A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa

A WORLD FREE OF HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION
2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA
Tel: +1-202-862-5600 | Fax: +1-202-467-4439 | ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org
A member of the CGIAR Consortium
A SCOPING STUDY OF THE EVOLVING
INSTUTIONAL STRUCTURES/PLATFORMS FOR THE
DELIVERY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO
AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA
Yihenew Zewdie
April 2017

I
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................i
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................ii
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives and Scope ...............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Sources and perspectives informing the study ..................................................................................2
2. Synopsis of global and Africa-wide frameworks for enhancing the application of STI in
agriculture ..................................................................................................................................................................2
2.1 The CGIAR Reform and the quest for partnership in Africa.............................................................2
2.2 STIs in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme ...................................3
2.3 Strategies and platforms for the engagement of tertiary agricultural educational institutions
with Africa’s agricultural transformation agenda ..........................................................................................5
2.4 Programmatic/institutional frameworks on agricultural extension and advisory services ....6
2.5 The Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa .....................................................................................6
3. STI-focused support to CAADP-based national agricultural investment plans (NAIPs) – the
Technical Networks in perspective........................................................................................................................8
3.1 Evolution of technical support to NAIPs ..............................................................................................8
3.2 The Technical Networks .........................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 Rationale and expected deliverables...........................................................................................9
3.2.2 Thematic focus and operational modalities.............................................................................10
3.2.3 CGIAR’s engagement with the Technical Networks ................................................................11
4. The Science for Agriculture Consortium (S4AC).......................................................................................11
4.1 The rationale for the S4AC....................................................................................................................11
4.2 Key Result Areas of the Consortium and linkages with the Science Agenda ..............................12
4.3 Potential areas of collaboration between the CGIAR and the S4AC..............................................13
4.4 Recent developments and next steps .................................................................................................14
5. The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation Programme ............................................14
5.1 Background to the Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation - the Feed Africa
initiative in perspective .....................................................................................................................................14
5.2 TAAT .........................................................................................................................................................15
5.2.1 Goals and Objective.......................................................................................................................15
5.2.2 Principles of delivery and implementation arrangements ...................................................16
5.3 TAAT and the CGIAR: Progress to-date ..............................................................................................16
5.4 The African Agricultural Research Programme...............................................................................18
6. Shared intra- and inter-regional research & scientific platforms – Focus on the BecA-ILRI Hub...18

II
6.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................18
6.2 BecA-ILRI hub’s model of science capacity strengthening & technology transfer.....................19
6.3 Next steps in regional scientific coordination ..................................................................................21
7. CGIAR’s Platform for Big Data in Agriculture [...............................................................................................21
7.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................21
7.2 The Platform in a nutshell...........................................................................................................................22
7.3 Operationalisation of the Platform’s potential .......................................................................................23
8. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................24
Annexes .....................................................................................................................................................................27
References.................................................................................................................................................................31

i
Acknowledgements
The writer would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following people in the provision of the
needed documents and/or in availing themselves for interviews, both sources of which formed the
bases for this report: Dr. Silim Nahdy and Mr. Max Max Olupot (AFAAS), Dr. Sidi Sanyang (AfricaRice),
Dr. Godfrey Bahiigwa and Mr. Maurice Lorka (AUC), Dr. Appolinaire Djikeng (BecA-ILRI Hub), Ms.
Laketch Mikael (Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency), Dr. Aggrey Agumya (FARA
Secretariat), Dr. Jawoo Koo (IFPRI), Dr. Steve Staal (ILRI), Drs. Gabrielle Persley and Howard Elliott
(Independent Consultants), and Dr. Ed Rege, Mr. Robert Ouma, and Dr. Philip Osano (PICO – Eastern
Africa).
The writer is very grateful to Ms. Kerri Wright Platais and Dr. Gabrielle Persley who provided a wide
range of helpful comments and inputs on the creation of this report. Thanks are also due to Dr.
Godfrey Bahiigwa (formerly Head of IFPRI’s Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office) as well as
Dr. James Warner (the current acting head of the same office) and Dr. Lulseged Tamene Desta of CIAT
- Ethiopia for providing office space at the ILRI-Addis Campus for an extended period of time.

ii
Executive Summary
This scoping study is an integral part of the grant that the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) provided to IFPRI within the framework of the “CGIAR Technical Support to the
African Agricultural Science Agenda.” The main objective of this scoping study is to undertake an
assessment of the evolving institutional architecture for the provision of technical support to the
agricultural transformation agenda in Africa - giving due emphasis to partnership opportunities that
could arise for CGIAR’s continued engagement with key African science, technology, and innovation
(STI) stakeholders.
The study explored the following six institutional
initiatives:
Technical Networks in support of the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP);
the drive towards establishment of a Science for
Agriculture Consortium (S4AC); the two major
continent-wide programmes that the African
Development Bank (AfDB) has initiated as part of its
current agricultural strategy for the continent: the
Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation
(TAAT) and the African Agricultural Research
Programme (AARP); the Biosciences eastern and
central Africa-International Livestock Research
Institute (BecA-ILRI) Hub, which is a shared biosciences
platform; and the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in
Agriculture.
To provide the context within which these initiatives
are expected to be implemented, the study presented an
overview of the main overarching programmatic
frameworks relevant for the delivery of STI to
agriculture in Africa. These include: the CGIAR reform
processes; CAADP; strategies and platforms facilitating
tertiary agricultural educational institutions and
advisory services; and the Science Agenda for
Agriculture in Africa (S3A).
The discussion on the CAADP Technical Networks was
framed in the context of the STI-focused support
expected to be given to CAADP-based national
agricultural investment plans (NAIPs). This discussion
pointed to the launch of the Technical Networks in
seven thematic areas that mirror the strategic action
areas enunciated in the Malabo Declaration, which is the most comprehensive recent declaration of
the African Union on advancing the CAADP agenda.
Key Messages of the Science Agenda
 Africa should commit to
strengthening its role as a player in
global science for agriculture to
drive the transformation of
agriculture and society.
 Science for agriculture in Africa is
too important to be outsourced.
African leaders must take
responsibility for enhancing the
role of science in their societies.
 Science is critical for the
preservation and use of Africa’s
rich biological heritage and
indigenous and local knowledge.
 Agricultural transformation in
Africa will not happen without
realizing the potential of women
and young people.
 Now is the time to increase
investments in science for
agriculture in Africa, when
countries have the means and
opportunities to invest, and gain
returns.
 African Solidarity in Science is an
important dimension of the
strategy for harnessing the power
of science to ensure that no country
is left behind.

iii
The discussion on the Science for Agriculture Consortium (S4AC) highlighted that this is a continental
strategic platform that Africa’s agricultural research and advisory service community has initiated
for operationalising the Science Agenda. Noting that this initiative is bound to benefit from the
accumulated experience of the CGIAR, the study identified potential areas of collaboration between
the CGIAR system and the S4AC. These include: provision of conceptual guidance in some of the
thematic focus areas of the S4AC, advice and assistance on organisation and management aspects of
the Consortium, collaboration around knowledge management and communications, and support for
resource mobilisation and fiduciary management.
The TAAT is by design aimed at mobilising proven and sustainable agricultural development
technologies and business practices generated by the CGIAR centres so as to bring about rapid
agricultural transformation in a wide range of commodity value chains and production systems on
the continent. TAAT has enabled substantial inter-agency collaboration among the CGIAR institutions
in the development of programme proposals and the initiative is expected to serve as a critical
linkage between CGIAR research capacity and national level implementation actors. The related
AARP has the potential to provide the CGIAR system with the necessary framework and prioritised
research agenda to strengthen its scientific partnerships and capacity development assistance to
NARS.
Through examining the record of shared intra- and inter-regional scientific platforms with emphasis
on the achievements and business models of the Biosciences eastern and central Africa (BecA-ILRI)
Hub, the report highlights how advanced research facilities, which are beyond the reach of individual
countries, have been put to use and the invaluable services the BecA-ILRI Hub has rendered to
scientists in the region and beyond. The report also underlined the role of BecA leadership in forging
partnerships with like-minded institutions and the significance of the BecA investors’ long-term
commitment to the BecA mission of “mobilising science for Africa’s development”. One of the success
factors of BecA is its ability to plan with and respond to the needs and priorities of its constituency
in a demand-driven manner as well as its track record to engage with investors in a partnership-
oriented manner whereby investors co-design research projects with BecA. This model promotes
solidarity among African countries in building shared science capacities.
The report also identified opportunities for strengthening linkages and working relationships
between policy-focused CGIAR Centres (e.g., IFPRI) and CRPs (e.g., PIM and CCAFS) and scientific
platforms such as BecA. The report noted that such considerations are consistent with the broader
thrust of managing the science-policy interface enunciated in the Science Agenda.
The discussion on the new CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture underscored the potential that
the S4AC and the different CAADP Technical Networks have in providing this initiative institutional
homes on the continent. These STI initiatives could be considered opportunities for nurturing
demand for support for Big Data management from countries, and for channelling the multitude of
capacity development support that the Platform intends to provide.
Although most of the initiatives described in the report are yet to evolve fully and secure the
necessary organisational and financial resources to roll out their services, most could be used to
advance the Science Agenda. While some of these initiatives provide the institutional base for
operationalising the Science Agenda (e.g., S4AC), others such as TAAT support the
upscaling/outscaling of proven technologies and hence augur well with the tenets of mainstreaming
the Science Agenda.

iv
The report, acknowledging the varying potentials of the surveyed initiatives for operationalising the
Science Agenda, underlines the importance of creating synergies and facilitating shared
communication among these platforms and institutions. The report also recognises that almost all of
these initiatives are at a conceptual stage, and that the organisational shape they take will depend on
a number of considerations, the main one being their ability to mobilise resources and thereby
sustainably provide the services they are expected to offer. Central to this is a realisation that Science
for agriculture in Africa is too important to be outsourced, and that African leaders must take
responsibility for enhancing the role of science in their societies. The initiatives described in this
report provide such an opportunity for African scientific and political leaders to demonstrate
ownership through taking effective action in support of a long-term science agenda for agriculture in
Africa.

