42

P7i '~f IESP Discussion Paper Series

Research Capacity Building Through North-SouthCooperation: A Possible Strategy for World Bank

Projects

Jacques Gaillardand

Erik W. Thulstrup

September 1994

Education and Sodal Policy DepartmentHuman Resources Development and Operations Policy

The World Bank

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING THORUGH NORTH-SOUTH'COOPERATION:A POSSIBLE STRATEGY FOR WORLD BANK PROJECTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction: Research in the Third World and the Role of theWorld Bank . .................... ......... .. 3

World Bank Support for Scientific Research in the Third World . . . . 3

From Technical Assistance to North-South Research Cooperation . . . . . . . 7

North-South Cooperation Programs: A Survey ............... . 10

The Cooperative Research Programs of the InternationalDevelopment Research Center (IDRC) Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Granting Program of the International Foundationfor Science (IFS). . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Research Cooperation between Institutions in DevelopingCountries and Sweden (SAREC) ...... ............. . 16

Research Cooperation between Institutions in DevelopingCountries and the U.S. ..................... . 18

The Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs) . . . . . . . . . 19

The Program in Scientific and Technological Cooperation (PSTC) . . . 21

The Grants Program of the Board on Science andTechnology for International Development (BOSTID) . . . . . . . . . 23

The US-Israel Cooperative Development Research Program (CDR) .. ... 27

The Danish Program for Enhancement of Research Capacityin Developing Countries (ENRECA) ................ . 29

The Science, Technology and Development Program (STD)of the European Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Capacity Building Through North-South Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Lessons Learned . ... . . . . . . . . . .34

Successful Cooperation: What are the Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . 36

North-South Cooperation in World Bank Projects . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . .. . . . 42

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, the demand for research trained manpower in key fields has showna steady increase in many developing countries. The reasons are several, suchas the fast, global technology change towards more efficient and research basedmethods in both industry and agriculture or increasing environmental concerns.The requirements to research trained experts are often very specific for a givencountry and a local, continuous production of research trained manpower in thefield is frequently needed.

This need has been recognized by many developing countries, and the World Bankhas over the years provided large amounts of support for research capacitybuilding. Often the key components in these projects have been provision ofmodern research equipment, overseas technical assistance, and research trainingin industrialized countries f or large numbers of individual students, frequentlyat high cost. These arrangements have often not worked well. In particular, theequipment has frequently been poorly utilized, while the research trainingsometimes has had little involvement of developing country research institutions,has been poorly targeted to the needs of the home country, or has led to braindrain.

An alternative model for research capacity building is the establishment of trueNorth-South cooperation between research groups or institutions. When welldesigned and executed, such partnerships are highly efficient capacity buildersand they have over the years been supported through a number of mostly bilateralprograms. Several have been evaluated in recent years and the report containsa brief description of nine programs based in Europe and North America and themain outcomes of their evaluations. Based on these, the report summarizes thelessons learned and lists a series of key ingredients for successful researchcapacity building through North-South cooperation. These are related to:

(i) The size and qualifications of the research environments involved;

(ii) the openness in the cooperation, the mutual commitment, thefrequency of consultations and the willingness and ability to shareall tasks;

(iii) the time frame given, realizing that research capacity buildingtakes time;

(iv) the coordination of each activity with national research policiesand basic local needs;

(v) the emphasis on training activities; and

(vi) the establishment of proper evaluation and incentive systems.

Finally, the report concludes that World Bank research capacity building projectsmay benefit substantially from replacing traditional supply-driven equipmentprovision, technical assistance, and overseas degree scholarships by support forwell designed institutional research cooperation projects between North andSouth.

3

I. Introduction: Research in the Third World and the Role of the World Bank

I.1. World Bank gSupport for Scientific Research in the Third World

Over the years, World Bank projects have provided large amounts of support forresearch activities in the less developed countries (LDCs), primarily throughagricultural, industrial, infrastructure, and educational projects. In thelatter, most of the support was given to research within science based fields.Bank support fore science and technology in higher education projects hasincreased dramatically since 1980, especially in Asia, where the total projectcosts grew from US$131 million in the 1970s to US$4,525 million (US$1,334 millionin loans) in the 1980s, while all other regions, especially Africa, received muchless. Globally, World Bank project costs for science and technology in highereducation now are expected to amount to between US$500 million and US$1 billionannually in the coming years. It may also be expected that in the future a largernumber of countries in several regions of the World will seek to upgrade scienceand technology in their higher education systems.

Among the 32 higher education science and technology projects that were initiatedbetween 1970 and 1991, about one third had explicitly stated research anddevelopment objectives. Such components occurred in all regions except Africa,where none of the only four projects initiated listed research objectives. Thegreatest expenditures in the projects were for buildings and equipment, which onthe average accounted for one third each of the total. Among other budget posts,the broad category usually named capacity building accounted for almost 20% ofthe total costs. Capacity building was included in over half the projects andconsists mainly of graduate training, especially overseas, and technicalassistance, often foreign. Also, operation and maintenance were givenconsiderable resources.

Large amounts of support for research capaclty building were also provided byWorld Bank loans in other sectors, such as industry, agriculture, environment,energy and infrastructure. As an example, let us compare education science andtechnology projects with those designed to strengthen industry. Most of theprojects supporting science and technology in industry placed considerableemphasis on research. Among the 13 projects supporting science in industry, whichwere initiated between 1970 and 1991, essentially all had explicitly statedresearch objectives; 12 supported research institutions and 5 also universities.None of the projects occurred in Africa. The total costs for the projects wereover US$2 billion, about half of this amount came from World Bank loans. Alsolending for science in industry is expected to increase; the projected annualcosts for industry science and technology projects during the 1990s are aroundUS$400 million. Compared with the higher education projects, much less was spenton buildings (7%), while a similar share (one third) was spent for equipment.Capacity building received 12% of the project costs.

In agriculture, World Bank projects provided very substantial support forresearch efforts. Between 1981 and 1987, USS 9.7 billion was invested in 21 "freestanding" agricultural research projects and 209 agricultural and rural

4

development projects with research components. Over US$ Z billion of this amountwas invested in the direct research activities. The activities suffered from aseries of constraints, in particular: Shortages of qualified research staff, lackof government commitment to research, low salaries and poor incentives, lack ofconsistent research policies, and lack of research linkages (Pritchard, 1990).

Expenditures for research capacity building were particularly high in countrieswhich had not yet built up a sizable research training capacity of their own.Indonesia, for example, spent close to US$700 million through World Bank highereducation projects since 1980 on studies abroad for university staff, primarilyfor training towards research degrees at the Masters or Ph.D. levels. Largeamounts of support were also provided to foreign studies by staff from othersectors. In most cases, Indonesia covered both travel, tuition, and subsistanceexpenditures - the total cost of a Ph.D. would often be close to USS150,000 overfive years. In reality, all degree programs provided support for foreignuniversities (almost exclusively in industrialized countries) while the realbenefits for Indonesia varied considerably. Yet, almost all Indonesianresearchers returned to their home institution after completion of the overseasprogram (Indonesian brain dzrain is still almost zero). But a vast majority of theresearch training programs were carried out without any involvement of theIndonesian home institution, which therefore did not benefit during the process.Even worse, in many cases it was not possible for the graduate to continue theline of research work chosen for the degree program after the return toIndonesia, ususally due to lack of a supportive scientific environment in thefield or lack of physical facilities. In other cases, the subject chosen for thedegree program by the overseas advisors was of little interest in Indonesia. Amore detailed discussion of the relation between thesis subject, location ofPh.D. program, and the change of subject after return to the developing country,is given by Gaillard (1991).

The high expenditures for equipment in World Bank projects are also remarkable,especially since provisions of research equipment have frequently not workedwell. Often the equipment has not been matched to the local conditions, needs,know-how, and services available, resulting in problems with maintenance andspare parts. Local transportation and installation of research equipment areoften costly; the costs may in some cases be over 10% of the value of theequipment. Sometimes insufficient funds have been reserved for these purposes aswell as for operation and maintenance in World Bank projects.

Many kinds of commercial research equipment is under almost continous updatingby the producers; even getting last years' model limits the researcherspossibilities for competing internationally. In many World Bank projects, theresearchers who will be using the equipment have had little influence on theactual choice (due to the competetive bidding process used by the Bank) and havehad no opportunity to negotiate price and technical specifications with theproducer. Local suppliers of research equipment are sometimes unable to providethe service promised in the contract and do not always have a sufficient stockof spare parts to prevent extended periods of breakdown. While important researchequipment in IC laboratories often is being repaired within a week of abreakdown, it may take months, in some cases over a year, in a LDC laboratory,where provision of spare parts and technical advice is often a problem (Gaillardand Quattar, 1988). Another problem, sometimes caused by strict adherence to

standard Bank procurement procedures, is that the resulting slow process may leadto provision of outdated equipment. Finally, the price of both equipment andspare parts tend to be much higher in LDCs than in ICs; this is also true forpurchases under lBank projects.

Once equipment under Bank projects has been delivered and installed, funds foroperation and maintenance are required. Sometimes funds for this purpose havebeen insufficient. Although the need vary considerably, annual expenditures of10-20% of the cost of the equipment are often required for reasonably activeoperation and maintenance. Much equipment requires frequent replacement ofspecific parts with a limited lifetime. Often additional pieces of such partshave not been supplied with a new piece of equipment, primarily because the finaluser of the equipment lacked experience or was too far removed from theprocurement process.

Last, but not least, most projects have not included provisions for research timefor the developing country researchers. Most LDC researchers are poorly paid andmust take second jobs to survive financially. This often means that they areunable to spend enough time on their research work. In addition, incentives maybe lacking - both the Bank project and the national policies have been oftendesigned so that it makes little difference to the individual researcher whetheror not the research is successful and produces quality results and training.

The occasional problems observed in World Bank projects are compounded by thegeneral difficulty in the complex process of research capacity building: Itrequires sustained support over many years. Individual Bank projects providesupport over, typically, 3-5 years; only when several projects are coordinated,covering 10 or more years, does it become possible to make sustainablecontributions. A burst of research funds over a few years, preceded and followedby very inadequate funding may sometimes make matters worse.

1.2 The Need for Global Communication between Researchers

With few exceptions, research results and methods in all basic and some appliedscientific fields are globally available through research journals for the priceof journal subscriptions. Even this often exceeds the purchasing power of LDCresearch communities, which represents a considerable obstacle for the work.Global communication, and the resulting cooperation, has traditionally beendependant on research journals which make it possible for researchers to exchangeinformation and keep track of each other's activities. This has been an importantfactor in the fast progress in scientific research in Western countries duringthe last few decades. Today, even faster communication channels are starting todominate; researchers in industrialized countries (ICs) now exchange results byelectronic mail and fax long before they appear in journals.

Having regular access to research journals and other traditional communicationchannels such as international scientific meetings would still be a significantimprovement for LDC researchers. Yet, it would not be enough. In order to benefitfully from the information available, a researcher must be an active member ofthe global community in her/his research field. Nor is reading journalssufficient; writing science is as important, or even more important, than readingand only active researchers, publishing in mainstream journals gain full access

6

to the international networks in each field. By writing, the LDC researchers willalsob benefit considerably from the quality control traditionally performed bygood research journals (Thulstrup, 1993).

Since LDC researchers outside a few larger countries contribute little to themainstream scientific literature (Gaillard, 1989), they are at a severedisadvantage with respect to exchange of -scientific information. The recent trendin research cooperation to establish informal, but highly specialized,international networks, which communicate mainly by electronic mail has in manycases led to a further setback for researchers in the Third World, who are rarelyparticipants. However, scattered experience (ORSTOM, 1993) indicate that, giventhe opportunity, LDC researchers use such communication facilities at least asmuch as their colleagues in ICs. Although still important, communication throughjournals is slow in fast moving scientific fields and lacks the informalqualities of network communication, which provides the individual researcher witha range of useful information as well as new ideas and quality control.Membership of global, informal networks has today become the highest priority formany developing country researchers, especially in important, fast changingfields.

Therefore, an important key to a sustainable strengthening of scientific researchactivities in LDCs is the creation of strong ties with the establishedinternational research community in each field. This requires not only that thecommunication channels (including availability of journals, access to electroniccommunication networks, or fax) are strengthened but, most of all, that suitablepartners for cooperation can be found. Such partners must be recognized membersof the informal networks in the field so that they can help introduce the LDCresearchers in these global communities. Experience from World Bank projectsindicate that short term technical assistance from ICs often has failed even whenthe main motive of the provider was scientific rather than economic gains. Longterm partnerships between research groups or individuals in developing andindustrialized countries, based on mutual scientific interest and benefits, seemto represent one model, more likely to accomplish the goal. In additior, they mayhelp solve other problems such as those related to equipment procurement,equipment maintenance, research training, incentives, etc., on a sustainablebasis. In the following, a survey of a number of bilateral and multilateralresearch twinning programs will be used to identify the factors that make suchprograms successful.

