Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation
Development in Africa
African Technology Policy Studies Network(ATPS) Technopolicy Brief No. 60
Dr. Nicholas Ozor
Mr. Alfred Nyambane

Institutional Landscape for Ecoinnovation Development in Africa
Case studies from Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia

Dr. Nicholas Ozor
Mr. Alfred Nyambane
African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is atransdisciplinary network of researchers, policymakers, private
sector actors and the civil society promoting the generation,dissemination, use and mastery of Science, Technology andInnovations (STI) for African development, environmental
sustainability and global inclusion. In collaboration with like-minded
institutions, ATPS provides platforms for regional and international
research and knowledge sharing in order to build Africa’s capabilities
in STI policy research, policymaking and implementation forsustainable development.

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies
Network (ATPS)
P. O. Box 10081, 00100- GPO, Nairobi, Kenya
2021
ISBN: 978-9966-124-80-7

Table of Contents
About the RECIRCULATE project..................................................................... ii
About the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) ....................... iii
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................ iv
Key Messages ................................................................................................ v
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Rationale for Eco-innovation Institutional Framework in Africa ................ 2
1.2 The National Innovation System and its implication for Eco-innovation ... 3
2. Methodology ............................................................................................. 5
3. Major Findings ........................................................................................... 6
3.1 Supporting National Policies, Strategies and Regulations ......................... 6
3.2 National Innovation System and the role of National Innovation
Institution in Eco-innovation ........................................................................... 7
3.3 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) ......................................... 9
3.4 Public Awareness and Political Goodwill ................................................. 10
4. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 11
5. Policy Recommendations ......................................................................... 12
References ................................................................................................... 15

i | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

About the RECIRCULATE project
The Lancaster University, UK through its Centre for Global Eco-innovation (GCE)aims to support high quality research partnerships to establish systems
necessary to move from research to solutions and support the long-termtransition from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy. Lancaster
University is well known for translating high quality research into real world
impacts. The RECIRCULATE project, Lancaster University is funded by the
Research Councils UK through the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF)
which has the stated aim of “Growing Research Capability to Meet the
Challenges Faced by Developing Countries”. In that sense, RECIRCULATE is quite
different from many traditional research projects. While there is a clear research
focus on a circular water economy there is also a broader underpinning aim tosupport new partnership-based approaches to enable African researchers andresearch institutions to grow transformational impact through (i) working with,in and for their communities and (ii) developing robust, durable and equitablepartnerships with UK researchers. That aim certainly applies to water researchand is relevant to all disciplines and sectors if research is to underpin sustainable
and equitable growth. The project is being implemented through research andtrainings delivered in the United Kingdom and Africa. The project partners
include: University of Benin, Nigeria; Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research, Ghana and Lancaster University, Ghana Campus; Botswana
International University of Science and Technology; National Commission for
Science and Technology Malawi; Copperbelt University, Zambia; and the African
Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS). ATPS was commissioned to conduct
a policy and institutional landscape review on Eco-innovation targeting the
RECIRCULATE project implementing countries: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia. It is from this study that this policy brief has beendeveloped.

ii | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

About the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)
The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) 1 is a trans-disciplinary
network of researchers, policymakers, private sector actors and civil society
actors that promote the generation, dissemination, use and mastery of Science,
Technology and Innovations (STI) for African development, environmental
sustainability and global inclusion. ATPS has over 5,000 network members and
3,000 stakeholders in over 51 countries in 5 continents with institutional
partnerships worldwide. We implement our programs through members innational chapters established in 30 countries (27 in Africa and 3 Diaspora
chapters in Australia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom). In
collaboration with like-minded institutions, ATPS provides platforms for regional
and international research and knowledge sharing in order to build Africa’s
capabilities in STI policy research, policymaking and implementation forsustainable development.

1

https://atpsnet.org/

iii | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

Acknowledgement
This policy brief was produced by the African Technology Policy Studies Network(ATPS) with support from Lancaster University, UK. The ATPS takes thisopportunity to thank all the ATPS National Chapter Coordinators in the study
countries, the lead researchers and facilitators for their efforts in contributing
to the success of the research especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We also
thank the respondents in the study countries for their inputs. Special thanks to
the RECIRCULATE project community for their inputs and support throughout
the study period. The ATPS also thanks the RECIRCULATE managers for theirtechnical inputs and support throughout the study period.

