africa-eu research collaboration on food security: a critical

Building Bi-regional Partnerships for Global Challenges

AFRICA-EU RESEARCH COLLABORATIONON FOOD SECURITY

A Critical Analysis of the Scope, Coordination and Uptake of Findings

Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security

www.caast-net-plus.org

ii

Copyright © 2015 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

LEAD AUTHORS: Judith Ann Francis and Atenchong Talleh Nkobou

ORGANISATION: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA), The Netherlands

Please send any queries about this report to [email protected].

Any citations to this report should read:

CAAST-Net Plus (2014), Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Food Security: A Critical Analysis of the

Scope, Coordination and Uptake of Findings.

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) in collaboration with CTA

Design and layout: Tracey Watson

Printed on Triple Green™

Cover images have been sourced from open access image repositories, unless otherwise specified. No

copyright infringement is intended.



iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is an output of the CAAST Net-Plus project. The project task that resulted in the

production of this report was led by the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

ACP-EU (CTA), a joint international institution of the African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

(ACP) and the European Union (EU). The research and report preparation was the responsibility of

Judith Ann Francis of CTA with the support of junior research assistant Atenchong Talleh Nkobou.

A number of acknowledgements are in order. We acknowledge the contribution of colleagues

from France’s Institute of Research for Development (IRD) and Karla Kreiger of Austria’s Federal

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, who willingly shared

information on their joint African projects relevant to the research showcased in this report. For

linguistic reasons, contributions from some EU member states were not included, and for this we

apologise. We especially thank all the CAAST-Net Plus partners and representatives from African

and EU organisations including NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency for their review, feedback,

encouragement and support during various stages of the research and preparation of the draft

reports. Special mention is made of Andy Cherry from the Association of Commonwealth Universities

and Gerard Ralphs, Alison Bullen, and Refilwe Mashigo from Research Africa for keeping us to a strict

time schedule in completing this task.



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IMPRINT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF BOXES vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS viii

PREFACE x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS xiii

INTRODUCTION 1

OVERVIEW OF THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SITUATION 2

2.1 Research cooperation 2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 5

3.1 Policy harmonisation 6 3.2 Political will 6 3.3 Multi-disciplinary research 6 3.4 Technological and social innovation 6 3.5 Multi-sector cooperation and collaboration 7 3.6 Capacity building and development (scientific publication and dissemination 8 of research findings) 3.7 Local and national ownership 8 3.8 Gender equality and women’s empowerment 8

METHODOLOGY 10

4.1 Data collection 10 4.2 Data analysis 11

THE FNS SITUATION IN AFRICA 12

5.1 Food availability 12 5.2 Food access 12 5.3 Utilisation 13 5.4 Food stability 14 5.5 Ecological fundamentals 15 5.6 FNS security policy priorities for sub-Saharan Africa 16

5

4

3

1

2



v

ANALYSIS OF EU-AFRICA RESEARCH COOPERATION PROJECTS 20

6.1 European Union instruments 20 6.2 EU-funded FNS cooperation projects 21 6.3 Bilateral FNS programmes and projects of EU member states 26 6.4 Austrian bilateral FNS programmes and projects 26 6.5 French bilateral FNS programmes and projects 31 6.6 EU-supported ARD platforms 41 6.7 European Research Area Network for Africa (ERAfrica) 45

RESULTS OF THE ONLINE SURVEY 47

7.1 Organisation profile 47 7.2 Policy harmonisation 49 7.3 Technological and social innovations 49 7.4 Capacity development and multi-disciplinary research 51 7.5 Political will 55 7.6 Future perspective 55

DISCUSSION 58

REFERENCES 62

APPENDICES 68

Appendix A: Online survey questionnaire 68 Appendix B: FP5, FP6 and FP7 FNS cooperation projects by objectives and status 79 of completion Appendix C: FNS research cooperation projects by thematic focus, food security pillars 89 and allocated budget Appendix D: Representation of participants by region in FNS cooperation projects 94 Appendix E: Percentage (%) organisational representation in FNS cooperation 97 projects per SSA country Appendix F: Percentage (%) organisational representation in FNS cooperation 98 projects per EU country Appendix G: Completed FNS cooperation projects and related outputs 99

7

6

8

9



vi

Figure 1 Multi-dimensional impact pathway to FNS 5Figure 2 Trend in survey responses 11Figure 3 Global food availability 12Figure 4 Global food affordability 13Figure 5 Global food safety and quality 14Figure 6 The food security risk index 15Figure 7 State of global soil degradation in the world 15Figure 8 International water distribution 16Figure 9 Graphical representation of project focus areas/food security pillars 22Figure 10 Percentage (%) budget contribution by source for FNS cooperation projects 22Figure 11 Word cloud showing keywords used to define objectives of FNS cooperation projects 23Figure 12 Average country representations by region 23Figure 13 Percentage (%) representation by individual SSA countries in FNS cooperation projects 23Figure 14 Percentage (%) representation by individual EU countries in FNS cooperation projects 24Figure 15 (%) regional representation in FNS cooperation projects 24Figure 16 Percentage (%) representation by organisation type in FNS cooperation projects 25Figure 17 Representation of keywords used to define project output 25Figure 18 Percentage (%) representation of survey respondents by gender 47Figure 19 Main S&T activities undertaken by organisation 48Figure 20 Major FNS activities undertaken by represented organisations 48Figure 21 Familiarity of participants with various FNS strategies 49Figure 22 Percentage (%) who published scientific output 49Figure 23 Percentage (%) publication(s) referenced and adoption of technological results/outputs 50Figure 24 Patents arising from research collaboration 50Figure 25 Significance of output(s)/outcome(s) of the EU-Africa joint S&T project(s) in 51 addressing the global FNS challenge Figure 26 Significance of contribution of EU funded joint S&T programme/project(s) to 51 developing capacity for multi-disciplinary research on FNS Figure 27 S&T contribution of partners to achieving the joint project outputs/outcomes on FNS 52Figure 28 Beneficiaries of EU-Africa joint FNS research projects 52Figure 29 Ability to mobilise additional funding and satisfaction with EU funding mechanisms 55

LIST OF FIGURES



vii

Table 1 Regional representation by organisations 22Table 2 Representation by organisation type 24Table 3 APPEAR FNS projects, partner organisations and countries 27Table 4 Overview of IIASA AnimalChange project 29Table 5 IRD-SSA FNS projects 33Table 6 CIRAD-SSA FNS projects 38Table 7 Gender breakdown of survey respondents 47Table 8 Type of organisation respondents work in 47Table 9 Kinds of publishers 49Table 10 Level of adoption of joint research output 50Table 11 Significance of EU funded joint S&T programme/project(s) contribution to 51 developing capacity for multi-disciplinary research on FNS Table 12 Factors that may hinder the engagement of the private sector and farmers in 53 joint S&T programmes/projects Table 13 Capacity building activities by projects 54Table 14 Average representation of beneficiaries in capacity building activities 55Table 15 Room for strengthening collaboration between Africa and Europe in addressing 56 the global FNS challenge Table 16 Possible bottlenecks in enhancing Africa-EU S&T collaboration for addressing 57 the global FNS challenge

Box 1 The role of the private sector in reducing food insecurity in SSA 7Box 2 Indicators for analysing outputs, outcomes and impacts of FNS research cooperation 9Box 3 Objectives of the African Regional Nutrition Strategy 17Box 4 Immediate options for increasing food supply (NEPAD, 2009) 18Box 5 Priorities of the FP7 FTSP 20

LIST OF BOXES

LIST OF TABLES



viii

ADC Austrian Development CooperationANAFE African Network for Agriculture,

Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education

APPEAR The Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development

ARD Agricultural Research for Development

ARNS African Regional Nutrition Strategy ASARECA Association for Strengthening

Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

ASF African Swine FeverASMMA Agricultural Supply Model for

Microconomic Policy AnalysisAU African Union AUC African Union CommissionBENWOOD Coordination of Actions in Support

of Sustainable and Eco-efficient Short Rotation Forestry in CDM Countries

BIO CIRCLE Reinforcing the International Cooperation in FP7 FAFB and Strengthening the CIRCLE of Third Countries BIO NCPs

BIOBIO Indicators for biodiversity in organic and low-input farming systems

BIOWASTE4SP Turning Biowaste into Sustainable Products and Development of Appropriate Conversion Technologies Applicable in Developing Countries

BRIGHTANIMAL Multi-disciplinary Approach to Practical and Acceptable Precision Livestock Farming for Small and Medium Enterprises in Europe and World-wide

CA Conservation Agriculture

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CAAST-Net Plus Advancing SSA-EU Cooperation in Research and Innovation for Global Challenges

CBO Community Based OrganisationCCARDESA Centre for Coordination of

Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa

CDM Clean Development MechanismCONFLUETECH Capacity Building for the Control

of Avian Influenza Through Technology Transfer and Training

CORAF/WECARD Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

CORDIS Community Research and Development Information Service

CPA Consolidated Plan of ActionCTA Technical Centre for Agricultural

and Rural CooperationDCI Development Cooperation

InstrumentDGDEV Directorate General DevelopmentEC European CommissionEDF European Development FundEFARD European Forum for Agricultural

Research for DevelopmentEHDV Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease

VirusEIU Economist Intelligence UnitERA-ARD The Agricultural Research for

Development (ARD) Dimension of the European Research Area (ERA)

ERAfrica European Research Area Network for Africa

LIST OF ACRONYMS



ix

EU European UnionFAAP Framework for African Agricultural

ProductivityFACCE-JPI The Joint Programming Initiative

on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change

FAFS Framework for African Food Security

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FNS Food and Nutrition SecurityFP Framework ProgrammeFSTP Food Security Thematic

ProgrammeGFAR Global Forum on Agricultural

ResearchGIZ Gesellschaft Für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit GmbhGMO Genetically Modified OrganismICTTD Integrated Consortium on Ticks

and Tick-Borne DiseasesIFAD International Fund for Agricultural

DevelopmentINCO International CooperationINSARD Including Smallholders in

Agricultural Research for Development

JAES Joint Africa-EU StrategyKBBE Knowledge Based Bio-Economy

MDGs Millennium Development GoalsMPAs Marine Protected Areas MS Member StatesNARS National Agricultural Research

ServicesNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s

Development NGO Nongovernmental OrganisationNZD Neglected Zoonotic Disease PAEPARD The Platform for African-European

Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development

RECs Regional Economic CommunitiesRISDP Regional Indicative Strategic

Development PlanRUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for

Capacity Building in Agriculture RVF Rift Valley FeverS3A Science Agenda for Agriculture in

AfricaSADC Southern African Development

CommunitySRF Short Rotation ForestrySRO Sub-regional Research OrganizationSSA Sub-Saharan AfricaS&T Science and TechnologySTI Science, Technology and

InnovationVMD Vitamin and Mineral DeficienciesWFP World Food ProgrammeWGA Whole Genome Amplification



x

PREFACE

In 2007, heads of state and government from Africa and Europe launched the Joint Africa-EU

Strategy (JAES), formulated in response to geopolitical changes, globalisation and the processes of

integration in Africa and Europe. At the heart of the strategy is an overtly political relationship and

among the features distinguishing JAES from previous Africa-Europe policy initiatives is a rolling

action plan addressing joint priorities for Africa-Europe cooperation. The contribution of scientific

and technological research, development and innovation, and the centrality of research capacity

for economic and social growth and poverty alleviation, for building knowledge-based societies and

addressing global societal challenges of mutual interest is explicit. The value of cooperation between

the continents is central and has already led to significant achievements for mutual benefit. In

April 2014, African and European heads of state met in Brussels for the 4th EU-Africa Summit under

the theme of “Investing in People, Prosperity and Peace”. They committed to enhancing Africa-EU

cooperation for the period 2014-2017. Importantly, climate change and the environment remains

high on the agenda, under Priority Area 5: Global and Emerging Issues.

CAAST-Net Plus serves this Africa-Europe partnership in science, technology and innovation (STI),

as framed by the JAES. We encourage more and better bi-regional STI cooperation for enhanced

outcomes around topics of mutual interest, particularly in relation to the global societal challenges

of climate change, food insecurity and health for all. In supporting the partnership CAAST-Net Plus

draws heavily on debate and discussion among communities of STI stakeholders for gathering

informed opinion and experience about Africa-Europe cooperation processes. The knowledge we

gather and the analyses we conduct combine to inform and enrich policy and decision making

around cooperation in formal and informal situations. This report forms part of a series of three

CAAST-Net Plus reports that will focus on the impact of research cooperation between European

and African actors in the three global societal challenges highlighted above.

Through informing the bi-regional policy dialogue for mutual learning and awareness, through

building support for coordinated and innovative approaches to funding bi-regional cooperation

around global challenges, brokering the public-private relationship to foster improved uptake and

translation of bi-regional research partnership outputs into innovative technologies, good and services,

and through dedicated mechanisms to encourage bi-regional research partnerships, CAAST-Net Plus

is adding value to the quality and scope of the Africa-Europe STI relationship for mutual benefit.

Dr Andrew Cherry

CAAST-Net Plus Project Coordinator

Dr Eric Mwangi

CAAST-Net Plus Africa Region Coordinator



xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Food and nutrition security (FNS) is a complex, multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral issue with links

to health, sustainable economic development, environment, and trade. In the period 2010-2012,

the number of hungry people in Africa grew from 175 million to 239 million. The food and economic

crisis of 2007 and 2008 made FNS not only a priority for Africa, but a global priority requiring

effective global science, technology and innovation (STI) cooperation.

This report showcases the key findings from an analysis of research cooperation between Europe and

sub-Saharan Africa (EU-SSA). The analysis was conducted within the framework of the CAAST-Net

Plus project.1 Our research has sought to investigate two issues: first, the extent to which joint EU-

SSA research cooperation supported by the EU’s Framework Programmes, bilateral programmes of

the EU’s member states, and private research funds has impacted on Africa-EU joint FNS priorities;2

and, second, the extent to which research outputs have been used in policy-making, programme

planning and implementation, building capacity and contributing to knowledge generation, and

supporting innovation in products, processes and markets for increasing impact on FNS outcomes.

Our overall objective in carrying out the research was to develop a knowledge base for the

elaboration of a platform to address joint Europe-Africa FNS priorities.

Methodologically, the impact analysis involved desk research, a survey and interviews. The

conceptual framework used in designing the survey questionnaire, and subsequent analysis of data,

highlights the multiple dimensions involved within the domain of impact study. A database of 74

open and closed framework projects spanning the period 1998 to 2014 was generated, classified

and analysed using the following five criteria: thematic focus area; the FNS pillars (accessibility,

availability, utilisation, stability and ecological fundamentals as well as contribution to capacity

building, policy, and knowledge); total budget, EU contribution, number of countries and number

and type of participating organisations; objectives and number of participants by region – SSA, EU

and other; and, outputs. Several policy and strategy documents linked to FNS in Africa and Europe,

as well as joint programmes undertaken by some EU member states, were also consulted.

The extent to which the joint cooperation programmes and projects responded to African FNS

priorities as outlined in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

and the related pillars, III and IV specifically, and impacted on the FNS situation, was questionable.

While capacity has been developed and new knowledge generated, as attested by the various

publications and databases, challenges exist in ensuring that all the available knowledge is used to

1 www.caast-net-plus.org2 For ease of reading European Union Framework Programme projects are occasionally referred to in this report as “framework projects”.

http://www.caast-net-plus.org



xii

inform policy, improve food systems and processes, expand product range, markets and trade, and

support innovation for social and economic gain in both Europe and Africa. Although food stability

is a priority issue, as stated in the CAADP Framework for African Food Security (FAFS), only about 7%

of the projects addressed this issue. Private sector involvement in framework projects comprised

approximately 15.5% and civil society representation was approximately 1.5% of total participating

organisations. A major barrier to private sector engagement was the differing motivations of

business enterprises and research institutions, and the limited follow through on research outputs

after projects’ end. Farmers also did not see the direct benefits of such research cooperation

projects. Greater involvement of the private sector and farmers in determining joint research

priorities and facilitating their participation in research programmes and projects could lead to faster

and increased uptake of the outputs in the future.



xiii

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation #1: Strengthen research networking and priority setting by establishing a high-level Africa-EU think tankEstablish a high-level multi-disciplinary think tank comprising directors of the main agricultural research coordinating platforms and experts from key academic institutions in Africa and Europe to identify the joint priorities and work programmes. The think tank should be mandated to consult with other experts within specific priority domains, for example, engineering, nutrition and health, the private sector and farmers’ organisations, as well as policy-makers in Africa and Europe. The think tank should also have responsibility for determining the joint research priorities and approving the monitoring and evaluation framework as well as tracking the progress of joint actions. Their recommendations should be submitted to the JAES, as well as AUC and EC high-level officials.

Recommendation #2: Establish M&E framework for greater research uptakeand impactScientific and technical research outputs should respond to the jointly agreed priorities and be measured, and the FNS outcomes and impact appropriately tracked based on the approved monitoring and evaluation framework. Scientific publications should not only be published in peer-reviewed journals but also converted into policy briefs and working papers for wider dissemination to other stakeholders so as to better influence policies and programmes. Databases should be made open access and available to the

Finding #1: A challenging FNS situation still persists in sub-Saharan Africa despite more than a decade of high profile attention to the value of science and technology for addressing challenges in African agriculture, the recognition that the initiatives of many organisations were complementary, and significant EU investment in bilateral research cooperation. Strengthening research networks was seen as important for future joint Africa-EU multi-disciplinary research addressing the global FNS challenge.

Finding #2: 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.



xiv

wider public on completion of projects. The time span of funding research projects should ideally be greater than three years. Intellectual property rights agreements should be established among project partners, especially for those projects in which the private sector is involved. This also has implications for the research outputs funded by governments and which may be considered public goods.

Recommendation #3: Co-funded andco-owned research initiativesThe STI collaboration between Africa and the EU needs to be strengthened and go beyond the participation of the traditional major players. Joint research priorities should be co-funded and co-owned. Africa should be encouraged and supported to make financial resources available to African researchers and research organisations. Capacity building and infrastructural development should be further supported so that the partnership between Africa and the EU can be strengthened for the mutual benefit of both continents, and to make significant progress in efforts to address the global FNS challenge.

Finding #3: The STI collaboration between Africa and the EU needs to be strengthened and go beyond the participation of the traditional African (South Africa and Kenya) and EU (France, Germany, UK) major players. African organisations are not sufficently enabled to participate in joint projects due to several constraints; namely financial resources, human resource capacity and physical infrastructure, which hinder effective engagement in setting priorities, joint implementation and greater ownership and uptake of research outputs.



1

INTRODUCTION

Food security is a complex, multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral issue, with links to health,

sustainable economic development, environment, and trade (Benson, 2004; UNEP, 2012; WHO,

2012). Food and nutrition are interlinked and are fundamental to human welfare and economic

prosperity. Since the 2007-08 food and economic crisis, achieving food and nutrition security has

become a global priority, and is a topic high on the policy, research and development agendas of

national governments, regional organisations and the international community.

This report showcases the key findings from an analysis of research cooperation between Europe and

sub-Saharan Africa (EU-SSA). The analysis was conducted within the framework of the CAAST-Net

Plus project (Advancing Sub-Saharan Africa-European Union Cooperation in Research and Innovation

for Global Challenges).3 The objective of the CAAST-Net Plus project is to encourage more and better

bi-regional science, technology and innovation (STI) cooperation for enhanced outcomes around

topics of mutual interest and particularly in relation to the global societal challenges of climate

change, food security and health.

Our research has attempted to highlight, first, the extent to which EU-SSA research cooperation

supported by the EU’s Framework Programmes, bilateral programmes of the EU’s member states

(MS) and private research funds has impacted on Africa-EU joint FNS priorities; and, second, the

extent to which research outputs have been used in policy-making, programme planning and

implementation, building capacity and contributing to knowledge generation, and supporting

innovation in products, processes and markets for increasing impact on FNS outcomes. The overall

objective was to develop a knowledge base for the elaboration of a platform to address joint Europe-

Africa FNS priorities.

1

3 www.caast-net-plus.org

http://www.caast-net-plus.org



2

OVERVIEW OF THE FOOD ANDNUTRITION SECURITY SITUATION

An estimated 925 million people in the world are hungry. About 868 million people are

undernourished. In the period 2010-12, the number of hungry people in Africa grew from 175

million to 239 million. In SSA, the modest progress that had been made prior to 2007 was reversed

after the 2007-08 food crisis, with hunger rising 2% per year since then (FAO, WFP and IFAD, 2012).

Even though developing countries, and especially those in SSA, were most impacted on by the food

insecurity crisis, developed countries must also ensure that appropriate instruments are in place to

assure adequate levels of food security and health for their citizens.

Food security is a multi-dimensional phenomenon for which several definitions exist (FAO, 2003).

The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “at the individual, household,

national, regional and global levels when all people at all times have physical, and economic access

to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active

and a healthy life” (FAO, 1996). There are four pillars of food security: availability, access, utilisation

and stability. More recently, a nutrition dimension and an environmental dimension — based on

ecological fundamentals — have been added to the food security concept (CFS, 2009; UNEP, 2012).4

Economic interdependence between regions, cultural barriers, and globalisation have also added to

the complexity of the global food security challenge. Food and nutrition are closely interlinked, and

the term food security has therefore been expanded to include nutrition. This terminology is also in

line with the stated European Commission (EC) position that food and nutrition security (FNS) has

replaced food security (EC, 2013). Hence the term FNS has been adopted for this report.

Ensuring FNS goals are met requires specific attention to both short and longer-term interventions

(FAO, WFP and IFAD, 2012). As such, a multi-faceted, multi-sectoral, and multi-disciplinary approach

is needed to respond to this global challenge (CFS, 2013). This has implications for research

cooperation.

2.1 Research cooperation

Globalisation has impacted on the way knowledge is produced, shared and used. Major global

challenges such as climate change, poverty, infectious disease, threats to energy, food and water

supply, security and the digital divide, all highlight the need for effective global STI cooperation

to promote sustainable development (EC, 2009b). African governments have also endorsed the

importance of STI for Africa’s development and, in 2005, the African Ministerial Conference on

Science and Technology adopted the Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) on STI, which has since

been revised as the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA-2024), which

was endorsed by African Heads of State and Government in July 2014 (NEPAD, 2014). Eradicating

4 By undermining the ecological fundamentals of food systems, food security is compromised in two ways: first, the basic natural conditions needed to produce food — such as water, soil formation and biodiversity — are undercut; and second, unsustainable side effects, such as ground contamination, pollution of surface waters and greenhouse gas emissions, are produced (UNEP, 2012).

2



3

hunger and achieving FNS is one of the STISA-2024 six priority areas, and strengthening international

cooperation has been identified as one of the mechanisms for implementing actions in pursuit of the

goal of using STI for socio-economic development and growth in Africa.

There is increasing ownership of the agricultural science agenda by African countries. This has

been championed by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and is articulated in the

document ‘Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa’, also known as S3A (FARA, 2013). The S3A was

endorsed by African heads of state and government in July 2014. The key messages of S3A are for

African leaders to take responsibility for the agenda as “agriculture in Africa is too important to

be outsourced” and for countries to invest in sufficient scientific capacity to support agricultural

transformation.

Adopted in 2007, the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) outlined a long-term shared vision of the future

of Africa-EU relations embedded in eight partnerships. The eight partnerships were: (i) peace and

security, (ii) democratic governance and human rights, (iii) regional economic integration, trade and

infrastructure, (iv) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), (v) climate change and the environment,

(vi) energy, (vii) migration, mobility and employment, and (viii) science, information society and

space. The strategy was financed through different mechanisms (Europafrica.net, 2007).