7

II. From Technical Assistance to North-South Research Cooperation

The variety of metchanisms and institutions created by the ICs for promoting andsupporting research activities in the LDCs has evolved greatly over the lastthree decades. Chronologically, but with some degree of overlapping, the mainmechanisms which have been used include: technical assistance, overseas training,institution building, institutional twinning arrangements and collaborativeresearch partnerships.

Different mechanisms also exist to channel resources to scientific andtechnological activities in LDCs:

(1) bilateral maechanisms used by most national aid agencies;

(2) multilateral mechanisms (in addition to the World Bank, UNDP andspecializeid agencies of the United Nations, as well as a variety ofregional intergovernmental agencies such as the European Community, theOrganization of American States, the Andean Pact and ASEAN);

(3) non-governmental organizations (NGO) such as private foundations and otherphilanthrolpic institutions, international scientific societies grantingprograms, e.g. the International Foundation for Science (IFS) and theThird World Academy of Science (TWAS); and

(4) international support for specific activities, modelled after theConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is beingconsidered.

The total volume of resources allocated is not well known. According to one ofthe most comprehensive studies available, carried out by the InternationalDevelopment Research Center (IDRC), the total resources for development relatedresearch was in t:he range of US $1.3 to 1.4 billion per year in 1984. It is todayestimated by IDRC at US $2 billion (IDRC, 1991), or less than 2% of the totalforeign aid.

In the ICs, the differences in approach are correlated with vastly differenthistorical backgrounds and political climates for foreign scientific andtechnical assistance (OECD, 1985). Certain countries such as France, the UnitedKingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Portugal and Spain have a longhistory of rendering scientific and technical assistance to LDCs. Most of thelatter have created specialized scientific research institutes for the tropics,'and have specialized teams of research scientists, differing in size, that haveacquired unique field experience. Starting from the 1950s and even more during

Some of them wAe created at the end of the 19th c. Amongst the moat important and best lnown are (current names):the Tropical Development Research lnstit CDR1) in the U.K, the Institut Frangais de Recherche Scientifique pourIt Dveloppementen Coopdration (ORSTOM) in France, the Royal Instute for the Tropics (KrI) in The Netherlands,the Institute for Tropical Sientific Research (LNICT) in Potupal and the Prince Leopold Insbtute for TropicalMedicine in Azntwerp.

8

the 1960s, the United States' involvement became significant and soon dominant2.Other countries such as Canada, Sweden and Australia, which do not have acolonial past, set up central institutions specialized in scientific andtechnological cooperation with the LDCs, mainly during the 1970B3. Japan has alsoemerged in the 1980. as a major partner in S&T research cooperation fordevelopment mainly during the 80s.

As modalities of cooperation have evolved over time, the expectations have alsochanged. During the 1950s and 1960s, the main objective was to find quicksolutions to development problems through the mobilization of the ICB' ownscientific and technological resources (human and financial). This was the'problem solving, phase which overlapped with the 'technical assistance' phaseand culminated during the 1960s and early 1970s. The concept of development ofendogenous capacities (or capacity building) emerged later and gained momentumin the 1970s when new institutions for scientific and technological cooperationwith the developing countries were created in Canada (IDRC) and Sweden (SAREC).The concept was strongly reaffirmed by the group of 77 at the UN Conference onScience and Technology for Development organized in Vienna in 1979 (UNCSTD). Themain purpose was to build problem solving capacities (research capacities) in therecipient country. The two approaches (problem solving and capacity building)have long divided the donor countries (Lewis, 1987: 12-13). At the same time,there was a gradual realization that the creation of effective research systemsnot only depends on human and financial resources. Other factors, including theprofessional and social status of research personnel, adequate incentives andreward systems, and the emergence and reproduction of socially recognizedscientific communities, are of prime importance.

Following the Vienna conference and partly due to the increasing global economicinterdependence, the internationalization of S&T issues, and increasedcompetition, the major donors seem to be converging with respect to whatstrategies should be used for research collaboration with developing countries.The mainstream arguments now emphasize the importance of collaborativerelationships that benefit both -sides. This may also be due to the need tocounteract the "aid fatigue" as experienced in a number of donor countries.

The main problems encountered in the implementation of collaborative researchprograms relate, as illustrated below, to the asymmetry of the collaboratLon andthe dominance of the partners in the North. In the 1970s many LDCs were veryconcerned about possible risks and abuses resulting from such scientificcollaboration, including scientific colonialism, indirect military exploitation,commercial exploitation of the research results by companies in ICs, and enhancedrisks of brain drain. Much less concern has been expressed about these risksduring the 1980s.

2 Historically, it has had threc components: the privat foundations, the Agency for nternational Development (AJ.D.)and its predecesors, and the Land-Grant Universitias (Gaillard and Busch, 1993).

Canada created the Interabional Development Research Centre (IDRC) in 1970, Sweden cated the Swedish Agencyfor Scientific Cooperation with the DCs (SAREC) in 1975 and Austalia cated the Austrlian Centre for IntemationalAgriculu Reseach (ACIAR) in 1981.

9

Many industrialized nations now recognize that aiding research in collaborationand in partnership with developing countries is one of the principal means ofenabling these countries to build problem solving capacities and to face up totheir development needs. The aim of this paper is to review the main mechanismsand programs which have been established during the last 10-15 years to promoteNorth-South scientific collaborative partnership. Most of these programs havebeen created or strengthened after UNCSTD in 1979, during which the concept ofS&T cooperation between developed and developing countries was strongly supportedby the developing country representatives.

10

III. North-South Cooperation Programs: A Survey

The Vienna Program of Action which was adopted at UNCSTD urged that North-Southcooperative research should (UN, 1979):

(i) be in agreement with development priorities determined by the LDCsthemselves;

(ii) as far as possible secure LDC participation, even when conducted inIC institutions;

(iii) secure joint participation and control, when conducted in LDCs; and

(iv) include a training component.

In the following, a number of questions about the programs under review willbe discussed, such as: How many of the UNCSTD recommendations have beenimplemented? What else has influenced the establishment of the programs underreview? What are the main similarities and differences of the programs? Whathave been the main problems encountered? What lessons can be learned?The selection of programs to be reviewed has been determined by the accessibilityof information and the availability of internal or external evaluations'.

The programs chosen are:

(i) The cooperative research program of the International DevelopmentResearch center (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada.

(ii) The Granting Program of the International Foundation for Science(IFS), Stockholm, Sweden.

(iii) The partnership research programs of the Swedish Agency for ResearchCooperation with developing countries (SAREC).

(iv) The Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs) of theU.S.A.I.D.

(v) The Program in Scientific and Technological Cooperation (PSTC) ofthe U.S.A.I.D.

(vi) The Grants Program of the Board on Science and Technology forInternational Development (BOSTID) of the U.S. National Academy ofSciences.

(vii) The U.S.-Israel Cooperation- Development Program (CDR) of theU.S.A.I.D.

' Thus, it hu not ben posible to inchude other imporunt progams such as the punehp progrms of ORSTOM(France), or GTZ (Germany).

11

(viii) The Danish Program for Enhancement of Research Capacity inDeveloping Countries (ENRECA).

(ix) The Science,Technology and Development Program (STD) of the EuropeanCommunity.

The main characteristics of these programs are summarized in Table 1. Some havebeen in operation for a decade or more (e.g. CRSP, STD), others just for a fewyears (e.g. ENRECAM . Some programs consider North-South scientific collaborationthe central criteria for grant selection (e.g. CRSP, STD, ENRECA), othersstrongly encourage North-South collaboration but do not consider it a requirementfor grant eligibility (e.g. PSTC), while others exclusively target support toscientists in developing countries and only indirectly promote North-Southscientific collaboration (IFS). Because of the small size of some participatingcountries in the North, or because of lack of tradition, some programs (e.g.SAREC and ENRECA) have a relatively narrow resource base for research cooperationwith developing countries, whereas others (e.g. programs in the U.S. and France)have a much larger pool of scientists likely to participate.

Tabk 1: Maindcractistis afteEpsuumdrrview

Yea of Cmsay Resh Wlho arm the No. ofPrjes Aig Shrig ad of AMt.atmiot EEgit Pririty Ga suppOed Sin of ants GeoA ic

N___ _-_LCArs ReatssG _ .Pam= CmipMRC Nad- FCutLm Canais ad DC Aui.Nftuda CmdiAn ad 385 oindtadwi .US9S.OOPe die*--lymeca Ceibik

Coo been Rlm Heal Soa Dkpb& 198092 Pquitfw% ya Iket 50%Aao iAaftof- . andEaSr. Cunzty kwoha72 pubointbs AMKf MFojbor 1 9 __ Te___ v an siutm CrIML ___ S_ in

IFS 192 becom LDQ_ Blogicl Y.ii m , 1900guau upboUSD 6aityof <hioctbe 1900opecailmasin 1974 smmmainly _1B_ dng 19741991 2 4 0 dew =a gant ees d I726ate