1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
This scoping study is an integral part of the grant IFAD provided to IFPRI within the framework of
the “CGIAR Technical Support to the African Agricultural Science Agenda.” In particular, this IFAD-
funded project has three interrelated workstreams: Workstream 1 focuses on the development of
geospatial data base to monitor the extent of technology adoption and diffusion at the national level
drawing out lessons of experience from specific country case studies, so as to inform the formulation
of a Technology Platform being developed by the CGIAR. Workstream 2, on the other hand, deals with
establishment of web-based depositories of agricultural R & D indicators as part of the ASTI/IFPRI
programme at the sub-regional level as well as in selected countries. A related undertaking under
this workstream that was carried out by the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in
Agriculture (RUFORUM), is a portal of the current status of training of next generation African
scientists and technologies and pertinent current projects being run by African universities. Finally,
Workstream 3, to which this report pertains, is expected to explore the science and technology (S&T)
landscape from the point of view of the institutional and policy framework required in support of
CGIAR’s contribution to Africa’s own agenda for the delivery of science to the agricultural sector as
encapsulated in the Africa Union commission (AUC) and CGIAR Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU).
1.2 Objectives and Scope
This study was borne out of a recognition that institutions matter in facilitating the uptake of proven
technologies and that agricultural success stories all over the world have largely been built on the
effective functioning of institutions and the partnerships they forged. In this context, a closer
understanding of the evolving overarching delivery mechanisms of science, technology and
innovation (STI) in Africa goes a long way towards enabling the CGIAR system to deliver on the joint
actions stipulated under the AUC-CGIAR MoU.
The main objective of this scoping study was to undertake an assessment of the evolving institutional
architecture for the provision of technical support to the agricultural transformation agenda in Africa
giving due emphasis to partnership opportunities that could arise for CGIAR’s continued engagement
with key African STI stakeholders. In fulfillment of this objective, the study drew examples from the
following institutional initiatives/innovations:
 The new initiative by AUC and the NEPAD Agency for the creation and promotion of
Technical Networks in support of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP).
 The current drive towards establishment of a Science for Agriculture Consortium (S4AC)
by the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS), the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), the Centre
for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa
(CCARDESA), the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and
Development (WECARD - CORAF) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
(FARA).

2
 The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) Programme financed by
the African Development Bank (AfDB) under the banner ‘Africa Feeding Africa’ and its
offshoot, the African Agricultural Research Programme (AARP).
 Biosciences eastern and central Africa-International Livestock Research Institute (BecA-
ILRI) Hub, which is a shared agricultural research and biosciences platform, established as
a joint venture between AU/NEPAD and ILRI.
 The future use and development of the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture.
The last section provides a summing up and a reflection on possible next steps. The section outlines
the salient features of each of the initiatives and, in light of the multiplicity of the evolving STI
implementation platforms, underlines the timeliness of establishing a unified STI facility/service
portfolio that could add value to the existing tools and initiatives. The report concludes by recalling
the main tenet of the Science Agenda and the importance of investing in science for agricultural
transformation.
1.3 Sources and perspectives informing the study
The study employed a combination of methods, and the assessments and conclusions were informed
by different perspectives. Documentary analysis of the different initiatives, including review of
programme and strategy documents, evaluation reports as well as pertinent websites, constitute the
main source of information. (Details on this are provided under the Reference section.) Moreover,
interviews and email interactions with a total of 13 key informants from AU and African STI
institutions as well as from senior managers within the CGIAR system (see Annex 1 for details)
provided important insights into the workings of the initiatives described in this report. In the same
vein, feedback from participants of two workshops that IFPRI’s Scientific and Technical Partnership
for Africa Programme organised in December 2016 and April 2017 helped shape the conclusions of
the report. Finally, experiences of the writer from his direct engagement with CAADP processes and
with the formulation of the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A) had inevitably influenced
the overall tone and content of the report.
2. Synopsis of global and Africa-wide frameworks for enhancing the
application of STI in agriculture
2.1 The CGIAR Reform and the quest for partnership in Africa1
The CGIAR is comprised of a group of 15 international agricultural research centers that address
global development challenges and are funded by a large group of bilateral and multilateral donors.
Several of the CGIAR centres have field offices and operations in Africa. Four centres are
headquartered in Africa south of the Sahara (SSA). Over the years, SSA has been a major focus of
CGIAR’s operations. For instance, “SSA’s share of total CGIAR spending increased from 40 percent in
1992, to 43 percent in 2002, to about 50 percent in more recent years” (Roseboom and Flaherty
2016: 46).
The CGIAR centres have been instrumental in the generation of a diverse range of agricultural
technologies that have made significant contributions to agricultural productivity, natural resource
1 This section leans heavily on Roseboom, Johannes and Flaherty, Kathleen (2016).

3
management and agricultural policy making. The CGIAR has also provided first class capacity
strengthening support to national agricultural research systems (NARS) and sub-regional research
organisations (SROs).
These notwithstanding, the CGIAR centres have been beset by several challenges. Critics note CGIAR
Centres must make an effort to work in a more coordinated capacity to avoid duplication of efforts.
Moreover, the CGIAR centres have been criticised in some countries for a lack of accountability to
NARS and for employing a top-down approach in the generation and delivery of technologies.
In part to address these challenges, and taking into account the evolving context of international
agricultural research, the CGIAR took a conscious decision of organising research to help achieve its
strategic system level objectives (SLOs)2. To this end, in 2009/2010 the CGIAR reorganised Centre-
based research projects and programmes into 15 thematic programmes that cut across the Centres,
dubbed CGIAR Research programmes (CRPs). “The CRPs will make explicit the execution of CGIAR
research within an agricultural research for development (AR4D) framework that allows a clearer
linkage between investment in the CGIAR research and the potential impact on development
outcomes” (CGIAR 2011: 69)
The CRPs have diverse focus areas: Several of the CRPs are either commodity-specific aimed at
improving the yields and profits of specific agricultural commodities/commodity groups or are
programmes with the explicit purpose of enhancing the productivity, inclusiveness, profitability,
sustainability, and resilience of farming systems and/or landscapes. The remaining CRPs support
informed agricultural policy making or are established to manage and sustain (crop) genetic
resources. A notable exception to the above is the Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) which
endeavours to bring about gender-equitable health and nutritional benefits to the poor.
In an attempt to forge a stronger partnership between the CAADP institutions and framework with
the CGIAR Centres, an alignment process (originally referred to as the Dublin Process) began in 2011
and produced an MoU signed in January 2013 between the AUC and CGIAR for a period of ten (10)
years (for details, see AUC and CGIAR 2013). The partnership aims to enhance the capacity of
mandated African institutions to articulate and advance an African science and technology agenda
for agriculture that is anchored in CAADP-based plans. The MoU also envisages strengthening
synergies and complementarities between CGIAR planning processes for its Africa-oriented
initiatives, on the one hand, and, on the other, CAADP-based priorities in research, policy analysis,
training and knowledge management. Both the Science Agenda and a Technology Platform were
listed in the MoU as activities that could be undertaken together to bring forth stronger alignment
efforts.
2.2 STIs in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
Launched in 2003, CAADP represents African leaders’ collective vision for agricultural reform and
transformation on the continent. Under CAADP, African political leaders agreed to raise government
budgetary allocation to agriculture to at least 10 per cent in a space of five years. This, combined with
2 The following constitute CGIAR’s strategic system level outcomes (SLOs): reduction of rural poverty, increase
in food security, improving nutrition and health, and more sustainable management of natural resources. (for
details, see CGIAR 2011: 44)