According to JAES priorities, the EU-AU partnership on agricultural development supports Africa’s

agricultural agenda, as set out in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

(CAADP). It also includes strong engagement in Africa’s agricultural research for development

(ARD) agenda as coordinated by FARA. Similarly, Africa and the EU are expected to promote policy

coherence for development, food security, food safety and food quality, and strengthen farmer

organisations and professional associations. In this context, the CAAST-Net Plus project’s FNS-related

activities are intended to contribute to the quality and scope of the Africa-EU STI relationship for

mutual benefit.

According to discussions emanating from the AU-EC 6th College-to-College meeting which took place

on 26th April 20135 in Brussels, participants from the AU and EC agreed to:

+ “Cooperate to maximise the benefits of science and technology and innovation for tackling

poverty and providing sustainable growth”

+ “Keep sustainable agriculture high on the development agenda… Address the substantial

challenges facing African agriculture in a way that conserves the future productivity of

natural resources… Strive to achieve inclusive and sustainable growth and food and nutrition

security, raise farm incomes and enhance agricultural productivity, transformation, trade and

rural development…”

5 The 6th College-to-College meeting was an opportunity to assess the achievements, existing frameworks, policies and financial instruments recorded under the joint action plans. It also launched a reflection on the future of Africa-EU relations in preparation of the 4th Africa-EU Summit in April 2014, held in Brussels, Belgium. The Summit focused on strategic priorities and took a fresh look at the joint strategy and its implementation mechanisms in order to make it more efficient.



4

Both the AU and EC declared that they would also:

+ “Focus agricultural cooperation initiative in line with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP) including sanitary and phyto-sanitary issues, standards

and quality certification, processing industries, trade initiatives and facilitating access to

local, regional and international markets”

At the April 2014 Africa-EU Summit, which was preceded by the 2013 College-to-College meeting

referred to above, a high-level Africa-EU expert working group on food security was set up by the

High-Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) Bureau. It should be noted that none of the present directors of

continental or sub-continental agricultural research platforms in SSA were represented.



5

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A conceptual framework was developed to analyse the impact of bi-regional research cooperation on

FNS. It is based on a multi-pronged approach to achieving FNS, which embodies the four food security

pillars — food availability, access, utilisation, and stability — plus ecological fundamentals (Figure 1).

Using the multi-pronged approach to FNS as the starting point, eight dimensions were identified:

1. Policy harmonisation

2. Political will

3. Multi-disciplinary research

4. Technological and social innovation

5. Multi-sector cooperation and collaboration

6. Local and national ownership

7. Capacity building and development

8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment

These are considered as essential elements for assessing the impact of research cooperation on FNS

and, as such, are discussed in turn below.

3

Figure 1: Multi-dimensional impact pathway to FNS

Food andNutrition Security

AccessAvailabilityUtilisationStability

Ecological Fundamentals

PolicyHarmonisation

Multi-disciplinary

Research

PoliticalWill

Technologicaland SocialInnovation

Gender Equalityand Women’sEmpowerment

Multi-sectorCooperation and

Collaboration

CapacityBuilding and

Development

Local andNational

Ownership



6

3.1 Policy harmonisation

Stakeholders in agricultural research, science and technology should be able to work together to

increase the effectiveness of development cooperation and the implementation of agriculture

interventions toward the harmonisation and alignment of specific policies, procedures and activities

aimed at tackling FNS. According to Abdulai et al. (2005), greater cooperation in agricultural research

and development (R&D), harmonisation of regulatory standards for technology adaptation, and

harmonisation and liberalisation of trade systems and policy could play a crucial role in expanding

opportunities for African farmers. Strengthening linkages among countries through improvements in

infrastructure, agricultural R&D, and expansion of intra-regional trade can generate spill-over effects

and regional economic growth.

3.2 Political will

Africa’s agricultural sector suffers from inadequate government funding and incentives, over reliance

on primary agriculture, low soil fertility, environmental degradation, large amounts of food crop loss

before and after harvest, minimal value addition and product differentiation, and high vulnerability

to climate change. In 2013, only nine of the 54 AU member states had met the Maputo commitment

to allocate 10% of budgetary resources on agricultural and rural development and only eight countries

had exceeded the 1% target on agricultural R&D spending (Forty Chances, 2013). According to the

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), R&D investments in Africa ranged between 0.2%

and 0.48% of GDP (NEPAD, 2010). Only Malawi, South Africa and Uganda came close to the 1% of GDP

target set by African governments. It is further highlighted by NEPAD that “R&D activities were to a large

extent financed by international donors and other foreign sources” (NEPAD, 2010). Effective governance

and well-resourced STI institutions are needed to fully address and drive Africa’s FNS agenda.

3.3 Multi-disciplinary research

The 2008 international conference on Food Security and Environmental Change: Linking Science,

Policy and Development for Adaptation highlighted that technical fixes alone will not solve the global

food security challenge. Environmental changes require an integrated research approach, not just

a focus on agricultural practices (Ericksen et al., 2009). Given the complexity of the FNS challenge,

multi-disciplinary research is needed if significant change is to be achieved.

3.4 Technological and social innovation

Innovation is adding value to knowledge and is linked to economic growth (Torun, 2007). Innovation

can be defined as an interactive learning process for bringing new and improved products and



7

processes into social and economic use. It is also defined as the implementation of a new, or

significantly improved, product, process, marketing method, organisational method or business

practice. Innovation does not only depend on radical discoveries but can be incremental. The fight

against food insecurity in Africa is marred by the lack of adaptable and appropriate technologies.

Incremental improvements in processes, products, inputs or equipment, and scientific and local

knowledge can enhance productivity, increase incomes and lower costs. Meyers et al. (2012)

recommended that the financial investment should be increased and directed towards cost-effective

irrigation, improved land-management pratices and better seed developed through agricultural

research. The ability of individuals to adapt and learn, also thought of as social innovation, is a

significant step in technological empowerment, which can lead to the creation of knowledge

generation capabilities (UN, 2010). Priority areas identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (FAO, 2009) for technological and social innovation included:

+ improving efficiency in farmers’ use of agricultural inputs;

+ developing improved crop varieties;

+ heavily investing in agricultural reasearch and development; and,

+ closing existing yield gaps.

3.5 Multi-sector cooperation and collaboration

The public sector cannot single-handedly meet all the needs for infrastructure, research, agricultural

inputs, and food storage and processing (Tuttle, 2012). Growing populations, rising incomes and

increased access to international trade provides opportunities for private sector companies to invest

where they can have an impact. The private sector can provide expertise and experience, as well

as invest in products and services that contribute to reducing food insecurity in SSA in at least five

different ways (see dialogue box).

1 Research and extension – Private companies can play a role in improving farming and productivity techniques and develop technologies for commercialisation. In Africa where there is a distinct disconnect between research, technology generation and innovation to drive agricultural development, private sector engagement is highly sought after.

2 Input – Private companies can invest in R&D and create new knowledge. 3 Farm equipment – There is need for simple, less expensive machinery to increase and ease production in SSA. 4 Infrastructure – Roads and storage facilities for crop and livestock harvests play a significant role in helping farmers

gain from their investments and efforts. With postharvest losses amounting to over 30% (Tuttle, 2012) investments in infrastucture can lead to significant gains.

5 Food processing and marketing – A great deal of activity and many actors are involved in moving the harvest to markets. New approaches to processing, packaging, and marketing food can minimise nutrient losses and greatly enhance retail value and export potential. The larger private sector actors can be encouraged to work with smallholder farmers and small-and-medium sized agro and food enterprises to improve the quality of goods produced, increase their incomes and bolster their access to markets.

Box 1. The role of the private sector in reducing food insecurity in SSA

Source: Tuttle (2012)



8

3.6 Local and national ownership

A sense of ownership, engagement and equal participation is crucial to ensuring the commitment

of research stakeholders in addressing FNS. A high level of collaboration between EU and SSA

participants in the design and implementation of projects and programmes can be useful in instilling

this sense of ownership. Outputs of joint FNS projects and programmes should encourage African

governments and research stakeholders to drive their FNS agendas in a focused manner for

long-term impact.

3.7 Capacity building and development

Capacity building policies and programmes for STI should support regional and national objectives

and development policies and priorities. Scientific output, usually measured through bibliometric

data and usage (number of citations), is an indicator of scientific capacity. A review of several

bibliometric studies by NEPAD (2010) in the context of their work on agricultural, science, technology

and innovation indicators in Africa notes that, for the period 2001 to 2004, Africa’s share of world

science production was 1.8% and that, while global production grew, SSA’s share of global output

shrank by 31%. Positive changes have been noted but more needs to be done. International

research cooperation should enhance the quality and quantity of knowledge generated in support

of achieving FNS in SSA. In addition, capacities are needed to articulate policy choices and options —

for example, capacity in biotechnology and food processing — for improving FNS outcomes. Focusing

capacity building programmes and strategies towards long-term education programmes through

universities and strategically selected scientific activities, and developing a critical mass of experts at

all levels through organised long-term training programmes, are considered important (UN, 2010).

3.8 Gender equality and women’s empowerment

Gender equality, and more specifically women’s empowerment, is crucial for agricultural

development. In the agricultural sector persistent inequalities in access to, and control over,

resources undermine the sustainable and inclusive development of the sector, and by extension the

attainment of FNS. Giving women the same access to resources as men could increase agricultural

productivity. Advances in women’s education and improvements in women’s status contribute to

more than half of the reduction of child malnutrition rates (Quisumbing & Meinzen-Dick, 2001). To

better address food insecurity in SSA, it is important to realise the critical role women play not only

in food production and processing but in agricultural research, and to include them in all policy and

development processes to improve the FNS situation.



9

Indicators were identified (Box 2) for the various impact pathways shown in Figure 1.

Box 2. Indicators for analysing outputs, outcomes and impacts of FNS research cooperation

1 Gender equality and women’s empowerment a. No. /% of female participants in programmes/

projects b. No. /% of female beneficiaries2 Policy harmonisation a. Knowledge about AU and FNS strategy b. No. of joint priorities addressed and level of

change recorded3 Political will a. Adequacy, source and level of funding b. Ability to mobilise more funding (AU, EU, other)4 Capacity building and development a. Type and scale of capacity building and

development activities b. No. and type of beneficiaries c. Behavioural change recorded d. Change in approaches recorded e. Improvement in organisational capacity for FNS

research

5 Local and national ownership a. Geographic distribution of participants/

beneficiaries b. Geographic spread of outputs/uptake6 Multi-sector cooperation and collaboration a. No. /% of representation of stakeholders

(partners/beneficiaries) b. Strength of cooperation and involvement of

various stakeholders groups 7 Technological and social innovations a. Project outputs – reports, databases, etc. b. No. of scientific publications and patents c. Level and scale of adoption of outputs by various

stakeholders d. % change in FNS priority areas8 Multi-disciplinary research a. Significance in developing capacity for multi-

disciplinary research on FNS b. Value of the contribution from project partners c. Level of importance for addressing FNS



10

4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Data collection

There were two main aspects to the research underlying this impact analysis: desk research and a

survey complemented by follow-up interviews. The desk research involved collecting and reviewing

existing literature on FNS — specifically in relation to Africa and, in particular, SSA — and information

on several past and ongoing research cooperation programmes and projects funded by the EC and

EU MS. Web-based resources, such as the Community Research and Development Information

Service (CORDIS) (EC, 2009a), and the EC’s primary public repository and portal, were consulted.

Information was also harvested from project websites, evaluation and impact assessment reports,

and related publications on establised programmes and initiatives linked to FNS. Direct contact was

also made with national focal points for retrieving information on bilateral MS cooperation projects.

A database of 74 open and closed framework projects spanning the period 1998 to 2014 was

generated, classified and analysed. Five criteria were used to do this:

1. thematic focus area;

2. the FNS pillars – accessibility, avaliability, utilisation, stability and ecological fundamentals as

well as contribution to capacity building, policy, and knowledge;

3. total budget, EU contribution, number of countries and number and type of participating

organisations;

4. objectives and number of participants by region – SSA, EU and other; and,

5. outputs.

The conceptual framework outlined in Section 3 of this report was used to design the survey

questionnaire. The structured questionnaire, comprising both open-ended and closed questions, was

uploaded into an online format using the Survey Monkey application, pre-tested in consultation with

the CAAST-Net Plus partner representatives and other experts external to the project, finalised, and

translated into French prior to implementation (see Appendix A).

The online survey, which was made available in English and French, was launched on the CAAST-

Net Plus project website home page, the main CTA website, the CTA S&T web portal, the Research

Professional platform, and through related social media platforms (Twitter and Facebook). A

dedicated CAAST-Net Plus address was generated and distributed by Research Africa. Personalised

emails were sent to programme and project leaders and contact persons identified through the

desk research. Emails were also sent to African and European research and university networks and

platforms, including:

+ the African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education (ANAFE);

+ the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM);

+ the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

(ASARECA);

+ the Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West

and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD);



11

+ the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA);

+ the European Forum for Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD); and,

+ the Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development

(PAEPARD).

Networks contacted were

encouraged to promote the survey

among their network members.

Sending emails through networks

and project partner platforms,

including the dedicated CAAST-Net

Plus Announcement sent to the

project’s mailing list on 6 May 2015,

contributed to a surge in the number

of respondents, compared to when

the survey was solely launched on

various websites and portals.

Participants were informed of

the context and aim of the study, as well as given the option to provide full contact details of the

partners involved. A privacy clause was also included in the online survey.6

4.2 Data analysis

Collected survey data were transformed into an anonymous form to guarantee that answers

could not be traced back to participants. Responses were analysed in line with the questions posed

in the questionnaire. Some of the questions were skipped by respondents, meaning that the sample

size varies for each question. Survey Monkey tools were used to code responses to open-ended

questions and Microsoft Excel was used to statistically analyse already quantified data. Simple

descriptive statistical methods were used to illustrate and present collected results. The results of

the desk review and the online survey are presented in Sections Five and Six.

Figure 2: Trend in survey responses

50

04.21.2014 04.28.2014

Responses (by week)

Weekly (Starting on the date)

First: 05.06.2014 Zoom: 04.21.2014 to 05.19.2014

05.05.2014 05.12.2014 05.19.2014

40

30

20

10

0

18 ResponsesMon 05.05.2014

6 The privacy clause used was as follows: “Any information you provide will be strictly confidential and only generalised reports will be generated and circulated. However, we would appreciate it if we can contact you directly for a supplementary interview, if necessary.”



12

5

THE FNS SITUATION IN AFRICA

In this section, the African FNS situation is reviewed through the lens of the FNS pillars: food

availability, access, utilisation, stability, and ecological fundamentals.

5.1 Food availability

Food availability addresses the ‘supply side’ of food security and it is determined by the level of

food production (yield), stock levels and net trade (FAO, 2008). Food availability is supported by the

growing, manufacturing, importation and/or transportation of food. Figure 3 provides an overview of

global food availability in July 2013 by the Global Food Security Index (GFSI, 2013).7 Figure 3 shows

that most African countries ‘need improvement’ (they score between 23.6 and 38.8), while most EU

countries fall under the ‘best environment’ category with a score between 64.7 and 86.6.

5.2 Food access

Food access is closely linked to income levels and the purchasing power of households and citizens.

Food access means having sufficient resources, both economic and physical, to obtain appropriate

7 The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) considers the core issues of affordability, availability, quality and safety across 107 counties. GFSI is a dynamic quantitative and qualitative benchmarking model, constructed from 27 unique indicators that measure these drivers of food security across both developing and developed countries.

Figure 3: Global food availability

Score 0 - 100100 = Best Environment

Countries are grouped into quartiles so that the best scoring 25% (i.e. top 27 countries) are placed into the first group (“best environment”), the next 25% are placed into the second group, the next 25% are placed into the third group, and the lowest scoring 25% are placed into the fourth group (“needs improvement”). Where countries have equal scores, the number of countries in each group will not always be exactly the same because of the ties.

BEST ENVIRONMENTScore: 64.7 to 86.6

GOOD ENVIRONMENTScore: 50.7 to 64.6

MODERATE ENVIRONMENTScore: 39.0 to 50.6

NEEDS IMPROVEMENTScore: 23.6 to 38.9

Source: GFSI (July 2013)



13

foods for a nutritious diet. Figure 4 represents the state of global food affordability in 2013 (GFSI,

2013). It shows that African countries fall in the ‘needs improvement’ category with a score between

12.9 and 32.6, while most EU countries score between 74.7 and 93.9 (‘best environment’).

5.3 Utilisation

Food utilisation means people have the ability to use food — that is, through not only access to

an adequate diet, but also adequate sanitation (FAO, WFP and IFAD, 2012). The extent of food

utilisation (or lack thereof) depends on the health of households and citizens, as well as factors such

as food quality and safety. Figure 5 illustrates global food safety and quality in July 2013. This shows

African countries with a score from 17.8 to 40.7. Food utilisation in Africa is relatively poor and needs

improvement. On the other hand, food utilisation in EU countries have high scores from 74.9 to 88.5,

which puts EU countries in the ‘best environment’ category of the GFSI.

Figure 4: Global food affordability


Countries are grouped into quartiles so that the best scoring 25% (ie: top 27 countries) are placed into the first group (“best environment”), the next 25% are placed into the second group, the next 25% are placed into the third group and the worst scoring 25% are placed into the fourth group (“needs improvement”). Where countries have equal scores, the number of countries in each group will not always be exactly the same because of the ties.








14

5.4 Food stability

Food stability refers to the assurance that people have access to food at all times, including during

crises. It is linked to the ability to have adequate food access during famine, natural disasters and

societal unrest, stemming from food shortages and price fluctuations. Figure 6 represents the Food

Security Risk Index developed by Maplecroft (2012).8 This index is used as a barometer to identify

countries susceptible to food insecurity during crises. Figure 6 shows that most African countries fall

in the category for which improvement is needed.

8 Maplecroft is a risk analytics, research and strategic forecasting company. Maplecroft offers a portfolio of risk indices, interactive maps, expert country risk analysis, risk calculators, scorecards and dashboards. These technological solutions identify emerging trends, business opportunities and risks to investments and supply chains worldwide.

Figure 5: Global food safety and quality


Countries are grouped into quartiles so that the best scoring 25% (ie: top 27 countries) are placed into the first group (“best environment”), the next 25% are placed into the second group, the next 25% are placed into the third group and the worst scoring 25% are placed into the fourth group (“needs improvement”). Where countries have equal scores, the number of countries in each group will not always be exactly the same because of the ties.








15

5.5 Ecological fundamentals

Agriculture and land use change pushes several

planetary boundaries, including greenhouse gases,

biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution

and water availability. The depletion of oxygen

levels, elimination of species with higher oxygen

requirements (reduction in biodiversity), and

adverse effects on the structure and diversity of

ecosystems is usually associated with nitrogen

and phosphorous from agricultural runoff (Ross,

2010). Figure 7 presents an overview of the state

of global soil degradation (Rekacewicz, 2005). It

demonstrates that there is a high percentage of

degraded soil in SSA. In addition it is estimated

that one third of the world’s cropland is losing

topsoil faster than new soil is forming and many

of the poor live on degraded land. Unprecedented water shortages are also increasingly apparent in

many parts of the world, including parts of Europe (FACCE-JPI, 2012).

Figure 6: The food security risk index

Extreme risk

HaitiSyria

YemenEthiopia

Afghanistan

SomaliaBurundi

Comoros

ChadSouth Sudan

DR Congo

High risk

Medium risk

Low risk

No data Source: Maplecroft (October 2012)

Figure 7: State of global soil degradation in the world

Very degraded soil

Degraded soil

Stable soil

Without vegetation

Source: Rekacewicz (2005)



16

Figure 8 illustrates the global distribution of water

resources. On the one hand, many countries

in SSA are affected by economic water scarcity,

which implies that appropriate interventions,

research and investment could help to increase

water availability. South Africa, on the other hand,

suffers from physical water scarcity. Europe enjoys

little or no water scarcity.

In summary, the various maps and statistical data

discussed confirm that a challenging FNS situation

still exists for SSA despite nearly a decade of high

profile recognition of the value of science and

technology for addressing challenges in African

agriculture.

According to the InterAcademy Council (IAC) report (2004), there was growing international focus on

African agriculture and the inter-related role of science and technology in addressing the challenges

in 2004. The Ad Hoc IAC Follow-up Committee appointed by the IAC (see Rabbinge et al., 2005)

has highlighed that the initiatives of many organisations were complementary and supported each

other in addressing food insecurity. However, the graphical data presented suggest that Africa-EU

joint cooperation projects and other joined up efforts aimed at addressing FNS in SSA are not having

the desired impact. This data can be used to develop baseline indicators for tracking progress and

determining the success of future bilateral joint FNS research cooperation programmes and projects.

5.6 FNS security policy priorities for sub-Saharan Africa

Several strategy and policy documents linked to FNS in Africa were identified and reviewed. These

include: (i) CAADP9; (ii) Africa’s Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action10; (iii) the African

Regional Nutritional Strategy (ARNS) 2005-201511; (iv) NEPAD’s 10-year strategy for the reduction

Figure 8: International water distribution

Physical water scarcity

Economic water scarcity

Little or no water scarcity

Not estimated

9 CAADP is the agricultural programme of NEPAD, which in turn is a programme of the AU. Established by the AU Assembly in 2003, CAADP focuses on improving food security, nutrition, and increasing incomes in Africa’s largely farming-based economies. It aims to do this by raising agricultural productivity by at least 6% per year and increasing public investment in agriculture to 10% of national budgets per year (NEPAD, 2003). CAADP also aims to “stimulate agriculture-led development that eliminates hunger and reduces poverty and provides food security”.

10 This plan of action consolidates science and technology programmes of the AU Commission and NEPAD. It is the instrument for the implementation of the decisions of the first African Ministerial Conference on Science and Technology held in Johannesburg, South Africa in November 2003 and was approved in 2005. The revised version was finalised in 2013.

11 This is a revised version of the Regional Nutritional Strategy (1993-2003). It incorporates emerging concerns, and re-emphasises nutrition as a basic input in poverty alleviation strategies and the achievement of the MDGs.

Source: Water Industry News (online)



17

of vitamin and mineral deficiencies (VMD)12; (v) the Framework for African Food Security (FAFS)

(NEPAD, 2009); (vi) the Joint Programming Initiative in Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change

(FACCE-JPI) Strategic Research Agenda13; and (vii) the EU’s long-term action to tackle global hunger

and under-nutrition (EC, 2012b).

NEPAD’s vision 2015 is to:

+ Attain food security;

+ Improve agricultural productivity to achieve a 6% annual growth rate;

+ Develop dynamic regional and sub-regional agricultural markets;

+ Integrate farmers and pastoralists into a market economy; and,

+ Achieve more equitable distribution of wealth.

Box 3: Objectives of the African Regional Nutrition Strategy

+ To increase awareness among governments, regional and international development partners, and the local community on the nature and magnitude of nutrition problems in Africa and their implications for the development of the continent, and to advocate for additional resources for nutrition.

+ To advocate for renewed focus, attention, commitment and a redoubling of efforts by member states in the wake of the worsening nutrition status of vulnerable groups.

+ To stimulate action at the national and regional level that lead to improved nutrition outcomes by providing guidance on strategic areas of focus.

+ To provide a framework of action on nutrition that takes into account the emerging issues of HIV and AIDS, diet related chronic disease, the resurgence of TB and malaria etc, in addition to the following International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) goals adapted to Africa:

• To ensure regional, national and household food security in 10 years. • To reduce protein-energy malnutrition in children under 5 by half, and iron deficiency anaemia in pregnant

women by one-third, and to virtually eliminate iodine and vitamin A deficiencies. • To reduce the prevalence of low birth weights (below 2.5 kg) to less than 10%. • To develop programmes for the prevention of diet-related non-communicable diseases in one-third of the

African population. • To address the nutritional requirements of people living with HIV and AIDS, including those on antiretroviral

drugs and also TB patients on directly observed treatments.

