EFFECTIVE PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
Summary Report of the Annual Forum 201722-23 November 2017, Livingstone, Zambia
Prepared by the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) and the Scinnovent Centre

INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the key issues and messages from the 2017 Annual Forum on “Effective public –private partnerships in Research and Innovation” held from 22 – 23 November, 2017 in Livingstone, Zambia.
The Forum brought together about 120 people from 25 countries, including Heads of Research Councils(HoRCs), SGC Coordinators, Researchers, Policymakers, Private Sector actors and Civil Society representatives.
The highpoint of the opening ceremony was the address delivered by Her Excellency, Prof. Nkandu Luo, theHonourable Minister for Education, Science and Technology, Zambia. In her address, the Minister noted that“time has come for Africa to give priority to research, science and technology” and emphasized that researchcreates knowledge which is turned into policy and practice. She observed that time for making policies basedon extrapolation and interests were long gone and that over time, Africa has built capacity to use researchevidence in policymaking. She further emphasized the important role of sharing research results andchallenged participants to “develop a roadmap on how their research will find their way into the policymakers’offices”. While responding to the perceived lack of interest and capacity to use evidence by the policymakers,
Prof. Nkandu Luo asserted that “there is a higher appreciation of scientific evidence in government” and urged
the scientific community to be more proactive in dealing with the government and policymakers. To do so, she1advised that the research agenda needed to change to be more forward looking and relevant to national needs
and priorities.
On the role of the private sector, the Minister observed that unfortunately “the private sector is not a criticalplayer in contributing to national development on the African continent” and quipped, “What sort of private
sector are we welcoming to our countries?” In response, she noted that most of the private companies
flocking in Africa were merely interested in resource abstraction. She emphasized the need to call and hold theprivate sector to account and demand that they “put in place technologies that help our countries”. She
concluded that, “it is in our interest that we partner with people who can help us translate research results
into friendly technologies for our use”. In promoting public – private partnerships in research and innovation inAfrica, the Minister implored the participants to consider two critical questions in their deliberations: whatshould we be doing and why are we not doing it?
The Annual Forum was guided by the Commissioned paper on the topic, “Effective public – privatepartnerships in Research and Innovation: Perspectives for African Science Granting Councils” by Prof. Banji
Oyeyinka and his team. The paper was presented by Dr. Bertha Vallejio and two key discussants, Dr. Kamal
Battacharya, the Chief Innovation Officer, Safaricom Ltd, Kenya and Prof. Stuart Tarbener, Research Council,
United Kingdom (RCUK) gave their perspectives on the paper. While the intervention by Dr. Battacharya
focused more on the private sector experiences with setting up of IBM research labs in Kenya and South Africa,
Prof. Tarbener brought in the UK experience detailing the role of RCUK in catalyzing public – private sector
partnerships. To bring in more perspectives from the SME component of the private sector, Mr. Francis Ndilila,
an architect from Zambia with extensive practical experiences in banking, energy and real estate discussed thechallenges of mobilizing domestic financing for research and development (R&D), the role of funding fornational competitiveness and the need to recognize and deal with vested interests.
To bring African voices into this debate, HoRCs from 5 countries (Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Botswana, andCote d’Ivoire) and the African Union/NEPAD were requested to respond to some of the key issues, questionsand gaps raised by the commissioned paper. Following these initial interventions, there were interactive open
Q&A plenary discussions facilitated by Dr. John Kachimba (Deputy Board Chair of Zambia’s National Scienceand Technology Commission, NSTC).
KEY MESSAGES FROM THE COMMISSIONED PAPER AND PLENARY DISCUSSIONS
1. Research prioritization and agenda setting
It was observed that a key issue undermining the PPPs is the different focus and priorities of research interestsfrom both the public and private sectors. In some cases, there is complete lack of priorities and each sector
pulls in their own direction. Findings from the commissioned paper as well as experiences shared by thediscussants and during the plenary showed that this problem is widespread and affects both developed anddeveloping countries alike. However, key differences were highlighted on how countries are dealing with thechallenge. For example, in the Netherlands, the government through a “Top Priority Sectors Approach”
identified the country’s top 9 sectors and created incentives and support structures to facilitate thecompetitiveness and position them as global players in their respective value chains. In Costa Rica, the Ministryof Science and Technology and ICT champions agenda setting and leads other sectoral ministries in scouting forprivate sector research needs before making international calls to address them.
2