iv | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

Key Messages
 Whereas Eco-innovation is relatively a new concept in the study countries,
there is a good understanding of the concept by stakeholders who alignthe concept with other similar concepts such as green growth, green
innovation, green energy, green cities/smart cities/sustainable cities,
green technologies, smart agriculture, ecological innovation, clean
technologies, circular economy, and eco-friendly innovations.
 Institutional collaborations between and amongst relevant actors
including policymakers, researchers, private sector actors and the civilsociety actors are required to institutionalise, promote and sustain Ecoinnovation development in Africa. Collaboration and cooperation lead tointeractive learning, and the flow of research and technology into industry
for successful commercialisation and diffusion of eco-innovative
solutions.
 Eco-innovation practice needs to be established within a strong
institutional framework comprising of both policy and organizational
structures.

v | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

1. Introduction
In many developing countries, there are pockets and islands of innovativeness,or individual entrepreneurs with an innovative spirit, in otherwise static andtraditional economies. Much attention has recently been paid to innovation asa way for industry and policymakers to achieve more radical, systemic
improvements incorporate environmental practices and performance. Manycompanies have started to use Eco-innovation or similar terms to describe theircontributions to sustainable development. A few governments are also
promoting the concept as a way to meet sustainable development targets while
keeping industry and the economy competitive. However, while the promotionof Eco-innovation by industry and government involves the pursuit of both
economic and environmental sustainability, the scope and application of theconcept tend to differ. To meet the targets of sustainable development,
industrial activities should be undertaken within the threshold of the naturalenvironment, vis-à-vis sustainable development (Munodawafa and Johl, 2019).
For industry to usher in sustainable development, organizations need to shift
from focusing solely upon profit but continue their pursuit of profit without
neglecting the interests of the planet and people, because the protection of thebiosphere will influence current and future competitiveness for organizations(Stock et. al., 2018).
The promotion of Eco-innovation has been mainly focusing on environmental
technologies, but there is a tendency to broaden the scope of the concept. Thisis because of the growing concerns about the state of the natural environment
due to the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, inefficiency in natural
resource and waste management as well as the devastating impacts of pollution
among many others. Given the urgency of the environmental challenges,
emerging and developing countries need to build their capacities forresearching, inventing, adapting or adopting new technologies to counter thesechallenges. They also need to establish the necessary demand to help suchinnovations develop and prosper.
Eco-innovation provides a competitive advantage to businesses by creating winwin opportunities for economic development, positive impact on society andreducing harm to the environment. Eco-innovation is an integral part of thesuccessful transformation towards a green economy. There is a need to develop
incremental and ground-breaking innovations in terms of products, processes,
business models and utilisation systems while existing technologies must be
rapidly scaled up and widely disseminated. However, Eco-innovations sufferfrom a two-fold market failure: a) entrepreneurs and companies cannot be sure,
1 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

whether and to what extent they will recover their STI-related expenditure by
securing a larger market share and/or higher profit margin because newly
created knowledge tends to leak out to competitors rather quickly, a processthat cannot ultimately be contained by using patents or copyrights (Mansfield,
1985) and b) non-internalised, negative environmental externalities of
conventional modes of production, such as greenhouse gas emissions, waterpollution, unsustainable logging and solid waste disposal. Significant
government intervention is, therefore, needed to overcome these barriers. At
the same time, policymakers must be aware of the trade-offs, costs and risks
typically involved in these kinds of industrial and innovation policy.
Eco-innovation is more important now than ever on the public policy agenda. It
is a major driver for green growth and contributes to environmental
performance and economic development (OECD, 2011a). Building on the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Innovation
Strategy, it argues that Eco-innovation is not merely about technologicaldevelopments, non-technical innovations matter as well. It acknowledges thatpolicies do not operate in a vacuum and that they must take account of theinstitutional contexts that influence the development and diffusion of Ecoinnovation.
It is against this background that African Technology Policy Studies Network(ATPS) conducted a review study to understand the institutional frameworks for
Eco-innovation in six (6) African countries: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi,
Nigeria and Zambia. This study was supported by the RECIRCULATE project thatis led by Lancaster University, UK.
1.1 Rationale for Eco-innovation Institutional Framework in Africa
The OECD stresses that no strong and widely shared definition of Eco-innovation
has as yet been developed. There have been a variety of definitions acrosscountries and sometimes across authorities in a single country (OECD, 2011b).
The European Commission, defining Eco-innovations “as all forms of innovationthat reduce environmental impacts and/or optimise the use of resources
throughout the lifecycle of related activities.” Reid and Miedzinski (2008),
defined it as “the creation of novel and competitively priced goods, processes,
systems, services, and procedures designed to satisfy human needs and provide
a better quality of life for everyone with a whole-life-cycle minimal use of natural
resources (materials including energy and surface area) per unit output, and aminimal release of toxic substances.” The context of Eco-innovation may
determine how successfully the innovation is received and diffused, but finding
2 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

