.

Administrative and cultural practices differ between EU partners as well as between EU and African partners.

Research capacity: we’re working in institutes in Africa that don’t have institutional capacity.

Conservatism. Those from Africa are thinking as if they are in the 1970’s and those from funding countries likewise. In practice it leads nowhere. How do we overcome this? Just vary the composition of the consortium. Older scientists behave as they are used to behaving. Design schemes for juniors who are really starting. It’s this generation that’s up to date with today’s philosophy of cooperation. Words have changed, practice hasn’t.

Lack of common goals, meaning policy objectives are muddled and implementation mech‑anisms reflect this.

Weak regulatory/enabling environment. STI investment in Africa is increasing, but it will be in vain if the regulatory environment doesn’t sort medical devices, clinical trials and data


protection. Until there is resolution for clinical trials and related IP in Africa, then STI isn’t go‑ing anywhere. It’s a disincentive for investment in Africa — there’s no patent regime and the absence of an IP environment undermines all investment in STI in Africa.

The way we continue to compartmentalise challenges. Water, food security and energy are all interdependent. For example there are a lot of new energy technologies — fracking for example — that are water dependent.

The procedures [of the FP]. There needs to be a more flexible framework. 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 com‑mitted to doing it.

The low intensity of research and innovation in most African countries is an important bar‑rier to cooperation. Yet a more developed knowledge base in 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 calls dedicated to Africa in FPs is an important barrier to more robust cooperation.

The low level of commitment of a few partners may be a problem.

The apparent complexity of preparing proposals and of financial rules as perceived by partners less acquainted with the rules and mainstream approach of each programme may be a problem.

Lack of research infrastructure in many African countries.

When the projects are large‑scale consortia, there appears to be a lack of direct account‑ability for individual project partners. Similarly, in large‑scale consortia there seems to be a divergence of opinions about the project objectives, which can hinder progress.

Priorities and outcomes are biased towards EU funder priorities and needs.

Main barriers include lack of funding commitments from some of the countries involved and limited political support. Particularly in Africa, there is only a handful of countries that really provide the necessary resources, both financial and human, to allow for strong interregional cooperation.

A lack of trust. Much more interaction between partners with the goal of building up long‑term relationships is required.

Expectations. On both the European and African sides there are different and somewhat false expectations of the outcome and long‑term results of the cooperation. Member states in the EU do participate to some extent for the sake of Europe, but to a larger extent for their own national interest. Member states expect to gain access to markets for national enterprises. African partners on the other hand mainly expect to learn from the European research com‑munity and that the projects will include capacity building.

Corruption is still present and is difficult to cope with. You are often forced to invite the people in the highest position to meetings and trainings and to be your project partner, while the scientists, IT people or other staff may be your more appropriate contact and collaborator.

Face‑to‑face meetings are needed. E‑conferences can happen, but do not always work well due to poor internet in some regions. The costs of travel are very high and it is difficult to get enough funds on the EU partner side for the needed travel. Some partners in Africa are not proactive and expect a bit too much that the EU part will take all the initiative.

Lack of commitment of many African countries to invest in their research and higher educa‑tion communities.



Insufficient coordination between ‘foreign affair/aid’ instruments (DEVCO) and research/sci‑ence 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 instru‑ments, will limit the willingness of ‘strong’ scientific partners to include ‘weaker’ partners from developing countries in their consortia.

11�9 Annex 9: Project profiles

11�9�1 Collaborative research projects

AVECNETAvecNet (EU’s FP7) is a large-scale collaborative research and training project between African and European researchers emerging from the Coordinated Call for Africa. Its aim is 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 in order to adapt control strategies to changing disease transmission dynamics.

Products/technologies/services� The project’s own principal KPI is having a product ready for roll-out at the end of the project. As is runs from 2011 to 2016, it is too early to evaluate the pro-ject based on this indicator, although the commercial-minded 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 a five year lifespan. Other mar-ketable tools are also under evaluation.

Policy influence: Not applicable at this stage.

Jobs creation: The project is currently creating jobs — some seasonal, some permanent — al-though only among project partner organisations for the purpose of running project activities. Numbers are not available. Jobs will be created in the economy 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’s work package includes running training courses and PhD stu-dentships. 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, and the other way around. 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 between partners is creating linkages/partnerships that will survive beyond the project. Senior African partners are starting to sponsor/mentor junior ones.

Social capacity building: The project is undertaking lots of stakeholder user analyses in order to understand communities’ perceptions before going in with new tools. The analyses have revealed interesting perspectives at different socio-economic levels that may help adapt the choice of tools to different settings.

Private sector participation: AvecNet has two associate partners, Bayer and Syngenta, and be-cause 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. 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. The project has products shipped in.

Awareness raising: AvecNet is working in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, and to a lesser ex-tent in Kenya, and in each country the local partners have set up sensitization projects before doing field work, which include meeting with village chiefs.

Key success features� Rigorous project management.

Finance mechanism: FP7 grant of €12 m over five years, providing 75 per cent of research and 100 per cent of management and training costs. The grant permits partners to undertake activities but is not an effective facilitator of outputs. Additional resources are needed. The grant presents no restrictions, but neither does it afford opportunities. The three grant amendments required much work and time.

Partnership: Well-functioning relationships established on common interests, with good communi-cation, 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 involvement was essential to achieving the goal, but finding an optimal model for working with the private sector was a challenge. Using a broker allowed project to over-come this challenge, but the project was forced to think in more commercial terms in order for the collaboration between academia and the private sector to work.

LABLITELABLITE is an implementation project funded by the UK government’s Department for Inter-national Development investigating strategies to safely and cost-effectively roll out HIV treatment in real-life settings in Sub-Saharan Africa. LABLITE was born out of DART, a clinical trial of HIV treatments that showed it was safe to administer 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, thereby biasing the results. LABLITE was born to show that treatment can be decentralised.

Project KPI: The number of people not previously able to accessing care. 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 no jobs have been created. The project is ultimately about saving lives, and so contributes to the economy in that way.

Policy influence: The project works with the ministry of health of 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, as well as the hub and spoke model. The hub is a district hospital; the spokes are level 3 health centres. Training is provided locally by locals.

Furthermore, the clinics in the project are accredited to deliver HIV treatment in each partner coun-try: 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 focused on capacity building and new services and 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 researchers. 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-nuke combination therapy. In the US or EU, toxicity tests are required for side effects. The discovery that drugs can be used without testing is of interest to them.

The project works with named representatives in each company, and that makes a big difference. GSK has a section of the company looking at the humanitarian aspects of drug trials. Company participation is driven by CSR at the corporate level, but at the individual level there is personal commitment. The ethical aspects of our relationship to the drug companies are very delicate in terms of testing drugs on African populations.

Local economy/SME creation: VSMEs arose out of the LABLITE precursor, DART. Community groups of people disclosing their HIV status were formed and peer support groups emerged. Many SMEs, i.e. VSMEs, originated from this process, providing services, catering, driving. It is anticipated that these types of service VSMEs will also emerge as a by-product of LABLITE.

The project supports local drug manufacturing companies but doesn’t work with them directly and is not using their products.