4
investment in, and a programmatic focus on, four interrelated sub-sector specific priorities, initially
expressed as Pillars, and associated cross-cutting areas3 were believed to enable African countries to
register an annual average agricultural growth rate of 6 per cent. CAADP’s vison for the promotion
of STIs in agriculture is encapsulated in Pillar IV, which advances a strategy for enhancing agricultural
productivity by “revitalizing, expanding and reforming Africa’s agricultural research, and
technology dissemination and adoption efforts” (FAAP 2206). It specifically identifies the need for
improved human and institutional capacities to deal with new challenges that need to be addressed
through science and technology.
FARA has a mandate from the AUC to serve as its technical arm in addressing agricultural research
and development issues in Africa through providing the required leadership for the implementation
of CAADP Pillar IV. FARA, through its Secretariat, played an important role in developing the
Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) in 2006 that advocates for institutional
reform, increased investment and harmonisation of funding. The FAAP recognises the necessity of
closer collaboration between STI actors across the different spatial scales. At the sub-regional level,
in particular, FAAP underscores the importance of SROs in steering the planning, priority setting and
implementation of interventions that are better managed at a higher level of aggregation thereby
permitting the realisation of economies of scale, effective national level engagement, and helping
avoid costly duplications.
Responding to the organisational framework called for in the FAAP, the strategic and operational
plans of the SROs are aligned to significantly contribute to the achievement of the goals of CAADP
Pillar IV. In particular, the SROs have a common objective of coordinating agricultural research
among their member states, providing capacity building, managing agricultural knowledge, and
advocating for resource mobilisation and national, regional and continental level policy support. In
addition, the SROs serve as forums for promoting regional agricultural research and strengthening
relations between NARS, in their respective sub-regions, the CGIAR, and advanced agricultural
research centres. Moreover, during the last decade, promotion of supranational agricultural research
activities in selected priority areas has become an important domain of SROs engagement. Good cases
in point in this regard are the regional agricultural productivity programmes that ASRECA (since
2009), CORAF/WECARD (since 2007) and CCARDESA (since 2013)4 have been implementing in their
respective geographic domains.
In 2012, as CAADP neared a decade of implementation, the AUC and NEPAD Agency commissioned
an exercise to examine the drivers of accelerated CAADP implementation and the capacity needed to
deliver results and impact over and beyond the generation of investment plans. Dubbed the
Sustaining the CAADP Momentum Strategy (SCM), the main purpose of this exercise is to develop a
3 The four pillars and cross-cutting issues are:
Pillar 1: Extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systems;
Pillar 2: Improving rural infrastructure and trade related capacities for market accesses;
Pillar 3: Increasing food supply, reducing hunger, and improving responses to food emergency crises;
Pillar 4: Improving agriculture research, technology dissemination, and adoption;
Cross cutting issue 1: Capacity strengthening for agriculture and agri-business: academic and professional
training;
Cross cutting issue 2: Information for agricultural strategy formulation and implementation; and
Companion document: Integrating livestock, forestry and fisheries sub-sectors into CAADP.
4 Respectively, East Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme (EAAPP), West Africa Agricultural
Productivity Programme (WAAPP), and Agricultural Productivity Programme for Southern Africa (APSA).

5
bold agenda that will ratchet up performance to deliver more certain and substantial results. An
important plank of this Strategy is the premium placed on ‘knowledge and knowledge support’. In
this respect, the Strategy puts emphasis on the building of “robust capacity and institutions to
facilitate the construction of platforms, networks and communities of practice to increase available
knowledge and information as well as to stimulate co-creation and learning.” To this end, the Strategy
underscores the critical importance of stimulating “… increased investment in knowledge
infrastructure that includes: an education system - including technical and vocational education -
designed to produce a large workforce in science, technology and engineering; an R & D system; a
strong intellectual property regime; a technology transfer system; and a critical mass of innovative
firms and entrepreneurs” (NEPAD Agency 2012: 15-16)
Building on the SCM Strategy and seizing the opportunity of the declaration of 2014 as the African
Year of Agriculture and Food Security, in June 2014 in the city of Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, the AU
Assembly adopted a 10-year strategy for reenergising CAADP and revitalising agriculture in Africa:
the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity
and Improved Livelihoods. This Declaration has eight interrelated thematic focus areas, each of which
having varying implications for the application of STI on the continent. However, the following two
goals stand out as being particularly relevant for the unique contributions expected of the science
community in Africa and their partners globally: 1) Commitment to Ending Hunger in Africa by 2025
and 2) Commitment to Enhancing Resilience of Livelihoods and Production Systems to Climate
Variability and other related risks (AUC 2014: 4-6).
2.3 Strategies and platforms for the engagement of tertiary agricultural
educational institutions with Africa’s agricultural transformation
agenda5
Various pronouncements on CAADP and the Pillar IV strategy (FAAP) routinely underline the need
to revitalise the tertiary agricultural educational institutions (TAEIs) so as to enable them to respond
to the human resource requirements of Africa’s agricultural transformation agenda.
Over the years, the agricultural education agenda in Africa has been championed by RUFORUM and
ANAFE (the Africa Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources).
With its Secretariat at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, RUFORUM was founded in 2004. It is
a network of 46 universities in SSA. The Principal goal of RUFORUM include the following:
 Build high-quality and relevant postgraduate agricultural education, research and
knowledge-sharing;
 Provide technology platforms and the “skills revolution” needed for Universities to be leading
actors in the national agricultural transformation systems; and
 Serve as a dynamic regional platform for policy advocacy, lobbying, coordination, and
resource mobilisation for improved education/ training, research and outreach by
universities.
ANAFE, on the other hand, is a network of 143 educational institutions in 35 African countries whose
objective is to strengthen the teaching of multi-disciplinary approaches to land management. The
5 The information in this section has been synthesised from RUFORUM 2015 and www.anafe-africa.org

6
ANAFE Secretariat is hosted at the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. A key strategic objective of ANAFE is to support the development of
enabling policy and institutional environment for quality tertiary agriculture, agroforestry, forestry
and other natural resources education and research.
ANAFE and RUFORUM have been chosen in SSA to spearhead the involvement of TAEIs into the
CAADP process through a programme entitled the Tertiary Mechanism for Agriculture Education for
Africa (TEAM Africa).
2.4 Programmatic/institutional frameworks on agricultural extension and
advisory services6
The FAAP argues for a move towards a more participatory agricultural extension where the focus
should be not only be on enabling growth in agricultural productivity, but also in ensuring that
agricultural extension contributes to the empowerment of agricultural producers. Thus, FAAP
advocates for the value of a shift in extension systems from prescribing to facilitating and the need
for a deliberate focus on building the capacity of rural people. These are key considerations in the
operations of the African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Service (AFAAS), a continental network
established in 2004 encouraged by the institutional reforms with regards to the delivery of
agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) that many African countries had undertaken.
These reforms centred largely on improving accountability to clients and putting in place a demand-
and market-driven service provision systems involving multiple actors. Given that these reforms
reflected the diversity of situations on the ground, there was considerable room for lessons learning
and experience sharing with regards to the organisation and management of agricultural extension
and advisory services. Thus, the need for AFAAS rested on the desire for African countries to have a
common voice and a mechanism for sharing experiences and exchanging information on the
challenges facing agricultural advisory services (AAS) as well as to have continental organ that can
spearhead and coordinate their responses to the challenges facing AEAS in their countries.
Thus AFAAS is essentially a knowledge network, its core function being knowledge management.
Moreover, AFAAS has a continent-wide role of spearheading interventions aligned with the Malabo
declaration in the area of AEAS. A key part of this role relates to strengthening capacities at country
level to contribute to CAADP roundtables and implementation CAADP-inspired national agricultural
investment plans (NAIPs).
2.5 The Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa7
It is in this context, with the various institutional initiatives underway, that the call was made for a
Science Agenda to exist in Africa. The Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (or Science Agenda)
refers to the science, technology, extension, innovations, policy and social learning Africa needs to
apply in order to meet its evolving agricultural development goals. The main strategic goal of the
6 Much of the information contained in this section has been summarised from AFAAS 2011, 2015a and
2015b.
7 This draws heavily from FARA 2014.

7
Science Agenda is to increase public and private
sector investment into agriculture R&D and at
least double the volume of investment by 2030.
One of the stated aims of the S3A relates to a
significant reduction of Africa’s dependence on
donor funding for research during the same
period.
The Science Agenda has six strategic thrusts: a)
an enduring vision; b) CAADP as a short term
priority; c) research themes that connect
institutions and policies with producers,
consumers and entrepreneurs; d)
strengthening solidarity and partnerships at
national, regional and international levels; e)
sustainable financing of science and technology;
f) creating a favourable policy environment for
science; and g) establishing a special fund for
the Science Agenda.
The Science Agenda has operational goals that
are expected to be pursued in varying time
horizons. In the short-term, the Science
Agenda strives to facilitate increment in
domestic public and private sector spending
and create the enabling environment for
sustainable application of science for
agriculture. In the medium term, the goal is
to build basic science capacity at national and regional levels with special attention to the youth
and women. On the other hand, the long-term goal is set as doubling current level (as of 2014)
of Agricultural Total Factor Productivity (ATFP) by 2025 through application of science for
agriculture.
The core purpose of the science agenda is, to advocate for the importance of science as part of the
transformation process of agriculture in Africa.
The Science Agenda delineates the strategic investments in science, technology and innovation for
accelerated increases in productivity, equitable development and sustainably productive
environments in Africa.
The Agenda identifies a suite of issues and options for increasing and deepening the contributions of
science to the development of agriculture in Africa, at the local, national, regional and Pan African
levels. In particular, the Science Agenda identifies a range of thematic focus areas that would facilitate
Africa’s agricultural transformation and underpins these within the sustainable intensification
discourse. Moreover, the Science Agenda provides pointers to strengthen institutional systems of
science for agriculture through, for instance, integrating higher agricultural education with research
and extension and enhancing regional cooperation. The Science Agenda also underlines the key role
that national commitment plays in the sustainable financing of scientific endeavours. In the same
Box 1: Key Messages of the Science Agenda
 Africa should commit to strengthening its
role as a player in global science for
agriculture to drive the transformation of
agriculture and society.
 Science for agriculture in Africa is too
important to be outsourced. African leaders
must take responsibility for enhancing the
role of science in their societies.
 Science is critical for the preservation and
use of Africa’s rich biological heritage and
indigenous and local knowledge.
 Agricultural transformation in Africa will
not happen without realizing the potential
of women and young people.
 Now is the time to increase investments in
science for agriculture in Africa, when
countries have the means and
opportunities to invest, and gain returns.
 African Solidarity in Science is an important
dimension of the strategy for harnessing
the power of science.... No country should
be left behind.
Source: FARA 2014: 3 - 4.

