Emergency Agriculture and Food Security

30 - 31 May 2016. Berlin, Germany. The aim of the international research workshop on “Emergency Agriculture and Food Security”  was to gather senior and junior researchers and practitioners from Germany and abroad to discuss a new research and to identify common research interests and future research collaborations.

Extract of the programme:

Session 3: Food Security, Safety, and Markets 

• Maximilian P.O. Baumann (FU Berlin):​"Approaches to Assess the Effects of the 2013 Civil Unrests in South Sudan on Pastoral Livelihood: A First Report from a Veterinary View" 
• Jeremie Gross (NAMUR):​"Activation of Food Markets and Food Security: Impact of Cereal Banks in Northern Burkina Faso” 
• Jürgen Zentek (FU Berlin):​"Food Safety and Security from the Food Chain Perspective: Future Role of Animal Nutrition, Threats, Opportunities, Emergencies"

Session 5: Bridging Practice and Research: Evidence for Policy 

• Tilman Brück (IGZ):​“Learning from Humanitarian Interventions: Methodological Considerations and a Case Study of Niger” 
• Jürgen Fechter (kfw): ​“Crisis, Droughts, and Food Security: Challenges for the Bilateral Financial Cooperation” 

The participants of the workshop jointly adopted the `Berlin statement on the Role of Agriculture and Food Security in Conflict and Emergency Situations´. The statement strongly recommends further intensification of interdisciplinary cooperation in science and practice to improve humanitarian aid in crises and increase food security. Link to full Berlin Statement (Pdf)

G7 leaders’ declaration on food security and nutrition:

26 - 27 May 2016. Ise-Shima, Japan. Meeting of the G7 Ministers and high representatives, and the European Commissioner responsible for the environment. This meeting follows 2015 global commitments including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. The meeting covered seven themes: the 2030 Agenda, Resource Efficiency, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Chemicals Management, the Role of Cities and Marine litter. 

 G7 leaders’ declaration on food security and nutrition:

“Ending hunger and malnutrition is a fundamental element of the 2030 Agenda. As part of a broader effort to achieve the SDGs, we commit to engage collectively in concrete actions in collaboration with relevant partners and stakeholders towards the achievement of our aim to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. Building on the G7 Broad Food Security and Nutrition Development Approach, we endorse the G7 Vision for Action on Food Security and Nutrition"

The G7 Vision for Action on Food Security and Nutrition outlines collective actions in the priority areas of:

1. empowering women; 
2. improving nutrition through a people-centered approach that recognizes the diverse food security challenges people face across the rural to urban spectrum; and 
3. ensuring sustainability and resilience within agriculture and food systems. 

We commit to enhance synergies with relevant international initiatives. We support the development of good practices for global food security and nutrition that are in line with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement on climate change. This could include expanding farming opportunities, revitalizing rural communities, and enhancing production, productivity, responsible investment, trade and sustainability in agriculture and food systems. We welcome the International Symposium on Food Security and Nutrition to be held in Japan and the Nutrition for Growth Summit.”

Extract of the V4a (Vision for Action) (page 4)
Enhanced synergies and engagement with broad stakeholders and other fora: 

The G7 will seek further synergies with the G20 and its efforts on food security and nutrition, as well as collaboration with regional efforts and fora such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), taking into consideration each region’s specific context and challenges and adjusting approaches where necessary, including by utilizing such opportunities as the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VI: 27 to 28 August 2016 in Nairobi, Kenya).

Recalling the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the G7 emphasizes the critical importance of mobilizing multiple streams of financing to achieve the 2030 Agenda. The G7 will work with relevant stakeholders to more effectively and sustainably mobilize resources for food security, complementing a similar exercise by the SUN Movement for nutrition. The G7 welcomes further efforts in leveraging private investments such as that demonstrated in the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). 

The G7 will raise awareness on the issues that this V4A puts forward, and promote aligned actions and coherence in implementation, among all stakeholders including developing country partners, other donors, including through the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (GDPRD), international and regional organizations, multilateral development banks, researchers and academics, and philanthropic organizations. The G7 will foster continued collaboration with the private sector and civil society, including through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. The G7 will seek opportunities to engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue, making full use of relevant fora and platforms on food security and nutrition, particularly the CFS.

Forthcoming:

• Symposium on Food Security and Nutrition Japan 
• 4th of August 2016. The Second High Level Summit on Nutrition will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It is the biggest global event between now and 2020 to address the devastating burden of undernutrition.

Awarded grants of the Dutch Food & Business Global Challenges Programme Call

20 May 2016. Five Integrated Projects have been awarded grants within the third Call of the Food and Business Global Challenges Programme (GCP). The theme of the NWO-WOTRO Call, selected and developed by the Food & Business Knowledge Platform (F and BKP), is “Transformation of food systems with a focus on sustainability and urbanization.”

Please find below a list of this month’s awarded Integrated Projects, linking to their own Research Projects page on this website.

Sustaining food supplies and improving health: Integration of small farmers into modern value chains with food safety standards in Kenya
Contamination with fungal toxins is a prominent food safety concern in tropical regions. Aflatoxin, a fungal toxin common in maize and groundnut, affects much of African produce. Besides exacting a significant health toll, it impedes farmers’ access to global food markets and high-value domestic markets. This project will develop and test business models to support the scale-up of a biocontrol product - Aflasafe, to combat aflatoxin among smallholder maize farmers in Kenya.

Cocoa crop improvement, farms and markets: a science-based approach to sustainably improving farmer food security in Ghana and Ivory Coast
Cocoa farmers in West Africa face poor productivity due to constraints at the crop, field, farm and sector level. To ensure farmers’ livelihoods, yields need to increase sustainably. This research will investigate the effect of field level practices on cocoa productivity. The suitability of different (combinations of) practices for different smallholder farm systems in Ghana and Ivory Coast will be explored. Effective delivery of the services supporting these practices will be co-developed with public and private partners.

Scaling-up nutrition-sensitive agricultural initiatives in poor mountainous areas in Vietnam and Lao PDR
Food insecurity and malnutrition remain persistent challenges among upland populations in Asia. Interventions are often fragmented and address immediate rather than underlying causes. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture (NSA) is a relatively new inter-sectoral, multi-level food system approach aiming to maximise agriculture’s contribution to improved food security and nutrition. Building upon existing interventions in Vietnam and Lao PDR, this project generates evidence on the effectiveness of, and best way to scale-up, NSA amongst ethnic minorities in mountainous areas.

Fish for food security in city regions of India and Ghana: an interregional innovation project (Fish4Food)
Seafood is vital to the health and food security of millions of poor consumers in rapidly expanding city regions in the global south. This project aims to understand how low-price fish chains contribute to urban food security in India and Ghana and to identify policy and business interventions that have potential to improve them.

Horticultural food systems based on ecologically intensive production and socio-economically sustainable value chains in the transition economies Chile and Uruguay (HortEco)
While consumption of vegetables in emerging economies falls well short of dietary recommendations, vegetable production contributes to environmental pollution and health risks. This project will engage with small farmers and organizations involved in low-or-no-pesticide production methods in Chile and Uruguay to develop more effective production, knowledge sharing methods and collaborative value chains.