Finance mechanism: DFID Research and Evidence Division, funded on the basis of an invitation to prepare a proposal to continue a previously successful project. No approximate 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 the national ministries of health of 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; the University of Zimbabwe Clinical Research Centre, Harare, Zimbabwe; the Medical Re-search Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK; Imperial College London, UK; the Centre for Health Economics, York University, UK; and University College London, UK. The partnership is well estab-lished and built on a previous project.

Challenges: None mentioned.

Key success factors: Working in partnership with the ministry of health of each country. Very col-laborative process. Ministries of health are approaching the 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 be-ing discussed is an indicator of the trust placed in the project — that the project is reliable. It has a good relationship to the donor. Investment in a team that has delivered in the past.

ZEI‑WAIThe 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 Centre 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 incep-tion 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 and is based on a compar-ative perspective. The West African Institute is supported by ECOWAS and WAEMU and approved by UNESCO as a category II institute.

Project KPI: (1) The establishment of a 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 establishment of an expert database; (4) the number of WAI fellows; (5) the number of joint publi-cations; (5) the strengthening of other networks, especially within West Africa (e.g. between ZAI and the Open Society Institute in Senegal (OSIWA); and (6) WAI’s financial sustainability.

Capacity building: Whereas the project’s main focus is research, it includes both personal and institutional capacity building. Personal capacity building mainly takes place in form of West Afri-can post-graduate trainings at ZEI and the parallel establishment of an Africa-specific ‘Masters 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 ad-ministrative personal during the project are planned. In terms of institutional capacity building, the project supports the establishment of a library at WAI.



Partnership: Bi-regional partnership built upon a shared commitment to 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.

Policy: The project intends to strengthen the links between scientists and political stakeholders by actively involving policymakers in events such as summer schools or public events. Research results are to be used to advise West African policymakers.

Creation of jobs: New staff members have been employed at both institutions: two coordinators at WAI and two project coordinators at ZEI; two coordinators of the research programmes at WAI and ZEI; and two research assistants at ZEI and two 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 a regional research institute supported by ECOWAS and WAEMU, WAI is built on a wide network of scientists, scholars, policymakers and experts from all West African countries. To foster a bi-regional network, research institutions with an established reputation in regional integration are progressively involved in the project’s implementation. In Europe, joint ac-tivities 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 that brings in renowned professors from West Africa and Europe to support and advise the WAI in its research and dialogue activities has been established.

Financial mechanism: Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). The idea to set up the project originated with the goal of enhancing research funding for social sci-ences and humanities and supporting research cooperation between Africa and Europe. An incep-tion phase was carried out, with BMBF funding, from summer 2010 to the end of 2011. In spring 2009, a two week 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 pro-ject management capacities.

Challenges: Setting up a joint MA programme at ZEI and WAI was delayed and took longer than expected. As a temporary solution, seven West African scholars have received a scholarship and have been studying at ZEI since fall 2013. The flexibility of the funding instrument is acknowledged as an important precondition.

AFRINTAFRINT1 (2002–2005) investigated the possibility of an Asian-style Green Revolution in nine coun-tries in Sub-Saharan Africa on the basis of household level data collected from around 4 000 small-holder farms; AFRINT2 (2007–2009) traced 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 analyses 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; and (3) setting up and maintaining a database.

Job creation: As a purely academic project, AFRINT has built upon existing human resources. How-ever, African MA students involved in the project have been able to pursue careers in this field of research.

Products/technologies/services: A quantitative and a qualitative database has been created, covering more than 100 villages in the 9 African countries and more than 3 000 households. The instruments for collecting data were jointly elaborated. Two instruments of analysis have been developed jointly, with equal participation from African and Swedish researchers.

Human skills development: On the Swedish and African sides. In Africa: Research and publication skills have been significantly enhanced. Administrative staff has improved their management skills. In Europe: A core team of Swedish researchers has been able to upgrade their qualifications, esp. in panel data methodologies.

Scientific knowledge: Two 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 was edited by three Swedish scholars, with contributions from several of the African partners, the sec-ond book was 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 travelled 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 African students (e.g. a Ghanaian PhD student, a 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 pro-gress. 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 into the consortium to offset 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 the form of new projects.



Governance: Steering committees have been established for the different main activities of the project. There is also an advisory board, composed of external international experts who have con-tributed to and participated at the workshops.

Financial mechanism: AFRINT has been supported by several funding agents: SIDA, the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, VR), the Tercentenary Foundation, and the Bank of Sweden, with small contributions from Lund University. The grant agreement was established with the Uni-versity of Lund, and single contracts have been established between the university and research institutions in Africa.

Partnership: The partnership is based on and defined by individual contracts established between the University of Lund and the African partners. The 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: contract-based cooperation allows the role and responsibilities of each part-ner to be clearly specified. This is considered an essential part of creating a climate where partners can cooperate on an equal footing.

Challenges: The partnership has been based on individual contracts established between the Uni-versity of Lund as coordinator and the African project partners. In principle this is considered the most appropriate approach to clearly define and allocate roles and responsibilities. A major chal-lenge is however posed by the Swedish tax laws, which do not allow African scientists’ contri butions to be counted 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.

SASSCALSouthern 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 An-gola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Germany to respond 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. The end goal is to improve the 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 region of Africa. It should be conceptualised and operationalised to complement the excellent existing research and capacity development infra-structures and research initiatives in the region. It should be embedded in the regional and national research.

Objectives include:

1. Trans-disciplinary, application-oriented research for people

2. Services and advice for policy, decision-makers and stakeholders

3. Capacity development


Products/technologies/services: The aim is to establish a southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management that could create added value for the whole southern region of Africa.

Human Skills development: The goal of SASSCAL is to improve capacities to provide sound, sci-ence-based solutions for current problems and future risks in the region, in particular regard-ing climate change and the associated demands concerning the 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 is built by foster-ing the academic education and training of African scientists (PhD programmes, graduate schools, fellowships, e.g. in cooperation with existing programmes and institutions) and through specific capacity-building activities (e.g. seminars, workshops; training local experts and disseminators, including training 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 a MoU project between the countries.

Mobility and networking: German scientists spend several months or a year in Africa. In parallel to this initiative in southern Africa, in West Africa a West African Science Service Centre 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, for example 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 objective, i.e. the establishment of research infrastructures.

The project acknowledged the importance of a regional dialogue between scientists and deci-sion-makers as global change challenges cross national boundaries. Therefore SASSCAL has a re-gional scope and the work of the centre is defined in partnership with the respective scientific communities, the users of science products, policymakers, and decision-makers.

Challenges: Ensure political support of the project’s activities in South Africa.

11�9�2 Innovation collaborative projects

AFTERAFTER (FP7, 09/2010–08/2014) is a scientific research project aiming to improve traditional Afri-can food products and the associated know-how by sharing European and African knowledge and technical know-how for the benefit of consumers and producers in Africa and Europe. By generat-ing and sharing knowledge about food technology, AFTER intends to improve, develop and create



a product or a technology representing an interest shared between European and African food com-panies for 10 product groups. The consortium is composed of seven African and four EU countries.

Objectives include:

1) Ensuring improved quality of traditional products by improving manufacturing processes;

2) Developing food products, either by improving traditional materials which could be exported to EU or developing new ‘functional’ foods.