applied to Rra sdnatia beoawwdtuom toDervo A illA.imi, 665 i i.De_iqanant LDCa ms CiW Madmi509k

~~~~~~~~______ (a.IISSIO.O00) adrIta Lahm.SAREC NoiM4oetl Re Sde and LDCa /s Neufitiem S8e and 664 p*M danng 1ED 1IOOOOO pe doeeto60%t C _rnkaig iit 15

CP. bam R=aDvL Dewieping 192-1990 yeindper ojet Pa itost C=e..ALirngem d'9~lae.is Envko m_ t ClMy kuMeg 124 St L - OakS 5%.f

TedLiomduT t hati*= Suua haLtd 1*ftodStciSe. 211 Dn C. _x

CRSP tbe fit CRSPtasP UJ aatlXsa Agdowe EMS. ad .D 200. pr at 50K4 tD 13 c iiiesbuduod im 1917 mlAlDLit Dcpin Yindpuejeetd paI intobe AfJia lOindA&

_____C___.____ Sooth &d3 idlmAPSIC 1981 T -DCOhUS. 6 aarledto US. a=d 49 Peec dig eloaeto USD lSO. at los 50X%to 39%ASIA.35%

ADCSL W b"olog d Deloping 1931.19 puIaoiec ingk Lk 17% ABle..allcoud biological md Cuatiry kg SO& 6%NK EaE, 3%

BOSTD 1931-1988 LDS 6 -y nawly De.lprig 107tjet eomtoUSD 150,000 tetayof %IA.3A

df:.dm Caysty. pmjatfGr3 cr5 Pgoto - 17%A*ie

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 D_4kpr

CDR 1985 hIudV4thLDCs and agrilim. aldi md LDC 15t projecds du cloUSD 50%fj p a 35% Ada, 31-

ADCa IL lo biolaewy. hneuis 1981992 200000 per pq jea ket AftS2% IA.7%akd wirz a Euroe

ENRECA 1988. became D-ukad Boad list of D-id 24 pojactadzing USD450.000per3 ath at 50% to 314of steWOperaticoalin Coolri= .uila dewmn Degop* 1989-1992 a}prqepsm pIr ike pmjec m btDeambe r 199 GPpaca eaAedtpl C' 1ebe SM AIii

aTDCE 198 Ivope Apire Ernpo 797 pojesu d ig U_M 300.000 per 40% SAAfi C620%Carnicas ind- 11*h&W Caty d 1931991 Pfrojec f34 yon L. 16%Aiand

-ca Nutridot IDC sL 12% MediL

RDtC vastbloadin 1970.2 SAMEC utablie 1975.o OM.h i oaln_,ho,chzfiMc h tolhatpawih,ka qoftIr_. a a heqdie

12

III.1 The Cooperative Research Programs of the International DevelopmentResearch Center (IDRC) of Canadas

At UNCSTD in 1979, the Government of Canada pledged that it would provide fundsfor Icollaborative research' following a request by the group of 77, representingthe developing countries. The International Development Research Center (IDRC)was asked to serve as the focal point of the new activities. IDRC was created in1970 to stimulate and support scientific and technical research in developingcountries. Following a recent reorganization, 'collaborative research' activitiesmight be further strengthened within IDRC, through development of strongpartnerships with Canadian Institutions (IDRC, 1991).

The objectives of the IDRC partnership programs are:

li) to develop the scientific and technological capacity ofparticipating LDC institutions by improving their opportunities forcollaboration with the Canadian part of the international scientificcommunity;

(ii) to create channels of communication among scientists through whichthe results of successful research in Canada can be transferred toresearchers in the Third World; and

(iii) to influence the direction of Canadian research towards Third Worldconcerns (IDRC, 1987).

From the start, IDRC was concerned about a possible dominance of the Canadianpartners and accepted only proposals originating from or with developingcountries, rejecting those that originated solely from Canada. The newlyredefined strategy of IDRC also outlines that partnership research activities

should look beyond the traditional concept of North-South technical assistanceand asymmetry, and should focus on the mutual interests of Canada and DevelopingCountries' (IDRC, 1991).

In the first two years of its existence, (1981/82, 1982/83), the CollaborativePrograms (CPs) Division (then a Unit), promoted research collaboration betweengroups in Canada and those in the developing countries, covering all disciplinesthat contribute to the socioeconomic development of LDCsthat fall outside theprogram areas of other divisions of the Center. This arrangement gave thenecessary flexibility to better respond to the developing countries priorities.At the same time, a more structured approach providing better access to Canadiancompetence was adopted. The creation of programs for Earth Sciences (1983/84),Technology for Local Enterprises (1985/86) and Building Industry, Materials andTechnologies wasa result of this approach.

Tis secidon is maly based on IDRC reports, in partiular Asbey (19), -s wel as inteview in Cxtawa.

13

Since 1983, the CPs budget has been divided between:

(i) funds for cooperative research activities administered by theCent(er's established program divisions' falling within their areasof competence and

(ii) funds for new ventures in areas of research not primarily supportedby the Center.

The growth of the CPs has been substantial: It grew from 5% of the overall IDRCbudget in 1982 to about 20% in 1987. Recently, the Center has been committedabout 18% of its program budget to cooperative initiatives. Despite thisremarkable growth, the CPs level of funding has not (yet) reached 1% of theCanadian foreign aid pledged in 1979 at UNCSTD. The main types of activitiessupported are (Asibey, 1992: 18): "institutional strengthening and training;building research networks between Canadian and LDC researchers and among LDCresearchers} improving research management capacities; facilitating technologytransfer and application; and applying Canadian research expertise on specificresearch problems".

From 1980 to 1992, IDRC support to cooperative activities totalled over US$37million for 385 projects, i.e. about US$ 95,000 on average per project7 (a phaseof two years). Close to half of the appropriated funds went to Canadian researchinstitutions and universities. A total of 72 Canadian institutions participatedin the IDRC partnership program. Of these, universities and colleges received farmore than any otther category (54% of the total). In the South, most support wentto institutions in Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. Most projects in theSouth were located at national institutions (89%), followed far behind byregional (7% of the funds) and international institutions (3%). Universities andresearch institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (mainly in Chile,Colombia, Peru, Jamaica, Argentina, Costa Rica and Mexico) were the largestrecipients (24% of the funds), followed by institutions in Asia (mainly China,Thailand, India, Malaysia and Singapore) with an overall share of 12.6%. Sub-Saharan Africa (mainly Tanzania and Senegal) received 6.9% of the funds, and theMiddle East (mainly Syriae) 5.3% (Asibey, 1992: 21-26).

Some of the main characteristics, findings and discrepancies uncovered during thefirst years of operation, and reported in IDRC (1987), are:

6 Beforthe reent rorguization (1991), DRC had sven operational divisions: Agriculure, Food and NutritionSciences, Communications, Earth and Engineering Sciences, Felowships and Awards, Infonnation Sciences, HhSciences and Social Scienes. Today, the number of progam divisions has ben reduced from sevn to five:Environment avd Natunal Resources, Social Sciences, Heal Sciences, Infomration Sciencs and Systems, andCorporate Affairs and itiatives.

7 Projects are normaly rnewed at least one time and could go into several phase of two years.

M The Intermadonml Centre for Agricultual Research in the Dry Aea (ICAPd)A) is the sole recipient of partnershipSupport in Syria. ^

14

(i) The number of proposals originating from developing countries orjointly submitted with a Canadian partner has been rising steadily.In 1984/85 68% of all proposals originated from or in cooperationwith LDCs and 32% from Canada alone. Programs for which thediscipline scope is clearly defined, e.g. Earth Sciences, resultedin higher developing country and joint submissions than otherprograms did.

(ii) Although cooperative support is demand-driven by the requests fromdeveloping countries, it was soon realized that both demand andCanadian competence were conditions for success. It was also clearthat identifying and developing access to Canadian competence takestime. As in the LDCs, universities were by far the most importantCanadian partner category.

(iii) The need for collaboration depends on country and researchinstitution. In general, having a Canadian partner was consideredessential for LDC scientists, particularly in Africa. Even withinstronger research infrastructures in Asia or Latin America,researchers wanted a Canadian partner and perceived it as their bestaccess to more advanced technologies and know-how.

The division of funds between the partners is a useful indicator forcollaboration. The requirement is that partners must share the grant "fairly".At present, close to 50% of the grant is used by the partners in the South. Theguidelines stress that genuine collaboration and access to Canadian capabilitiesmust be secured, and that research results must be shared and be common propertyamong the partners. The IDRC cooperative research program is presently beingevaluated; the results should be available in late 19939.

111.2 The Granting Program of the International Foundation for Science (IFS) 3

The International Foundation for Science (IFS), founded in 1972, is a non-governmental organization with a membership consisting of 93 scientific academiesand research councils in 79 countries of which more than 75% are located indeveloping countries. The objective of IFS is to promote and support thedevelopment of scientific manpower in developing countries. This it does bysupporting directly young scientists in developing countries, in order to bridge

9 An cvaluation framework has been designed including five sub-sudies (Aslbey, 1992):Study 1: Evaluation of the extend to which Canadian an LDC researchpartnerhips address developing countries eaearchneedsand priorities.Study 2: Evaluation of whether the Canadian and LDC research partnerhips have enhanced capacity building efforts in LDCs.Study 3: Evaluation of transfer of innovations from LDC to Camnda.Study 4: Evaluation of whether the Canadian and LDC research partnerships have akered the likeliood of the ;utation ofresearch results and contributed to development effects/inpacts.Study 5: Evaluation of whether the Canadian and LDC research partnersbips have exerted sustainable impact onsubsequent research activities/initiatives of Canadian partners.

0 Tbis section is mainly based on IFS information material, Gaillard (1990b) and in-house knowledg of fte author whohas been IFS scientific secrtary during 1975-1985..

15

the gap between their completion of a graduate degree and their establishment asfull members of the national and international scientific communities. The IFSsecretariat is located in Stockholm, Sweden. Its annual budget is about US$ 5million, with Sweden as the largest contributor.

Under the program, support is provided to research activities within agriculturaland biological sciences (aquatic resources, animal production, crop science,forestry/ agroforestry, food science, natural products). In order to obtain IFSsupport, the developing country researcher must work in an institution whichprovides salary and basic research facilities. The IFS grants may be used forequipment, supplies, literature, etc. Normally, the annual grants are up to USD12,000 and they can be renewed twice. In 1991, the average grant size wasslightly over US$ 10,000 for a research period corresponding to one to threeyears. In addition to the financial support, IFS provides a number of otherservices including: Purchase and delivery of equipment, supplies and literaturefor the grantees; organization of workshops and training courses; provision ofsupplementary travel grants to scientific meetings; scientific advice andinterfacing with scientific advisers. A number of new initiatives include a pilotproject on service and maintenance of scientific equipment, started in 1988 inthe SADCC countries, and so called "godfather activities": Establishingcollaborative links between IFS grantees and more experienced scientistsrecruited mainly among IFS scientific advisers, predominantly from ICs. Thus,while targeting its support to scientists in developing countries, IFS hasindirectly promoted North-South scientific collaboration.

Between 1974 and 1991 IFS awarded grants to 1900 researchers in 92 countries.Africa received 726 grants (38% of the total) with a clear concentration inNigeria and Morocco, Asia 665 (35%) with a concentration in South East Asia(particularly Philippines and Thailand), and Latin America 509 (27%) with aconcentration in Mexico, Argentina, Chili, Brazil and Peru. More than 1/3 of thescientists received one or more renewal grants. Crop Science (423 grants) andAnimal Production (415) received the highest number of grants followed by NaturalProducts (322) and Aquatic Resources (278).

Throughout the years, the IFS has developed a unique worldwide network of about500 highly qualified, unpaid scientific advisers". Their primary contributionis to evaluate grant applications but they are also actively engaged in advisingthe grantees' work by correspondence or during on-site visits and supply,whenever necessary, the latest research literature. The relation between granteeand adviser may eventually evolve in a genuine collaboration on a more equalfooting. The IFS model has been successful in promoting the development ofscientific manpower in developing countries1 2. One of its main limitation relates

LITbe majority of scientific advis empged in IS aciviis are from Frnc, U.S., Sweden, Uniked Kingdom,Germany, Belgium, Span, Netherlands and Ity. Scintific Advisen from developing countrim have increasd from75in 1986 to 153in 1991. -

- Cf. IFS Evaluation conduced in 1982 (Sagati et al, 1983) and the Folow Up Study conducteduding 1985-1987(Gafard, 1987) which showed that over 90% ofthe grantee weresi aive in their national scientific commuIiesat the tim of the study.

16

to its individual approach which may limit or prevent multi-institutional andmulti-disciplinary North-South strategies'3.

II1.3 Research Cooperation between Institutions in Developing Countries andSweden (SAREC)"

From a very modest start more than a decade ago, support for research cooperationbetween Swedish and Developing Countries research institutions has become one ofthe main activities of the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation withDeveloping Countries (SAREC).

Established in 1975 to promote research efforts that contribute to thedevelopment of the Third World countries, SAREC has defined three mainoperational aims (Bhagavan, 1992: 9-10):

(i) to assist developing countries the build-up of research capacity inthe form of good research envirornments, research training ability,and research policy;

(ii) to provide developing countries with financial and scientificresources to generate research results in areas which are importantto their development; and

(iii) to assist developing countries, if the need arises, in establishingscientific contacts and cooperation with international and Swedishinstitutions.

Strengthening research capacities in developing countries is the main purpose ofSAREC's policies and programs. Of its four major programmes'5, the 'BilateralResearch Cooperation', which comprises mainly scientific collaborative projectsbetween Swedish and Developing Country Institutions, accounts for roughly onethird of the total annual research allocation of approx. USS 55 million. A totalof 211 developing country institutions and 124 Swedish institutions hadparticipated in the program by 1990. The total annual allocation for the programwas close to US$ 15 million in 1990 for 169 projects (i.e. close to US$ 100,000annually per project on the average). Only fifteen developing countries receivedsupport in 1990. Africa (mainly Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania andSomalia) accounted for about 55% of the total number of projects, Latin America(mainly Nicaragua, Argentina and Cuba) for about 28% and Asia (mainly Sri Lankaand Vietnam) for the. remaining 17%. While the average total annual cost perproject in 1990 was approximately US$ 100,000 for Africa, it was about tenpercent higher for Latin America and for Asia. The projects are distributed

" Convedy,onealsohtorognizethatthediresupporttoindividualisoneofthemain factorbehind IFSsuccess.

X This wetion is based on Bhapvan (19) and SAREC (19).

is Thes four major programs ar (1) Biateral Reser Cooperation, a2) Intmuaiond Reseah Progrmes, (3)Reginad Reh Progrms and Specal Initiaves and (4) Swedish Devebpment Reearch.

