potential instruments for implementing the … · cgiar consultative group for international...

Building Bi-regional Partnerships for Global Challenges

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND

NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

A Landscape AnalysisPrepared by CAAST-Net Plus

for the HLPD Bureau

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE| ii

Copyright © 2016 by the CAAST-Net Plus consortium. All rights reserved.

CAAST-Net Plus (2013-2016)

Advancing Sub-Saharan Africa-EU Research and Innovation Cooperation for Global Challenges

AUTHOR: Dr M.S. Jeenah

ORGANISATION: Department of Science and Technology of South Africa

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

Any citations to this report should read:

CAAST-Net Plus (2016), Potential Instruments for Implementing the EU-Africa Research and Innovation Partnership

on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture: A Landscape Analysis Prepared by CAAST-Net Plus for the

HLPD Bureau.

CAAST-Net Plus is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological

Development (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n0 311806. This document reflects only the author’s views

and the European Union cannot be held liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Publication compiled by: Research Africa (www.researchresearch.com/africa)

Design and layout: Tracey Watson

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

infringement is intended.

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1

IMPLEMENTING THE PARTNERSHIP: POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS 2

2.1 Short-term milestones in implementing the Partnership (1-2 years) 3

2.2 Medium-term goal: Creation of the Partnership’s structure (3-6 years) 5

CONCLUSION 12

REFERENCES 13

APPENDICES 14

Appendix A: Scope of assignment and methodology 14

Appendix B: Survey Instrument 16

Appendix C: Analysis of funded European and African projects against Roadmap criteria 18

Appendix D: Details of highly successful global partnerships 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

4

2

3

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Critical Roadmap steps against EU initiatives and recommended projects 2

Figure 2 Conceptual framework of funders and innovation activities within Partnership 10

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 Key to tables 2 and 3 18

Table 2 European and African funded projects and partnerships 19

Table 3 Globally funded projects and partnerships 21

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE| iv

ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific

AFRINT Research Project in Human Geography

ASTI (IFPRI) Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (International Food Policy Research Institute)

AU African Union

AVECNET African Vector Control: New Tools

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

CARD Coalition for African Rice Development

CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

CIDLID Combating Infectious Diseases in Livestock for International Development

CORAF Conseil ouest et centre Africain pour la recherche et le développement agricole

CRP CGIAR Research Programme

CSA Coordination and Support Action

DFID UK Department for International Development

DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa

DRUSSA Development Research and Uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa

EDCTP European and Developing Countries Clinical Countries Partnership

EIP-AGRI European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’

ERAfrica ERANET Africa (FP7 type of project to enhance coordination)

eRAILS Electronic Regional Agricultural Information and Learning Systems

EWG Expert Working Group set up by the EU-Africa HLPD

EU European Union

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FNSSA Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture

FP7 EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013)

GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

HLPD High Level Policy Dialogue

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

JOLISAA Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture

JPI Joint Programming Initiative

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGOs Non-governmental Organisations

PAEPARD Platform for African European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development

LIST OF ACRONYMS

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE | v

PAERIP Platform for African European Research Infrastructure Programme

RAILS Regional Agricultural Information and Learning Systems

R&I Research and Innovation

RBM Roll Back Malaria

RINEA Research and Innovation Support for EU and Africa

RUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture

SASSCAL Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Use

SCARDA Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa

SIMLESA Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa Programme

SSA-CP Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme

STI Science, Technology and Innovation

UniBrain University Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation Network

WAAP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program

WASCAL West African and Southern African Science Centres for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Use

WEF-NVA World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture

WEMA Water Efficient Maize for Africa

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE|

CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the Bureau of the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on Science, Technology

and Innovation (STI) to support the members of the HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, South Africa and the United

Kingdom, in elaborating a section of the HLPD Expert Working Group’s contribution to a Roadmap for an Africa-EU

Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (‘the Partnership’).

Through a desktop review and interviews with key informants, this CAAST-Net Plus report analyses existing EU-Africa

R&I projects related to FNSSA and recommends potential instruments for implementing the Partnership over the

short-, medium- and long-term.

This report’s key recommendations for the short-term are:

+ That the CAAST-Net Plus and PROIntensAfrica projects, which have developed large but different networks

on both continents, can be utilised to develop a jointly developed research agenda for the Partnership.

+ That a co-funded programme receiving funding from both the EU as well as different governments in Africa

and Europe should be established to fund the identified research. The HLPD Bureau and some African and

European governments have already initiated activities to develop a common pool of resources.

+ That to achieve adoption and diffusion of technologies it will be necessary to have the entire value chain

involved in the Partnership—from governments to researchers to the private sector, including farmers.

This report’s analysis of the different funded initiatives highlights especially the success of the Platform for

African European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development, which should be built upon in order

to change the composition of actors that have conventionally been involved in bi-regional

STI dialogues.

+ That although the development of funding partnerships is part of the long-term implementation of the

Roadmap, the process of catalysing these funding partnerships is an activity that should be initiated within

the short-term horizon. The suggestion is that the RINEA initiative, which has been funded to support the

HLPD, is appropriately placed to bring together conventional and non-conventional funders.

Over the medium-term to long-term, this report’s key recommendations are:

+ That a platform supported by both the public and the private sector should be created. The formal structure

would be responsible to complete the work started in the short-term—to develop a common research

agenda, and to define a shared matrix to evaluate success. In the knowledge that many global partnerships

fail due to the complexity of the interactions as well as the scale of the effort not being aligned with the

goals that have been set, five conditions of success for collective impact are proposed for the architecture of

the platform: backbone support, common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, and,

continuous communication.

+ That the backbone is a multilayered structure that encompasses inter-continental, continental and national

operating units. Global partnerships such as Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the World Economic

Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture, CGIAR, Association of International Research Centres for Agriculture, and

Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture are some of successful partnership that should be consulted in

the elaboration of the backbone’s architecture.

