By Johannes Roseboom. Presented at the ASTI-FARA conference Agricultural R&D: Investing in Africa's Future: Analyzing Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities - Accra, Ghana on December 5-7, 2011. http://www.asti.cgiar.org/2011conf

1. Johannes Roseboom
Paper prepared for the ASTI–IFPRI/FARA Conference
AGRICULTURAL R&D: INVESTING IN AFRICA’S FUTURE
Analyzing Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities
Accra, Ghana, December 5–7, 2011

2.  Supranational collaboration in agricultural
research has been high on the policy agenda
in SSA over the past decade;
 Paper focuses on two aspects in particular:
 The institutional arrangements for supranational
collaboration in agricultural research in SSA and
how have they evolved over the past decade; and
 The volume of resources invested in supranational
collaboration.

3.  Many technologies developed by public
agricultural research organizations do not stop at
‘artificial’ national borders.
 This leads to an incongruency between costs and
benefits  a national policymaker will only take
into account the in-country benefits and not
those that spillover to other countries.
 From a supranational point of view this leads to
two things at the same time, namely: (i)relative
underinvestment in public research; and (ii)
duplication of research effort.

4.  More innovation opportunities become
economically attractive.
 Duplication of research effort can be reduced.
 The higher benefits and lower costs that can be
obtained through supranational collaboration
can be used to conduct more in-depth and
advanced research.
Despite these important benefits, one should be
careful not to oversell it. A great deal of agricultural
knowledge and technology remains highly site-
specific requiring local research.

5. A brief history
1960< Federal government structures in British and French Africa facilitated the
establishment of federal agricultural research agencies in addition to
research stations with a strictly national focus
1960s At the time of independence this supranational collaboration collapsed or
slowly disintegrated  countries focused on building their own national
agricultural research capacity
1970s The void left in terms of supranational collaboration was initially filled by
CGIAR centres such as IITA, ILRI, ICRAF, WARDA, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, etc.
1980s A proliferation of regional research networks emerged, usually led by a
CGIAR center or another external agent (FAO, IDRC, USAID, CIRAD, etc.)
and with the NARS as relative passive members.
1990s Introduction of the SROs to streamline the coordination of these networks
and to strengthen the position of the NARS in them
2000s Establishment of FARA and strengthening of the roles of the SROs, i.e.: (i)
coordination, advocacy and policy formulation; (ii) information exchange;
(iii) capacity building; and (iv) promotion of supranational agricultural
research

6. The principal building blocks of supranational
collaboration in SSA
CGIAR All 15 CGIAR centers have activities in SSA, four of them
have their hq in SSA. Nowadays, half of the CGIAR budget
is spent on SSA.
FARA Established in 2001 with the SROs as the founding
members. FARA took over from SPAAR, which operated
under World Bank auspices between 1987 and 2001.
ASARECA Established in 1992.
CARDESA Established in 2011, but preceded by SADC-FANR (2001-
2011) and SACCAR (1984-2001).
CORAF Established in 1987. Initially only covering French-
speaking countries. Since 1995, however, membership
also open to English and Portuguese speaking countries in
West Africa.
NARS Some 48 – varying very strongly in size and strenght

7. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(million US dollars)
CGIAR 219.8 242.9 254.7 307.5 336.5
FARA 5.3 8.8 12.1 16.5 20.2
ASARECA 8.1 13.0 5.6 9.0 15.1
CORAF 0.9 1.4 1.6 2.6 8.8
SADC-FANR NA NA NA NA NA
# Substantial double-counting of resources as money flows between the different
organizations
# Contributions in kind by participating NARS not included
# CGIAR by far the biggest actor at the supranational level and expanding.
Moreover, CGIAR expenditures per $100 NARS expenditures in SSA far higher
than in other developing regions (US$12-13 against US$2-3)
# Growth FARA and the SROs far below the US$ 500 million target set by FAAP

8.  An African-owned policy framework launched by
NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.
 Adoption of an agricultural innovation system
perspective
 Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism
as the preferred tool to allocate research resources
 Adoption of a programmatic approach by the SROs
 Introduction of multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs)
 Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on the
concept of mutual interdependency
 Structural changes within the CGIAR

9.  All three SROs have gained experience with
the implementation of the CGM
 While beneficiaries have gained experience
with developing joint project proposals
Despite being a promotor of the use of
competitive grant mechanisms to allocate R&D
resources, I am having second thoughts about
how it is working out at the SRO level.