opportunities for innovation first requires an understanding of where it comesfrom and which direction the innovation should take [increasing quality of
products, improving the ecological environment, diversifying products, etc.](Nisida, 2011). Eco-innovation needs to be established within a strong
institutional framework (including both policy and organizational structures).
Without strong institutional structures, there would be serious challenges withrespect to the roles and responsibilities of relevant actors in the innovation
system which then may lead to conflicts and the implementation of Ecoinnovation practices in silos.
Most of the challenges of Eco-innovation development in African countries area result of the economic structures of the countries; their institutional policies
and weak infrastructures; their weak financial and capital markets; and theirfailure to establish effective trade protocols. The weak infrastructure andinstitutional policies of many of the countries are partly responsible for poor
intra-African trade. Also, the numerous roadblocks and checkpoints on main
roads in Africa contribute immensely to increasing the delays in the delivery of
goods and in raising transport costs. The setting up of a robust institutional
structure would cut down the bureaucracies and increase efficiency andcoordination among the relevant entities thereby encouraging Eco-innovation.
The African business environment provides a wide range of opportunities tofoster the development and implementation of eco-innovative businesspractices, which can contribute substantially to the improvement of social
welfare. Eco-innovation can also provide local communities with the possibilityof technological leapfrogging, significantly reducing the use of scarce natural
resources and resulting in decreased production costs for businesses, as well as
easier access to basic services for the local population. Collaboration could also
unfold in platforms to identify technologies to match needs with existing
solutions, establish testing centres and business incubation hubs for networking,explore and generate ideas, and assess and avoid related risks.
1.2 The National Innovation System and its implication for Eco-innovation
An innovation system can be defined as a collection of organizations,institutions, government and people that interact in the production anddiffusion of new economically useful knowledge (James et. al., 2019).
Innovations are not only developed but also produced, diffused, and used. They
also change during these processes. The multiphase interactions amongst
academia, government and industries allow the exchange of knowledge,
Research and Development (R&D) and innovations. Successful implementation
3 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

of Eco-innovation policies requires action by various social actors – government,
business, investors, consumers, researchers, educators and civil society– since
Eco-innovation has effects that go beyond businesses, extending to the broader
society and the natural environment (United Nations Environment Programme[UNEP], 2017). Given these requirements, governments should convene
relevant stakeholders for consultations and joint action to share theresponsibility for transitioning into more sustainable consumption andproduction through Eco-innovation practices and to distribute its benefits
equally (Ibid).
One important issue for Eco-innovation policies is how to bring together actors
from the various sub-systems of the innovation system. To unpack theselinkages, three different settings should be distinguished. Horizontal linkages
include linkages within the same stakeholder group. The main challenge here isto promote cooperation between companies with complementary assets,
including knowledge. Vertical linkages (1) involve linkages between actors in the
publicly funded research system and the private business sector, whereas,
Vertical linkages (2) are those between the providers of innovative solutions andthe (potential) users, be it commercial clients, public entities (schools, public
housing or water authorities) etc. Companies/organizations are usually
extremely reluctant to establish horizontal linkages with their peers. This isespecially true for organizations/companies whose competitive advantage liesin their specific knowledge-based advantage rather than, for instance, their built
production capacities and related economies of scale. These companies fearlosing their competitive edge if their rivals gain access to formerly secret
proprietary knowledge. In this respect, managers and decision-makers will
regard networking between companies more as a risk than as a potential
benefit. The same thinking also prevents companies from establishing closer
vertical linkages with publicly funded research organisations, as even this canresult in strategic knowledge leaking out to competitors (Mansfield, 1985).
Other factors hampering collaboration between private business and publicresearch include the different motivating factors (patents versus publications),
time considerations (first on the market, versus scientifically well-founded
results) and even language issues (practically oriented, comprehensible
language as opposed to the jargon of a scientific community). The complexity of
government interventions to promote Eco-innovations that are intended tohave a real impact on the environmental sustainability of economic growth andthe aggregated social consumption of goods and services can now beappreciated. An additional governance challenge is the fact that special weight
4 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