+ That the final structure should ensure that the partners carry out their activities by mutually reinforcing

their individual activities and developing an effective communication strategy. The concept of working with

the entire value chain and the linkages between research and impact will necessitate having a full suite of

funders covering different aspects of the value chain.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

1POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

PARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE |

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

1

The EU-Africa HLPD on STI was initiated in 2010 when Member States and Commission officials from both the

European Union and African Union met to strengthen the bi-regional STI cooperation framework. The HLPD aims

to adopt a coherent approach to the implementation of bi-regional STI, and to define common priorities for future

collaborative research, development and innovation activities. In October 2011 the HLPD met for the first time in

Addis Ababa and at the second HLPD Senior Officials’ Meeting, held in Brussels, agreed to work towards a long-

term, jointly funded and co-owned R&I Partnership with, as a first priority, the role of STI in contributing to food and

nutrition security and sustainable agriculture.1

In 2014 the HLPD tasked a 10-member working group of experts from Europe and Africa to prepare a contribution

to a Roadmap setting out short-, medium- and long-term milestones for the development of an EU-Africa Research

and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture. In their contribution, experts

call for a jointly developed research agenda focusing on sustainable intensification, agriculture and food systems

for nutrition, expansion and improvement of agricultural market, and trade and cross-cutting issues. One section of

the expert working group (EWG) contribution (Chapter 3, sub-section 3.4) concerns the specific topic of mobilising

potential instruments for implementing the Partnership for the short- to medium-term and for the long-term.

CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the HLPD Bureau to support South Africa and the United Kingdom, members of the

HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, charged with elaborating Section 3.4 of the EWG contribution. This report is the

submission by CAAST-Net Plus to WG1. This report expands on sub-section 3.4 of the EWG contribution to the

Roadmap and, in particular, develops recommendations for the short- and medium-term horizon. Through desktop

review work and interviews with key informants, this report has a dual purpose: first, to analyse existing EU-Africa

R&I projects primarily related to FNSSA, and, second, to recommend in greater detail potential instruments for

implementing the Partnership.2 Appendix A details the scope of the assignment and the methodology followed in

arriving at the recommendations presented in this report.

It should be stated upfront that none of the projects or platforms analysed in this study met all the criteria set out in

the Roadmap. Different components of the projects meet some of the criteria. The process of developing this report

was utilised to identify the projects that met certain criteria and could assist in driving those particular activities.

It should be noted, in this regard, that most of the projects have clearly defined goals and milestones and that,

although they may have the expertise, their budgets and timeframes might not be conducive to assist in driving the

objectives of the Partnership in the short-term.

1 This includes the management of water resources for agriculture. 2 The Roadmap uses the terms ‘partnerships’ and ‘instruments’ loosely. In this report, initiatives that are funded through, for example, the EUs

framework programmes are referred to as ‘projects’.

2POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE|

IMPLEMENTING THE PARTNERSHIP: POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS 2

The Roadmap envisages short-term, medium-term and long-term plans to ensure that the political momentum

accompanying its development is not lost. In the short-term, starting in 2015 and extending through to 2017/8, the

EWG proposed that the Partnership be implemented through drawing on the services of multilateral or bilateral

collaboration projects of the EC, AUC or African and EU member countries whose objectives support the goals and

aims of the Roadmap. In the medium-term and long-term the EWG recommends that a specific platform/structure

be developed to support and sustain the Partnership.

The Partnership’s innovative stepsCritically, the Partnership is expected move away from the conventional paradigm shaping STI cooperation between

Africa and Europe. The innovative steps of the Partnership are:

+ That the agenda must be jointly designed.

+ That the Partnership should be jointly funded and funding should derive from both public and private

sources.

+ That innovations produced by the Partnership should have the potential to have an impact and should

therefore cover the full value chain.

To achieve the goal of innovation, a process of continuous interaction between researchers, policymakers and the

private sector, including farmers, was identified as axiomatic for the Partnership. The engagement of the private

sector, from both continents, should therefore be sought in supporting the Partnership aim of translating research

knowledge into tangible products, systems or mechanisms that can be adopted by the society.

Fig 1: Critical Roadmap steps against EU initiatives and recommended projects

Jointly funded competitive call for

capacity building

Joint developmentof research agenda

Developpartnerships across the full innovation

value chain

Jointly funded competitivecall for R&I

Engage range of funders

Joint designof Roadmap

HLPDactivities

Objectiveof EUinitiatives

HLPDNetworking and

coordinationprojects

Network acrossentire value chain

Support toHLPD projects

R&I funding projects includingcapacity development

Recommended projects

EWG CAAST-Net Plus ProIntense Africa PAEPARD RINEAERANET COFUND, Horizon 2020, AURG



2.1 Short-term milestones in implementing the Partnership (1-2 years)

Expert Working Group recommendations

In implementing the Partnership, the EWG recommended a number of activities to the HLPD that should be

undertaken in the short-term.

+ Develop Cooperation and Support Action (CSA) activities to identify priorities (mapping, gap studies), and set

strategic R&I agendas.

+ Jointly fund competitive calls for R&I.

+ Jointly fund competitive calls for capacity development.

Specific research projects were not however presented by the EWG, as the consensus was that these should be

jointly identified and designed by collaborating African and European scientists together with other stakeholders in

the framework of the Partnership.

Recommendations for the short-term arising from this research

The following recommendations are given below to drive the development of the Partnership in the short-term.

They concern specifically:

+ The development of a joint research agenda.

+ Competitive funding calls for implementing the Partnership.

+ Cultivation of a full value chain network.

+ The development of a funding instrument/platform.

Recommendation 1: Development of joint research agenda

While it is recognised that various stakeholders have each developed their own research agendas, the Roadmap

calls for a jointly developed research agenda. In driving the development of this joint agenda, it is necessary to

bring the different STI actors from both continents together so that the capability developed by different groups is

utilised to its full potential. In addition, a number of coordinating projects have been funded over the years, such

as CAAST-Net Plus and PROIntensAfrica. Even though each of these projects has limitations based on the focus

of their work, geographical spread, or the expertise of partners, an analysis of these projects suggests that these

coordinating projects have developed large and diverse networks on both continents that could be drawn on the

context of the Partnership.

It is therefore recommended that funding should be provided to develop priorities within the four research themes

identified by the EWG. A so-called ‘lead consortium’ should be identified through a consultative call to drive the

process and should be tasked to ensure that the disparate networks are all involved in the priority setting-exercise.

A non-exhaustive list of projects/initiatives is contained in Appendix C. Overall, it is important that the full value

chain of actors, ranging from researchers to funders to development agencies, are involved in setting the agenda.


The prioritisation process within the four themes should be driven by the criteria set out in the Roadmap. It is also

recommended that the prioritisation process for the different themes is conducted in a phased process. In the short-

term the following agendas should be developed:

+ For sustainable intensification, the meta-mapping has already been started by PROIntensAfrica as the so-

called ‘Sustainable Intensification CSA’.

+ For nutrition and trade, and in the non-thematic areas of innovation, communication, and research

infrastructure, meta-mappings studies would have to be initiated.