Project KPI: (1) the number of reports to congress and publications; (2) positive feedback from the SMEs involved in the project with regard to their ability to improve the food production process; (3) the number of publications and internal reports; and (4) the number of PhD theses started and submitted, the number of interns.

Job Creation: New jobs have been created for young researchers at CIRAD and African partner uni-versities. 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 helping define standards for processing foods from raw material to products.

Products/technologies/services: New food technology and manufacturing processes as well as 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 developing knowledge of trad-itional African food products. Significant results were presented at the International Congress (around 15 posters and 4 presentations) and in scientific papers (around five).

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 publicized in the media, as well as through regular dissemination activities (website, leaflets, interviews in local press, etc.).

Private sector participation: Some project partners are from the private sector. An example is AAFEX, the Association Afrique agro Export, an association of over 90 African companies that ex-port agricultural and agro-food products. Events as well as demonstration activities are regularly organised to present technical results and findings to African SMEs. Results are shared with African SMEs in order to contribute 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 re-search projects.

Creation of new SMEs: So far no new SME has been created, but the project has revealed possibi-lities in case the private sector does not adopt all new outputs.

Networks: A Europe-Africa network centring on traditional food has been created. South-South partnership is developing among 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 con-sulted by the Coordinator before meetings.

Financial mechanism: FP7.

Partnership: The partnership is considered very effective, with roles and responsibilities distributed according to skills and expertise. Good partnership is considered 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; and (2) com-munication within the consortium.

Challenges: For African partners, a difficulty lies 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 cre-ate financial bottlenecks and cash-flow problems. Applying for complementary funding is seen as a solution.

11�9�3 Capacity building projects

• human capital development (including knowledge exchange, mobility of scientists and engin-eers, training);

• physical research infrastructures (including R&D equipment);• policy development (including knowledge application and policy learning);• institutional development;

For health research capacity see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607030/

AfricanSNOWSAfricanSNOWS (Wellcome Trust, African Institutions Initiative, 2008–2014) builds interdisciplinary capacity for research on water supply, sanitation and environmental health. It brings together uni-versities from across the African continent and active research 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607030/



Policy influence: The project has led to new university policies.

Jobs creation: Not applicable.

Skills development: There have been training workshops (an unspecified number) for support staff in university administration and finance, but also for PhD student supervision, proposal develop-ment. For some of those, other members of the consortium have joined in. Universities in the EU re-spond to invitations from partners in Africa to give courses in-country, onsite at universities. Tech-nical 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 mem-bers of the consortium.

Networks and mobility: AfricanSNOWS is strong in this area. The project started with a needs assessment of participating African universities. The assessment included members of the uni-versities themselves, allowing a pair-wise swapping arrangement. The process facilitated mutual learning about how different universities deal with common issues. The team continues to meet. Early in 2013 the project held a conference teaching young researchers about presenting data and getting peer criticism. This led to constructive networking.

There was a small pre-existing network of South African universities, but the network is mostly new, as are the cross-disciplinary alliances.

Social capacity building: Only indirectly if universities involved with the project transfer ideas about hygiene to the community.

Private sector participation: The private sector not directly engaged. WaterAid is a not-for-profit private organisation that has been associated with 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 the administrative and financial capacity of universities, which represented a major barrier to project progress.

Challenges: Weak administrative and financial capacity of universities. The transfer of project funds in dollars between partners in Africa interrupted by 3rd party US banks led to one partner be-ing without funds for a protracted period. Budget reductions led to a loss of expectations, and the decision to place resources in Africa was laudable but complicated and led to lost time. The lesson is to not change policies during negotiation.

Finance mechanism: £1 m budget disbursed according to actual expenditure, with a large propor-tion going to African partners. Each partner has their own budget. The grant does not compensate the time of university staff, with funded positions and accountants contributing time on a ‘goodwill’


basis. The grant offers flexibility, but a reduced budget compared to the proposal requires that part-ners seek additional funds. The Wellcome Trust tries to achieve project sustainability. Additional phases are a possibility. Funding is effective in facilitating outcomes — for example resources are transferred to African partners — and it supports capacity building.

Partnership: Established based on the interests of African partners and designed with them. Ac-tivities are 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 on strategy at annual meetings.

ACP NON‑FOOD OILSACP 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, renew-able biofuel supply chains for providing combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) electricity and in the future for providing the chemical feedstock needed to replace fossil fuels. It aims to achieve this by linking the relevant science and technology academics, professionals, decision-makers and support scheme managers from 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 heat and cooling electricity to small communities and provide a market for locally sourced bio-fuels. Large-scale microalgae production in coastal waters is planned in order to meet increased global demand for bio-fuels such as glycerol; and new biofuel businesses are emerging.

Products/technologies/services: Extraction of glycerol from algae. Glycerol can be produced by algae in saltwater 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.

Jobs creation22: See SME creation. At the moment no permanent jobs have been created from this business model. The number of jobs available will depend on the business model. In general, if the production-intensive microalgae system with more mechanisation is chosen, less jobs will be cre-ated, 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 involves a long-term vision to train and upgrade labour skills. In higher levels of the supply chain, such as the extraction of glycerol and biorefinery, opportunities will be available for skilled labour.

Skills development: See project KPI above. No numbers available.

22 Source: http://www.acp-nonfood.com/P-Hooks-Dunaliella-Glycerol-Swakopmund.pdf

http://www.acp-nonfood.com/P-Hooks-Dunaliella-Glycerol-Swakopmund.pdf



Knowledge development: The project has contributed to new science and to existing technolo-gies. 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 allows partners to participate in workshops in different coun-ties and for students to get trained in Plymouth, for instance. This has been a key success.

Social capacity building: The 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 on diverse fuels. The project did 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. It is formed on Israeli ex-pertise brought to Namibia. Entrepreneurs in Namibia saw an opportunity to cultivate algae. Invest-ors from the UK and SA visited Namibia, driving further investment from SA into Namibia. The UK investor pulled out. The new business/expansions of existing businesses should be sustainable without EU support.

Awareness raising: Six television broadcasts/videos. Thirteen articles written about the ACP Pro-ject. Four international conferences at which lectures/presentations have been given under the ACP banner. The University of Ghana partners published its workshop events in the weekly Spectator newspaper with national coverage. The 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 and leadership drawing on existing networks and personal contacts.

Challenges: It was a complex project to manage since it was spread across two continents and five countries with different policies, attitudes and governing regimes. It also had a diverse composition of partners (2 SMEs, 1 large commercial company, 2 research organisations, 3 universities). On top of that the subject area has undergone a ‘roller-coaster’ of changing attitudes and interests in bioenergy on a global scale over the course of the project.

Finance mechanism: €0.86 m grant from the ACP-EU S&T programme of EDF. Funds are 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 particularly useful in promoting sustainability or lever-aging other funds. Delays in disbursement affected partner engagement and the activity schedule. The mechanism needs to be much clearer, particularly with respect to private sector participants. The compensation model of the EU ACP fund does not favour the participation of commercial en-tities, thereby excluding continental (African) intelligence that will be needed to move ACP initia-tives from research into commercial phases.

