Judith Ann Francis, Executive Secretary, European Forum on Research for Development

1. PAEPARD Users’ Led Process
European Engagement & Implications for Development Impact
On Agriculture Research for
Development EFARD
Judith Francis , Senior Programme Coordinator Science & Technology Policy, CTA
& Executive Secretary EFARD
And
Laurianne Ollivier, EFARD

2. PAEPARD Users’ Led Process
from supply-driven approach towards a demand-driven approach in ARD
Why – research driven by users’ needs
and
What can we learn?
EAFF: Extensive Livestock value chain in Eastern Africa with Specific
focus on Kenya & Uganda
PROPAC: Urban horticulture value chain inclusive of gardening
crops in urban areas with specific focus on Congo Brazzaville, DRC &
Cameroon
ROPPA: Rice value chain in Benin, Burkina Faso & Mali
FANRPAN: Groundnut value chain in Zambia & Malawi
COLEACP: Adding value to mango non-food uses in West Africa
with specific focus on Burkina-Faso, Côte d’Ivoire
New brokerage mechanism

3. • Evolution of ULP led by non-research organizations-
engagement of European stakeholders
• Role of different stakeholders (research and non-
research; EU and African) in knowledge creation
and knowledge sharing
• Motivations and key constraints to commitment
and collaboration
• Achievements and lessons learned
Objectives of study

4. • Literature review
• Interview key actors
 Questionnaire :ULP coordinators (5), ULP partner (~70), including ULP
core group members and AIFs
 Questionnaire to NON ULP stakeholders (PAEPARD consortium -25
stakeholders)
 Questionnaire to PAEPARD community (D-Group)
• Analyses
- Codification system (software e.g MAXQDA)
- Social network analysis (Gephi)
- Occurrences and similarities (ULP vs ULP and ULP-led vs
Consortia call 1 & 2)
• Reporting & Advocacy:
Methodology

5. MSHRQW
04/2013
?
Desk study
12/2012 & 02/2013
Desk study
08/2012
Desk study
08/2012
MSHRQW
05/2013
Ouagadougou
MSHRQW
03/2013
Dakar
MSHRQW
12/2012
Nairobi
MSHRQW
01/2013
Brazzaville
2 Concept notes
2 Core Groups
4/2013
?
Desk study
06/2012
Desk study
08/2012
Desk study
03/2013
PAEPARD II
4YE
Proposal
submitted to
CRF
?
1 Concept note
Core Group
11/2013
Ouagadougou
3 Concept notes
Core Group
?
?
1 Concept note
Core Group
9/2013
Douala
Consortium
Inception Workshop
3 Concept notes
10/2014
Proposal
submitted to
BMEL
?
Project- NutriHAF Africa 4/2015 to ?
Project- PAEPARD-FANRPAN ? to ?
Proposal
submitted to
Gates foundation
?
Project- FANRPAN ATONU ? to ?
• ULP evolution
• Main achievements
Evolution of ULPs - Timeline
ULP timeline FANRPAN developed concept
note & won CRF project (1)

6. Africain
71%
European
26%
Other
region
European
10%
African
90%
European & African Commitment
Was the engagement the same along the ULP steps?
Actors change
User remains constant

7. European & African Commitment
ULP led by East Africa Farmers’
Federation (EAFF)
(i) MSHRQ not a key step for
partnership building; only 2 EU
partners participated
(ii) Key stakeholders commit
(particularly EU; blue nodes)
toward the end of the process;
concept note & proposals
(iii) 6 full proposals developed
but only 2 funded
Social Network Analysis
ULP led by EAFF

8. European & African Commitment
Motivations/Interests
(Africa/European)
Key constraints
o Interest for the thematic/federating
theme
o Share expertise & experience
o Develop new/existing business
opportunities in Africa (Ps)
o Collaborate with end user
o Funding (EU)
EU constraints
o Financial commitment: e.g
compensation for participation
in ULP activities
o Availability (long process- time
is money)
African constraints
o Diverse constraint (e.g
finance, time, communication
capacity)