In addition to the meta-mappings, while there are a number of other methodologies that have been formulated to

develop research agendas, the exact methodology would therefore depend on the expertise that would be used

to drive the process. Critical to the priority-setting process would be the development of scenarios for the future,

understanding the role of the different crops, animals as well as fisheries in food and nutrition security, and fully

appreciating the role of innovation in providing solutions to the constraints.

Recommendation 2: Competitive funding calls for implementing the Partnership

There are a limited number of initiatives that receive funding from a platform or partnership in order to re-grant

the funds for research. In a number of studies (see for example CAAST-Net Plus (2014, 2016)), the successes of

co-funded initiatives, such as EDCTP and ERAfrica, have been recognised. It is recommended that a co-funded

programme should be established to fund the research agenda that it has been suggested be identified through

a highly consultative process (see Recommendation 1). This initiative should receive funding from the regional

organisations as well as different governments in Africa and Europe. To this end, it is common knowledge that the

HLPD Bureau and some African and European governments have already initiated activities that will use the ERAfrica

Initiative and the so-called ERANET co-fund (a Horizon 2020 call) as vehicles to develop the funding instrument. Yet

another programme that should be used, in this context, is the AU’s Research Grants programme.

In addition, a strategic HLPD Bureau dialogue with EC officials driving the Horizon 2020 agenda has resulted in

Horizon 2020 calls that support the Partnership on topics such as innovation, research infrastructures, and earth

observation. This dialogue should be deepened in order to promote the criteria required for Partnership funding, as

they are significantly different from previous funding calls issued by the EC. The Partnership objective, to ensure that

research has a likelihood of being utilised and brought to scale, and of being adopted by the intended communities,

is critical for programme owners and managers if the funded programmes are to respond to FNSSA. As Francis and

Talleh (CAAST-Net Plus, 2014) argue:

Political will exists at the highest policy level in the African Union and the European Union for addressing the

FNS challenge; however, while the major outputs of bilateral research cooperation supported by EU framework

programmes and other instruments and EU member states have resulted in capacity being developed and the

generation of knowledge, these remain disconnected from policy and the impact on FNS remains questionable.

Scientific output is often not translated into useable products beyond the end of the project life cycle, and in

cases where patents are generated the economic benefits are still to be realised. (p. xiii)



Recommendation 3: Cultivation of a full value chain network

An important component of the Partnership is to have an impact on the lives of citizens in Africa and Europe. In

order to realise this ambition, research and development support would have to be translated into impact ‘on the

ground’. To achieve adoption and diffusion of technologies it will be necessary to have the entire value chain—ie

from governments to researchers to the private sector including farmers—take part in the narrative and to be

fully behind the Partnership.3 An analysis of the different funded initiatives highlights the success of the PAEPARD

initiative, which should be built upon on to change the composition of actors that have conventionally been involved

in STI dialogues. In developing the research agenda mentioned in Recommendation 1, the group developing the

agenda should have a full spectrum of actors in view. In addition to the research community, farmers, small and

large companies, and aid agencies would also need to be involved so that the agenda is needs-driven and the results

can be utilised to improve FNSSA in a sustainable manner. Further to developing the research agenda, organisations

from across the value chain that would be involved in the utilisation of the research results should be part of the

team developing Partnership R&I projects.

Recommendation 4: Development of a funding instrument/platform

The success of the Partnership is likely to depend on creating a novel platform that would bring together partners

and funders, who, despite having the same objective of improving the lives of people through FNSSA, had previously

seen themselves operating within different paradigms. Although the development of funding partnerships is part of

the long-term implementation of the Roadmap, this process represents an activity that should be initiated within

the short-term horizon.

The funding platform should involve a range of stakeholders, including regional organisations such as the AU and EU,

national governments, philanthropic organisations, as well as private sector actors. The EC could also utilise one of its

funded projects, RINEA (Research and Innovation Support for Europe and Africa), which has as its objective to provide

support to the HLPD, to initiate a dialogue with STI funders as well as the broader cohort of development funders,

including funders from both the private as well as the public sector. The RINEA initiative is appropriately placed to

bring together conventional and non-conventional funders and its efforts in this regard should be accelerated.

2.2 Medium-term goal: Creation of the Partnership’s structure (3-6 years)

Expert Working Group recommendations

In drafting the Roadmap the EWG recommended that, in the medium-term, the Partnership would lead to the

creation of a ‘platform’ jointly funded by EU and African public institutions and with the potential for support from

the private sector (including farmers’ organisations). The platform, as such, was envisaged to ensure long-term

(>10 years) sustainability and support for the research-innovation agri-food chain ecosystem, promoting a vibrant

community of STI FNSSA actors between Europe and Africa.

3 The different actors would of course take part in different steps of the value chain and not necessarily span the entire value chain.


Recommendations for the medium-term arising from this research

Many large-scale initiatives fail due to the complexity of the interactions as well as the scale of the effort not being

aligned with its goals. In a recent paper published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Shaping Global

Partnerships for a Post-2015 World”, Sonja Patscheke and others report on a study of six global initiatives, drawing

out lessons on best practices for leading and managing these partnerships. The details of the highly innovative

and successful partnerships that were studied are found in Appendix D. In summary, five conditions of success for

collective impact are proposed by Patscheke and others. The conditions are: backbone support, common agenda,

shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication (Patscheke, Barmettler, Herman,

Overdyke, & Pfitzer, 2014).4 A number of these lessons are supported by two other studies that reflected on AU-

EU specific projects (European Commission, 2013; CAAST-Net Plus, 2014), where, even though the terminology

utilised in these studies was different, the essence of the recommendations was similar. In the section that follows,

terminology utilised by Patscheke and others has been used to provide recommendations on establishing a structure

to drive the Partnership. The issue of funding for the Partnership is also addressed.

Recommendation 1: Three layers of backbone support

The organisational design or ‘backbone’ is considered one of the most important conditions in ensuring the success

of a global partnership. A strong backbone allows for the development of mutually strengthening activities by the

different partners and develops a sense of shared ownership whilst retaining individual identity and goals. It also

provides a rallying point around a shared common agenda and ambition to achieve impact. As a first step in this

regard, the Partnership should also develop its own brand identity.

It is proposed that the Partnership’s backbone, as was the case in a number of successful partnerships studied by

Patscheke et al (2014), is a multilayered structure. The Partnership’s inter-continental structure, its first layer, should

encompass the two Commissions (with representation by all the necessary divisions such as R&D, Development and

Agriculture), government partners, development aid organisations, philanthropic organisations, the private sector

and other global partnerships that share the aims and objectives of the Partnership. One of the global partnerships

that should be seriously courted is the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture. This could enable the

engagement of the private sector in developing a truly public-private partnership. The WEF effort has approximately

250 private sector companies involved in the New Vision for Agriculture.

