POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE A Landscape Analysis Prepared by CAAST-Net Plus for the HLPD Bureau
Building Bi-regional Partnerships for Global Challenges
Copyright © 2016 by the CAAST-Net Plus consortium. All rights reserved. CAAST-Net Plus (2013-2016) Advancing Sub-Saharan Africa-EU Research and Innovation Cooperation for Global Challenges AUTHOR: Dr M.S. Jeenah ORGANISATION: Department of Science and Technology of South Africa Please send any queries about this report to enquiries@caast-net-plus.org. Any citations to this report should read: CAAST-Net Plus (2016), Potential Instruments for Implementing the EU-Africa Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture: A Landscape Analysis Prepared by CAAST-Net Plus for the HLPD Bureau.
CAAST-Net Plus is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n0 311806. This document reflects only the author’s views and the European Union cannot be held liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
Publication compiled by: Research Africa (www.researchresearch.com/africa) Design and layout: Tracey Watson Cover images have been sourced from open access image repositories, unless otherwise specified. No copyright infringement is intended.
ii
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
iii
LIST OF TABLES
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vi
1
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1
2
IMPLEMENTING THE PARTNERSHIP: POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS
2
3 5
2.1 Short-term milestones in implementing the Partnership (1-2 years) 2.2 Medium-term goal: Creation of the Partnership’s structure (3-6 years)
3
CONCLUSION
12
4
REFERENCES
13
APPENDICES
14
14 16 18 22
Appendix A: Scope of assignment and methodology Appendix B: Survey Instrument Appendix C: Analysis of funded European and African projects against Roadmap criteria Appendix D: Details of highly successful global partnerships
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Critical Roadmap steps against EU initiatives and recommended projects Figure 2 Conceptual framework of funders and innovation activities within Partnership
2 10
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Key to tables 2 and 3 Table 2 European and African funded projects and partnerships Table 3 Globally funded projects and partnerships
18 19 21
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACP
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific
AFRINT
Research Project in Human Geography
ASTI (IFPRI)
Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (International Food Policy Research Institute)
AU
African Union
AVECNET
African Vector Control: New Tools
CAAST-Net Plus Advancing Sub-Saharan Africa-Europe Cooperation in Research and Innovation for Global Challenges
iv
|
CARD
Coalition for African Rice Development
CGIAR
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
CIDLID
Combating Infectious Diseases in Livestock for International Development
CORAF
Conseil ouest et centre Africain pour la recherche et le développement agricole
CRP
CGIAR Research Programme
CSA
Coordination and Support Action
DFID
UK Department for International Development
DONATA
Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa
DRUSSA
Development Research and Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa
EDCTP
European and Developing Countries Clinical Countries Partnership
EIP-AGRI
European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’
ERAfrica
ERANET Africa (FP7 type of project to enhance coordination)
eRAILS
Electronic Regional Agricultural Information and Learning Systems
EWG
Expert Working Group set up by the EU-Africa HLPD
EU
European Union
FARA
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FNSSA
Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture
FP7
EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013)
GAIN
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
HLPD
High Level Policy Dialogue
ICT
Information and Communication Technologies
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
JOLISAA
Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture
JPI
Joint Programming Initiative
NEPAD
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NGOs
Non-governmental Organisations
PAEPARD
Platform for African European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
PAERIP
Platform for African European Research Infrastructure Programme
RAILS
Regional Agricultural Information and Learning Systems
R&I
Research and Innovation
RBM
Roll Back Malaria
RINEA
Research and Innovation Support for EU and Africa
RUFORUM
Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
SASSCAL
Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Use
SCARDA
Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa
SIMLESA
Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa Programme
SSA-CP
Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme
STI
Science, Technology and Innovation
UniBrain
University Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation Network
WAAP
West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program
WASCAL
West African and Southern African Science Centres for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Use
WEF-NVA
World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture
WEMA
Water Efficient Maize for Africa
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the Bureau of the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) to support the members of the HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, South Africa and the United Kingdom, in elaborating a section of the HLPD Expert Working Group’s contribution to a Roadmap for an Africa-EU Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (‘the Partnership’). Through a desktop review and interviews with key informants, this CAAST-Net Plus report analyses existing EU-Africa R&I projects related to FNSSA and recommends potential instruments for implementing the Partnership over the short-, medium- and long-term. This report’s key recommendations for the short-term are: + That the CAAST-Net Plus and PROIntensAfrica projects, which have developed large but different networks on both continents, can be utilised to develop a jointly developed research agenda for the Partnership. + That a co-funded programme receiving funding from both the EU as well as different governments in Africa and Europe should be established to fund the identified research. The HLPD Bureau and some African and European governments have already initiated activities to develop a common pool of resources. + That to achieve adoption and diffusion of technologies it will be necessary to have the entire value chain involved in the Partnership—from governments to researchers to the private sector, including farmers. This report’s analysis of the different funded initiatives highlights especially the success of the Platform for African European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development, which should be built upon in order to change the composition of actors that have conventionally been involved in bi-regional STI dialogues. + That although the development of funding partnerships is part of the long-term implementation of the Roadmap, the process of catalysing these funding partnerships is an activity that should be initiated within the short-term horizon. The suggestion is that the RINEA initiative, which has been funded to support the HLPD, is appropriately placed to bring together conventional and non-conventional funders. Over the medium-term to long-term, this report’s key recommendations are: + That a platform supported by both the public and the private sector should be created. The formal structure would be responsible to complete the work started in the short-term—to develop a common research agenda, and to define a shared matrix to evaluate success. In the knowledge that many global partnerships fail due to the complexity of the interactions as well as the scale of the effort not being aligned with the goals that have been set, five conditions of success for collective impact are proposed for the architecture of the platform: backbone support, common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, and, continuous communication. + That the backbone is a multilayered structure that encompasses inter-continental, continental and national operating units. Global partnerships such as Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture, CGIAR, Association of International Research Centres for Agriculture, and Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture are some of successful partnership that should be consulted in the elaboration of the backbone’s architecture. + That the final structure should ensure that the partners carry out their activities by mutually reinforcing their individual activities and developing an effective communication strategy. The concept of working with the entire value chain and the linkages between research and impact will necessitate having a full suite of funders covering different aspects of the value chain.