17

rather evenly in the four operational research areas"6 except for the SocialSciences which received a much lower share'7.

The institutional cooperation within 71 SAREC bilateral cooperation projects wasevaluated by two external consultants in 1989-90. This represents roughly halfof the number of institutional cooperation projects in operation during 1988/89.The developing country project leaders interviewed expressed unanimously theirsatisfaction with the program. The evaluators also found that 'SAREC support hashad a beneficial impact on the research capacity of the recipient countries".... and that "the SAREC model has served to increase Swedish interest in researchin developing countries as well as to increase Swedish knowledge about theproblems of research in developing countries" (Bhagavan, 1991: 29-30).

The main problems and shortcomings uncovered are (Bhagavan, 1991: 29-34):

{i) The volume of output measured in scientific reports and publishedpapers was found to be generally unsatisfactory with the exceptionof cooperation involving more scientifically advanced developingcountries. In general, Swedish counterparts had assumed the majorpart of the work and responsibility in producing the papers.published in international journals, conference proceedings, andbooks;

(ii) On average, support provided directly to the developing countryinstitutions accounted for slightly less than 60% of the total. Thiswas considered to be too little by the evaluators who argued that itshould be possible to relocate certain activities from the Swedishto the developing country institution. As a typical example wasmentioned standard laboratory analyses;

{iii) The main administrative problems encountered by the projects weredelays and uncertainties in the receipt of funds by the developingcountry institutions. Other severe administrative problems wereassociated with procurement of equipment, spare parts, consumablesand literature from abroad, as well as purchase of air tickets andsubsidies for foreign travel. While project administrators haveoften found ad hoc ways of solving these problems, the evaluatorsurge that standardized procedures be more strictly followed in thefuture;

(iv) As a matter of policy, SAREC does not support salary costs fordeveloping country personnel. The main rationale behind this policyis: The support assumes that research is a high priority for theLDC; if this is the case, adequate salaries for its nationalsengaged in research work should be provided by the country. The

16 Thee arm are (1) Health and Nurition, O2) Rurl Development and E1nvironent, (3) Natual Sciencs, Technologyand Industrializafion and (4) Social Sciences and Humanitie.

17 Furthermore, the bulk of the assistance provided under 'social scienc and humanities in the context of this programis in fat nuaidy conceming support to centml universi lbraries in Affica.

18

evaluators strongly recommend that SAREC either accept the need tosupport researchers financially or "to pull out from countries whereresearchers' salaries are below the minimum real wage for the socialstrata in question";

(v) Despite an increase in the interest within the Swedish scientificcommunity, the resource base that is available in Sweden forresearch cooperation with developing countries remains rather narrowin terms of both scientific disciplines and the number of Swedishresearchers.

The latter point is considered crucial by SAREC which acknowledges that thenumber of scientists actively involved on one or both sides is extremely smalland that the question of size and vulnerability of groups should be reviewed: wItis not uncommon to find projects where the Swedish side consists of one professorand/or one associate professor, while the other side fields one or two pre-doctoral candidates ... There are examples of projects which despite severalyears of generous financial support have been unable to increase the number ofparticipants beyond the original one or two; here clearly no research capacityis being built. And there are examples where the withdrawal of the only seniorperson on either side made the project collapse." (Bhagavan, 1992: 38).

Another matter of concern is the problem of asymmetry between the Swedish sideusually led by a senior scientist of international standing and a LDC projectleader still being a graduate student. Under such asymmetrical conditions, "itis almost inevitable that the Swedish side should find itself slipping into therole of deciding what, how and when things should be done in the project, withthe other side having to defer willy nilly to the superior experience and wisdomof the Swedish side." (Bhagavan, 1992: 42).

111.4 Research Cooperation between Institutions in Developing Countries and theU.8.

The Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs) was created in the late1970's, and most of its programs became operational in the early 1980s, inresponse to Title XII of the Foreign Assistance legislated in 1975 (see below).The center-piece of the U.S. presentation at UNCSTD in 1979 was the Institute forScientific and Technical Cooperation (ISTC), which was to be created as a new,small, semi-autonomous agency within the framework of the InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency (IDCA). ISTC was to foster and support science andtechnology cooperation between U.S. scientists and developing countrycounterparts. ISTC was, however. opposed both by Congress who did not want tocreate a new government agency in addition to the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID) and probably also by key A.I.D. managers "who wanted undividedauthority and responsibility" (Weiss, 1992). Congress failed to appropriate fundsfor the Institute, and although officially established, it never became areality. Nevertheless, it became increasingly clear to Congress and others thatsome new mechanisms were needed to support research in LDCs through scientificcooperation with the U.S. scientific community. Although Congress did not supportthe ISTC as a new entity, it did support many of the ISTO principles. - Therefore,a new position as Science Advisor to the AID a) Administrator was created;this office organized and managed the Program in Scientific and Technological

19

Cooperation (PSTC). Funding was also provided for the Board on Science andTechnology for International Development (BOSTID) to establish a program calledApplication for Science and Technology; more than half of its funding was to beused for research grants to developing countries institutions. In 1985, the U.S.Congress set aside US$ 2 million to implement a new A.I.D. initiative: the U.S.-Israel Cooperative Development Research Program (CDR). These activities aredescribed in more detail in the following:

111.4.1 - The Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs)

In 1975, Congress passed the International Development and Food Assistance Act.Title XII of thist Act, entitled "Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger",supported the creation of long-term collaborative research programs (CRSPs) onfood production, distribution, storage, marketing and consumption between U.S.Land Grant agricultural universities and institutions in the LDCs. In additionto creating linkages between scientists in the U.S. and in developing countries,it was the goal of the programs to foster institutional growth and promotetraining of scientists and technicians in developing countries (Yohe et al.,1990).

Between 1977 and 1982, the Joint Research Committee of the Board forInternational Food and Agriculture Development, which advises AID on universityinvolvement in cooperative research , helped design and implement eight CRSPs.The CRSPs have since evolved into entities involving U.S. universities, AID andits regional bureaus and overseas missions, other U.S. federal agencies, nationalagricultural reseaLrch systems in developing countries, international agriculturalresearch centers, private agencies and industries, and developing countryuniversities and other institutions (Yohe et al., 1990).

Eight CRSPs were established between 1978-1985. They perform research on:

(i) small ruminants, (SR-CRSP), 1978;(ii) sorghum / Millet, (INTSORMIL), 1979;(iii) bean / Cowpea, (BC-CRSP), 1980;(iv) tropical soil management, (TROPSOILS), 19811(v) peanuts, (P-CRSP) 1982;(vi) pond dynamics / aquaculture (PDA-CRSP), 1982;(vii) nutrition, (N-CRSP), 1982;(viii) fisheries stock assessment, (PSA-CRSP), 1985.

In response to growing awareness of the importance of sustainable internationaldevelopment strategies, the U.S. Congress supported the formation of a ninth CRSPon: Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource management (SANREM). It wascreated in 1992 following the publication of a report by a Panel convened by theNational Research Council (NRC, 1991).

The first eight (CRSPs programs involve more than 700 scientists from 38 U.S.universities on the one hand and research institutes and universities in around26 developing host countries on the other". Geographically, the distribution of

" Tbe figures givet in this paagraph have been calculaled from USAID (1990).

20

institutions shows a concentration in Africa (13 countries - primarily Senegal,Niger, Mali and Kenya), and to a lesser extent in Latin America (10 countries -mainly Brazil and Mexico), while only three countries in South East Asia (SEA)have hosted CRSPs projects (Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines). Some CRSPs aremuch more active in certain regions than others. For example, INTSORMIL is activemainly in Africa while the CRSP for Fisheries stock assessment tend toconcentrate its activities in South East Asia.

Each CRSP has a Management Entity (ME) and a Program Director, usually based ina U.S. university, as well as an AID Project Officer based in Washington, D.C.The NE receives the grant from AID for implementing the programs and is legallyresponsible for the CRSP. A management Office (MO) must be established by the MEas the executive entity of the CRSP. CRSP projects are organized throughsubcontracts to U.S. institutions. These lead institutions in turn, subcontractfurther with other approved U.S. institutions participating in the projects andthe LDC partner institutions. The CRSP management is supported by three advisorygroups: the Board of Directors (the policy making body), the Technical Committee,and the External Evaluation Panel. The External Evaluation Panel annuallyassesses the research and training progress of the CRSP, both at U.S. and hostcountry institutions.

Each project is organized under the management of a Principal Investigator (PI)in the U.S. A counterpart PI is responsible for project collaboration in the LDC.At least half of the AID funds for project support must be spent in or directlyon behalf of LDC in order to insure that the CRSP focus on the solution of LDCproblems rather than on the research programs of main interest in the U.S.institutions. It is estimated that the average yearly budget for each project isaround US$ 200,00019. In order to participate, the U.S. institutions must providepart of the funding needed. Contributions from the participating LDC institutionsare also encouraged.

The accomplishments of the CRSPs programs are quite extensive in terms ofresearch and training outputs and impacts. The research contributions arereported in great detail in the CRSP annual progress reports and other documents(e.g. USAID, 1990; CRSP Council, 1991), wehere a more complete description of theaccomplishments can be foundm. The CRSPs suffer from two internal problems.First, while they are supposed to be collaborative in nature, one of therequirements of AID is that they operate in the World's poorest nations. Suchnations have often very few scientists qualified for equal cooperation. Thus, thescientists from the two sides often do not work in a truly collaborative mode.Both AID and external observers acknowledge that, most often, the 'basicresearch' component of the program is taking place in the U.S., while the LDC is

9 In addtion to the addtion funding provided by the U.S. instittion, the CRSP progmB are oftn bncfiing fromfunding from the host institution and other funding progams.

2 As a way of Musradon of taining outputs, the Boe / Cowpe - CRISP, whikh has over ten yea supportd 18projects, hu a long record of training Host Country scientists. During 1980-1990, itvws oiatetdwith 219 individualdegree programs. Of these, 66 were undergraduat and 153 were grduate (97 MSc and 56 PhD). Most (162) ofthese degrees were awarded in the Host Country or some other developing countrie. Themr were also 899 non-degreparticipants, 826 of which werc from the Host Country or other developing countries (Bcan/Cowpea-CRSP, 1991).

21

responsible for tasks such as data collection, field experiments, etc., and moreapplied research activities. Second, CRSPs are supposed to be interdisciplinaryin character. Eloth natural and social scientists should take part. Theinvolvement of social scientists was from the start considered as a novel aspectof the CRSPs (Mc Corkle, 1989). Only in this way, it was argued, can the researchachieve the critiLcal mass necessary to move it from the research station to thefarmers, fields. However, little interdisciplinary research take place in theLDCs (Busch and Lacy, 1983), and CRSPs often simply divide the available fundsamong disciplines instead of developing truly interdisciplinary programs. Athird dilemma has to do with the status of the AID organization: U.S. Missionsin LDCs often view the CRSPs as a threat. First, they require funds that wouldotherwise be in the Mission's budgets. Second, teams of scientists associatedwith CRSPs take time and resources away from the U.S. Mission's own projects.Thus, some Missions have prevented CRSPs from operating. At their inception,CRSPs often attracted scientists who saw them primarily as significant sourcesof funding, but had only a minor interest in the international cooperation. Italso often took time for the scientists involved to learn how to cooperate witha different culture. In recent years many of these problems have been reduced bythe introduction of better review procedures involving scientists from thedeveloping countries (Gaillard and Busch, 1993).

III.4.2 The Program in Scientific and Technological Cooperation (PSTC)2 1

As mentioned above, the idea to establish PSTC took shape during the U.S.preparation for IUNCSTD in 1979; PSTC became a reality in 1981, administered bythe Office of the Science Advisor within AID.

The PSTC provides research grants in six priority areas (or research modules):

(i) Biotechnology/Immunology;(ii) Plant Biotechnology;(iii) Chemistry for World Food Needs;(iv) Biomass Resources and Conversion Technology;(v) Biological Control; and(vi) Diversity of Biological Resources.

The definition of the modules has been strongly influenced by BOSTID, and thereport "Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development",published by BOSTID in 1982, became the basis for the PSTC research modules onbiomass resourcess, biotechnology/plants, and biotechnology/ immunology. About USS1 million is available annually for each module. It is the first program withinAID for which funding is based on a highly competitive process with external peerreviews. The maxiAmum total budget for each project is US$ 150,000. Investigatorsmay be from LDC universities, government laboratories or the private sector.Government laboriatories that receive grants are required to provide at least 25%in matching funds. PSTC also support collaborative research involvinginternational research centers. Highest priority is given to scientists in LDCs

Ths seon is imany based on USAID (19), the Guidelin on PSTC ditibuted by A.I.D.;and ine news iWahington.

22

receiving development assistance from the AID2 Cooperation with U.S. scientistsis strongly encouraged, but not required. Grants may also be awarded toinvestigators from the U.S. and from middle income countries, such au Argentina,Brazil, Colombia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Venezuela. However their proposalsmust be particularly innovative and involve strong scientific collaboration withscientists from LDCs. PSTC does not support research involving China, or researchtaking place in an ICP. Research involving Israel is funded by other programssuch as the U.S.-Israel Cooperative Development Research Program (see below).