must be given to the dissemination phase. Eco-innovations often need to be
deployed on a wide scale and as fast as possible, for reasons that are separate
from the economic process (UNEP 2017). All these different roles andinteractions need to be knitted well in the National Innovation System (NIS) for
Eco-innovation to thrive with minimal problems and challenges.
Eco-innovation relies on an interactive process between different partners in thevalue chain and within a system. Availability of interfaces for open and creative
exchange and collaboration among stakeholders is essential to provide
knowledge as input to Eco-innovation and to mobilise the right competencies
required for systemic change. Policy measures for Eco-innovation should beformulated to encourage interaction and align the technical competencies ofbusinesses and knowledge institutions. The active involvement of stakeholders
is important to facilitate social acceptance of changes and amplify the scale for
Eco-innovation through productive links across value chain actors and different
sectors.
International organizations and development partners are also very critical in
the NIS to enhance Eco-innovation. For instance, the African Development Bank(AfDB) is playing an increasing role in promoting sustainable initiatives. Given its
mandate in the area of climate change, the Bank is taking the lead in promoting
environmental and climate-friendly infrastructure, notably hydro and new andrenewable energy and transport. Beyond its support for infrastructuredevelopment, the Bank is expected to mobilise its lending windows to support
the financing of economically productive infrastructure and services linked tothe development of the region’s natural resources potential (AfDB, 2010).
2. Methodology
This study was conducted in six (6) African countries namely: Botswana, Ghana,
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia. Both primary and secondary data collection
methods were used. The secondary data and information were obtained
through comprehensive desk studies, where published policy materials, online
journals and all relevant grey literature were reviewed and analysed. The
primary data were obtained through Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs) with Eco-innovation relevant stakeholders from thefocus countries. The selected key informants and FGD participants were
purposively identified from relevant government (public) policymakers, theprivate sector, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), Research and Development
5 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

Institutions, and the media. At least one FGD and twenty (20) KIIs wereconducted in each of the six (6) RECIRCULATE countries.
The KII and FGD questions focused on understanding the existing enabling
and/or constraining Eco-innovation institutional frameworks, the existing
institutional linkages as well as the proposed recommendations to ensure thesustainability of Eco-innovation in those countries, the progress made,challenges, opportunities and benefits in promoting Eco-innovation
development.
3. Major Findings
3.1 Supporting National Policies, Strategies, and Regulations
All the study countries have put in place structures for generating technologies
and innovations that are aimed at solving their respective national problems. It
is under these structures that Eco-innovation can be anchored. STI policy isparticularly supportive of the innovation process, from idea generation to entry
and diffusion into the market. STI policy has traditionally supported early-stage
R&D for technological breakthroughs, and diffusion and outreach. These policies
receive priority attention in countries with economic growth strategies based on
advanced technology. Over the last few years, there has been an important shift
in refocusing STI policies towards sustainability issues to accelerate thetransition to green economy strategies. In Botswana, the Strategy for Economic
Diversification and Sustainable Growth of 2008 focussed on addressing the
primary challenge facing their economy, which was diversification to ensure thatthe citizens continue to enjoy the benefits of sustained economic growth,
especially in the minerals sub-sector. The strategy recognized the need for thegovernment to capitalize on the abundant financial, human and natural
resources to achieve the diversification objective. Additionally, it gives a multisectoral approach to driving the economy’s diversification objective. In the STI
sector, it proposed the establishment of Botswana Innovation Hub, which isintended to foster the development of a high technology sector. Customized to
the Vision 2030, Kenya formulated STI Policy framework, consisting of the STI
policy and strategy (2008) and enacted the Science, Technology and Innovation
Act in 2013, (STI Act, 2013) that emphasize the need for a coordinated functionalinnovation system in which universities (and public research institutes) play aleading role in knowledge and technology generation through research anddevelopment (Bolo et. al., 2015). These would provide a fertile foundation for
Eco-innovation to thrive in Kenya. Malawi developed the National Science andTechnology Policy (NSTP) of 2002 which set principles through which the country
6 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

disciplined its development by utilizing its human resources. This policy put inplace strategies that will enable the country to achieve a technology-based
development.
In Nigeria, the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy of 2012 wasdesigned in line with the objectives and pillars of the Nigerian Vision 20:2020,
thus serving as a link between economic planning and science and technology.
This means that the policy provides an opportunity to design
pathways/strategies to instil Eco-innovation ideologies in national plans as wellas in sectoral plans. In Zambia, the National Science and Technology Policy of2020 was developed to promote and exploit science and technology as an
instrument for developing an environmentally friendly indigenous technologicalcapacity in sustainable socio-economic development to improve the quality oflife for Zambians. On the other hand, the Science and Technology Act No.26 of1997 established the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) with themission to enhance Zambia’s capacity for scientific research and technologicaldevelopment.
In Ghana, the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy of 2017 aims
to provide a framework for stimulating innovation in the economy and society.
The policy places emphasis on the environment as a source of natural resources,
and the fact that its deterioration can be detrimental. Some of the activities andprogrammes to apply STI in the management of the environment to maintainand enhance quality and sustainability and to integrate environmental concerns
in all development policies.
3.2 National Innovation System and the role of National Innovation
Institutions in Eco-innovation
Irrespective of a country’s challenge and circumstance, successful Ecoinnovation interventions depend on a sound national system of innovation. A
national system of innovation is a combination of actors, institutions (bothorganizations and policies/laws), and networks that interplay to undertake anddrive the innovation process in a national setting. A sound national system ofinnovation provides the conditions for innovation to flourish without attempting
to pick winners. Building a strong system of innovation requires thestrengthening of each of three elements namely: (a) a strong education system(developing human capacity), (b) institutions (developing organizations thatdesign, implement and monitor effective policies, regulations, and standards,
thus creating a strong enabling environment), and (c) networks (facilitating
collaboration and interaction among the different actors) (TEC, 2015). Strong
7 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