8
vein, the Science Agenda considers
favourable policy environment and
effective management of the
science-policy interface as
important determinants of pursuing
a science-rooted agricultural
transformation.
The Science Agenda also embodies a
partnership strategy. It provides the
necessary justifications for
engagement with agricultural policy
makers and key CAADP
stakeholders as well as with
institutional players in the global
agricultural research system.
3. STI-focused support to
CAADP-based national
agricultural
investment plans
(NAIPs) – the
Technical Networks in
perspective
3.1 Evolution of technical
support to NAIPs
Initially, CAADP was considered as a
Programme with budgetary tags
attached mainly to the four pillars.
Increasingly, African experts saw
the need for shifting the focus of
CAADP away from pre-conceived
programmes to a Framework that
allows context-specific programme
development in an iterative,
inclusive and consultative manner.
Also, after several attempts at fast-
tracking CAADP implementation,
the AUC and the NEPAD Agency (the
then NEPAD Secretariat) adopted
Roundtable Approach as a vehicle to
advance the process on the ground.
These entailed, among others,
Box 2: CAADP Technical Networks and their key tasks
1. Agricultural investment financing.
a. Development of tools for increasing financing
to agriculture
b. Exploring, sharing and scaling up good
practices to increase agricultural financing
2. Food and nutrition security.
a. Collate pertinent information to inform policies
and programmes
b. Review current CAADP nutrition roadmap and
help report on nutrition indicators
c. Identify and bridge capacity development gas at
national and sub-regional levels
3. Agricultural research and extension.
a. Situational analysis to assess capacity needs
and gaps
b. Harness the relevant expertise to respond to
identified needs/gaps
c. Evaluate the performance of the research and
extension system
4. Agro-industry and value chain development.
a. Mapping of countries by needs
b. Raising awareness of the available services to
all stakeholders
c. Availing relevant expertise to countries
5. Markets and regional trade.
a. Development/documentation of best practices
on structured trading systems
b. Collating information on existing platforms that
could be used to inform policy
6. Resilience, risk management and natural resources
management.
a. Situational analysis to assess capacity needs
and gaps
b. Mobilise and deploy the relevant expertise to
respond to identified needs/gaps
7. Knowledge management and policy analysis.
a. Country capacity needs assessment and
implementation of pertinent capacity building
plan.
b. Establishment of multi-stakeholder forum for
interaction and knowledge sharing.
Source: PICO Eastern Africa 2016a.

9
preparation of country-level CAADP compacts and investment plan formulation and review
processes following standardised formats and procedures. These in turn necessitated the
deployment of technical experts to support the planning and programming processes in a coherent
and comparable manner. Over several years the consensus was a network of experts were needed,
to work across areas of importance to deliver on the CAADP goals.
3.2 The Technical Networks8
3.2.1 Rationale and expected deliverables
The CAADP Technical Networks were launched in September 2016. This a joint initiative of the AUC
and the NEPAD Agency with organisational and technical support from Africa Lead, a USAID
programme, and PICO Eastern Africa, a Nairobi based consultancy firm. It is envisaged to organise
the Networks around seven thematic/priority areas – Box 2. Needless to say, the CAADP Technical
Networks mirror the Malabo Declaration Strategic Action Areas. The goal is to have all networks fully
functional in 2017.
The impetus that the Malabo Declaration gave to an accelerated implementation of CAADP has
brought to the fore the urgency of establishing a credible mechanism for building and supporting
effective and efficient implementation capacity at national, regional and continental levels. This has
led to the establishment of CAADP Technical Networks (TNs), a mechanism that would support the
delivery of capacity through leveraging existing skills and competencies. Establishment of TNs has
been a consultative process and, has obtained the endorsement of CAADP’s key continental and
global stakeholders. One of the main recommendations of the 12th CAADP Partnership Platform reads
thus: “AUC and NPCA [should] facilitate technical support for implementation of New Generation of
NAIPs through the establishment of Technical Networks. Technical Networks will help identify
appropriate policies, programs and practices that can accelerate achievement of the Malabo
Declaration goals and target.”
CAADP Technical Networks are understood to be community of practitioners who, through a
structured process of sharing, co-create substantive technical knowledge, expertise, tools and
practices. They are collaborative platforms for harnessing and channeling technical support and
capacity development to relevant CAADP implementing agencies. Unlike the previous models of
technical support, CAADP Technical Networks are expected to render services not just to government
departments of agriculture but also to other national stakeholders, including non-state actors (e.g.,
farmers organisations and agri-business consortia).
CAADP Technical Networks will be composed of organisations with relevant capacity and track
record of delivering technical support at the local level and have an Africa presence. These
organisations are also expected to share the vision of CAADP for agricultural transformation, have
some resources to carry out the required capacity strengthening tasks and/or the ability to mobilise
resources. These organisations are also expected to be team players - willing to work under a
common framework with other network members.
Operating on a demand-driven basis, but also getting involved in the nurturing/creation of demand,
the Networks are expected to deliver, inter alia, the following:
8 Much of the information in this section has been synthesised from PICO – Eastern Africa 2016a and 2016b.

10
 best practice or state-of-the-art methods/tools in specific technical areas
 targeted training and other capacity development support as appropriate
 technical advice responding to specific queries
 facilitation of continuous learning and purpose-tailored experience sharing
3.2.2 Thematic focus and operational modalities
The Technical Networks were launched in 2016 and are at an initial phase with members identified
and underway, and others still formative. Membership into a Technical Network is voluntary, and
potential candidates are expected to apply for membership. In some cases, pertinent institutions are
advised/requested to be members of Technical Networks for which they have competence. These
processes are being facilitated by PICO Eastern Africa. The firm has been involved in, among other
activities, mentoring and coaching each of the networks so that the latter internalised the specific
roles and responsibilities expected of them whilst working under a common framework.
There are no limits to the number of agencies per TN. As at end December 2016, the TN on
agricultural investment financing had the lowest number of members (five), while the TNs on
agricultural research and extension and knowledge management and policy analysis had the highest
number of members (14 members each). An institution can be member of more than one TN.
The majority of the TN members are not only Africa-based but also are Africa-led research,
development and capacity-building-focused organisations/networks/private sector associations.
Many of these institutions have either continental mandates (e.g., AFAAS, African Agricultural
Technology Foundation - AATF, FARA, Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa - PACA, and
RUFORUM) or have regional/sub-regional responsibilities (ASARECA, CCARDESA, and Eastern Africa
Grain Council - EAGC). Most of the remaining TN members are based outside of Africa or are African
chapters of international organisations, and these include IFPRI, the International Fertiliser
Development Centre (IFDC), the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) and
the FAO Regional Office for Africa.
Regarding the operationalisation of the TNs, it is expected that each of the Network members
integrate their CAADP-support activities into their organisation’s work plan and budgets and that,
they should be prepared to raise funds and mobilise resources in close collaboration with the AUC
and the NEPAD Agency. This notwithstanding, the PICO team, which leads the organisational effort,
anticipate that resources will be mobilised from development partners as part of the ongoing effort
to solicit financial resources for CAADP-focused process support that AU institutions have been
tasked with.
The TNs are expected to be accountable to AU systems and processes, including progress reporting
at CAADP Partnership Platform (PP)9 . Indications are that the AU commission will establish a
9 The CAADP PP is a senior level multi-stakeholder mechanism with a continent-wide perspective to ensure
effective monitoring of overall progress with CAADP implementation at all levels. The CAADP PP serves as a
forum for forging partnerships between development partners and the CAADP African constituency - AUC, the
NEPAD Agency, RECs, Africa-based knowledge centres with CAADP affiliation, private sector organisations,
farmers’ organisations, Civil Society Organisations, research and academic institutions, think tanks and
representatives of countries that have been engaged with the CAADP agenda. The CAADP PP is organised twice
in a year.

11
Technical Network Coordination Team which is expected to draw oversight support from a multi-
stakeholder Project Advisory Committee.
3.2.3 CGIAR’s engagement with the Technical Networks
Consultations with the PICO EA team as well as with responsible officers at the AUC reveals that
CGIAR Centres and programmes are encouraged to join the different TNs. Indeed, a few of the CGIAR
Centres and Programmes (namely, IFPRI and CCAFS) as well as the BecA ILRI hub are members of
some of the CAADP TNs10. Evidently, given the expertise and experience of the CGIAR system on
agriculture in Africa and the premium that CAADP puts on a science-driven agricultural
transformation, the African CAADP constituency expects a much greater engagement of the CGIAR
system with the Technical Networks.
Given that IFPRI has signed up to several of the TNs it was felt necessary to ensure a coordinated
approach to the Institution’s engagement with the CAADP agenda. Thus, an understanding has been
reached between the AU institutions and IFPRI for the later to designate focal persons for the
Institute’s TN-specific engagements as well as an overall contact person for TN-wider matters.
4. The Science for Agriculture Consortium (S4AC)
The Science for Agriculture Consortium (S4AC) is a relatively new initiative created to support
implementation of the S3A. A writeshop hosted by the World Bank involving senior staff of FARA,
AFAAS, ASARECA, WECARD, CCARDESSA and North African Sub-Regional Organisation (NASRO) was
held in Washington D.C. in September, 2016. These six agencies constitute the ‘founding
organisations’ of the Consortium. The stated objective of the writeshop was “to elaborate the specific
objectives and features of the S4AC and prepare a draft concept note to advance its establishment
and implementation”.
4.1 The rationale for the S4AC
The rationale for the S4AC was predicated on the realisation of structural weaknesses in the current
set up of the research and extension coordinating system at the sub-regional and continental levels
to deliver on the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa in a satisfactory and more sustainable
manner. In particular, the founding organisations were said to be inadequately configured to
spearhead the leap in the application of STIs at the national level as called for by the S3A. Moreover,
it was observed that, the founding organisations could improve upon developing effective
institutional mechanisms to serve the full range of STI actors at the country level. This was in large
measure attributed to the lack of coherent strategies and working modalities.
The S4AC is thus intended to facilitate effective coordination with supra-national STI systems as well
as to provide the needed guidance for a more effective alignment of international STI actors (such as
the CGIAR Centres and Research Programmes, Advanced Research Institutes and other STI
institutions from the global south operating in Africa) behind the S3A. The latter, as part of its
10 IFPRI is a member of four of the CAADP TNs: research and extension, agro-industry and value chains,
markets and regional trade, and resilience. While BecA and CCAFS are members, respectively of research and
extension and resilience TNs (see www.caadp-tn.org).