+ To define mechanisms for collaboration and cooperation among the various actors concerned with food and nutrition problems at national, regional and international levels.

12 The AU Commission and NEPAD, in collaboration with development partners, initiated the implementation of the African Regional Nutrition Strategy, the NEPAD African Nutrition Initiative within CAADP, and the NEPAD 10-year strategy for combating VMD by 2008 with a focus on long-term household food security and ending child hunger and under-nutrition.

13 In October 2010, the European Council launched FACCE-JPI. This initiative brings together 21 MS and associated countries. It is guided by two main priorities: (1) to foster collaboration among national research actors to work towards alignment of research programming; and (2) to develop innovation at the service of society (FACCE-JPI, 2012).



18

CAADP Pillar III focuses on the chronically

food insecure. Priorities and interventions

are outlined in the FAFS which is concerned

with the physical and economic access to food

of a sufficient quality, as well as utilisation

(NEPAD, 2009). The challenges to achieving FNS,

according to the ARNS 2005-2015 include:

+ Failure to turn political commitment into

tangible action.

+ Absence of a policy framework and

institutional capacity to plan, implement

and monitor sustainable nutrition

programmes that respond to the multi-

sector dimensions of nutrition problems.

+ Recurrent conflicts and natural disasters

such as floods and droughts that not

only destroy people’s lives but also their

livelihood strategies and asset base.

+ Inadequate technical capacity in

nutrition, because of the low priority

accorded to nutrition and loss in

qualified personnel.

+ Diminished community capacity to

respond appropriately as a result of the

demands for caring for those stricken

with diseases, especially HIV and AIDS,

and the resurgence of TB and malaria,

and growing poverty.

+ Resource constraints to support

national nutrition programmes given

the deterioration in the socio-economic

status of most countries.

+ The disproportionate amounts of the

health budget absorbed by curative

services, often at the expense of

prevention programmes.

+ The dismantling of the primary health

care system as part of health sector

reforms.

+ The abandonment of more nutritious traditional foods, in favour of over refined western

diets resulting in nutrition related chronic diseases.

Box 4: Immediate options for increasing food supply (NEPAD, 2009)

Options for raising productive capacities:

+ Preserve and enhance the productivity of key staples and commodities while accelerating the distribution of new varieties of food staples, particularly drought-resistant, long-duration crops such as cassava, sweet potatoes and underutilised improved varieties which have been developed but are not yet fully distributed, while simultaneously recognise the importance of promoting and protecting the inherent coping strategies and traditional wisdom of smallholders (for example, in the practice of intercropping, rotational cropping and mixed cropping).

+ Promote crop-livestock integration.

+ Where appropriate and efficient, use targeted subsidies as temporary measures to promote technology and raise productive capacity.

+ Accelerate the transfer and adoption of technologies that overcome livestock constraints such as feed quality and availability.

+ Provide technical support to farmers in the setting up and management of small animal product enterprises.

+ In pastoralist areas, reduce losses due to endemic livestock diseases through scaling-up community-based approaches to veterinary care.

Options for harnessing trade:

+ Accelerate the production of strategic commodities.

+ Remove policy uncertainties to private trade in food staples.

+ Fast-track implementation of trade arrangement already adopted by regional economic communities by lowering tariff barriers and eliminating non-tariff barriers.

+ Immediate attention to commodity-based approaches to trade in livestock products.

Options for improving natural resource management:

+ Scale up successful integrated natural resource management technologies.



19

To tackle these challenges the AU designed a strategy with the following priority areas for Africa:

+ Monitoring FNS;

+ Advocacy and communication (to create awareness about the impact of nutrition on

development);

+ Promoting the establishment of policy and institutional frameworks;

+ Strengthening food and nutrition programme implementation;

+ Integrating nutritional dimensions into the development agenda;

+ Strengthening institutional and technical capacity for nutrition at all levels (from community

to national levels);

+ Promoting community participation and involvement; and,

+ Resource mobilisation.

In summary, Africa has well-documented and clearly articulated broad-based agricultural

programmes and policies for addressing FNS. Several African organisations are involved in setting

policy and research priorities aimed at addressing FNS. The need for collaboration and cooperation

at national, regional and international level is acknowledged (Box 3). Increasing food supply by

raising production capacities, harnessing trade and improving natrual resource management is

also acknowledged (Box 4). The CAADP FAFS also recognises the need for better application of new

technologies (including biotechnology), better optimisation of existing technologies, as well as

increasing diversity and improving quality of diets (protein and micronutrients).

The FNS priorities in SSA are broader than increasing availaibility. This is because food insecurity is

also impacted on by lack of access (poverty), poor health and malnutrition which further impact

on productivity; lack of stability due to crises (both natural and man made) and environmental

degradation; and limited technical capacity. Hence, bilateral cooperation programmes should

address these issues. However, ten years after the elaboration of these policies and programmes,

poverty, hunger and malnutrition are still high in SSA and the FNS goal is yet to be achieved. This

suggests a missing link between research collaborations, the outputs of the research and FNS

realities.



20

6ANALYSIS OF EU-AFRICARESEARCH COOPERATION PROJECTS

6.1 European Union instruments

For many years the EU has played a leading role in catalysing and supporting research cooperation,

and the EU-Africa strategic partnership has grown since the first Africa-EU Summit in 2000. The

EC’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP) is the main policy

instrument supporting cooperative research and development in the EU. Introduced in 1984, seven

programmes have been launched, evolving towards increasing budgets, new participation models

and research priorities (Barajas et al., 2009). The first dedicated call for Africa under the FP was

released in 2009. At the beginning of 2010, the Africa Research Grants initiative was launched under

the European Development Fund (EDF). The tenth EDF includes provisions for building new S&T

capacities in research, training and education, and infrastructure and FNS is a focal area. EDF funds

also support several research cooperation platforms at the international, continental and sub-

regional levels.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) was launched in 2007 with a budget of over €50 billion

covering a seven year period for research and technological development. A specific Food Security

Thematic Programme (FSTP) addressing food security challenges at global, continental and regional

levels, including certain fragile country situations, was introduced.14 With funding worth €250 million

per year, the FSTP had six key priorities (Box 5).

Overall, the programme sought to ensure overall coherence in the European approach to food

security (EC, 2012a). The EU has also elaborated policies for long-term action to support developing

countries address hunger and under-nutrition and for boosting FNS (EC, 2012a; EC, 2013).

14 FSTP is based on Article 15 of the EU Regulation establishing the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI). FSTP aims to improve food security in favour of the poorest and the most vulnerable under a medium and longer-term perspective, and to lead to sustainable solutions (EC[a/b], 2012).

+ Supporting research, innovation and information distribution in matters relating to food security, with a special focus on supporting the enhancement of capacities and scientific and technological cooperation.

+ Linking information and decision-making in order to enhance response strategies.

+ Using the potential of continental and regional approaches (support to regional initiative in Asia and Latin America, as well as continental/regional priorities set out in a new partnership with the AU).

+ Responding to food insecurity in exceptional transition situations as well as in fragile and bankrupt states.

+ Promoting innovative approaches.

+ Encouraging the advancement of the food security programme, and its harmonisation and alignment with development partners, civil society and donors.

Box 5: Priorities of the FP7 FTSP



21

In April 2008, the Africa-EU joint FARA/EFARD consultation on agricultural research programming

for the FP7 Programme on Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, Biotechnology (FP7-FAB) and FSTP took

place. It was organised by the EC in collaboration with the CTA, at the EU’s Directorate General

Development (DGDEV) headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium. Forty experts from African and European

institutions, including representatives of the EC, defined ARD priority research topics and activities

for enhancing joint S&T cooperation within the framework of ten broad priority areas under FP7-

FAB and FSTP. The objective of the discussion was to increase the impact of agricultural research

and knowledge systems on rural productivity, poverty reduction, food security and sustainable

management of natural resources through the delivery of global public goods.

In July 2009, the international research cooperation FP7 Knowledge Based Bio-Economy 2010 call for

water, food security and better health was announced (FP7-KBBE-2010). Subsequent funding calls

under the FP7-KBBE explicitly targeting the African continent such as the FP7-KBBE-2011 call and the

FP7-KBBE-2012 call were launched in July 2010 and 2011 respectively. Some examples include:

+ KBBE.2011.2.5-02: Reducing postharvest losses for increased food security.

+ KBBE.2011.1.3-01: New/next generation of researchers for neglected zoonoses at the

animal-human interface.

+ KBBE.2011.1.4-08: Role of aquaculture in improving food security and eradicating poverty

worldwide.

In summary, the EC funding instruments demonstrate the EU’s political commitment to supporting

international research cooperation and to building S&T capacity in Africa, including SSA, in the areas

of FNS.

6.2 EU-funded FNS cooperation projects

This section presents the results of the desk review of the Africa-EU research cooperation projects

that are linked to FNS. Projects and programmes are drawn from, specifically, FP5, FP6 and the

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology research theme of FP7, and related international

cooperation projects. A decision was taken to focus on completed projects funded through FP5 and

FP6, and both completed and active projects funded through FP7, for inclusion in the impact analysis

of joint research cooperation. This approach was adopted as it provided a more complete picture

of the state of FNS collaboration. A total of 74 FNS-related projects were identified and data were

compiled on each as per the following criteria: objectives, status of completion, thematic focus (e.g.

aquaculture, biodiversity, nutrition, value addition), budget, participating countries, organisations

and outputs (see Appendices B-E). The 74 projects analysed were executed in 100 countries by a

total of 1,214 participating organisations. The total budget was approximately €345.49 million

(see Appendices B-D).



22

When categorised according to

the FNS pillars, 27 projects address

food availability; 19 projects, food

utilisation; 17 projects, ecological

fundamentals; 5 projects, food

access; and 6 projects address food

stability. Some projects responded

to two or more FNS pillars and, in

some cases, also address capacity

building, research cooperation,

knowledge transfer, policy issues,

and the development of databases

(Appendix C). Fifty five projects

focus on knowledge transfer,

capacity building and policy.

This information is presented

graphically in Figure 9.

The EU budgetary contribution accounted for

approximately 74% (Figure 10) of the total budget

of €345.49 million (Appendix C). A word cloud

assessment (Figure 11) shows that the word ‘develop’

is most prominent among the project descriptions,

followed by ‘research’, ‘Africa’, ‘food’ and ‘cooperation’

in that order.15 ‘Production’, ‘systems’, ‘developed’,

‘Europe’, ‘framework’, ‘improve’, ‘identity’ ‘products’,

‘scientific’ and ‘methods’ stand out, but to a lesser

extent.

The number of participating countries from Europe is

almost two-to-three times the number from Africa.

The ratio of regional representation between SSA

countries, European countries and other countries was

2:6:2 respectively (Figure 12). Figure 13 shows that

South Africa had the highest representation among

SSA countries (35%).

Figure 9: Graphical representation of project focus areas/food security pillars

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

11.1%

Access

StabilityOther

Availability

Utilisation

Ecological FundamentalCapacity Building

Knowledge/ Data BasePlatform for

Communicationand Dissemination

of Research

Focus on Decision

and Policy Processes 5.2%

25.9%

7.4%

11.9%

13.3%

17.8%3.7%3.7%

15 Project description paragraphs were copied and entered into an online tool that produces word clouds on the basis of an algorithm that proportionally enlarges the words that appear most frequently.

Figure 10: Percentage (%) budget contribution by sourcefor FNS cooperation projects

74%

26%EU contribution

Other sources

Region

Sub-Saharan Africa

Europe

Other regions

Total

Number ofparticipating organisations

193

837

184

1,214

Percentagerepresentation

15.9

68.9

15.2

100.0

Table 1: Regional representation by number of participating organisations



23

Figure 11: Word cloud showing keywords used to define objectives of FNS cooperation projects Figure 12: Average country representations by region

Number ofSSA Countries

Number ofEU Countries

Number ofOther Countries

70 1 2 3 4 5 6

According to Figure 13, Kenya

had 11% representation, Ghana

8% and other countries had a

representation of 1-5% for the

projects covered.

Among the European countries,

the United Kingdom had 15%

representation, France 12%,

Germany 11% and the Netherlands

10% (Figure 14). According to Figure

15, 69% of these organisations

were based in Europe while 16%

were based in SSA. With respect to

organisatonal representation, 37%

of organisations engaged in project

activities came from universities

(academia), 24% came from

research institutes, 16% from the

public sector, and 15% from the

private sector (Figure 16). Table 2

provides data on the types of

organisations involved.

Figure 13: Percentage (%) representation by individual SSA countriesin FNS cooperation projects

South Africa34.8%

Kenya10.7%

Senegal 7%

Ghana7.5%

Tanzania 3.7%

Zambia 2.1%

Uganda 5.3%

Botswana 1.6%Burkina Faso 1.6%

Cameroon 1.1%Cape Verde 1.1%

Ethiopia 2.1%

Cote d’Ivoire 1.1%

Madagascar 2.1%Malawi 1.1%

Mali 3.2%Mozambique 1.1%

Niger 0.5%Nigeria 4.3%

Rwanda 1.6%Seychelles 0.5%

Namibia 2.7%

Angola 0.5% Benin 2.7%



24

In terms of outputs, the word

cloud for the selected projects

shows a mix of results with

‘developed’, ‘report’, and

‘published’ being the most

prominent words used to define

project outputs (Figure 17).

An attempt was made to interview

project leaders of completed

framework projects (Appendix

G) to validate the findings of the

desk study and to determine to

what extent research outputs

were being used as well as major

changes that may have occurred as

a result of the project. Responses

were received by the SUNRAY and

PLAPROVA projects.

SUNRAY: This project corresponded to the

FNS pillars, “utilisation” and “ecological

fundamentals”. The findings have generated

various initiatives, including the organisation

of an International Course on Evidence-based

Nutrition at the Institute of Tropical Medicine

in Antwerp, Belgium. A collaborative effort for

Figure 15: Percentage (%) regional representation in FNScooperation projects

Europe

Other Regions

Sub-Saharan Africa

15%

16%

69%

Organisation type

Civil society organisation/NGO

Media

Private enterprise

Public library/information centre

Public organisation (Ministries)/extension service

Regional/international/donor organisation

Research institute

University (academia)

Total

Number of organisations

18

3

180

5

187

73

296

452

1,214

Percentage representation

1.50

0.25

14.83

0.41

15.40

6.01

24.38

37.23

100.0

Table 2: Representation by organisation type

Figure 14: Percentage (%) representation by individual EU countries in FNS cooperation projects

UnitedKingdom

14.9%

France11.9%

Spain8.2%

Germany10.7%

Italy9.1%

Netherlands9.5%

Belgium6.2%

Austria 2.4%

Bulgaria 0.6%Czech Republic 0.7%

Greece 1.9%Hungary 1.2%

Iceland 0.2%Ireland 1%

Latvia 0.2%Lithuania 0.1%

Sweden2.4%

Switzerland3.4%

Norway 2.6%

Turkey 1.1%

Ukraine 0.4%

Poland 0.5%Portugal 2.4%

Slovakia1.2%

Serbia 0.1%

Romania 0.4%

RussianFederation

1.3%

Denmark 3.7%

Estonia 0.5%Finland 1.3%



25

Figure 16: Percentage (%) representation by organisation typein FNS cooperation projects

University(Academia)

37%

PrivateEnterprise

15%

Public Organisation(Ministries) / Extension Service 16%

Regional / International / Donor Organisation 6%

Public Library /Information Centre 0%

Civil Society Organisation / NGO 2%

ResearchInstitute

24%

evidence-based nutrition was

organised with first steps taken

by various SUNRAY partners,

other African research groups,

the International Network of

Agencies for Health Technology

Assessment and the International

Union for Nutrition Sciences.

A public database of African

nutrition researchers with

contact details, affiliations and

topics of interest was compiled

to facilitate networking between

African research groups and the

development of multi-disciplinary

studies. It was to be published

on the website of the Federation

of African Nutrition Societies for

further update and consultation.

However, this database could not

be accessed.

PLAPROVA: This collaborative

project between the EU and Russia

with participation from South

Africa developed a rapid plant-

based system to produce and

assess the capacity of different

proteins to act as vaccines against

important diseases of livestock

such as avian influenza and

blue tongue. The system allows

vaccines to be produced more

rapidly for emergency vaccination

programmes in the face of disease

pandemics. Patents have been

developed. However, the system

was difficult to access. Professor George Lomonossoff was awarded the title of Biotechnology and

Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Innovator of the Year 2012 for his work with Dr Frank

Sainsbury to develop the system for producing vaccines and pharmaceutical proteins in plants.

Figure 17: Representation of keywords used to define project output



26

6.3 Bilateral FNS programmes and projects of EU member states

Several EU member states operate in the FNS domain in Africa. According to the managing director

of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusamenarei (now GIZ). According to Bernd Eisenblatter,

managing director, “...contributions of countries from the North to Africa’s agricultural and rural

development are highly important, and perhaps even indispensable, for the future of the continent...”

(IFPRI, 2004). This section of the report highlights some strategic bilateral FNS cooperation projects

funded by two EU member states, Austria and France, and jointly executed in SSA and for which data

were available and accessible though contacts with relevant agencies. Project objectives, partner

countries, project results and possible project impacts are presented below.

6.4 Austrian bilateral FNS programmes and projects

The Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development (APPEAR)

APPEAR is a programme that was active from 2010 to 2014. It supported partnerships between

higher education institutions in Austria and key Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC) regions.

The institutional partnerships are based on cooperation and mutual respect for different cultural

contexts and approaches, including issues of relevance to food and nutrition insecurity in sub-

Saharan Africa (ADC 2010).

APPEAR aimed to improve the quality in teaching and research, to make the management and

administration of institutions more effective in order to strengthen scientific dialogue nationally and

internationally. Table 3 presents a summary of APPEAR projects, partner organisations and countries

which are of thematic interest to FNS.



27

APPEAR Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development

WATERCAP - Strengthening Universities’ Capacities for Mitigating Climate Change Induced Water Vulnerabilities in East Africa

TRANSACT - Strengthening Rural Transformation Competences of Higher Education and Research Institutions in the Amhara Region, Ethiopia

SUSFISH - Sustainable Management of Water Fish Resources in Burkina Faso

Uganda

Austria

Austria

RUFORUM

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

Austria

Uganda

Kenya

Ethiopia

Burkina Faso

Makerere University

Egerton University

Bahir Dar University

University of Gondar

Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg

Department of African Studies, University of Vienna

Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

University of Ouagadougou

Polytechnic University of Bobo-Dioulasso

Department of Rural Sociology and Economy

International Union for Conservation of Nature, West and Central Africa

Polytechnic University of Bobo-Dioulasso, Institute for Health Sciences

Programmeacronym

Programme/project titles

Major programme

title

Sub-projects title Country/institution

Organis-ation

Europe SSA Organisation

Coordinating country/organisation

Partner country/organisation

Table 3: APPEAR FNS projects, partner organisations and countries



28

The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

IIASA was founded in 1972 to conduct policy-oriented research on global complex problems that

cannot be solved by a single country or academic discipline. It is based in Austria and funded by

member organisations in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas.

AnimalChange is a sub-project of IIASA with two objectives: 1) providing scientific guidance on the

integration of adaptation and mitigation objectives and design sustainable development pathways

for livestock production in Europe, Northern Africa, SSA and in Latin America; and 2) informing

public policy development in the EU and propose cooperation programmes addressing smallholder

livestock farming in selected developing countries (Table 4).

Other IIASA projects

Weather Forecasts and Soil Data for African Farms (FARMSUPPORT)

This project is aimed at developing an application, delivered via the internet and mobile phones,

that will provide farmers in Ethiopia and Kenya with weather forecasts and soil moisture information

to assist them in making agricultural decisions (IIASA, 2013a). The project provides an opportunity

to evaluate the usefulness of soil moisture forecasts as a source of information to farmers and for

crop modelling more generally. Information about funding sources was difficult to acquire from the

available literature.

GEO for Early Warning and Food Security in East Africa (GEOSAF)

GEOSAF aims to create short-term soil moisture forecasts using several crop growth and soil

moisture models. The quality of the modelling data will be determined using a variety of satellite

observation products. This will provide new insights into the ability of satellite-based applications

to provide more accurate early warnings of droughts, floods, and other severe weather events

that could threaten East African agriculture (IIASA, 2013b). Information about funding sources was

difficult to obtain from the available literature.

Climate Change and Agricultural Productivity (ISAC)

ISAC aims to develop services that will provide more accurate information to private agricultural

insurers working with farmers in Europe, and food security/emergency response experts who are

developing sustainable land management systems in Africa. These services will include: (i) satellite

vegetation maps that have much greater spatial detail than is currently available; (ii) enhanced

risk assessment for drought-related crop damage; and (iii) short and long-term crop yield forecasts

based on global climate change predictions (IIASA, 2013c). Project partners and budget sources were

difficult to acquire from the available literature.



29

Table 4: Overview of IIASA AnimalChange project

IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

AnimalChange Austria Inter-national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria

France

Denmark

Ireland

Spain

United Kingdom

The Netherlands

France

Switzerland

United Kingdom

France

Austria

France

The Netherlands

Portugal

Italy

Italy

Belgium

Senegal

South Africa

Kenya

Programmeacronym

Programme/project titles

Major programme

title

Sub-projectstitle

Country/institution

Organis-ation

Europe SSA Organisation

Coordinating country/organisation

Partner country/organisation

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Aarhus University

Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Aberystwyth University - Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Science

Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek

Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement

Federal Department of Economic Affairs - Agroscope Swiss Federal Research Station

Scottish Agricultural College

Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

INRA Transfert

PROVIMI (Proteins, Vitamins and Minerals) company

FertiPrado

Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles

University of Pretoria

International Livestock Research Institute

European Federation of Animal Science, EAAP

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

EC - DG Joint Research - Institute for Environment and Sustainability



30

Eco-evolutionary Vegetation Modelling and Management

The project aims to develop eco-evolutionary vegetation models that scale up individual eco-

physiological processes to population-wide demographic changes in order to fully describe

vegetation diversity, structure, and functioning, through collaboration between the IIASA’s Evolution

and Ecology programme and the Ecosystems Service and Management Programme. The model is

expected to improve the ability to predict vegetation responses to climate change and disturbance

events and may interface with other IIASA frameworks for predicting anthropogenic impacts on

ecosystems (IIASA, 2012a). Project partners and budget sources were difficult to ascertain from the

available literature.

Equitable Governance of Common Goods (2011-2015)

The project focuses on improving the regulation of open resources by translating successful small-

scale, bottom-up regulations to large-scale, top-down regulations. Drawing on advances in game

theory, choice theory, cooperative phenomena, and agent-based modelling, the research project

explores how top-down regulations can be improved by integrative assessments of stakeholder

conflicts and by scaling up the successful characteristics of self-organised and resilient bottom-up

governance (IIASA, 2012b).

Evolutionarily Sustainable Consumption (2011-2015)

Evolutionary consequences of fishing affect a host of heritable traits in fish populations. This project

is aimed at developing scientific tools to help researchers understand and cope with opportunities

and threats of harvest-induced evolution. When completed, the tool will allow researchers to use

an evolutionary impact assessment to analyse the evolutionary consequences of harvesting and

the merits of alternative management strategies. The project is aimed at making one or more tools

available online in the form of web-based services facilitating stakeholder involvement (IIASA,

2012c). Project partners and budget sources were difficult to get from the available literature.

Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS)

WFaS works on defining the challenges and indentifying and testing solutions across different

economic sectors, including agriculture, energy and industry. Based on cutting-edge global

modelling, the project will develop new water scenarios that seek breakthroughs not only in problem

understanding but also in the development of solutions. The project includes a major stakeholder

consultation component to inform and guide the science and to test and refine policy and business

outcomes. Partners include: (i) the International Water Association; (ii) the World Water Council;

(iii) UNESCO; (iv) and Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (IIASA, 2012d). African

partners were difficult to determine from the available literature.



31

6.5 French bilateral FNS programmes and projects

IRD-SSA FNS projects

The Institute of Research for Development (Institute de recherche pour le développement) is a

French research organisation. For over 65 years, IRD has focused on the relationship between

humans and their environment in Africa, the Mediterranean, Latin America, Asia and French tropical

overseas territories. IRD contributes to the social, economic and cultural development of southern

countries through its research, training and innovation activities. Some of IRD’s FNS research

cooperation projects with African partners are featured below.

LMI: Laboratoires Mixtes Internationaux (International Joint Laboratories)

LMIs are international laboratories in the field of research and education that bring together

partners from the north and the south. LMIs are typically set up for a period of five years, and are

renewable once. Joint laboratories are hosted by southern countries, giving them the opportunity

to launch and implement research and education projects jointly with their collaborators, as well as

build long-term partnerships, both locally and internationally. For example, the International Centre

for Education, Marine and Atmospheric Sciences over Africa, which was set up in 2009, is a joint

venture between several laboratories in South Africa and France.16 The project focuses on marine

sciences (marine ecosystems, resources management, physical oceanography, ocean-atmosphere

exchanges, and biogeochemistry) along the coasts of Southern Africa and the Southern Ocean using

a multi-disciplinary approach. IRD is a participant in nine LMI in SSA:

1. LMI ECLAIR: Etude du climat en Afrique de l’Ouest, (Senegal).17

2. LMI IESOL: Intensification Ecologique des Sols Cultivés en Afrique de l’Ouest, (Burkina Faso

and Senegal).18

3. LMI LAPSE: Adaptation des Plantes et des microorganismes associés aux Stress

Environnementaux, (Senegal).19

4. LMI PATEO: Patrimoines et territoires de l’eau, (Senegal).20

5. LMI ZOFAC: Zoonoses dans les forêts tropicales humides d’Afrique centrale: modalités des

transferts inter-espèces et adaptation des pathogens, (Democratic Republic of Congo).

6. LMI PreVIHMI: Prévention et prise en charge des maladies infectieuses émergentes,

(Cameroon).

16 http://icemasa.org/research17 http://www.ird.fr/la-recherche/laboratoires-mixtes-internationaux-lmi/lmi-eclair-etude-du-climat-en-afrique-de-l-ouest18 http://www.ird.fr/la-recherche/laboratoires-mixtes-internationaux-lmi/lmi-iesol-intensification-ecologique-des-sols-cultives-en-afrique-de-l-ouest19 http://www.ird.fr/la-recherche/laboratoires-mixtes-internationaux-lmi/lmi-lapse-adaptation-des-plantes-et-des-microorganismes-associes-aux-

stress-environnementaux20 https://www.ird.fr/la-recherche/laboratoires-mixtes-internationaux-lmi/lmi-pateo-patrimoines-et-territoires-de-l-eau

http://icemasa.org/research



32

7. LMI PICASS-EAU: Prédire l’impact du climat et des usages sur les ressources en eau en

Afrique subsaharienne, (Cameroon and Burkina Faso).

8. LMI PATHO-BIOS: Observatoire des Agents Phytopathogènes en Afrique de l’Ouest, (Burkina

Faso).

9. LMI LLIP: Laboratoire de lutte intégrée contre le paludisme, (Benin).

PPR: Programmes Pilotes Régionaux (Regional Pilot Programmes)

The Regional Pilot Programmes are aimed at reinforcing the IRD’s scientific policy at the regional

level. Each programme focuses on specific issues with transnational/regional perspectives and

a partnership is established between local institutions (universities, research organisations,

ministries, development agencies etc.) and French/European institutions. Three PPRs encourage

interdisciplinary research in SSA:

+ PPR FTH-AC focuses on global changes, biodiversity and health in Central African forest zones.

+ SREC focuses on rural societies, environment and climate in West Africa.

+ POLMAF focuses on public policies, societies and globalisation in SSA.

SREC: Sites d’unités de recherche (Rural Communities, Environment and Climate in West Africa)

SREC is a multidisciplinary platform set up with different stakeholders in research and development

in West Africa. The platform aims to encourage the creation of innovative solutions for food security

for rural communities, and the conservation of natural resources in the face of climate change.

SREC is supported by the following pillars: (a) a portfolio of regional research programmes; (b)

international laboratories; (c) observatories; and (d) capacity building. Lines of research include: (i)

identification and construction of indicators; (ii) dynamics of local communities and climate change;

(iii) vulnerability of ecosystems and communities; (iv) and building up resilience.



33

Wageningen University (WU), Netherlands; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland; IRD, France; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), UK; University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa; Université d’Abomey Calavi (UAC), Benin; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Mali; University of Nairobi (UN), Kenya; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (DTA), Burkina Faso; International Food Policy Research Institute/Harvest Plus (IFPRI/HP), USA; International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria

Activities were developed in cooperation with the Association Misola and followed up by the Nutrifaso team based at Ouagadougou, Benin.

Partner associations: Tsihatava, Asos

The INSTAPA project, financed as part of the 7th FP of the EC, focuses on the improvement of millet, sorghum, maize, and cassava-based foods for young children in SSA. It aims to safely prevent iron, zinc, and vitamin A deficiencies and improve immune function and cognitive development.

Contribute to reducing the detrimental effects of price volatility of food products on rural and urban populations.

Contribute to reducing malnutrition among young children in rural communities of Madagascar in the long-term, by implementing the National Programme of Community Nutrition and providing food supplements.

+ INSTAPA Improved Nutrition Through Staple Foods in Africa

+ http://www.instapa.org/instapa

+ Jun 2008 - Nov 2013

+ NUTRIDEV MALI+ http://www.nutridev.org/

spip.php?rubrique59+ Jan 2010 - Oct 2011

+ PNNC Nutrimad+ http://www.nutridev.org/

spip.php?article76+ Apr 2009 - Mar 2012

EU

EU

French committee of UNICEF (main funding agency), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, EU

Sub-Saharan Africa

Mali

Madagascar

BUDGET

N/A

NUTRIDEV Programme (IRD through UMR204 Nutripass and the NGO GRET in France and in other countries)

NUTRIDEV Programme

PROGRAMMES/IRD RESEARCH UNITS

OBJECTIVES PARTNERS COUNTRIES/ REGION

SOURCE(S)OF FUNDING

PROJECT INFORMATION:ENGLISH TITLE, LINK AND

PROJECT DURATION

Table 5: IRD-SSA FNS projects

N/A

€62,000

€800,000



34

N/A

Afrique Verte;UNICEF; Misola

Partner association: Association Nutrition Et Développement (ANED)

Burkina Faso: Comité de Lutte contre la Sècheresse au Sahel (CILSS); Direction nationale de la Nutrition; UNICEF; World Food Programme

Ouagadougou University. Other partners: L’institut de l’environnement et de recherches agricoles (INERA) in Ouagadougou; Laboratoire National de Recherches sur les Productions Végétales (LNRPV) of Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) in Dakar; Faculty of Sciences and Techniques of Kara University (CRCT), Brazzaville

Improve the diets of young children in urban and peri-urban areas. Propose locally produced, high-quality and cheap fortified food products for children. Raise awareness at household level on good food practices.

Improve food and nutritional security over the long-term in the context of strong price volatility.

Improve the nutritional situation and reduce the vulnerability of households in the Brakna region. Test a strategy of malnutrition prevention aiming at securing resources and improving dietary and healthcare practices of the most vulnerable groups.

Improve the relevance of food and nutritional insecurity indicators in urban areas.

Test alternative soil management modes in order to limit risks due to the use of organic or mineral inputs.

+ Support local processing and promotion of fortified food products for children and launch of a nutritional educational programme in urban areas.

+ http://www.nutridev.org/spip.php?article78

+ Dec 2010 - Nov 2012

+ NUTRIDEV Niger+ http://www.nutridev.org/

spip.php?article69+ Jan 2010 - Oct 2011

+ NutriRIM+ http://www.nutridev.org/

spip.php?article508+ Jan 2011 - Apr 2013

+ Jan 2007 - Dec 2012

+ Negative externalities related to the intensification of soil culture in peri-urban areas: methods, assessment tools and alternative practices

+ http://burkina-faso.ird.fr/la-recherche/projets-de-recherche2/externalites-negatives-de-l-intensification-des-sols-cultives-en-milieu-periurbain-methodes-et-outils-d-evaluation-et-pratiques-alternatives

+ Jun 2012 - Jun 2015

Ministry of the Interior and overseas territories

EU; UNICEF Niger; Fondation Orange (Private donor - €70,000

EU

N/A

N/A

Burkina Faso

Niger

Mauritania

Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso

BUDGET

NUTRIDEV Programme

NUTRIDEV Programme

NUTRIDEV Programme

IRDUMR 204 Nutripass

IRDUMR 210 ECO&SOLS



SOURCE(S)OF FUNDING


PROJECT DURATION

€380,000

€481,000

€555,000

N/A

N/A



35

Institute of Agricultural Research of Senegal (ISRA)

CIRAD; ENSA

N/A

Madagascar: Laboratory of Biochemistry Applied to Food and Nutrition Science (Labasan), Faculty of Science at theUniversity of Antananarivo.France: GRET, CIRAD

Develop ecological intensification practices of ecosystem services on West African soils. Develop analytical platforms on soil functioning and make them available to researchers in the region. Put together a sound group of researchers on soils in West Africa.

Assess the potential of the “fonio” cereal, in particular for Senegal.

Validate agro-systems management practices which allow the control of carbon and nitrogen streams, optimise agricultural production as well as control greenhouse gas emissions.

Identify modes of preparation and consumption of food products to prevent malnutrition for vulnerable groups in different contexts in Madagascar.

+ International Mixed Laboratory IESOL “Ecological Intensification of cultivated soils in West Africa”

+ http://burkina-faso.ird.fr/la-recherche/projets-de-recherche2/laboratoire-mixte-international-intensification-ecologique-des-sols-cultives-en-afrique-de-l-ouest

+ Jan 2012 - Dec 2017

+ Agro-biodiversity and adaptation of under-exploited vegetables in West Africa

+ http://senegal.ird.fr/la-recherche/tous-les-projets/environnement-et-ressources/agrobiodiversite-et-adaptation-d-especes-alimentaires-sous-exploitees-en-afrique-de-l-ouest

+ Carbon capture and bio-functioning of soils: impacts of tropical agro-ecosystem management modes

+ http://www.ird.fr/kenya/activites/ur179.html

+ 2005 -

+ Improving nutritional situations in Madagascar through diet and food products

+ http://www.madagascar.ird.fr/les-activites/la-recherche/madagascar/nutrition/voies-alimentaires-d-amelioration-des-situations-nutritionnelles-a-madagascar

+ Jan 2006 - Dec 2012

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Senegal and Burkina Faso

Senegal

Madagascar

BUDGET

IRDUMR 210 ECO&SOLS

IRDUMR DIADE

IRDUnit 179

UMR 204Nutripass



SOURCE(S)OF FUNDING


PROJECT DURATION

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



36

Madagascar partners: Laboratoire des Radio-Isotopes (LRI); FOFIFA.Other partners: CIRAD (URP Scrid et UPR Biodiversité et Forêt); INRA Bordeaux

N/A

N/A

Researchers at the universities in Dakar and Djibouti; CERD of Djibouti

Impacts of nitrogen availability on the efficient use of phosphorus in agricultural soils in Madagascar.

Transfer of the biotechnological application Phoenix DB.

In vitro multiplication of high quality date palms adapted to the environment in Djibouti.Assessment of embryo development biology and flowering of the date palm.

Continue the adaptation of the date palm cloning processes to the environment of the Sahel.

+ Impacts of nitrogen availability on the efficient use of phosphorus in agricultural soils in Madagascar

+ http://www.madagascar.ird.fr/les-activites/la-recherche/madagascar/cycles-des-nutriments-n-p-dans-les-agrosystemes/incidence-de-la-disponibilite-de-l-azote-sur-l-efficacite

+ Sept 2010 - Mar 2015

+ Project PhoenixID: Development of bio-informatics and molecular tools for the genotyping and gender determination of date palm

+ http://www.diade-research.fr/pages/contrats-de-recherche-en-cours/contrats-de-recherche-en-cours.html

+ In vitro multiplication of high quality date palms adapted to the environment in Djibouti.Assessment of embryo’s development biology and flowering of the date palm


+ 2008 - 2010

+ Control of palm date propagation for sustainable agriculture in the Sahel


+ 2008 - 2011

N/A

N/A

N/A

Madagascar

N/A

N/A

Sahel

BUDGET

IRDUMR 210 ECO&SOLS

IRDUMR DIADE

IRDUMR DIADE

IRDUMR DIADE



SOURCE(S)OF FUNDING


PROJECT DURATION

N/A

€13,400

N/A

€90,000



37

France: CIRAD, INRA, CIFOR

Partners: public institutions in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger

German Ministry of Education and Research

N/A

CIRAD; Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Costa Rica (CATIE); ICRAF (World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya).

Assess the impacts of global changes on date palm crops; identify obstacles and opportunities as well as uncertainties, linked to the transition towards sustainable cropping systems; develop strategies and instruments to facilitate these transitions.

Capacity building in research on food security in West Africa. Themes: health, agriculture, food security, environment, mathematics, information technology sciences.

A number of projects funded under this programme focus on food security.

Funding of research projects; capacity building; recommendations to decision-makers.

+ SPOP - Sustainable Development of Palm Oil Production: Designing strategies from improved knowledge on oil palm cropping systems

+ http://www.gred.ird.fr/programmes-de-recherche/projets-anr/spop

+ 2012 - 2015

+ Gval food security

+ Multilateral research projects between Germany, France and Africa in SSA

+ http://www.aird.fr/nos-programmes/programmes-de-recherche/projets-de-recherches-trilaterales-entre-l-allemagne-la-france-et-l-afrique-en-afrique-subsaharienne

+ 2011 -

+ Interdisciplinary and participative research on interactions between ecosystems, climate and societies in West Africa

+ http://www.aird.fr/nos-programmes/programmes-de-recherche/ripiecsa

+ Jan 2007 - Dec 2011

+ Tropical Agroforestry+ http://www.aird.fr/

nos-programmes/programmes-de-recherche/agroforesterie-tropicale

+ Jan 2011- Dec 2015

French National Agency for Research

N/A

France and Germany

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

N/A

Cameroon (and Indonesia)

West Africa

West Africa

Kenya

BUDGET

IRDUMR GRED

Programme de recherches trilatérales entre l’Allemagne, la France et l’Afrique en Afrique subsaharienne



SOURCE(S)OF FUNDING


PROJECT DURATION

N/A

N/A

N/A

€3.5 million

N/A



38

Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)

CIRAD is a French research centre working with developing countries to tackle international

agriculture and development issues. CIRAD’s mandate is to work with countries to generate and

pass on new knowledge, support agricultural development and fuel the debate on the main global

issues concerning agriculture. CIRAD’s strategy focuses on six priority lines of research: (i) ecological

intensification; (ii) biomass energy and societies in the south; (iii) accessibility of quality food; (iv)

animal health and emerging diseases; (v) public policy, poverty and inequity; and (vi) agriculture,

environment, nature and societies (CIRAD, 2010). Some of CIRAD’s FNS-related projects are provided

in Table 6.

31/03/12

31/12/13

31/12/09

31/03/11

31/10/11

31/12/09

31/12/10

31/05/11

31/12/10

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

587

120

49

75

16

61

21

33

6

01/02/08

01/09/08

01/02/09

01/05/07

01/11/07

01/05/09

01/03/10

01/03/10

01/01/10

Ferti-partners

ATF RESISTANCES FONGICIDES CARBAP, Cameroon

Technical study of PPCDR on the feasibility of methods of processing of agricultural products in five provinces USDA COCOA BLACK POD

Farmers’ seeds and the role of varietal diversity in rice in traditional agro-ecosystems in Guinea

Implementation of the final review of the ‘FIRCOP’ field project

ATF QDE CARBAP

Enhancing productivity and consumption of indigenous horticultural food crops for better nutrition and health through enhanced communication of research results in community-run resource centres

Development of guidelines

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Burundi

Cameroon

Guinea

South Africa

Cameroon

Kenya

Ghana

EU - Development

EU - Development

EU - Development

Foreign institutes in research and education

The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs

The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs

EU - Development

Foreign institutes in research and education

EU - Development

THEMATICFOCUS

BUDGET (€000)

Ferti-partners

RESISTANCES FONGICIDES

DUMAS MISSION BURUNDI

USDA COCOA BLACK POD

CORUS RIZ GUINEE

FIRCOP PROJECT

CARBAP

Recipe for success project

FARA PAEPARD

ACRONYM STARTDATE

ENDDATE

SOURCE OF FUNDING

COUNTRYTITLE

Table 6: CIRAD-SSA FNS projects



39

31/03/13

31/12/14

28/12/15

31/12/15

10/08/11

03/04/15

29/02/12

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

15

158

428

288

20

575

17

06/12/10

01/01/11

01/01/11

01/01/11

08/02/11

04/04/12

16/02/11

Training for capacity building of technical admin staff (DGPER, DRA, DEP, DGPV, SP-CPSA) responsible for monitoring agro-forestry-pastoral and fisheries sectors

Improving food security in Côte d’Ivoire by implementing a common policy between the government and civil society stakeholders

Adapting clonally propagated crops to climatic and commercial changes

Sustainable production of cassava in Central Africa and market integration

Specify the conditions implemented in CIRAD activities in the study of the “implementation of the PAPAM project” contract

Enhancing food security and well-being of rural African households through improved synergy between food-crops and perennial agro-forestry systems

Support the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system of effects and impact of advisory services to family farms in Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso

Côte d’Ivoire

South Africa, Germany, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Slovenia, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, France, Gabon, Chad

Mali

Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar

Burkina Faso, France

Foreign ministries

EU - Development

EU - Development

EU - Development

Development banks

EU Structural Funds

Associations (F3E)

THEMATICFOCUS

BUDGET (€000)

DGPER Training

3C.IVOIRE

FSTP TARO (INEA)

PDMACIM

PAPAM Observatory Mali 2011

AFS4FOOD

Evaluation Conseil AFDI F3E

ACRONYM STARTDATE

ENDDATE

SOURCE OF FUNDING

COUNTRYTITLE



40

23/12/15

31/12/12

28/02/13

04/10/12

28/02/13

28/02/13

30/11/13

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

FNS

331

44

49

54

4

12

50

01/01/12

01/06/11

01/02/12

04/01/12

01/10/12

07/11/12

13/11/12

Promote accessible systems to manage risk in family agriculture in Africa (agrinatura)

Completion of one part of the technical assistance provided by HORUS on behalf of the World Bank related to the implementation and monitoring of two pilot projects in the cassava processing sector in Cameroon

Analysis of agricultural markets in relation to food security in households in Niger

Support in the implementation of a cereal crop forecast and early warning system

Workshop to improve the sustainability of advisory services to family farms in Africa

(PADYP – Programme d’Appui aux Dynamiques Productives)

Workshop to improve the sustainability of advisory services to family farms in Benin

Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Zambia

Cameroon

Niger

Tunisia

Benin

Benin

Benin

EU - Development

Development banks

International funding

EU – Structural Funds

Associations (GFRAS)

AFD

AFD

THEMATICFOCUS

BUDGET (€000)

FARMAF (Risk Management)

HORUS CAMEROUN

Market profiles, Niger

Twinning Tunisia Cereal (Jumelage Tunisie Céréales)

GFRAS ATELIER CONSEIL

PADYP

AFD ATELIER CONSEIL

ACRONYM STARTDATE

ENDDATE

SOURCE OF FUNDING

COUNTRYTITLE

Synthesis

In summary EU member states are active in SSA, some more so than others, and based on the

projects highlighted for French and Austrian research for development institutions, they are

undertaking interesting and innovative bilateral FNS projects over a range of thematic domains for

addressing the food and nutrition security challenge. However, it was difficult to capture data on

joint projects of other EU member states because there is no central repository at national level and

because of the language differences. In addition, some EU member states focus on particular SSA

countries and sub-regions. Country profiles sourced from the ERA-ARD website confirm that France

and the UK are the major financiers of bilateral research cooperation projects in Africa and in the

global south.21 However, the website did not provide a breakdown of all the related projects. These

are important issues as they inhibit joint learning within Africa, as well as in Europe and between the

two continents, for tackling the African FNS challenge and, by extension, the global FNS challenge.

It has been previously recommended that synergies should be developed between actions taken at

21 http://www.era.ard/ard-landcape



41

the “EU level and those taken by member states” and two platforms were identified: the EU expert

Group and the Strategic Forum for International Cooperation (EC, 2010). This is still relevant in the

context of bilateral projects funded by EU member states and which can contribute to addressing the

global FNS challenge.

6.6. EU-supported ARD platforms

Platforms relevant to bilateral research cooperation in SSA are featured in this section. While the

CGIAR receives significant EU funding and addresses FNS priorities in SSA they are not included in

this report given the report’s focus on Africa-EU STI cooperation specifically.

The Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)

GFAR’s mission is to mobilise stakeholders in agricultural research and innovation systems for

development, and to catalyse action towards the alleviation of poverty, increase food security and

promote the sustainable use of natural resources.22 GFAR is funded by the EDF and FARA. EFARD are

constituent members.23

GFAR aims to build consensus and strengthen advocacy for action on agricultural research and

innovation priorities; promote global and regional partnerships for collaborative research and

innovation; boost knowledge and improve communication of agricultural research and innovation;

and strengthen the institutional capacities of GFAR and its stakeholders. During the second external

review of GFAR in 2007, stakeholders expressed the need for GFAR to increase its emphasis on

fostering dialogue and debate on ARD issues and on advocacy. GFAR is expected to promote a research

approach with a more defined pro-poor orientation and which progressively shifts towards innovation

systems, recognising and integrating local knowledge and local research systems (GFAR, 2007).

The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)

FARA’s mission is to create broad-based improvements in agricultural productivity, competitiveness

and markets by supporting Africa’s sub-regional research organisations (SROs) in strengthening

capacity for agricultural innovation. FARA was established by SROs and is the lead organisation

for CAADP Pillar IV: research, technology, dissemination and adoption.24 It strives to ensure that

programmes are aligned to meeting the MDG 1 (to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty) and MDG 7

22 http://www.egfar.org/about-us/mission-and-strategic-objectives23 The EDF is the main instrument for providing community development aid in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and overseas

countries and territories (OCTs). It was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, and first launched in 1959.24 FARA is an apex organization bringing together and forming coalitions of major stakeholders in ARD in Africa. Established in 2001, the forum

encompasses all stakeholders, African and non-African, who are committed to enabling African agricultural development and the achievement of the MDGs, especially MDG1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) and MDG7 (ensure environmental stability) (FARA, 2007).



42

(to ensure environmental stability). As the lead organisation of CAADP Pillar IV, FARA developed

the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP)25 to guide countries towards achieving

the overall goals of CAADP in a holistic and integrated manner. In 2011, FARA published a three-

year (2011-2013) strategy for the implementation of CAADP Pillar IV. The overall objective was to

contribute to a sustainable reduction in food insecurity and poverty and to enhance environmental

conditions in Africa (FARA, 2011). The strategy was revised in 2013. FARA is also leading the S3A (see

Page 3).