The number of pre-proposals submitted to PSTC has increased from just over 100in the first year, to more than 600 per year>. Among these, 120 are invited toprepare full proposals for external PSTC review. Around half of these arerecommended for approval, but current budget levels allow only about 40 grantsto be awarded per year. In its first year, PSTC awarded 75% of its grants to U.S.scientists and 25% to LDC scientists. But by 1989, these numbers were reversed.Since the start, 58% of the grants have been awarded to scientists in LDCs and42% to U.S. scientists collaborating with colleagues in the Third World. The sizeof the grants per projects varies from a few thousand US$ to 400,000 USs, withan average around US$150,000. Of the 268 grants awarded between 1985-1990, 109(40%) were for projects in Asia, with a massive concentration in Thailand, whereno less than 48 projects were located2=; 81 (30%) were for projects in LatinAmerica, with a concentration in Costa Rica,-Brazil, Chile and Mexico; and 46(17%) for projects in 18 African countries, with some concentration in Kenya andin Zimbabwe, Sudan and Egypt.

The PSTC has been evaluated on different occasions. The two first evaluationscarried out in 1985 and 1988 internal AID evaluations. PSTC was consideredglobally positive: well conceived, well managed, and innovative". The 1988evaluation stressed, however, that "there was room for improvement in themonitoring of grants, and more could be done to reduce management overhead andto provide support and training services to collaborators". In response to thereview, BOSTID was asked to provide such support and training. PSTC has alsoimplemented better grant monitoring procedures, including the preparation of astreamlined manual, explaining how to administer PSTC grants more efficiently.External evaluations were conducted in 1988 in order to measure the impact ofPSTC grants on individual countries. It was concluded that "a majority" of PSTCgrants whave had at least a moderate effect on capacity strengthening". Over the

12 Tbis list includes mainly less developed counties and is regularly updated by A.I.D.

2 Looling at the list of approved projects during 1985-90, Portugal scems to be an excepton with four projects. Duringthat peiod, Portugal, mainly for poLitco-militry reasons, received development assistance from A.I.D.

X Preproposals are screened initially by the A.ID. missions and later by the A.I.D. Office of Research in Washington.Succesful applicants are given the reviewe' comments and asded to submit detailed proposls for subsequentexternalrevrow.

s More grnts have been awarded to projects in Thailand than to projects in all of Africa during 1985-1990. This resultis partly explined by the active role of the Al D. mision in Banglok and by the fact that a Thai scientist has beenrecuited to help his Thai colleagues prpare and submit both preliminary nd Ml proposal to PSTC and to monitor

the gmints. -.

23

past five years, evaluation of the scientific work in four of the six main

research areas have been conducted by external experts. All four areas receivedgenerally high marks. The evaluation report for the PSTC Biotechnology/Immunologyprojects states that "the projects have produced state-of-the-art researchresulting in internationally read publications and subsequent research fundingopportunities" (USAID, 1992: 54).

In one of the evaluation reports, the reviewers comment on the U.S.-LDCcollaboration. Although considered generally effective, it was found that theU.S. role in the collaboration was too dominant: "the U.S.-LDC collaboration isleaning too much toward U.S. involvement" (Chrusciel, 1988: 70). According to thesame evaluation, two characteristics of the PSTC limit collaboration between LDCand U.S. researchers. The first is related to the size of the grant and thesecond to the question of collaboration between unequal partners: "While US$150,000 is considered a substantial sum in a developing country, it can notcover nearly as much research time in the U.S. Therefore, if U.S. scientists arepaid any more than a token amount of their time, there is little left for the LDCresearchers. Another problem for U.S. researchers is that collaboration with LDCresearchers was not considered helpful to their careers. Rather, involvement ina program of this type is probably more of a hindrance if they intend to stay ina competitive research environment" (Chrusciel, 1988s 71). Delays betweensubmission of a proposal and approval of a project were also found to be lengthy.While two years is considered the "normal" time frame by the program officers,some unusual (although rather frequent) conditions may extend it to three or evenmore years. Interviews with U.S. principal investigators also revealed that,most of the time, "the idea for the projects originated with the U.S.researchers" (Chrusciel, 1988: 129). However, in some of these respects thereappears to have been a great deal of improvement over time (USAID, 1992: 47).

It is politically, important for PSTC to demonstrate that solving developmentproblems in the Third World also benefits the United States. This is often thecase. For example, antibacterial synthetic genes developed through PSTC-fundedcollaboration between CIP in Lima, Peru, and Louisiana State University produceda protein which is toxic to a broad spectrum of bacteria that damage tens ofmillions of dollars worth of U.S. potatoes each year (USAID, 1992: 38).

IrIl4.3 - Th. Grants Program of the Board on Science and Technology forInternational Development (BOSTID)is

Between 1981 and 1991, the Board on Science and Technology for InternationalDevelopment (BOSTID), a division of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)complex, organized and managed a program for support of research projects indeveloping countries. A grant agreement with AID was signed in January 1981,for a five year period with a total funding of US$36 million. The program wasnameded "Application of Science and Technology to Development". Of the USS 36million, US$ 16.3 million were to be used for research grants to LDCinstitutions. The BOSTID Research Program had four main objectives (Greene,1991:4):

X This secon is maily based on Gree (1991) and intervies in Washington.

24

(i) To help LDCs strengthen their capability to deal with importantdevelopment-related problems and move toward greater scientificand technological self-reliance;

(li) to stimulate and support research and development in developingcountries on problems of high priority for development and humanwelfare;

(iii) to provide developing countries with greater access to thescientific and technological knowledge and expertise that existsin the United States and other ICs; and

(iv) to provide a focus within the U.S. scientific and technicalcommunities for assistance to the developing countries, and toencourage greater interaction with colleagues in the Third World.

Five criteria were used by the Committee on Research Grants (CRG) of BOSTID toselect research areas (Greene, 1991:10):

(i) importance to international development;

(ii) importance of carrying out the work in an LDC for ecological,environmental, or other reasons, and the presence of capabilityand research facilities in the country;

(iii) the potential for significant progress in a short time throughtechnical assistance and technology transfer by U.S. scientistsand engineers;

(iv) absence of substantial funding from other international donors;and

(v) prior experience of BOSTID and the role of BOSTID publications inelucidating the importance of the probleme. This fifth criteriondid not apply in practice for some of the health-related areas.

Research grants were offered in six technical areas: grain amaranth,biological nitrogen fixation, tropical fast-growing trees, mosquito vectorresearch, rapid epidemiological assessment, and acute respiratory infectionsin children, and the program was characterized by several special features:

(i) Grantees were selected on a competitive basis with peer reviews ofproposals. BOSTID staff visited the applicants in order toevaluate the capability and assist with the response to reviewers'comments on the proposals;

2 BOSTD has caid out a sris of stdis on umdenuzed resources of promising economic value, such as fast -gowiag trs, tropid legumes and rural kioeois. See in paticular NAS (1975, 1980 and 1983).

25

{ii) In general, BOSTID staff spent much time on site visits, technicalassistance, equipment procurement, financial management, andpublication assistance;

(iii) U.S. researchers participated as advisors, site visitors, andreviewers, and provided short-term training;

(iv) Annual coordination meetings of grantees and advisors were held toreport research progress, discuss problems, and practice newtechniques in hands-on workshops.

In addition, the BOSTID program had the ability to award grants toinstitutions in advanced developing countries, when the research would benefitdeveloping countries in general. The country eligibility criteria were definedby BOSTID as Onon-OECD, non-Eastern Block, non-Israel and non-South Africa"(Greene, 1991: 17). Thus grants were given in countries such as Mexico,Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and Colombia, which otherwise receivedlittle assistancet from the U.S. Although potentially eligible, no grants weremade to scientists from the Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs). The mostcontroversial country to be excluded from eligibility for grants was the U.S.This was considered by some U.S. scientists as a serious weakness of theprogram. BOSTID, however, relied on U.S. and other collaborators from ICs in adifferent way. If a grantee did not identify or request a collaborator in theproposal, the staff helped to identify appropriate individuals and added thecosts for collabcirative visits to the grant budget. Projects were visitedabout once a year, and the consultants' reports formed an important part ofthe evaluation process and of the project guidance.

Between 1981 and 1988, 564 proposals were received from developing countryresearchers; 107 grants were awarded, with an average research budget pergrant close to US$150,000 for a period of three or five years. 49 of thegrants went to 16 Latin American countries including Mexico, Guatemala, Braziland Chile, 40 to Asian countries, most to Thailand and the Philippines, andthe remaining 18 to African countries (one third went to Kenyan scientists 3 ).One output indicator monitored was the publication of research papers; morethan 300 journal articles or book chapters were produced under the grants.

Two evaluations of BOSTID's granting program were carried out. The firstinternal evaluation was carried out in 1984 by three members of the Board ofBOSTID (Burris et al., 1985). The report, describing a very early stage of theprogram, concluded that the program had reached all of the above mentionedfour main objectives. In addition, the evaluators made the followingsuggestions:

(i) More emphasis should be placed on linking research to utilizationof research results and applicants should be required to includeimplementation plans in their research proposals;

Nigeria experienced a paticlay low rafe of success with only two sucsful applicaons out of 27 submitted.

26

(ii) The participation of scientists of high repute' from developingcountries as advisors, reviewers, and consultants should beincreased;

(iii) The institution building aspects should be strengthened byincluding training and networking also for other members of theresearch groups than the principal investigators;

(iv) New research areas should be added to the program (an idea whichAID considered premature).

A few months after the publication of this evaluation report, AID asked itsResearch Advisory Committee to carry out an additional evaluation of theBOSTID research program. This report was submitted in January 1986. Whilerecognizing that the program was well managed and designed, and that thegrantees were selected well, the second report was more critical than thefirst one. The evaluators felt that two main objectives of the program (i.e.support to good science and enhancement of scientific capacity in developingcountries) were not well dealt with in the program. They recommended increasedparticipation of U.S. scientists, both for site visits and as collaborators inthe research, and more extensive use of the Academy resources.

The following year (1988), Congress decreased the budget of the Office of theScience Advisor of AID by over US$ 2 million. The reason was listed as "thefailure of the Academy to use own resources in support of the collaborativeresearch program funded by AID". Another reason might have been, as mentionedby an Appropriation Committee staff member, that "there was a feeling in theSenate Subcommittee on Foreign Operations that the Institute for Scientificand Technical Cooperation (ISTC), which had been killed by the SenateAppropriations Committee after the Vienna Conference, had been revivedcontrary to the will of the Congress and given to the Academy by itspresident, Frank Press, who earlier had promoted ISTC as Science Advisor toPresident Carter" (Greene, 1991: 123). This had two immediate effects. Grantsthat had been awarded in late 1987 had to be retracted and it was decided tobring the BOSTID program to an end. AID granted a no-cost extension ofresearch project grants until January 1992 in order to secure a smoothcompletion of on-going projects.

In his book, Michael Greene lists the major lessons learned from the BOSTIDProgram (Greene, 1991: 112-125). Among the various obstacles to good researchin developing countries and the different constraints identified, three standout:

(i) Operational difficulties and lack of resources including lack ofbasic equLpment, irregular supplies, cumbersome institutionalregulations, uncontrolled laboratory conditions, inadequatelibrary resources, frequent political strikes and changes ofpolicy, etc. While ad hoc solutions can be found to some of theseproblems, especially through the inginuety of the scientistsinvolved, other conditions such as runaway inflation are hard tocombat;

27

(ii) The lack of career recognition and reward for excellence is themost serious problem of science in developing countries. Greenearguets that "science prizes for excellent research and salarydifferentials to those who bring in international grants andpublish papers in international journals are among theacknowledgements that would help strengthen the career of ascientist";

(iii) The lack of a true community of scientists that read and discusseach other's work, meet for seminars, exchange ideas, and revieweach other's papers and proposals.

The coordination meetings provided BOSTID grantees with badly neededintellectual inputs. In many cases, the assistance and collaboration of U.S.

scientists helped readuce the isolation of the LDC scientists, but thecollaboration would probably have been more effective if funding had beenavailable also in support of U.S. collaborators.

Grantees in Africa were found to face the most daunting problems. Among thefifteen grants, one was given to the atypical International Council forResearch in Forestry.Of the fourteen remaining grants, five resulted inpublications in refereed journals (one of BOSTID's monitored outputs andconsidered a criterion for success), three have produced some unpublishedresults of valuer and five did not produce this kind of output at all. One ofthe more successful African grantees was an expatriate from India. The othersuccessful projects were characterized by strong interaction with foreignscientists - U.S., French, and German. This suggest that until the conditionsfor research are improved in Africa, close collaboration with colleagues fromoutside Africa will remain a necessity.

111.4.4 The U.S.-Israel Cooperative Developsent Research Program (CDR)3

In 1985, the U.S. Congress granted US$ 2 million to the U.S.- IsraelCooperative Development Research Program (CDR). CDR was a new AID initiativewhich attempts to improve the access of LDCs to scientific, technical anddevelopment institutions in Israel.

