Global partnership launched to drive Africa’s agricultural research

I understand that the AU is attracted to the idea of partnering with the CGIAR.

However,there is a serious downside to this partnership. It gives the CGIAR credibility and allows it to compete for funding with the NARs, for a finite pool of external funding. (Also on SciDevNet at the moment is an article discussing the lack of funding for NARs).

The CGIAR competes directly with the NARs for funding from the Gates Foundation, the EU, etc.
But the agenda of the CGIAR is governed by their own self-interests, and not by the needs of African agriculture.

The primary agenda of the CGIAR is not focused on the needs of African farmers - it is focused on self-preservation.

It does not surprise that such a generic and top down agreement between the CGIAR’s Consortium and the African Union would raise so many issues. Some of the issues are rather fundamental, but most might be a result of not knowing about the Consortium. By design the Consortium is neither a research nor a funding body. It was created to represent the centers to donors and manage research programs (currently 16 or so) that the CGIAR members fund. The research is done by the centers which are legally independent bodies and which also conduct research that is not CGIAR funded.

A more effective path for a national research body seeking to leverage its capabilities is to identify a center or centers that suit its research mandate and encourage its scientist to cultivate a relation with scientists at that center. Center scientists are deeply engaged with national scientists on almost all their projects. In fact they seek and strongly protect their relations with national scientists. Some of these relations date back decades.

To illustrate there is a major crop research program (SARD-SC) funded by the African Development Bank that is underway. It came onboard with the blessing of numerous African governments, NARS and the African Union. It is being implemented by AfricaRice, ICARDA and IITA. It is truly a Pan-African initiative covering cassava, maize, rice, and wheat and it has a multitude of national scientists from NARS and universities involved from Cairo to Capetown and from Dakar to Daressalaam.

Mr. Bolo raises additional concerns about the utility of such generic agreements. His questions go beyond collaboration with the international research centers. It is true that collaboration between African scientists could increase but it is hard to see how cooperation with an international research center undermines Continental cooperation. If well thought through, it should complement nicely since the roles are quite distinct.

Hartmann

Sipho’s comments about the centers are unfair. The take away point about this African Union-Consortium agreement is that organizations need to be selective and critical about signing generic agreements. Well targeted agreements backed up by a drive to translate it into action can be worthwhile, but most end up being mere bureaucratic paper.

Another point Sipho brings up is the important question of funding for NARs. Why are NARs having this problem? Certainly this cannot be all attributed to having a handful of international centers around. So what are the other causes? Are the countries priorities correct? Are NARs delivering? I.e., do national leaders have confidence in their NARs? In a national competition to define the agricultural challenges of a central African country government was embarrassed that the NAR and universities failed to win. An enlightened farmer won.

Sipho’s comments about the existence of some self-interest and self-preservation may be correct, after all this being a human trait. But certainly the international centers have no monopoly on it. I have seen it in both systems. Further, such a trait might not be as bad as it might appear at face value if the organization is well managed. In such a setting self-interest ends up working for Africa because to survive the scientists must show that they are delivering impact. Thus serving Africa becomes one of the best ways to protect themselves. Note that serving Africa does not always include working with NARs the private sector in several African countries are also excellent partners.

The self-preservation charge is also an interesting one. The centers were conceived to having a fixed life. The idea was that once the poor countries were capable of feeding themselves, as many like India have done, then the centers would disappear. We are approaching that situation in South America. This says that the issue of self-preservation of the international centers rests squarely on national