In line with the FP7 programme, FARA was a participant of the BIOCIRCLE2 project which aimed

to foster knowledge databases and provide third country researchers with efficient networking

opportunities. FARA also coordinates PAEPARD, a joint FARA-EFARD project supported by the EU’s

FP7-FSTP and which has been extended until 2017.

The Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development

(PAEPARD)

The goal of PAEPARD is to enhance research collaboration between research and non-research

organisations in Africa and Europe. It facilitates partnerships between farmers’ organisations, civil

society groups, research and education institutes, private companies and policy-makers. These

partnerships are supported through capacity strengthening and by providing access to information

on funding opportunities. PAEPARD also helps partners to prepare research proposals that address

the needs of farmers, and to advocate for increased support for demand-led, multi-actor agricultural

research (FARA, 2007).

According to the results of PAEPARD’s Mid-Term Review:

+ PAEPARD is compatible with both EC ARD and AU policies. It is also aligned with NEPAD

CAADP and the FARA FAAP.

+ PAEPARD directly responds to the key issues stated in FARA’s Operational Plans (2008-2012

and 2013-2017), such as improved access to knowledge and technologies, better targeted

capacity development, and the promotion of innovation platforms.

+ PAEPARD strengthens the capacities of non-research stakeholders to participate in and lead

ARD partnerships.

The following lessons have been identified:

+ Partnership building takes time.

+ Partnerships have to be based on a common interest and demonstrate how all partners

would benefit.

+ Africa is big and heterogeneous, and communication is difficult.

25 FAAP was endorsed by African Heads of State and Governments during the AU summit in Banjul, the Gambia, in July 2006 (FARA, 2006).



43

+ Agricultural innovation facilitators work best if they are neutral within a consortium (i.e.

external to partners), as many differing interests and objectives are often represented within

a consortium.

+ Advocacy is essential for creating a favourable policy environment for ARD and policy, and

institutional issues need to be addressed at both national and continental levels.

The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA)

ASARECA is a sub-regional not-for-profit association established in 1994 by 10 member countries

represented by their national ARD institutes. ASARECA’s mission is to enhance regional collective

action in ARD, extension, and agricultural training and education to promote economic growth, fight

poverty, eradicate hunger, and enhance sustainable use of resources in Eastern and Central Africa.

The ASARECA strategic plan is aligned to CAADP and its implementation is funded through a multi-

donor fund to which the EC is a contributor. ASARECA sees improved delivery and impact of scientific

knowledge, policy options and technologies as a powerful instrument to drive the sub-region

towards meeting the AU-NEPAD CAADP goal (ASARECA, 2012).

ASARECA’s five results areas include:

+ Strengthened gender-responsive governance and management;

+ Enhanced generation of demand driven agricultural technologies and innovations;

+ Enhanced adoption of policy options by decision-makers to improve performance of the

agricultural sector in Eastern and Central Africa;

+ Strengthened capacity for implementing ARD; and,

+ Enhanced availability of information on agricultural technologies and innovations.

During its first general assembly held in December 2011, themed Feeding our Region in the 21st

Century, it was recommended that ASARECA should strengthen its collaboration with RECs in order

to provide better political support for the CAADP process and ensure that all stakeholders fully

participate in the process through increased capacity building. Other support areas include:

+ Addressing the disconnect between agricultural research in national agricultural research

institutes and faculties of agriculture;

+ Supporting farmers and their organisations;

+ Supporting the private sector and its strategic partners;

+ Dealing with emerging issues underlying food security; and,

+ Getting African information online.



44

The Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and

Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD)

Established in 1987 by the Conference of African and French Agronomic Research Directors, CORAF/

WECARD widened its coverage to include English and Portuguese speaking nations of West and

Central Africa in 1995. CORAF/WECARD’s vision is to achieve a “sustainable reduction in poverty and

food insecurity in West and Central Africa through an increase in agriculture-led economic growth

and sustainable improvement of key aspects of the agricultural research system” (CORAF/WECARD,

2007). Its mission is to obtain “sustainable improvements to the competitiveness, productivity and

markets of the agricultural system in West and Central Africa by meeting the key demands of the

sub-regional research systems as expressed by target groups” (CORAF/WECARD, 2007).

The strategic plan of CORAF/WECARD for 2007-2016 addresses priority issues and makes a clear

commitment to delivering four main results which encompass a new paradigm for ARD. These results

include (CORAF/WECARD, 2007):

+ Developing appropriate technologies and innovations;

+ Developing strategic decision-making options for policy, institutions and markets;

+ Strengthening and coordinating sub-regional agricultural research systems; and

+ Facilitating and meeting the demand for agricultural information from target groups.

These results are to be delivered through eight programmes which include: (i) livestock, fisheries

and aquaculture, (ii) staple crops, (iii) non-staple crops, (iv) natural resource management, (v)

biotechnology and bio-safety, (vi) policy, markets and trade, (vii) knowledge management, and (viii)

capacity strengthening and co-ordination.

By aligning the strategic plan with CAADP and FAAP, there is coherence with regional concerns and

priorities of other SROs to ensure timely delivery and functioning of a comprehensive operational

plan, for which progress can be tracked through a monitoring and evaluation strategy and system

(CORAF/WECARD, 2010).

CORAF/WECARD aims to strengthen national agricultural research systems (NARS) through:

+ Capacity strengthening of NARS and creating and maintaining a conducive environment and

institutional culture that attracts and retains quality and value-adding personnel.

+ Coordinating and facilitating research cooperation and partnerships among NARS, scientific

partners, and the donor community.

+ Knowledge management and advocacy, in particular approaches and mechanisms linking the

dissemination and uptake of knowledge, advocacy, harmonisation and experiential learning

at various levels to ensure that technology and policy options respond to the demands of

target constituents and enhance ownership and impact of research programmes.



45

The Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa

(CCARDESA)

CCARDESA is a not-for-profit SRO and was launched in August 2011. CCARDESA strives to reduce

food (and nutrition) insecurity and poverty in the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

CCARDESA works in line with SADC’s Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP), the

Dar es Salaam Declaration on Food Security, and CAADP.26 The strategic objective of CCARDESA is to

increase smallholder productivity and competitiveness through the implementation of the CAADP

Pillar IV for the SADC region based on the FAAP.

CCARDESA’s thematic focus areas include:

+ Farmer empowerment and market access;

+ Technological development;

+ Capacity building and training; and

+ Institutional strengthening.

This is to be done by: (i) coordination of regional and cross-country linkages; (ii) providing review

mechanisms and sharing protocols of research activities and results; and, (iii) providing platforms for

networking and engaging with strategic partners (within the region and internationally).

6.7 European Research Area Network for Africa (ERAfrica)

The European Research Area Network for Africa (ERAfrica) operates within the framework of the

Joint Africa-EU Strategy. It is an FP7 project which provides a joint funding mechanism for supporting

Africa-Europe S&T collaborative projects in three areas: renewable energies, challenges of common

interest (including food security) and new ideas. This is the first joint Africa-EU initiative in which

African countries have contributed funding of approximately 50%. It was finalised in November

2012 and the first call was launched in January 2013. Selected projects were expected to begin in

June 2014. This project responds to the need for national/local ownership for ensuring that joint

cooperation leads to tangible impact on FNS.

26 http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/attachments/127_Dar-es-SalaamDeclarationonAgricultureandFoodSecurityintheSADCRegion.pdf

http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/attachments/127_Dar-es-SalaamDeclarationonAgricultureandFoodSecurityintheSADCRegion.pdf



46

Synthesis

In summary, several platforms such as FARA, ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD and CCARDESA exist at

continental and sub-regional level in Africa to support bilateral research cooperation programmes

for achieving the FNS goal. These platforms already have direct input into policymaking organs

at national, regional (for example, the regional economic communities), continental (mainly the

AUC and NEPAD Agency) and international level (mainly the EU and the World Bank and other

development partners). However, the reliance on external funding needs to be addressed.

Bilateral platforms such as PAEPARD and ERAfrica can be considered as two pilot initiatives for

providing lessons for future bilateral cooperation projects which address: (i) greater integration of

research users (for example, farmers) in research agenda setting (PAEPARD); and (ii) operationalising

jointly funded FNS research projects based on mutually agreed priorities (ERAfrica).

A critical lesson is that it takes time to build trust among partners and platform members for joint

priority setting and the implementation of joint activities (whether multi-country, regional or

bilateral). This suggests that project funding to support these mechanisms should allow sufficient

time for this particular stage of the learning curve.

Any new EU-SSA bilateral platform(s) for addressing the global FNS challenge should build on

established mechanisms (FARA, ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD and CCARDESA) and integrate the

lessons from PAEPARD and ERAfrica. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the executive

directors or research programme leaders be members of any future Africa-EU STI cooperation

platforms to address FNS.



47

RESULTS OF THE ONLINE SURVEY

The total number of participants who responded to the survey was 120. Of these, 21% were

female and 79% were male (Table 7, Figure 18). There were 83 English respondents and 37 Fench

respondents. However, not all respondents completed the survey questionnaire, and several did not

complete obligatory questions, which resulted in them exiting the survey before completion.

7

Figure 18: Percentage (%) representationof survey respondents by gender

Male

Female

21%

79%

TYPE OF ORGANISATION

Answer options Response percent Response count

Research organisation/institute

University/academic institution

Private enterprise/industry/business

Consulting firm

Farmer organisation

NGO/CSO

Policy think tank

Innovation facilitator/business incubator

Financial enterprise/service provider

Extension service

Other (please specify)

42.1%

32.7%

0.0%

1.9%

2.8%

11.2%

0.9%

0.9%

0.0%

1.9%

5.6%

Answered Question

Skipped Question

Total

45

35

0

2

3

12

1

1

0

2

6

107

13

120

GENDER


Male

Female

79.4%

20.6%

95

25

120

0

Answered question

Skipped question

Table 7: Gender breakdown of survey respondents

Table 8: Type of organisation respondents work in

7.1 Organisation profile

The majority of respondents hailed from research organisations (42%) and universities (32.7%).

Private sector representation was zero (Table 8). Some respondents presented themselves as retired

or as independent consultants.



48

The responses revealed that 46.7% of respondents

work at a national scale, 11.2% on a regional

basis and 28% at an international level. 74.8%

of the organisations were Africa-based, 5.6%

Europe-based, while 7.5% were located in Asian or

Caribbean countries.

The main S&T activities undertaken by

organisations represented in the survey were

research and experimental development

(40.4%) and education and training (26.6%).

Other activities, such as extension services and

agricultural services, agribusiness incubation

and foresight, and community

outreach, were undertaken

by 15.5% of the organisations

represented (Figure 19). Business

activities were the least

represented (7.4%).

With respect to the FNS pillars

(Figure 20), the majority of the

organisations focused on food

availability (75.5%), followed by

ecological fundamentals (46.8%),

food utilisation (36.2%) and food

stability (22.3%). Capacity building

(62.8%) and business enterprise

development (28.7%) were also

mentioned.

Of those who responded, 45.6%

had participated in EU-Africa

funded projects and 53.2% had

benefited directly from the

results/outputs of EU-funded

EU-Africa programmes.

Figure 19: Main S&T activities undertaken by organisation

Research and Experimental Development

Education and Training

S&T Services

Business

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50

40.4%

26.6%

17%

7.4%

8.5%

Figure 20: Major FNS activities undertaken by represented organisations

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Food Availability

Food AccessOther

FoodStability

Marketingand Sales

FoodUtilisation

Business Enterprise /

Development

EcologicalFundamental

CapacityDevelopment

Policy Design / Analysis

75.5%

25.5%

22.3%

36.2%

46.8%36.2%

62.8%

28.7%

12.1%7.1%



49

7.2 Policy harmonisation

Most participants (59.6%) were

familiar with CAADP, 44.7% were

familiar with the AU’s FNS strategy,

and 42.6% were familiar with the

EC’s FNS strategy.

7.3 Technological and social innovations

Over half (52%) of the participants

said there were no major research

or scientific outputs from their EU-

funded joint S&T projects (Figure

22). 60.3% reported that there

were publications as a result of

cooperation projects or programmes. Of those who responded as to the type of publication (n = 39),

the majority indicated their research had been published in EC programme or project reports,

refereed journals, annual reports or policy briefs (Table 9).

Figure 21: Familiarity of participants with various FNS strategies

Are you familiar withthe CAADP?

Response Percentage

40.4%

59.6%

No

Yes

Are you familiar withthe EC’s FNS Strategy?

57.4%

42.6%

No

Yes

Are you familiar withAfrica Union’s Strategy

on FNS?

53.3%

44.7%

No

Yes

Figure 22: Percentage (%)who published scientificoutput

Response Percentage

52.0%

48.0%

No

Yes

Were there any major research/scientific outputs from the

EU-funded joint S&T programme/project(s) on FNS?

KINDS OF PUBLISHERS


Refereed journal article

Organisation annual report

Programme/project report for the EC

Programme/project open accesswebsite/database

Policy paper/brief


30.8%

30.8%

41.0%

15.4%

12.8%

15.4%

Answered Question

Skipped Question

Total

12

12

16

6

5

6

39

81

120

Table 9: Kinds of publishers



50

Lead authors were predominantly from Europe

(41%) or Africa (38%), with the rest (21%) from

other regions. Over 70% of the lead authors

came from academia. Almost half (45.7%) were

able to directly confirm that their publications

had been referenced in other publications.

Over half (50.8%) of respondents indicated that

technological results/outputs have been taken-up

by policy-makers or adopted (for example, used by

farmers or agro-food processors or other private

sector representatives to improve production,

productivity, products, processes, markets/market

access, or develop new products/processes/

markets) (Figure 23). 12.8% indicated that patents

were generated (Figure 24). However, the level of

significance of the adoption/uptake of the joint

research outputs varied among respondents (Table 10). From

the mathematical expression below, the average level of significance of the

adoption/uptake was 61%. Some of the reasons provided for non-adoption were:

1. Policy, institutional and market failures;

2. Preconceived ideas and lack of flexibility;

3. Lack of awareness of technology funding and problems; and

4. Cultural factors which make slow technological uptake inherent in Africa.

Average significance = (Σ(Upper limit of significance level x Response count)/n)* 100

where n = 41

Figure 23: Percentage (%) publication(s) referencedand adoption of technological results/outputs

Response Percentage

Publication(s)referenced

Adoption ofresults/outputs

54.3% 49.2%

45.7% 50.8%

No

Yes

No

Yes

LEVEL(S) OF ADOPTION/UPTAKE OF THE JOINT RESEARCH OUTPUTS


No significance <20%

Of little significance (20 - 39%)

Average (40 - 59%)

Significant (60 - 79%)

Very significant (>80%)

24.4%

9.8%

48.8%

24.4%

4.9%

Answered Question

Skipped Question

Total

10

4

20

10

2

41

79

120

Table 10: Level of adoption of joint research output

87.2%

12.8%

No

Yes

Figure 24: Patents arising from research collaboration

Response Percentage

Were there any patentsarising out of the

research collaboration?



51

With respect to the impact of project/programme

output(s)/outcomes in addressing the global FNS

challenge, most of the survey participants considered

them of average significance (39.2%), while 17.7%

considered them of little or no significance (Figure 25).

7.4 Capacity development and multi-disciplinary research

The majority of respondents considered that EU-funded joint S&T programme/project(s) developed

capacity for multi-disciplinary research on FNS, but that this was of average significance (40 - 60%)

(Figure 26, Table 11).

Average significance = (Σ(Upper limit of significance level x Response count)/n)* 100

where n = 52

Using the Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being very significant, S&T contribution of partners from

African countries were rated below their European counterparts at 3.36 and 3.85 respectively (Figure 27).

SIGNIFICANCE OF EU-FUNDED JOINT S&T PROGRAMME/PROJECT(S) CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOPING CAPACITYFOR MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH ON FNS

Answer options Responsepercent

Responsecount

No significance <20%


Average (40 - 59%)


Very significant (>80%)

20,5%

12,8%

59,0%

25,6%

15,4%

Answered Question

Skipped Question

Total

8

5

23

10

6

52

68

120

Table 11: Significance of EU-funded joint S&T programme/project(s) contribution to developing capacity for multi-disciplinary researchon FNS

Figure 25: Significance of output(s)/outcome(s) of the EU-Africa joint S&T project(s) in addressing the global FNS challenge

Response Percentage

No significance

(<20%)


Average(40 - 59%)


Very significant

(>80%)

5.9%11.8%

39.2%35.3%

7.8%

Figure 26: Significance of contribution of EU-funded joint S&T programme/project(s) to developing capacity for multi-disciplinary research on FNS

Response Percentage

No significance

(<20%)


Average(40 - 59%)


Very significant

(>80%)

20.5%12.8%

59.0%

25.6%

15.4%



52

Figure 27: S&T contribution of partners to achieving the joint project outputs/outcomes on FNS

Other Partners

African Partners

EU Partners

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

2.85

3.36

3.85

Results from the preliminary desk research

showed that beneficiaries of EU-Africa joint

research projects on FNS are more skewed toward

EU partners. Participants of the survey were

asked if they agreed with this: approximately 54%

of them agreed, of which 21% strongly agreed

(Figure 28).

The survey’s participants generally agreed that

multi-disciplinary research is very important in

tackling the FNS global challenge. S&T cooperation

among project partners for achieving the

outputs/outcomes of the EU-funded EU-Africa

joint programme/project(s) on FNS was rated

as average, scoring 2.9 (using the Likert scale

from 1 to 5). Private sector involvement was

also considered to be low, scoring a rating of

2.39. Some reasons for such an average level of

collaboration included:

1. Absence of a multi-institutional and multi-

locational framework;

2. Fatigue as expressed by the same

institutions and staff doing the same thing;

3. Lack of participation of all stakeholders in

priority setting;

4. Lack of context-specific mechanisms and

approaches; and

5. Hardly any follow-up of research outputs and outcomes.

Factors that may hinder the engagement of the private sector and farmers in EU-funded joint EU-

Africa S&T programme/projects on FNS are detailed in Table 12.

Resp

onse

Per

cent

age

Series 1:Strongly Disagree

Series 1:Disagree

Series 1:Neither Agree or Disagree

Series 1:Agree

Series 1:Strongly

Agree

1.9%

15.4%

32.7% 32.7%

21.2%

Figure 28: Beneficiaries of EU-Africa joint FNS research projects

Preliminary desk research suggests that beneficiaries of EU-Africajoint research project(s) on FNS are more skewed toward EU partners.

How much do you agree?



53

Finance or motivation to invest in partnerships and set up small businesses are lacking

Projects do not become sustainable

The private sector is not involved in project development so they do not own the project

Policy, market and institutional failures

Lack of awareness

Contribution of private sector of 50% is high and could be a constraint

Profit-driven

Lack of participatory approach

Weak capacities at research institutes including research relevant to the private sector

Poor persistent linkage and limited scope of research outputs to be delivered

Not given the opportunity to explore indigenous knowledge and resources

Poor infrastructure (roads and telecommunication)

There should be a clear difference between profit-oriented research and research geared towards intervening in crisis situations

Funds are not oriented to the private sector

Poor flexibility and difficult-to-understand financing mechanisms

Lack of knowledge of projects being implemented

Farmers are still very vulnerable to risks

Fear of the unknown

Lack of empowerment

Some projects do not address farmers’ problems; leaders assume they know what the problems are without consulting farmers

Policy, market and institutional failures

Information gaps

Farmers are the beneficiaries of research output

Lack of farmer-centred approaches in proposed interventions

Knowledge gaps

Poor communication and networking between private sector and farmers (for example, lack of appropriate tools to communicate research) and limited scope of research outputs to be delivered

High farmer expectations of immediate financial benefits

Lack of quality extension services

Farmers do not value the results of such projects/interactions

Projects are donor-driven

FARMER INVOLVEMENT:PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT:

Table 12: Factors that may hinder the engagement of the private sector and farmers in joint S&T programmes/projects



54

In an effort to improve multi-disciplinary research between Africa and the EU for addressing the

global FNS challenge, survey participants suggested the following:

1. Provision of better methods for communication and sharing knowledge;

2. Increase farmer involvement;

3. More effort/time should be put into preliminary studies before the implementation of

projects;

4. African scientists should be given the freedom to solve their technological problems

themselves;

5. Technological innovations should be appropriate for smallholder farmers and processors;

6. Increase infrastructural grants, laboratory and scientific support;

7. More engagement from African partner organisations and national governments; and

8. Build longer-term funding options and ensure flexibility for research programmes.

Participants identified market-oriented research, promoting the use of indigenous food products and

the strengthening of research networks as priority areas for future joint Africa-EU multi-disciplinary

research for addressing the global FNS challenge.

As shown in Table 13, several capacity building activities were organised by the various projects/

programmes. Table 14 shows that beneficiaries of these capacity building activities were

predominantly African, who made up over 66% of the beneficiaries. The private sector was not a major

beneficiary (35%).

Table 13: Capacity building activities by projects

WHAT KIND OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITY WAS YOUR PROJECT INVOLVED IN?


Workshop

Conferences

Masters/PhD opportunities

Short-term training

Research attachments

Post Doc attachments


44.0%

40.0%

30.0%

34.0%

24.0%

6.0%

10.0%

Answered Question

Skipped Question

Total

22

20

15

17

12

3

5

50

70

120



55

Table 14: Average representation of beneficiaries in capacity building activities

WHAT IS/WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF BENEFICIARIES FROM THE CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITY?

Answer options <20% 20 - 39% 40 - 59% 60 - 79% >80% Percentage

EU beneficiaries

African beneficiaries

Women beneficiaries

Young professionals

Private sector representatives

Farmers/farmer organisations

9

4

3

6

11

6

1

3

8

4

6

5

4

5

4

7

4

6

5

5

5

4

1

2

0

7

2

1

0

3

45.2%

66.6%

55.4%

51.0%

35.4%

51.9%

Over 71.4% of the respondents highlighted that there are no systems in place to track the

performance of project beneficiaries after the project is over.

7.5 Political will

Almost three quarters (72%) of respondents

mentioned that they were unable to mobilise

any form of additional funding from African

governments for FNS research. This confirms

the desk research, which showed that much

of the funding for projects was from the EC

and EU member states (Figure 29). However,

getting additional funding from the EC and EU

member states was also very challenging: 61%

of the respondents indicated the inability to get

additional funds from EU partners.

When asked if the existing EU funding mechanisms

for supporting Africa-EU S&T collaboration on FNS

were adequate, 74% of the respondents did not agree.

7.6 Future perspective

Of the 50 individuals that responded, 76% agreed that there is room for strengthening the

collaboration between Africa and Europe for addressing the global FNS challenge. Areas for

improvement were suggested:

+ A shift from the emphasis paid on productivity to aspects of nutrition and food access. It was

Figure 29: Ability to mobilise additional funding and satisfaction with EU funding mechanisms

Response Percentage

Were you able to mobilise additional funding from African governments or

partners for FNS research?

Are the existing EU funding mechanisms adequate for supporting Africa-EU S&T

collaboration on FNS?

72.0% 60.7%

28.0% 39.3%

No

Yes

No

Yes



56

advocated that, since Europe is much more advanced in nutrition, such collaboration can

bring forth strategies for improving nutrition and health as well as securing food in Africa.

+ Results of already implemented projects should be followed up and the outputs made

available for public use.

+ Specific interventions that have action research dimensions capable of directly creating

impact should be considered.

+ Untapped resources such as indigenous knowledge and coping mechanisms should be

explored.

Participants suggested that in order for funding mechanisms for Africa-EU S&T collaboration on joint

EU-Africa FNS priorities to be strengthened, the following can be done:

+ Regional Economic Communities should be more involved in providing funding for FNS research.