vi
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1
The EU-Africa HLPD on STI was initiated in 2010 when Member States and Commission officials from both the European Union and African Union met to strengthen the bi-regional STI cooperation framework. The HLPD aims to adopt a coherent approach to the implementation of bi-regional STI, and to define common priorities for future collaborative research, development and innovation activities. In October 2011 the HLPD met for the first time in Addis Ababa and at the second HLPD Senior Officials’ Meeting, held in Brussels, agreed to work towards a longterm, jointly funded and co-owned R&I Partnership with, as a first priority, the role of STI in contributing to food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture.1 In 2014 the HLPD tasked a 10-member working group of experts from Europe and Africa to prepare a contribution to a Roadmap setting out short-, medium- and long-term milestones for the development of an EU-Africa Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture. In their contribution, experts call for a jointly developed research agenda focusing on sustainable intensification, agriculture and food systems for nutrition, expansion and improvement of agricultural market, and trade and cross-cutting issues. One section of the expert working group (EWG) contribution (Chapter 3, sub-section 3.4) concerns the specific topic of mobilising potential instruments for implementing the Partnership for the short- to medium-term and for the long-term. CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the HLPD Bureau to support South Africa and the United Kingdom, members of the HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, charged with elaborating Section 3.4 of the EWG contribution. This report is the submission by CAAST-Net Plus to WG1. This report expands on sub-section 3.4 of the EWG contribution to the Roadmap and, in particular, develops recommendations for the short- and medium-term horizon. Through desktop review work and interviews with key informants, this report has a dual purpose: first, to analyse existing EU-Africa R&I projects primarily related to FNSSA, and, second, to recommend in greater detail potential instruments for implementing the Partnership.2 Appendix A details the scope of the assignment and the methodology followed in arriving at the recommendations presented in this report. It should be stated upfront that none of the projects or platforms analysed in this study met all the criteria set out in the Roadmap. Different components of the projects meet some of the criteria. The process of developing this report was utilised to identify the projects that met certain criteria and could assist in driving those particular activities. It should be noted, in this regard, that most of the projects have clearly defined goals and milestones and that, although they may have the expertise, their budgets and timeframes might not be conducive to assist in driving the objectives of the Partnership in the short-term.
1 2
This includes the management of water resources for agriculture. The Roadmap uses the terms ‘partnerships’ and ‘instruments’ loosely. In this report, initiatives that are funded through, for example, the EUs framework programmes are referred to as ‘projects’.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
1
IMPLEMENTING THE PARTNERSHIP: POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS
2
The Roadmap envisages short-term, medium-term and long-term plans to ensure that the political momentum accompanying its development is not lost. In the short-term, starting in 2015 and extending through to 2017/8, the EWG proposed that the Partnership be implemented through drawing on the services of multilateral or bilateral collaboration projects of the EC, AUC or African and EU member countries whose objectives support the goals and aims of the Roadmap. In the medium-term and long-term the EWG recommends that a specific platform/structure be developed to support and sustain the Partnership.
The Partnership’s innovative steps Critically, the Partnership is expected move away from the conventional paradigm shaping STI cooperation between Africa and Europe. The innovative steps of the Partnership are: + That the agenda must be jointly designed. + That the Partnership should be jointly funded and funding should derive from both public and private sources. + That innovations produced by the Partnership should have the potential to have an impact and should therefore cover the full value chain. To achieve the goal of innovation, a process of continuous interaction between researchers, policymakers and the private sector, including farmers, was identified as axiomatic for the Partnership. The engagement of the private sector, from both continents, should therefore be sought in supporting the Partnership aim of translating research knowledge into tangible products, systems or mechanisms that can be adopted by the society.
Joint development of research agenda
Jointly funded competitive call for R&I
Jointly funded competitive call for capacity building
Develop partnerships across the full innovation value chain
HLPD activities
Joint design of Roadmap
Objective of EU initiatives
HLPD
Networking and coordination projects
R&I funding projects including capacity development
Network across entire value chain
Support to HLPD projects
Recommended projects
EWG
CAAST-Net Plus ProIntense Africa
ERANET COFUND, Horizon 2020, AURG
PAEPARD
RINEA
Fig 1: Critical Roadmap steps against EU initiatives and recommended projects
2
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Engage range of funders
2.1 Short-term milestones in implementing the Partnership (1-2 years) Expert Working Group recommendations
In implementing the Partnership, the EWG recommended a number of activities to the HLPD that should be undertaken in the short-term. + Develop Cooperation and Support Action (CSA) activities to identify priorities (mapping, gap studies), and set strategic R&I agendas. + Jointly fund competitive calls for R&I. + Jointly fund competitive calls for capacity development. Specific research projects were not however presented by the EWG, as the consensus was that these should be jointly identified and designed by collaborating African and European scientists together with other stakeholders in the framework of the Partnership. Recommendations for the short-term arising from this research
The following recommendations are given below to drive the development of the Partnership in the short-term. They concern specifically: + The development of a joint research agenda. + Competitive funding calls for implementing the Partnership. + Cultivation of a full value chain network. + The development of a funding instrument/platform.
Recommendation 1: Development of joint research agenda
While it is recognised that various stakeholders have each developed their own research agendas, the Roadmap calls for a jointly developed research agenda. In driving the development of this joint agenda, it is necessary to bring the different STI actors from both continents together so that the capability developed by different groups is utilised to its full potential. In addition, a number of coordinating projects have been funded over the years, such as CAAST-Net Plus and PROIntensAfrica. Even though each of these projects has limitations based on the focus of their work, geographical spread, or the expertise of partners, an analysis of these projects suggests that these coordinating projects have developed large and diverse networks on both continents that could be drawn on the context of the Partnership. It is therefore recommended that funding should be provided to develop priorities within the four research themes identified by the EWG. A so-called ‘lead consortium’ should be identified through a consultative call to drive the process and should be tasked to ensure that the disparate networks are all involved in the priority setting-exercise. A non-exhaustive list of projects/initiatives is contained in Appendix C. Overall, it is important that the full value chain of actors, ranging from researchers to funders to development agencies, are involved in setting the agenda.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
3
The prioritisation process within the four themes should be driven by the criteria set out in the Roadmap. It is also recommended that the prioritisation process for the different themes is conducted in a phased process. In the shortterm the following agendas should be developed: + For sustainable intensification, the meta-mapping has already been started by PROIntensAfrica as the socalled ‘Sustainable Intensification CSA’. + For nutrition and trade, and in the non-thematic areas of innovation, communication, and research infrastructure, meta-mappings studies would have to be initiated. In addition to the meta-mappings, while there are a number of other methodologies that have been formulated to develop research agendas, the exact methodology would therefore depend on the expertise that would be used to drive the process. Critical to the priority-setting process would be the development of scenarios for the future, understanding the role of the different crops, animals as well as fisheries in food and nutrition security, and fully appreciating the role of innovation in providing solutions to the constraints.
