EU-Africa Research and Innovation Cooperation for Food and Nutrition Security

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS Yanis Roussel Johan Viljoen

Building Bi-regional Partnerships for Global Challenges

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express appreciation to the individuals who agreed to be interviewed during the research phase of this report. Thanks are also extended to a number of individuals who commented on and/or contributed to the production of the final report: + Nejma André and Dr Jean Albergel of the Institute for Research for Development; + Dr Andy Cherry of the Association of Commonwealth Universities; + Gerard Ralphs from Research Africa; + Maria Maia of Portugal’s Foundation for Science and Technology; and, + Dr Nouhou Diaby of Senegal’s Ministry of Higher Education and Research.

*

ii

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

LIST OF TABLES

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2

1

INTRODUCTION

4

2

CONTEXT FOR THIS REPORT

5

3

METHODOLOGY

6

6

4

5

3.1 Research process

A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES

7

7 10 16 18

4.1 INCO-NETs and BILATs 4.2 ERA-NETs 4.3 Joint Programming Initiatives 4.4 Article 185 Initiatives

SYNTHESIS: FUTURE OPTIONS

22

5.1 Summary of challenges encountered by EU-Africa RD&I programming mechanisms

22

5.2 Building on the strengths: Options for future initiatives

23

REFERENCES

24

APPENDICES

25

25 26 26

Appendix A: Task description Appendix B: Desktop analysis data table Appendix C: Key findings of the ERAFRICA evaluation

IMPRINT

27

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11

INCO-NET projects CAAST-Net Plus project sub-divisions and sub-division co-leaders ERAFRICA project sub-divisions About ERA-ARD II ERAFRICA funded projects focusing on FNS Pros and cons of the virtual common pot Early JPIs FACCEJPI research themes Article 185 Initiative governance and funding EDCTP2 work programmes for 2015 and 2016 The PRIMA initiative

7 8 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 20 21

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AC

Associated Country

ANR

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France)

AU

African Union

CAP

Common Agricultural Policy

CAADP

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CAAST-Net Plus Advancing Sub-Saharan Africa-EU Cooperation in Research and Innovation for Global Challenges

iv

|

CTA

The Technical Center for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

EC

European Commission

EDCTP

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership

ERA

European Research Area

ERA-NET

European Research Area Network

ERA-ARD

The Agricultural Research for Development Dimension of the European Research Area

ERAFRICA

European Research Area Network for Africa

ESASTAP

Strengthening Technology, Research and Innovation Cooperation between Europe and South Africa

EU

European Union

FACCEJPI

The Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change

FAO

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FNS

Food and Nutrition Security

FNSSA

Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture

HLPD

EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation

INCO-NET

International Cooperation Network

IRD

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (France)

JAES

Joint Africa-EU Strategy

JPI

Joint Programming Initiative

MRS

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Senegal)

MS

Member States

PASRES

Programme d’’Appui Stratégique à la Recherche Scientifique (Switzerland-Austria)

R&I

Research and Innovation

RINEA

Network of Research and Innovation for Europe and Africa

SSA

Sub-Saharan Africa

STI

Science, Technology and Innovation

S&T

Science and Technology

TFEU

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

UNCST

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology

ZSI

Centre for Social Innovation/Zentrum für Soziale Innovation (Austria)

WHO

World Health Organization

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the 2014 Africa-EU Summit, the Bureau of the High-Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on science, technology and innovation set up an expert working group to contribute ideas toward a roadmap for a jointly funded EU-Africa research and innovation partnership on food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture. Once developed the roadmap was formally adopted by the HLPD in Ethiopia in 2016, and is set to play an important role in defining the direction of future bi-regional cooperation in the field.

In preparing for such cooperation however, it is important to recall that the intensifying of bi-regional R&I cooperation would not have been possible if not for years of prior engagement between the EU and Africa. And while there has been significant bilateral collaboration between EU MS and individual African countries, much cooperation has also occurred within the framework of a number of multilateral EU programmes, such as the so-called INCO-NET, BILAT and ERA-NET programmes, as well as through Joint Programming and Article 185 initiatives. These programmes and projects have set in place vital foundations for funding, networking, infrastructure creation and training, all of which is sure to contribute significantly to the implementation of the HLPD roadmap in years to come.

With this in mind, the current report looks back on some of the different EU-Africa multilateral research and innovation programming experiences — examining their strengths, challenges and outcomes using specific case studies — and proposes a set of key future considerations for national and regional policymakers in order to assist in the optimal realisation of similar initiatives in the future.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2

|

FINDING

RECOMMENDATION

EU-Africa multilateral cooperative ventures have done much to lay the foundation for more extensive collaboration in years to come, though a number of past projects have proven unsustainable in the long term. This has occasionally resulted in a re-creation of the same collaborative mechanisms and a redundant repetition of the same work done before.

Collaborative ventures should not be too closely married to restrictive timeframes, and partner institutions should make a real effort to ensure administrative continuity with regards to their participation by making sure changes in personnel are accompanied by proper hand over processes.

Communication between partners should be maintained even after project conclusion. In this regard a followup framework should be created and preferably a strategy for some form of continuation. Before creating entirely new collaborative structures, thought should be given to repurposing existing ones instead.

Smaller-scale collaborations and bilateral actions can play a valuable role in building the capacity and imparting the experience necessary for later participation in more extensive, multilateral ventures, notably in countries and institutions not habitually exposed to such endeavours.

Collaborative projects should be structured in such a way as to ensure full participation by partners not necessarily as endowed with resources and experience as those more regularly engaged in this type of cooperation. In this regard according equal status, responsibility and involvement to all participants regardless of means is crucial regardless of activity structure. No country or institution should be made to feel like a ‘junior partner’ even if their involvement is more limited.

Ensuring flexibility as part of the design of a collaborative project allows not only for rapid adaptation to changing circumstances but also for participation by a wide range of stakeholders and the addressing of multiple research subjects using different disciplines. In addition, a relatively open consortium structure allows for the inclusion of new partners even well into the project design and implementation phase.

Collaborative ventures should maintain an effort to publicise themselves and recruit more participants for as long a time as possible, even after the establishment of the initial consortium. Also, the operational framework for cooperation should be sufficiently adaptable so as to allow for its reuse for other purposes following the conclusion of the initial objective.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

It is possible to combine or ‘telescope’ certain collaborative ventures, thus simplifying their administration while simultaneously linking their implementation with regards to objectives pursued and challenges addressed. This also engages existing consortia and avoids duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.

Even when a particular collaborative action is created to target a specific region or group of countries, a mechanism should be factored into its design to allow for participation by third countries. Many societal and environmental challenges have a global relevance and a broad range of diversity in terms of engagement as well as resources from which to draw will be highly beneficial to any activities undertaken.

Ideally, collaborative actions will operate on a number of different levels, thus allowing for different levels of participation tailored to the means and experience of the countries and institutions involved. Maintaining a balance between too broad and too narrow a scope is a challenge which should be carefully considered during the project design phase. In this regard the involvement of all partners is crucial to make sure all interests and capacities are properly addressed and catered for.

Partners agreeing to engage in a particular cooperative venture need to do so with full commitment reflected both in their level of participation and in the level of resources they are willing to commit to it. In this regard, even if some partners invest less than others there must be no question of approaching the project half-heartedly or in an experimental fashion only, otherwise success and eventual sustainability will be extremely difficult to achieve.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 3

INTRODUCTION

1

In April 2016, the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation launched the Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (the R&I Partnership on FNSSA). A number of bi-regional FNSSA programmes and projects are set to operate under the umbrella of this new partnership, contributing to its objectives by responding to its R&I agenda (CAAST-Net Plus, 2016a).