Partnership: See challenges. The project and partnership is conceived mainly by one partner. Elem-ents of the partnership will persist but are likely to exclude private sector partners because of the constraints of EU grant conditions.


The UK‑Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic DiseaseThe UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease (2006–2009; British Academy) is a re-search 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 three international meetings — completed; 2) publications to raise awareness about non-communicable disease — achieved; 3) training graduate students by improv-ing writing skills through authoring papers — achieved, but not as anticipated; and 4) accessing more resources — proposals prepared but without attracting funding.

Key outcomes: Stated above.

Products/technologies/services: Not applicable.

Jobs creation: Not directly.

Policy influence: Project outputs are entering regional policy discussions. Policymakers have ac-knowledged project inputs. Ghanaian policymakers are involved in dissemination the outcomes of the project, but this does not necessarily translate into new policy.

Skills development: Though partnership with New York University, the project has been 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 of eight articles each, the majority by mem-bers of the partnership.

Networks and mobility: Most notably the project funded four international conferences, which for example allowed African researchers to go to London and Malaysia. The network was created from the ground up, bringing together the personal contacts of the coordinating partner 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 laypeople involved with/living with chronic diseases.

Key success factors: The people and their passion for the subject. Willingness to contribute time and write papers at no cost.



Challenges: The network was established to confront the need for research on developing the ap-propriate 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. This grant was flexible and accommodating, but only served as seed funding for meetings and for seeking additional funds. The size of grant did not allow institutional capacity building. The overall cost of project was much greater than size of grant; it was made feasible only by much in-kind contribution. Sustainability was implicit in the call, but no specific support was given to leverage additional funds.

Partnership� Partners shared common advocacy interests, all having previously worked on NCD. Six core partners met regularly, when schedules permitted, to lead the publication process. Admin-istration is led by the coordinator. Papers were prepared by broader group of partners. The funding mechanism did not require governance structures. The partnership persists beyond BA funding. Governance of the partnership is being investigated.

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 the environment, health, information, education, governance, food security and livelihoods of 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, including HR and peoples’ job descrip-tions; (3) attitudes and understanding of what people do; and (4) knowledge and skills. Externally the project assesses stakeholder perceptions of the universities.

Key outcomes: Too early in the life of the project 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 two universities: Legon in Ghana, and Makerere in Uganda. No jobs in the wider economy. The project has to do with universities building a presence in the social, cultural, and political economy, and part of that task 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 three MSc, PhD and short courses, developed by CREST and all on knowledge utilisation and research uptake, in which all member universities participate at Stellenbosch. DRUSSA provides bursaries. There are about 60 students taking 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 in-country networking between university and stakeholders. There is a move for DRUSSA to start talking to other projects on 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. A 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 in an environment that is different to a few years ago. HE is big business — universities have to become competitive and in many cases entrepreneurial too.

Finance mechanism: Accountable grant of £3.7 m from the Research and Evidence Division of DFID’s Research Uptake Programme, paid in arrears and conditional on results. It is flexible: money can be moved across years and budget lines, with permission. The 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 and outcomes and is structured to support project success, notably via regular reporting to ensure constant self-evaluation.

Partnership: There are three implementing partners and 24 universities as beneficiary partners. The project was set up by implementing partners only. Universities were not consulted at concep-tion but now have been and are on board. The partnership works well: it allows information to be shared, inspires competition and raises standards. Governance structures include an implementing partner committee, an oversight committee with DFID, and a four-strong external advisory board. The communication channels are well established. Greater benefits accrue to the more entrepre-neurial 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 ini-tiative 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) A full MoU signed by the two West African institutes, and a plan to engage other universities in the region; 2) academic programme to be implemented; 3) creation of a regional network; and 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’ priorities placing institutional interests above national and/or regional interests. Weakness in the ECOWAS regional mechanism hindering cap-acity to foster regional networks. Civil unrest in Mali. Economic crisis in Europe.

Finance mechanism: Grant of approximately €0.5 m paid in advance from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, disbursed to all partners and 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 from the government of Spain to ensure long-term sustainability in the event of success was not mobilised.

Partnership: The project consisted of just three partners with good interpersonal relations. The three lead investigators formed the project committee. There was no external advisory group.

Innovation for Poverty Alleviation in South Africa ProgrammeOverview: The programme 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 pro-gramme 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’s core areas of focus 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 at 62 sites in South Africa.

Programme KPIs: The programme’s KPIs include 1 200 jobs and 10 SMEs to be created by 2014; 500 rural households supplied with energy and 45 municipalities with ICT networks by 2014; 3 000 rural households supplied with water by 2014; and 3 000 South Africans trained in various aspects of technology development and demonstration. Other KPI include enhanced policy dialogue be-tween South Africa and the EU.

Key Outcomes: So far (by 2013) the programme has generated many outcomes. These include 859 jobs created, 3 064 persons trained, 1 775 households supplied with water and 410 with energy, 46 municipalities with ICT networks and 48 SMEs created, and 13 technology demonstrations un-dertaken. On the whole, the programme’s targets are being met, and in some cases targets have been exceeded.

Products/technologies/services: No specific new 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 existing water technologies and the challenges of implementing/upscaling or replicating these technologies, and another was on extending ICT access and connect-ivity to rural communities in South Africa. The dialogues involved high-level policymakers, 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 Septem-ber 2012 in Brussels. The conference was attended by President Jacob Zuma, the EC President and several ministers, as well as high-ranking policymakers from South Africa and the EU. The confer-ence demonstrated the high-level political support that the programme enjoys and its influence on policymaking in both South Africa and the EU.

Human skills development: As indicated above, the programme has been instrumental in training more than 3 000 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 re-sources from the EU. For example, Sasol, South African multinational energy 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, 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 the implementation of its Ten-Year Innovation Plan and other STI policy instruments without restrictions. The SBS enabled DST to leverage financial and technical resources from the private sector.

Partnerships: The programme is one of the initiatives being implemented under the South Af-rica-EU STI partnership. It is itself a partnership involving national departments of science and technology (DST), water 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 comprised of representatives from these various stakeholder groups.

Challenges: The implementation of the programme has faced a number of challenges. These in-clude (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 articulating or coordinating well with the DST).

Key success factors: The success and evident effectiveness of the programme is largely due to the following factors: (a) high-level political support from the presidencies in South Africa and the 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 includes the private sector and representatives of local communities; (c) the flexibility of the SBS mechanism, which has enabled the DST and implementing partners to adjust project activities to suit changing conditions in the communities; and (d) the explicit alignment of the programme ob-jectives and KPIs with national STI policies and strategies such as the DST Ten-Year Innovation Plan.

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)EDCTP (2003–2013, FP6, Member State and third-party funding) aims to accelerate the develop-ment of new or improved drugs, vaccines, microbicides and diagnostics against HIV/AIDS, tubercu-losis and malaria, with a 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 were set up at the start of the project. Some are operational, such as speed of processing grants. Some KPI are related to scientific objectives. There are KPI for soft goals such as ownership, although the number of African coordinators and African principal investigators has 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 were 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 for children from the use of many IV injections to fewer intramuscular injections; and 3) the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV, now international policy.