LDC and Israeli scientists and institutions are invited to submit jointresearch proposals. Grants may total up to US$ 200,000w, usually over 3, 4 oreven 5 years. A typically grant provides about US$ 30,000 annually to twocollaborating institutions for three years. The grants are often dividedequally between the Israeli and LDC collaborators. The participants may be

from universities, government laboratories or the private sector. Governmentlaboratories receiving grants are required to provide at least 25% in matchingfunds. CDR also support collaborative research involving internationalresearch centers. Priority is given to research collaboration involving

T1is secdon is based on USAID (198 and the offial guideline on CDR dibuted by A.I.D.

7Themaximumga szewas USS 150,000 in 1985, it was ied to USS 250,000in 1988 ad mducd to USS 200,000in 1990.

28

countries receiving development assistance from AID. The CDR program givespriority to areas in which Israeli expertise might be particularly valuable toLDCs and in which Israeli scientists and engineers have a comparativeadvantage. These include, but are not limited to: Arid lands agriculture,agroforestry, agricultural intensification (including water management andmultiple cropping), plant biotechnology, biotechnology related to human andanimal health, innovative use of by-products (e.g., for livestock husbandry),marine sciences and aquaculture, biological control of insects, energyresearch and studies of global climate change. The management of the CDRprogram is very similar to that of PSTC described above and it is administeredby the Office of the Science Adviser within AID.

During the three first years of operation (1985-1987), 81 grants were given toprojects in around 20 LDCs. Most grants were around US$ 150,000. In Israel,80% of the participating scientists came from only four institutions: TheHebrew University of Jerusalem (21), the Israel Agricultural ResearchOrganization (19), Ben Gurion University of the Negev (13) and Tel AvivUniversity (11). The remaining grants were centered in around 10 additionalinstitutions, including 3 private institutes. On the LDC side, more than onethird (29) of the projects involved institutions in Asia, with a clearconcentration in Thailand (14) and the Philippines (10); 22 grants went toAfrican institutions, including 10 in Kenya; and 21 went to Latin Americaninstitutions (with a slight concentration in Costa Rica and Peru). 9 grantswere given for collaborative projects between institutions in Portugal andIsrael3'.

The program came under strong pressure in 1988 and 1989. The IsraeliGovernment had originally expected to be responsible for the management of theprogram and decisions on grant applications and tried to convince the U.S.Congress to transfer the management of the program from AID to Israel. Acompromise was reached in which the management of CDR remained within AID anda new program, the Collaborative Development Program (CDP) was established.CDP was administered by the Israeli government with an annual budget of US$2.5 million provided by the U.S. government. As a consequence, the annualbudget of CDR decreased during the following years (from US$ 4 million in 1988to USS 2.5 million during 1989-92). An important increase is expected for

1 9 9 3m with the inclusion of the States of the former Soviet Union in theprogram.

CDR was evaluated in 1991. The main conclusion was that it supports goodscience but suffers from a number of administrative problems. Among these,transfer of funds to the LDCs partners via the Israeli institutions isprobably the most serious. Another problem listed is lack of support from theAID missions.

' Dunng tha perod, Poiugd, manly for poitdc d mtay rasons, receved development assitance from A.I.D.A relvely lg number of stmng appcations wre submitted by Portugues sioentsts or with Portugue scenistsas colaborators.

2 Probably US$6 milon.

29

111.5 The Danish Program for Enhancement of Research Capacity in DevelopingCountrles (ENRECA)33

Established within Danida in November 1988, the Program for Enhancement ofResearch Capacity in Developing Countries (ENRECA) became operational a yearlater. The main objective of the program is to support long term (over 10-15years) development of research capacity of selected institutions in developingcountries through twinning arrangements with Danish research institutions. Thetwo first ENRECA twinning projects were approved in December 1989, tenprojects followed in 1990 and eight in 1991. The number of active projects was24 at the end of 1992. Most of the early projects originated from personalcontacts between LDC and Danish researchers. Many twinning arrangements can betraced back to earlier study visits by LDC researchers in Denmark or toalready existing agreements of collaboration between Danish and LDCuniversities. ENRECA may also provide funding for Danish researchers whichmakes It possible for them to visit LDC research environments in order toidentify potential partners for cooperation (see below).

In addition to criteria referring to the scientific quality, the relevance ofthe proposed project and the capacity of the participating institutions tocarry it out successfully, the main criterion for project selection as definedin "Guidelines for Danida Support of Research Assistance Projects" is aproject's potential to strengthen research capacities in the LDC (Danida,1992, Annex 4). Additional criteria listed range from the agreement with thegeneral priorities of Danida with respect to country and research fields 34 , aswell as ethical or environmental concerns. It is stated that priority will begiven to countries in which Danida has a permanent mission3, but that othercountries may also be considered as long as adequate preparation and executioncan be ensured by the participants. Only countries with a per capita GNP belowUSS 1,750 (the amount is adjusted upwards annually) are eligible as partnercountries.

The project guidelines emphasize that projects must be considered long-terminvestments (10-15 years), that support in general is given for three yearproject phases at a time, and that the support for each project phase cannormally not exceed US$ 500, 000o (recently larger amounts have been awarded).The initiation of new projects may be facilitated by the allocation of smallgrants (up to US$ 33,000) for the preparation of joint research proposals and,

This section is based on Danida (1992), ENRECA-Newuettr 1 to 5 as wel u personal communications inCopenhagen and Washington.

34 The priority sectors of the Danish bilateral aid consist of a broad list of development-oriented topics including plantproduction, animal husbandry, forestry, fshery, ecology, health, drining water, building, physical infrastuure,energy and social science. In addition, it is however sted in the guidelines that "this does not ec=lude wpport of basicresearch'... and that 'research within other sectors may be supported in special ca".

'5 Danida has a permanent mission in India, Bangbsh and China in Asia; and Tanzania, Kenya, ZAmbia, Zimbabwe,Mozambique and Sudan in Africa. Later, the number of "program countri" has been extended to 18.

' Projet support bas occasionally been somewht higher, but in such oass, the approval of the Chairman of the Boardfor Danish Intemational Dvelopment is required.

30

in some cases, for the identification of suitable LDC partners for researchcooperation.

The 24 projects active in late 1992 are distributed rather evenly betweensocial, natural, health, veterinary sciences, and technology".Geographically, the distribution of participating institutions in developingcountries shows a clear concentration in Africa (18 projects in 8 countries,mainly Tanzania, Ghana and Kenya), while 5 projects are carried out in Asia(India, Bangladesh and Thailand) and one in Latin America (Ecuador). Hosttwinning arrangements (except for Thailand and Ecuador) took place in Danida'sprogram countries. The geographical and organizational distribution of Danishparticipants does not quite reflect the research structure of the country;with few exceptions, all Danish partners are found in the greater Copenhagenarea and in higher education institutions.

The average budget for each project is approximately US$ 450,000 or USS150.000 per year. Both budgets and actual expenditures have generally followedthe guideline which states that at least half of all expenditures should takeplace in the developing country. The distribution of expenditures on variousbudgetary items shows that the largest single item is salaries (35% of thetotal budgeted amounts), followed by equipment (20%), travel (20%), materials(17%), administration (2%), and other expenses (6%). In addition, close tohalf of the ENRECA projects received support from one or more other sources,e.g. UNDP, WHO, EC, World Bank projects, and US and Danish sources includingother Danida programs(1992b: 30-31).

An early evaluation of ENRECA was conducted during 1992. It concludes that"the ENRECA program is, in spite of its short existence, already providingvaluable contributions to research capacity building in developing countrieswith high efficiency and a low cost/benefit ratio, compared with many otherinternational efforts in the field. The projects have already produced a largenumber of disseminated research sesults: A total of 287 research papers ofwhich 41 appeared in international journals and 209 in conference proceedings.Interaction with local users has started in several projects. Researchtraining is performed in all projects; some emphasize formal programs at theDoctoral or Masters level, while others prefer more informal activities.Presently, 26 students are involved in Masters programs and 41 in Doctoralprograms. Six doctoral and six Masters degrees have already been awarded"(Danida, 1992b: 4). The early projects, started in 1989-90, the outputs areeven more impressive; for example, the first 10 projects alone produced 34research papers in international journals.

Among the problems encountered, the following were considered the most commonand serious:

(i) The qualifications of the developing country participants have notalways met the expectations of the Danish counterparts, even whenearlier contacts existed;

37 hedstrbution given i the Evaluation Report (Danida 1992:23) is asfollows: Biology (29%), Health (21%), SocialSoiences (21%), Agritulre (13%) and Other Scic and Technology (17%).

31

(ii) The Low salaries of LDC researchers often make second jobsnecessary for them; in most ENRECA projects ad hoc solutions havehad to be established in order to make it economically possiblefor the involved LDC researchers to work full time on the projectresearch;

(iii) The Limited time that most, especially Danish, senior researchersinvolved in the projects can spend on the project in the partnercountry was also found to be a matter of concern. In general,projects have often been too dependent on one or two key persons.When such persons change assignments, the projects may sufferseverely; and

(iv) In some cases, LDC partners have been active participants in theresearch activities, but much less involved in other phases of thereseiarch work, i.e. the planning and dissemination processes. Thiswill not lead to satisfactory capacity building;

Implementation of most projects have experienced delays as well as otherpractical problems, but most of these problems, often of a bureaucraticnature, have beein solved through ad hoc solutions worked out by the partners.The evaluation report considers it a severe limitation that most projects dealwith research aremas in which Danish researchers have a need to work indeveloping or tropical countries (tropical biology, tropical deseases,development economics), while many other fields, indirectly very important forthe developing process (e.g. mathematics and physics), so far were missing.

111.6 The Science, Technology and Development Prograa (STD) of the EuropeanCo_munity'

The Science, Technology, and Development Program (STD) was created by theEuropean Parliament in 1982. It is the first program of the European communityspecifically devoted to scientific cooperation with LDCs3. It covers two mainareas:

(1) tropical and sub-tropical agriculture and

(2) medicine, health and nutrition in tropical and sub-tropical areas.

The first STD program received around US$ 50 million for four years (1983-1987)and supported 411 projects in 73 countries (64 LDCs). The level of funding wasdoubled during t1he second phase (1987-1990) and 339 projects were approved withpartner institutions in 97 countries (86 LDCs). For the third, present phase(1991-1994) the budget has been increased to US$ 130 million.

X Ti section is based on Want (1992) and Arvaniti et al. (1993).

A sond progmn was abo esabished in 1984 for coUbornaion wih Latn Ameica, Asia ad Melknancountdi only: the Internatona1 Scienfic Coopemaion SC) acdives. It conens al sciei0i areas. It has awarded90 mllons cns during 1984-1991 for 400 rese gaeemnts, 26 scienfi& medengB and 735 post doe feUowships.

32

The objectives of the program are:

(i) To contribute to the strengthening of research capacity indeveloping countries to the level required to become full and equalpartners in the international cooperation, thereby reducingdisparities between North and South;

(ii) To create and strengthen sustainable tropical research capacities inEurope as well as to improve cooperation between the Europeaninitiatives within research and development for LDCs;

(iii) To increase (particularly since the second STD phase) the impact ofresearch on development and to guide research on the tropicalenvironment into coherence with the Community strategy fordevelopment and technological research.

In addition to the scientific quality of the projects submitted, anumber of criteria have been developed for project selection. They include:

6i! breadth - involvment of at least two teams from the Community andone team from LDCs is required;

(ii) the contribution of research projects to strengthening thescientific capacity in LDC8;

(iii) the regional impact of the project outcome; and

(iv) the extent to which the project complements other Community researchand development programs.

Today, a typical project involves two or three research teams in Europe (of whichone is the project leader) and at least one team in the South. It has a budgetof about 300.000 USS for a three to four year period. The average budgetallocated by project was doubled between the first and second phase. Manysuccesful projects have been renewed for a second period.

As all European Community programs, STD has been evaluated every four years atthe end of each phase. The first evaluation, in 1987, concluded that the programhad, after a relatively short period, become well recognized in all tropicalcontinents, in particular in Africa. This was, however, mainly due to theimmediate mobilization of the specialized tropical research institutions of theformer colonial powers (e.g. UK, France and Belgium). The evaluation report thusstressed the importance of involving other European countries more, in particularresearch institutions which did not specialize in tropical studies. This wasnecessary in order to avoid reproducing former bilateral cooperative projects.

Many projects were also critisized for being initiated by the European partnerswithout much active participation by partners in the South. According to theevaluation of the second phase, carried out in 1992, these recommendations havebeen generally been implemented. Whereas close to one fifth of the grants in thefirst phase were given to European partners only vaguely connected with aninformal network in the South, no such project has been approved during the

33

second phase. The average number of partners in each project has increased from2,5 in the first to 4 in the second phase, due to an increase In the number ofparticipating European institutions. At the same time the number of "bilateralprojects" has decreased from two third of all to one third, but the tendency tobilaterality remains relatively strong in Anglo-Saxon countries. The constraintsintroduced has forced many active researchers and institutions to activateinformal networksE and to create new collaborative links.