In the UK, the Research Councils work closely with businesses to understand business needs and priorities andoffer the required support systems. The Councils work in tandem with Innovate UK to implement a sectoral
approach towards supporting businesses. Notable amongst the RCUK initiatives is the role of the Economic andSocial Research Council (ESRC) which facilitates partnerships that impact businesses and the private sector. InAfrica, Botswana shared their experiences on how they are currently in the process of developing a national
research agenda and a PPP engagement strategy. The country is also considering context relevant approaches
including foresight studies and scenario building to inform its future research direction and priorities. A
number of other African SGCs are in similar situations and were glad to learn of these experience andinternational best practices in research prioritization and agenda setting.
2. Institutional architecture/infrastructure and governance patterns
Institutions determine and condition behavior, providing parameters for social interactions by defining what isacceptable and what is not. They set the rules within which social actors operate. The architecture of the rules
could be formal as in contracts or informal as in memoranda of understanding (MoUs). Each set of rules workin different contexts and have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, cases were highlighted whereindividuals within organizations circumvented formal structures such as outreach offices and entered intodeals with private sector actors. Similarly, in some cases actors attempted to re-interpret and assign different
meanings to clauses in the contracts. Still in some cases, the sheer complexity of the contracts hindered rather
than facilitated the partnerships. The importance of the governance patterns – roles of different actors indecision-making and project execution – was equally highlighted with examples showing that this is an areathat is often neglected but easily contested when projects take off. Examples from the PASRES programme in
Cote d’Ivoire showed how the private sector is involved in decision-making including choosing new leaders.
The professional agricultural organizations representing the private sector are part of the management
committees and the manager is appointed competitively from the private sector. In Costa Rica, in order tocater for the interests of the SMEs in the Papaya value chain, a special window was created for targeted
support and to lessen the administrative burden. This led to a differentiated governance approach that served
the interests of both the big players and the SMEs.
3. Funding models/ Mobilizing domestic resources for R&I
Generally, it was observed that most SSA countries are under-investing in R&D compared to their counterpartsin other regions of the world. Most are yet to reach the continental targets of 1% of GDP, even though there
are ambitious declarations from countries such as Kenya to invest up to 2% of GDP. Failure to meet the targets
notwithstanding, it is notable that there is an upward trend in resource allocation to research and innovationand this needs to be encouraged, scaled and sustained. Lessons from Europe showed that Horizon 2020 as afunding mechanism requires a formal MoU between the applicants and the private sector as a pre-condition
for funding. It also focuses on projects that show pre-market products/technologies that are nearly ready forcommercialization. Focusing back to Africa’s science granting councils, and their roles in research funding, suchpre-conditions could be applied to stimulate public – private partnerships. Cases from the NRF of South Africa
and Kenya demonstrated that this is already being practiced and could provide good learning opportunities forother SGCs gearing to start funding research and innovation in their contexts.
3

4. Political economy/contexts
Reflecting on their experiences with establishing IBM offices and partnerships in Kenya and South Africa, Dr.
Khamal Battacharya, the Chief Innovation Officer for Safaricom Ltd in Kenya highlighted the role of “strong
personalities versus strong institutions” in the two countries. He noted that working with “forward-lookingindividuals” in Kenya, they were able to sign contracts within 4 – 6 months. However, this reliance on
personalities presented challenges especially with change of governments and administrations when people
either change roles or are transferred. On the contrary, South Africa exhibited well structured institutions fornegotiating PPP contracts and in the end it took up to two years to enter into contracts with the government.
It also emerged that same institutions (contracts) are interpreted differently depending on the countries one isdealing with. For example, in some contexts, the contracts are seen as “aspirational” – outlining what could beachieved together rather than “litigational” – providing the do’s and don’ts that could end up in legal suits. In
other words, the contracts are assigned “meanings” and could be re-interpreted. These contextual issues
define the stability of fluidity of the partnerships as well as the speed and predictability of the contracts, theirenforcement and attendant ease of doing business in the different countries.
Another political economy question is the extent to which the PPPs for research and innovation fit in with thecountries’ policies and practices. For example, it was noted that a number of countries have enacted PPP laws
but these are geared more towards large infrastructure projects in water, roads, energy, etc. To what extent isresearch and innovation covered in these laws? Are there entry points for research and innovation? Theseissues were flagged as necessary for further interrogation and reflection. Participants observed the need forrobust PPP engagement frameworks in countries where these were lacking and how the SGCI could support
their establishment.
WAY FORWARD
The robust discussions and inputs into the draft commissioned paper as well as additional interviews
conducted by the consultants with the Heads of Science Granting councils and their coordinators provided richmaterial and experiences to be incorporated into the final version of the commissioned paper.
Similarly, as requested by the Minister in her opening speech, the key issues and recommendations will bepackaged and presented to her office for further action. It is also hoped that the SGCs will use issues raised in
the Forum as well as issues highlighted in this summary report to engage the relevant agencies andgovernment offices in their own countries.
On the whole, discussions on how to harness the potential and power of public – private partnerships forstimulating research and innovation in Africa is “an on-going conversation” and the Annual Forum as expected
ignited the debate and provided the initial flames and will keep this discussion ongoing.
Finally, it is expected that through sharing lessons and best practices, the SGCs will take lead in promoting
public – private partnerships. The Science Granting Councils Initiative through its four thematic focus areas will
support the Councils efforts towards realizing these dreams.
4