Jobs creation: Approximately 1 000 people are employed by EDCTP projects. Data on the creation of jobs in the economy is not available.

Policy influence: It takes time for research to translate into policy. WHO guidelines/recommen-dations 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 use artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), which is suit-able for pregnant women.

Skills development: EDCTP offers resources for training people for every clinical trial run. Projects always include a WP for capacity building to provide whatever skills are needed for a trial. Individ-uals are recruited, then trained. About 400 have been trained. EDCTP also grants fellowships, so people are trained while they are working.

Knowledge development� Clinical trials automatically generate new clinical knowledge, and in parallel EDCTP aims to empower individuals to protect that knowledge. The weak IP regimes in Africa, affording weak knowledge protection, do not deter EDCTP from generating new knowledge.

Networks and mobility: EDCTP encourages South-South and North-North networking by 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 two 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 make possible the sharing of facilities, co-monitoring, and free utilisation of services.

Social capacity building: Not directly, although for instance the local investigator in a trial is re-quired to liaise and negotiate with the test population.

Private sector participation: See the report section on private sector participation. However, al-though 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 it with resources from Member States. The approach fosters owner-ship and distributes the risks. The scale of investment between 2003 and 2012, with approximately €150 m 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 as-sembly of Member State representatives and informed by various committees such as the De-veloping Countries Coordinating Committee and the Ethics Committee, supported by the EDCTP secretariat.

Challenges: The absence of robust IP protection in Africa means weak protection of knowledge, although this does not deter the 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 conditions.

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 trains future African leaders to contribute effectively to the development of knowledge societies by equipping them with new leadership skills. These new lead-ership 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 on education, ICT and STI23.

Project KPI: Example: ability of course participants to jointly develop a policy coherence plan dur-ing the training.

Key outcomes: With an initial target of selecting 150 African leaders and having 50 of them gradu-ate, by the end of November 2012, two cohorts of participants had applied and enrolled. In the first, 109 from five countries participated 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 fu-ture 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, helping their ministries and or-ganisations develop coherent and well-aligned polices on education, ICT and STI.

Skills development: Participating ministry officials learn leadership skills, providing participants with attitudes, ideas, management tools, and strategies.

Private sector participation: The private sector was engaged in designing elements of the ALICT course. The commercial sector couldn’t be persuaded to bring a private sector perspective to the ALICT course.

Local economy/SME creation: Potential for indirect impact through the creation of improved policies.

Finance mechanism: Phase I: €3 m 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.

23 http://www.gesci.org/african-leadership-in-ict-alict.html

http://www.gesci.org/african-leadership-in-ict-alict.html


Challenges: Poor initial programme design at LHP stage. Little EU Member State or EU interest in working with Finland to support the ALICT Lighthouse Project led to Finland working independently with GESCI and the AUC. Dialogue with other funders, such as AfDB, was slow in coming. The 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 keep their posts for the greater part of the course, 2) course quality assurance provided by Dublin City University accreditation, 3) policy coherence engendered by ALICT through the tailored curricu-lum and the participation of officers from all ministries associated with the knowledge economy, and 4) low drop-out rate.

An independent evaluation of ALICT conducted shortly after the first cohort graduated concludes that the project scores high on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and accountability.

BIOTA AFRICABIOTA AFRICA (BMBF: Biodiversity and Global Change Programme (BIOLOG)) is a cooperative, in-terdisciplinary and integrative research project with partners from Benin, Burkina Faso, Germany, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia and South Africa. Outcomes defined include supporting in-ternational 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 Af-rica (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire). Period of implementation: 2001–2010. Coordinator: Univer-sity of Hamburg. Capacity building: human capacity development; physical research infrastructure development.

Objectives include:

1. Developing a ‘Biodiversity Observation Network’ in Africa;

2. Observing and developing capacities to observe land degradation, monitor biodiver-sity development;

3. Developing strategies for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in Africa.

Project KPI: (1) A relationship of trust has been established between the partners to serve as a basis for future cooperation; (2) sustainable infrastructure has been created; (3) the websites containing monitoring data are running and maintained after the end of the project; and (4) local communities are actively involved.

Products/technologies/services� The project’s main goal has been to establish biodiversity moni-toring facilities in Southern, West, East and Northern Africa that are still serving to regularly collect and analyse data.

Creation of jobs: Jobs directly linked to the project implementation have been created for scientific personnel, 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. Those that hold this po-sition have received training at local research centres as well as on the job and have worked in close cooperation with the researchers to collect data from the observatories. Besides their direct contri-bution to the project and data collection process, the importance of these newly created positions



can be seen in the Para-Ecologists’ role as translators between the project (= the scientists) and the local community, and the creation of local awareness and ownership.

Networks and mobility: Throughout the duration of BIOTA, German scientists have regularly spent several months per year in Africa to accompany the process and work as closely as possible with their African project partners.

Social capacity building and awareness raising: The project has organised a lot of trainings and informational events for and with the local communities living close to the biodiversity monitoring observatories. These activities have on the one hand aimed to strengthening local capacities, in particular by training people as Para-Ecologists, as described above. On the other hand, they have presented an important approach to ensuring good relations between locals and scientists, and promoting local acceptance and ownership as a key factor for the sustainability of the project’s outcomes and achievements.

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: The project has a democratic governance structure based on the election of one representative of each participating institution to a national BIOTA steering committee. National-level decisions are made by these representatives and reported to the Project Coordinator. Regular meetings of the different national committees and the Project Coordinator.

Key success factors: Trans-disciplinary approach, by actively involving people from local commu-nities in project activities and working directly at the policy level. The consortium’s joint, bottom-up approach to developing the project. A solid, long-term partnership between German and African scientists that already existed before BIOTA and has been maintained for several subsequent pro-jects (The Future Okavango, SASSCAL). The democratic governance of the project allowing for transparency, equal partnership and shared responsibilities.

Challenges: Ensuring political support for the project’s activities in South Africa.

EnerMENAEnerMENA is a capacity building project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Af-fairs, which aims to prepare the ground for the sustainable installation of CSP power plants in the MENA region and the development the DESERTEC initiative. Initial funding has been provided for 09/2009–12/2011; follow-up funding has been agreed until 2015. Coordinator: Institute of Solar Research at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR, Office in Almeria). 45 partner institutions in Ger-many, 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 Concen-trated Solar Power (CSP) Technologies in the MENA region, the transfer of expert knowledge, the dissemination of information and the support of market development. By focussing on training, technical support and R&D project development, the project intends to strengthen the EU-MENA partnership in the field of CSP and bring stakeholders in at an advanced stage of cooperation.


Project KPI: (1) Number of persons trained; (2) ability to use acquired material; and (3) sustainable network which 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 thereby contribute to optimising the construction and operation of solar thermal power plants.

Skills Development: Trainings and workshops are organised to instruct highly qualified personal regarding present and future CSP power plants in the MENA region and to support the implementa-tion of CSP teaching at universities. The training program targets different 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 to their needs. Training courses take place on the Plataforma Solar de Almería/Spain, at a location in the partner country, or at an organisation.

Creation of jobs: Creating jobs is not the immediate objective of the project, although trainings are likely to lead to new opportunities for employment or job promotion.