Recommendation 2: Competitive funding calls for implementing the Partnership
There are a limited number of initiatives that receive funding from a platform or partnership in order to re-grant the funds for research. In a number of studies (see for example CAAST-Net Plus (2014, 2016)), the successes of co-funded initiatives, such as EDCTP and ERAfrica, have been recognised. It is recommended that a co-funded programme should be established to fund the research agenda that it has been suggested be identified through a highly consultative process (see Recommendation 1). This initiative should receive funding from the regional organisations as well as different governments in Africa and Europe. To this end, it is common knowledge that the HLPD Bureau and some African and European governments have already initiated activities that will use the ERAfrica Initiative and the so-called ERANET co-fund (a Horizon 2020 call) as vehicles to develop the funding instrument. Yet another programme that should be used, in this context, is the AU’s Research Grants programme. In addition, a strategic HLPD Bureau dialogue with EC officials driving the Horizon 2020 agenda has resulted in Horizon 2020 calls that support the Partnership on topics such as innovation, research infrastructures, and earth observation. This dialogue should be deepened in order to promote the criteria required for Partnership funding, as they are significantly different from previous funding calls issued by the EC. The Partnership objective, to ensure that research has a likelihood of being utilised and brought to scale, and of being adopted by the intended communities, is critical for programme owners and managers if the funded programmes are to respond to FNSSA. As Francis and Talleh (CAAST-Net Plus, 2014) argue: Political will exists at the highest policy level in the African Union and the European Union for addressing the FNS challenge; however, while the major outputs of bilateral research cooperation supported by EU framework programmes and other instruments and EU member states have resulted in capacity being developed and the generation of knowledge, these remain disconnected from policy and the impact on FNS remains questionable. Scientific output is often not translated into useable products beyond the end of the project life cycle, and in cases where patents are generated the economic benefits are still to be realised. (p. xiii)
4
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Recommendation 3: Cultivation of a full value chain network
An important component of the Partnership is to have an impact on the lives of citizens in Africa and Europe. In order to realise this ambition, research and development support would have to be translated into impact ‘on the ground’. To achieve adoption and diffusion of technologies it will be necessary to have the entire value chain—ie from governments to researchers to the private sector including farmers—take part in the narrative and to be fully behind the Partnership.3 An analysis of the different funded initiatives highlights the success of the PAEPARD initiative, which should be built upon on to change the composition of actors that have conventionally been involved in STI dialogues. In developing the research agenda mentioned in Recommendation 1, the group developing the agenda should have a full spectrum of actors in view. In addition to the research community, farmers, small and large companies, and aid agencies would also need to be involved so that the agenda is needs-driven and the results can be utilised to improve FNSSA in a sustainable manner. Further to developing the research agenda, organisations from across the value chain that would be involved in the utilisation of the research results should be part of the team developing Partnership R&I projects.
Recommendation 4: Development of a funding instrument/platform
The success of the Partnership is likely to depend on creating a novel platform that would bring together partners and funders, who, despite having the same objective of improving the lives of people through FNSSA, had previously seen themselves operating within different paradigms. Although the development of funding partnerships is part of the long-term implementation of the Roadmap, this process represents an activity that should be initiated within the short-term horizon. The funding platform should involve a range of stakeholders, including regional organisations such as the AU and EU, national governments, philanthropic organisations, as well as private sector actors. The EC could also utilise one of its funded projects, RINEA (Research and Innovation Support for Europe and Africa), which has as its objective to provide support to the HLPD, to initiate a dialogue with STI funders as well as the broader cohort of development funders, including funders from both the private as well as the public sector. The RINEA initiative is appropriately placed to bring together conventional and non-conventional funders and its efforts in this regard should be accelerated.
2.2 Medium-term goal: Creation of the Partnership’s structure (3-6 years) Expert Working Group recommendations
In drafting the Roadmap the EWG recommended that, in the medium-term, the Partnership would lead to the creation of a ‘platform’ jointly funded by EU and African public institutions and with the potential for support from the private sector (including farmers’ organisations). The platform, as such, was envisaged to ensure long-term (>10 years) sustainability and support for the research-innovation agri-food chain ecosystem, promoting a vibrant community of STI FNSSA actors between Europe and Africa.
3
The different actors would of course take part in different steps of the value chain and not necessarily span the entire value chain.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
5
Recommendations for the medium-term arising from this research
Many large-scale initiatives fail due to the complexity of the interactions as well as the scale of the effort not being aligned with its goals. In a recent paper published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Shaping Global Partnerships for a Post-2015 World”, Sonja Patscheke and others report on a study of six global initiatives, drawing out lessons on best practices for leading and managing these partnerships. The details of the highly innovative and successful partnerships that were studied are found in Appendix D. In summary, five conditions of success for collective impact are proposed by Patscheke and others. The conditions are: backbone support, common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication (Patscheke, Barmettler, Herman, Overdyke, & Pfitzer, 2014).4 A number of these lessons are supported by two other studies that reflected on AUEU specific projects (European Commission, 2013; CAAST-Net Plus, 2014), where, even though the terminology utilised in these studies was different, the essence of the recommendations was similar. In the section that follows, terminology utilised by Patscheke and others has been used to provide recommendations on establishing a structure to drive the Partnership. The issue of funding for the Partnership is also addressed.
Recommendation 1: Three layers of backbone support
The organisational design or ‘backbone’ is considered one of the most important conditions in ensuring the success of a global partnership. A strong backbone allows for the development of mutually strengthening activities by the different partners and develops a sense of shared ownership whilst retaining individual identity and goals. It also provides a rallying point around a shared common agenda and ambition to achieve impact. As a first step in this regard, the Partnership should also develop its own brand identity. It is proposed that the Partnership’s backbone, as was the case in a number of successful partnerships studied by Patscheke et al (2014), is a multilayered structure. The Partnership’s inter-continental structure, its first layer, should encompass the two Commissions (with representation by all the necessary divisions such as R&D, Development and Agriculture), government partners, development aid organisations, philanthropic organisations, the private sector and other global partnerships that share the aims and objectives of the Partnership. One of the global partnerships that should be seriously courted is the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture. This could enable the engagement of the private sector in developing a truly public-private partnership. The WEF effort has approximately 250 private sector companies involved in the New Vision for Agriculture. The second layer of the backbone should have regional and, in this case, continental structures to allow for partner interest and contributions at the continental level to be pursued. The partners at the regional level need not be limited to the continental specific partners but also allow for specific continental interest to be represented by global philanthropy, multinational businesses and European and other government aid agencies.