+ Farmers should be equipped with practical skills in farm management (such as, through

vocational training).

+ Technical partnerships should be further strengthened.

+ Objectives and approaches must be agreed upon and enshrined in strategy documents.

+ Value addition and business incubation centres should be encouraged.

+ Locally based institutions should be provided with funds.

+ Global, regional and national identification of research needs, involving the private sector

and the small farmers in the research agendas, is required.

To foster equitable participation by African and European counterparts in addressing the global FNS

challenge, the following solutions were put forward by participants:

+ Raise awareness among African leaders for a better appropriation of the FNS challenge;

+ Implement transparent financial management;

+ Empower local institutions;


Yes

No

84.0%

16.0%

42

8

50

70

120

Answered question

Skipped question

Total

Table 15: Room for strengthening collaboration between Africa and Europe in addressing the global FNS challenge

IS THERE ROOM FOR STRENGTHENING COLLABORATION BETWEEN AFRICA AND EUROPE IN ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL FNS CHALLENGE?



57

+ Strengthen the capacity of African institutions and their access to information;

+ Improve school-based curriculum for children in African countries;

+ Encourage African governments to contribute towards research funds;

+ Implement strict partnership requirements; and

+ Strengthen policy dialogue.

Using a Likert scale, participants identified the most significant bottlenecks to enhancing Africa-EU

S&T collaboration for addressing the global FNS challenge (Table 16) as financial resources (4.22/5),

human resource capacity (4.00/5) and bureaucracy (3.95/5).

Several suggestions were made about platforms that would be the most effective in strengthening

S&T cooperation between Europe and Africa for addressing the global FNS challenge. These include:

1. Knowledge and technology transfer networks of researchers, academic exchange

programmes, and idea sharing platforms (international/regional/country level);

2. Conferences, workshops and e-platforms;

3. Innovation platforms containing farmers, researchers, and the private sector;

4. Platforms comprising knowledge centres and the private and public sectors;

5. Platforms similar to ERAfrica, PAEPARD, and PAERIP;

6. A strong database of African research institutes and universities and their EU counterparts

with the aim of fostering collaboration on common ground; and

7. Use of technology at formal education level.

Table 16: Possible bottlenecks in enhancing Africa-EU S&T collaboration for addressing the global FNS challenge

HOW SIGNIFICANTLY ARE THE FOLLOWING AS POSSIBLE BOTTLENECKS IN ENHANCING AFRICA-EUS&T COLLABORATION FOR ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL FNS CHALLENGE?

Answer options <20% 20 - 39% 40 - 59% 60 - 79% >80% Rating average

Policy/political will

Bureaucracy (government)

Human resource capacity

Physical infrastructure

Private sector engagement

Farmer engagement

Financial resources

Markets/market access

Lack of ownership

Access to ICTs

Behaviour/culture

1

1

0

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

2

3

1

2

1

1

2

0

2

3

2

2

5

2

4

6

7

5

3

9

4

3

7

8

12

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

10

6

6

6

8

7

4

7

11

4

7

5

6

3.65

3.95

4.00

3.96

3.52

3.78

4.22

3.61

3.74

3.90

3.52



58

8

DISCUSSION

The EU has a long history of STI cooperation with Africa; it started its international cooperation

research programming in 1983. The cooperation is confirmed in the number of joint FNS research

cooperation projects referred to in this report, their budgetary allocations, number of participating

organisations and their outputs. The EU also supports continental and sub-regional research

coordination platforms that address FNS, such as FARA and ASARECA, and Africa-EU bi-lateral

platforms, such as PAEPARD. The desk research and survey results indicate that even though

capacity has been developed and new knowledge generated (as attested by various publications

and databases), challenges exist in ensuring that the available knowledge is used to inform policy,

improve food systems and processes, expand product ranges, markets and trade, and support

innovation for social and economic gain in both Europe and Africa. Mechanisms for improving the

accessibility of the outputs of joint Africa-EU research cooperation, and making the knowledge

available to a wider public for the benefit of both continents and for achieving greater impact on

FNS, should be considered.

The enhanced capacity and knowledge created through cooperation should be used to improve

STI, agriculture and FNS policy processes on both continents as well as bring about greater synergy

among the various policy instruments and implementing agencies. While this may be occurring to

some extent, ensuring greater continental, regional and national ownership of the FNS research

and policy agendas, and developing the research infrastructure in Africa, is still needed. Presently,

because of the existing funding mechanisms, strict EU requirements and limited availability of

matching funds for African organisations, as well as the inherent human and infrastructural capacity

differences, the major benefits of cooperation have been skewed toward Europe. The ERAfrica

platform is an example where this situation may be changing; and further such joint funding

mechanisms should be explored. However, to achieve greater impact on the global FNS challenge,

capacity development in science and engineering has to be increased within Africa. This is duly

recognised by the African continental lead policy organs — the AUC and NEPAD — and agricultural

research coordinating platforms (e.g. FARA and the SROs), and is well articulated in various policy

documents.

In addition to increasing funding and providing opportunities for training and joint research, the

capacity difference between the two continents can also be overcome. This can be achieved by

facilitating platforms such as joint expert consultations in thematic domains and across disciplines to

support multi-disciplinary knowledge sharing and joint priority setting, planning and implementation.

Consideration should also be given to having an Africa-EU platform for monitoring, evaluation and

learning. Knowledge and innovation platforms comprising knowledge centres, farmers and other

private sector actors, and the public sector are also needed to speed up the transformation of FNS

research outputs into bankable products and for increased social impact.

FNS is a complex, multi-dimensional, multi-sectoral issue with links to health, sustainable economic

development, environment, and trade. The conceptual framework developed to analyse the impact



59

of STI cooperation highlighted multiple dimensions and impact pathways. The FNS situation in SSA is

primarily linked to poverty. The policy priorities for SSA as stated in the CAADP-FAFS are to improve

the physical and economic access to food and improve utilisation, especially to ensure a diverse

diet and increase protein and micro-nutrient supply. However, the major focus of the research

cooperation projects were: (i) developing data/knowledge bases, knowledge and information sharing

platforms and other such products ( 26%); (ii) food availability (18%); and, (iii) utilisation (13%).

Several projects studied were aimed at increasing agricultural yields (see Appendix B). This included

pest and disease control and tracking (such as, CAMPYCHECK and ICONZ projects), development

of vaccines (ORBIVAC, for example), production of new or improved seeds via gene technology

(EU-SOL); and management of postharvest losses. Staple foods such as millet, rice, cassava and

sorghum were not greatly emphasised in the analysed projects; neither were indigenous livestock,

aquaculture and nutrient-dense indigenous green leafy vegetables. However, projects such as

BAMLINK, GRAIN LEGUMES, INDIGENOVEG, INSTAPA, MARAMAII and NEXTGEN did address related

issues concerning these commodities. A major reason could be that specialised CGIAR centres

and national research programmes address these commodities directly. As such, future research

cooperation projects for addressing the global FNS challenge should provide added value at regional

and international levels and go beyond mainstream research and development experimentation

while still addressing strategic ‘bread and butter’ issues.

The main food insecure countries are located in West, Eastern and Central Africa. However, over

50% of the SSA project participants examined in this research were located in South Africa. When

the analysis was narrowed down to representation by public sector organisations and universities/

academia, South Africa had over 65 participating partners, followed by Kenya, which had over 19.

Other SSA countries had less than two or no public sector participants. Western and Central African

countries, such as Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Niger were

seldom represented.

These findings may be linked to the research capacity and available infrastructure in South Africa

and Kenya. However, the French research agencies were found to be very active in West and Central

francophone Africa. The IRD and CIRAD EU member state bilateral projects mainly target countries

in these sub-regions. It should also be noted that France came in second to the UK in terms of EU

representation in the FP projects reviewed. Consequently, consideration should be given to designing

funding mechanisms that minimise the ‘winner takes all’ scenario. This could be done so as to

encourage the pursuit of high quality scientific endeavours based on insights and capacities from

‘outliers’ within Europe and Africa — at both the organisational and country levels — to address the

global FNS challenge.

About 12% of FNS cooperation projects fell within the ecological dimension of FNS. The soils data

and water scarcity situation presented in this report, and the need for improving yields as reported



60

by several leading organisations including FAO, suggest that future research cooperation projects

for tackling the global FNS challenge should target the ecological dimension of FNS and increased

mechanisation, including irrigation and with emphasis on small-and-medium scale energy efficient

equipment and machinery.

About 7% of the projects studied in this report focused directly on food access. As such, not much

attention was paid to infrastructural development, such as farm-market linkages, storage and

warehousing systems. Some projects directly targeted issues such as risk assessment for minimising

the introduction of pathogens into predominantly European food markets, intellectual property

rights and bio-based extracts for cosmetics. However, food safety is a FNS issue within SSA and

needs further attention. Given that many development projects already focus on ‘engaging farmers

in markets’ and ‘farmer empowerment’, a clear niche has to be carved out for future STI FNS

cooperation projects, and the area of food safety, for addressing the utilisation FNS pillar. Increased

market access for producers within Africa and Europe should be considered.

There is also low engagement from eastern European countries, which also face challenges such

as food safety and quality, EU market access/penetration, poor infrastructure, and poor policy

instruments. Countries such as Bulgaria, Latvia and Poland have just over 1% representation in

the projects covered. West European countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and the

United Kingdom are highly represented. Consideration should be given in future for increasing the

participation of other EU member states to bring fresh ideas to the fore, as well as to address joint

challenges.

The extent to which jointly funded EU framework programme and EU member states’ bilateral

projects responded to African FNS priorities (as outlined in CAADP and the related CAADP pillars, III

and IV) was questionable. Conflict prone areas such as Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo

were hardly covered. Only about 7% of the projects addressed food stability, even though this is a

priority issue stated in the FAFS.

The private sector representing different industries, laboratories, food-businesses and consultancies

comprised about 15.5% of the participating organisations. Civil society representation was about

1.5%. The desk research and survey results suggest that, in these regards, there is room for

improvement. Two of the major barriers to private sector engagement were the lack of follow-up

of research outputs, and the different motivations of business enterprises and academic research.

Farmers also did not see the direct benefits of cooperating with research projects. Innovation

platforms led by private sector actors (including farmers) could be considered for ensuring greater

involvement of these actors in determining research priorities as well as faster and wider uptake of

the outputs.



61

The following recommendations are made for future joint research cooperation projects to address

the global FNS challenge:

+ Establish a high-level multi-disciplinary think tank comprising directors of the main

agricultural research coordinating platforms and experts from key academic institutions

in Africa and Europe to identify the joint priorities and work programmes. The think tank

should be mandated to consult with other experts within specific priority domains, for

example, engineering, nutrition and health, the private sector and farmers’ organisations,

as well as policy-makers in Africa and Europe. The think tank should also be responsible

for determining the joint research priorities and approving the monitoring and evaluation

framework as well as tracking the progress of joint actions. Their recommendations should

be submitted to the JAES, as well as AUC and EC high-level officials.

+ Scientific and technical research outputs should respond to the jointly agreed priorities

and be measured, and the FNS outcomes and impact appropriately tracked based on the

approved monitoring and evaluation framework. Scientific publications should not only

be published in peer-reviewed journals but also converted into policy briefs and working

papers for wider dissemination to other stakeholders so as to better influence policies and

programmes. Databases should be made open access and available to the wider public on

completion of projects. The time span of funding research projects should ideally be greater

than three years. Intellectual property rights agreements should be established among

project partners, especially for those projects in which the private sector is involved. This

also has implications for the research outputs funded by governments and which may be

considered public goods.

+ The STI collaboration between Africa and the EU needs to be strengthened and go beyond

the participation of the traditional African (Kenya and South Africa) and EU (France,

Germany, UK) major players. Joint research priorities should be co-funded and co-owned.

Africa should be encouraged and supported to make financial resources available to African

researchers and research organisations. Capacity building and infrastructural development

should be further supported so that the partnership between Africa and the EU can be

strengthened for the mutual benefit of both continents, and to make significant progress in

efforts to address the global FNS challenge.



62

9

REFERENCES

Abdulai, A., Diao, X. and Johnson, M. (2005). Achieving Regional Growth Dynamics in African

Agriculture. 17th ed. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC). (2010). General Information: APPEAR. [Online]

Available at: http://www.appear.at/ [Accessed 26 November 2013].

African Union. (2006). African Regional Nutritional Strategy Final. [Online] Available at:

http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/African_Nutritional_strategy.pdf

African Union Commission (AUC) and European Commission (EC). (2013). 6th College-to-College

Meeting Joint Declaration. Addis Ababa: AUC and EC.

New Partneship for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (2010). African Innovation Outlook 2010. Pretoria:

NEPAD.

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). (2012).

Annual Report 2011: Pooling Regional Resources to Feed Populations. Entebbe: ASARECA.

Barajas, A., Huergo, E. and Moreno, L. (2009). Measuring the Impact of International R&D

Cooperation: The Case of Spanish Firms Participating in the EU Framework Programme. Madrid:

[Online] Available at: http://doku.iab.de/fdz/events/2009/barajas_huergo_moreno.pdf

Benson, T. (2004). Assessing Africa’s Food and Nutrition Security Situation. Washington, D.C.:

International Food Policy Research Institute.

Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement. (2010).

CIRAD Agricultural Research for Development: Who Are We?. [Online] Available at:

http://www.cirad.fr/en/who-are-we [Accessed 16 December 2013].

Committee on World Food Security (CFS). (2009). Reform of the CFS: 35th Session. Rome: Food and

Agriculture Organization.

Committee on World Food Security (CFS). (2013). Global Strategic Framework for Food Security &

Nutrition. Second Version. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central

African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD). (2007). Strategic Plan

2007-2016. Dakar: CORAF/WECARD.



63

Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/West and Central

African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD). (2010). CORAF/

WECARD Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. Dakar: CORAF/WECARD.

ERAfrica. (2013). A New Model For Europe-Africa Research Cooperation. [Online] Available at:

http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/key-documents [Accessed 1 December 2013].

Ericksen, P.J., Ingram, J.S. and Liverman, D.M. (2009). Food Security and Global Environmental

Change: Emerging Challenges. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4):373-377.

Europafrica.net. (2007). The Joint Strategy. [Online]

Available at: http://Europafrica.net/jointstrategy/#whatabout [Accessed 20 August 2013].

European Commission (EC). (2009a). About CORDIS. [Online] Available at:

http://cordis.europa.eu/guidance/welcome_en.html [Accessed 21 August 2013].

European Commission (EC). (2009b). A Strategic European Framework for International Science and

Technology Cooperation. Brussels: EC Directorate General for Research, and Directorate General for

International Cooperation.

European Commission (EC). (2010). The Changing Face of EU-African Cooperation in Science and

Technology: Past Achievements and Looking Ahead to the Future. Brussels: EC Directorate General

for Research.

European Commission (EC). (2012a). How We Work: Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP).

[Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/food_en.htm

[Accessed 28 August 2013].

European Commission (EC). (2012b). The EU’s Long-Term Action to Tackle Global Hunger and Under-

Nutrition. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/food-security/documents/food-security_

fact_sheet_2012_en.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2013). Boosting Food and Nutrition Security Through EU Action:

Implementing Our Commitments. EC Staff Working Document 104. Brussels: EC.

European Union (EU). (2011). International Cooperation Activities of the Seventh Framework

Programme’s Capacities Programme. Interim Evaluation. Report of the Expert Group, October

2010. Luxembourg: EC Directorate General for Research, and Directorate General for International

Cooperation.



64

FACCE-JPI. (2012). Strategic Research Agenda: FACCE-JPI. [Online] Available at:

http://www.faccejpi.com/Strategic-Research-Agenda [Accessed 26 August 2013].

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and

World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13-17 November, 1996. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2003). Trade Reforms and Food Security. Conceptualizing

the Linkages. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food

Security. Rome: EC-FAO Food Security Programme.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2009). 2050: Increased Investment in Agricultural Research

Essential. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Online] Available at:

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35686/icode/ [Accessed 15 September 2014].

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme (WFP) and International Fund for

Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2012). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic

Growth is Necessary But Not Sufficient to Accelerate Reduction of Hunger and Malnutrition. Rome: FAO.

Forty (40) Chances. (2013). The Maputo Commitments and the 2014 African Union Year of

Agriculture. 9th October 2013. http://www.one.org.

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). (2006). Framework for African Agricultural

Productivity. Accra: FARA. [Online] Available at:

http://www.fara-africa.org/media/uploads/File/FARA%20Publications/FAAP_English.pdf

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). (2007). PAEPARD. [Online] Available at:

http://www.fara-africa.org/about-us/ [Accessed 5 September 2013].

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). (2011). Transforming African Agriculture Through

Research, Advisory Services, Education and Training; CAADP Pillar IV Strategy and Operational Plan

(2011-2013). Accra: FARA.

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). (2013). Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa

(S3A): A Report of an Expert Panel. Accra: FARA.

Global Food Security Index. (2013). About the Global Food Security Index. [Online] Available at:

http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Home/About [Accessed 22 August 2013].

Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). (2005). Annual Report 2004. Rome: GFAR.



65

Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). (2007). New Challenges and Perspectives for the

Global Forum on Agricultural Research. Rome: GFAR.

Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). Mission and Strategic Objectives. [Online] Available

at: http://www.egfar.org/about-us/mission-and-strategic-objectives [Accessed 6 September 2013].

InterAcademy Council. 2004. Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture: Implementation

of Recommendations and Actions Agenda. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council. [Online]

Available at: http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=27838

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2004). Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in

Africa by 2020: Prioritizing Actions, Strengthening Actors, and Facilitating Partnerships. (Proceedings

of an All-Africa Conference). Kampala: IFPRI.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2012a). Research Projects: Eco-

evolutionary Vegetation Modeling and Management. [Online] Available at:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchProjects/Eco-evolutionary-Vegetation.en.html

[Accessed 25 November 2013].

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2012b). Research Projects: Equitable

Governance of Common Goods. [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/

researchProjects/Equitable-Governance-of-Common-Goods.en.html [Accessed 25 November 2013].

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2012c). Research Projects: Evolutionarily

Sustainable Consumption. [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/

researchProjects/Evolutionarily-sustainable-consumption.en.html [Accessed 09 December 2013].

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2012d). Research Projects: Water

Futures and Solutions. [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/water-

futures.html [Accessed 15 September 2014].

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2013a). Research Projects: Weather

Forecasts and Soil Data for African Farms (FarmSupport). [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.

ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/EcosystemsServicesandManagement/FarmSupport.html

[Accessed 27 November 2013].

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2013b). Research Projects: Using GEO

for Early Warning and Food Security in East Africa (GEOSAF). [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.

ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/EcosystemsServicesandManagement/GEOSAF.en.html

[Accessed 7 December 2013].



66

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). (2013c). Research Projects: Climate

Change and Agricultural Productivity (ISAC). [Online] Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/

home/research/researchProjects/ISAC/ISAC.en.html [Accessed 8 December 2013].

Maplecroft. (2012). About Maplecroft. [Online] Available at: http://maplecroft.com/about/

introducing-maplecroft/ [Accessed 22 August 2013].

Meyers, W.H., Ziolkowska, J.R. and Goychuk, M.T.A.K. (2012). Issues Affecting the Future of

Agriculture and Food Security for Europe and Central Asia: Policy Studies and Rural Transition No.

2012-3. Rome: FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (2003). About CAADP. [Online] Available at:

http://www.nepad-caadp.net/about-caadp.php#FAQs [Accessed 26 August 2013].

New Partneship for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (2008). NEPAD Ten Year Strategy for the

Reduction of Vitamin and Mineral Deficiencies (VMD): Action Plan 2008 -2011. [Online] Available at:

http://www.caadp.net/pdf/NEPAD%2010%20years%20strategy%20for%20the%20reduction%20

of%20Vitamin%20and%20Mineral%20Deficiencies(VMD).pdf [Accessed 30 October 2014].

New Partneship for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (2009). Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP) Pillar III: Framework for African Food Security (FAFS). Midrand:

NEPAD.

New Partneship for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (2014). On the Wings of Innovation: Science,

Technology and Innovation for Africa 2024 Strategy (STISA-2024). Pretoria: NEPAD.

Platform for African-European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development (PAEPARD).

(2011). PAEPARD: ARD Funding Opportunities. [Online] Available at: http://paepard.blogspot.

nl/2011/10/paepard-ard-funding-opportunities.html [Accessed 15 October 2013].

Quisumbing, A.R. and Meinzen-Dick, R.S. (2001). Empowering Women to Achieve Food Security.

In: Internatioanl Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the

Environment. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Rabbinge, R., Ryan, J., Matlon, P., Besri, M., Njobe, B., Kisamba-Mugerwa, W., Jones, M. And Löffler,

H. (2005). Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture: Science and Technology to

Improve Food Security and Agricultural Productivity in Africa. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.

Rekacewicz, P. (2005). Maps & Graphics: Global Soil Degradation. [Online] Available at:

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/global-soil-degradation_eeea# [Accessed 22 August 2013].



67

Ross, N. (2010). World Water Quality Facts and Statistics. In: World Water Day 2010: Clean Water for

a Healthy World. s.l.: Pacific Institute.

Torun, H. (2007). Innovation: Is the Engine for the Economic Growth? [Izmir: Ege University The

Faculty Of Economics And Administrative Sciences]. [Online] Available at: http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/

yeni/iletisimgm/Innovation.pdf [Accessed 15 September 2014].

Tuttle, J.N. (2012). Private-Sector Engagement in Food Security and Agricultural Development.

Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS).

United Nations (UN). (2010). Technology and Innovation Report 2010: Enhancing Food Security in

Africa through Science, Technology and Innovation. New York: UN.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2012). Avoiding Future Famines: Strengthening the

Ecological Foundation of Food Security Through Sustainable Food Systems (A UNEP Synthesis Report).

Nairobi: UNEP.

Water Industry News. (no date). International Water Distribution. [Online] Available at:

http://www.waterindustry.org/Water-Facts/world-water.htm [Accessed 15 October 2014].

World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Food Security. [Online]

Available at: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en [Accessed on 5 August 2013].



68

APPENDICESAppendix A: Online survey questionnaire



69



70



71



72



73



74



75



76



77



78



79

Appendix B: FP5, FP6 and FP7 FNS cooperation projects by objectives and status of completion

OBJECTIVES/EXPECTED OUTCOME

Promote joint participation of Argentinean and European scientists in the activities proposed by FP7 by improving the process of providing information on programmes and funding about cooperation with third countries.

Persuade decision-makers and empower stakeholders at local, regional, and international levels towards a coordinated fight against neglected zoonotic diseases (NZD), first and foremost in Africa, where the burden of NZD is heaviest.

Strengthen the knowledge base on food security and poverty and develop new or more rigorous methodologies to quantify the contribution of aquaculture in combating hunger and poverty in developing countries and low-income food-deficit countries.

Revisit traditional African products, knowledge and know-how in the light of new technologies for the benefit of consumers, producers and processors in Africa and Europe. By applying European S&T to African traditional food products, AFTER seeks to turn research into quantifiable and innovative technologies and products that are commercially viable in both European and African markets.

Builds on past research but emphasises issues usually overlooked by standard assessments of trade liberalisation.

Discover, and carry to the stage of development, plant derived small molecules with potential as new cosmetic and agrochemical agents. These compounds will derive from plants originating from major biodiversity hotspots in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region.

This international database of successful innovations in sustainable land management and agriculture in Africa’s drylands provides a methodological framework for analysing case studies and prioritising options for improving agriculture productivity in drylands through policy briefs for influencing national and international decision-making capacity, built through postgraduate training, participation in expert working groups and international workshops.