In this report we look back on some of the preceding EU-Africa multilateral R&I programming experiences, examining their strengths, challenges and outcomes by drawing on specific case studies. In doing so our goal is to define a set of key considerations for those tasked with implementing future initiatives within the framework of the new bi-regional partnership on FNSSA, thus to assist them in enhancing the outcomes of their collaborations. As a result, this report is primarily aimed at both national and regional R&I policymakers from the EU and Africa set to work — or already working — toward this end.

4

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

CONTEXT FOR THIS REPORT

2

The Rome World Food Summit of 1996 defined global food security as a state in which “all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life� (FAO, 1996). According to the World Health Organization, food security is built on three pillars: food availability, food access, and food use. These food security pillars mean that the production of food should be in sufficient quantities, that the necessary resources and infrastructure should be in place to transfer food to consumers, and that there should be an appropriate employment of knowledge, water and sanitation to ensure food consumption replies adequately to the dietary needs of a given population.

Significant strides have been made toward increased food security across the world, notably within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals (now the Sustainable Development Goals). However, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that some 795 million people globally are still undernourished, with the vast majority of the undernourished living in developing regions. In Africa alone, 20% of the total population suffers from malnutrition, and one in four of its inhabitants are exposed to chronic hunger as a consequence.

In this context African countries have collectively developed the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Plan (CAADP), the objectives of which have proven to be well-aligned to those of its European counterpart, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In both cases special attention is given to the enhancement of income growth, the promotion of rural development and an increase in general food production.

However, while the FAO has signalled that economic growth is the primary driver to increase food security, there has also been recognition in both Africa and Europe that the shared goals of their agricultural policies cannot be attained without significant scientific and technological input. The 2014 Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2024, for example, formally recognised the need for R&I for the eradication of hunger. The role of R&I cooperation for FNSSA has also been an area of increasing focus within the framework of the Joint AfricaEU Strategy (JAES) (CAAST-Net Plus, 2014), while at the 2014 Africa-EU Summit the Bureau of the High-Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) set up an expert working group to contribute ideas towards a roadmap for a jointly-funded R&I Partnership on FNSSA. This roadmap was formally adopted by the HLPD in Ethiopia in 2016 (Ralphs, 2016), and will play an important role in defining the direction of future bi-regional cooperation.

In going forward, however, it is important to recall that this advancing level of cooperation would not have been possible if not for years of prior multilateral scientific and technological engagement between the EU and Africa. For example, while there has been significant bilateral engagement between EU MS and individual African countries, much cooperation has also occurred within the framework of EU projects such as the so-called INCO-NETs, BILATs and ERA-NETs, as well as through Joint Programming and Article 185 initiatives. All of these programmes and projects have set in place important foundations for funding, networking, infrastructure and training, which will no doubt play a valuable role in helping to implement the roadmap and its various operations.

As a result, as the two regions prepare to move forward in refining the EU-Africa STI collaboration for improved food security, it is useful to look back on what has come before in order to draw on lessons from previous experience.

By analysing the strengths, weaknesses and outcomes of past cooperation mechanisms we can create a set of recommendations for future, similar initiatives, and thus aspire toward a positive evolution in the bi-regional STI relationship. Equally important, this perspective also allows for the outcomes of long-retired programmes and projects to contribute to our present efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition in Africa and Europe, in this way producing additional value for their funding even years after their formal closure.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 5

METHODOLOGY

3

In this report we present a small but diverse selection of EU-Africa R&I cooperation programming initiatives with a view to qualitatively assessing their strengths and challenges. They are: + CAAST-Net Plus (INCO-NET) and ESASTAP Plus (BILAT); + ERAFRICA (ERANET); + Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change Joint Programming Initiative (FACCEJPI); and, + European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) (Article 185 Initiative).

The choice of which initiatives to feature is a strategic one, based on the overarching focus of the report as a whole, namely FNSSA and EU-Africa multilateral cooperation. Both topics are addressed to some extent by each of the programmes described below.

3.1 Research process The research process consisted of two phases, namely desktop research and key informant interviews. Desktop research was performed by scanning both academic and grey literature related to the initiatives listed above, the goal being to develop a basic information repository on their main features to serve as basis for a proper understanding of their functioning (Appendix B).

In addition, individual representatives of the selected joint programming initiatives were interviewed in order to develop a more granular understanding of success factors and challenges encountered. Interviews were performed by telephone or face-to-face and were semi-structured according to an interview guide. The list of interviewees included: + From the ESTASTAP Plus project: Constantine Vaitsas (FORTH Praxi, Greece) and Mamohloding Tlhagale (Department of Science and Technology, South Africa);

+ From FACCEJPI: Dr. Caroline Lesser and Dr. Maurice Héral; + From CAAST-Net Plus: Dr. Eric Mwangi (Kenya Ministry of Education, Science and Technology) and Melissa Plath (University of Jyvaskyla, Finland); + From ERAFRICA: Dr. Yaya Sangaré (PASRES, Côte d’Ivoire) and Dr. Jean Albergel (IRD); + From EDCTP2: Dr. Ole Olesen; and, + Teresa da Silva of the Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI) in Austria.

In preparing this report, we combined more generically available material with new interview data to provide descriptive case studies and key informant analysis, an approach which proved wholly appropriate to our goal of developing a set of ideas and insights about some of the key characteristics necessary to make joint programming initiatives work well.

6

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES

4

4.1 INCO-NETs and BILATs In order to develop its international cooperation activities within the framework of the “Capacities” section of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the EC introduced two project types, INCO-NETs and BILATS, which aimed at enhancing European cooperation with targeted continents, regions or countries.1 Specifically, INCO-NETs were created to reinforce bi-regional partnerships, while BILATs — as the acronym suggests — aimed to enhance and develop bilateral scientific and technological partnerships between Europe and so-called “third countries”.2 In this section we focus on one INCO-NET and one BILAT project, respectively CAAST-Net Plus and ESASTAP Plus.

Table 1. INCO-NET projects The INCO-NET projects, according to the EC (2008), aimed to: + Bring together relevant policymakers, researchers, the private sector and other stakeholders of the EU and of third countries that belong to the targeted region in order to identify S&T priorities and support the definition of S&T cooperation orientations.

+ Implement awareness and dissemination activities dedicated to the strengthening of the participation of the targeted countries/regions in the framework programme, including the support for information points in third countries. + Carry out strategic analyses of S&T trends and mapping of research capacities in the targeted region, including their links with corresponding EU research counterparts. + Systematically monitor and review cooperation activities in order to provide feedback and updating of S&T policies and priorities.

The early INCO-NET projects targeted the following regions: + Mediterranean Countries (MIRA); + Western Balkans Countries (WBC-INCO-NET); + Latin America (EULARINET); + South-East Asia (SEA-EU-Net); and, + Sub-Saharan Africa (CAAST-Net).

CAAST-Net and CAAST-Net Plus: Building bridges The first attempt at developing an INCO-NET between Europe and Africa resulted in the CAAST-Net project, which was funded by the EC for the period 2008-2012. With 18 partners from Europe and Africa, CAAST-Net “was conceived against the background of a global consensus that capacity in science and technology is essential to economic competitiveness, sustainable development and poverty reduction” (CAAST-Net Plus, 2016b). CAAST-Net activities covered six areas: 1. Understanding Africa-Europe S&T cooperation activities; 2. Investigating the relationship between S&T and development; 3. Supporting high level policy dialogues between Africa and Europe;

1

In 1992 the EC’s International Cooperation Research Programme was integrated into the Fourth Research Framework Programme (1994-1998) as the International Cooperation Programme (INCO). It has since been an integral part of all framework programmes.