9. European & African Collaboration
Level of trust
o Good
o Changes when a new partner is involved
(concept note/ proposal development step)
Key constraints to collaboration
o Money: e.g. travelling cost
o Time consuming
o Long/discontinuous wait and
see attitude (commitment)
o Communication: Language barrier
o Private sector: exclusivity on the
results (IPR issues)
Power dynamics
o Toward African due to low participation
of European stakeholders
o Change with the type of activity (e.g
proposal development, researcher/non
researcher)

10. Knowledge sharing /creation
• Africans value the capacity of Europeans to publish –
increasing visibility
• Europeans value users’ experience (from African perspective)
• Constrained by the different perspectives of research by both
non research and research actors
European & African Collaboration

11. Research & Development Impact
ULP- FANRPAN
Aflatoxin contamination
reduction practices and
technologies identified
1 Policy brief on Aflatoxin
100 farmers’ awareness raised
during the research trials
4 national dialogues in Zambia &
Malawi

12. Research & Development Impact
Bioprotech consortium (Non ULP)
Organic amendment
enriched with Trichoderma sp.
can generate
200 - 4000 farmers trained (directly
or indirectly) to improve practices
30% increased yields of tomatoes,
onions and Irish potatoes
25% increase in farmers’ incomes

13. Yes
24%
No
76%
PAEPARD D-Group Community
PAEPARD Users’ Led Process
Yes
63%
No
37%
Demand-led research
Yes
81%
No
19%
MSH R&I partnership
7690
members
PAEPARD
D_group

14. PAEPARD D Group Community
Benefits
Proportion of
respondents (%)
n=50
Exchange of Knowledge &
Experience
54
Research progress 12
Technology & Product creation 12
Multi-stakeholder approach 10
Improve development impact 10
Little benefits 4
Other benefits 14
Constraints
Proportion of
respondents (%)
n=96
Funding 33
Different Agenda/Objective 11
Complexity of consortium
Governance & Management
9
Communication & language/Culture 9
Driven by European 7
Inequality 7
Low European engagement 5
African/European Agricultural Research and Innovation (ARI) Partnerships?

15. PAEPARD D-Group Community
Benefits
Proportion of
respondents (%)
n= 61
Adequate & relevant
research
23
Relevance Knowledge/Expertise from
Non-Research stakeholders
21
Sharing/Exchanging Knowledge&
Expertise
18
Better Research Uptake 18
Impact 11
Different Approach 5
Other 13
Constraints
Proportion of
respondents
n=60 (%)
Different level of
knowledge & analysis
42
Financing/resources 28
Timeframe-short/long Research 15
Governance- Partnership Management 12
Time consuming 8
Communication 8
Low level of participation/motivation 7
Engagement of non-research stakeholders in R&I Partnership?

16. • MSH dialogues on the priorities identified by users (federating
theme) are useful but not sufficient for building R&I
partnerships; funding, trust, power dynamics are issues.
• Actor diversity and skill is a major strength; trust improves
when results are seen (e.g. winning grants, higher yields)
• Research capacities are enhanced based on users’ priorities
• Understanding and conforming to requirements of different funding
mechanisms increases
• Capacity to develop concept notes & research proposals increases
• Capacity to engage with end users & researchers from both continents
increases; knowledge uptake to support innovation is faster
European & African Engagement
Lessons Learned

17. • ULP is valid for fostering MSH Research and Innovation
Partnerships. Stakeholder motivation is high but process is too
long. EU engagement is low and can /should be enhanced.
• Funding is a major constraint (especially for EU researchers).
Diversified funding sources and instruments are needed
• ULP enhances capacity, trust and commitment of both non-
researchers & researchers (African/EU) in addressing priorities.
Users value research more. Researchers benefit. Win-win.
• MSH R&I partnerships result in scientific publications, new and
improved products and processes in a shorter time frame.
• The PAEPARD ULP report will soon be published
Conclusions: Development Impact

18. PAEPARD Partners

19. On Agriculture Research for
Development EFARD
Judith Francis &
Laurianne Ollivier
CTA/EFARD
Thank you
For your attention
Any Questions?