Provide scientific guidance on the integration of adaptation and mitigation objectives and design sustainable development pathways for livestock production in Europe, Northern Africa, SSA and Latin America. Inform public policy development in EU and propose cooperation programmes addressing smallholder livestock farming in selected developing countries.

PROJECT STATUS

Completed

Execution

Execution

Execution

Completed

Execution

Completed

Execution

PROJECT

ABESTII

ADVANZ

AFSPAN

AFTER

AGFOODTRADE

AGROCOS

AIDA

ANIMALCHANGE



80


Develop novel eco-efficient bio-mechanical processing solutions to enrich intermediate fractions from industrial high protein and oil-containing process residues originating from agriculture and fisheries. Enzyme-aided modification steps are developed for the intermediate fractions to obtain value-added nutritive and bio-active components (chemical as well as functional bio-materials suitable for exploitation in food, skin care, wound healing, bio-pesticide and soil improvement product applications).

Create common knowledge on diseases, and share and exchange data, expertise, experiences and scientific information. Maintain and expand surveillance systems, monitoring disease occurrence, and vaccine use. Introduce, distribute and harmonise disease detection and control tools. Disseminate knowledge and training staff of relevant third countries. Interlink different scientific disciplines which look at the problem from different angles.

Provide new tools and strategies for the control of African Swine Fever (ASF) in Africa and reduce the risk of importation and/or spread of the disease in EU member states. The project will evaluate the current ASF epidemiology in Africa, develop and validate a generic risk assessment for the introduction of ASF into EU countries and subsequent control strategies. The project will also develop and validate new antibody and nucleic acid-based diagnostic tools for ASF, including front line and pen-side tests, which will be supplied to diagnostic facilities in Africa and animal health laboratories in the EU for the early detection of potential ASFV incursions, in particular by the newly emerging strains.

The project will establish criteria and resources required for systematic, regional breeding and improvement programmes that minimise duplication of effort. Within four years collaborators will produce the first varieties of crops, assess products for a range of uses and identify cultivars and management practices to optimise performance in specific environments. The development of microarray-based accessions for landraces, microsatellite markers and genetic maps for bambara groundnut, will be coupled with agronomic and physiological assessment, through multi-environment QTL analysis and the testing of common landraces across locations. Key traits will be dissected and markers developed.

First assess the state of the art of Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) as a biofuel source in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and countries focuses on CDM countries, and link the project to current European and non-European R&D-activities in the area.

Foster the knowledge base about FP7 FAFB and the networking capacities of third country researchers in order to reinforce their participation in FP7 projects.

PROJECT STATUS

Execution

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

PROJECT

APROPOS

ARBO-ZOONET

ASFRISK

BAMLINK

BENWOOD

BIO CIRCLE 2



81


Conceptualise criteria for a science-based selection of biodiversity indicators for organic/low-input farming systems. Assess and validate a set of candidate biodiversity indicators in representative case studies across Europe (and in International Cooperation Partner Countries). Prepare guidelines for the implementation of biodiversity indicators for organic/low-input farming systems for Europe and beyond.

Develop environmentally appropriate and socio-economically sustainable biotechnological processes for converting biodegradable fractions of identified African and Mediterranean agricultural and industrial waste as well as fractions of municipal and animal solid waste into food, feed, value-added products for nutraceuticals and healthcare, biogas and organic-based fertiliser. The technologies to be developed will rely on simple and locally available equipment and naturally occurring microorganisms. Life cycle analysis and socio-economic studies will be undertaken to ensure local applicability in the target countries.

Contribute to economically, socially and environmentally sustainable development by outlining a practical and acceptable methodology for precision livestock farming. Produce a framework for European and non-European small and medium enterprises on effective and acceptable precision livestock farming and create an international, interdisciplinary network for further development and dissemination.

Assess and learn jointly from past and on-going conservation agriculture (CA) experiences, under which conditions, and to what extent CA strengthens the socio-economic position of landholders in Africa.

Establish a platform to improve cooperation in S&T between Europe and SSA. Undertake S&T policy dialogue analyses. Advance the quality and quantity of cooperation, focusing on greater use of FP7 and seeking synergy with development cooperation.

Encourage more and better bi-regional STI cooperation for enhanced outcomes around topics of mutual interest, and particularly in relation to the global societal challenges of climate change, food security and health.

Co-ordinate and link existing research efforts on indigenous vegetables and urban & peri-urban agriculture (IVs & UPA) by creating a forum where partners can share information on current progress, disseminate best practice, obtain feedback from their peers, and refine and strengthen their on-going activities. Develop relevant, targeted research proposals. Disseminate outcomes.

PROJECT STATUS

Completed

Execution

Completed

Completed

Completed

Execution

Completed

PROJECT

BIOBIO

BIOWASTE4SP

BRIGHTANIMAL

CA2AFRICA

CAAST-Net

CAAST-Net Plus

CAMPYCHECK



82


Identify new and more effective assessment methods, reference points, control rules and management strategies to be used in the short-term, making better use of available data. A reliable long-term framework will also be developed for which additional data needs will be specified in order to fill current information gaps to achieve reliable long-term management requirements.

Develop and validate state-of-the-art and emerging technologies to identify a set of technologies and methodologies that can be deployed in crop improvement, production and processing platforms.

Address the need for new approaches to increase food production in irrigated areas in Africa, while ensuring healthy and resilient environments.

Develop appropriate methodologies for improving the sustainable management of small pelagic fish based on the identification and quantification of key environmental conditions that influence fluctuations in their recruitment and distribution in the Benguela and Angolan systems.

Reduce fragmentation of European research areas by increasing the coordination between national research programmes across EU member states and associated countries, in close coordination with national research programmes in Africa.

Increase S&T cooperation and priority determination between SSA and the EU and its member states. Enhance the awareness of S&T capacity in SSA and EU member states. Promote SSA’s knowledge of and participation in the FPs and other cooperation mechanisms, and increase the participation of SSA in S&T organisations in FP7.

Support deepening EU-South African scientific and technological cooperation with a special focus on innovation.

Dissect the genetic and molecular components that control quality traits by applying state-of-the-art knowledge and technologies. EU-SOL focuses on mapping, isolation and characterisation of genes responsible for traits important for consumers and processors (health, nutrition, flavour, fragrance, soluble solids, texture, colour, shelf-life) as well as for producers (abiotic stress: cold, heat, drought, salt), and the mechanisms underlying these traits (control of gene activity, regulatory networks).

Assess both the environmental and the socio-economic impacts of food chains with regard to spatial, logistical and resource dimension of growing food as well as food planning and governance.

PROJECT STATUS

Completed

Completed

Execution

Completed

Execution

Execution

Execution

Completed

Execution

PROJECT

DEEPFISHMAN

DEVELONUTRI

EAU4FOOD

ENVIFISH

ERAFRICA

ESASTAP PLUS

ESASTAP2

EU-SOL

FOODMETRES



83


The project provides an analytical toolbox to experiment, analyse, and coordinate the effects of short- and medium-term policies, thereby allowing for the execution of consistent, coherent, long-term strategies with desirable sequences.

Improve the efficiency of fruit breeding by bridging the gap between scientific genetics research and application in breeding.

Provide farmers with a portfolio of regionally suitable tree and shrub species organised by their traits or attributes, in relation to the provisioning of multiple services, as perceived by the farmers and in terms of fundamental ecological functions.

The development and harmonisation of global sustainability certification systems for biomass production, conversion systems and trade in order to prevent negative socio-economic impacts. A functioning and sustainable certification scheme requires reliable data and profound research in order to evaluate impacts of biomass production.

Elaborate and sustainably implement a transparent framework for the review of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or GM food and feed, and its effects on environment, socio-economic and health. Reconsider the design, execution and interpretation of results of animal feeding trials as well as in vitro studies for assessing the safety of GM food and feed.

Identify optimal parameters for legumes in feed quality and safety, including GMOs, while using legumes to develop healthy and sustainable agriculture. Investigate variation in grain legume seed composition and the factors affecting it. Develop new genetic, genomic, post-genomic and bioinformatics tools to improve and sustain grain legume seed production and quality.

Technologies and systems will be developed, validated, demonstrated and disseminated that focus benefits on smallholder households whilst offering increased income-earning opportunities through small- and medium-sized enterprise development and links to large-scale industry.

Improving human health and animal production in developing countries through integrated control of NZDs in animals, based on scientific innovation and public engagement.

Conduct specifically-targeted research towards reconciling multiple demands on coastal zones. Evaluate and integrate data, tools and concepts suitable to contribute to goals set by the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (restoring healthy fish stocks and ecosystems by 2015).

PROJECT STATUS

Execution

Execution

Completed

Completed

Execution

Completed

Execution

Execution

Completed

PROJECT

FOODSECURE

FRUIT BREEDOMICS

FUNCITREE

GLOBAL-BIO-PACT

GRACE

GRAIN LEGUMES

GRATITUDE

ICONZ

INCOFISH



84


Develop a platform for stimulating closer cooperation among international cooperation (INCO) National Contact Points (NCP). Within the framework of this closer cooperation, INCO NCPs will work together to effect a substantial improvement in the overall quality of NCP services in the field of international cooperation.

Stimulate closer cooperation among INCO NCPs. Within the framework of this closer cooperation, INCO NCPs/National Information Points (NIPs) will work together to effect a substantial improvement in the overall quality of NCP services in the field of international cooperation.

Co-ordinate and link existing research efforts on IVs & UPA by creating a forum where partners can share information on current progress, disseminate best practice, obtain feedback from their peers and refine and strengthen their on-going activities. Develop relevant, targeted, research proposals. Disseminate the outcomes.

Ensure the informed participation of a broad range of European and African CSOs in formulating and implementing ARD.

Identify novel staple food-based approaches to improve micronutrient malnutrition for better health and development of women and children in SSA. Develop and test new approaches to optimise iron and zinc fortification of staple foods.

Link high quality research groups and companies that are now operating in different continents in order to achieve synergy in research and development of jatropha as a bio-fuel crop.

Increase understanding of agricultural innovation systems focusing on smallholders’ livelihoods and the articulation of local/traditional and global knowledge. Lessons learnt about past and ongoing experiences with agricultural/rural innovation in Eastern, Southern and West Africa will be synthesised by combining joint case study assessments with capacity-strengthening and networking at various scales.

Develop a versatile fermentation platform for the conversion of lipid feed stocks into diverse added-value products.

Develop innovative high quality and healthy marama bean food products to target niche markets in Southern Africa and internationally.

Develop strategic solutions to reduce contamination by mycotoxins of major concern in economically important food and feed chains.

PROJECT STATUS

Completed

Execution

Completed

Execution

Execution

Execution

Execution

Completed

Completed

Execution

PROJECT

INCONTACT

INCONTACT-ONE WORLD

INDIGENOVEG

INSARD

INSTAPA

JATROPT

JOLISAA

LIPOYEASTS

MARAMAII

MYCORED



85


Develop concepts and tools that guide an integrated analysis and support a stepwise process of change in water management.

Develop cost-effective optimised methodologies for preserving farm animal biodiversity, using cattle, sheep and goats as model species.

Develop a web-based modular training course designed to empower a new generation of scientists to address One Health issues faced by communities in Africa.

Develop multivalent vaccines using different approaches for orbiviruses responsible for livestock diseases, in particular, Bluetongue Virus (BTV), African Horse Sickness Virus (AHSV) and Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease Virus (EHDV). Understand the best vaccination strategy to elicit multi-serotype protection for these viruses in livestock and analyse immune responses for each of the novel vaccines developed for breadth of protection against multiple serotypes. Develop DIVA (distinguish vaccinated from infected animals) compatible diagnostics that will work with the new vaccines developed in order to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals.

Analyse, assess and capitalise on past and existing Europe-Africa ARD cooperation and use of corresponding instruments of partnerships (i.e. EDF9, FP6). Identify between African and European stakeholders, priorities, opportunities and mechanisms for building up a platform for African-European partnerships on ARD. Set-up and launch a platform for African-European partnerships on ARD. Develop an information and communication strategy for promoting participation of ARD stakeholders from Europe and Africa in the platform.

Assess the effect of targeted selective treatments on productivity, animal welfare and the spread of anthelmintic resistance genes under a range of farming conditions. Determine the best methods to identify animals and herds requiring anthelmintic intervention. Standardise existing in vivo and in vitro tests for detecting anthelmintic resistance and develop new tests where current ones are inadequate. Optimise the efficacy and bioavailability of anthelmintics by modulating parasite P-glycoprotein detoxification systems. Communicate with farmers, veterinarians and advisors to produce and disseminate guidance to ensure good uptake and implementation of the protocols produced.

Control major gastrointestinal nematode infections in livestock.

PROJECT STATUS

Completed

Execution

Execution

Execution

Completed

Completed

Execution

PROJECT

NEWATER

NEXTGEN

OH-NEXTGEN

ORBIVAC

PAEPARD

PARASOL

PARAVAC



86


Scale up production of two compounds and advance them to pre-clinical evaluation. Address relevant challenges in marine biodiscovery related to policy and legal issues. PharmaSea will bring together practitioners, legal experts, policy advisors and policy-makers, and other stakeholders, focusing on the feasibility of harmonising, aligning and complementing current legal frameworks with recommendations and ready-to-use solutions tailored to marine biodiscovery.

Foster the safe use of food supplements containing plants or herbal extracts, by increasing science-based decision-making by regulators and food chain operators. Make informed decisions because competent authorities and food businesses need more quality-assured and accessible information and better tools (for example, meta-data banks).

Focus on diseases which are relevant to both the EU and Russia, including Avian Influenza virus (AIV), Blue Tongue Virus (BTV), and Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome Virus (PRRSV 1). Use high-level transient expression technologies recently developed by partners in the consortium to express candidate vaccines in plants. Refine methods for the rapid expression of candidate immunogens. Identify candidate immunogens for expression in plants. Assess the ability of expressed proteins to self-assemble into virus-like particles (VLPs). Determine antigenic and immunogenic properties of plant-expressed VLPs. Develop methods for scaling up production desirable host plants. Address intellectual property (IP) and regulatory issues.

Facilitate the exploitation of insects as an alternative protein source for animal and human nutrition.

Make DNA bar-coding available for plant health diagnostics and focus on strengthening the link between traditional and molecular taxonomy as a sustainable diagnostic resource.

New methods will be developed to upgrade large, poorly-addressed waste co-products (vegetable trimmings and spent grain), to higher-value materials and to utilise whole waste.

Focus on the collection of information regarding national research and innovation capacities and programmes within South Africa. Primary objective – to disseminate this information to the widest possible number of researchers and stakeholders, aiming at the creation of effective collaboration between the EU and the South African R&D communities.

Strengthen capacity in low cost technology. Improve the preservation of existing fish supplies. Utilise waste and by catch to produce value-added products. Develop an integrated quality management tool and test the developed technology and quality management tool in different real third country conditions.

PROJECT STATUS

Execution

Execution

Completed

Execution

Completed

Completed

Completed

Execution

PROJECT

PHARMASEA

PLANTLIBRA

PLAPROVA

PROTEINSECT

QBOL

REPRO

SACCESS

SECUREFISH



87


Identify traits specific for adaptation to low-input/organic conditions over a wide range of agro-climatic conditions in Europe. Develop efficient pheno-typing, genotyping and molecular tools to monitor heritable variation during selection. Molecular analysis of functional polymorphisms will increase accuracy in breeding methodologies and improve monitoring of genetic diversity and adaptation along generations. It will also increase the understanding of adaptive phenomena. Develop the use of within-crop diversity to stabilise yield and quality in the face of current and increasing variation in organic and low-input agriculture. Design, develop and test innovative arable and vegetable cropping systems based on integration of a high level of diversification in crop management with the use of genetically diverse populations or varieties. Compare the effectiveness of different breeding strategies under conventional, low input and certified organic farming to set up optimal strategies for the production of varieties suitable for organic and low input farming, taking into account the traits which are avoided in conventional breeding. Develop methodologies for farmers participatory research that exploit SOLIBAM’s advances in low-input and organic farming. Quantify the effects and interactions of breeding and management innovations on crop nutritional, organo-leptic and end-use quality. Evaluate socio-economic and environmental impacts of SOLIBAM breeding and management innovations in order to identify farm business, consumer preference, food supply and legislative related issues that are likely to influence their adoption.

Improve coordination of research activities on the major infectious diseases of livestock and zoonoses to hasten the delivery of improved control methods.

Produce a new, sustainable nutrition research agenda for SSA.

Breed for improved cultivars and hybrids of sorghum for temperate, tropical semi-arid and tropical acid-soil environments by pyramiding in various combinations, depending on region and ideotype, tolerance to cold, drought and acid (Al-toxic) soils, and high production of stalk sugars, easily digestible biomass and grain (WP 1-3).

The key objective of the TB-STEP project is the development of rational strategies for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is an infectious disease caused by the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. This infection affects domestic and wild animals and represents a major concern worldwide because of its high economic impact due to mortalities, condemnations, decreases in productions, and its zoonotic potential. Eradication programmes based on a test-and-slaughter policy in the EU have proved successful in some countries. However, they have been unable to eradicate the infection in others despite the use of vast economical resources.

Develop and demonstrate adaptive supply system options and new and improved supply and monitoring technologies and management practices.

PROJECT STATUS

Execution

Execution

Completed

Execution

Completed

Completed

PROJECT

SOLIBAM

STAR-IDAZ

SUNRAY

SWEETFUEL

TB-STEP

TECHNEAU



88


Develop a range of novel methods to underpin the control of diseases and pests, including faster and more accurate methods to assess the mode of seed transmission, economic and practical sampling approaches for the detection of low levels in large seed lots, novel and efficient generic detection methodologies, non-destructive testing methods, and improved, effective and sustainable disinfection methods.

Collate information from all Regional Fisheries Management Organisations/ Regional Fisheries Organisations RFMO/RFOs and Fisheries Partnership Agreements as well as selected additional regions of special interest (with emphasis on climate proof areas (CPA) on the extent of scientific research programmes being undertaken by the various actors. Analyse the data available and methodologies applied in assessment and management procedures regionally in order to identify data and research gaps and opportunities for greater research coordination that may be promoted by the EU in support to scientific advice to fisheries management. Develop recommendations on how to improve cooperation with third parties in order to enhance research and resource status.

Identify impacts of anticipated climate change and globalisation on food safety, microbiological and chemical hazards, as well as on fresh produce and derived food products. Control measures of managerial and technological nature will be developed in the supply chain of crop production, postharvest processing and logistics to minimise food safety risks.

Develop applied secondary or tertiary purification treatment, allowing the removal of pathogenic microorganisms and the degradation of organic pollutants, so that waste water can be recycled for irrigation and domestic use and hence reduce the pressure on hydric resources. Other biotechnological techniques to be taken into account within this proposal are bio-filtration, membrane bioreactors and algae and other aquatic crops application for wastewater purification.

PROJECT STATUS

Execution

Completed

Execution

Execution

PROJECT

TESTA

TXOTX

VEG-I-TRADE

WATERBIOTECH



89

THEMATIC FOCUS AREA(BRIEF DESCRIPTION)

FOOD SECURITY PILLARS

Cooperation, STI

Zoonotic diseases

Aquaculture

Traditional food

International trade

Biodiversity - chemodiversity

Dryland

Sustainable livestock production

Value addition

Capacity building

Swine fever risk assessment

Biotechnology, agriculture

Sustainable and eco-efficient forestry

International cooperation

Biodivesity

Biowaste

Irrigated farming systems

Research cooperation

Availability, utilisation

Capacity building, knowledge, database


Access, stability

Knowledge, database

Availability, ecological fundamental

Ecological fundamental

Utilisation, ecological fundamental


Availability, risk assessment

Availability, traditional food, utilisation

Ecological fundamental, knowledge, database

Knowledge, database



Availability, knowledge, database

BUDGET

EU Other sources Total

€663,210.00

€544,125.00

€1,062,072.00

€3,876,874.00

€3,738,288.00

€4,274,788.00

€375,400.00

€12,673,442.00

€3,879,813.00

€1,115,163.00

€3,981,457.00

€1,499,563.00

€1,168,292.00

€1,152,282.00

€3,920,679.00

€3,885,598.00

€1,146,362.00

€172,225.00

€ 44,167.00

€ 62,692.00

€947,289.00

€871,810.00

€1,371,155.00

€103,400.00

€3,673,907.00

€1,005,345.00

€ 206,693.00

€ 996,744.00

€0.00

€169,510.00

€152,313.00

€921,065.00

€893,043.00

€148,937.00

€490,985.00

€ 499,958.00

€ 999,380.00

€2,929,585.00

€2,866,478.00

€2,903,633.00

€272,000.00

€8,999,535.00

€2,874,468.00

€ 908,470.00

€2,984,713.00

€1,499,563.00

€998,782.00

€999,969.00

€2,999,614.00

€2,992,555.00

€997,425.00

PROJECTACRONYM

ABESTII

ADVANZ

AFSPAN

AFTER

AGFOODTRADE

AGROCOS

AIDA

ANIMALCHANGE

APROPOS

ARBO-ZOONET

ASFRISK

BAMLINK

BENWOOD

BIO CIRCLE 2

BIOBIO

BIOWASTE4SP

BRIGHTANIMAL

Appendix C: FNS research cooperation projects by thematic focus, food security pillars and allocated budget



90



Conservation agriculture

Africa-EU S&T cooperation

Africa-EU S&T cooperation

Identification of emerging campylobacteriaceae

Fisheries (managementand monitoring)