2

It is important to note that these specific project types are presently being phased out. The term “third countries” refers to countries outside the EU and the group of its associated countries.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 7

4. Building partnerships for Europe-Africa S&T cooperation through engaging with stakeholders; 5. Engaging with Africa’s Regional Economic Communities; and, 6. Supporting FP7 participation.

In 2013, CAAST-Net Plus was launched to build on the results of CAAST-Net. CAAST-Net Plus activities are organised in thematic “work packages”, which aim to explore the opportunities for better cooperation between the EU and Africa in food security, climate change and health. Other areas of the CAAST-Net Plus project support policy dialogue and Horizon 2020 information-sharing, as well as the training of National Contact Points. Cross-cutting functions include communication and dissemination, and coordination and management.

Table 2. CAAST-Net Plus project sub-divisions and sub-division co-leaders

+ + + + + + +

Africa-Europe STI cooperation on the food security global challenge: Led by Institute of Research

for Development (France), the Technical Centre for Rural and Agricultural Cooperation (Netherlands), and Ministry of Higher Education and Research (Senegal).

Africa-Europe STI cooperation on the climate change global challenge: Led by the Research Council of Norway, the UNEP-DTU Partnership (Denmark), and the Ministry of Education (Rwanda).

EU-Africa bi-regional STI cooperation on health: Led by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Kenya), the Council on Health Research for Development (Switzerland), and the Spanish Foundation for International Cooperation.

Africa-EU STI policy dialogue support: Led by the Department of Science and Technology (South Africa) and the Project Management Agency of the German Aerospace Center (Germany).

Strengthening Africa-EU research cooperation partnerships: Led by the Science and Technology Policy Research Institute (Ghana) and the University of Jyväskylä (Finland).

Communication and dissemination: Led by Research Africa (South Africa) and the Centre for Social Innovation (Austria).

Coordination and management: Led by the Association of Commonwealth Universities (UK).3

Strengths and challenges A definite strength of the INCO-NET model is its breadth and its flexibility. Depending on the objectives and priorities set by partners and the EC during the preparation of the project, a wide range of activities can be performed and subsequent alterations can be made if required. In the case of CAAST-Net Plus for example, the dynamic political context between Europe and Africa changed during implementation, necessitating innovation and adaptive capacity.

In terms of conducting the project activities, one goal of most collaborations is to deepen relationships so that these can survive beyond the project lifespan. In this regard INCO-NETs are able to build strong networks among the participating organisations and stakeholders through funding meetings, conferences and workshops that allow the participants to learn how to work with one another, thus fostering effective cooperation both inside and outside the consortium. In addition, in CAAST-Net Plus partners elected from the start to operate within a co-leading system, with each work package jointly led by both a European and an African partner. This structure encouraged the intensification of the relationship between partners and assisted the process of mutual learning to unfold in a progressive way.

3

8

|

For the official CAAST-Net Plus brochure go to https://caast-net-plus.org/page/3/attach/CN_Brochure[English__v10-WEB.pdf

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

As far as challenges are concerned, human resource-related instability on the part of the project partners within each participating organisation is often a problem. While creating enduring relationships between project participants is one of the ambitions of the INCO-NET projects, these relations can be endangered when some of the participants move from one organisation to another. Indeed, this has been identified as one of the main obstacles encountered by INCO-NET projects to achieving their objectives. In order to address this challenge, robust personal commitment is needed from each participating organisation, and ensuring continuity is a key element for ensuring the project’s success.

Outcomes Each INCO-NET activity of course generates its own outcomes over the short- or long term, and it is not feasible to list all of these here. Nevertheless, taken as a whole the INCO-NET programme has arguably been vital in partnership-building and thus helping to develop a portfolio of contact between the EU and a targeted region. This is both useful for the specific project at hand and necessary for developing deeper cooperation over the long-term, allowing for the co-funding of additional research activities or the eventual integration of non-European countries into a structure such as an ERA-NET consortium, a Joint Programming Initiative or an Article 185 initiative. In this regard the INCO-NET can provide a good knowledge of each cooperating party’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as establish a sustained and sustainable political dialogue. INCO-NET actions have helped to play this role by funding meetings, workshops and dialogues — for example, a stakeholder forum organised by CAAST-Net in 2009 served as the ‘origin’ of ERAFRICA (an ERA-NET co-funding action discussed in more detail below), while the upcoming ERA-NET Cofund will be implemented by a consortium based around the organisational structure of the CAAST-Net Plus network.

BILAT projects BILAT projects were designed to organise partnerships between the EU and specific non-European countries in order to promote scientific cooperation, and can include both developing and advanced economies such as the USA, Canada, Australia and Russia. With regards to Africa, four countries are currently engaged in BILAT partnerships, namely Morocco (MOBILISE), Algeria (EARN), Tunisia (FETRIC) and South Africa (ESASTAP Plus).

ESASTAP Plus/ESASTAP 2020: The South African experience ESASTAP Plus is a BILAT project between South Africa and Europe. The acronym ESASTAP is short for European-South African Science and Technology Advancement Programme. Currently in its fourth iteration since the EU and South Africa concluded a science and technology cooperation agreement in 1996 (and now called ESASTAP 2020), the initiative aims to enhance cooperation through the participation of South African researchers in EU-funded projects while creating reciprocal arrangements for European scientists. It also seeks to develop new joint science and technology initiatives. The first two iterations of the project were coordinated by South Africa alone, while ESASTAP 2020 is coordinated by FORTH (Greece) with strong support from South Africa’s DST.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 9

Strengths and challenges BILAT projects constitute an effective way to develop cooperation between the EU and a specific country, involving the funding of a sustainable bilateral political dialogue. They also provide a good framework for stakeholders within which the creation of long-term partnerships can be discussed. Workshops or the exchange of researchers and research managers are some of the funded activities involved. Despite these strengths however, the main challenge encountered by BILAT partners is precisely the difficulty they encounter in developing the partnership beyond the funded activities. For this to be achieved greater commitment is required.

Outcomes One of the main objectives of ESASTAP over the years has been to increase South African participation in the EU’s framework programme, which it has successfully achieved and which has been documented elsewhere (ASSAF, 2015).

From the beginning of 2014 until mid-2016 South Africa had obtained a total of €13,14 M in funding from Horizon 2020, this being one of the largest amounts for any third country involved in the programme. In light of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the work done within the BILAT projects had some impact on the ability of South African researchers to successfully access EU funding opportunities, while also enabling both EU and South African stakeholders to pursue a useful political dialogue over a number of years. This helped both sides to deepen their knowledge of one another and to develop a mutual understanding which can only be beneficial going forward.

4.2 ERA-NETs An ERA-NET is another EU project type, launched in 2003 as part of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). ERANETs afford national and regional R&D agencies the opportunity to coordinate their efforts by launching a joint funding call for research projects. Management and call preparation activities are funded by the EC under strict European transparency rules, and projects are funded by the participating agencies using a virtual pot system (see Table 6 below). An ERA-NET can be thematic, focusing on a specific topic, or it can focus on a geographic region or target country. For example, one of the first ERANETs — EULANEST — targeted Latin America; ERAFRICA was also a geographic ERA-NET, targeting Africa. By contrast the ERA-NET SUSFOOD (Sustainable Food Production and Consumption, 2014) takes a thematic approach.