political leadership that can incentivize and help to coordinate the technologicalinnovation process and guide the national system of innovation towards priority
areas (in our context, those related to a low-carbon economy and Ecoinnovation) is paramount. The organization of national coordinating institutions
largely depend on the structures of government and how the different sectors
are organized.
A central coordinating institution serves to consolidate data on the various
innovations and technologies that have been churned out as well as ongoing
activities for the various sector. A major constraint in implementing policies that
promote Eco-innovation is identifying manufacturing sub-sectors that have themost potential for improved resource efficiency and pollutant reduction
because of the vacuum of economic, environmental, and resource use data.
Visionary management and managerial concern are considered two of the mostimportant factors in the development of Eco-innovations, along with key
resources and capabilities such as qualified personnel, networking, andabsorptive capacity, and green organizational identity.
In Ghana, the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation(MESTI) was established to provide leadership and guidance in policy
formulation regarding the environment, science, and technology. There is nocentral institution dedicated to coordinating STI and research. The role has been
divided amongst various research institutions such as CSIR. The national
authorities and commissions play a critical role in the coordination anddevelopment of the STI sector in the countries where they are present.
The enactment of the STI Act of 2013 created three agencies namely: The
National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI), theKenya National Innovation Agency (KENIA), and the National Research Fund(NRF) to streamline and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the National
Innovation System (NIS) through clearly defined functions for each agency.
KENIA is charged with managing the NSI to enhance linkages within the systemamong the government, academia, and industry while the National Research
Fund is charged with funding national research both in terms of supporting theperformance of R&D in all sectors of the economy as well as providing
infrastructure support to Universities and research institutions to upgrade theirtechnological capabilities and enhance the performance of R&D.
In Nigeria, the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Science and Technology is a statutoryorgan of the government, with the responsibility to direct activities in the
8 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

Science and Technology Sector, including liaison with international and nationalorganizations. It also coordinates with the National Research and Innovation
Council (NRIC) to implement STI policies. In Malawi, there is the National
Commission for Science and Technology (NCST). The NCST is a government
central organization whose mandate is to promote, support, co-ordinate andregulate research, the development, and application of science and technology
matters in Malawi.
In Zambia, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was establishedto enhance Zambia’s capacity for scientific research and technologicaldevelopment in order to create wealth and improve the quality of life in Zambia.
These elaborate the responsibility of each of the actors in the NIS and provides
clear linkages, unlike the Botswana system where various institutions have theirseparate roles with no central coordination institution. It is left for the ministry
through the Department of Research, Science and Technology, under thegovernment to provide leadership in science and technology in Botswana whichsometimes can be overwhelming with the many other roles the designatedministry plays. This works to the disadvantage of the promotion of Ecoinnovation.
3.3 Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs)
The MDAs are often established by the Executive to promote sustainable
development by deepening and strengthening market-driven R&D for soundScience, Technology and Innovation through intensive awareness creation,
collaboration and partnership. The various study countries have established
Departments and Agencies under the ministry responsible for STI in therespective countries which have been given various mandates. Some of theagencies have been created by Policies or Executive orders. Many of the study
countries face coordination, resource and capacity challenge to building strong
innovation systems. From experiences in the past, it has been noted that shortterm priorities can make it difficult to keep measures in place that are crucial fordeveloping the system but take many years to yield results. A country may
therefore wish to focus its limited resources on a particular development
challenge rather than investing in systems that will only yield benefits in the longterm.
It is important to note that the countries that have a dedicated ministry for STI
such as Ghana where the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology andInnovation created under Executive Instrument (E.I.) 1 Civil Service (Ministries)
Instrument, 2013 plays a lead role have been seen to perform well in the STI
9 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