Yet, a small number of European institutions are playing a central role in eachfield. In the field of agriculture, these are CIRAD (France), The Faculties ofAgriculture of Gembloux (Belgium), Wageningen (Netherlands), and CIC (Spain); inhealth it is the Instituts Pasteur (France) and the School of Tropical Medicine(UK). In general, ORSTOM (France) and the Institut d'Etudes Tropicales (Belgium)are also dominant. In the South, a small number of partners dominate the sceneby attracting a large number 'of collaborative agreements: The University ofMahidol in Thailand, Institut Agricole et V6terinaire Hassan II in Morocco, ISRAin Senegal, etc. In spite of this, there is a renewal process of STD clientsgoing on. one third of the partners have been replaced between the first andsecond phase. All twelve European countries are now involved in the program. Theparticipation of countries in Northern Europe (in particular Germany and theNetherlands), and in Southern European (mainly Spain, but also Italy andPortugal) is increasing.

From 1988 to 1992, STD has involved about 1000 teams or laboratories in Europein work in 74 countries in the South, mobilizing close to 8000 people (of which6000 scientists). In the South, half of the partners are located in Africa,mainly in Frencophone Africa (Senegal, Ivory Coast, Burkina, Mali) and Kenya.Other partners are located in South East Asia (particularly Thailand), in strongscientific communxities of Latin America (Brazil and Mexico), and in Maghreb. Inthe South, the concentration of partners correspond to the mainstream scientificproductivity as reflected in the main bibliographic databases. Two thirds of allsubmitted applications to STD come from Europe. The success rates forapplications are 33% for European applicants and 12% for applicants from theSouth. As a result, partners in the South have obtained only 10% of the projectleaderships (15% in agriculture and 6% in health).

34

IV. Capacity Building Through North-South Cooperation

IV.1 Lessons Learned

The collaborative research programs presented briefly in this report have allcontributed, in different ways and with various degrees of success, to astrengthening of research capacities in LDCs. Most have also contributed to abetter integration of the scientific partners in. the South in the internationalscientific communities, thereby significantly increasing their scientificvisibility. Most programs recognize research training for LDC participants as anessential component of research capacity building; funds for research traininghave either been included in the research budgets or have been providedseparately, often on an ad hoc basis. The training has taken different forms -from academic training leading to a degree, to short term training in a specifictechnique - but always integrated in the collaborative research programs.

Most programs under review have provided resources to scientific institutions inthe North and have helped strengthen their capacity to conduct research ofrelevance to LDCs. At first, some programs (e.g. IDRC and ENRECA) haddifficulties locating the necessary competence in the North. Other programs hada tendency to attract scientists who considered them significant sources offunds, but who had only minor scientific interest in the collaboration with LDCs.The STD program of the European Community attracted at first mostly scientistsfrom institutions specializing in tropical research (e.g. in the former colonialpowers) who proposed joint projects with their traditional partners in the South;but found it much more difficult to access competence in other countries withoutan extensive colonial past or the special facilities and interests (e.g. Germany,Denmark, Greece). After a decade of operation, the resource base, as well as theinterest, for research cooperation with LDCs have obtained a more even spread inthe EC countries. Yet, the geographical distribution of collaborative programsis still to a large extent determined by historical, geopolitical and linguisticconditions. North American programs tend to favor collaborations with LatinAmerica and Asia, whereas European programs find more than half of theircollaborative partners in Africa.

Many of the difficulties experienced by the programs are related to the wideninggap between developing countries. They cannot be considered an homogeneous entityand they are now frequently grouped in several categories: Least DevelopedCountries; Intermediary Countries; and Newly Industrialized Countries. The recentprograms for the states of the former Soviet Union and Central and EasternEuropean countries further complicate the picture. Partners in Africa generallyface more difficult problems than their colleagues in Asia and Latin America andthis calls for differentiated strategies.

A common characteristic of most programs is that they rely on very limitedadministrative capacities both for the selection of projects and follow-up

35

activities. The secretariats have staff sizes between tWo and twenty peoples.Furthermore, the administration of numerous small or medium size internationalcollaborative projects is relatively much more time-consuming than theadministration of larger research or development programs. The apparentadministrative weakness may in many respects be considered a strength. Mostprograms allow a mkore direct communication, more flexibility, and a more informalmanagement style than in other, larger programs. As a consequence, the motivationand dedication of the staff is also often higher. However, in some respects theprograms might benefit from an increased staff capacity for monitoring andanalysis, as emphasized in the evaluation of ENRECA (Danida, 1992). A distinctionmight be made between programs located within a large bureaucracy (e.g. PSTC andCDR) and those which are not, either because of their NGO status (e.g. IFS) orfor other reasons (e.g. BOSTID). Many operations, such as grants approval andtransfer of funds, tend to be carried out much slower in the former organizationsthan in the latter.

The major problems, common for most programs, have to do with the asymmetry ofthe collaboration -and the dominance of the partners in the North. This wasrecognized as the main difficulty at the inception of several programs e.g. IDRCand SAREC. Neither accept proposals which do not originate from LDCs. SAREC'sexperience has generally been negative when the project initiative came fromSweden: "It is an approach that tends to emphasize the priorities of the Swedishside, leading more often than not to friction and controversy between partners"(Baghavan, 1992). On the other hand, few institutions in the South have theinternational contacts needed to initiate bilateral collaboration (multilateralin the case of STD) with institutions in the North4". Identification of suitablepartners, initiation of new collaborations, and preparation of joint researchproposals have been successfully facilitated by provision of small grants forthis purpose in ENRECA (Danida, 1992). Such pre-application grants might ideallybe made available to potential collaborators both in the North and South.

The research priorities of the programs are generally development oriented or LDCspecific. However, North and South do not necessarily have identical researchpriorities. Comparison of applications submitted by scientists from the North andthe South to the STD health program is revealing: European scientists proposedto work on the few major tropical diseases', whereas scientists in the Southgave highest priority to preventive medicine and health problems related to the

4 Wth the exception of IDRC wher all the divsions' staff as wel as staff from (or located at) the regional offices arealso involved. It is however difficut to give an ect figure of the number of people involved.

41 In severl of the progms one can single out these few institutions. Ezamples are the Hamsan E Estitte in Morocoand some of the Universities in Thailand (e.g. Mahidol, Kaetsart ). The two countris have been particularlysucesful in diversifying their cooperation. This is mainly due to the diversification of their tuaiing trategis(GaIllard, 1991).

4 These is also a clear specialization baween tie countries is the north: French researchers submited (to Sgm) a lrenumber of proposals on Malaria, Chags diae and virology; UK reshers sent in numeous propous conceringuberculosi and typanoomusis. In ares where competdion iS le intene (fewer proposls and higher rates ofsuccess), Germany has become a specialist in oncocercosis and schistosomiasis, and Holand in leishmaniosis (Waastt aL., 1992: 37).

36

environment, e.g. diarrhea (mainly infantile and juvenile) and nutritionproblems. They also seem to have a much stronger interest in health systems (e.g.traditional medicines and health organization) than their colleagues in theNorth.

Similarly, but to a lesser extent, Europe and the Third World seem to havedifferent interests within agricultural, research (Waast et al., 1992: 37-43).Since the main objective of the programs is to strengthen research capacities indeveloping countries, it may be tempting to advocate that "the researchpriorities of the developing countries ought to determine the scientific contentand the directions of the cooperation" (Bhagavan, 1991:39). On the other hand,this may limit the cooperative opportunities, especially with partners In smallercountries in the North, and might also limit the developing countries' access tomore cutting-edge research which in the long run might have a stronger impact ondevelopment.

Another problem is that fields such as mathematics and the basic naturalsciences, which must be developed to a sufficient level in any country in orderto support local training and applications in engineering, agriculture,environment and health (Thulstrup, 1992), are often not included in thecooperative projects. One major reason is that the researchers in these fieldsin the North generally find cooperation with other researchers in the North morerewarding. Another reason may be that some development agencies overlook thelong-term importance of the scientific infrastructure on which applications mustbe built.

There appear to be a division of labor between the partners in the North andSouth. Generally, developing country partners have been most active in theimplementation of the research project in the field, but less involved in theother phases i.e. planning of research and dissemination of the research results.Scientists in the South tend to be more involved with execution tasks (datacollection, field experiment), whereas their partners in the North tend to beresponsible for the conception tasks. This is even more so for programs in thescientifically weakest countries in Africa (e.g. SAREC, ENRECA and STD/CEC). Asa consequence, it is not surprising that partners in the North tend to publishclose to twice as many papers, and present twice as many lectures at conferencesthan their scientific partners in the South, as observed in the STD program(Waast et al., 1992: 95).

IV.2 Successful Cooperation: What are the Ingredients?

Succesful cooperation measured by scientific productivity is likely to resultwhen both cooperating institutions are strong, and possibly to some extentcomplementary. This situation cannot in general be expected in North-Southcooperation. On the contrary, the partner from the South will often be weak inmany respects. This asymmetry may sometimes persist even after years of capacitybuilding efforts. When the success of cooperation is measured, not by scientificproductivity alone, but also by research capacity building in the LDC, thesituation changes somewhat. It remains a condition for success that the partnerin the North is an active research group and a strong member of the internationalresearch community in the field; for example, using a research capacity building

37

ontract to provide summer salaries for staff who can not earn such salaries out

of research grants, is likely to be a very shortsigthed strategy.

However, the demands to the partners in the South are different when capacitybuilding is considered instead of research productivity. The researchers in theSouth may often be able to make fast progress if the conditions are right.Bringing talentecl researchers from the. South, suffering from practical andcultural restraints, in contact with experienced partners from the North who canhelp remove these restraints may have an almost catalytical effect. In somecases, a very fast increase in productivity (research publications, local userinteraction, provision of research training) has been observed for the partnerin the South. Obs3tacles that may be overcome fast are, for example, lack ofequipment or inexperience in its use and maintenance, poor publication habits,and lack of insight in modern research methods and knowledge about the literaturein the field. One of the most important conditions for successful researchcooperation is that it is based on strong mutual interest and that both partiesstand to gain from it (Box 1).

It is also very important that the project cooperation covers all aspects of thework. Whenever possible, proposals should be drafted jointly, decisions shouldbe made in consult:ation between the partners, and a complete transparency of allactivities should be ensured in order to prevent any possible suspicion among thepartners. Frequent communication is essential (Box 2). Finally, wheneverpossible, local users should be involved from an early stage of the projects (Box3).

Box .1: lthsu North-South Oollabora*iou benefits both the Zoutb and the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

~~hly a~~~~~~4.t~~~~*, test ~~~~~~~~oz~~~ 4ot.~~~~~~t~~g oto~~~~~~L~~~e ba ex~~~~~~~i~~ in t.r~~~~~~~~ 4w~~~~loped~~~

38

1:!o eex~h ~Gaa

_ee~c _aweiahgl drrod1a~hfo ult oto hu~

loasad on thetoit SARE eperiences,o Bxhavang (12 liests accnumberwe of adtiona

theom uimendtion daly cooperative prjc u~ts: ~ o a ahiee4 h

(i) EachU~ cooperating goupnt shoueld thlue ta s~ubs ~tantilnme ofas

(orii) tu inThe deop ishoul maeet woguldavey to freviwogigwokadpa

loae i tesaeofVrouV n~b reevdfrfuture aceivities; .

(iii)~i Trniparenc in tathelol bu opetlatter sheulpd deefnsued;estaeg

39

(iv) Research papers should be written jointly - names from bothcooperating groups should appear on the publications; and

(v) Project managers on both sides should be senior scientists incentral positions in their respective institutions.

The same criteria for fruitful cooperatLon appear to be valid in other programs.They are also listed in the ENRECA evaluation (Danida, 1992), where the followingadditional recommendations are added:

(vi) Research capacity building is a slow process - in order to succeed,projects should have correspondingly long lifetimes (at least 10-15years);

(vii) Any single research capacity building project or program is unableto secure development on its own, but must be carefully designed inaccordance with other related activities in the country and, whenpossible, taking basic needs of the population into account;

(viii) Resea,rch training is a very important part of the capacity building.In order to increase the commitment it should, whenever possible,take place as part of formal degree programs;

(ix) At times, the importance of recruitment of new talent for graduatestudies may warrant project participation in undergraduate levelactivities in the South;

(x) The renumeration of researchers involved must be sufficient toensure a full time commitment;

(xi) Communication channels must be available to secure efficientinteraction between partners - especially fax facilities have beenuseful in many ENRECA projects;

(xii) Project monitoring is important, both as a learning process and asa way of providing incentives to project participants. Monitoringshould emphasize project outputs, rather than inputs.

IV.3 North-South Cooperation in World Bank Projects