ERAFRICA: An in-depth case study ERAFRICA was funded through FP7 in the amount of €2 million. Its ambition was to extend the international dimension of the ERA to Africa by promoting networking of European and African research funders and to encourage joint calls to support long-term collaborations between EU MS and African countries. The idea of setting up an ERA-NET focussing on sub-Saharan Africa emerged from the 2009 CAAST-Net Plus stakeholder forum in Mombasa, Kenya (CAAST-Net, 2009). It was then taken up by the EC as an approach to implementing the JAES eighth partnership on science, information society and space (African Union & European Union, 2007), which led to its inclusion in the 2010 FP7 international cooperation funding line up.

10

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

Consortium design Coordinated by IRD (France) the ERAFRICA consortium initially brought together 13 institutions from 12 European and African countries: Austria, Belgium, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Kenya, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland and Turkey. Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Norway and The Netherlands later associated themselves with the ERAFRICA joint call during the process of elaborating its terms of reference. All countries provided funds to their national researchers and all were involved in the consortium’s management activities.

Project design In terms of leadership and management, a co-ownership approach was selected: the IRD was in charge of the organisation of the kick-off meeting, project meetings and administrative and financial management, while the DST was nominated as the project’s African Regional Coordinator in charge of publicising and expanding the project among African countries. Germany’s DLR was charged with the management of the call and submission evaluation.

Despite these task-specific responsibilities, overall creation and definition of the project was shared by all partners equally; and this was a key factor in ensuring ERAFRICA’s success.

Table 3. ERAFRICA work package sub-divisions

+ +

Review and analysis of S&T cooperation programmes in Europe and Africa; Communication and dissemination activities, including mobilisation of other funders and exchange of information; + Definition of a coordinated strategy for joint activities; + Implementation and evaluation of joint activities; and, + Management.

The call There was general agreement that ERAFRICA should avoid funding topics already extensively addressed by existing European programmes, but should represent the national priorities of the partners involved. There was also a great interest — notably from the African partners — to fund projects dealing specifically with innovation. In this context, and after consultation among the partners and with the project’s Scientific Advisory Council, three themes were ultimately chosen for the ERAFRICA call: + Renewable energies; + Interfacing challenges; and, + New ideas.

Having formally commenced its activities in January 2011, ERAFRICA launched its call for projects two years later, allowing for the support of the following research activities: + Capacity building; + Collaborative research; and, + Collaborative innovation.4

4

See ERAfrica website – The Call: http://www.erafrica.eu/_media/ERAfrica_the_call_web.pdf

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 11

Each proposal required the involvement of at least four countries, two European and two African. A virtual common pot of around €10 million was provided by the participating funding partner countries, half of which was provided jointly by the five African countries represented.

A total of 124 proposal submissions were received and these were reviewed according to the following methodology: 1. An evaluation of each proposal was done by independent experts selected from a DLR database (the creation of which all the participating countries had contributed).

2. Next, a special panel, equally made up of expert evaluators, created a ranking list of funding preference based on a synthesis of the individual project evaluations received.

3. Finally, projects to be funded were selected by the project partners based on their ranking and each country’s priorities and funding ability, with partners possessing more resources agreeing to ‘sponsor’ those with less in select cases so as to ensure funding the maximum number of projects possible.

After proposal evaluation and selection, 17 projects were jointly funded for three years to the amount of €8.29 million (CAAST-Net Plus, 2013). The selected projects involved 65 institutions from 10 EU states and 8 African countries.

ERAFRICA projects and FNS Food and nutrition security was not explicitly chosen as a funding topic in the ERAFRICA call, despite its importance in EU-Africa cooperation. This is partly due to the fact that, at more or less the same time, a thematic ERA-NET (ERAARD) focussing on the broader theme of agricultural research was already performing well and a related ERA-NET (ERA-ARD2) was being launched as well.

Table 4. About ERA-ARD II5

+

ERA-ARD II builds on ERA-ARD achievements and aims at improving the European contribution to international agricultural research and increasing the impact of European contributions in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable growth. + The consortium is led by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, and includes 17 participants. + It funded six projects for a total of €1.5 million following a call entitled “Improving rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Sustainable and climate-smart intensification of agricultural production”. The funded projects are: + CAMES: Impacts of conservation agriculture on macrofauna diversity and related ecosystem services for improved farmers’ cropping systems and livelihoods in the Highlands of Madagascar; + WASSA: Woody amendments for Soudano-Sahelian agriculture; + SEWS: Sustainable exploitation of wild silks in Sub-Saharan Africa + SSOPI: Providing sustainable field-to-market strategies on production intensification of selected key crops; + SIFSISDP: Sustainable integrated farming systems for improvement of smallholder dairy production while optimising crop production in milk shed areas of Malawi and Zambia; and, + CA-SubSurface-IR: A comprehensive analysis of subsurface irrigation in SSA for an optimisation and adaption of an environmental friendly irrigation practice.

5

12

|

ERA-ARD II: http://era-platform.eu/ERA-NETs/era-ard-21/

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

Despite this, the importance of FNS was still made clear in the ERAFRICA funded projects, to the extent that nine of the 17 selected projects address this topic.6

Table 5. ERAFRICA funded projects focusing on FNS In the New Ideas thematic area, three projects out of five address innovative solutions on FNS: + Fruit fly: Detection methods for fruit flies of economic significance to fruit and vegetable production in Africa and Indian Ocean islands; + Safe dairy: Health hazards caused by bacteria in traditional African fermented dairy products: Food safety and epidemiology; and, + SAPDRY: Development of grain drying facilities that use super absorbent polymers and adjusting the properties of SAPs to optimize drying of grain and control of aflatoxin contamination.

In the Interfacing Challenges thematic area, six projects out of ten directly address FNS, either linked to global changes or health: + ConneSSA: Connecting knowledge, scales and actors: An integrated framework for adaptive organic resource management targeting soil aggradation and agroecosystems’ resilience in SSA;

+ EndoAfrica: Vascular endothelial dysfunction: The putative interface of emerging cardiovascular risk factors affecting populations living with and without HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa;

+ FibrePro: Tailored fermentation for delivery of wholegrain and cereal fibre-rich products: promoting dietary fiber intake in Africa and Europe;

+ FolEA: Contribution of cereal-based fermented foods to folate intake in European and African countries;

+ INCAA: Innovative conservation agriculture approaches: Food security and climate action through soil and water conservation; and,

+ SOCBIOAfri: Addressing societal challenges of biotechnology in Africa.

The ex-post evaluation To develop conclusions about the effectiveness of ERAFRICA, independent experts were commissioned to undertake an evaluative report (Gmelch, Herrmann, & Muriel, 2014) (see also Appendix C). The conclusions were: + The relevance of the call is high, given its strategic fit within the EU-African partnership strategies and the topics selected. + The effectiveness of the call is average given the spending rate, networks established, the quality of proposals, and the quantity of applications generated. + The efficiency of the call is average given some time delays and the uncertainty of the administrative budget.

However, the high level of satisfaction with the management of the call should be noted. + The impact of the call is high. This does not refer to the impact of the research (as it is still too early for such a measurement) but to the capacity and experience built during the implementation of the call and the networks and trust established.

+ The sustainability of the call is high, given the stakeholders’ willingness to continue with future calls.