sector. Incidentally, Ghana has an advantage for Eco-innovation implementation
as the ministry also deals with environmental issues. In Malawi, there is the
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and Botswana has the Ministryof Tertiary Education, Research Science and Technology but both of them lackthe innovation component which is very crucial for purposes of anchoring Ecoinnovation and any other important innovation that supports environmental
conservation and sustainability. Kenya ironically does not have an STI ministry
but STI related issues are handled under the Ministry of Education. The ministry
also coordinates the departments and agencies established to handle STI. In thecase of Zambia, the Department of Science and Technology in the Ministry of
Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education (MESVTEE) is theprincipal institution implementing STI in Zambia. There is need to ensure that
MDAs and Private sector entities in the development of structures and systems
that would assist mainstream environmental sustainability are supported
technically as well as financially.
3.4 Public Awareness and Political Goodwill
Public support for green innovation/Eco-innovation targets specific priority
sectors such as water, energy and transport, and takes the form of direct R&D,
grants to SMEs, facilitation of risk capital for green technology development anddiffusion, innovation awards through prize and other recognition schemes, andsupport of demonstration projects in a late stage of development. These policy
and programmatic actions are complemented by regulation and economic
instruments such as subsidies to increase the adoption of greener technologies.
Political will is also important as the political leadership has powers to support
the development of institutions for Research, universities and also funding
various types of research. It is this will that will also enable policy review toinclude Eco-innovation in the development of national policies as well as in the
sectoral policies.
An important shift in recent years has seen an increase in public awareness thathas led to focus on demand-side innovation policies such as public procurement,
standard operating procedures, and consumer policy to increase demand forgreen technological solutions. However, more needs to be done to increaseawareness of Eco-innovation in the study countries. The political will to support
STI is very important as it allows other important factors such as policies,
strategies and plans to be developed and most importantly allocates funds toimplement the plans. It is also important to note that the countries that have a
dedicated ministry for STI such as Ghana where the Ministry of Environment,
Science, Technology and Innovation plays a lead role have been seen to perform
10 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

well in the STI sector. The Executive that supports STI will likely develop theirgovernance structure with a strong recognition of STI for instance the Big 4
agenda and Vision 2030 in Kenya which have STI as the key driver for theirachievement. Political will is also important as the political leadership has
powers to support the development of institutions for Research, universities
and most importantly providing funding for research. It is this will that will alsoenable reviews of existing national/sectoral policies, strategies and plans toinclude Eco-innovation.
4. Conclusion
Science Technology and Innovation are the key drivers of sustainable
development in Africa. Experience from successful sub-Saharan countries showsthat STI is critical at all stages of the development process, therefore,technological change/innovation is the key driver of economic development. For
this to be successful, countries must develop global institutional arrangementsthat increase international cooperation and collaboration in all areas relevant to
STI as well as Eco-innovation and to accelerate the transfer, adoption andadaptation of relevant technologies for transformational change in sub-Saharancountries. Whereas the case study countries have developed some institutional
structures to support STI, there are still huge gaps/challenges in ensuring thatthese institutions deliver on their mandates. These challenges include lack ofenough financial resources, infrastructure as well as the low capacity for these
institutions to meaningfully support Eco-innovation. In addition, STI
development should be harmonized with well-defined institutional structuresthat support concepts of Eco-innovation, green economy, and green growth andplace great emphasis on the potential synergies between economic growth andenvironmental sustainability. It is crystal clear that collaborative efforts are
better fast-tracked when all the elements in NIS are integrated. Despite having
many business opportunities offered by African countries, it should be borne inmind that any eco-innovative business strategies developed within the African
context should take into account the differences among countries in levels ofdevelopment, their economic structures, and political and social environments.
Unlocking eco-innovative commercial potentials across African regions, withwell-designed and supportive policy and programmatic actions, should produce
not only strong but sustainable growth. Africa can achieve such economic andsocial development if it is underpinned by a dynamic private sector andproductive entrepreneurship. This, therefore, calls for strong policies that put inplace systems and institutional frameworks that knit together the various actors
11 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