A milling machine for preparing nixtamalized maize dough
was presented to KALRO by the Mexican embassy
in Nairobi, Kenya. CIMMYT/Brenda Wawa

Related:
6 May 2016. KALRO will support raising awareness of the nixtamalization or lime-cooking
technology among small- and medium-sized companies, increasing their investment opportunities. KALRO is the custodian of the equipment donated by the Mexican government that is being used for training. CIMMYT will support this work by providing technical and capacity building expertise.

The process includes cooking and steeping dried maize grain in water and food-grade lime (calcium hydroxide), rinsing the maize to remove the outer kernel cover (pericarp) and milling it to produce dough that can be consumed in different ways.

If adapted, modern nixtamalization technology could increase maize uses and offer Kenyans invaluable benefits. Food-grade lime is rich in calcium, providing nutritional and health benefits. Nixtamalized food products such as tortillas (small circular-shaped flatbreads) are said to have same nutritional value as milk. By removing the pericarp, the technology contributes to reduce aflatoxin fungal contamination levels in maize kernels by 30 to 60 percent.

The benefits of nixtamalization will soon become a reality for Kenyans following the official presentation of nixtamalized maize mills to the Cabinet Secretary of Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries by Mexico’s ambassador to Kenya, Erasmo Martínez, which took place on 4 April 2016 in Nairobi. This event marked the official launch of a new project titled “Expanding maize utilization as food and enhancing nutrition improved health and development in Kenya through processing technologies from Mexico,” which will contribute to disseminating new technology across the country. The three-year project will be led by the Kenya Agricultural Livestock and Research Organisation (KALRO).

Aflatoxin Control in Groundnut Value Chain in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Ghana

Aflatoxin Control in Groundnut Value Chain in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Ghana
Wojciech J. Florkowski, Shashidhara Kolavallin
Biblographic citation: Food Protection Trends, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 96-107, Mar 2016
Volume 36, Issue 2: Pages 96–107

Groundnuts, which are widely consumed in West Africa, are prone to contamination by aflatoxins during production, storage and processing. Although aflatoxins play a role in many important health risks in developing countries, individuals and governments often ignore the risks because the health effects are not immediate.

The objective of this paper is to examine production and marketing practices, particularly grading methods, in Ghana’s groundnut value chain to obtain a clear understanding of the sources and levels of total aflatoxin contamination in the crop and how such contamination can be reduced in the environment of limited resources and lack of institutional capacity to control and enforce food quality regulations. 

The study finds that seemingly inferior kernels, which are likely to be contaminated, are indeed sorted out but that the ‘rejects’ are not eliminated from the food system. Instead, they are offered to consumers in a crushed form as an ingredient in cooking and flavoring. Testing for aflatoxins confirmed high levels of contamination, particularly in products that contained crushed groundnuts. The paper suggests a multipronged strategy suitable for a developing country, in which stringent enforcement of regulations may be infeasible.

Related:

PLATFORM ON AFLATOXIN MANAGEMENT IN GHANA from Francois Stepman

2016 AfDB Annual Meetings to focus on energy and climate change

23 - 27 May 2016. Lusaka, Zambia. The theme of this year’s meeting was “Energy and Climate Change”, and draws on one of the Bank’s “High 5” priority areas, namely to “Light up and Power Africa”. It also reflects the Bank’s New Deal on Energy and the key resolutions from the recent UN climate talks (COP21) on global warming.

The 2016 Annual Meetings theme was aligned with two of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 7 to “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” and SDG 13 to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”.

Extract of the programme
The Transformative Potential of Agribusiness - ‘Feed Africa'

Panelists

• Hon. Zied Ladhari, Minister of Vocational Training and Employment, Tunisia
• Ms. Ada Osakwe, Chief Executive, Agrolay Ventures
• Ms. Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO Acumen
• Dr. Agnes Kalibata, President, AGRA
• Dr. Nteranya Sanginga, DG IITA
• Ms. Yana Watson Kakar, Global Managing Partner, Dalberg

Issues for Discussion

• What are the key strategic issues to be dealt with (and at what levels) in order to achieve inclusive agricultural transformation?
• Which hurdles and power structures hamper equal market opportunities, and women and youth’s access to essential resources (finance, transport, power, technology)?
• Which investments and policy interventions have the greatest potential to promote agricultural and agribusiness development in SSA?
• How can agriculture be made to become a more interesting business proposition for women and youth?
• How can African governments, the international community, private sector, and civil society organisations support inclusive agricultural transformation and agribusiness in Africa?

Articles

• 24/05/2016 - Miser sur les femmes, les jeunes et sur l’agro-industrie pour bâtir l’Afrique de demain
• 23/05/2016 - Jobs for Women and Young People: The transformative potential of agribusiness

The Road to Agricultural Transformation in Africa - Feed Africa’

Presenter : Mr. Chiji Chinedum Ojukwu, Director, AfDB

Panelists

• Hon. Amadou Ba, Minister of Economy and Finance, Republic of Senegal, Governor, AfDB
• Mr. Saint Ange Périn, Associate Vice President, IFAD
• Mr. Bukar Tijani, FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Africa
• Ms. Manal Abdel Moneim, Chairperson & CEO, SOBEK - Trade & Development Ltd, Cairo
• Dr. Akinwumi A. Adesina, President, AfDB

Discussion
The Panel presented the highlights and formally launch the Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa. Discussion points include:

• What has been your experience with helping micro and small agribusinesses thrive in your country?
• What are the biggest challenges facing development of agricultural corridors that link production areas to urban and regional markets, knowing the latter contribute to making locally produced food costlier as compared to imported food?
• What new approaches and what innovative financing mechanisms has Senegal taken to attract young people into agriculture, and what lessons do you retain from there?
• What should we do and what role could Agricultural Development Banks play in to promote local agro industries that meet the domestic demand for food?

Document + article

• Feed Africa - The Road to Agricultural Transformation in Africa (1.4 MB)
• 26/05/2016 - AfDB embarks on ambitious plan to ramp up agriculture, create jobs and feed Africa

Launch of new initiatives

The New Deal on Energy and the Jobs for Africa's Youth initiative was being launched at the meetings, as well as the African Leaders for Nutrition initiative, which aims to end malnutrition, chaired by former President of Ghana, John Kufuor. The initiative is partnering with the African Union/New Partnership on Development (NEPAD), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Kofi Annan Foundation, the Big Win Philanthropy, Dangote Foundation and the World Food Program. The Bank also launched a USD 3-billion fund to support women.

Tony Elumelu is the Chairman of Heirs Holdings,
UBA Group Plc, Seadrill Nigeria Ltd and Transcorp Plc -
Nigeria's largest listed conglomerate -
 and Founder of The Tony Elumelu Foundation.

In the same vein, the Bank launched the Transformative Partnership on Energy for Africa, a bold co-development model which includes several partners: the African Union, the Africa Progress Panel, NEPAD, President Obama's Power Africa initiative, the World Bank, and Sustainable Energy for All, African Energy Leaders Group, the European Union, the UK Government, China, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries, Japan, Korea, India, the private sector and others.