6

See ERAfrica website – The Projects: http://www.erafrica.eu/_img/article/ERAfrica_The_projects_2014-1.jpg

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 13

Strengths and challenges The ERA-NET model enables European funding agencies and third countries to contribute to a common call, both in financial and management terms. By funding the administration of the consortium, the EC supports joint programming between countries and enables national funding to be used only to support research and innovation projects, a very useful feature given the relatively limited resources of some consortium partners. In addition, an ERA-NET is a very open tool in which the rules are flexible and can be adapted for the different contexts within which it is used. One benefit of this approach is that the door to increased participation can be kept open for an extended period of time while preparing the call, thus ensuring the continued possibility of increased consortium diversity. And while it is crucial to have partners with wide experience in selecting and administrating projects to facilitate the relationship with EC and solidify the consortium, the real strength of the ERA-NET model, as represented in ERAFRICA, is the wholly equal participation of all partners. This ensures equal investment in the project’s success, as well as each partner taking equal responsibility for costs and risks.

Table 6. Pros and cons of the virtual common pot When a virtual common pot is designed, each partner decides to commit a certain amount of money to a joint call. The partners define their own funding rules, and will generally only fund national or regional research consortium members. The virtual common pot does not involve transnational flows of funding, thus ensuring simplicity and ease of financial management and reporting. In addition, given that each partner only funds its own researchers, there is no need for absolute financial parity between participating countries and institutions, thus avoiding excluding those with less resources to commit.

For all its strengths however, this system has some weaknesses. The most notable is that partners with less resources can quickly run out leaving wealthier partners with large amounts in unspent funds and an equally large number of deserving projects unfunded altogether. As noted above, in ERAFRICA this situation necessitated partners with more means having to “sponsor” those with less, effectively funding their researchers on their behalf.

In the context of the link between ERAFRICA and FNS, the latter is by nature a trans-disciplinary topic and addressing it ideally requires a wide scope and the possibility of linking it to other significant topics, such as health and global change. In this regard, the success of the Interfacing Challenges thematic area within ERAFRICA is proof that a call can keep the door open to innovative and optimal ways to approach FNS as part of its very design. Projects such as INCAA, despite their quality and their direct link to FNS, could not have been funded by a thematic ERA-NET such as ERA-ARD II. As far as challenges are concerned, and with the benefit of hindsight, the ERAFRICA call topics could be considered as having been too broad. Many proposals had to be rejected despite their high scientific quality, so choosing a more limited scope may have been more beneficial. Also, the project was not as well known in the French-speaking areas of Africa as it should have been, with a greater effort at communication required.

14

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

Outcomes It is too early to analyse the impact of the selected ongoing projects. Project management is now done by national partners, and the ERAFRICA consortium is officially closed from an EC point of view. Nevertheless, a joint ERAFRICA secretariat continues to be maintained in order to explore the possibility of continuation outside the framework of EU funding, testifying to the sustainability of the ERA-NET model and its success in creating lasting networks and multinational relationships.

In addition, some countries usually less involved in the EU’s framework programmes have become more involved in bi-regional cooperation as a consequence of ERAFRICA. For example, two Côte d’Ivoire institutions were part of the ERAFRICA joint call: the research ministry and PASRES, a Swiss-Côte d’Ivoire research support programme. In the latter case, participation in ERAFRICA is reported to have been very beneficial, and there is little doubt that exposure to this kind of international multilateral cooperative venture can lead to more of the same in years to come as a result.

ERA-NET evolutions: ERA-NET Plus and ERA-NET Cofund As part of FP7 the ERA-NET Plus funding modality was introduced (Niehoff, 2014), differing from standard ERA-NETs primarily with regards to funding. Thus, instead of financing management activities, the EC would instead top up partial funding accorded to selected research projects. This mechanism has been used less than the standard model, as it involves significant administrative complexity and is by definition limited to only one call (Barre & Olivier, 2012).

None of the ERA-NET Plus initiatives launched involved either sub-Saharan Africa or the topic of FNS. The Eighth Framework Programme (Horizon 2020) introduced the ERA-NET Cofund instrument, which combines elements of both the classic ERA-NET model and ERA-NET Plus: a 33% EC top-up contribution can now be used to fund both management and projects’ activities. This mechanism allows more flexibility in project selection since EC resources can be used to supplement insufficient resources on the part of individual project partners. At least one geographical ERA-NET Cofund call has already been launched as part of Horizon 2020’s Societal Challenges theme, focusing specifically on FNS for the African continent and with early 2016 set as deadline for proposal submission. If successful, this effort could prove to be a key initiative for future European and African collaboration in R&I. Significantly, ERA-NET Cofund actions are open to African participants, with initiatives such as the ERA-GAS call — launched in March 2016 — allowing the inclusion of African partners as long as they are funded by their national funding agencies. In all instances, however, the main features of ERA-NETs under Horizon 2020 remain: + Priority given to action rather than setting up networks or governance structures; + Broadened participation; + Support for mission-orientation with respect to the big challenges; and, + Consideration of institutional funding resources.

While principally designed for EU MS and associated country institutions therefore, the ERA-NET mechanism has evolved to include non-European partners as well. This form of research programming constitutes an effective way to create a network among funding countries while avoiding activities which may be too ambitious and which could ‘scare off’ less-experienced or less financially endowed potential partners.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 15

4.3 Joint Programming Initiatives Joint Programming Initiatives (or JPIs) were introduced in 2008 during the French presidency of the European Council.

Since a major part of European research is conducted at a national level, it was thought that European research strategy should not rest on the framework programme alone and that there needed to be greater alignment between national research agendas in specific areas. Also, even though European national research programmes are among the best in the world, it was understood that they couldn’t singlehandedly address major societal challenges such as climate change, ensuring an adequate energy and food supply and promoting healthy ageing. JPIs were therefore created to function as the main European intergovernmental structure for forging the kind of international multilateral cooperation required.

The main objective of a JPI is to find agreement on a common research agenda in order to facilitate collaboration for a 4 to 5 year period. This agenda usually defines a main axis, which is then divided into specific themes. Once agreement has been reached, MS and other participants are encouraged to incorporate the agenda into their national research policies, since independent research strategies are unlikely to have much success coping with major transnational challenges and could even run the risk of damaging international cooperative efforts. Once the agenda is set however, JPIs themselves can define specific activities for implementing it.

Table 7. Early JPIs The first JPI was adopted as a pilot programme by the Council in the area of neurodegenerative diseases, and in particular Alzheimer’s disease (being the so-called Joint Programming in Neurodegenerative Diseases project). Following this, a conference on JPIs was organised in October 2010, leading in December to the official Council launch of three “first wave” JPIs: + Agriculture, food security and climate change (FACCEJPI); + Cultural heritage and global change: A new challenge for Europe (JPI Cultural Heritage); and, + A healthy diet for a healthy life (HDHL-JPI).

A year later six “second wave” JPIs were launched: + Healthy and productive seas and oceans (OCEANS-JPI); + Urban Europe: Global urban challenges, joint European solutions (JPI Urban Europe); + Connecting climate knowledge for Europe (JPI CLIMATE); + Water challenges for a changing world (JPI WATER); + The microbial challenge: An emerging threat to human health (JPI AMR); and, + More years, better lives: The potential and challenges of demographic change (JPI MYBL).

Spanning broad thematic areas and open to multi-sectoral research, JPIs now provide the primary opportunity for European national governments to work together on common priorities, with each MS represented in the JPI governing structure by its research ministry or a delegated entity. This allows the participants to set up an agenda that will be endorsed by national stakeholders, thus having a real impact on future funding.