The second layer of the backbone should have regional and, in this case, continental structures to allow for partner

interest and contributions at the continental level to be pursued. The partners at the regional level need not be

limited to the continental specific partners but also allow for specific continental interest to be represented by global

philanthropy, multinational businesses and European and other government aid agencies.

4 Similar lessons have been drawn through the analysis of two other highly successful global initiatives within the agricultural space on the African continent. Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) is a public-private partnership to develop drought-tolerant and insect-protected maize with a goal to make these varieties available royalty-free to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa through African seed companies. Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) aims to improve maize and legume productivity of by 30 percent from the 2009 average, and reduce the expected downside yield risk by 30 percent for approximately 650,000 farm households.



The third layer should involve local players within countries to come together and ensure that there is delivery on

the ground. The strength of Roll Back Malaria, for example, lies in its ability to form effective partnerships both

globally and nationally. Partners work together to scale up malaria-control efforts at country level, coordinating their

activities to avoid duplication and fragmentation, and to ensure optimal use of resources.

It is therefore proposed that in the medium-term, preferably in Year 3, a formal structure is developed for the

Partnership with criteria that would promote this backbone. The formal structure would be responsible to complete

the work started in the short-term as well as to ensure that Recommendations 2-5 below are set firmly in place.

Recommendation 2: Advancement of a common agenda

The development of a joint research agenda is recommended as an activity within the short-term. The work that

has already been started on developing a common agenda should be formally taken over by the Partnership, when

established in Year 3, to advance a shared vision for the Partnership. In developing an inter-continental partnership

it is vital that as many stakeholders as possible play an active part in setting up the agenda so that each stakeholder’s

interest and expertise is addressed. This process will create the legitimacy for the partnership. In developing

the New Vision for Agriculture, for instance, WEF used six months to agree on the core issues that needed to be

addressed. A dedicated team undertook the facilitation process. The development of the strategy took another year

to be completed. In setting the common agenda a process of regional and national consultations must take place.

Recommendation 3: Shared measurement

The inter-continental backbone support should play two crucial roles. The first role is to agree on the common

agenda. The second role is to agree on a common set of outcomes and to define the matrix that would be used

to measure the outcomes. The agreement on the matrix is the final test on whether the Partnership truly shares

a common vision. Measurement systems and processes are often weak because there is confusion about the

purpose of measurement. Shared measurement in collective efforts focuses on a small set of key indicators that

are shared among all partners in order to track the partnership’s progress, make sure that activities remain aligned,

promote learning, and establish accountability. For example, to assess the global malaria disease burden and set

the partnership’s objectives, RBM engaged in a two-year consultative process with global health actors including the

World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria.

The inter-continental secretariat of the Partnership would be best positioned to commission work on monitoring

and evaluating the shared indicators. Most members would also commission their own assessments that would be

in line with the organisations specific goals. An important shared indicator would be the internationally approved

Sustainable Development Goals.


Recommendation 4: Develop mutually reinforcing activities

Partnerships exist on the basis that more can be achieved if resources are pooled. These resources encompass

both financial investments as well as non-financial activities. Crucial to the Partnership is the ability to mutually

reinforce diverse activities. These activities could be at the continental level as well as at a local level. In the case of

funding it is easier to work at the continental level to raise funds for local activities that enhance a shared vision.

At the local level funding can be provided to strengthen common infrastructure to help implementation by the

different players. The common infrastructure allows for the coordination of a diverse group of actors to build on

each other’s strengths rather than competing with each other. In the case of GAIN the local coordinating committees

for the fortification of foods involved a collection of representatives from government, private sector including

food processing industries (eg oil refineries, flour millers, and salt factories), civil society, international agencies,

development agencies, and academia. Subject or functional areas are typically used to organise the groups at the

local level.

Recommendation 5: Continuous communication

Regular communication is feature of successful partnerships. It is essential to build trust and transparency

(European Commission, 2013). Global partnerships involve a host of different organisations, all with their own

unique organisational but also national cultures. The ongoing success of a partnership is dependent on the building

of relationships and the common understanding of the objectives by partners. Regular face-to-face meetings of the

partnership represent one of the cornerstones of successful communication strategies. In the field of malaria, actors

reported feeling part of ‘one big family,’ with strong personal relationships holding the group together, largely as a

result of their structured, regular communication.

Another example is the WEMA project, which holds annual general meetings where the strategic direction

is revisited based on the outcomes of the previous year. The meeting is also utilised to develop integrated

implementation plans and deliverables for the following year. Practitioners meet within their particular working

groups to align the continental activity with the national set of activities. The working group spans the full value

chain from researchers to intellectual property lawyers to commercialisation champions to communication experts.

After being established, global partnerships continue to require a high degree of maintenance to ensure that all the

partners continue to feel ‘part of the family’ and to experience co-ownership. The success depends on their ability

to address the concerns and priorities of a range of funders as well as others promoting the strategic goals of the

partnership. This therefore requires a dynamic and disciplined external communication system.

Recommendation 6: Funding and funding mechanisms

This section deals with the different sources of funding that can be solicited to finance the Partnership. The prerequisite

of having a functioning support infrastructure is adequate funding. Funders of collective impact efforts have understood

that it is precisely by investing sufficiently into the right backbone support that the partners will be able to achieve

their goals in a coordinated and more efficient manner. An analysis of a number of highly successful global partnerships

revealed a diverse set of partners. They all have a range of funders depending on their particular objectives.



In the literature studied for the purposes of compiling this report, there has not been a consistent use of a number

of terms related to funding of R&I.5 Within the context of the Roadmap as well as other EC-related literature, the

terms ‘instruments’ and ‘mechanisms’ have been used interchangeably to describe the conditions upon which the

funding is made available. The term ‘projects’ has also been used loosely. In the framework programmes as well

as in Horizon 2020, projects have been used to describe a set of activities that received funding. These projects

themselves could be established to fund other related activities through a call for proposals. However, in the

Roadmap these projects have been referred to as instruments.

As indicated earlier in this report, a novel feature of the Partnership is its concentration on the full value chain—

from research to its impact ‘on the ground’. The concept of the value chain and the linkages between research and

impact will necessitate having a full suite of funders, including:

+ Conventional funders of research.

+ Continental-level funders of research such as the EU and the AU.

+ National governments on both continents that support in-country as well as global research involving their

country.

+ Philanthropy that would include foundations on the two continents as well as global funders with an interest

in either Africa and /or Europe.

+ Private sector companies whose could be in personnel, intellectual property or financial.

+ Development agencies.

+ National governments that have an interest in development in Africa as well as in Europe (especially Eastern

Europe).

+ National governments that have an interest in promoting innovation and creating economic activity.

+ Development banks.

+ Global partnerships that share the same objectives as the Partnership ie the global partnerships could fund

some of the projects but could also be implementing agencies of the different technologies.

+ National partnerships.

+ Business partnerships.

+ Venture capital firms ie investments should be targeted at ensuring that commercially viable companies are

set up to ensure that the results of research are fully integrated in the value chain.

+ Private sector firms ie in exchange for the contribution of their proprietary knowledge, companies could

provide the final product for minimum profit in the developing countries whilst having a normal profit

margin in the developed economy.

The funding envelope for different projects would include different funders depending on the stage of the project in

the innovation chain. As per the recommendation on short-term measures, a specific organisation should be tasked

to engage with a range of funders. The function of fundraising would then be part of the function of the proposed

‘backbone structure’ that would manage and run the Partnership. Figure 2 below provides an illustration of the

stages within the innovation chain and the spectrum of activities in each stage. These activities include:

5 Funding instrument: Is described as a platform or partnership through which funding can be dispersed. This would include the EU Framework Programmes or a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation programme. The proposed Partnership can be considered an instrument. Under an instrument a number of calls can be made to solicit proposals directed at specific outcomes or objectives. Funding mechanism: This relates to the manner in which the funds are disbursed. That is conditional grant, loans, equity, quasi-capital and guarantees. Project: These are initiatives that have applied for and received funding under a particular call within an instrument.


+ Research (basic and applied);

+ Development;

+ Demonstration;

+ Scaling up;

+ Adoption and diffusion;

+ Implementation at national level;

+ Identification of challenges; and,

+ Development of solution.

The grey boxes contain the suite of funders that would form partners within the Partnership. The funders could have

overlapping objectives across the innovation chain.

Development

Promotion ofFood & Nutrition

Security

Research Adoption &Diffusion

Basic

Appl

ied

Dem

onst

ratio

n Scaling-up

Implem

entation

ChallengesSolutions

+ International Funders

+ National Governments

+ Local Business

+ Multinational Business

+ Philanthropy

+ Regional Aid Agencies

+ Government Aid Agencies

+ Development Banks

+ Philanthropy

+ Partnerships

+ National Governments

+ Business

+ Venture Capital

+ Partnerships / Philanthropy

+ Development Banks

KEY

Objective

Source of Funding

Activity

Fig 2: Conceptual framework of funders and innovation activities within Partnership



A wide array of mechanisms are used to fund projects within the STI space. They range from unconditional grants

to secured loans to guarantees. Different funding mechanisms can be combined to support the same project. Their

terms are adapted to the nature of each project and to the economic situation of the country.

+ Non-returnable Conditional Grants (NRCGs): NRCGs are essentially the transfer of financial resources from

the funder to the applicant for specified activities or services. The funds that are allocated do not have to be

paid back. They represent the vast majority of support for STI. This would include in-country grants as well

as bi-regional and multilateral STI cooperation grants. Twenty one of the 23 projects that were evaluated in

the extensive mapping study of EU-AU funding mechanisms had obtained funding through NRCGs (European

Commission, 2013). Only two had a co-funding mandate. The NRCGs are also provided by development

agencies such as development banks and country aid organisations.

+ Co-funded grants: Co-funded grants are similar to NRCGs except that funding has to be provided by different

parties that have an interest in the project. ERAfrica and EDCTP are examples of EU framework programme

initiatives providing some resources whilst the projects are co-funded by African and European governments.

Co-funding principles have also been utilised in countries like South Africa to bring on board the private

sector and commodity trusts.

+ Loans and guarantees: Although guarantees and concessional loans have been utilised to fund major

infrastructure projects, there is very little evidence of it being used within the STI space. The UK Department

for International Development has been exploring alternative funding mechanisms but as yet there is not

much evidence of these mechanisms being successfully implemented

+ Intellectual Property exchanges: In the case of the involvement of the private sector there is evidence of

the utilisation of protected IP by companies in return for the concession of marketing the final product at

minimum profits. This has been successfully being utilised in the WEMA project as well as in the domain of

human vaccine development. IP sharing can therefore be utilised at the level of the project but also at the

level of securing involvement in the partnership.

+ Venture capital: Venture capital has also been utilised as part of the funding for projects. This has been used

by partnerships such as GAIN to develop companies that can bridge the last mile of the innovation chain ie

diffusion of the technology within society.

The evidence we have considered in developing this report would suggest that the most successful mechanism to

fund projects would be via the non-returnable conditional grants (NRCG) system. The addition of co-funding builds

a sense of co-ownership but, as can be seen from the ERAfrica project, it has its limitations. Although NRCG would

be the primary mechanism of funding, where venture capital and the private sector are involved the mechanisms

would be different. Their contributions could be in the form finance, the use of their human resources and

infrastructure, or the use of their proprietary knowledge.


CONCLUSION

3

A number of projects have been identified from the raft of European and African-funded projects that can be used

to drive the activities identified in the Roadmap within the short-term. This would however necessitate a dialogue

with the coordinators of the projects to adapt some of their workplans and criteria to ensure that they support

the objectives and criteria set out in the Roadmap. In the medium-term, by Year 3 a formal structure should be

established with a core of group of funders/partners that share a common vision of utilising agricultural innovation

to meet the challenges of FNSSA. More specifically, this structure should finalise a common agenda with shared

set of indicators that would strengthen its funding bases and ensure an impact on the ground. In the long-term the

Partnership would expand its work and impact by bringing on new partners and widening its research agenda. A

long-term Partnership would have to be established in line with the critical success factors that have been identified

from other innovative and successful global partnerships and the suite of funders would have to be involved in the

Partnership to promote the concept of utilising STI to have an impact on lives and livelihoods.



REFERENCES

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

Coordination and Uptake of Findings. Cape Town: Research Africa.

CAAST-Net Plus. (2016). Africa-EU Research Collaboration on Health: A Critical Analysis of the Scope, Outputs and

Potential Outcomes. Cape Town: Research Africa.