12
medium-term objectives, aims at putting in place appropriate mechanisms to harness STIs for the
successful implementation of CAADP-inspired NAIPs.
4.2 Key Result Areas of the Consortium and linkages with the Science Agenda
The stated objective of the S4AC is “to foster increased application of science, technology, and
innovations to enhance agricultural productivity, competitiveness, and markets in Africa”. Thus, the
S4AC is expected to provide an institutional mechanism for collective action towards
operationalising the S3A whose core purpose is one of advocating the importance of science as part
of the transformation process of agriculture in Africa.
The S4AC is expected to deliver four key results, which have varying degrees of resonance to the six
strategic thrusts (noted in section 2.5 above) . and associated recommendations of the S3A:
(i) Better scaling up, generation, and adoption of improved technologies and innovations along
commodity value chains. This deliverable is consistent with S3A’s strategic thrust ‘c’ where
research themes that connect institutions and policies with producers, consumers and
entrepreneurs have been detailed. In particular, the S3A has identified a range of science and
technology opportunities available to increase agricultural productivity, competitiveness,
wealth creation, resilience and sustainability. The Science Agenda has also made it clear that
thematic areas discussed in the document are illustrative of science and technology
opportunities in Africa and that specific priorities should be determined at the national,
regional and continental level in response to demand. In line with this, the Consortium
intends to develop a prioritised list of projects in a consultative manner and define its short,
medium-, and long-term activities accordingly. In the meantime, however, the Consortium
has identified the following two projects as plausible areas of intervention: (a) enhancing
climate resilience of smallholder farmers and (b) increasing food and nutrition security
through management of post-harvest losses in major commodity value chains.
(ii) Superior human and institutional capacities, policy and regulatory environments, and
partnerships. This deliverable can meaningfully be linked with several of the strategic thrusts
of the S3A including the following: CAADP as a short term priority; strengthening solidarity
and partnerships at national, regional and international levels; and creating a favourable
policy environment for science. More specifically, the S4AC not only aims to enhance the STI
credentials of NAIPs under CAADP but also embraces many of the recommendations of the
Science Agenda pertaining to mobility of scientists across the continent and cross-country
sharing of research facilities.
(iii) Improved knowledge management, information, and communication on STIs. The Science
Agenda underlines the importance of effective science communication and the need for
devising mechanisms that would help bridge the science-policy divide. This particular
deliverable of the S4AC builds on this and adds value to the S3A by ensuring that knowledge
capture, documentation and purpose-tailored and audience-specific communication of
proven STIs are given prominence.
(iv) Increased resource mobilisation and improved fiduciary management for STI institutions. Here
the S4AC argues for the imperatives of sustainable financing of science and technology and
sets out to pursue the resource mobilisation options enunciated in the S3A document,
including those that advocate for establishing a special fund for the Science Agenda. The S4AC
also goes a step further concerning the need for ensuring accountability not just for results

13
but also for resources. On the other hand, taking note of the shortcomings of its founding
organisations with respect to the administration of financial resources, the consortium calls
for effective fiduciary management of its member institutions as an important plank of its
deliverables.
4.3 Potential areas of collaboration between the CGIAR and the S4AC
The following areas represent opportunities for engagement with CGIAR and the institutional
partners of the S4AC, over the next few years and with joint funding and programmatic planning in
play:
(i) Conceptual guidance/leadership: The CGIAR system is better placed to:
 share the tools, approaches and programming frameworks its Centres and research
programmes have developed in pursuit of inclusive agricultural transformation;
 identify thematic, geographical and/or policy gaps for S4AC’s consideration and possible
action. One such a thematic area is extension and advisory services, which play critical role
as connectors of the discovery-use continuum in agricultural sciences and on which some of
the policy-orientated CRPs have invested effort in documenting policy drives and good
practices in a variety of settings;
 support the S4AC in undertaking sound economic and institutional analyses of its own
organisational structure in light of contribution of the set up to the delivery of the
commitments under the Malabo Declaration; and
 strengthen systemic capacities for foresight work if the Consortium is to intervene effectively
in, among others, trans-boundary agricultural development challenges.
(ii) O & M aspects of the Consortium: The CGIAR system could share with the S4AC experiences
with CRP governance and management and the functional integration of the CRPs in support of
CGIAR’s system-level objectives with a particular focus on:
 delimitation of the authority of the S4AC leadership;
 addressing potential conflict of interest of the S4AC leadership;
 involvement of non-consortium members in the governance structure of S4AC, including
geographic and gender balance; and
 delineation and governance dimension of S4AC activities and those of S4AC member
institutions.
(iii)‘Site Integration’: Given that establishment of a joint coordination mechanism at the national
level and sharing of scientific facilities are important planks of the Consortium’s operations, CGIAR’s
emerging experience with ‘site integration’ could be instructive. In particular, the S4AC could build
on the major principles underpinning ‘site integration’:
 alignment with national strategic plans,
 coordination of delivery, and
 integration of operational functions and facilities.

14
On the other hand, success with establishment of national coordination structures for STIs under the
Consortium could give impetus to the pace of CGIAR’s drive towards ‘site integration’11.
(iv)Reaching out to higher institutions of learning: With appropriate funding, the CGIAR system
could play a pivotal role in facilitating the engagement of tertiary educational institutions and
associated networks with the Consortium through, for instance, building on existing initiatives such
as the IFPRI-RUFORUM work on scientific and technological partnerships in support of CAADP-
CGIAR alignment.
(v) Support linked with knowledge management and science communications: Collaboration
in this respect could build on the work underway as part of the IFAD-funded CGIAR response to the
Science Agenda - whereby IFPRI and the SROs are working together using cutting edge tools and
research methods (including geo-spatial information) to engage at the country level and formulate
institutional examples to move partners closer towards establishing a shared Technology Platform.
This could be expanded to include other Centers and partners with specific technical expertise.
(vi) Resource mobilisation and management: The establishment of the Consortium will provide a
valuable opportunity for CGIAR institutions and Research Programmes to undertake joint proposal
development for submission to potential donors on specific issues of STI that the partners deem
appropriate.
4.4 Recent developments and next steps
The proposal for the establishment of the S4AC has been shared with the Boards of the founding
organisations for inputs, comments and approval, and with the World Bank and the European
Commission for funding consideration. The initial focus of the resource mobilisation drive will be on
securing resources that would enable the Consortium to undertake early-stage activities, including
launching an institutional analysis of FARA and, possibly, the remaining other Consortium founding
organisations.
During the course of this study and project, several new (and some existing) important
initiatives took shape. The following sections address these new initiatives and explore in part
how the landscape might change with new delivery systems focused on country and regional-led
activities for science and technology in Africa.
5. The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation
Programme12
5.1 Background to the Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation
- the Feed Africa initiative in perspective
The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) is an offshoot of AfDB’s grand
initiative for the transformation of agriculture in Africa – called Feed Africa. The latter is an integral
part of AfDB’s 10 years (2016- 2025) development strategic priorities known popularly as High
11 Some 15 out of 20 site integration countries are in Africa.
12 Synthesised from IITA/CGIAR partners and FARA, 2016.

15
Fives13. In pursuing its Feed Africa strategic thrust, the AfDB is guided by the following principles:
country ownership; leveraging the private sector;
development results and value added; inclusivity
and sustainability; taking to scale; business oriented
approach; and partnerships. In order for Feed Africa
to meet its intended goals and targets (see Box 3),
AfDB has identified seven interrelated outcome
areas, called Enablers14, that span the productivity-
marketing-value addition-financing continuum. Of
these, TAAT is expected to contribute directly and
significantly to Enabler number 1, increased
productivity, and to several of the remaining ones.
Employing an integrated approach, Feed Africa will
endeavour to address simultaneously multiple
bottlenecks across a wide range of agricultural
commodity value chains and pertinent agro-
ecological zones.
5.2 TAAT
TAAT is an important pillar of the Feed Africa
Programme aimed at modernising Africa’s
agriculture through mobilising ‘proven’ and sustainable agricultural development technologies. In
particular, the TAAT serves as the critical linkage between CGIAR research capacity, and the proven
technology it generates, and AfDB’s Feed Africa strategy operationalised through loan projects to its
member countries. TAAT envisages effective technology transfers and up/out scaling, improved
knowledge management in the application of STIs in agriculture, increased domestic capacity to
sustain the gains of TAAT and desirable policy changes to facilitate the above-noted deliverables.
5.2.1 Goals and Objective
The goal of TAAT is to achieve rapid agricultural transformation across Africa by raising agricultural
productivity in eight (8) Priority Intervention Areas (PIAs – Box 4) and a total of 23 designated
commodity value chains within them (19 crop and 4 livestock). Some of these PIAs are confined to a
single agro-ecological zone (e.g., savannah transformation), while others straddle several agro-
ecological zones (e.g., fish self-sufficiency and cassava intensification).
TAAT has the following specific objectives:
i. Scaling up ‘proven’ technologies and innovations;
ii. Contribute to transformation needed to address the current context;
13 These include, Light up and power Africa, Feed Africa, Industrialise Africa, Integrate Africa and Improve the
quality of life for Africans.
14
These are: increased productivity; realise the value of increased production; increase investment into
enabling hard and soft infrastructure; catalyse flows of increased agricultural finance; create improved
agribusiness environment; increased inclusivity and sustainability, and nutrition; and coordination of actors to
drive transformation.
Box 3: Goal [and targets] of the Feed
Africa Initiative
1. Contribute to elimination of extreme
poverty
[~130m lifted out of extreme poverty]
2. End hunger and malnutrition
[Zero hunger and malnutrition]
3. Turn Africa into a net food exporter
[Africa´s net food trade balance – $0
billion]
4. Move Africa to top of global value
chains
[Africa share of market value for
processed commodities ~40%]
Source: AfDB 2016: 1