In line with the goal to generate evidence-based data to support policymakers in addressing key
issues on the continent, the Tony Elumelu Foundation released the "Unleashing Africa's Agricultural Entrepreneurs" report at the recently concluded World Economic Forum on Africa in Rwanda. The report's insights come from case studies based on the experiences of Tony Elumelu agricultural entrepreneurs in 34 African countries, as well as expert commentary from established stakeholders, practitioners and investors along the value chain. Recommendations and steps for decision makers to improve competitiveness in the sector are also included. The 304 Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurs in agriculture in the class of 2015 have created over 5000 casual and fulltime employment in the past year of operation after receiving direct support from the Foundation.

Background:

The Bank’s Annual Meetings are its largest annual event, and its biggest window on the world. They bring together some 5,000 delegates and participants, and feature some 40 official events in addition to the Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors, which constitutes the core purpose of the Meetings.

The Bank’s Governors are the Finance, Trade or Economic Development Ministers from its 54 Regional and 26 Non-Regional Member Countries). The Meetings represent the definitive forum for representatives of Government, business, civil society and media – from Africa and beyond – to debate the social and economic development of the continent.

Related: 09/05/2016 SciDev Initiative to end hunger in Africa by 2025 launched

A major initiative aimed at transforming the agricultural sector to aid food sufficiency in Africa has been launched. The initiative known as Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) is focusing on eight priority areas — self-sufficiency in rice, intensification of cassava, food security in the Sahel, transforming savannas as a breadbasket, restoring tree plantations, expanding horticulture, increasing wheat production and expanded fish farming.

It is being spearheaded by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The initiative was launched during experts meeting at IITA campus in Ibadan, Nigeria, last month (12-14 April) that was called to brainstorm on how to transform agriculture in Africa to feed the continent and end hunger by 2025.

The experts resolved that the TAAT will work with existing structures,technology and innovation, and vigorously transform agriculture through the eight priority areas.

“It has become imperative that an Africa-owned, Africa led and Africa driven-initiative like TAAT take a centre stage to bring about the best approaches towards increasing Africa agricultural productivity and technology delivery,” Yemi Akinbamijo, executive director of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, a partner of the initiative’s implementation.

African Union Commission (AUC) launches African Union Research Grants 2016

18 May 2016. The African Union Commission launched Phase 2 of the African Union Research Grants programme with an open call for proposals for Research and Innovation in Africa supported by the European Union.

The African Union Research Grants (AURG) programme supports research and innovation in Africa and is supported by the European Union through the Pan African programme (2014-2020) with a budget of €17.5 million for two calls in 2016 and 2017.

The AURG programme supports the Africa’s Science Technology and Innovation Strategy-2024 which addresses the aspirations identified under Agenda 2063, as well as the Africa-EU Partnership priority on Human Development.

The call addresses the priorities set out in the Research and Innovation Roadmap on Food & Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FNSSA) which was determined through the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation.

• The programme encourages "the creation of partnerships (research networks) for regional and sub-regional co-operation and of inter-institutional co-operation in Africa via setting up of consortia of scientists with minimum participation of at least three organisations out of which a majority should be from Africa with at least two different African countries. Additional partners could come from elsewhere" (including Europe).
• Applicants must refer to official documents for rules and procedures.
• The AURG programme is entirely managed by the AUC. All inquiries should be addressed to the AUC.
• The closing date for applications is 17 August 2016 at 5pm Addis Ababa time (Applications must be submitted in both paper and electronic version – see official documents for details).
• All information and documents pertaining to the call are available on the AURG website
• Call Application documents are also available for download via DropBox
• News about the programme can be followed on Facebook and Twitter 

ROPPA: regional meeting on rice sector interprofessional organisations

3 - 5 May 2016. ROPPA organised a regional meeting in Cotonou to discuss about the results and challenges faced by interprofessional organisations and define a joint strategy by UEMOA/CEDEAO/CRCOPR to support the set up of dynamic and strong rice interprofessional organizations in the rice.

In its action plan (34 pages), the Regional Dialogue Framework of the Rice Producers' Organisations (CRCOPR) of the ROPPA highlighted the need to capitalize the experience of existing interprofessional organizations in the rice sector. 

L’objectif pour cet atelier sera de contribuer à terme à la mise en place des OIP dynamiques qui participent à la définition des politiques sectorielles rizicoles tant au niveau national que régional et au développement de la chaîne de valeur riz.

Plus spécifiquement, il s’agira de définir les grandes lignes d’une stratégie conjointe UEMOA/CEDEAO/CRCOPR pour la mise en place des Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles fonctionnelles et dynamiques. 

Il est attendu de cet atelier , des enseignements à partir des expériences vécues (forces, limites, stratégies, fonctionnement, évolution etc) par les Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles existantes ;l’état des lieux du processus de construction des nouvelles Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles (Mali, Bénin, Niger, Côte d’Ivoire) ;Des recommandations pour améliorer les textes juridiques sur les Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles à partir de leur analyse comparée ;Des esquisses de plans d’action de chaque pays pour corriger les insuffisances dans la mise en place des Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles et un plan d’appui soutenant la mise en place des Organisations Interprofessionnelles rizicoles, développé par le CRCOPR.

Documents:

• tdr_atelier_sur_interprofessions_vf.pdf (PDF - 776.9 ko)
• agenda_provisoire_atelier_interprofession_vf.pdf (PDF - 479.4 ko)

PROPAC: regional training on knowledge management and the capitalisation of experiences

18 to 20 May 2016. Twenty leaders of farmers' organizations (FOs) joined a training session on capitalisation organised by the PROPAC with SFOAP support. The session particularly aimed to support FOs members of the PROPAC to improve their capacity to valorise their experiences, competences and initiatives, and to promote a culture of knowledge generation and sharing through the promotion of exchanges at all levels (national, regional, continental and international).

The training was an opportunity for leaders and managers from FOs to discuss about tools and strategies to strengthen knowledge management.

According to Mr Celestin Nga, Chief Executive Officer of the PROPAC, the capitalization of experiences is key for the strengthening of agricultural memory for the benefit of producers and for a better visibility of FOs in Central Africa.

To learn more, please see the full videos of the interviews to Mr Nga and to Ms Mélanie Kasoma Lasom, Permanent Secretary of the Confédération Paysanne du Congo, and visit PROPAC’s website.

Related:

From 16 to 17 May 2016, 30 officials and leaders of FOs participated to a regional training workshop on the use of a digital platform developed by the PROPAC.

Since 2009, the PROPAC has initiated a reflection on the management of statistical data on farmers’ organisations (FOs) as well as on the exchange of relevant information between different actors involved in the development of the regional platform.

FOs have traditionally faced difficulties in providing statistics and data on some important aspects of their actions on the ground, thus making it difficult to assess the impact of their intervention especially in terms of representativity and volume of production.