European Commission. (2013). Mapping of Best Practice Regional and Multi-country Cooperative STI Initiatives

Between Africa and Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

Patscheke, S., Barmettler, A., Herman, L., Overdyke, S., & Pfitzer, M. (2014, February). Shaping Global Partnerships

for a Post-2015 World. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from Stanford Social Innovation Review:

http://ssir.org/articles/entry/shaping_global_partnerships_for_a_post_2015_world

4


APPENDICES

The work commissioned by CAAST-Net Plus that is reflected in this report was intended to provide recommendations

to the HLPD Bureau for the utilisation of present Africa-EU projects for implementing the Partnership. More

specifically, its purpose was to expand on Chapter 3 of the Roadmap by recommending potential programmes/

projects to assist with Partnership implementation in the short-term, medium-term, and long-term. It was envisaged

that the analysis would primarily be a desktop study, with a selected number of interviews with those familiar would

the instruments to be undertaken. The assignment was therefore structured to allow the study authors to obtain

information on the different EU/Africa R&I projects related to FNSSA in current EU and Africa programmes and to

assess these projects in order to provide information on gaps and synergies as related to the critical steps that would

have to be undertaken to implement the recommendations of the EWG.

The analysis, it was envisaged, would allow the authors to make recommendations on:

+ Projects that can be utilised for the short-term and medium-term to drive the Roadmap.

+ The design of a platform for the long-term implementation of the Partnership.

+ Models of cooperation platforms.

Methodologically, the assignment was comprised of the following phases:

+ Phase 1: Inception; and,

+ Phase 2: Development of an assessment tool.

Phase 1: Inception

The aim of this phase was to elaborate on the terms of reference and the milestones that have to be achieved.

The following timelines and foci were agreed upon as given in the table below.

The desk study, besides its own literature review, also relied on two key analyses of EU-Africa cooperative

STI initiatives:

+ European Commission, 2013: Mapping of best practice regional and multi-country cooperative STI

initiatives between Africa and Europe: Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008–2012.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REPORTING DATE

Phase 1. The Inception report (a) Workplan

Phase 2. Development of tool (a) An assessment tool

Phase 3. Draft Analysis (a) Draft analysis of the EU/AU funding instruments

with respect to the HLPD Roadmap

Phase 4. Final report (a) A final report approved by DST

8th October 2015 (at inception meeting)

15th October 2015

15th November 2015

Two weeks after receiving correctionsrequested by HLPD

Appendix A: Scope of assignment and methodology



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

Scope, Coordination and Uptake of Findings.

It was envisaged that further value would be added to the analysis through a mapping of the objectives of the

different initiatives against the key features of the Roadmap (Appendix C).

Phase 2: Development of assessment tool

Framework

In undertaking the study, an assessment tool was designed to ensure that the projects were analysed within the

context of three critical elements that were identified in designing the Partnership, namely:

+ The enhanced coordination of research relevant to FNSSA between African and European researchers and

the broader mobilisation of the STI community.

+ The joint design of the Partnership by European and African stakeholders.

+ The direct linkage of research and innovation and the inclusion of the complete value chain.

The EWG had proposed that the Partnership be organised around three indicative research themes and a set of

cross-cutting areas, referred to as ‘Institutional Innovations’:

+ Theme 1: Sustainable intensification;

+ Theme 2: Agriculture and food systems for nutrition;

+ Theme 3: Expansion and improvement of agricultural markets and trade; and,

+ Cross-cutting Areas: Institutional Innovations.

In addition to these indicative areas, the following five criteria were recommended to be used in the selection of

research projects:

1 Relevance of the research to African and European priorities for FNSSA.

2 Capacity for joint research, based on principles of equity, and involving comparable and complementary

expertise and resources.

3 Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge system with all

stakeholders.

4 Scalability or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at national or

even continental scales.

5 Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investment will also up-scale

existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration.

More than 60 projects/partnerships were evaluated based on a questionnaire and the details of the analysis are

presented in Appendix C. In addition, innovative and successful partnerships/platforms were assessed in order

to make recommendations on the issue of cooperation models. Based on the analysis and the lessons learnt,

recommendations have were developed regarding the utilisation of different initiatives to drive the short-term

activities that have been proposed by the Roadmap.

Survey instrument

A survey instrument (Appendix B) was used to evaluate the 60 projects (Appendix C) in accordance with the

principles enunciated in the Partnership.


1. Which of the different sectors listed below are involved in funding the project/partnership? + Private companies+ African government+ European government+ Philanthropy

2. Who was involved in setting the agenda?+ Private companies+ African government/s + European government/s+ Philanthropy

3. Who are the collaborating partners? + European researchers + African researchers + European companies + African Companies

4. What implementing mechanism was used to obtain the proposal? + Competitive calls + Commissioned calls + Targeted facilitation

5. Does the project deal with any of the themes that were identified in the Roadmap? + Sustainable intensification + Agriculture and food systems for nutrition + Agricultural markets and trade + Innovation platforms

6. What is the key output of the project?+ Research and innovation + Capacity building,+ Networking+ Provision of infrastructure

7. What criteria were used to award funding?+ Only scientific excellence+ Relevance: Relevance of the research to African and European priorities for FNSSA+ Capacity: Capacity for joint research, based on principles of equity, and involving comparable and

complementary expertise and resources+ Likelihood of uptake: Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge

system with all stakeholders+ Scalability: Scalability, or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at

national or even continental scale+ Complementarity: Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investments

will also up-scale existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration

Appendix B: Survey Instrument



8. Which geographical area can access the funding? + Africa+ Europe+ Asia+ Americas

9. Which groups have benefitted from the project? + Researchers + Farmers + Input companies + Multi-national

10. Do the current outputs meet the criteria as set out in the Roadmap?+ Likelihood of uptake: Expected impact of research and likelihood of uptake through an integrated knowledge

system with all stakeholders+ Scalability: Scalability, or the likelihood that effective research outputs and outcomes will have impact at

national or even continental scale+ Complementarity: Complementarity and value for money, based on the intention that the new investment

will also up-scale existing bilateral and multilateral collaboration.

11. Do you consider it a joint and balanced EU-AU-partnership? Please provide reasons+ Yes + No

12. Has there been a prioritisation process in developing the focus of the instrument or the projects funded under the instrument?

+ Meta-analysis + Workshop + African policy + European policy

13. Comments and quotes


Table 1: Key to tables 2 and 3

Appendix C: Analysis of funded European and African projects against Roadmap criteria

CRITERIA

Sectors involved in funding the instrument

Sectors involved in setting the agenda

Collaborating partners (this would be minimum)

Prioritisation

Mechanism used to obtain the proposal

Themes identified in the Roadmap

Key output ofthe project

Criteria toaward funding

Geographical area

Groups have benefitted

Current outputs

Joint and balancedEU-AU-partnership

RESPONSE

Private companies

Private companies

European researchers

Meta analysis

Competitive calls

Sustainable intensification

Research and innovation

Scientific excellence

Africa

Researchers

Likelihood

Yes

SYMBOL

PC

PC

ER

M

CP

SI

R&I

S

A

R

L

Y

RESPONSE

African government

African government

African researchers

Workshop

Commissioned calls

Food systems for nutrition

Capacity building

Relevance

Europe

Farmers

Scalability

No

SYMBOL

AG

AG

AR

W

CM

N

CD

R

E

F

S

N

RESPONSE

European government

European government

European companies

Experts

Targeted facilitation

Agricultural markets and trade

Networking

Scalability

Global

Companies

Complementarity

SYMBOL

EG

EG

EC

E

T

M

N

Sc

G

B

C

RESPONSE

Philanthropy

Philanthropy

African Companies

Policy

Innovation platforms

Provision of infrastructure

Likelihood of uptake

Value Chain

SYMBOL

P

P

AC

P

P

I

L

V



Table 2: European and African funded projects and partnerships

PROJECT TITLE**See List of Acronyms for expansions

Sectors involved

infunding

DESIGN CONTENT IMPACT

Key output of the

project

Sectors involved

insetting

the agenda

Criteria to award funding

Collabo-rating

partners

Geo-graphical

area

Prioriti-sation

process

Groups have

benefit-ted

Mecha-nism

used toobtain

theproposal

Current outputs

Themes in the Road-map

Joint and balancedEU-AU-partner-

ship

ACP NON FOOD OILS

AfricaSNOWS

AFRINT

AFTER

AGRICAB

AGRINATURA

ALICIT

AU Research Grant Programme

AVECNET

BIOTA AFRICA

CAAST-Net Plus

DONATA (FARA)

DRUSSA

EDCTP

EIP-AGRI

ERA-NET ARIMNET

ERAfrica

eRAILS (FARA)

ERANET MED

Green Agric. & Food Innovation Cen.

GlobE – Research-global food supply

ICT P8

INCO-NET MEDSPRING

Intra ACP mobility scheme

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

A

E

AE

E

EM

AE

A

E

E

E

E

EM

E

CD

N, CD

CD

R, N

CD

CD

CD, R

R

CD

N

R

N

CD, R

R

R

N

R

N

R, N

R

R

R

N

CD

ACP

AE

AE

AE

E

E

AE

A

AE

AE

AE

A

AE

AE

E

EM

AE

A

EM

AE

AE

A, PS

EM

ACP

S

R

R

R

S

R

S

S

S

R

S

R

S

S

S

S

S

R

S

R

S

S

S

S, E

ACP, PC

AE

AE

AE

AE

E

AE

AE

AE

AE

AE

A

AE

AE

E

EM

AE

A

EM

AE

AE

A, PS

EM

AECP

ACP

A

A

A

A

EA

A

A

A

A

AE

A

A

AE

E

M

AE

A

M

A

A

A

M

ACP

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

P

E

E

W

P

E

E

E

E

P

P

W

P

P

P

E

E

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

F

R

R

V

R

R

F

R

R, F, B

R

R, P

R, P

R

T

T

T

T

T

CP

T

CP

CP

T

CP

CM

T

CM

CP

T

CP

CM

T

T

T

CP

T

CP

R

R

R

R

L

R

R

R

L

R

R

S

R

L

L

R

R

L

R

S

R

R

R

R

No

No

SI

SI

No

S

No

S

No

No

S, P

S

No

No

S, P

S

S

S

No

No

S

No

S

No

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N



Sectors involved

infunding


Key output of the

project

Sectors involved

insetting

the agenda


Collabo-rating

partners

Geo-graphical

area

Prioriti-sation

process

Groups have

benefit-ted

Mecha-nism

used toobtain

theproposal

Current outputs



ship

Joint Undertaking Bio-Based Ind.

JOLISAA

JPI

LABLITE

NEPAD Centres of Excellence

PAEAPARD (FARA/EU)

PAERIP

RAILS (FARA)

ROSA

SCARDA (FARA)

SSA-CP (FARA)

Tempus

UK CIDLID

UK Research Clubs

UK Sandpit or Ideas Lab

UniBRAIN (FARA)

WAAP (CORAF)

WASCAL & SASSCAL

ZEI-WAI

E

E

E

E

AE

E

E

A

E

E

G

E

E

E

E

E

AE, PH

E

E

R

CD

R

CD, R

R

N

N

N

CD

CD

R

CD

R

R

CD

CD, N

R

R

N

E

AE

E

AE

A

AE

AE

A

AE

A

A

E

AE

E

E

AE

G

AE

AE

S

S

S

S

R

S

S

R

S

R

S

R

S

S

S

S

R

S, R

R

E

AE

E

AE, P

A

AE

AE

A

AE

A

G

E

AE

E

E

A

A

AE

AE

E

A

E

A

A

AE

AE

A

A

A

A

E

AE

E

E

A

A

A

A

E

E

W

E

P

E

E

P

E

W

P

E

E

E

E

P

P

E

E

R

F

R

V

R

V

R

R, F

F

R

F

R

R

R

R

R, B

F

R

R

CP

CP

CP

CM

CM

CM

CP

CM

CM

CM

CM

CP

CP

CP

CP

CM

CM

T

T

L

L

R

L

R

V

R

S

L

V

S

R

R

L

R

V

S

R

R

P

P

P

N

S, P

P

P

S

N

P

S

No

S

No

No

P

P

S

No

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y



Table 3: Globally funded projects and partnerships


Sectors involved

infunding


Key output of the

project

Sectors involved

insetting

the agenda


Collabo-rating

partners

Geo-graphical

area

Prioriti-sation

process

Groups have

benefit-ted

Mecha-nism

used toobtain

theproposal

Current outputs



ship

ASTI (IFPRI)

CARD (FARA)

CRPs of the CGIAR

GAIN

Global Partnership for Education

Global Road Safety Partnership

Innovation for Poverty Action

RBM

RUFORUM

SASAKAWA 2000

SIMLESA

WEF- NVA

WEMA

World Wide Fund for Nature

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

R

N

R

RN

RN

RN

R

RN

CD

R

R

RN

R

RN

G

A

G

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G

G, P, PH

G, P

PS

G

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

R

R

S

R

R

R

R

R

S

R

R

R

R

R

G

A

G

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G

G, P, PH

A

A,G

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

G, P, PH

A

A

G

G

G

G

G

G

A

A

A

G

G

G

E

P

G

W

W

W

E

W

E

E

W

W

W

W

R, P

R, F

R, F

V

V

V

R, P

V

R

V

F

F

F

V

T

CM

P

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

R

S

L

S

S

S

R

S

R

S

S

S

S

S

T

S

S

N

No

No

No

No

S, P

S

S

S

S

S

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N


*Source: Patscheke, Barmettler, Herman, Overdyke, & Pfitzer (2014)