4
Similar lessons have been drawn through the analysis of two other highly successful global initiatives within the agricultural space on the African continent. Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) is a public-private partnership to develop drought-tolerant and insect-protected maize with a goal to make these varieties available royalty-free to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa through African seed companies. Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) aims to improve maize and legume productivity of by 30 percent from the 2009 average, and reduce the expected downside yield risk by 30 percent for approximately 650,000 farm households.
6
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
The third layer should involve local players within countries to come together and ensure that there is delivery on the ground. The strength of Roll Back Malaria, for example, lies in its ability to form effective partnerships both globally and nationally. Partners work together to scale up malaria-control efforts at country level, coordinating their activities to avoid duplication and fragmentation, and to ensure optimal use of resources. It is therefore proposed that in the medium-term, preferably in Year 3, a formal structure is developed for the Partnership with criteria that would promote this backbone. The formal structure would be responsible to complete the work started in the short-term as well as to ensure that Recommendations 2-5 below are set firmly in place.
Recommendation 2: Advancement of a common agenda
The development of a joint research agenda is recommended as an activity within the short-term. The work that has already been started on developing a common agenda should be formally taken over by the Partnership, when established in Year 3, to advance a shared vision for the Partnership. In developing an inter-continental partnership it is vital that as many stakeholders as possible play an active part in setting up the agenda so that each stakeholder’s interest and expertise is addressed. This process will create the legitimacy for the partnership. In developing the New Vision for Agriculture, for instance, WEF used six months to agree on the core issues that needed to be addressed. A dedicated team undertook the facilitation process. The development of the strategy took another year to be completed. In setting the common agenda a process of regional and national consultations must take place.
Recommendation 3: Shared measurement
The inter-continental backbone support should play two crucial roles. The first role is to agree on the common agenda. The second role is to agree on a common set of outcomes and to define the matrix that would be used to measure the outcomes. The agreement on the matrix is the final test on whether the Partnership truly shares a common vision. Measurement systems and processes are often weak because there is confusion about the purpose of measurement. Shared measurement in collective efforts focuses on a small set of key indicators that are shared among all partners in order to track the partnership’s progress, make sure that activities remain aligned, promote learning, and establish accountability. For example, to assess the global malaria disease burden and set the partnership’s objectives, RBM engaged in a two-year consultative process with global health actors including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. The inter-continental secretariat of the Partnership would be best positioned to commission work on monitoring and evaluating the shared indicators. Most members would also commission their own assessments that would be in line with the organisations specific goals. An important shared indicator would be the internationally approved Sustainable Development Goals.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
7
Recommendation 4: Develop mutually reinforcing activities
Partnerships exist on the basis that more can be achieved if resources are pooled. These resources encompass both financial investments as well as non-financial activities. Crucial to the Partnership is the ability to mutually reinforce diverse activities. These activities could be at the continental level as well as at a local level. In the case of funding it is easier to work at the continental level to raise funds for local activities that enhance a shared vision. At the local level funding can be provided to strengthen common infrastructure to help implementation by the different players. The common infrastructure allows for the coordination of a diverse group of actors to build on each other’s strengths rather than competing with each other. In the case of GAIN the local coordinating committees for the fortification of foods involved a collection of representatives from government, private sector including food processing industries (eg oil refineries, flour millers, and salt factories), civil society, international agencies, development agencies, and academia. Subject or functional areas are typically used to organise the groups at the local level.
Recommendation 5: Continuous communication
Regular communication is feature of successful partnerships. It is essential to build trust and transparency (European Commission, 2013). Global partnerships involve a host of different organisations, all with their own unique organisational but also national cultures. The ongoing success of a partnership is dependent on the building of relationships and the common understanding of the objectives by partners. Regular face-to-face meetings of the partnership represent one of the cornerstones of successful communication strategies. In the field of malaria, actors reported feeling part of ‘one big family,’ with strong personal relationships holding the group together, largely as a result of their structured, regular communication. Another example is the WEMA project, which holds annual general meetings where the strategic direction is revisited based on the outcomes of the previous year. The meeting is also utilised to develop integrated implementation plans and deliverables for the following year. Practitioners meet within their particular working groups to align the continental activity with the national set of activities. The working group spans the full value chain from researchers to intellectual property lawyers to commercialisation champions to communication experts. After being established, global partnerships continue to require a high degree of maintenance to ensure that all the partners continue to feel ‘part of the family’ and to experience co-ownership. The success depends on their ability to address the concerns and priorities of a range of funders as well as others promoting the strategic goals of the partnership. This therefore requires a dynamic and disciplined external communication system.
Recommendation 6: Funding and funding mechanisms
This section deals with the different sources of funding that can be solicited to finance the Partnership. The prerequisite of having a functioning support infrastructure is adequate funding. Funders of collective impact efforts have understood that it is precisely by investing sufficiently into the right backbone support that the partners will be able to achieve their goals in a coordinated and more efficient manner. An analysis of a number of highly successful global partnerships revealed a diverse set of partners. They all have a range of funders depending on their particular objectives.