The development of an information system was thus considered key for the organisation to improve FOs visibility and the management and sharing of knowledge. In particular, the platform was developed to ease the management of PROPAC’s operations and the collection of statistical data on members, and to facilitate the management and traceability of activities of national FOs in Central Africa.

Primarily intended for internal use, the platform is expected to enable:

• To establish a real-time list of members classified according to specific criteria;
• To make available producers profiles, as well as the profile of the organization they belong to;
• To set up a documentary database to archive all activity reports, study materials.

2016 Annual Conference of SACAU

23-26 May 2016. Mbabane, Swaziland. The theme of the conference is "Youth, Technology and Agricultural Transformation in Southern Africa".

The conference, brought together regional farmers’ organization (FOs) leaders, policy makers, FOs chief executives, policy makers and young farmers, and aimed at sharing practical and expertise experiences. It will explore how the nexus between technology and youth can be harnessed to drive agricultural transformation in the region. Technology will be considered at its entirety.

Specifically, the conference : (i) Seek to envision the future of agriculture and need for new generation of farmers and farmers’ organization; (ii) Expose farmers to current cutting urge technologies that are likely to change the future outlook of agriculture globally and in Africa; (iii) Discuss options of making agriculture attractive by professionalizing and certifying producers and intensifying commercialization of the sector; (iv) Identify potential business models that young farmers could be engaged in the future for the transformation of the sector.

"What we are expecting is to have resolution of which we are going to be guided on how we take full advantage of the technology that we have now, apply it in agriculture for transformation. Because we believe that the way which agriculture is being run needs to be transformed - and the youth will be at the centre of that transformation." SACAU's Capacity Building Advisor, Benito Eliasi

The conference was structured into five sessions as follows: (See SACAU concept note)

1. Session I: Scene Setting. It is evident that agriculture practices are rapidly changing and for Africa to remain competitive, farmers have no choice but to embrace the change. Application of ICT for improving efficiency and mitigating risks is slowly becoming irreplaceable. The session presented how ICT will play a vital role for African agriculture to remain profitable and competitive. Arguments that future agriculture will mainly be driven by intelligent use of data and information, application of digital technology, efficiency utilization of appropriate machinery, adoption of new business models, rapid response to unpredictable weather and climate change and institution of new generation of farmers’ organization. What is the role of today’s youth amidst all this?
2. Session II: What is keeping the youths out of agriculture? This session discussed current
   cutting urge technologies that are likely to change the future outlook of agriculture globally and in Africa. The session provided evidence that advanced technology in agriculture will be a friend of a future farmer and that African farmers need to prepare for the soon coming technology revolution in the sector, otherwise will be left behind. The issues of its practicability and affordability to African farming which is predominated by small scale farming systems were discussed. Among other questions  addressed were: Will Africa farmers need alternative financing to access the technologies? Will Africa need special policies and regulations for the technologies? How should FOs prepare for such a revolution?
3. Session III: Professionalization of farmers in the region. Farming in Africa is regarded as a lowly, back-breaking, unglamorous, dirty job that uses rudimentary equipment with very meagre revenue. Agricultural producers (farmers) are mostly ranked low in the society and are considered as uneducated or uncivilized in some cycles. Consequently, there is less pride and dignity in farming to the people practicing it. This low regard for farming is reinforced in society to an extent that sometimes farmers advise their children to study hard in school to escape from being farmers. Consequently, many schoolchildren dream of becoming doctors, engineers or lawyers, but seldom to be farmers. These perceptions make young people reluctant to be associated with the sector and only join it when all other options fail. The session discussed options of making agriculture attractive by professionalizing and certifying producers and intensifying commercialization of the sector. Among the questions addressed were: What can it take to improve the negative image of agriculture? Can agriculture be made a career of first choice to the youth as is the case with other careers? What are the realities to be encountered for this to happen? 
4. Session IV: Youth and Factors of production. Accessing production and operational capital by the youth is much difficult than their elderly counterparts. This is basically due to among other things, lack of credit record and assets for collateral. Worse still, government funds dedicated to finance youth intervention prefer to support artisanal enterprises and small trading businesses than farming. For any youth with serous ambitions to start serious farming ventures, this becomes a very big hindrance. The situation might not be different in the near future. This session looked at new financing and ownership options of factors of production that can be developed or up scaled. 



Nono Sekhoto (right) Co-Founder/CEO at GrowthShoot
and Managing Director at Makolobane Farmers Enterprises

5. Session IV: SACAU Youth Program. A number of factors (economic, social, political etc.) are responsible for the limited participation of youth in the agriculture sector. The factors can be classified into two broad areas: (i) factors that hinder young people to take agriculture as a career of choice and (ii) those that hinder practicing young farmers to progress in their farming careers. This program brings together different stakeholders from the private and public sectors to address problems encountered by the youth. The interventions were across the entire value chain and not only primary production. Professionalization and application of advanced technology are key in the implementation of the program.

The SACAU's Annual General Meeting was supported by SFOAP, the German Technical Cooperation (GIZ) and We Effect.

I'm hosting BBC Africa today on the farm who are coming from London to do a story on me and I just got word that I received a scholarship to attend training at Frankfurt School of Finance & Management. My love for finance is formally merging with my new found love of agriculture. No-one knows what the future holds. No-one can tell you what path to walk. But most of all no-one can determine the level of success that you will have. But all I can say is you have the power to dream. You have the power to work towards that dream. And you have the potential to make that dream come true.

I say this because I consciously decided to work towards building a dream. I am the one who put myself out there. I am the one who dared to dream bigger that anything that currently exists, from a clean blank canvas. And slowly but surely the canvas is filling up, the picture becoming clearer with each day. I say this because it's not just blessings that things are happening to make that dream come true, it is also from what I have done, to name but a few: I have a vision that I focus on daily, I am dedicated to attaining my dream, I put in hard work, I'm self motivated, I make sacrifices and most of all I have self believe! Don't let anyone tell you who you are and what you are capable of no matter how long the road may seem. Dare to dream bigger than your current existence! Nono Sekhoto, 25 May 2016

How world population has grown in the last 2,000 yearsand the projected growth until 2050

Watch human population grow from 1 CE to present and see projected growth in under six minutes. One dot = 1 million people.

See also the WorldPopulationHistory Trainer Webinar (February 2016)
Check on the milestones for Food and Agriculture:
Example: http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1786/mercator/1/0/25/invention-of-canning

Evaluation of the EU Support to Research and Innovation in Partner Countries (2007-2013)

26 May 2016. Brussels. European Commission seminar. Evaluation of EU support to Research and Innovation for Development in partner countries: Lessons learned and recommendations for the future.

Final Report
Executive Summary
Executive Summary FR
Volume 2 (Evaluation Matrices)
Volume 3 (Annexes 1-8)
Volume 4 (Annex 9)

Mackie, J., Engel, P., Bizzotto Molina, P., Deneckere, M., Spierings, E., Tondel, F. (et al.). 2016. Evaluation of EU support to Research and Innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013).

This evaluation examined the support the European Commission’s DG for Development and International Cooperation (DEVCO) provided to Research and Innovation (R and I) in partner countries during the last EU budget period (2007-2013).