Nutrition


Environmental impact

Africa-EU joint collaboration

Research and innovation

S&T advancement

Quality value chains

Food planning and innovation

Food shortage and volatility

Crop breeding

Ecological framework

Impact assessment

GMO risk assessment


Knowledge, database

Knowledge, database

Availability, utilisation, knowledge, database

Stability, availability, ecological fundamental

Availability

Availability, capacity building

Ecological fundamental, focus on decision and policy processes

Knowledge, database, research cooperation

Focus on decision and policy processes, research cooperation

Capacity building, research cooperation

Knowledge, database

Impact assessment, ecological fundamental

Availability, capacity




Utilisation, ecological fundamental, knowledge, database

BUDGET


€1,159,228.00

€4,926,797.00

€4,503,167.00

€2,419,923.00

€3,765,139.00

€3,928,500.00

€4,943,245.00

N/A

€2,287,440.00

€1,798,876.00

€1,297,582.00

€26,228,360.00

€1,855,911.00

€10,359,846.00

€10,219,873.00

€3,811,001.00

€3,832,892.00

€7,772,930.00

€159,420.00

€726,798.00

€ 503,167.00

€ 917,466.00

€ 840,983.00

€ 658,900.00

€948,389.00

N/A

€295,733.00

€307,867.00

€797,582.00

€7,528,360.00

€362,240.00

€2,361,846.00

€4,220,577.00

€907,404.00

€886,355.00

€1,791,917.00

€999,808.00

€4,199,999.00

€4,000,000.00

€1,502,457.00

€2,924,156.00

€3,269,600.00

€3,994,856.00

N/A

€1,991,707.00

€1,491,009.00

€500,000.00

€18,700,000.00

€1,493,671.00

€7,998,000.00

€5,999,296.00

€2,903,597.00

€2,946,537.00

€5,981,013.00

PROJECTACRONYM

CA2AFRICA

CAAST-Net

CAAST-Net Plus

CAMPYCHECK

DEEPFISHMAN

DEVELONUTRI

EAU4FOOD

ENVIFISH

ERAFRICA

ESASTAP PLUS

ESASTAP2

EU-SOL

FOODMETRES

FOODSECURE

FRUIT BREEDOMICS

FUNCITREE

GLOBAL-BIO-PACT

GRACE



91



Biodiversity

Postharvest losses

Zoonoses

Fisheries and aquatic ecosystems

Networking

Transnational cooperation

Networking

Smallholder farmers

Staple food-micro nutrients

Biodiesel

Innovation systems

Biotechnology

Development and innovation

Mycotoxins

Water management

Biodiversity

Training course



Utilisation, capacity building





Knowledge, database, focus on decision and policy processes

Utilisation

Access, knowledge, database

Capacity building, knowledge, database, focus on decision and policy processes

Access



Ecological fundamental, focus on decision and policy processes

Knowledge, database

Utilisation, capacity building, knowledge, database

BUDGET


€25,611,844.00

€3,753,138.00

€7,414,246.00

€5,387,180.00

€486,783.00

€2,330,594.00

€849,929.00

€536,940.00

€7,731,610.00

€4,156,080.00

€1,608,990.00

€1,201,481.00

€1,300,000.00

€7,372,847.00

€15,118,673.00

€3,758,355.00

€2,228,900.00

€10,860,889.00

€902,725.00

€1,419,248.00

€487,700.00

€116,962.00

€330,594.00

€0.00

€38,610.00

€1,831,330.00

€1,160,341.00

€609,333.00

€290,370.00

€ 0.00

€1,602,891.00

€3,118,713.00

€758,356.00

€231,498.00

€14,750,955.00

€2,850,413.00

€5,994,998.00

€4,899,480.00

€369,821.00

€2,000,000.00

€849,929.00

€498,330.00

€5,900,280.00

€2,995,739.00

€999,657.00

€911,111.00

€1,300,000.00

€5,769,956.00

€11,999,960.00

€2,999,999.00

€1,997,402.00

PROJECTACRONYM

GRAIN LEGUMES

GRATITUDE

ICONZ

INCOFISH

INCONTACT

INCONTACT-ONE WORLD

INDIGENOVEG

INSARD

INSTAPA

JATROPT

JOLISAA

LIPOYEASTS

MARAMAII

MYCORED

NEWATER

NEXTGEN

OH-NEXTGEN



92



Vaccines

Platform for African-European partnership on agricultural research

Nematodes in ruminants

Vaccines

Biodiversity

Food supplement

Vaccines

Nutrition (Insects)

DNA barcoding

Reducing food waste

Research and innovation

Postharvest losses

Integrated breeding and management

Zoonoses

Nutrition

Energy crop

Eradication of bovine tuberculosis

Availability


Stability, availability


Utilisation, capacity building, knowledge, database

Utilisation, research cooperation

Availability, research cooperation



Availability, utilisation, focus on decision and policy processes

Knowledge, database


Stability, utilisation

Knowledge, database

Utilisation, ecological fundamental, knowledge, database

Access

Availability

BUDGET


€4,152,050.00

€339,200.00

€3,877,833.00

€12,468,783.00

€13,577,727.00

€7,818,570.00

€2,597,007.00

€3,832,892.00

€4,142,713.00

€5,113,558.00

€629,575.00

€3,965,592.00

€3,832,892.00

€1,087,175.00

€1,088,201.00

€5,117,737.00

€3,706,347.00

€1,152,321.00

€0.00

€937,833.00

€3,524,598.00

€4,111,820.00

€1,832,636.00

€598,653.00

€886,355.00

€1,151,280.00

€2,014,400.00

€130,828.00

€2,997,422.00

€886,355.00

€88,045.00

€119,738.00

€2,149,762.00

€811,588.00

€2,999,729.00

€339,200.00

€2,940,000.00

€8,944,185.00

€9,465,907.00

€5,985,934.00

€1,998,354.00

€2,946,537.00

€2,991,433.00

€3,099,158.00

€498,747.00

€2,997,422.00

€2,946,537.00

€999,130.00

€968,463.00

€2,967,975.00

€2,894,759.00

PROJECTACRONYM

ORBIVAC

PAEPARD

PARASOL

PARAVAC

PHARMASEA

PLANTLIBRA

PLAPROVA

PROTEINSECT

QBOL

REPRO

SACCESS

SECUREFISH

SOLIBAM

STAR-IDAZ

SUNRAY

SWEETFUEL

TB-STEP



93



Safe water technology

Seed health and development

Assessment and management of fish resource

Climate change impact

Biotechnology

Knowledge, database


Knowledge, database

Access, stability, ecological fundamental


BUDGET


€19,100,119.00

€4,198,695.00

€1,067,600.00

€7,595,351.00

€1,264,465.00

€345,489,790.00

€5,916,127.00

€1,200,311.00

€67,746.00

€1,595,354.00

€264,937.00

€90,123,716.00

€13,183,992.00

€2,998,384.00

€999,854.00

€5,999,997.00

€999,528.00

€255,366,074.00

PROJECTACRONYM

TECHNEAU

TESTA

TXOTX

VEG-I-TRADE

WATERBIOTECH

TOTAL



94

Appendix D: Representation of participants by region in FNS cooperation projects

PROJECTACRONYM

NUMBER OF SSA PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER OF EU PARTICIPANTS

OTHER COUNTRY PARTICIPANTS

TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

ABESTII

ADVANZ

AFSPAN

AFTER

AGFOODTRADE

AGROCOS

AIDA

ANIMALCHANGE

APROPOS

ARBO-ZOONET

ASFRISK

BAMLINK

BENWOOD

BIO CIRCLE 2

BIOBIO

BIOWASTE4SP

BRIGHTANIMAL

CA2AFRICA

CAAST-Net

CAAST-Net Plus

CAMPYCHECK

DEEPFISHMAN

DEVELONUTRI

EAU4FOOD

ENVIFISH

ERAFRICA

ESASTAP PLUS

ESASTAP2

EU-SOL

FOODMETRES

FRUIT BREEDOMICS

FUNCITREE

GLOBAL-BIO-PACT

1

1

3

6

1

1

5

3

2

2

2

4

1

1

1

4

1

2

14

11

1

1

1

6

4

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

5

5

7

11

7

3

18

12

22

14

3

10

10

14

6

8

4

10

12

6

12

14

5

6

11

6

0

46

17

22

4

7

1

0

10

3

1

1

0

4

3

2

1

1

3

12

1

6

5

4

1

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

5

0

3

1

4

4

6

18

16

13

9

8

25

17

26

17

8

14

23

16

16

14

10

25

24

7

13

15

13

10

14

9

1

52

18

26

7

13



95

PROJECTACRONYM





GRACE

GRAIN LEGUMES

GRATITUDE

ICONZ

INCOFISH

INCONTACT

INCONTACT-ONE WORLD

INDIGENOVEG

INSARD

INSTAPA

JATROPT

JOLISAA

LIPOYEASTS

MARAMAII

MYCORED

NEWATER

NEXTGEN

OH-NEXTGEN

ORBIVAC

PAEPARD

PARASOL

PARAVAC

PHARMASEA

PLANTLIBRA

PLAPROVA

PROTEINSECT

QBOL

REPRO

SACCESS

SECUREFISH

SOLIBAM

STAR-IDAZ

SUNRAY

1

2

8

8

5

2

1

9

3

5

1

3

1

4

2

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

2

1

4

17

58

5

13

14

5

9

5

3

4

6

4

5

3

21

37

8

4

16

2

14

15

16

20

10

7

16

12

4

4

20

13

5

0

11

3

1

18

1

4

0

0

1

5

0

1

0

3

1

2

2

1

0

1

6

6

4

0

2

4

0

0

5

1

8

1

18

71

16

22

37

8

14

14

6

10

12

7

7

7

26

39

11

9

18

3

17

22

23

25

11

11

21

13

5

13

23

22

10



96

PROJECTACRONYM





SWEETFUEL

TB-STEP

TECHNEAU

TESTA

TXOTX

VEG-I-TRADE

WATERBIOTECH

TOTAL

1

1

2

1

4

2

2

193

6

11

27

12

3

18

9

823

2

0

2

0

3

4

7

187

9

12

31

13

10

24

18

1203



97

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES

NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS

PERCENTAGEREPRESENTATION

PERCENTAGE WITH REFERENCE TO TOTAL PROJECT

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Cape Verde

Ethiopia

Ghana

Ivory Coast

Kenya

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mozambique

Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Rwanda

Senegal

Seychelles

South Africa

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Total

1

5

4

3

2

2

4

15

2

20

4

2

6

2

6

1

8

3

13

1

65

8

10

4

192

0.5

2.7

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.1

2.1

7.5

1.1

10.7

2.1

1.1

3.2

1.1

2.7

0.5

4.3

1.6

7.0

0.5

34.8

3.7

5.3

2.1

100.0

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

1.2

0.2

1.7

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.2

1.1

0.1

5.4

0.6

0.8

0.3

15.5

Appendix E: Percentage (%) organisational representation in FNS cooperation projects per SSA country



98

EUROPEANCOUNTRY

NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS

PERCENTAGEREPRESENTATION

PERCENTAGE WITH REFERENCE TO TOTAL PROJECT

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Serbia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Total

20

52

5

6

33

4

11

99

91

16

10

2

8

76

2

1

79

22

4

20

3

11

1

10

68

20

28

9

3

127

840

2.4

6.2

0.6

0.7

3.7

0.5

1.3

11.9

10.7

1.9

1.2

0.2

1.0

9.1

0.2

0.1

9.5

2.6

0.5

2.4

0.4

1.3

0.1

1.2

8.2

2.4

3.4

1.1

0.4

14.9

100.0

1.7

4.3

0.4

0.5

2.6

0.3

0.9

8.2

7.4

1.3

0.8

0.2

0.7

6.3

0.2

0.1

6.6

1.8

0.3

1.7

0.2

0.9

0.1

0.8

5.6

1.7

2.3

0.7

0.2

10.3

69.3

Appendix F: Percentage (%) organisational representation in FNS cooperation projects per EU country



99

Appendix G: Completed FNS cooperation projects and related outputs

+ 50 meetings, workshops and information sessions (info days) were carried out.

+ Two cases were studied and documented on the impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)28 on income and poverty in Senegal and Uganda.

+ A large-scale database to assess effects of trade liberalisation as well as domestic agricultural policies was developed29.

+ A graphic interface called GATT that allows easy data extraction and user-friendly calculation of various indicators was developed.

+ A large-scale computable general equilibrium model of the world economy nicknamed ‘MIRAGE ’ was developed.

+ A farm level agricultural supply model for microeconomic policy analysis (ASMMA)30 was developed.

+ A combined computable general equilibrium-micro simulation (CGE-MS) model to explore the distributional implication at household level of policy shocks was developed. http://www.ifpri.org/book-5080/ourwork/program/taste-tariff-analytical-and-simulation-tool-economists.

+ 31 scientific papers were published.+ Methods and decision support tools for epidemiology, risk assessment and

control strategies were produced.+ Sensitive diagnostic techniques, including pen-side tests with existing field

viruses were developed and validated.+ Collective training courses and individual short and long-term courses on

relevant aspects of ASF, transfer of diagnostic and epidemiologic tools were organised.

+ Better understanding of viral-host interaction was achieved for potential development of a vaccine.

+ Database of successful innovations in sustainable agriculture in Africa drylands was developed.

+ A framework for analysing projects and prioritising options for successful implementation was produced.

+ Policy briefs for fostering policy development and funding of the agricultural pillar of Africa’s economy were published.

+ Several African and EU students gained postgraduate degrees.+ Scientific papers were published e.g. Egeru et al. 2014

01/10/2009 to 30/09/2012

01/05/2008 to 30/09/2011

01/04/2008 to 30/09/2011

PROJECT ACRONYM

ABESTII27

AGFOODTRADE

ASFRISK

AIDA

DURATION OUTPUT

27 One of the consortium partners was from South Africa.28 ACP countries are in the process of negotiating EPAs with the EU to replace the non-reciprocal trade preferences they previously enjoyed under

the Cotonou agreement. These negotiations have raised a number of fears about possible adverse effects on ACP countries’ economies.29 http://agfoodtrade.vitamib.com/public-deliverable 30 ASMMA is a static-comparative positive mathematical programming (PMP) model which includes most arable crops used for both food and

energy purposes.



100

+ A service-based genetic fingerprinting system using DArT was developed.+ Two genetic linkage maps of bambara groundnut were generated – a ‘wide’

cross (cultivated x wild relative) and a ‘narrow’ cross (cultivated x cultivated), using AFLP, SSR and DArT markers.

+ Genes and QTLs for drought, heat and cold tolerance and photoperiodic control of pod filling and genetic and biochemical composition of seeds from genotypes were identified and nutritional composition, nutritive value and processing potential were determined.

+ The development of microarray-based accessions for landraces, microsatellite markers and genetic maps for bambara groundnut, coupled with agronomic and physiological assessment, through multi-environment QTL analysis and the testing of common landraces across locations were completed.

+ Key traits were dissected and markers developed.

+ Seven papers and a DEEPFISHMAN wiki were published.+ Theoretical and applied models were developed and applied to analyse deepsea

fisheries and options for management. Strengths and imperfections were highlighted.

+ Result report was not located.

+ Database of satellite, oceanographic and fisheries data for the South Atlantic coast of Africa was compiled and key oceanographic and biological features were identified and documented.

+ Statistical modelling of the relationship between catches of commercial species and environmental variables were determined.

+ Scientific capacity of African partners was developed through university attachments, postgraduate and in-house training and participation in scientific meetings.

+ Tomato DNA was mapped.+ 120 articles were published.

+ An assessment of selected Africa-Europe partnerships in ARD was documented.+ Three consultation workshops were held in Africa.+ Restrictions in ARD partnerships were identified.

+ The use of rapid transient plant expression systems to express a number of antigens in plants e.g., Cowpea Mosaic Virus (CPMV), Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV), Potato Virus X (PVX) and Cowpea Chlorate Mottle Virus (CCMV) was reported.

+ The pea-HT system to allow the expression for the simultaneous expression of multiple polypeptides within the same cell was refined.

+ Papillomavirus VLPs plants were successfully produced.+ Simple structures in which the VLPs consists of a single polypeptide species

(HBcAg. HPV, BPV) and more complex, multi-chain VLPs (BTV and antigenic chimaeras) in plants were successfully expressed.

+ VLPs from HBcAg, BPV and BTV were shown to be able to elicit an appropriate immune response when administered to experimental animals.

+ Several methods for scaling up of transient production, including the use of vacuum infiltration and aeroponic agro-infiltration were developed.

01/01/2006 to 31/12/2009

01/04/2009 to 30/09/2012

01/02/2007 to 31/07/2010

01/10/1998 to 11/30/2001

01/05/2006 to 30/04/2011

01/04/2007 to 30/09/2008

01/02/2009 to 31/01/2012

PROJECT ACRONYM

BAMLINK

DEEPFISHMAN

DEVELONUTRI

ENVIFISH

EU-SOL

PAEPARD

PLAPROVA

DURATION OUTPUT



101



+ New management tools to identify wildlife overabundance and to monitor the effect of management changes on both population and disease indicators were developed.

+ The ecology of wildlife feeding and watering in Mediterranean ecosystems and the possibilities of reducing the associated disease transmission risk was analysed.

+ Recombinant Yarrowia31 strains with modified pool of acyl-coA and 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA intermediates with desired acyl chain lengths was constructed.

+ Biosynthesis of competing TAGs from lipid feed stocks was blocked.+ Achieved the conversion of lipid intermediates in PHA in Yarrowia.+ PHA yields of circa 20-25% in CDW were obtained.+ Recombinant Yarrowia strains for production of HFAs were constructed.+ Established a recovery protocol and the material properties of biopolymers.+ Converted lipids into carotenoids and carotenoid esters in Yarrowia.

+ Clear differences in preference of tree species of cattle which do not always match the farmer’s perception of forage provision capacity was studied and indicated. Trees species’ preferred forage was identified.

+ 429 species were identified from the local species pools in Senegal, Mali and Nicaragua.

+ State-of-the-art background papers on environmental challenges with regard to nutrition in Africa were published.

+ A comprehensive literature review on nutrition research conducted in Africa and published in the last 10 years with an assessment of the publication linkages of institutions in and outside Africa was published.

+ Better understanding of specific barriers and constraints nutrition researchers are facing in SSA was realised.

+ Multi-criteria evaluation of research options for nutrition research for selected countries in Eastern and West Africa was realised.

01/02/2010 to 31/01/2013

01/03/2003 to 28/02/2006

01/10/2008 to 30/06/2012

01/08/2008 to 31/07/2011

01/05/2009 to 30/06/2013

01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012

PROJECT ACRONYM

GLOBAL-BIO-PACT

CAMPYCHECK

TB-STEP

LIPOYEASTS

FUNCITREE

SUNRAY

DURATION OUTPUT

31 Yarrowia is a fungal genus in the Dipodascaceae family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus



102

+ Project triggered the official approval of a new CDM methodology for salinised soils.+ A description of the conflict between growing trees on agricultural fields and

food production with focus on African cases was studied and reported.+ Organised seven public workshops.+ Guidelines for farmers, project developers, investors and intermediaries include

list of do’s and don’ts was developed.+ A public website for project results and possibility for stakeholders to contribute

to the project was created.+ About 860 pages of direct publications on scientific issues within the sector of

Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) was established.+ Contacts with several researchers outside Europe on the issue of SRF and

agroforestry were made.+ A professionally laid out brochure, including a DVD with related field clips, pictures,

pdf, a document on SRF and CO2 reduction via CDM projects, was published.+ A report on charcoal production was published.

+ Tools to assess the effect of grain legumes on the nutritional value of feed were developed.

+ The efficacy of hydrothermal treatment, germination and air classification processing techniques were evaluated.

+ Proved that a European deficit in protein concentrates could be reduced by increased grain legume production in Europe, but the situation in other countries varied greatly.

+ A variety of databases and bioinformatics analytical tools to address genome scale and comparative analysis in grain legumes were developed and implemented.

+ Models and modelling tools for the assessment of impact and adoption of CA at three levels (field, farm, and region/district) were reviewed.

+ A qualitative assessment tool (QAToCA) to access the potential adoption of CA was developed.

+ Meetings to disseminate and share results at international and regional level were organised.

+ Results were presented to a broad community of researchers, policy-makers, government and decision-makers across both the private and public sector.

+ FP7 info days in Cape Verde, Cameroon and Kenya, and a brokerage event in South Africa to promote ideals of enhanced Africa-EU cooperation for mutual benefit, were organised in 2009.

+ Workshops on biofuel, renewable energy and rural electrification in Senegal and on non-communicable diseases in Cameroon were organised in 2009.

+ Paper on Africa-EU S&T policy dialogues was published.+ Report on how FP research project outputs could inform the implementation of

EDF was published.+ Report with recommendations on improving synergies between FP and EDF was

published.+ Discussion paper on African science policy objectives and scientific strengths

suited to FP7 cooperation was published.+ Increase in size of CAAST-Net consortium over the lifespan of the project.

04/01/2004 to 31/08/2011

10/02/2004 to 02/09/2008

01/01/2010 to 31/12/2012

01/01/2008 to 31/12/2012

PROJECT ACRONYM

BENWOOD

GRAIN LEGUME

CA2AFRICA

CAAST-Net

DURATION OUTPUT



103

+ 15 workshops and awareness-raising sessions on innovation systems, structure of ACCESS4EU research function, administration of research grants, latest funding innovation and research programmes, and the basics of the framework for SA-EU research collaboration were organised.

+ A report on research and innovation opportunities for cooperation through South African funded programmes to the EU research community was published.

+ Training workshops for INCO NCPs on ‘cultural differences in research and technology project initiatives’ and ‘gender in research’ were organised.

+ INCO tool was developed.32

+ Inco wiki was developed.

+ Two training courses on financial management of projects and audits were organised.

+ A project website which served as main focal point for information and project documents was created.

+ An online database to showcase profiles of third country research was developed.33

+ An integrated programming environment for parallel spare matrix solvers was developed.

+ Three generic processes for plant co-product valorisation were developed.

+ 2 PhD students performed molecular taxonomy and bar-coding of Clavibacter and Xanthomonas pathogens.

+ A web portal for communication between partners/advisory board and exchange of presentation and reports was created.

+ A DNA bank – eight different protocols for long-term storage of DNA/RNA samples and WGA products were investigated and tested.

+ An internet based software to comply with needs and specifications by partners was improved.

+ Q-bank (plant health) was launched in the Netherlands (22 June 2010).34

+ Bar-coding fungi (19 species), bar-coding arthropods (129 species), bar-coding bacteria, bar-coding nematodes (32 nematode species), bar-coding viruses, and bar-coding phytoplasmas was realised.


+ A conceptual and methodological management and transition framework was developed.

1/09/2009 to 31/10/2012

01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009

01/02/2011 to 31/01/2013

01/01/1996 to 30/06/1999

01/02/2008 to 31/01/2011

21/03/2009 to 20/09/2012

01/01/2007 to 31/10/2010

01/01/2005 to 28/02/2009

PROJECT ACRONYM

SACCESS

INCONTACT

BIOCIRCLE 2

PARASOL

REPRO

QBOL

MARAMAII

NEWATER

DURATION OUTPUT

32 At the end of July 2010, the Google based support tool was created to help find INCO relevant calls from work programmes (http://www.archimedes.ee/incontact/topics).33 http://www.biocircle-project.eu/partner-search.aspx34 http://www.q-bank.eu/Virus/



104

+ A Precision Livestock Farming Wiki as a basis for Good Precision Livestock Farming Practices under brightanimal.pbworks.com was established.

+ Conference with over 60 very active participants was organised.+ Field visits to establish contact with relevant government agencies to

understand their concerns and needs regarding project objectives were realised.+ A network of professionals from academia and industry was formed.

+ Workshops on epidemiology of zoonotic diseases, vaccines and therapy was organised.

+ Regional training workshop on High Pathogenic Avian Influenza and RVF in the Maghreb Algeria was organised from 18-22 July 2009.

+ Participants attended technical workshop on identification of tick species in cooperation with the EU funded ICTTD 3 project.

+ Participants attended technical workshop on epidemiological tools in cooperation with the EU funded CONFLUETECH project.

+ ARBO-ZOONET partners took part in the RVF vaccine workshop organised by FAO.

+ Developed the ‘Fish Ruler’– used to illustrate the minimum sizes to be respected when purchasing fish in order to discourage the trade in juvenile fish at the market.

+ Tools for improved planning of MPAs were developed.+ Over 40 papers which compared sustainable versus unsustainable management

regimes (information needed to combat unsustainable management) were published.

+ Best-practice guidelines for ‘sustainable ecotourism’ were developed.+ Standardised electronic maps of predicted distributions for coastal zone species

were generated.+ Data of species inventories and biomasses were created.+ Web portal with data, tools and concepts relevant to integrated coastal zone

management (International Seafood Guide, Species Information Service, Coastal Transects Analysis Model, Aqua maps, Fish Ruler, Fish Ruler Wizard) were developed.

+ A number of patents based on the results of the project have been filed and commercial opportunities are being explored to protect intellectual property rights.

01/05/2009 to 30/04/2011

01/05/2008 to 31/10/2012

01/05/2005 to 30/04/2008

01/02/2009 to 31/01/2012

PROJECT ACRONYM

BRIGHTANIMAL

ARBO-ZOONET

INCOFISH

PLAPROVA

DURATION OUTPUT

http://brightanimal.pbworks.com/w/page/36702872/Precision%20Livestock%20Farming%20Wiki

Follow us online


Find us on Facebook

https://plus.google.com/+CaastnetplusOrg2013-2016/posts

www.twitter.com/CAAST_Net_Plus / @CAAST_Net_Plus

[email protected]

africa-eu research collaboration on food security: a critical

Documents