16
iii. Create widespread and real impact on
the ground and in many realms; and
iv. Assist AfDB’s RMCs to derive greater
value from agricultural produce
5.2.2 Principles of delivery and
implementation arrangements
A total of 12 CGIAR Centres and a further at
least six international/continental research
and development organisations are involved
in the implementation of TAAT. IITA serves as
the executive agency of the programme, while
each of the PIAs are led by individual CGIAR
centres (Box 4) in close collaboration with
other mandated institutions. TAAT also
envisages a fuller participation of SROs, private sector partners, farmers’ organisations and NGOs.
An important institutional innovation in the implementation of TAAT is the creation of a Clearing
House Mechanism that coordinates the application of CG Centre technologies, and those from other
advanced research and development organisations as well as private sector entities. Through this
facility several hundred technologies have been identified from diverse sources. As part of the
Clearing House Mechanism participating CG Centres are coordinated to contribute to the
development of pertinent agricultural investment portfolios for inclusion into the loan projects that
AfDB designs for its member countries. As part of this mechanism, the CG centres concerned are also
expected to provide the needed technical backstopping at the stage of project implementation,
including monitoring and evaluation services.
The following principles undergird the implementation of TAAT:
(i) Mobilise and deploy only proven technologies and innovations.
(ii) Focus on large-scale technology dissemination so as to generate impact at scale.
(iii) Prioritise those value chains for which Africa imports most so as to free up and even
generate foreign exchange.
(iv) Provide space/opportunities for independent technology providers and those seeking to
commercialise their technologies.
5.3 TAAT and the CGIAR: Progress to-date15
As of Spring (2017) the TAAT is at the final stages of planning and programming. The CGIAR Centres
responsible for the coordination of the eight PIAs have submitted their respective proposals to the
AfDB for approval and guidance on next steps.
In an attempt to understand the current status of CGIAR’s engagement with TAAT, some lessons of
experience from a couple of PIA lead CGIAR institutions were synthesised hereunder. These
institutions are ILRI (a major player in the livestock value chain component of the Sahel-Savannah
15 Synthesised from interviews held with senior researchers/managers from ILRI and AfricaRice.
Box 4: PIAs and Corresponding Lead
Institutions
1. Self-sufficiency in rice production [Africa
Rice]
2. Cassava intensification [IITA]
3. Food security in the Sahel [ICRISAT]
4. Transforming African Savannahs into
breadbaskets [IITA]
5. Renovating tree plantations [ICRAF]
6. Expanding horticulture [AVRDC]
7. Expanding Africa’s wheat production
[ICARDA]
8. Self-sufficiency in fish [World Fish]

17
PIAs16) and AfricaRice (co-leaders of the self-sufficiency in rice PIA). In keeping with the thrust of this
study, the lessons of experience of the CGIAR system vis-à-vis TAAT revolved around two main
issues: (i) the role TAAT played in advancing inter-agency collaboration within the CGIAR system,
and (ii) the contribution of TAAT in mainstreaming the Science Agenda.
From the perspective of ILRI, TAAT has engendered excellent collaboration in the
formulation/elaboration of TAAT proposals among the designated CGIAR Centres: CIAT (feed
technology), ICARDA (small ruminant value chains) and ILRI (beef, dairy and poultry value chains).
However, informants were of the view that the working relationship among these three CGIAR
Centres could be bolstered by a commodity-specific coordination structure so as to facilitate
implementation, advance lessons learning and promote upscaling in the livestock value chain
development. In the same vein, the experience of AfricaRice also pointed to fruitful collaboration
among the key research and development agencies involved, the main ones being AfricaRice, CIAT,
IMWI, AGRA, AATF, and CABI.
Issues around TAAT’s role in mainstreaming the Science Agenda will involve the extent to which (i)
the proposals are informed by CGIAR’s own experiences of implementing recent past action research
projects; and (ii) the proposed STI interventions under TAAT involved NARS, SROs and took into
account CAADP priorities. On both counts the experience of the institutions contacted differed
markedly.
In the course of designing the livestock value chain proposal, significant effort was exerted to mine
experiences from development-oriented/action research projects. In this regard, learning has been
both scientific (e.g., from an on-going project on African chicken genetic gains) and organisational
(upscaling/out-scaling innovation around the dairy hubs concept). However, it was reported that,
given the limited time available for inclusive planning, interactions with SROs and NARS has been
limited. Similarly, in the course of preparing the livestock value chain proposal, there has been
virtually no conscious effort at exploring CAADP-based NAIPs for insights and priorities.
On the other hand, AfricaRice reported a more inclusive and participatory process involving national
partners and SROs. Although no deliberate effort was exerted to look into the role given to rice in the
respective CAADP-based NAIPs at the country level, AfricaRice staff interviewed were confident that
the active engagement of national partners in the proposal development process ensured that
country-level perspectives were sufficiently considered. This, it was learnt, was largely a result of the
existence of rice-focused learning and coordination platforms 17 across Africa that AfricaRice
nurtured and supported as part of an on-going AfDB-supported rice initiatives.
16 These stand for the two PIAs of food security in the Sahel and transforming African savannahs into
breadbaskets.
17 These include the “Rice Hubs” (in the 11 countries where rice value chain-focused interventions have been
underway through AfDB support) and the six Africa-wide Rice Task Forces organised around the following
thematic areas: agronomy, breeding, policy and markets, processing and value addition, mechanisation, and
gender.

18
5.4 The African Agricultural Research Programme18
The African Agricultural Research Programme (AARP) is a research-for-development (R4D)
programme - also in the design stage – with the aim to generate a pipeline of technologies and
innovations that would feed into TAAT as well as provide the TAAT with a strategic research support
to respond to changing contexts. A critical consideration of AARP is that it should be demand-driven
and focused on commodity value chains and farming systems that feed most Africans, enhance value
addition and/or reduce the continent's dependence on imported food. Moreover, the AARP is
expected to work closely with the private sector such that the technologies it helps generate are also
industry-led and that AARP resources would be used to leverage private sector investment.
AARP has the following interrelated objectives:
(i) To provide a vibrant agricultural technology pipeline for supporting TAAT and other
development initiatives towards impact.
(ii) To address second generation problems related to the up-/out-scaling of technologies for
enhanced food and nutrition security.
(iii) To strengthen institutional systems for agricultural science, technology and innovation
in Africa.
Not unexpectedly, the eight PIAs provide the framework for the research domain of AARP. However,
AARP has also identified the following as ‘cross-cutting enabler research domain’:
a. Bioscience hubs and platforms
b. Research on the prevention and management of biorisks
c. Integrated Soil Fertility and Water Management (ISFWM)
d. Policy and institutional development research
e. Systems and research integration for impact
f. Capacity development
The NARS and members of the S4AC are expected to play prominent roles in the implementation of
AARP. The AfDB has designated FARA as the lead coordinating agency responsible to AfDB for both
technical and fiduciary reporting. FARA is acutely aware of the need for strong ownership especially
of national stakeholders, and it has sought resources from the AfDB for undertaking further
consultations at that level. In this regard, AARP is expected to exert considerable effort in securing
the involvement of the private sector “… not only in tapping their resources but also in incorporating
their demand and preferences in designing the research.” In the same vein, FARA - working closely
with the SROs – intends to build on the success of regional agricultural productivity programmes
such as the West African Agriculture Productivity Program (WAAPP) and mainstream the same in
AARP.
6. Shared intra- and inter-regional research & scientific platforms –
Focus on the BecA-ILRI Hub
6.1 Background
18 This section draws heavily from FARA 2016b.