Support to R&I was a major theme of DEVCO work, yet one that is hidden, not recognised and poorly understood. A new departure is to be found in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy signed in December 2007, which identifies support to R and I as a cross-cutting tool and one of eight pillars of co-operation.

The evaluation concluded that while DG DEVCO had achieved a lot with its support to R and I at the sector level, the lack of an overall strategy or explicit overall commitment to support R and I undermined the overall impact of its work in this important area for development.

Extract of the agenda:

• Evaluation of EU support to Research and Innovation: Conclusions and Recommendations Presentation by James Mackie, ECDPM (Team leader) 
• Zoom on Research and innovation for Food security, Nutrition and Agriculture Presentation by Paul Engel, ECDPM (senior expert) 

Some extracts of the reports:

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT (130 pages)
1. Introduction
2. Key methodological steps
3. Overall policy framework
4. Intervention logic analysis
5. Inventory analysis
6. Answers to the evaluation questions
7. Overall assessment
8. Conclusions
9. Recommendations

DEVCO was active in supporting R and I at different geographic levels (global, regional and national) and with multiple actors, including not just governments and research communities, but also the private sector and civil society. This support also produced results which impacted positively on development processes particularly at the local and sector levels, but very little effort was made to capitalise on research results and make them known and available to wider audiences.

DEVCO's capacity dedicated to R and I, particularly in EU Delegations, has been inadequate for a sector so important for economic development. At headquarters capacity was limited though more adequate. DEVCO has rarely felt able to deploy support to national innovation systems (...) DEVCO is not perceived as an agent for R and I for development, and little effort has been made to create such an image for improved visibility.

DEVCO's support should continue to focus on seven principal elements: (i) Support to networks, (ii) capacity development, (iii) careful selection of partner institutions, (iv) policy dialogue, (v) actual funding of research for development, (vi) capitalisation of results and (vii) the establishment and strengthening of national innovation systems. (...) A clear approach to support national and regional R and I frameworks and the establishment of national innovation systems will assist this focus. (...) There is, however, little strategic thinking on how DEVCO can support the different phases of innovation impact pathways.

A structural problem is that R and I is a long-term process – from laboratory to farmer involving about 6-8 years in the case of developing crop varieties and can take up to 20-30 years in developing livestock breeds. It is not realistic to support long-term R and I endeavors on the basis of recurrent short-term project finance. Research institutions require, in addition, core funding to finance recurrent expenditure; finance that is almost by definition excluded from EU funding instruments. 

DEVCO should increase the attention paid to the private sector in partner countries. This will have implications for European Union Delegation capacity. (...) Support to networking among research communities and with potential users and stakeholders such as the private sector should remain another important element of DEVCO’s approach to the transfer of results. (...) The transfer of R and I results to end users has worked better in countries where national innovation systems are well developed and where advisory services, financial institutions, private companies, user organisations and government policymakers work together to drive wide-spread innovation. For instance in sectors such as agriculture the transfer of results of R and I to end users has clearly worked better because research and extension work on new technologies is very much part of a well-developed best practice organised around government or non-government extension services.

The EU Delegation to the AU appears to have adequate capacity to engage with the AUC at the Addis level on the main R and I/ S and T issues supported but capacity to cover the whole of Africa to support dialogue on R and I is severely limited. DG RTD has only one R and I/ S and T Counsellor responsible for cooperation with the whole of Africa. He is based at the EU Delegation to the AU. 

Multistakeholder partnerships, policy outreach and collaborating closely with national institutions, NGOs and farmer organisations have become more central features of most CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) thereby, making the strategic choice of the CGIAR as a partner for the EU stronger. (...)  Its research programmes (CRPs) define impact pathways and build partnerships to increase the relevance and uptake of their results. However, institutional obstacles remain, for example financial and administrative limitations with regard to building formal, long-term partnerships with national research institutes and other partners.

A key question is whether CGIAR is capable of going to ‘the last inch’ to reach smallholder farmers. Complex partnerships and participatory approaches do not combine well with ever-shorter funding cycles and high demands on impact attribution. In order to achieve long-term impact, funding cycles and reporting requirements should be longer and more flexible. More time should be made available to mobilise the multiple stakeholders needed to prepare and carry through the medium-term, multi-level, multi-stakeholder and inter-disciplinary research proposals needed to achieve such impact.

To stimulate understanding and learning from the complex multi-stakeholder work of CRPs, DG DEVCO could, for example, make sure that the experiences learned from systems/programmes that have experimented most with innovative and inter disciplinary approaches (systems analysis, participatory research, innovation platforms, farmer-led research, etc.) are capitalised upon and fed into current programs. This requires a larger and more specific investment into developing methodologies that are better able to document, report and assess the impact of the more complex CGIAR programs. Moreover, DG DEVCO should address the institutional barriers that remain to be resolved in order to ensure the full participation of (non-research) stakeholders in international research and review its funding periods to take into account the need for longer research cycles.

VOLUME 2 – SECTOR EVALUATION MATRICES
1. Part A – Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture
2. Part B – Health
3. Part C – Environment and Climate Change
4. Part D – Science, Information Society and Space

VOLUME 3 –ANNEX 1 TO 8

1. Annex 1 – Terms of reference
2. Annex 2 – Inventory
3. Annex 3 – Case studies
4. Annex 4 – Survey to EU Delegations
5. Annex 5 – Final evaluation matrix
6. Annex 6 – List of persons interviewed
7. Annex 7 – Bibliography
8. Annex 8 – Methodology

On the basis of past experiences, there is a trend towards more demand-based ARD programming with a move away from the previous top-down approach to an approach of building partnerships between science institutions and public and private sectors - linking research to farmers through extension services to disseminate technical innovations with the equitable participation of smallholder farmers to maximize direct and indirect impact on food security. Besides technical innovations the new approach now encompasses non-technical innovations at institutional and organizational level, and other forms of innovation such as making more use of existing Traditional Knowledge (TK) at the smallholder farm level, to improve productivity and to mitigate risks due to climate change (droughts and floods). Regarding the latter, an important aspect of the overall approach is building towards sustainable agricultural advisory services and dissemination mechanisms that are able to:

1. Support farmer innovation and experimentation;2. Facilitate learning between farmers and researchers; and 3. Provide farmers with the information they need to make own choices regarding sustainable agricultural practices (using innovations based on TK).

ASARECA, through their Up-Scaling and Knowledge Management Program (USKM) as well as the Information and Communication Unit (ICU), has developed powerful tools for dissemination and uptake of research, involving an appropriate mix of partners and stakeholders and piloting many new methods like online learning and the application of Integrated Platforms for Technology Adoption.

Funding available for African Union Research Grants is very limited. As a consequence , the success rate for applying is low, and many potentially interesting projects do not receive funding. Nevertheless, the AUC is happy with the grant system, as one AUC official stated that the amount of funding available is ‘better than nothing’. The research grants are seen by the AUC as a good opportunity for African research organisations to invest in research capacities and conduct research relevant for Africa. At the same time, it is seen as a good preparation to be successful in FP7 calls, although it is too early to say whether AURGs will contribute to more success under FP7. Whether the AU Research Grants will remain sustainable as a funding modality remains to be seen. This will depend on the future of the Pan African Programme. The EU is pushing the AUC  strongly to find other funding sources, including AU Member States, but this continues to be a struggle. Another suggestion would be to look for a Public-Private Partnership offering commercial sponsorship to beef up the budget of the AU Research Grant.