16

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

FACCEJPI: A profile The Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCEJPI) was launched by the European Council for an initial duration of five years, which was to terminate in October 2015. It brought together 21 countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom), all committed to building an integrated ERA addressing the interconnected challenges of sustainable agriculture, food security and the impacts of climate change. Its research agenda defined short-, medium- and long-term research priorities and set out joint actions for each of the five selected core themes listed (FACCEJPI, 2012). It aimed to reinforce infrastructures and platforms, training and capacity building in Europe as well as knowledge exchange. It also foresaw the evaluation and monitoring of its activities.

Table 8. FACCEJPI research themes

+ + + + +

Sustainable food security under climate change, based on an integrated food systems perspective: modelling, benchmarking and policy research; Environmentally-sustainable growth and intensification of agricultural systems under current and future climate and resource availability; Assessing and reducing trade-offs between food production, biodiversity and ecosystem services; Adaptation to climate change throughout the whole food chain, including market repercussions; and, Greenhouse gas mitigation: nitrous oxide and methane mitigation in the agriculture and forestry sector, carbon sequestration, fossil fuel substitution and mitigating GHG emissions induced by indirect land use change.

These core research themes are gradually taken into account by national research agendas to align national programmes where much research is already undertaken and to inspire pilot joint actions on topics where research is lacking.

Source: FACCEJPI (2012)

An implementation plan was launched in the summer of 2013, setting out short-term and mid-term priority actions to implement the FACCEJPI research agenda, in alignment with the first Horizon 2020 work programme. In 2014 the FACCEJPI decided to launch a first biennial implementation plan for 2014-2015, going beyond the actions implemented around the five core research themes and suggesting a balanced approach around three categories of actions for research (namely, aligning of existing research already funded at a national level, exploring future research topics through workshops created for that purpose, and investing in specific thematic areas via either calls or ERA-NETs). Some examples of activities already implemented or in development include: + MACSUR, the first FACCE so-called “Knowledge Hub” launched in June 2012 for a period of three years and bringing together 76 research groups from 18 countries. MACSUR aims to improve the characterisation of European food security due to climate change and to enhance adaptation capacity through improvements in modelling of the impacts of climate change on agriculture. Its implementation cost is estimated at a total of around 15 million €;

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 17

+

Two new ERA-NETS as part of the Horizon 2020 programme (in addition to working with the approximately 15 existing thematically-related ERA-NETs); and, + A multi-partner call on Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research conceived in discussion with the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, with several FACCEJPI partners participating. In addition, a joint call was launched in collaboration with the Belmont Forum and another one with the project BiodivERsa.

Strengths and challenges Once a JPI is set up it has access to a wide spectrum of opportunities to make national agendas converge around common priorities. In addition, some try to innovate and find new tools and instruments for harmonising national activities within their thematic area, as a result of which there can be big differences from one JPI to another.

In contrast to ERA-NETs, JPIs are MS driven approaches that go beyond simple ‘joint call logic’ (though the two instruments can operate in complementary fashion — for example, ERA-NETs can exist under the umbrella of JPIs).

While the ERA-NET schemes generally operate for a fixed period of time, the JPI is not as strictly limited to a certain timeframe but focuses on the longer-term instead. In addition, ERA-NETs focus on public research programmes while JPIs focus on the pooling of institutionalised funding (non-competitive funding) by the MS while also aiming to act as a platform to provide policymakers with scientific input.

On the negative side, as JPIs were conceived as a tool for the alignment of European strategic agendas they did not originally include any developing countries (even if some countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America are involved in some of the partnerships). Thus, while ERA-NETs were open to international cooperation, no African countries were part of any JPI consortia. This may be set to change however, as recently some emerging countries having lost their automatic eligibility for Horizon 2020 funding have begun turning to intergovernmental cooperation initiatives such as JPIs as a collaborative alternative. For example, negotiations between India and the JPI Urban Europe are currently underway and supported by a geographic INCO-NET, possibly a sign of a progressive integration of non-industrialised countries into the European research strategy (though always with an emphasis on the alignment of agendas). In this context three JPIs could possibly be linked to the FNS thematic area, with notably the FACCEJPI focusing four of its five core research themes on food security and production. The two other JPIs that could have a direct link to FNS through a trans-sectoral approach are the JPI WATER and the JPI HDHL.

4.4 Article 185 Initiatives Article 185 Initiatives are named after Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

This type of initiative enables “the EU to participate in research programmes undertaken jointly by several MSs, including participation in the structures created for the execution of national programmes. The actions supported may cover subjects not directly linked to the themes of the Framework Programme (FP), as far as they have a sufficient EU added value.”

18

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

Article 185 initiatives are set up by a joint decision of the European Parliament and Council. The first Article 185 initiative was the EDCTP (European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership), which was launched in 2003. Between 2007 and 2013 four other Article 185 initiatives were launched: EUROSTARS: Financial support to market-oriented research projects initiated and driven by R&D performing SMEs (2008); AAL: Joint research programme on “Ambient Assisted Living” (2008); EMRP: Joint research programme in the field of Metrology (2009); and, BONUS: Joint research programme in the field of Baltic Sea research (2010).

Table 9. Article 185 Initiative governance and funding The governing body of an Article 185 initiative is a legal entity, the Dedicated Implementation Structure (DIS), which acts on behalf of the EC and the participating states. As the EC contributes to the activities it maintains a strong presence within the governing structure, and this is one of the main differences between Article 185 and Joint Programming Initiatives. This structure can take several legal forms depending on the legal frameworks available in the country in which it is based, as well as the existing intergovernmental structures.

The DIS in turn is driven by an Executive Board which includes EC and Participating States’ representatives, which in the latter case can be either a funding agency or another mandated organism.

The Article 185 funding system operates on a co-funding model in which MS, Participating States and the EC pool funds to finance common research and coordination activities. Each state funds projects involving its own research teams for 5-7 years, while the EC contributes to the funded projects and activities at a rate of 30% to 50% of the total research budget. Additional involvement by the private sector and/or third party countries is also possible. This can lead to a significant amount of money being invested, according the consortium a great deal of autonomy and an ability to address issues at a global scale.

As the structures created by an Article 185 Initiative operate with a significant amount of independence, the activities these initiatives conduct can vary a lot. However, they can be broadly split into three main sets: 1. Assessment of a Strategic Research Agenda: Partners agree on setting up a strategic common agenda on the main theme in which the Article 185 Initiative is involved. This allows for better coordination between countries and national research agendas and is developed following widespread consultation with various stakeholders, including scientists, policymakers and funders. The main goal is to avoid incoherence in global policymaking and increase efficiency: for example, the BONUS initiative specified five strategic objectives in order to address the main issues of concern in the Baltic Sea region.

2. Research programming: The main pillar of an Article 185 Initiative for implementing its strategic agenda is the launching of joint calls through which participating countries pool and invest their funding. Calls can cover a wide range of project activities provided they fit into the initial scope of the initiative, and are usually funded from a virtual common pot made up of contributions from the EC, participating states and third party countries.

3. Coordination and support actions: Various activities can be driven by an Article 185 initiative to enhance research framework conditions, student training, the dissemination of the knowledge produced through research activities or the accessibility of calls. This is especially useful in a sub-Saharan context, where a large amount of work still needs to be done in order to ensure the inclusion of local scientists in bi-regional networks.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 19

EDCTP The EDCTP partnership, originally established to last until 2013, involved 16 European countries (14 MS plus Switzerland and Norway) which conducted projects in 30 sub-Saharan African countries and which focused on three diseases: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Seeking to pool resources and coordinate activities, the partnership was supported by the EU with a €400 million commitment from the participating countries. It was subsequently extended in 2014, in the form of EDCTP2, which aimed specifically at the reduction of poverty-related diseases. EDCTP2 will run until 2024.