and stakeholders in a web that churns out Eco-innovations that will result insustainable development for the African countries.
5. Policy Recommendations
Innovation requires support systems to enable interaction between companies,
universities, and technical research institutions. Collaboration and cooperation
lead to interactive learning, the flow of research and technology into industry
for successful commercialization and diffusion of eco-innovative solutions.
These interactions and diffusion do not take place in weak systems. The
effectiveness of systems depends on efficient coordination and facilitation, arole that can be played by the government with the help of other actors. Below
are some recommendations that may improve the Eco-innovation institutionalframework.
Recommendation 1: Foster strong inter-ministerial coordination, including
engagement of the national planning, finance ministries among others
Eco-innovation is a means to engage and enable industries and businesses tocontribute to the achievement of broader national goals related todevelopment, competitiveness, employment, and the environment among
others. Therefore, the combinations of policies for Eco-innovation need to bestrongly anchored in an overarching vision for the economy. Different ministries
and their respective departments and agencies need to work together using aworkable mechanism to ensure that Eco-innovation is strongly anchored andembraced. This can be through special inter-ministerial committees that haveall sectors and actors involved.
Recommendation 2: Adopt life-cycle thinking and value-chain approach in thedevelopment of an institutional framework
Lifecycle thinking examines the impacts of goods and services over theirlifecycle: from raw material acquisition through to manufacturing, distribution,
product use and disposal. It refers to a qualitative approach to understanding
how material resources flow through each stage of the lifecycle. It is closely
linked to a scientific approach of lifecycle assessment but has been expanded tosymbolize a system thinking perspective in addressing issues of sustainability.
Identifying actors in each phase of the cycle is critical in setting up an all-inclusive
structure that can support Eco-innovation. Different policy instruments target
different phases of the lifecycle of goods that can be designed into policy
interventions across the value chain. If applied at a macro level, it helps to
identify specific issues, industries and value chains where actions are most
12 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

urgently needed to efficiently target the efforts and investments of public andprivate sectors. The value chain approach draws attention to sector-specificneeds.
Recommendation 3: Institutional frameworks for Eco-innovation need toencourage collaboration amongst all actors
Eco-innovation relies on an interactive process between different partners in thevalue chain and within a system for Eco-innovation. Availability of interfaces foropen and creative exchange and collaboration among stakeholders is essential
to provide knowledge as input to Eco-innovation and to mobilize the rightcompetencies required for systemic change. Policy measures for Eco-innovation
should be formulated to encourage interaction and align the technicalcompetencies of businesses and knowledge institutions. The active involvementof stakeholders is important to facilitate social acceptance of change and amplify
the scale for Eco-innovation through productive links across value chain actors
and different sectors. For example, facilitating collaboration between large andsmall companies, in which large companies comply with policies or programmes
which encourage performance improvements among their suppliers, has been
conducive to increased productivity and joint innovation. Collaboration could
also unfold in platforms to identify technologies to match needs with existing
solutions, establish testing centres and business incubation hubs for networking,explore and generate ideas, and assess and avoid related risks.
Recommendation 4: Institutional frameworks for Eco-innovation need to be
designed to address long-term issues
Measures aiming at short-term reductions and improvements only result inincremental changes favouring sub-optimal levels of sustainability. Measuresthat do not provide a clear and coherent path to address long-term issues suchas vulnerability from environmental and resource degradation and resource
scarcity will not be effective in mitigating these risks. Policymaking needs to havea long-term strategic vision to show the direction in which the regulatory
landscape is heading beyond the current election term. This is necessary not
only to secure a form of sustainability based on the concept of intergenerational
equity but also for industry to have clear signals to show them that investing in
eco-innovative solutions is worthwhile. Eco-innovation is implemented bymarket agents who need a stable environment to take risks and a clear direction
on where to focus on continuous improvements. Long-term orientation is an
important frame of reference for decisions and collective actions and results.

13 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

Recommendation 5: Avail the necessary resources to institutions to develop
infrastructure, purchase equipment and build their capacity to support Ecoinnovation
The right infrastructure and laboratory equipment are vital for eco-innovators
to efficiently and effectively carry out research and training. All the case study
countries do not have sufficient institutions that provide training in Ecoinnovation and limited research on the same is conducted due to lack of facilities
and the necessary technical knowledge. There is need for the respective
governments to tap into available opportunities nationally and internationallyto develop these.

14 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

References
Bolo M., Osir E., M Rugutt and K. Desai (2015). Stimulating innovation andentrepreneurship in Kenyan universities and public research institutes Is
performance-based research funding model the answer? The Scinnovent
Centre. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2814.3522.
James J, Abubakar K, Emeka J, Assim V, (2019). Integrating Innovations for
Sustainable Development in Africa. International Journal of Scientific
Research in Science and Technology (IJSRST), Print ISSN: 2395-6011, Online
ISSN: 2395-602X, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp.166-178. Accessed from: doi:
Journal
URL:
https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST19617
http://ijsrst.com/IJSRST19617.
Mansfield, E. (1985). How rapidly does new technological knowledge leak out?
In: The Journal of Industrial Economics, 34 (2), p. 217–223.
Munodawafa, R. T. and Johl, S. K. (2019). A Systematic Review of Eco-innovationand performance from the Resource-Based and Stakeholder perspective:
Department of Management and Humanities; Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia.
Nisida, G. (2011). Innovation and Sustainable Development: Linkages andPerspectives for Policies in Europe. ESDN Quarterly Report June 2011
Accessedfrom:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330690010_Integrating_Innov
ations_for_Sustainable_Development_in_Africa.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], (2011a).
Fostering Innovation for Green Growth. OECD, Paris.
OECD (2011b). Towards Green Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Kunz, S., Kohl, H. (2018). Industry as enabler for asustainable development: A qualitative assessment of its ecological andsocial potential. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 118, 254–267.
Technology Executive Committee [TEC]. (2015). Strengthening National Systemsof Innovation to Enhance Action on Climate Change, United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], (2017). Mainstreaming Ecoinnovation in Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies. ISBN No:
978-92-807-3687-8.