A few examples of synergy do emerge from the information available, but not on country level. First, the Platform for African-European partnership on Agricultural Research for Development (PAEPARD) was funded under FP6 and identified research priorities that were used to shape parts of FSTP and FP7 research agendas. Indirectly it has thus contributed to the research priorities guiding DEVCO’s support to CGIAR. PAEPARD also contributed to strengthening the capacity of African researchers to bid for support from European research programmes and partnerships with CPRs and CG centres. The next expanded phase of PAEPARD is funded under FSTP (FSTP Thematic Strategy Paper 2010). Secondly, Joint Learning in Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA) is a project carried out in Benin, Kenya and South Africa between 2010 and 2013 by the Prolinnova (Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resource management) network. The Prolinnova network works together with the CGIAR Systems research programmes and Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) programmes to integrate participatory farmer-led approaches in these programmes.

The EU has strongly supported the Innovation Platform (IP) or Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach. FARA has implemented the IP approach on a large scale in its Sub-Saharan Challenge Programme. The System programmes (Dryland Systems, Humid tropics and Aquatic Agricultural Systems) and the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security  Programme are experimenting with IAR4D approaches such as farmer-led approaches to agricultural research and innovation. The 2011 study on Practical application of CGIAR research results by smallholder farmers has indicated that projects adopting IP of IAR4D approaches are more successful in building partnerships and achieve more impact on value chains at the local level. Evidence suggests that these approaches are slowly being adopted throughout the CGIAR system, but that there are still many difficulties in the design and implementation of the programme strategies to involve stakeholders sufficiently. This is acknowledged throughout the CG system, by GFAR and partners of CGIAR. There are still institutional barriers (culturally, financially) to address these issues.

A big challenge in agricultural research and innovation systems GFAR highlights is the reconciliation and linking of two types of knowledge and innovation; one coming from science and the other that of farmers own innovation. GFAR initiates activities that are key to AR4D capacity development like access to information, strengthening advisory services and strengthening the involvement of universities in the agricultural research system.

Evidence suggests that EU DEVCO and RTD financing modalities appear to lack systematic thought on how they can support the interlocking research, innovation and development processes that go beyond the research project itself, aiming to influence policy, institutional and practical change; and how they can be adaptive and flexible in supporting the technological, commercial, institutional and policy innovation processes that by their very nature have to adjust regularly in response to the lessons they learn. As a result, there exists a mismatch between the long impact pathway of support to R and I to development processes and the expected widespread, practical, commercial, policy and institutional impact. There is also a lack of continuity of the projects supported. The different phases of innovation impact pathways - research, development, testing, adaptation and the social (commercial, organisational, institutional, policy and practice) innovations that need to accompany the adoption of the innovation and its scaling up generally takes many more years than one project cycle allows for. As a result projects lower their ambitions for impact due to the shorter time horizons (and shorter periods of time available to prepare the proposals). Complex interventions with many partnerships become more difficult to plan for because of these shorter periods to prepare the proposals.

The 2009-2010 Global Programme on Agricultural Research for Development (GPARD) was based on the results of a consultation exercise (workshop in 2008) with the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and the European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD), while discussing the EC’s agricultural research programming for the Framework Programme 7 – Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology Theme (FP7-FAFB). Further inputs were provided by the Southern Advisory Group (SAG). EU member states have also been consulted through the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD), whereby some have expressed their interest to join the GPARD. This implies that the ongoing interventions of the EC under the GPARD are in accordance with the views of the agricultural research institutes in the developing countries and likely with those of the EU member states. (...) EIARD. This implies that the expected outcomes of GPARD are to be in line with the views of these main ARD players. (...)  The six applications placed on the reserve list were awarded a Grant Contract under the GPARD for a total grant value of EUR 14.8 million. (...) Most partners are national universities and research centres or institutes; in some cases international organizations (e.g. FAO) and local NGOs. (...) Most Grant Contracts will end sometime in 2016-2017. (...) To date the sources of evidence available are rather limited for almost all Grant Contracts. (...) For none of the Grant Contracts, project progress or annual reports are available.

VOLUME 4 – ANNEX 9: COUNTRY NOTES

1. Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso is involved in a structured policy dialogue with RTD through its Ministry of Research. Recently, the Burkina Faso Government itself has established a competitive National Fund for Research.

The recent AGRA assessment (2014) identified a number of legal and regulatory constraints limit progress by the private sector in agriculture in Burkina Faso. These include weak institutional capacity, poorly trained human resources in the public as well as the private sector, and a risk-averse banking sector that does not willingly invest in agriculture; all conditions that severely hamper innovation in the sector. According to the same report, the country is trying to tackle these constraints, with the active involvement of a number of development partners including the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), the World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Agence Française de Développement (AfD) and the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).

Much agricultural extension work is currently done by non-governmental organisations, sometimes in collaboration with private initiatives and/or government research institutes, such as the Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (CNRST) and the Centre International de Recherche – Développement sur l’Elevage en zone subhumide (CIRDES). Sources interviewed indicate that often, donors put more trust in non-governmental organisations than in public institutes for delivering on research and innovation projects. As a result of all of the above, the institutional landscape for R and I for rural and agricultural development is described as extremely fragmented and does not reflect the implementation of a clear vision or strategy for rural and agricultural development.

Research teams generally do work closely together with NGO’s, national extension services and small businesses on innovation. This leads oftentimes to ‘deep’ innovation – research partners collaborate successfully with other stakeholders including practitioners to achieve changes in (farming, health, conservation) practices. Yet these impacts remain limited in scale; only those practitioners participating directly in the project learn and may adopt the new practices developed. All partners report difficulties with scaling up innovations to practitioners not having been involved directly in the project. (...) In general, the innovation system’s downstream organizationsand institutions (extension services, business advisors, input and services suppliers, farmcredit and risk insurance systems, NGO’s and other organizations that are needed to enable large numbers of farmers to apply validated innovations in practice) generally seem too weak to play their role effectively.

Recent participatory evaluations of the [Fertipartenaires] project results confirm the widespread improvement of farmers’ knowledge on soil fertility management, in particular composting techniques, yet wide-spread adoption lags behind. Lack of monitoring data hinders further investigation into current adoption rates and their causes.

An observation that is repeatedly made is that the EU is too much focused on monitoring during the research project – with rigid reporting procedures and due payments to project partners made only if the report has been approved, which can take considerable time - and not enough on capitalising on the results for outcomes and impact. Many interviewees suggest that a larger share of R and I project budgets needs to be reserved - in fact, demanded - for ensuring that results are documented and shared widely, and that the research process is extended to include the verification and documentation of development outcomes and impact.