8
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
In the literature studied for the purposes of compiling this report, there has not been a consistent use of a number of terms related to funding of R&I.5 Within the context of the Roadmap as well as other EC-related literature, the terms ‘instruments’ and ‘mechanisms’ have been used interchangeably to describe the conditions upon which the funding is made available. The term ‘projects’ has also been used loosely. In the framework programmes as well as in Horizon 2020, projects have been used to describe a set of activities that received funding. These projects themselves could be established to fund other related activities through a call for proposals. However, in the Roadmap these projects have been referred to as instruments. As indicated earlier in this report, a novel feature of the Partnership is its concentration on the full value chain— from research to its impact ‘on the ground’. The concept of the value chain and the linkages between research and impact will necessitate having a full suite of funders, including: + Conventional funders of research. + Continental-level funders of research such as the EU and the AU. + National governments on both continents that support in-country as well as global research involving their country. + Philanthropy that would include foundations on the two continents as well as global funders with an interest in either Africa and /or Europe. + Private sector companies whose could be in personnel, intellectual property or financial. + Development agencies. + National governments that have an interest in development in Africa as well as in Europe (especially Eastern Europe). + National governments that have an interest in promoting innovation and creating economic activity. + Development banks. + Global partnerships that share the same objectives as the Partnership ie the global partnerships could fund some of the projects but could also be implementing agencies of the different technologies. + National partnerships. + Business partnerships. + Venture capital firms ie investments should be targeted at ensuring that commercially viable companies are set up to ensure that the results of research are fully integrated in the value chain. + Private sector firms ie in exchange for the contribution of their proprietary knowledge, companies could provide the final product for minimum profit in the developing countries whilst having a normal profit margin in the developed economy. The funding envelope for different projects would include different funders depending on the stage of the project in the innovation chain. As per the recommendation on short-term measures, a specific organisation should be tasked to engage with a range of funders. The function of fundraising would then be part of the function of the proposed ‘backbone structure’ that would manage and run the Partnership. Figure 2 below provides an illustration of the stages within the innovation chain and the spectrum of activities in each stage. These activities include:
5
Funding instrument: Is described as a platform or partnership through which funding can be dispersed. This would include the EU Framework Programmes or a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation programme. The proposed Partnership can be considered an instrument. Under an instrument a number of calls can be made to solicit proposals directed at specific outcomes or objectives. Funding mechanism: This relates to the manner in which the funds are disbursed. That is conditional grant, loans, equity, quasi-capital and guarantees. Project: These are initiatives that have applied for and received funding under a particular call within an instrument.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
9
+ + + + + + + +
Research (basic and applied); Development; Demonstration; Scaling up; Adoption and diffusion; Implementation at national level; Identification of challenges; and, Development of solution.
The grey boxes contain the suite of funders that would form partners within the Partnership. The funders could have overlapping objectives across the innovation chain.
+ Regional Aid Agencies
KEY
+ Government Aid Agencies
Objective
+ Development Banks
Source of Funding
+ Philanthropy
Activity
mo nst rati
Development
Ap
pli
ed
De
p
g-u
lin
Sca
on
+ Partnerships
c Ba si Research
+ National Governments + Local Business + Multinational Business
Adoption & Diffusion
Solutions
n
+ International Funders
tio nta
me
ple
Im
Promotion of Food & Nutrition Security
Challenges
+ Philanthropy
Fig 2: Conceptual framework of funders and innovation activities within Partnership
10
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
+ National Governments + Business + Venture Capital + Partnerships / Philanthropy + Development Banks
A wide array of mechanisms are used to fund projects within the STI space. They range from unconditional grants to secured loans to guarantees. Different funding mechanisms can be combined to support the same project. Their terms are adapted to the nature of each project and to the economic situation of the country. + Non-returnable Conditional Grants (NRCGs): NRCGs are essentially the transfer of financial resources from the funder to the applicant for specified activities or services. The funds that are allocated do not have to be paid back. They represent the vast majority of support for STI. This would include in-country grants as well as bi-regional and multilateral STI cooperation grants. Twenty one of the 23 projects that were evaluated in the extensive mapping study of EU-AU funding mechanisms had obtained funding through NRCGs (European Commission, 2013). Only two had a co-funding mandate. The NRCGs are also provided by development agencies such as development banks and country aid organisations. + Co-funded grants: Co-funded grants are similar to NRCGs except that funding has to be provided by different parties that have an interest in the project. ERAfrica and EDCTP are examples of EU framework programme initiatives providing some resources whilst the projects are co-funded by African and European governments. Co-funding principles have also been utilised in countries like South Africa to bring on board the private sector and commodity trusts. + Loans and guarantees: Although guarantees and concessional loans have been utilised to fund major infrastructure projects, there is very little evidence of it being used within the STI space. The UK Department for International Development has been exploring alternative funding mechanisms but as yet there is not much evidence of these mechanisms being successfully implemented + Intellectual Property exchanges: In the case of the involvement of the private sector there is evidence of the utilisation of protected IP by companies in return for the concession of marketing the final product at minimum profits. This has been successfully being utilised in the WEMA project as well as in the domain of human vaccine development. IP sharing can therefore be utilised at the level of the project but also at the level of securing involvement in the partnership. + Venture capital: Venture capital has also been utilised as part of the funding for projects. This has been used by partnerships such as GAIN to develop companies that can bridge the last mile of the innovation chain ie diffusion of the technology within society. The evidence we have considered in developing this report would suggest that the most successful mechanism to fund projects would be via the non-returnable conditional grants (NRCG) system. The addition of co-funding builds a sense of co-ownership but, as can be seen from the ERAfrica project, it has its limitations. Although NRCG would be the primary mechanism of funding, where venture capital and the private sector are involved the mechanisms would be different. Their contributions could be in the form finance, the use of their human resources and infrastructure, or the use of their proprietary knowledge.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
11
CONCLUSION
3
A number of projects have been identified from the raft of European and African-funded projects that can be used to drive the activities identified in the Roadmap within the short-term. This would however necessitate a dialogue with the coordinators of the projects to adapt some of their workplans and criteria to ensure that they support the objectives and criteria set out in the Roadmap. In the medium-term, by Year 3 a formal structure should be established with a core of group of funders/partners that share a common vision of utilising agricultural innovation to meet the challenges of FNSSA. More specifically, this structure should finalise a common agenda with shared set of indicators that would strengthen its funding bases and ensure an impact on the ground. In the long-term the Partnership would expand its work and impact by bringing on new partners and widening its research agenda. A long-term Partnership would have to be established in line with the critical success factors that have been identified from other innovative and successful global partnerships and the suite of funders would have to be involved in the Partnership to promote the concept of utilising STI to have an impact on lives and livelihoods.