Policy: Links to the policy level are established through the involvement of political bodies or part-ners in the consortium working under the authority of ministries. 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 made at the project meetings held every 6 months.

Skills development: Skills development is a central part of the project and is carried out through targeted training and capacity building activities designed for different stakeholder groups: en-gineers, onsite technicians, researchers, university professors and students, and technology and knowledge transfer and agents. The trainings offered for professors and tutors are designed 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, exchanges and mobility between the partners is encouraged. A network of CSP professionals and specialists is being established and supported within the framework of the project so that it may coordinate future activities.

Private sector participation: Trainings offered to engineers and technicians to prepare for the DESERTEC initiative. The aim is to create a strong human capacity base to sustain the market and technology development in the region.

Finance mechanism: Budget provided by the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interest is 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 centres, national energy agencies, universities, engineering companies and related ministries. Ac-tivities are implemented in parallel in the five MENA countries.



Key success features: The project’s success is evident most of all in the multi-stakeholder ap-proach adopted for targeted trainings and capacity building activities, as well as in the large-scale consortium with the goal of promoting networking within the MENA region and between Europe and the MENA region in the field of CSP.

Challenges: The difficulty convincing the private sector in (Northern) Africa to take part in STI initia-tives when benefits are not evident is mentioned as a general challenge. A possible solution could be the financial instrument, which could for instance make the private sector a prerequisite.

AGRICABAGRICAB (FP7) is a small-/medium-scale SICA research project designed to strengthen Earth Ob-servation (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 pro-ject (Global Monitoring for Food Security). Capacity building: human capital development. Object-ives include:

1. Strengthen Earth Observation (EO) capacities in Africa by building on the open data sharing through GEONETCast;

2. Connect the available satellite and other data to predictive models in order to fa-cilitate their integration into agriculture and forestry planning and management processes;

3. Knowledge transfer through twinning partnerships between a European and an Afri-can partner;

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 and (2) number of joint publications.

Job Creation: No direct contributions, but trainings are likely to open up new job opportunities or lead to job promotions.

Products/technologies/services: Free software is jointly developed by European and African scien-tists and stakeholders to handle 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 training for practitioners and different stakeholder groups and regional training conducted by regional African institutes. Long-term training is provided for experts, PhD and MA students from different African countries and consist of several-month-long North-South and South-South exchanges.

Mobility and networking: North-South and South-South exchanges for longer trainings are offered for African experts, PhD and MA students.

http://www.devcocast.eu/

http://www.gmfs.info/


Production of scientific knowledge: The project is producing several joint and co-authored publi-cations 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 in-tegrated into the consortium as a step to support its development. The importance and advantage of including the private sector are mainly that it provides research the ‘on-the-ground contact’ to translate research into application and to bring in another perspective. Private sector involvement is considered crucial in terms of the applicability, cost effectiveness, etc. of research results.

Governance: Steering committee, composed of representatives from each project partner institu-tion. Advisory Board composed of external experts which meets 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 and telephone; regular physical project meetings and Skype conferences; monthly working group meetings; individual visits and exchanges; and intranet.

Key success factors: (1) The project builds on a long-term partnership between some parts of the consortium; (2) the communication within the consortium is very good and efficient; and (3) trans-parency within the activities is of great concern and effectively handled.

AFRICAN VIRTUAL CAMPUSAFRICAN VIRTUAL CAMPUS is one of the Lighthouse projects implemented within JAES P8 in col-laboration with UNESCO. Initial financial support has been provided by the Governments of Spain and Japan for the development of four e-learning centres in West Africa — in Senegal, Benin, Togo and Cote d’Ivoire.

Impacts so far have included the creation of the National Virtual University of Senegal by the government of Senegal and the development of the National Virtual Networks for 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 contin-ent that shall allow large-scale training of students and teachers and improve the quality of educa-tion. The same model was developed in Iraq with great success (13 centres only for one country). Development of other Avicenna e-learning networks are ongoing in Central Asia and Arabic cultural regions.

The objectives of the project include:

1. Implementing an online African Virtual Campus Network for Science and Technology Education based on the model of the Avicenna Virtual Campus 5 (UNESCO and Euro-pean Commission Network);

2. Implementing the four key goals in the network: sustainability of quality education; cost-efficiency of higher and basic education systems; easier access for teachers



and greater enrolment of women; and the 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’ (one per coun-try); (2) 162 experts trained in distance education (three per centre); (3) 5 000 teachers trained on production engineering for online multimedia courses; (4) 9 000 tutors trained in distance educa-tion methods; (5) 1 000 e-learning modules produced, translated and adapted; (6) 50 000 students trained online; (7) establishment 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 by the end of year four; and (9) the network will be used for training students, teachers and adults in large numbers.

KPI: (1) The virtual campus is established 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 Year Three; (4) high-level online courses in science statistics analysis; (5) at least 1 000 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 2 000 (in each region) tutors trained in distance teaching methods; (7) at least 10 000 students (in each region) enrolled 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 higher and second-ary education exists; and (10) students 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 up new job opportunities or lead to promotions.

Products/technologies/services: New methods of online teaching; a virtual science and technol-ogy library which includes teaching material; and specific online courses covering science policy and innovation. Free software is jointly developed by European and African scientists and stakeholders to handle and analyse satellite data. The software’s functionality is adapted to the needs and ca-pacities on the ground.

Capacity building: Institutional: establishment of 54 Knowledge Centres for e-learning in univer-sities, engineering institutes and/or specialized scientific institutions in each of the participating countries in Africa. Establishment of a virtual science and technology library which contains teach-ing material.

Human skills development: Enhancing capacities to use ICT in Science and Technology Education by training teachers on how to use online contents, methods and materials and research. Online distance training for students in universities, engineering institutes and/or specialized scientific institutions in Africa.

Networking: Networking and exchanges between the African Virtual Campus’ e-learning centres, as well as with universities in the Mediterranean basin belonging to the UNESCO- and European Commission-funded Avicenna Virtual Campus, to develop a regional e-learning network focused on science and technology in Africa.


Awareness raising: Continuous awareness campaigns. Information and demonstration campaign at 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 on the cooperation between African states, an EU Member State (Spain) and UNESCO, and on the implementation of a continent-wide network of e-learning centres and sharing of know-how, resources and experiences.

Challenges: Since 2011, the major difficulty in Africa has been related to the availability of fund-ing. Feasibility studies and technical project documents have been developed in cooperation with Regional Economic Communities (RECs, including ECOWAS, IGAD and ECCAS, representing 32 AU member states). These proposals have been submitted to the AfDB and the EC.

CAPAQUA IICAPAQUA 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 East African research and education institutions shall be strengthened in the field of research on sustainable water management and policy advice. BOKU, UNESCO-IHE and Egerton University are organising and conducting a joint MA programme on ‘Limnology and Wetland Management’. It supports the creation of an inter-univer-sity master’s programme on ‘Aquatic and Wetland Ecosystem Management’, involving the three Ethiopian universities.

Project KPI: (1) The existence of a joint MA programme between BOKU and Egerton and (2) the existence of a joint MA programme offer by the three Ethiopian universities.

Products/technologies/services: Joint MA programmes.

Job creation: (1) Research assistant positions created in Austria, Kenya and Ethiopia, and (2) new job opportunities are opened by trainings and capacity building.

Policy: Involvement of local policymakers in establishing the curriculum (consultative function).

Human skills development: Joint MA degree from BOKU + UNESCO-IHE + Egerton, and inter-uni-versity MA degree from three Ethiopian universities. Around 20–25 % of graduates continue on to a PhD. After graduation, many students work as consultants, so they apply what they have learned in the field.

Knowledge development: On average, each MA thesis leads to 2–3 peer reviewed publications, in addition to a number of other individual publications. European and African researchers continu-ously publish joint works.

Network and mobility: Every MA student enrolled in the joint MA programme has an African and a European supervisor. The European supervisor has to spend some time in Africa in order to ensure



that the student and supervisor know each other personally. In some cases this leads to follow-up projects. Long-term partnership between BOKU and Egerton.

Private sector involvement: In some cases, graduates have created VSMEs in the field of environ-mental consulting (supply in drinking water). Others are working as consultants with local compa-nies and communities and manage the whole process, from technical issues to pricing, etc.

Public awareness raising: The African universities involved are very committed to raising public awareness about the role of STI. Most of these activities are financed through local funds and only indirectly linked to the project — for example, open house days at the university; public events; science and technology fairs.

Financial mechanism: Austrian Development Agency/Austrian Development Cooperation (all types of 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, the aim of which is to transfer, adapt and implement sustainable sanitation technologies in peri-ur-ban African areas. Coordinator: 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. Promoting resource-oriented sanitation concepts as a route to sustainable sanitation and to fulfil the UN MDGs;

2. Implementing resource-oriented sanitation concepts in four model cities in East Af-rica (Arbaminch, Ethiopia; Nakuru, Kenya; Arusha, Tanzania; and Kitgum, Uganda);

3. Researching the gaps in the implementation of resource-oriented sanitation con-cepts in peri-urban areas, and

4. Developing a generally applicable and adaptable framework for the development of strategic sanitation and waste plans (SSWPs)

Project KPI: (1) Sustainable contacts and collaboration between the universities and municipalities; (2) the number of technologies and technological solutions applied; and (3) the ability to continue with a follow-up project (CLARA) to extend the cooperation and activities.

Products/technologies/services: The purpose of the project was to transfer and adapt existing sustainable sanitation technologies to four East African peri-urban areas. ROSA’s success can to a large degree be linked to its approach of building upon and synthesising technological findings from several previous STI projects, allowing it to draw on a broad inventory of technologies and a wide range of experiences.


Policy: Policy impacts have mainly been achieved by actively involving local municipalities in the consortium and in the transfer process.

Knowledge development: With regard to the applied research approach of the project, the consor-tium preferred to disseminate the project results in online open-source journals that directly ad-dress stakeholders, practitioners and end-users rather than publish scientific and academic papers.

Networks and mobility: Sub-groups were formed within the consortium to connect each European partner to one specific case study and to local project partners. This structure encouraged a lot of exchanges and interaction between partners beyond regular project meetings.

Social capacity building: Trainings and workshops were regularly organised for different local stakeholder groups, including trainings for bricklayers and other craftsmen on how to build sanita-tion infrastructure, for farmers on how to use human waste as fertilizer, etc. Trainings were gener-ally 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 have mainly been developed in ROSA’s follow-up project, CLARA, which involves some of the same consortium partners. In this project, 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 As-sociation) have been involved as partners. Whereas the sanitation process (water supply, sanita-tion, 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 and 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 a poverty reduction strategy and in order to consolidate sustainable sanitation solutions.

Finance mechanism: FP6, budget of €2.9 million. The short duration of the funding is considered a challenge for implementing this kind of technology transfer activity.

Partnership: Partnership built on the strong commitment to transfer and set up systems that last. A long-term relationship exists between some partners, which has allowed the project to build on previous outcomes and experiences. Parts of the ROSA consortium are continuing their cooper ation 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 centres on the idea of building sub-groups with European and African partners to facilitate and individualise the technology transfer process.

Key success factors: The success of ROSA can be largely linked to its efforts to promote cooper-ation and exchange between universities and municipalities in the four case study cities. Whereas collaboration between the academic and policymaking level had been rather weak so far, this ap-proach encouraged a certain change of mind-set on both sides which favoured the reduction of ad-ministrative and bureaucratic barriers and fostered local responsibility and ownership. By promot-ing the development of applied research, the scientists’ contact with end-users was 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 sanita-tion technologies and techniques to local stakeholders and by providing appropriate trainings, the project contributed to building local capacities and promoting ownership.

Challenges: A major challenge was the need to find innovative solutions to ensure the maintenance of the transferred technologies after the project’s end: To guarantee that activities would also be financially covered once EU funding ended, the consortium 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 strives, even during implementation, to create spin-offs, with other GIZ-led initiatives for example, in order to progressively transfer and integrate activities under these funding programmes and ensure their continuity once the project is over.

11�9�5 Projects raising awareness and promoting networking (including information exchange)

CAAST‑NetCAAST-Net and its successor, CAAST-Net Plus, are projects that support EU international bi-regional cooperation policy between Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. The gist of the CAAST-Net objectives is to reinforce the Africa-Europe STI relationship and to JAES P8 in particular, though not exclusively. 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; enhanced African partici-pation in EU FP and other major funding instruments; and support for the formal bi-regional ST policy dialogue. The progress of each is difficult to measure or decide how to attribute except in the case of the last one, where no progress was made.

Key outcomes: The project had an abundance of formal outputs, though few can be said to have made a tangible, quantifiable impact in the short term. The most significant outcomes are qualita-tive and intangible, drawing loosely on the collective foreground of the consortium, and contribute to the broad direction in a tide of improved bi-regional collaboration. Over the five-year project, the partners themselves developed a strong network that led to many spin-off collaborations, often bilateral. 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 internation-al STI policymaking and decision-making. Many outputs had this aim, yet the extent to which changes took place and whether they can be attributed to CAAST-Net has not and cannot be measured, al-though 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 increase their own knowledge of the STI cooperation environment and increase their own collabor-ative portfolio through which they can develop skills.

Capacity building: The increased knowledge and awareness provided by CAAST-Net enhanced the capacity of individuals and institutions to enter into bi-regional collaborative partnerships.

Production of scientific knowledge� Not directly relevant, although the forums for thematic mu-tual 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 was sought for all events, although only rarely with success.

Local economy/SME creation: Not relevant.

Finance mechanism: EU FP7 grant of €4.2 m over five years, shared equitably among consortium members according to the distribution of tasks.

Partnership: The consortium of 23 partners from 21 European and African countries largely com-prises representatives of nationally mandated STI authorities, such as ministries of science and sci-ence councils, because of their ability to influence cooperation policy and practice by drawing on the CAAST-Net groundwork. Other partners in the CSO and private sector provide coordination and man-agement and media services to the project. Services central to the project — coordination and man-agement, communication and dissemination activities — were provided by three partners and run in a largely democratic manner. An external advisory board met annually but had no executive role.