10.  Relatively little steering from the top – research priorities are formulated
very broadly.
 Distinction between the supranational and national research agenda
rather weak – a series of adaptive trials in different countries does not
classify as a strong supranational project.
 Priority setting excercises provide insight into the volume and
distribution of potential benefits, but does not answer the question
which part of the research agenda is best organized supranationally and
which part nationally
 Domination of the stronger NARS in the CGM
 Mobilizing partners in different countries to develop a joint research
proposal is costly  potential opportunities do not materialize because
nobody wants to carry the development costs.
 The CGM exploits existing research capacity and does not contribute (or
only very little) to the development of it.
 SROs are not supposed to be involved in the development of project
proposals submitted to the CGM.

11.  An African-owned policy framework launched by
NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.
 Adoption of an agricultural innovation system
perspective
 Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism
as the preferred tool to allocate resources
 Adoption of a programmatic approach by the
SROs
 Introduction of multi-donor trust funds
 Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on the
concept of mutual interdependency
 Structural changes within the CGIAR

12.  Trust funds are an increasingly popular instrument to disburse development
assistance as they help to reduce the (often high) transaction costs for both
donors and beneficiaries
 In 2010, the World Bank managed some 1000 trust funds with a total turnover
of about US$ 9.5 billion.
 One category of trust funds is the financial intermediary trust fund. The role
of the WB in these funds is that of an intermediary between donors and
benificiaries, performing mainly an administrative role.
 In order for MDTFs to work, the beneficiary agencies need to have in place: (i)
a clear strategy; (ii) a detailed work program with performance targets; (iii) a
functioning M&E system; and (iv) a reliable accounting system.
 An MDTF has become operational for ASARECA in 2008, for FARA in 2009,
and for CORAF in 2011. There is one in the making for CARDESA. They each
target a turnover of about US$ 50 million over five years (slightly less for
CORAF).
 A recent evaluation of the trust funds managed by the WB recommends a
consolidation of trust funds  option to be considered(?)

13.  An African-owned policy framework launched by
NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.
 Adoption of an agricultural innovation system
perspective
 Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism
as the preferred tool to allocate resources
 Adoption of a programmatic approach by the
SROs
 Introduction of multi-donor trust funds
 Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on
the concept of mutual interdependency
 Structural changes within the CGIAR

14.  Model pioneered by the WB
 Selected national agricultural research programs
stimulated to become a centre of excellence of
supranational importance
 Based on the idea of mutual interdependence:
by clustering countries together each will carry
the costs of a centre of excellence, while
benefiting from the others.
 Organized in the form of Adaptable Program
Loans, which can be adapted both horizontally
(more countries) as well as vertically (through
time)

15. Project/phase Participating countries Centre of excellence Budget (IDA loan)
West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP)
Phase 1a (03/2007) Ghana, Mali, Senegal Roots and tubers, irrigated US$ 49.4 million (US$ 45
rice, and drought-tolerant million)
cereals
Phase 1b (09/2010) Burkian Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Onion, mango, bananas/ US$ 122.2 million (US$ 90
Nigeria plantains, and fisheries million)
Phase 1c (03/2011) Benin, Niger, Sierra Leone, Maize, livestock, and US$ 118 million (US$ 83
Togo, Guinea, Liberia, Gambia mangrove rice million)
East Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (EAAPP)
Phase 1 (06/2009) Ethiopia , Kenya, Tanzania Wheat, diary, rice US$ 90 million (US$ 90
million)
Phase 1a (11/2009) Uganda Cassava US$ 30 million (US$ 30
million)
Phase 1b Other East African countries ?? ??
“Southern Africa Agricultural Productivity Program” [under construction]

16.  An African-owned policy framework launched by
NEPAD: CAADP and FAAP.
 Adoption of an agricultural innovation system
perspective
 Introduction of the competitive grant mechanism
as the preferred tool to allocate resources
 Adoption of a programmatic approach by the
SROs
 Introduction of multi-donor trust funds
 Introduction of ‘centres of excellence’ based on the
concept of mutual interdependency
 Structural changes within the CGIAR

17.  Overall architecture for supranational collaboration from
within Africa now in place
 Emphasis for the coming years: further fine-tuning of
processes
 Linkages between the different components remain an
issue for concern
 National capacity crucial bottleneck for supranational
collaboration
 Are we not putting too much resources into supranational
collaboration, while neglecting the national capacity?
 High donor dependency limits truly African ownership
 Establishment of an African funding base for
supranational collaboration an important challenge that
needs to be addressed