12
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
REFERENCES
4
CAAST-Net Plus. (2014). Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security: A Critical Analysis of the Scope, Coordination and Uptake of Findings. Cape Town: Research Africa. CAAST-Net Plus. (2016). Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Health: A Critical Analysis of the Scope, Outputs and Potential Outcomes. Cape Town: Research Africa. European Commission. (2013). Mapping of Best Practice Regional and Multi-country Cooperative STI Initiatives Between Africa and Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Patscheke, S., Barmettler, A., Herman, L., Overdyke, S., & Pfitzer, M. (2014, February). Shaping Global Partnerships for a Post-2015 World. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from Stanford Social Innovation Review: http://ssir.org/articles/entry/shaping_global_partnerships_for_a_post_2015_world
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
13
APPENDICES Appendix A: Scope of assignment and methodology
The work commissioned by CAAST-Net Plus that is reflected in this report was intended to provide recommendations to the HLPD Bureau for the utilisation of present Africa-EU projects for implementing the Partnership. More specifically, its purpose was to expand on Chapter 3 of the Roadmap by recommending potential programmes/ projects to assist with Partnership implementation in the short-term, medium-term, and long-term. It was envisaged that the analysis would primarily be a desktop study, with a selected number of interviews with those familiar would the instruments to be undertaken. The assignment was therefore structured to allow the study authors to obtain information on the different EU/Africa R&I projects related to FNSSA in current EU and Africa programmes and to assess these projects in order to provide information on gaps and synergies as related to the critical steps that would have to be undertaken to implement the recommendations of the EWG. The analysis, it was envisaged, would allow the authors to make recommendations on: + Projects that can be utilised for the short-term and medium-term to drive the Roadmap. + The design of a platform for the long-term implementation of the Partnership. + Models of cooperation platforms. Methodologically, the assignment was comprised of the following phases: + Phase 1: Inception; and, + Phase 2: Development of an assessment tool. Phase 1: Inception
The aim of this phase was to elaborate on the terms of reference and the milestones that have to be achieved. The following timelines and foci were agreed upon as given in the table below.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
REPORTING DATE
Phase 1. The Inception report (a) Workplan
8th October 2015 (at inception meeting)
Phase 2. Development of tool (a) An assessment tool
15th October 2015
Phase 3. Draft Analysis (a) Draft analysis of the EU/AU funding instruments with respect to the HLPD Roadmap
15th November 2015
Phase 4. Final report (a) A final report approved by DST
Two weeks after receiving corrections requested by HLPD
The desk study, besides its own literature review, also relied on two key analyses of EU-Africa cooperative STI initiatives: + European Commission, 2013: Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe: Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008–2012.
14
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
+ CAAST-Net Plus, 2014: Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security: A Critical Analysis of the Scope, Coordination and Uptake of Findings. It was envisaged that further value would be added to the analysis through a mapping of the objectives of the different initiatives against the key features of the Roadmap (Appendix C). Phase 2: Development of assessment tool
Framework In undertaking the study, an assessment tool was designed to ensure that the projects were analysed within the context of three critical elements that were identified in designing the Partnership, namely: + The enhanced coordination of research relevant to FNSSA between African and European researchers and the broader mobilisation of the STI community. + The joint design of the Partnership by European and African stakeholders. + The direct linkage of research and innovation and the inclusion of the complete value chain. The EWG had proposed that the Partnership be organised around three indicative research themes and a set of cross-cutting areas, referred to as ‘Institutional Innovations’: + Theme 1: Sustainable intensification; + Theme 2: Agriculture and food systems for nutrition; + Theme 3: Expansion and improvement of agricultural markets and trade; and, + Cross-cutting Areas: Institutional Innovations. In addition to these indicative areas, the following five criteria were recommended to be used in the selection of research projects: 1 Relevance of the research to African and European priorities for FNSSA. 2 Capacity for joint research, based on principles of equity, and involving comparable and complementary expertise and resources. 3 Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge system with all stakeholders. 4 Scalability or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at national or even continental scales. 5 Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investment will also up-scale existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration. More than 60 projects/partnerships were evaluated based on a questionnaire and the details of the analysis are presented in Appendix C. In addition, innovative and successful partnerships/platforms were assessed in order to make recommendations on the issue of cooperation models. Based on the analysis and the lessons learnt, recommendations have were developed regarding the utilisation of different initiatives to drive the short-term activities that have been proposed by the Roadmap.
Survey instrument A survey instrument (Appendix B) was used to evaluate the 60 projects (Appendix C) in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Partnership.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
15
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
1. Which of the different sectors listed below are involved in funding the project/partnership? + Private companies + African government + European government + Philanthropy 2. Who was involved in setting the agenda? + Private companies + African government/s + European government/s + Philanthropy 3. Who are the collaborating partners? + European researchers + African researchers + European companies + African Companies 4. What implementing mechanism was used to obtain the proposal? + Competitive calls + Commissioned calls + Targeted facilitation 5. Does the project deal with any of the themes that were identified in the Roadmap? + Sustainable intensification + Agriculture and food systems for nutrition + Agricultural markets and trade + Innovation platforms 6. What is the key output of the project? + Research and innovation + Capacity building, + Networking + Provision of infrastructure 7. What criteria were used to award funding? + Only scientific excellence + Relevance: Relevance of the research to African and European priorities for FNSSA + Capacity: Capacity for joint research, based on principles of equity, and involving comparable and complementary expertise and resources + Likelihood of uptake: Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge system with all stakeholders + Scalability: Scalability, or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at national or even continental scale + Complementarity: Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investments will also up-scale existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration
16
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
8. Which geographical area can access the funding? + Africa + Europe + Asia + Americas 9. Which groups have benefitted from the project? + Researchers + Farmers + Input companies + Multi-national 10. Do the current outputs meet the criteria as set out in the Roadmap? + Likelihood of uptake: Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge system with all stakeholders + Scalability: Scalability, or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at national or even continental scale + Complementarity: Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investment will also up-scale existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration. 11. Do you consider it a joint and balanced EU-AU-partnership? Please provide reasons + Yes + No 12. Has there been a prioritisation process in developing the focus of the instrument or the projects funded under the instrument? + Meta-analysis + Workshop + African policy + European policy 13. Comments and quotes
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
17
Appendix C: Analysis of funded European and African projects against Roadmap criteria
Table 1: Key to tables 2 and 3
18
|
CRITERIA
RESPONSE
SYMBOL RESPONSE
SYMBOL RESPONSE
SYMBOL RESPONSE
Sectors involved in funding the instrument
Private companies
PC
African government
AG
European government
EG
Philanthropy
P
Sectors involved in setting the agenda
Private companies
PC
African government
AG
European government
EG
Philanthropy
P
Collaborating partners (this would be minimum)
European researchers
ER
African researchers
AR
European companies
EC
African Companies
AC
Prioritisation
Meta analysis
M
Workshop
W
Experts
E
Policy
P
Mechanism used to obtain the proposal
Competitive calls
CP
Commissioned calls
CM
Targeted facilitation
T
Themes identified in the Roadmap
Sustainable intensification
SI
Food systems for nutrition
N
Agricultural markets and trade
M
Innovation platforms
P
Key output of the project
Research and innovation
R&I
Capacity building
CD
Networking
N
Provision of infrastructure
I
Criteria to award funding
Scientific excellence
S
Relevance
R
Scalability
Sc
Likelihood of uptake
L
Geographical area
Africa
A
Europe
E
Global
G
Groups have benefitted
Researchers
R
Farmers
F
Companies
B
Value Chain
V
Current outputs
Likelihood
L
Scalability
S
Complementarity
C
Joint and balanced EU-AU-partnership
Yes
Y
No
N
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
SYMBOL
Table 2: European and African funded projects and partnerships
DESIGN PROJECT TITLE* *See List of Acronyms for expansions
CONTENT
Sectors Sectors Collabo- Prioriti- Mecha- Themes involved involved rating sation nism in the in in partners process used to Roadfunding setting obtain map the the agenda proposal
Key output of the project
IMPACT Criteria GeoGroups to award graphical have funding area benefitted
Current Joint and outputs balanced EU-AUpartnership
ACP NON FOOD OILS
E
ACP
ACP, PC
E
T
No
CD
S
ACP
R
R
Y
AfricaSNOWS
E
AE
AE
E
T
No
N, CD
R
A
R
R
Y
AFRINT
E
AE
AE
E
T
SI
CD
R
A
R
R
Y
AFTER
E
AE
AE
E
T
SI
R, N
R
A
R
R
Y
AGRICAB
E
E
AE
E
T
No
CD
S
A
R
L
Y
AGRINATURA
E
E
E
E
CP
S
CD
R
EA
R
R
Y
ALICIT
E
AE
AE
E
T
No
CD, R
S
A
R
R
N
AU Research Grant Programme
E
A
AE
P
CP
S
R
S
A
R
R
N
AVECNET
E
AE
AE
E
CP
No
CD
S
A
R
L
Y
BIOTA AFRICA
E
AE
AE
E
T
No
N
R
A
R
R
Y
CAAST-Net Plus
E
AE
AE
W
CP
S, P
R
S
AE
R
R
Y
DONATA (FARA)
A
A
A
P
CM
S
N
R
A
F
S
N
DRUSSA
E
AE
AE
E
T
No
CD, R
S
A
R
R
Y
EDCTP
AE
AE
AE
E
CM
No
R
S
AE
R
L
Y
EIP-AGRI
E
E
E
E
CP
S, P
R
S
E
V
L
N
ERA-NET ARIMNET
EM
EM
EM
E
T
S
N
S
M
R
R
Y
ERAfrica
AE
AE
AE
P
CP
S
R
S
AE
R
R
Y
eRAILS (FARA)
A
A
A
P
CM
S
N
R
A
F
L
N
ERANET MED
E
EM
EM
W
T
No
R, N
S
M
R
R
Y
Green Agric. & Food Innovation Cen.
E
AE
AE
P
T
No
R
R
A
R, F, B
S
Y
GlobE – Research-global food supply
E
AE
AE
P
T
S
R
S
A
R
R
Y
ICT P8
E
A, PS
A, PS
P
CP
No
R
S
A
R, P
R
Y
EM
EM
EM
E
T
S
N
S
M
R, P
R
Y
E
ACP
AECP
E
CP
No
CD
S, E
ACP
R
R
N
INCO-NET MEDSPRING Intra ACP mobility scheme
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
19
DESIGN PROJECT TITLE* *See List of Acronyms for expansions
|
Sectors Sectors Collabo- Prioriti- Mecha- Themes involved involved rating sation nism in the in in partners process used to Roadfunding setting obtain map the the agenda proposal
Key output of the project
IMPACT Criteria GeoGroups to award graphical have funding area benefitted
Current Joint and outputs balanced EU-AUpartnership
Joint Undertaking Bio-Based Ind.
E
E
E
E
CP
P
R
S
E
R
L
N
JOLISAA
E
AE
AE
E
CP
P
CD
S
A
F
L
Y
JPI
E
E
E
W
CP
P
R
S
E
R
R
N
LABLITE
E
AE
AE, P
E
CM
N
CD, R
S
A
V
L
Y
NEPAD Centres of Excellence
AE
A
A
P
CM
S, P
R
R
A
R
R
N
PAEAPARD (FARA/EU)
E
AE
AE
E
CM
P
N
S
AE
V
V
Y
PAERIP
E
AE
AE
E
CP
P
N
S
AE
R
R
Y
RAILS (FARA)
A
A
A
P
CM
S
N
R
A
R, F
S
N
ROSA
E
AE
AE
E
CM
N
CD
S
A
F
L
Y
SCARDA (FARA)
E
A
A
W
CM
P
CD
R
A
R
V
N
SSA-CP (FARA)
G
A
G
P
CM
S
R
S
A
F
S
Y
Tempus
E
E
E
E
CP
No
CD
R
E
R
R
N
UK CIDLID
E
AE
AE
E
CP
S
R
S
AE
R
R
Y
UK Research Clubs
E
E
E
E
CP
No
R
S
E
R
L
Y
UK Sandpit or Ideas Lab
E
E
E
E
CP
No
CD
S
E
R
R
N
UniBRAIN (FARA)
E
AE
A
P
CM
P
CD, N
S
A
R, B
V
N
AE, PH
G
A
P
CM
P
R
R
A
F
S
N
WASCAL & SASSCAL
E
AE
AE
E
T
S
R
S, R
A
R
R
Y
ZEI-WAI
E
AE
AE
E
T
No
N
R
A
R
R
Y
WAAP (CORAF)
20
CONTENT
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Table 3: Globally funded projects and partnerships
DESIGN PROJECT TITLE* *See List of Acronyms for expansions
CONTENT
Sectors Sectors Collabo- Prioriti- Mecha- Themes involved involved rating sation nism in the in in partners process used to Roadfunding setting obtain map the the agenda proposal
Key output of the project
IMPACT Criteria GeoGroups to award graphical have funding area benefitted
Current Joint and outputs balanced EU-AUpartnership
ASTI (IFPRI)
G
G
G
E
T
T
R
R
A
R, P
R
N
CARD (FARA)
G
A
A
P
CM
S
N
R
A
R, F
S
Y
CRPs of the CGIAR
G
G
G
G
P
S
R
S
G
R, F
L
N
GAIN
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
N
RN
R
G
V
S
N
Global Partnership for Education
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
No
RN
R
G
V
S
N
Global Road Safety Partnership
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
No
RN
R
G
V
S
N
Innovation for Poverty Action
G
G
G
E
T
No
R
R
G
R, P
R
N
RBM
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
No
RN
R
G
V
S
N
RUFORUM
G
G, P
A
E
T
S, P
CD
S
A
R
R
N
SASAKAWA 2000
G
PS
A,G
E
T
S
R
R
A
V
S
N
SIMLESA
G
G
G, P, PH
W
T
S
R
R
A
F
S
N
WEF- NVA
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
S
RN
R
G
F
S
N
WEMA
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
S
R
R
G
F
S
N
World Wide Fund for Nature
G
G, P, PH
G, P, PH
W
T
S
RN
R
G
V
S
N
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
|
21
Appendix D: Details of highly successful global partnerships*