Challenges: Outputs were undermined by weak quality control attributable at least in part to the failure of the internal peer review process and the absence of accountability or effective internal and external M&E. The project’s potential to make a change was undermined by diverse levels of partner knowledge and awareness of STI cooperation and of engagement in the project activities. Many partners had a poor understanding of their role in the project because the consortium was driven by the political expediency of representativeness. The project itself became a capacity build-ing and knowledge exchange initiative for many in the partnership rather than a network of experts and a leading force for change.

Key success factors: It was in many regards a very successful and highly respected project, provid-ing 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.

ERAfricaERAfrica 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 issuance of one or more joint or coordinated calls for proposals on topics of mutual interest. Hereinafter, a distinction is drawn between ERAfrica itself and the projects it will fund from a co-financed instrument.



Project KPI (as suggested by individual partners): Joint commitment and ability to find common ground and make decisions. The number of partners committing funding (esp. those outside the ERAfrica consortium). It is not just about issuing the joint call, but also 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 build-ing activities, but rather as a result of 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 those 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 joint calls’ pool of donors. The project also jointly prioritizes topics for research cooperation/funding.

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 far too early to make clear statements, as these proposals are only being evaluated and the projects negotiated.

Knowledge development: The project itself focuses on coordinating policy, not on creating 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 include 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 mostly had to do with attracting fund-ing parties outside the consortium to take part in the joint call.

Networks and mobility: For ERAfrica itself, networking and mobility activities are critical in order to attract funding parties outside the consortium to take part in the joint call. Additionally, this is part of the capacity building activities to be included in projects funded under ERAfrica. As above, it is too early to give any detailed information. Projects are still in the evaluation and negotiation phases.

Financial mechanism: Funded through a call for ERA-NET proposals from EU FP7 INCO. Total grant of €2 m towards a project budget of €2.3 m. The mechanism created by the ERAfrica pool of donors is a virtual pot, with each programme owner committing funds for use chiefly (exclusively?) for their own researchers within joint projects. The total sum pledged by the ERAfica pool of donors amounts to €10.7 m across three priorities, with approximately equal sums committed by African and European programmes. The virtual pot issue was discussed extensively, with the idea that the


goal of the project is not for the EU to give money to Africa, but that each country invest 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 commit-tee (of WP leaders and task leaders). Governance structures have not been a major factor in the project’s success. The overlap of individuals in 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 they could have been. Moreover, programme owners have clear views on their own prior-ities, which were not always open to revision.

Key Success Factors: Strong partners with good communication and congruous goals. Many part-ners had a previous relationship, which builds trust.

Key Challenges: Differing views on how to implement the activities (particularly the joint call). Attract-ing funding parties outside the consortium. Ensuring adequate funding for the joint call with the cur-rent economic climate. More challenges can be anticipated when negotiating 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 in building their national capacities to undertake Research and Experi-mental Development (R&D) and innovation surveys and in using statistics or data from the surveys in order to improve their STI policies and policymaking processes.

Programme KPIs: Key activities of this phase included the following: (a) establishing an intergov-ernmental committee to be the overall governance structure of ASTII; (b) supporting countries efforts to create national focal points; (c) developing and implementing training workshops to build 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 Focal Points had been established in at least 14 countries. At least 11 countries received full NEPAD-committed funding (USD 50 000) for the national im-plementation 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 a regional workshop in May 2011 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Job creation: Not applicable

Policy influence: ASTII led many African countries to start reviewing their national STI policies, and some countries have established focal points dedicated to STI indicators. It also caused 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 policymaking.

Human skills development: By 2011, more than 50 Africans had been trained in STI surveys and related methodologies.



Capacity building: In addition to training government officials, institutional capacities to develop STI indicators have been strengthened, and the creation of AOSTI will further build national capaci-ties for STI observatories.

Production of scientific knowledge: Not applicable

Private sector participation: No strategic approach for private sector participation. This has weak-ened the capacity to develop innovation surveys and related indicators.


Finance mechanism: A grant of US $2.9 million from the Swedish International Development Co-operation 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 the NEPAD Agency, UNESCO, AfDB and the OECD Secretariat. It has stimulated bilateral STI partnerships, for example between Malawi and South Africa. The partnership also involves Lund University in Sweden.

Challenges: Local financial contributions from African partners are limited. Most countries relied on the grant from Sida and had no own resources invested in conducting the surveys. The limited tech-nical capacity at NEPAD and AUC to provide overall intellectual leadership was also a challenge. In addition, there was no strategy on how the indicators or statistics would be used in STI policymaking.

Key success factors: The success of ASTII has so far been dependent on the political support and authorization from AMCOST and the active engagement of national ASTII focal points.

11�10 Annex 10: Validation workshop participants

Name and affiliation1 Dr Prince Bahati, IAVI International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, DRC 2 Professor Clobite Bouka, Minister of Scientific Research, Congo3 Professor Lidia Brito, Director STI Policy Division, UNESCO, France4 Dr Andrée Carter, Director of UK Collaborative of Development Sciences, United Kingdom 5 Dr Andrew Cherry, Study Expert, ACU, United Kingdom6 Dr Brigitte Decadt, Belgium Ministry of Science7 Daan du Doit, South African DST, Science Counsellor, South African Mission to the European Union8 Dr Hakim Elwaer, Director HRST Department, African Union Commission, Ethiopia9 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 Scien-tific Research, Egypt

12 Dr Detlef Hanne, KFW Development Bank, Germany13 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 Acad-emy 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, Austria21 Anneline Morgan, Director of African cooperation — DST & SADC, South Africa22 Dr Eric Mwangi, MOHEST, Kenya 23 Dr Neya Oble, MOHEST, Burkina Faso24 Dr Mahama Ouedraogo, Head of S&T division, African Union Commission, Ethiopia

25Dr Jörn Sonnenburg, Director of international cooperation, International Bureau of the Federal Min-istry 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, Belgium27 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

European Commission:

Name and affiliation1 Dr Elisabeth Lipiatou, Head of Unit D3, DG RTD 2 Dr Angela Liberatore, Deputy Head of Unit D3, RTD3 Nienke Buisman, Policy Officer STI relations with Sub-Saharan Africa, Unit D3, RTD4 Susanne Madders, Policy Officer, Unit D3, RTD5 Tomas Matraia, Policy Officer, Unit D3, RTD6 Dr Stephane Hogan, Science Counsellor, DG RTD 7 Dr Francesco Affinito, STI focal point, Unit B.4, DEVCO8 Carmen Mena Abela, Policy Officer, Unit I.2, RTD 9 Dr Giuseppe Balducci, Policy Officer, Unit E4, DEVCO

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:• onecopy:

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• morethanonecopyorposters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non‑EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:• viaEUBookshop(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:• viaoneofthesalesagentsofthePublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

In response 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 cooperation between Africa and Europe, as well as to identify gaps and effective financial mechanisms that have a positive impact. The outcomes will provide a base of evidence for policy choices and financing decisions for future cooperation.

Research and Innovation Policy

KI‑04‑13‑196‑EN‑N

doi:10.2777/60534

mapping of best practice - european commission · · 2015-08-114 mapping of best practice...

Documents