2. Ethiopia

Agriculture is among the most important sectors for research in the country and there are various research institutes specifically working in these two areas. These research institutes often link with external donors to fund their research activities. One of the most crucial problems for R and I in Ethiopia is the weak linkage between universities / research institutes and industry, which greatly hinders research outputs from making a meaningful impact on the country’s development. The STI policy argues that the linkages should focus on improving the productivity of manufacturing and service providing enterprises. The other major challenge identified is brain drain due in part to the low salaries paid by the government. There are many qualified Ethiopians doing research in their field of specializations. However, most of them live abroad, as one interviewee pointed out during the mission.

The Ministry of Science and Technology grants National Science, Technology and Innovation awards to individuals on a competitive basis on different grounds, including research and innovation achievement.

Coffee is the main export product of Ethiopia, and the EU has a long track record of support to the Coffee Sector. It is the only donor at scale, and (as confirmed by several Ethiopian officials during interviews) is well known for its support to the sector, including in rural communities. The continuity of the EU’s commitment and its tailored approach are highly appreciated by stakeholders. Support through the Coffee Improvement Programme (CIP) led to the development of eleven new varieties with increased resistance, which according to various officials contributed greatly to the productivity of the sector over the whole period of CIP, thereby contributing to poverty reduction and food security objectives. The varieties created through the programme are widely known and used among farmers (to the extent that are commonly referred to as ‘CIP coffee’). The integrated approach, combining applied research on the one hand and extension activities and training courses offered at the National Coffee Improvement Research Programme at Jimma Agricultural Research Center (JARC) of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) on the other, was also widely acknowledged as a major strength of the programme, as it enhanced its impact.

Applied research under the CIP has contributed to the development of 11 new seed varieties with increased resistance. This has caused significant increases in productivity, and has helped avoiding the devastation of the Ethiopian coffee industry, thereby contributing to poverty reduction and food security objectives. The CIP is thus fully in line with EU development objectives.

CIP IV ended in 2010, after which there was a break for five years as the EU felt institutional changes to the coffee sector hampered progress. However, following high level exchanges the EU is now taking a renewed interest in supporting the sector under the 11th EDF and this is widely welcomed among stakeholders. The establishment of a new Tea and Coffee Authority under the Ministry of Agriculture, which would create a new body that would serve as focal point for programme implementation within the Ministry, responds to one of the key concerns and preconditions of the EU to restart support.

Sustaining partnerships with other research organisations – whether European or African – remains a challenge. Due to the competitive nature of FP7/Horizon 2020, securing funding for a follow-up project is difficult so it is not always possible to continue successful collaborations from one project to another. Cooperation between African research institutions themselves is rather limited, according to an Ethiopian academic interviewed. The reason is that international funding usually comes from the US or the EU, and therefore it is considered better to cooperate with European or American institutes. Thus, partnerships with African institutes are usually developed through European partners.

3. India
4. Kenya

Kenya was selected because it was a major recipient of DG DEVCO support for R and I (one of the top 15 in the inventory). DEVCO R&I bilateral support in Kenya was heavily slanted towards food security and rural livelihoods, with considerable attention given to adaptation to climate change and environmental sustainability. End users of research results emerging from DEVCO-supported R&I in Kenya are essentially farmers and rural households and communities. Time limitations prevented field visits outside Nairobi, but in all interviews, the issue of concrete impact at the household and community levels was solicited. 

DEVCO support was aligned with government priorities. However, these priorities are not convincingly presented – or, to put it differently, the Government has outcome and sector result priorities, but nor R and I priorities. Multiple stakeholders interviewed expressed the view that during the evaluation period, there was no real government R and I strategy. Government capacity remains low and, despite commitments, it is likely that R&I will continue to be largely donor supported for the foreseeable future.

Kenyan participation in FP7 has been relatively high, but there is no evidence that DEVCO support enhanced or facilitated this. Senior officials at the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology expressed the view that FP7 ran essentially independent of EUD support, a view generally in line with discussions at the EUD. There is no evidence at country level that there is any strategy for cooperation between DEVCO and RTD or for promoting complementarity of DEVCO projects and FP7 grants. 

Thanks to the growing orientation of the CGIAR system towards stakeholder involvement and translating research results into development processes and outcomes, there has been increasing emphasis on integration into regional and international networks including all stakeholders, from the farm and community level up to government, the private sector, and other research organisations. (...) CGIAR scientists at both ILRI and ICRAF have been FP7 participants but this is separate from the funding they receive from Brussels through IFAD and there is not necessarily any coordination between the activities. 

The EUD is unable to exercise any coordination over global activities such as CGIAR because funding comes directly to these programmes from Brussels (via IFAD in the case of CGIAR). As a result the EUD is not aware of what is going on and, it is reported, neither is Government. By contrast, most AU-IBAR regional projects are managed by the EUD and staffers interviewed were very knowledgeable on, e.g., the AU-IBAR bee health project. Better communication and coordination, such as annual meetings to compare notes and share experiences, would be desirable.

Field interviews with experts outside KALRO left the impression of some progress, but limitations nonetheless. Some experts expressed the view that KALRO is still slow to bring in the right partners and share results; others cited a persistent institutional culture of pure research; others cited institutional difficulties in delivering on-time results as part of a larger multipartner work plan. 

While KALRO has research capacity, it is not responsible for extension activities, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, outside of pointed efforts like the Kenyan Arid and Semi-Arid Land Research Programme (KASAL), research results are not effectively communicated to those who could innovate. The situation is much the same at KEFRI, where it is the Kenya Forestry Service that has the extension capability.

In the FP7 Joint Learning in and about Innovation Programmes in African Agriculture project (JOLISAA), research institutions in four European and three African countries (KALRO in Kenya among them) studied innovation processes in smallholder farms. They developed an insightful conceptual framework as well as an international innovation research network that continues to function. The main insight from the project, that innovation continues long after the project has ceased and merits close follow-up and monitoring, has affected KALRO’s overall approach to R&I projects.

A structural problem, as reported at ILRI, is that capacity building efforts tend, both at the institute and individual levels, to disproportionately benefit those whose capacity is already reasonably high. For example, in response to this problem ASARECA has adopted a form of “affirmative action” to ensure that weak countries like Burundi benefit from calls for proposals as well as the traditional strong performers such as Kenya. 

Another structural problem is that capacity at national level is severely skewed towards downstream implementation rather than upstream fundamental research. This is an unintended but unavoidable consequence of the increase emphasis on translating research results into tangible development impacts. tangible development. “Hard” scientists are poorly equipped to communicate to Government why their work is important and to justify the high infrastructure requirements and long-term time frame that are required. A challenge for sustainability is that there is virtually no donor support in the form of core funds.

A structural problem is that R and I is a long-term process – from laboratory to farmer involving about 6-8 years in the case of developing crop varieties and can take up to 20-30 years in developing livestock breeds. It is not realistic to support long-term R and I endeavours on the basis of recurrent short-term project finance. Research institutions require, in addition, core funding to finance recurrent expenditure; finance that is almost by definition excluded from EU funding instruments. 