19
As an example of a program and platform considered very successful from various vantage points
and partner perspectives in SSA, it is important to take into account the Biosciences eastern and
central Africa - ILRI (BecA-ILRI) Hub, hosted and managed by ILRI in Nairobi, Kenya.
The African Biosciences Initiative (ABI) is one of the flagship programmes of NEPAD Agency’s Science
and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA). The ABI focuses on research and development in
the areas of biotechnology, biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and technology. The ABI
envisaged the establishment of four regional biosciences networks covering the entire continent19.
These networks were to consist of institutions and laboratories that would share their
infrastructures and human resources for R&D at respective regional levels. The BecA-ILRI Hub
appears to be the only platform to have been established and operationalised as per the original
intent of the ABI initiative; although SANBio in southern Africa has established a network amongst
participating research institutes in that region.
6.2 BecA-ILRI hub’s model of science capacity strengthening & technology
transfer20
The BecA-ILRI Hub is a shared agricultural research and biosciences platform that aims at increasing
access to world class laboratories for African and international scientists conducting research on
African agricultural challenges. The Hub was developed within the framework of the STI thrust of the
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), hence all research projects
are expected to deliver results that help improve food and nutrition security in Africa. BecA strives
to address priorities set by the NARS constituting the Association for Strengthening Agricultural
Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). It also strives to support the operationalisation
of the Science Agenda.
BecA’s mission is stated as follows: “… mobilise bioscience for Africa’s development, by providing a
centre for excellence in agricultural biosciences. This enables research, capacity building and product
incubation, conducted by scientists in Africa and for Africa, and empowers African institutions to
harness innovations for regional impacts in improved agricultural productivity, income, and food and
nutritional security” (www.hub.africabiosciences.org).
Established in 2004 with funding from development partners21 BecA supports eastern and central
African countries to develop and apply bioscience research and expertise to produce technologies
that help farmers to raise their productivity and income, and to increase their market opportunities.
BecA’s operations are organised under the following thematic focus areas:
19
Southern Africa Network for Biosciences (SANBio); Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa Network
(BecANet); West Africa Biosciences Network (WABNet) and North Africa Biosciences Network (NABNet).
20 The material in this section has been synthesised from Djikeng and Yao 2015; Hall et al 2012; and
www.hub.africabiosciences.org
21 The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is credited with providing the initial financial
support for the establishment of the BecA-ILRI Hub in ways that would accommodate the needs of the region.
Since then, the Hub has enjoyed a healthy flow of financial support from a range of bilateral partners (e.g.
Australia, Sweden, UK and private foundations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates and Syngenta
Foundations).

20
 Livestock development with a focus on improved control of priority livestock and fish
diseases; feed and forage development and genetics.
 Crops improvement with emphasis on tissue culture and regeneration systems.
 Nutrition and food safety, with particular focus on addressing aflatoxins and other
mycotoxins contamination in food and feeds.
 Climate change - restoration of soil fertility using high quality and drought-tolerant fodder
grass species.
 Underutilised crops and animal species.
BecA’s model of science and technology transfer hinges on training and capacity building activities
through, among others, facilitation of a visiting scientists’/researchers’ programme, organisation of
purpose-tailored training workshops, and provision of advisory support aimed at strengthening the
capacity of NARS to deliver on their research for development agenda.
Under the visiting scientists’/researchers’ programme, different categories of researchers are given
a home base at the BecA-ILRI Hub to use the facilities or equipment to advance their research
projects. Included under this are post graduate students who are given opportunities to conduct
research at the BecA-ILRI Hub either by being attached to existing research projects or through
provision of facilities to carry out their respective academic research papers. African scientists are
supported at BecA either through their national governments or by fellowships available through the
African Biosciences Challenge Fund (ABCF).
As part of its thrust on institutional capacity strengthening, the BecA-ILRI Hub has enabled some
countries in the region to establish/strengthen their biotechnology programmes and/or
biotechnology institutions. Moreover, some of the more knowledge- and capital-intensive advanced
research activities that require sophisticated equipment are often sent to the BecA-ILRI Hub under a
sub-contracting arrangement.
Both in-house assessments and external evaluation of the activities of BecA have shown that the Hub
has generated considerable impact at the regional and continental levels. The involvement of the Hub
in improving disease and pest diagnostics and the research it supports on underutilised crops and
animal species has helped in improving food and nutrition security and expanding dietary diversity.
The BecA-ILRI Hub is also noted for its contribution towards increased availability of well-trained
researchers and future science leaders.
Forging partnerships with like-minded institutions has been a central feature of BecA’s drive towards
science and technology transfer and building science leadership of national researchers in sub-
Saharan Africa. In particular, through BecA’s strategic partnership endeavours, several NARS have
benefitted from linkages with the facilities and expertise from advanced research institutes and
world-class universities. This has also enabled advanced research institutes beyond Africa to sharpen
their research focus and make their endeavours, including the basic research they carry out, relevant
to the needs of smallholder agricultural producers. Also, as part of the BecA partnership drive, some
six regional nodes have been established in eastern and central Africa, and these have availed their
research facilities for regional use.
It is true that BecA owes its establishment and continued operations to a range of development
partners. However, BecA’s modality of engagement with its investors is partnership-oriented,
whereby investors co-design research projects with BecA, the latter providing the necessary

21
guidance on the best returns for their investments based on beneficiary countries’/regions’ needs
and priorities.
6.3 Next steps in regional scientific coordination
The experience of the BecA-ILRI Hub in offering advanced research facilities and mentorship that are
beyond the reach of individual countries has already provided the proof of concept for effective
regional scientific coordination platforms. Such platforms have also contributed to improvements in
teaching at higher institutions of learning, including better-quality research guidance to students.
Another dimension of sustained scientific engagement expected of the CGIAR with research
institutions that have regional mandates relate to nurturing National Centres of Specialisation
(NCoS) and Regional Centres of Excellence (RCoE) so designated as part of the regional agricultural
productivity programmes referred to in Section Two. Both these structures – especially RCoEs,
support regional agricultural research activities and operate on the basis of delivering regional public
goods. Nurturing such a partnership also sits well with the pronouncements of the Science Agenda
pertaining to strengthening institutional systems of science for agriculture’ in general and, in
particular, enhancement of regional collaboration and facilitation of global partnerships in science.
In this context, the Science Agenda argues that “the CRPs are uniquely placed to facilitate multi-level
and multi-stakeholder collaboration – including capacity strengthening at national level - and align
themselves with NARS partners.” In general, CGIAR’s support to NCoS and RCoEs could focus on
provision of expertise support, on-the-job-training of research scientists, identification of research
training needs, and facilitation of exchange programs for researchers, including mobility of
researchers within NCOS/RCoEs.
In addition to the above, the CGIAR system could give due consideration to strengthening linkages
and working relationships between policy-focused CGIAR Centres (e.g., IFPRI) and CRPs (e.g., PIM
and CCAFS) and scientific platforms such as BecA. All too often, the discourse on science and
technology policy options takes place among scientific circles, with little support and analytical
guidance from development policy experts. Moreover, a deliberate engagement strategy in this
regard is crucial for placing the research that these platforms undertake (or support) firmly within
the priorities of countries for their agricultural and allied industries. In this later respect, the
proactive role being played by BecA in engaging with CAADP-related platforms is a step in the right
direction. These considerations also sit well with the broader thrust of managing the science-policy
interface enunciated in the Science Agenda.
7. CGIAR’s Platform for Big Data in Agriculture [
7.1 Introduction
One additional area to address in this scoping study is the role Big Data and the coordination of it will
play in the years ahead. The importance of timely, relevant and reliable data for effective planning,
monitoring and evaluation of agricultural development programmes and field-level interventions
has long been recognised. While until very recently a relatively small volume of data was generated
through a limited number of channels, today, multitude of data is being made available from various

22
sources that can better inform agricultural policies and programming efforts – the so-called Big Data
phenomenon22.
The term Big Data is defined variously; the most common definition of this term revolves around
data sets, including geo-spatial ones, that are so large that traditional data processing applications
are inadequate to deal with them. Big Data can be both structured and unstructured, and includes
data from social media sources and online searches as well. From the perspective of the CGIAR, Big
Data is considered as “… harmonised, interoperable, and contextually integrated datasets and
publications from multiple disciplines relevant for CGIAR’s research and development goals” CIAT
and IFPRI 2016: 1.
Big Data is generally understood to have four dimensions – the four Vs: large volumes collected from
diverse sources; velocity – the fact of data streaming in at an unprecedented speed; variety – data
being available in all types of formats, including numeric data, unstructured text documents, email,
video, and financial transactions; and variability – given that data flows can be highly inconsistent
especially as these relate to event-triggered unstructured data.
The nature of Big Data brings with it a range of challenges including those that pertain to data search,
storage, standardisation, updating and analysis.
7.2 The Platform in a nutshell23
CGIAR’s Platform for Big Data in Agriculture is just beginning and will be a six-year initiative (2017
– 2022) with secured funding from CGIAR partners. The major point of departure of the Platform is
the fact that the potential Big Data will have should be harnessed to support decision-making in
international agricultural research and enhance the impact of the same on production, productivity
and rural livelihoods faster, better and at greater scale. The aim here is to discover, integrate and
reuse currently underutilised data to achieve development outcomes. Moreover, it is believed that
the opportunities that the data revolution offer have the potential to change the modus operandi of
the CGIAR system. In particular, the Platform provides the opportunities for researchers in the CGIAR
Centers and Programmes to analyse massive agricultural data at an unprecedented scale and in a
collaborative manner, thereby reducing duplication of effort and redundancy in activities.
The Platform intends to build on the existing ICT-backed innovations in use both within Africa and
globally and the data sets that have been generated through these mechanisms. In this respect, the
initiative recognises the multitude of transformational success stories that ensured easier access to
information and advisory services to resource-poor farmers, fisher-folk and pastoralists.
This notwithstanding, the initiative recognises the gross global inequities characterising the data
revolution with respect to the generation, analysis and use of agricultural data. In this regard, the
Platform attempts to redress such unequal access to, and use of information, through forging
partnerships with actors in the private and public sectors, including “boundary partners”24 and
developing innovative ideas that would benefit resource-poor farmers.
22 For details on this, see, for instance, CTA 2015.
23This section has been synthesised from CIAT and IFPRI (2016). “CGIAR Big data coordination platform.
Proposal to the CGIAR Fund Council”, 31 March, 2016. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT),
Cali, Colombia and International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, United States of America.
24 Boundary partners are " … those individuals, groups, or organisations with whom the programme interacts
directly and with whom the programme can anticipate opportunities for influence" Nyangaga n. d.: 1.