Operating out of one European and one African office — the first located in The Hague, the second in Cape Town — from the very beginning the initiative placed a strong emphasis on maintaining a balance between the European and African participants. So far six funding calls have been launched within the framework of the EDCTP and, to date, it remains the only Article 185 initiative that explicitly targets a development-related topic.

The total budget per Article 185 initiative varies from 100 million euros (BONUS) to 700 million euros (AAL) for an operational period of 5-7 years. Yet most contributions by MS remain in-kind, meaning that total budgets are still smaller than they could be (EDCTP, 2014).

From EDCTP to EDCTP2 Two main evolutions can be identified in the transition from EDCTP to EDCTP2. First, the scope has been slightly widened: EDCTP2 now tackles infectious diseases and neglected diseases, seeking to become the key actor for addressing poverty-linked diseases.

Table 10: EDCTP2 work programmes for 2015 and 2016 Activities in 2015 were divided into three distinct types of actions: Research and Innovation Actions, Coordination and Support Actions, Training and Mobility Actions. The total 2015 budget was €132,3M, with contributions from the EU (71,8M€), Participating States (57,3M€) and Third Parties (3,2M€). Call topics included: + Supporting clinical trial research and related activities; + Strategic actions supporting large-scale clinical trials; + Fostering capacity development for clinical trials and related research in sub-Saharan Africa; + EDCTP regional networks; + Research capacity development in support of the EVD (Ebola virus disease) response + EDCTP-WHO/TDR (World Health Organisation special programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases) clinical research and development fellowship;

+ Senior Fellowships; and, + Career Development Fellowships.

Continues overleaf...

20

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

Research calls worth €138.6 million were launched by EDCTP2 in 2016. Calls cover the following areas: + €70 million: Vaccines for poverty-related diseases + €10 million: Research and clinical management of patients in PRD epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa + €28 million: Strategic actions supporting large-scale clinical trials + €10 million: Clinical trials and operational research studies to optimise the use of products for povertyrelated diseases in mothers, newborns, children and/or adolescents + €2 million: Ethics and regulatory capacities + €3.5 million: EDCTP-WHO/TDR Clinical Research and Development Fellowships + €3 million: Senior Fellowships + €2.1 million: Career Development Fellowships

In terms of the EDCTP governing structure, the African partners maintained the importance they had before, being as numerous as the European countries represented in the general assembly, the main decision-making body of the EDCTP. This makes it one of the rare examples of a structure where African countries possess quite a strong influence even if often lacking in the same financial resources as their European counterparts. The other main evolution concerned the relationship with the Commission, which in the new partnership has a stronger influence regarding the preparation of the Work Programme as well as its implementation: everything has to be approved by the EC and structured in accordance with its rules.

Strengths and challenges Having an independent governing association and a critical budget size allows an Article 185 initiative such as the EDCTP programme to address a research theme in an ambitious way and on multiple levels, from the training of young researchers to the conducting of high-level research activities. On the other hand, having such a precise scope makes expansion to transdisciplinary research difficult. In terms of EU-Africa FNS collaboration, the EDCTP experience can however prove useful, as a number of commonalities can be found between the topics of health and FNS: both have to be addressed by multiple stakeholders, both are impacted by global changes such as urbanisation and climate change, and both are major societal challenges specifically in developing countries. At the same time, EDCTP is only focussing on the clinical trials phase of research, not seeking to create a global research initiative as would be the case for FNS. Also, launching an Article 185 initiative requires political will and a huge partner investment, while its governing structures are particularly dense and not easily navigated.

While no Article 185 Initiative has been launched since BONUS in 2010, the MEDSPRING INCO-NET identified this instrument as the most suitable to tackle the global challenges of the Mediterranean region in an integrated way, leading to the preparation of the PRIMA initiative (Partnership in Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area). The implementation of the PRIMA Initiative will be a crucial indicator of the effectiveness of an Article 185 instrument as applied to a FNS-related theme.

Table 11: The PRIMA initiative In December 2014, nine EU MS submitted a proposal for the participation of the EU in a joint R&I programme in which food systems and water resources were identified as the two major thematic fields to be addressed.

They were joined by seven non-EU countries as well as the Czech Republic and Luxembourg. So far 200 million euros have been committed to the PRIMA initiative over a 10-year period, starting in 2018.7

7

https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=prima

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 21

SYNTHESIS: FUTURE OPTIONS

5

Having highlighted some of the strengths, challenges and outcomes associated with different EU-Africa programming mechanisms thus far, this section presents a synthesis of the challenges encountered and a set of considerations for future bi-regional cooperative endeavours.

5.1 Summary of challenges encountered by EU-Africa R&I programming mechanisms Sustainability While a number of EU-Africa actions have taken place in the field of FNSSA and related global challenge areas, few have been systemically linked and the end of a particular project has usually meant the end of networking activities between partners. Both predetermined time limits and human resources-related instability with regards to partner institutions have resulted in few collaborations expanding beyond the scope of their initial mandate, meaning that for all the good work done these cooperative ventures have lacked sustainability and necessitated the continued creation of new projects and programmes from scratch.

Interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches needed Global changes and related challenges affect both European and African societies each day, and their causes and impacts cannot be tackled independently anymore. For example, FNSSA issues are directly linked to climate change and health issues, so where R&I aim to address these issues the divisions between traditional scientific fields need to be reconsidered and bi-regional projects need to reflect a stronger interdisciplinary approach. Actors from across sectors — i.e. government, civil society and business — need to be drawn into the discussions. Unfortunately, there is a very thin line between projects broad enough in scope to address the full complexity of a given challenge and those sporting too broad a focus to have any significant real-world impact. In addition, the complexity of largescale, interdisciplinary ventures often results in a related complexity with regards to project administration and management, which can be daunting for potential partners lacking in experience and resources.

Inclusiveness As a result of the abovementioned concern, many European-led initiatives typically involve the same set of partner countries (from Africa as well as Europe), the involvement of which in EC programmes is already well-established.

This excludes many other countries with both the potential for contributing to joint research on FNSSA and the need for international engagement in this regard. Indeed, due to a lack of resources many of these countries face difficulties in participating in networking activities even before a given project starts, and once a consortium has been established there is rarely a sufficiently expansive outreach effort aimed at bringing in more partners.

Financial contribution One of the major challenges for bi-regional cooperation projects on FNSSA is to secure cash funding from the participating institutions, which often tend to prefer in-kind contributions. As a result, many initiatives rely disproportionally on EC support, which invariably comes to an end. This ‘donor dependence’ generally has a very negative effect on the long-term sustainability of a given collaboration, exacerbating most of the challenges already mentioned.

22

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

5.2 Building on the strengths: Options for future initiatives Addressing finance, governance and sustainability in project design There has to be an alternative to open governance structures, in which partners can commit only to those actions that are of interest to them, and more commitment-based structures, where the partners have to agree on agenda priorities and financing/implementation actions. A flexible governance structure for joint FNSSA projects, for example, could allow for the creation of a ‘consortium core’ in which the more involved countries should figure prominently. A ‘consortium periphery’ could contain countries which only want to commit themselves to specific actions. This type of structure could help to strengthen sustainability, involving more actors in decision-making processes. In all cases however, the key is for all partners to have an equal say in project creation and equal ownership of its implementation. This will allow for activities to focus on the priorities of the partners themselves while simultaneously being adapted to the limitations of those possessing less resources and in turn will ensure everyone has an equal stake in the success of the collaborative venture.

Defining the interfacing challenges in agenda-setting processes Defining clear priorities and involving stakeholders from across sectors in decision-making processes will strengthen the ability of projects to address the interfaces between global challenges such as food security, climate change and health. This type of approach will demonstrate to the participating countries that they have a clear interest in making financial commitments if they want to address global challenges in an integrated way. At the same time, it will broaden participation in funded research and ensure that results have real-world impact.

Welcoming new partners in consortium building Our research recommends that existing consortia and networks must be used to facilitate commitment and partnership-building between as many African and European organisations as is feasible. This will enhance the cooperation between partners (and potential partners) by facilitating the dialogue that will allow mobilisation of new partners from countries not yet involved in bi-regional initiatives. Outreach efforts aimed at drafting broader participation should continue for the duration of the project design phase, and the door to new partners joining a given consortium should be kept open for as long as possible.

Coordinating and communicating within and across initiatives Several multilateral initiatives involving African and European organisations and institutions cover similar domains/ scopes. To avoid duplication of research and coordination funding, networking and communication between initiatives should be fostered through creating dedicated tasks or activities in projects for this to be achieved. A clear information system is needed for information on joint initiatives to be accessed and easily shared. At the same time, communication within a given project consortium should be maintained even following the closure of a particular collaborative venture, with real effort made at jointly exploring options for building on work already done and thus rendering projects sustainable over the long term. Instead of continually creating new programmes and projects it would be much more efficient to utilise past or existing structures, repurposing them where necessary to new ends and involving new partners along the way.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 23

REFERENCES

African Union & European Union. (2007). The Africa-EU Strategic Partnership: A Joint Africa-EU Strategy. African Union/European Union.

ASSAF. (2015). Insights into South Africa’s participation in the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development of the European Commission. Pretoria: Academy of Science of South Africa.

Barre, R., & Olivier, A. C. (2012). Programmation conjointe transnationale en Europe - une strategie face aux grand defis dans un contexte de mondialisation. FutuRIS. CAAST-Net. (2009). Africa-Europe Cooperation in Science and Techology: Status and Way Forward 10-11 November 2009 Mombasa, Kenya (Summary Report and Recommendations). CAAST-Net. CAAST-Net Plus. (2013). ERAfrica Proposal Response Exceeds Expectations. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from https://caast-net-plus.org/object/news/574 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. (2016a). 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. Cape Town: *Research Africa.

CAAST-Net Plus. (2016b). History of CAAST-Net. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from https://caast-net-plus.org/about/goals/history EDCTP. (2014). Assessment of the Performance of the Impact of the First Programme of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

European Commission. (2008). INCO-NET projects: Supporting International Science and Technology Cooperation with Major Regions of the World. Brussels: European Commission Directorate General for Research International Cooperation.

European Commission. (2015). Ex-post Evaluation of International Cooperation Activities of the Seventh Framework Programme’s Capacities Programme: Final Report. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

FACCEJPI. (2012). Strategic Research Agenda.

FACCEJPI. (2014). First Biennial Implementation Plan 2014-2015.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1996). World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996 (Rome, Italy). Retrieved July 22, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/WFS/ Gmelch, N., Herrmann, S., & Muriel, V. (2014). Evaluation of the ERAfrica Call: Independent Experts Group.

Niehoff, J. (2014). The ERA-NET Scheme from FP6 to Horizon 2020.

Ralphs, G. (2016). EU and Africa join forces on food and nutrition research. Research Professional. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from http://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1359373

24

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Task description The purpose of this task is to identify scenarios for voluntary collaborative programming intra-EU and funding mechanisms for cooperative food security research and capacity building partnerships.

Running through years 2 and 3, informed by the outputs of tasks 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4, and aiming at more efficient use of resources for the benefit of food security outcomes in bi-regional research cooperation, this task focuses on encouraging greater voluntary coordination within or between the EU’s framework programme and/or EU Member State/Associated Country as well as African Union national programmes, private sector and charitable foundations’ programmes and their projects in support of bi-regional food security research cooperation.

Through a series of small-scale consultations with owners of regional and national food security research programmes and their projects, and of capacity building programmes, task partners explored the appetite for: 1. Strengthening complementarities between programme objectives for bi-regional and/or bi-lateral research cooperation; 2. Promoting coordination and cooperation between food security initiatives and projects supported by EU and MS programmes.

The task culminates in the redaction of a policy brief which develops recommendations for the more detailed activities of T1.5, for the elaboration of a collaborative food security research platform for joint food security priorities. With regard to context, WP1 takes its cue from P8 of JAES, but with regard to focal themes the direction is provided by the specific initiatives and networks legitimised by association with JAES (e.g. CAADP). Priority will be given to multi-sectoral themes at the interface between food security, health and climate change where mutual interest remains the driver.

Outcomes of the task include an informed assessment of the scope for leveraging diverse programmes and projects for more efficient impact on outcomes of joint food security priorities, and of the scope for synergies in the domain between capacity building and research partnerships.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 25

Appendix B: Desktop analysis data table Project name (Acronym)

Website

CAAST-Net Plus

https://caast-net-plus.org/

ESASTAP2020e

http://www.esastap.org.za/

ERAFRICA

http://www.ERAFRICA.eu/

FACCEJPI

https://www.faccejpi.com/

EDCTP2

http://www.edctp.org/

Appendix C: Key findings of the ERAFRICA evaluation

Requirement/ Top-Priority Aspects

KEY AREA ADDRESSED

ORIENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Number of Participating Countries

1.

Spending of Available Funds

2. Increase the overall spending rate of the

Increase the number of Funding Parties, especially from African countries

ERAfrica Joint Call

Communication and Common Understanding

3. Improve communication and ensure common

Commitment

4. Ensure commitment to decisions and pledges

Transparency

5. Improve the overall transparency of the

understanding of issues and rules

evaluation and selection process, especially for applicants

Suggestions for Further Improvement

Time Efficiency

6. Speed up the call processes

Visibility and Awareness

7. Enhance visibility and awareness of call,

especially amongst African researchers

Capacity Building and Professionalization

8. Enhance the professionalization of competitive

Network Sustainability

9. Explore sustainability measures for research

funding capacities in less experienced countries

network collaboration

Monitoring and Evaluation

10. Define and set up systematic monitoring and

evaluation system for the ERAfrica Joint Calls

Source: Gmelch et al (2014)

26

|

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

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 AUTHORS: Yanis Roussel and Johan Viljoen ORGANISATION: Institut de Recherche pour le Développement / Institute for Research for Development (France) Please send any queries about this report to enquiries@caast-net-plus.org.

Any citations of this report should read: CAAST-Net Plus (2016) EU-Africa Research and Innovation Cooperation for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture: A Review of Programming Experiences and Future Options

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.

EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COOPERATION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY: A REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCES AND FUTURE OPTIONS

| 27

ABOUT THIS REPORT CAAST-Net Plus is an EU-funded network of national science authorities and specialist agencies working together to promote cooperation in research and innovation between Africa and Europe. CAAST-Net Plus efforts focus on three global societal challenge areas: climate change, food security and health. As a project with a limited lifespan, CAAST-Net Plus has from the outset aimed to leave a tangible legacy whether through conducting research with the potential to influence policy making, or whether through bringing diverse actors together from Africa and Europe to think about longer-term options for addressing global challenges. This report, then, is not just another ‘project report’. It is a tool for fostering engagement by and between the actors aiming to respond to the challenge of ensuring food and nutrition security for all in coordinated ways.

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