15 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief Series• Eco-innovation Policies for Sustainable Development in Africa (ATPSTechnoPolicy Brief No. 60)• Policy and Institutional Framework for Ecological Organic Agriculture in
Benin (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 59)• Institutional Framework for Ecological Organic Agriculture in Kenya (ATPSTechnoPolicy Brief No. 58)• Policy and Institutional Framework for Ecological Organic Agriculture in
Senegal (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 57)• Advancing Ecological Organic Agriculture in Nigeria (ATPS TechnoPolicy
Brief No. 56)• Policy and Institutional Framework for Ecological Organic Agriculture in
Rwanda (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 55)• Bridging Climate Information Gaps to Strengthen Capacities for Climate
Informed Decision (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 54)• Embracing Open Contracting in Africa (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 53)• The Digital Revolution, Open Science, and Innovation for Open Science
Development in sub-Saharan Africa (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 52)• Nouvelles approaches de financement de la recherché et de L’innovationen Afrique (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 51)• New Approaches for Funding Research and Innovation in Africa (ATPSTechnopolicy Brief No. 50)• Towards Effective Public-Private Partnerships in Research and Innovation:
A perspective for African Science Granting Councils (ATPS TechnoPolicy
Brief No. 49)• Innovative Practices and Policies for Promoting Biodiversity Informatics in
Sub Saharan Africa (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 48)• Improving the Relevance of University Training to Labour Market
Demands in Africa (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No.47)• Developing Policies for Biodiversity Informatics in sub-Saharan Africa(ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 46)
16 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa• ICTs role in Agricultural Development: Prospects of Land Potential
Knowledge System (LandPKS) (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 45)• Mainstreaming Gender in the National Science, Technology andInnovation (STI) Policy of Kenya (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 44)• Social Innovation: An untapped Resource for Inclusive Green Growth(ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 43)• Policy Axes that can uphold Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change
Adaptation & Food Security in Central Africa: Case of Cameroon,
Equatorial Guinea and Central African Republic (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief
No. 42)• Frameworks for Intellectual Property Protection of Traditional Knowledge
in Tanzania (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 41)• Assessment of Possible Intellectual Property Protection Options of
Traditional Knowledge System in Ethiopia (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No.
40)• Towards influencing National Legislation, Policies, Strategies andProgrammes for appropriate Protection and Benefit-Sharing of Traditional
Knowledge (TK) with and by Traditional Herbalists in Uganda. (ATPSTechnoPolicy Brief No 39)• Traditional Healers and their provision of Mental Health Services in
Cosmopolitan Informal Settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. (ATPS TechnoPolicy
Brief No. 38)• Policy Implications for Intellectual Property Systems for Traditional
Healers in Lesotho. (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 37)• Incidence of Indigenous and Innovative Climate Change Adaptation
Practices for Smallholder Framers’ Livelihood Security in Chikhwawa
District, Southern Malawi. (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No.36)• Machobane Farming System and its Relevance to Climate Change Policyin Lesotho. (ATPS TechnoPolicy Brief No. 35)

17 | Institutional Landscape for Eco-innovation Development in Africa

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)
is a transdisciplinary network of researchers,
policymakers, private sector actors and the civil society
promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of Science, Technology and Innovations (STI)
for African development, environmental sustainability
and global inclusion. In collaboration with like-minded
institutions, ATPS provides platforms for regional andinternational research and knowledge sharing in orderto build Africa’s capabilities in STI policy research,
policymaking and implementation for sustainable
development.

African Technology Policy
Studies Network (ATPS)
Contact Executive Director:
executivedirector@atpsnet.org
8th Floor Chancery Building,Valley Road
P. O. Box 10081-00100, Nairobi
Tel: +254 (020) 2714092
www.atpsnet.org

Science Technology and Innovation
for African Development
ISBN: 978-9966-124-80-7