23
In general, the Platform has the following three objectives:
1. Support and improve data generation, access, and management in CGIAR: here the main
focus is one of managing pertinent data in accordance with open access and open data
principles. The intention here is to bring together CGIAR Centre and CRP data in such a way
that they are available and made useful to end users, including smallholder agricultural
producers and policy makers.
2. Collaborate and convene around Big Data and agricultural development: an important
consideration in this regard is forging of partnerships with a range of stakeholders and
investors. Also, establishment of Communities of Practice (CoPs) across CGIAR Centres,
creation of virtual collaboration spaces and organisation of capacity building fora constitute
important planks of this objective.
3. Support scalable pilots of Big Data for development solutions: The interest here is one of
demonstrating – in CGIAR target geographies and high profile cases - how data-driven
approaches could be employed to tackle complex agricultural development challenges. To
this end, it is expected to build on the partnerships that would be created as part of objective
two. It is envisaged to embed these pilot projects within larger CRP-related initiatives to
leverage effectively other CGIAR investments.
7.3 Operationalisation of the Platform’s potential
In Africa, national entities collect a wide range of data on the state and performance of the broader
agricultural sector. The spread of the data incudes, inter alia, the biophysical environment, farming
systems characteristics, socioeconomic indicators, and demographic characteristics including
migration trends. These national entities include government ministries agriculture (encompassing
crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry), statistical bureaux, parastatals, NGOs, cooperatives, cultural
leaders, and academic and research institutions.
However, it is generally recognised that the data collected by the different institutions are geared
towards meeting different objectives and employ different methods and formats, often resulting in
divergent, inconsistent and unreliable data sets. Meanwhile, addressing the complex challenges
affecting the agricultural sector in most African countries demands refinement and harmonisation of
the available data sets. For instance, consultations with key agricultural stakeholders in Ethiopia25
revealed that the country collects agricultural statistics through various household and enterprise
surveys. It also collects a range of administrative data pertinent to the agricultural sector. Yet, neither
of the data sets meets the needs of the agricultural sector for measuring progress on intended
outcomes of the national agricultural plan or the country’s complete agricultural resources. The key
limitations of the data sets revolve around the scope and the level of detail that these data sets
encompass. For instance, the country’s medium term agricultural plan envisages interventions on a
much larger pool of agricultural commodities than those on which the survey data focuses.
On the other hand, agricultural sector governance in the country require spatially disaggregated data
at district level, while the available data is collected at the zonal (i.e., provincial) level. Again, there is
a need to downscale the available information and data in ways that can be helpful for decision
making at the district level. Moreover, the Ethiopian stakeholders contacted for this study underlined
the need for geo-referencing the available time-series data through satellite imagery and other
25 Laketch Mikael, Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency, personal communication.

24
methods. There is also a need for complimenting the numerous data sets including those collected
through mobile banking transactions into the mainstream survey data so as to enhance the efficacy
of available data in supporting decision-making. In this regard, the country welcomes closer
collaboration with the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture. As an example, given Ethiopia’s
awareness about the virtues of Big Data in facilitating agricultural sector management and its
readiness to invest in Big Data management, this could as well provide an opportunity for the
Platform to consider Ethiopia as a high profile case of investment in this respect.
As the Platform embarks on charting a course of action for implementing its programme activities it
would be prudent to explore possible partnerships and synergies with African STI initiatives. For
instance, the S4AC and the different CAADP Technical Networks could provide the institutional home
for the partnership between the CGIAR system and the African institutions. In particular, these STI
initiatives could be considered as opportunities for nurturing demand for support for Big Data
management from countries and for channeling the multitude of capacity development support that
the Platform intends to provide to its boundary partners. Regarding the thematic coverage of the
CAADP Technical Networks, both the agricultural research and extension and the one on knowledge
management, policy analysis and accountability for results are entrusted with providing leadership to
issues around agricultural statistics and data management, themes that are germane to the Big Data
Platform. Thus, linkages between the Platform and designated CAADP institutions could serve as a
fruitful entry point for the ‘inspire’ projects envisaged.
8. Conclusion
This scoping study reviewed a total of six initiatives aimed at facilitating the delivery of science to
agriculture in Africa. The initiatives under consideration are either largely institutional structures
(e.g., S4AC and BecA) or functions (e.g., TAAT and AARP). The remaining share both features (e.g.,
Technical Networks and Big Data). Moreover, while some of the activities provide frameworks for
partnership and collaboration, others are projects with defined targets, operational budgets and
timelines. As structures and/or functions, some are well-established (e.g., BecA), while others are at
different stages of operationalisation.
Key informant interviews 26 and documentary evidence show that emerging initiatives such as
CAADP Technical Networks and S4AC reflect felt needs and are critical features of advancing the
Science Agenda and supporting implementation of CAADP-based national investment plans. Whilst
there is no unanimity among development partners in providing the requisite organisational and
financial support for these initiatives to commence operation fully, organisations leading the above
two initiatives (respectively, AUC and FARA) are cautiously optimistic about the fundability of the
initiatives and their eventual roll out. As regards TAAT and AARP, all indications point towards a
readily available pool of funds to get the initiatives underway.
More germane to the purpose of this scoping study is the extent to which the initiatives are aligned
behind the Science Agenda. In this respect, some of the initiatives make explicit reference to, and
commit to be guided by, the Science Agenda (S4AC; AARP), while others are currently less engaged
(TAAT; Big Data). This does not, however, preclude the possibility of ensuring that initiatives such as
Technical networks and CGIAR’s Big Data Platform might indeed be used to advance the Science
26 A total of six key informants (two from the AUC, one from FARA, and three from the PICO Eastern Africa
Team) were interviewed on the Technical Networks and the S4AC. For details, see Annex 2.

25
Agenda. Interactions with experts involved in overseeing both the TAAT and the Big Data initiatives
reveal their awareness of the contents of the Science Agenda and the importance of the S3A as
providing an overall framework for the respective initiatives to be operationalised. Also, to the extent
that the TAAT supports the upscaling/outscaling of proven technologies, it sits well with the tenets
of mainstreaming the Science Agenda.
African leaders have committed to use the Science Agenda as a guiding framework for STI
applications in agriculture. As per the long-term MoU that the CGIAR signed with the AUC (on behalf
the AU institutions) and CGIAR’s Strategic Results Framework, the CGIAR is duty-bound to ensure
that not only its operations are aligned with the Science Agenda but also work proactively to the
advancement/operationalisation of the Agenda itself.
In line with the above, and consistent with the thrust of this scoping study, one of the joint actions
stipulated under the CGIAR-AUC MoU is the following: “Develop joint African and CGIAR technology
platforms, sub-regionally based partnerships, to assist countries with identification, access to and use of
the latest knowledge and technology for supporting priority commodities and value chains of country
CAADP investment plans”.
For some time now, the merits and discussion around the establishment of an African Agricultural
Technology Platform (AATP) have been in play. However, in light of the growing interest in science-
based agricultural transformation on the continent in general and, in particular, the increasing focus
on redirecting research to supporting priority commodity value chains, it seems an appropriate time
to organise an AATP-type of delivery and coordination system on the continent in line with the
pronouncements made in the above-noted MoU. However, given the plethora of initiatives, this
should not be a newly organised activity – but rather build on the existing frameworks and expertise
to make the data and technologies accessible at the country level. Furthermore, several countries are
currently in the process of crafting the second generation of CAADP-based investment plans. It is,
therefore, an opportune moment for such plans to benefit from a well-organised set of technology
platforms that would make a difference to increasing productivity and profitability. In fact, some of
the initiatives, especially TAAT and AARP, have functions similar to what the AATP was originally
envisioned to provide. However, these are time-bound initiatives confined to specific projects.
Although initiatives such S4AC and CAADP TNs contain activities related to what an AATP would
undertake, they are yet to evolve fully. Thus, each of the initiatives by themselves will not be able to
fulfil the role expected of the proposed AATP. In short, while the services of an AATP-like structure
are needed and become all the more relevant, there is dearth of a functional institutional structures
that can serve as a clearing house for the application of STIs in CAADP-based investment plans.
FARA has been accorded a central place of importance in many of the initiatives that have varying
degrees of resonance to the AARP thrust. These institutional responsibilities include 1) the
coordination role FARA is expected to play in the Research and Extension theme under the CAADP
Technical Networks, 2) the lead role that FARA has been playing in steering the S4AC, and 3) the
leadership role that FARA has assumed in the AARP. Thus, the convergence of emerging STI
initiatives towards FARA provides the CGIAR an opportunity to strengthen its partnership with FARA
(and other institutional partners such as the SROs, AFAAS and RUFORUM) and rekindle the idea of
supporting the establishment of an AATP-type facility. The focus initially should be on services or
functions that the facility can render that are in the end demand–driven. Only then will research make
a difference in the lives of poor and marginalised farmers, partners and clients across the continent.

A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa

A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa

Similar to A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa (20)

More from Hillary Hanson

More from Hillary Hanson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Scoping study of the evolving institutional structures for the delivery of STIs to agriculture in Africa