Research organisations can only take products to the prototype stage; real commercialisation requires involvement of the private sector. In semi-arid regions under the Kenyan Arid and Semi-Arid Land Research Programme (KASAL ) project, a partnership was established with East Africa Malting Limited, a subsidiary of East Africa Breweries Limited, Breweries Limited, to produce sorghum beer. This resulted in KeSh 105 million of sorghum being delivered to the brewers -- a substantial income gain for the farmer producers. KASAL popularised new varieties of cassava developed by KALRO, benefiting an estimated 9,000 farmers. Amarenth cultivation was promoted in semi-arid regions, substituting for imports from India and Uganda and improving the nutrition of vulnerable groups and promoting food security. KASAL also contributed to improvements related to cowpeas. In the area of livestock, KASAL contributed to improved range reseeding and pasture management and chicken vaccination. All activities saw research results disseminated, supported, and commercialised.

Based on interviews with relevant staff, Kenyan research parastatals are well aware of the need to shift from a top-down, upstream-to-downstream approach to R and I to a more integrated value chain approach in which local needs and market potential are assessed first and research needs are prioritised accordingly. Similarly, the importance of involving the private sector in commercialisation has been appreciated. The same can be about CGIAR and GPARD projects. These projects all involved local communities, end-users, etc. In the case of CGIAR, donor pressure has played a role in increasing the focus on development results. While the field mission revealed government ambition to coordinate R and I to meet development needs, there is limited capacity to do so.

Sustainability is a pervasive issue and has several dimensions. The R and I pipeline is long in the two main fields covered here (FSNA and EnvCC). One dimension of sustainability arises from the fact that the increased donor focus on downstream applications-oriented R and I, with its emphasis on disseminating tangible innovative applications, is a double-edged sword. While laudable in some respects, if overdone it carries the risk that capacity built will be so heavily skewed towards downstream needs that the Kenyan scientific contribution upstream will shrink to a trickle. Not only is this unfavourable for long-term scientific contribution to national development; it also threatens to reduce Kenyan participation in international hard science, which has become irreversibly global in nature. A second dimension of the sustainability issue is that the R and I process is not well suited to financing via cascading short-term project approaches. Research institutions need core finance in order to attract talent and capitalise on the project funding available. While this problem affects all R and I institutions including global ones, it is of particular concern for Kenyan national institutions. Despite the stated ambition of massively increasing R and I’s claim on the budget, state support for R and I in Kenya has and will likely continue to be far lower than in comparator countries such as South Africa. This cannot help but be a negative factor for sustainability.

5. Mauritius

The Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI), which has been lead in a major EU-supported multi-country research programme in the sugar sector, is the 9th biggest beneficiary of DEVCO R and I funding. (...) Final beneficiaries/potential end users of the main intervention (sugar cane farmers or sugar cane factories) were not interviewed directly, as the results of the programme investigated have not yet reached the end users. (...) The original project documents were prepared eight years before funding was secured, and interviewees state that there were limited options for thoroughly adapting the project documents to the prevailing situation at the time of funding. A more thorough revision of the project documents might have led to more tangible results and impact.

The programme has not strived to expand either the north-south R and I network  (opening for more internationally supported projects) or the scope of R and I in the MSIRI (opening for R&I within other sectors, inclusion of socio-economic elements etc.); such components might have been supportive of the institution’s long term sustainability.

There is evidence of South-South collaboration e.g between MSIRI and Fiji Sugar  Research Institute and Jamaica Sugar Research Institute. (...) The programme has led to sparse cooperation with European institutions. However, a cooperation with CIRAD on weed identification on neighbouring Reunion Island (France) has been established and may leave to new joint efforts.

Research results generated through these projects have not benefitted the end users up to this point of time due to: an originally weak description of the ways how to achieve impact in programme and project documents; the very recent achievement of several of the key results; and one project (developing new sugarcane varieties) is characterised by a very long research time (more than years) and with insecure funding after expiration of the ACP-programme, why there is no implementation at the shorter term and perhaps not even at the longer term (if other funding is not secured).

6. Peru
7. South Africa

South Africa’s overall expenditure on R and D exceeds that of many developing countries but compares poorly with other BRICS countries (with the exception of India) and lags greatly in terms of investments in R and D made by developed countries. In addition, countries such as Brazil, Russia and China (as well as many other developing and developed countries) have all seen a rise in the percentage of GDP spent on R and D between 2007 and 2009, despite the negative effects of the global financial crisis. of critical areas of research and technology development. (...) The Department of Science and Technology (DST) Innovation Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy – Ten Year Plan for South Africa (2008-2018) was developed to drive South Africa’s transformation towards a knowledge-based economy in which the production and dissemination of knowledge would, over time, increase the proportion of national income derived from knowledge-based industries, the percentage of the workforce employed in knowledge-based jobs and the ratio of firms using technology to innovate.

It became clear through the desk research and preparatory field work that South Africa presented a special opportunity to address questions regarding the relationship between DEVCO support and RTD’s FP7. Two themes that were persistent in desk work were (i) that a major purpose of DEVCO support was (and should be) capacity building to enable partner countries’ scientific establishments to participate in FP7 and Horizon 2020 and (ii) that RTD framework programmes, demand-driven via the Call for Proposals approach, were not sufficiently aligned to development priorities. (...) One of the concerns of this evaluation has been the commented-on disconnect between FP7, an open calls instrument with legal basis in ensuring European scientific excellence, and EU development goals. Nothing in this field mission found evidence of a conflict.

The EU supported the Department of Science and Technolgy (DST) of South Africa from 2008 to 2012 to implement the country’s Science and Technology policy, with a particular focus on applied research that contributes to poverty alleviation through employment creation. [This included a.o.] the establishment of sustainable livelihoods through small-scale, S and T-based agro-processing and aquaculture industries in line with the bio-economy objectives of the sector.

While not yet implemented, the DST has expressed interest in using future DEVCO budget support to review FP7 results for possible application to poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods. A number of FP7 initiatives promoted African involvement in research more broadly. ERA-Africa brought together European and African researchers, The ESASTAP-PLUS project to promote FP7 (and Horizon 2020) participation by South Africa was regarded by the EUD as a great success. It also promoted South Africa in Europe. CAAST-Net sought to promote African response to the EU Strategy for Africa.

The need to better involve the private sector is recognised both by government and research institutions, as are the facts that the private sector already engages in a significant amount of R&I and is reluctant to participate in multi-partner initiatives. 

Support from the RTD S and T Advisor in Addis was repeatedly cited as a factor
in the success of EU cooperation in South Africa. (...) The model of DEVCO support – in the form of a Sector Policy Support Programme (SPSP) to a strong Ministry charged with overseeing R and I policy, including  setting priorities for FP7 and acting on these through co-funding – could be a model for other countries. (...) “Those that have, shall receive” is an old saying. It is clear that the high level of capacity that exists in South Africa and its economic strength have made for ideal conditions for the success of EU-South African cooperation in R and I. The country offers an excellent case study in what can be done to stimulate similarly successful results in countries less favourably endowed at the outset.

8. Tunisia
9. Ukraine
10. Vietnam