*Source: Patscheke, Barmettler, Herman, Overdyke, & Pfitzer (2014) Global Alliance on Improved Nutrition (GAIN) achieves scale and impact by building alliances with stakeholders and representatives from every major sector in development. They work with diverse partners in several countries, including national governments, civil society, academic institutions and international bodies such as the United Nations, donors, foundations, consumer groups, and local and international private sector companies. GAIN is committed to developing new means of attracting investment capital to the nutrition sector. They partner with a range of financial institutions, including social venture capital funds, to establish financing structures that encourage local businesses to develop new projects. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations also play a crucial role in supporting the design and delivery of nutrition interventions and programs. Providing expert local knowledge, these groups help GAIN connect to individuals and deliver significantly more impact than they would alone. Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund is an Africa based US$ 244m challenge fund capitalized by multilateral and bilateral donors (the AECF donors) to stimulate private sector entrepreneurs in Africa to innovate and find profitable ways of improving access to markets and the way markets function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The Fund awards grants and repayable grants to private sector companies to support innovative business ideas in agriculture, agribusiness, renewable energy, adaptation to climate change and access to information and financial services. Its purpose is to improve incomes of smallholder farmers and the rural poor. The AECF is supported by the governments of Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as well as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) a specialized agency of the United Nations. The Grow Africa Partnership was founded jointly by the AU, The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the World Economic Forum in 2011. Grow Africa works to increase private sector investment in agriculture, and accelerate the execution and impact of investment commitments. The aim is to enable countries to realise the potential of the agriculture sector for economic growth and job creation, particularly among farmers, women and youth. Grow Africa brokers collaboration between governments, international and domestic agriculture companies, and smallholder farmers in order to lower the risk and cost of investing in agriculture, and improve the speed of return to all stakeholders. The Grow Africa Partnership comprises over 200 companies and governments in 12 countries. These companies have made formal commitments with the government in the respective country to invest in agriculture. The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership was launched in 1998 by WHO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank, in an effort to provide a coordinated global response to the disease. The RBM Partnership is led by the Executive Director, and served by a Secretariat that is hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The Secretariat works to facilitate policy coordination at a global level. The Roll Back Malaria Partnership is the global platform for coordinated action against malaria. It mobilizes for action and resources and forges consensus among partners. The Partnership is comprised of more than 500 partners, including malaria endemic countries, their bilateral and multilateral development partners, the private sector, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, foundations, and research and academic institutions. Their main source of funding comes from a number of philanthropic foundations, government aid agencies as well as development banks. An important lesson from the RBM partnership is that they also access funding from different divisions on the same institution such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Another feature of the RBM funding model is that it works with governments in endemic countries to access funding from the Global Fund on HIV and AIDS, TB and Malaria. The RBM budget
22
|
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
is small ($17m) in comparison to the funding that it gets from the Global Fund ($2billion). The Global fund itself receives its budget from governments across the globe as well as other donors such as foundations and companies. An interesting and novel concept of raising funds is the Product Red concept. Companies from a diverse range of industries provide RBM partnership with funding from the sale of their “product red” products. The World Economic Forums New Vision for Agriculture has over 250 members who have committed over $10billion dollars to the initiative. They have also lobbied the G7 and the G20 nations for funding. Like the Global fund they provide funding for initiatives that meet the goals of the NVA. The WEMA partnership (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) was formed in response to a growing call by African farmers, leaders, and scientists to address the effects of drought and insect-pest pressure in a cost effective way for smallholder farmers in Africa. WEMA Project Partnership consist of three funders Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Howard G. Buffett Foundation and United States International Agency for Development. In addition the WEMA partners are contributing through their expertise in breeding and field testing and germplasm. A novel contribution is made by Monsanto a private company that is contributing maize varieties from its global proprietary collection, drought-tolerant and insect protection genes, and its expertise in agriculture research and product deployment. The IP is provided royalty free to small holder farmers in Africa. However, they are able to sell the technology that would be developed by the partnership to large commercial enterprises at market related values. The ERAfrica project has been considered a major success by the authors of “Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe-Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008– 2012”. The scale of ERAfrica is however much smaller than the envisaged Partnership. During the interview process the project was described as one of the best examples of funding research. The aspect that was most appealing was the issue of co-funding. Countries from Europe and Africa funded projects that were within their priorities. However, the interviewee made two very pertinent observations. Firstly successful projects were almost exclusively from the countries that were co-funded. Countries that might have had a greater need in terms of poverty reduction were not able to use this funding source. In addition although 11million Euros were raised 2 million Euros were not allocated because the African countries ran out of a budget. It is within this context that funding should be raised to ensure that the Partnership is able to funded projects based on equity and social justice.
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
| 23
ABOUT THIS REPORT CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the Bureau of the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) to support the members of the HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, South Africa and the United Kingdom, in elaborating a section of the HLPD Expert Working Group’s contribution to a Roadmap for an Africa-EU Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (‘the Partnership’). Through a desktop review and interviews with key informants, this CAAST-Net Plus report analyses existing EU-Africa R&I projects related to FNSSA and recommends potential instruments for implementing the Partnership over the short-, medium- and long-term.
Follow us online Subscribe to our newsletter www.caast-net-plus.org/newsletter
|
www.caast-net-plus.org
Find us on LinkedIn
Find us on Facebook
Twitter: @CAAST_Net_Plus
Find us on Google +
enquiries@caast-net-plus.org
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE