Presentation by Jonas Mugabe and Remi Kahane at the 2016 annual meeting of the European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD).

1. PAEPARD innovative funding
mechanisms & lessons learned
from Africa-EU AR4D partnerships
by
Jonas Mugabe & Remi Kahane
Presented @ the EFARD Technical & Business meeting
Prague 29-30 November 2016

2. Objectives of PAEPARD
• Overall: Build joint African-European multi-
stakeholder partnerships in ARD contributing
to achieving the MDGs (today SDGs)
• Specific: Generate, communicate and facilitate
opportunities for innovation in agriculture
based on equitable, demand-driven and
mutually beneficial collaboration of all
concerned actors in Africa and Europe

3. 19 consortia in 17
Africain countries
+
5 ULP
Demand-led research (needs of users)
One example : the ULP-COLEACP
Adding value to mango non-food use in West-
Africa (cosmetics, animal feeding, bio-energy)

4. Users-Led Process (ULP): a participatory collective
learning and owned brokering mechanism
Users’
Led
Process
Federating
Theme
1
Desk
review
2
Induction
Workshop
3
MSHRQ
Workshop
4
Concept
Note
Development
5
Full Proposal
Development
6

5. The original PAEPARD targeted funding mechanisms
• EC-based funding mechanisms such as FP7, EDF, FSTP,
EDULINK
• Bilateral European funding instruments supporting ARD

6. Inadequate funding mechanisms?
From 2010 to 2012 calls for funding were rare but also inadequate
to MSP promoted by PAEPARD:
• FP7 launched calls (until 2012) but by then it was research-
research oriented in its requirements (excellence of proposals
instead of relevance/potential impact of projects)
• The AURC launched a call in February 2012 for which PAEPARD
consortia applied with more than 10 proposals. TOR were similar
to those of FP7 (with a research partner leading the proposal).
Finally no project funded
• Some consortia applied for the CORAF call launched in 2012: only
one on the Family Farming in Western Africa was successful

7. Which innovative funding mechanisms?
From 2013 to 2016 PAEPARD advertised a diversity of calls for
funding research and development:
• European donors: The Netherlands (ARF), Germany (BLE), France
(Agropolis Foundation, Carasso Foundation)
• African donors: C2D (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire), WAPP, AU
• Others: Canada (IDRC), Brazil (Market Place), BMG Foundation

8. Africa-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace
launched a call end of 2010
ü Focus was South-South Cooperation than South-North
promoted by PAEPARD
ü However 2 of PAEPARD consortia (Uganda & Togo)
were selected and funded
With the facilitation of PAEPARD, FANRPAN +NRI won a
big project (ATONU) from the BMG Foundation

9. A joint call IDRC-AICR launched in July 2013
ü 13 proposals were submitted. Only two shortlisted
but not funded at the end of the selection process
ü Non-research partners (private sector) mandatory.
ü European partner was not a requirement (because it
was not a European fund)

10. Applied Research Fund (ARF) of the Dutch Ministry of
Foreign Affairs started in September 2013 until now.
Most fitting call to PAEPARD philosophy because the MSP
is mandatory
ü Lead institution= non-research organization
ü Bilateral. Requires only a Dutch partner
ü Very good outcome: 5 PAEPARD consortium proposals
funded

11. Other innovative funding instruments: CRF & IF
Competitive
Research Fund
- Support of 4 projects selected
among the [19+5]
- Maximum of 3 years of
activities implemented with a
maximum of 300 K€
- Experiences/processes to be
systematically documented to
advocate for multi-stakeholder
partnership funding
- The fund is considered a seed
money to search for more
funding (sustainability)
Incentive
Fund
- Studies
- Workshop for refining the
research question
- Write-shops
- Exchange visits
- Maximum of 40,000 € for
each application
- Meant to seek a funding
opportunity

12. Some lessons learnt
1. The current push-oriented funding mechanism leads to imbalance
between partners and even regions. Pull-oriented mechanism are better
promoting MSP (including non-research stakeholders)
2. European partners are motivated when there is a call for proposals
launched by donors. Otherwise it is difficult to get a European partner
joining a consortium
3. MSP takes time to fly, because the articulation of non-research
stakeholders’ needs is a time consuming exercise
4. Flexibility in consortium/partnership creation is needed to meet donors’
requirements
5. Communication is a key component in MSP

13. Recommendations from PAEPARD experience
“Small is impactful”: a small grant is just enough to
encourage the partnership, to confirm some concepts
and to learn without stress
“Sustainability through diversification”: better 2-3 small
grants than a big one
“More sustainable forms of funding”: membership fees,
royalties, crowdfunding, fees against services…
“Don’t forget global brokerage!”: a key role to inform or
influence the donors about urgent, actual, or original
challenges (e.g. aflatoxin in food and feed)

14. Conclusion from PAEPARD experience
“Funding is a good indicator of success”: the
number of proposals funded has increased over
the last 3 years
“Funding shall not be the only indicator of
success”: partnerships are developing strategies
beyond funding support

15. Visit us!
www.paepard.org