World Bank projects aiming at research capacity building in LDCs might benefitconsiderably by emphasizing North-South institutional cooperation rather thanseparated activities involving only a single researcher at a time, e.g. inconnection with a degree program, which is often the case in World Bank projects.The main difficulty is the identification of competent, reliable, and devotedpartners in the North. However, the advantages are numerous, in particular withrespect to research training, equipment procurement, service and use, and inconnection with the introduction of LDC research groups in the internationalscientific communities.

40

World Bank projects often support overseas fellowships for individual researchstudents, typically for a complete Ph.D. program over five years. At the sametime, the student, who is ususally a bright and talented young staff member, isremoved from the home institution for the five year period and contribute oftenlittle to its development during this period. This way, the borrower country paysa double price.

An alternative use of the same amount of funding for overseas studies would beto provide five researchers with one year fellowships. One year long studyprograms abroad may be an essential component of "sandwich-programs" - degreeprograms designed and carried out by two cooperating institutions, one in theSouth and one in the North, which have a joint responsibility for the quality ofthe program. Sandwich programs are best built on an existing research cooperationbetween the two institutions ("institution" usually refers to a research group,but the cooperation may be part of cooperative arrangements between departments,faculties, universities, or other research institutions. The advantage ofsandwich programs is not only that a larger number of students (e.g. five insteadof one) may get important international exposure for the same amount of funding.Even more Important, the sharing of responsibility and the direct involvement ofthe partner from the South is likely to lead to a program of higher relevance forthe LDC institution.

Equipment aquisitions for institutions in the South, performed in cooperationwith institutions with considerable experience in the specific instrumentationfield in the North may help secure among other:

(i) The best possible choice of equipment for the specific purpose;

(ii) Realistic cost estimates and lower final prices due to know-howavailable in the North about available equipment options andpotential (competing) suppliers;

(iii) Trouble-free installation performed in cooperation with staff fromthe North with experience in the specific type of equipment;

(iv) More frequent and efficient use of the equipment in connection withpartnership projects;

(v) Responsible service and maintenance, supported by provision of spareparts from the partner in the North; and

(vi) Information on opportunities for updating of the equipment.

The experiences from equipment procurement and use in connection with North-Southpartnerships were judged very positive within the ENRECA program as long asdecisions on specific equipment purchases were made by the partners in common andthe necessary installation support was provided (Danida, 1992). Through acontinued institutional cooperation over several years in collaborative researchprojects, the introduction of researchers from the South into relevantinternational scientific networks is likely to take place as part of a gradualprocess, especially if funds are available for international exposure for the LDCresearchers, e.g. for occasional conference participation. A number of

41

alternative activities may have a considerable and wide effect in the LDC; forexample, in several cases the recognition and net of contacts which have beenestablished by the partners from the North, have made it possible to organize

major international meetings in the country of the partners from the South. Such

arrangements are likely to provide both a wealth of information, newopportunities for contacts, and useful exposure for a wider range of local

research activities. International recognition of the partners in the South mayalso lead to a strengthening of the institutional support for the researchers

involved.

How can reliable partners in the North be identified for participation in Bankresearch capacity building project.? A proven record of scientific success from

participation in other partnership projects would provide a strong background.In general, it is essential that both partners stand to gain scientifically fromthe cooperation. Economic incentives alone may in some cases be harmful, e.g. byproviding a distraction from the scientific goals. Researchers from the North

would easily find scientific rewards for partnership projects with the South

dealing with subjects like tropical biology, tropical medicine, technologytransfer, and other development issues, while scienctific rewards for

cooperation, for example within engineering, mathematics, and the physical

sciences, are much harder to find. Still, as mentioned earlier, increasing the

research capacity in areas like these is also essential for the LDCs.

There is in industrialized countries frequently a shortage of qualified studentsand post-doctoratl fellows in science and technology; for this reason, cooperationwith young researchers from the south might be particularly attractive to

researchers from the North, even if the former spend only limited periods in theNorth, e.g. in connection with twinning programs. Cooperation in the form oftwinning programs often require fairly limited funds, e.g. for shorter mutualvisits by students and advisors. The opportunity to participate in establishmentof high quality physical facilities in the South and access to use them wouldalso be an incentive for many. This strategy has recently been used in

connection with the build-up of scientific research at the new Hong Kong Science

and Technology University.

In conclusion, World Bank research capacity building projects may benefit

substantially from replacing traditional supply-driven equipment provisions,technical assistance, and individual overseas degree scholarships by support forinstitutional cooperation with partners in the North, provided scientificallymotivated and highly qualified partners can be identified, for example throughexisting bi- and multilateral North-South partnership programs.

Identifying and motivating partners from the North in research fields that arenot specific for developing (tropical) countries remains a major problem. In suchfields, special systems may have to be designed which provides the neededincentives. The funding needed for partnership programs typically includestravel funds for mutual consultations in the South and Study visits in the North,funds for some high quality equipment in the South, specifically targeted to the

needs of the relevant LDC institutions, support for operation and maintenance,and, last but not last, the economic support needed to ensure full time effortsof the individual LDC researchers involved.

42

References

Arvanitis R., T. Belhadj Merzoug, Y. Chatelin, J. Gaillard, A-S Keller, J-BMeyer, B. Schlemmer et Roland Waast. 1993. Indicateurs adapt6s pour guider lesstrategies dIun programme de coop6ration scientifique, Commission des Communaut6sEurop6ennes, DG XII, Bruxelles, 176 pages.

Asibey A. 1992. Evaluation of the effects of Canadian and LDC ResearchPartnerships: An Evaluation Framework, IDRC Evaluation Unit, 49 pages + Annex,Draft.

Bean/Cowpea-CRSP. 1991. 10 Years of Collaborative Research on Beans and Cowpeas:Training Report. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Bhagavan M.R. 1992. The SAREC model: Institutional Cooperation and theStrengthening of National Research Capacity in Developing Countries. SAREC,Stockholm, 50 pages.

Burris R., Carr C. and Krebs W. 1985. An Interim Evaluation of the BOSTIDResearch Grants Program. BOSTID, May 1985.

Busch L. and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Chrusciel W. 1988. An Evaluation of the Biomass Resources and Conversion Moduleof the Program in Science and Technology Cooperation of the U.S. Agency forInternational Development. Center for Development Technology. WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis, 148 pages

CRSP Council. 1991. The Collaborative Research Programs: ScientificAccomplishments and Social Impacts Through Joint Research and Training.USAID/BIFADEC, Washington, D.C.

DANIDA. 1992. Evaluation Report: The Bilateral Programme for Enhancement ofResearch Capacity in Developing Countries (Author: Erik W. Thuletrup). 82 pages.December, 1992.

ENRECA-NEWSLETTER No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Danida Programme for Enhancement ofResearch Capacity in Developing Countries. 1990-1992.

Gaillard J. 1987. Follow up of IFS Grantees, 1974-1984, presented at the 5th IFSGeneral Assembly, University of Panama, 8-14 November 1987.

Gaillard,J. and Ouattar, S. 1988. Purchase, Use, and Maintenance of ScientificEquipment in Developing Countries, Interciencia 13(2): 66-70.

Gaillard J. 1990a. Lee politiques d'aide a la recherche pour le developpement dutiers monde: de l'assistance scientifique et technique & la coop6ration ? ORSTOM,Paris, Cah. Sci. Hum. 26(3): 407-427.

Gaillard J. 1989. La Science du Tiers Monde est-elle Visible? La Recherche, 210(May 1989), 636-640.

43

Gaillard J. 1990]b. The Future Role of the International Foundation for Science

in a Rapidly Changing World. IFS, Stockholm, 92 pages.

Gaillard J. 1991. Scientists in the Third World. The University Press of

Kentucky, Lexington, 190 pages.

Gaillard J. and L. Busch. 1993. French and American Agricultural Science for theThird World. Science and Public Policy, London. 20(4): 222-234

Greene M.P. 1991. Research for Development: A Grants Program for the Third World.

Washington, D.C., National Research Council.

I.M. 1974. British Economic Policy and the Empire, 1919-1939. London: Allen &

Unwin.

IDRC. 1987. Repoirt of IDRC Board Review Panel - Coop. March 17, 1987.

IDRC. 1991. Empowerment Through Knowledge. The Strategy of the InternationalDevelopment Research Center. 35 pages, November 1991.

Lewis J.P. 1987. External Funding of Development-Related Research: a Survey of

some Major Donors, IDRC, Ottawa, 66 pages.

Mc Corkle, C.M., ed. 1989. The Social Sciences in International AgriculturalResearch: Lessons from the CRSPs. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.

NAS. 1975. Underexploited Tropical Plants- with Promising Economic Value.Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences.

NAS. 1980. Firewood Crops: Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production, Vol 1,Washington, D.C., National Academy of. Sciences.

NAS. 1983. Firewood Crops: Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production, Vol 2,Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences.

NRC. 1991. Toward Sustainability: A Plan for Collaborative Research onAgriculture and Natural Resource Management. National Academy Press, Washington,D.C., 147 pages.

OECD. 1985. Scierntific and Technological Cooperation with Developing Countries.Paris.

ORSTOM. 1993. Personal communication.

Pritchard, A.J. 1990. Lending by the World Bank for Agricultural Research. WorldBank Technical Paper no. 118, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Sagasti F., Oldham G., Vorauri P., and Thiongane P. 1983. Evaluation of theInternational Foundation for Science (IFS), Stockholm, April 1983.

SAREC. 1992. Annuial Report 1991/1992. SAREC, Stockholm.

44

Thulstrup, E.W. 1992. Improving the Quality of Research in Developing CountryUniversities. PHREE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Thulatrup, E.W.1993. Scientific Research for Development, ESP Discussion PaperSeries No. 12, the World Bank, Washington D.C.

UN. 1979. The Vienna Program of Action..New York: UN.

USAID. 1986. Panel Report - National Academy of Sciences/Board on Science andTechnology for International Development Research Grants Program. ResearchAdvisory Committee.

USAID. 1987. U.S.-Israel Cooperative Development Research Program: A Partnershipfor International Development. Washington, D.C., 32 pages.

USAID. 1990. Global Research for Sustainable Food Production. Washington, D.C.,34 pages.

USAID. 1992. Cutting-Edge Research for Development: The A.I.D. Program inScience and Technology Cooperation. Washington, D;C., 80 pages.

Waast R. (ed.). 1992. Indicators and Survey of the Researchers: Science andTechnology for Development, a European Programme. Commission of EuropeanCommunities / DG XII, EVAK-5126 FR Contract, Final Report, 107 pages.

Weiss, C. 1992. Lessons from Eight.'Reforms Commissions' on the Organization ofScience and Technology in U.S. Bilateral Development Assistance. The CarnegieCommission on Science, Technology and Government, New York, June 1992, pp. 10-1to 10-35.

Yohe J.1., P. Barnes-McConnell, H.Egna, J. Rowntree, J. Oxley, R. Hanson, and A.Kirksey. 1990. The Collaborative Research Programs (CRSPs): 1978 to 1990. Paperprepared for the Forum on Sustainable Agriculture and Natural ResourceManagement, November 13-16, 1990, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Table 1: Main charctrtcs of the programs under review

Year Of Country Reseach Who are the No. of Projects Average Sharing out of Actualcreation Elgbility Priority Grants supported Size of Grants Geographic

__ _ Areas Recipients Grants betw. Partn Coverage

MDRC NortdSouth Res. Canada and LDCs Agric., Natural Canadian and 385 projects during USD 95,000 per slighly mom Concentration mCoop. beme an Res. Healt, Social Developing 1980-1992 project for tro years than 50' to Latin America andarea of emphasis and Earth Sc., Country involving 72 partners in the Asia, fewer projectsfi_umn 1980 Technology Ilstitutions Canadian Inst. South inAflica

IFS 1972 becm LDCs only Biological Young non- 1900 grantees up to USD the totality of Out of the 1900operational in 1974 Sciences mainly established during 1974-1991 12,000 and can the grant goes recipients, 726 are

applied to Rural scientists in be renewed two more to Developing in Africa. 665 inDevelopment LDCs times Countries' Asia and 509 in

(av.USS10 000) scientits LatinAmedicaSAREC N4ordi-SouthRes. Sweden and LDCs Hesltblutrition Swedish and 664 pojects dunng USD 100,000 per close to 60/ to Conceitration in IS

Coop. becme an Rural Dvt Developing 1982-1990 year and per project Partners in the Countries. Africaarea of Envirounent Coutzy involving 124 South accounts for 55% offiom 19823 TeTchAnds Institutions Swedish nst and projects

Social SC. 211 Dev. C. Inst. -CRSP the first CRSP was U.S and LDCs as Agdiculture U.S. and USD 200,000 per at leats 50% to 13 countries in

estabLished in 1978 in ALD list Developing year and per project partners in the Afdca, 10 in Asia_____________ _________ ____Country_InsL_ South and 3 inLA

PSTC 1981 LDCs'with U.S. 6 areas related to U.S. and 498 projects during close to USD 150,000 at leats 50% to 39% ASIA, 35%ADCs colL also biology and Developing 1981-1992 per project partners in the LA, 17Yo Afdca,allowed biological res. Country inst South 6% Near East, 3%

.___________ .___________ ______________ EasL Eurone

BOSTID 1981-1988 LDCs 6 very narowly Developling 107 proects close to USD 150,000 the totality of 46% LA, 37%/ Asiadefined research Coutry Inst. per project for 3 or 5 grant goes to and 17h/ AfdicaareaJ3 years Developing

Cou2ntry IsCDR 1985 Israel with LDCs arid agricu1ture, lIraeli and LDC 151 projects during close to USD 50°% to peatners 35% Asia, 31%

ADCs colL dso biology, ener8y, Inhtittions 1985-1992 200,000 per project in the South Africa, 27%/ LA, 7%allowed water res. East. Europe

_ manaementE1NRCA 1988, becme Denmark and Broad list of Daish and 24 pojects Dming USD 450,000 per 3 at least S0%h to 3/4 of the active

operational in Coutries with a development Developing 1989-1992 years project phases, partners in the projects are inDecember 1989 GNP per capita oiented topics Countries renewable South Africa

________ _lower than 1,700 InstitutionsSTD/CEC 1983 Eurpean Agriculture, Eurpean 797 projects during USD 300,000 per 40% 53% Africa, 20Y

Countries and Health and Country and 1983-1991 project for 3-4 years LA, 16%e Asia andI _ LDCs NutriionI LDCs Ist. 12%fe Medit

I IDRC was established in 1970.2 SAREC was established in 1975.3 Grain amarnth, biological nitrogen fixation, topical fast-growing tres, mosqito vector researcb, rapid. assessment and acute respiratory infection epidemiological in children.