Global Alliance on Improved Nutrition (GAIN) achieves scale and impact by building alliances with stakeholders

and representatives from every major sector in development. They work with diverse partners in several countries,

including national governments, civil society, academic institutions and international bodies such as the United

Nations, donors, foundations, consumer groups, and local and international private sector companies. GAIN is

committed to developing new means of attracting investment capital to the nutrition sector. They partner with a

range of financial institutions, including social venture capital funds, to establish financing structures that encourage

local businesses to develop new projects. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations

also play a crucial role in supporting the design and delivery of nutrition interventions and programs. Providing

expert local knowledge, these groups help GAIN connect to individuals and deliver significantly more impact than

they would alone.

Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund is an Africa based US$ 244m challenge fund capitalized by multilateral and

bilateral donors (the AECF donors) to stimulate private sector entrepreneurs in Africa to innovate and find profitable

ways of improving access to markets and the way markets function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The

Fund awards grants and repayable grants to private sector companies to support innovative business ideas in

agriculture, agribusiness, renewable energy, adaptation to climate change and access to information and financial

services. Its purpose is to improve incomes of smallholder farmers and the rural poor. The AECF is supported by

the governments of Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as well as the International

Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) a specialized agency of the United Nations.

The Grow Africa Partnership was founded jointly by the AU, The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

and the World Economic Forum in 2011. Grow Africa works to increase private sector investment in agriculture,

and accelerate the execution and impact of investment commitments. The aim is to enable countries to realise the

potential of the agriculture sector for economic growth and job creation, particularly among farmers, women and

youth. Grow Africa brokers collaboration between governments, international and domestic agriculture companies,

and smallholder farmers in order to lower the risk and cost of investing in agriculture, and improve the speed of

return to all stakeholders. The Grow Africa Partnership comprises over 200 companies and governments in 12

countries. These companies have made formal commitments with the government in the respective country to

invest in agriculture.

The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership was launched in 1998 by WHO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank, in an

effort to provide a coordinated global response to the disease. The RBM Partnership is led by the Executive Director,

and served by a Secretariat that is hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. The Secretariat

works to facilitate policy coordination at a global level. The Roll Back Malaria Partnership is the global platform for

coordinated action against malaria. It mobilizes for action and resources and forges consensus among partners.

The Partnership is comprised of more than 500 partners, including malaria endemic countries, their bilateral and

multilateral development partners, the private sector, nongovernmental and community-based organizations,

foundations, and research and academic institutions. Their main source of funding comes from a number of

philanthropic foundations, government aid agencies as well as development banks. An important lesson from the

RBM partnership is that they also access funding from different divisions on the same institution such as Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Another feature of the RBM funding model is that it works with governments

in endemic countries to access funding from the Global Fund on HIV and AIDS, TB and Malaria. The RBM budget

Appendix D: Details of highly successful global partnerships*



is small ($17m) in comparison to the funding that it gets from the Global Fund ($2billion). The Global fund itself

receives its budget from governments across the globe as well as other donors such as foundations and companies.

An interesting and novel concept of raising funds is the Product Red concept. Companies from a diverse range of

industries provide RBM partnership with funding from the sale of their “product red” products.

The World Economic Forums New Vision for Agriculture has over 250 members who have committed over

$10billion dollars to the initiative. They have also lobbied the G7 and the G20 nations for funding. Like the Global

fund they provide funding for initiatives that meet the goals of the NVA.

The WEMA partnership (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) was formed in response to a growing call by African

farmers, leaders, and scientists to address the effects of drought and insect-pest pressure in a cost effective way for

smallholder farmers in Africa. WEMA Project Partnership consist of three funders Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Howard G. Buffett Foundation and United States International Agency for Development. In addition the WEMA

partners are contributing through their expertise in breeding and field testing and germplasm. A novel contribution

is made by Monsanto a private company that is contributing maize varieties from its global proprietary collection,

drought-tolerant and insect protection genes, and its expertise in agriculture research and product deployment. The

IP is provided royalty free to small holder farmers in Africa. However, they are able to sell the technology that would

be developed by the partnership to large commercial enterprises at market related values.

The ERAfrica project has been considered a major success by the authors of “Mapping of best practice regional and

multi-country cooperative STI initiatives between Africa and Europe-Identification of financial mechanism(s) 2008–

2012”. The scale of ERAfrica is however much smaller than the envisaged Partnership. During the interview process

the project was described as one of the best examples of funding research. The aspect that was most appealing was

the issue of co-funding. Countries from Europe and Africa funded projects that were within their priorities. However,

the interviewee made two very pertinent observations. Firstly successful projects were almost exclusively from the

countries that were co-funded. Countries that might have had a greater need in terms of poverty reduction were not

able to use this funding source. In addition although 11million Euros were raised 2 million Euros were not allocated

because the African countries ran out of a budget. It is within this context that funding should be raised to ensure

that the Partnership is able to funded projects based on equity and social justice.

POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EU-AFRICA RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE|

ABOUT THIS REPORT

CAAST-Net Plus was tasked by the Bureau of the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue (HLPD) on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) to support the members of the HLPD Bureau’s Working Group 1, South Africa and the United Kingdom, in elaborating a section of the HLPD Expert Working Group’s contribution to a Roadmap for an Africa-EU Research and Innovation Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (‘the Partnership’). Through a desktop review and interviews with key informants, this CAAST-Net Plus report analyses existing EU-Africa R&I projects related to FNSSA and recommends potential instruments for implementing the Partnership over the short-, medium- and long-term.

Follow us online

www.caast-net-plus.org

Find us on Facebook

Find us on Google +

Find us on LinkedIn

Twitter: @CAAST_Net_Plus

[email protected]

Subscribe to our newsletter www.caast-net-plus.org/newsletter

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

https://www.facebook.com/caastnetplus/

https://plus.google.com/+CaastnetplusOrg2013-2016

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/caast-net-plus/38/447/567

https://twitter.com/CAAST_Net_Plus

mailto:[email protected]

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

potential instruments for implementing the … · cgiar consultative group for international...

Documents