Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013) : final report. Volume 1, Main report.
Date: 2022-04-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Partnerships
Subjects: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Mauritius, Peru, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine, Viet Nam, aid evaluation, cooperation policy, development policy, environmental policy, farming sector, food security, health care, information policy, innovation, report, research policy

Evaluation of the EU Support to
Research and Innovation for
Development in Partner Countries
(2007-2013)

Final Report

Volume 1 – Main Report

May 2016

International
Cooperation and
Development -
EuropeAid

___________
Evaluation carried out on behalf of

the European Commission

Consortium composed by

Ecorys, Particip, Lattanzio, ECDPM, Mokoro

Leader of the Consortium: Ecorys

info@ecorys.com

Contract No EVA 2011/Lot 1

Specific contract No 2013/330982

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation

for development in partner countries (2007-2013)

This evaluation was commissioned by the Evaluation Unit

of the Directorate General for International Cooperation and

Development (European Commission)

The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ points of view
which are not necessarily shared by the European Commission
or by the authorities of the concerned countries.

© Cover picture rights: EuropeAid Photo Library

This report has been prepared by

Merzhauser Str. 183
79100 Freiburg, Germany
Phone: +49 761 790 740
Fax: +49 761 790 7490
E-mail: info@particip.de
Web: www.particip.de

The evaluation team comprised of:
James Mackie* (Team Leader and Sector Expert),
Landis MacKellar (Deputy Team Leader and Sector
Expert), Bjørn Bauer (Sector Expert), Paul Engel*
(Sector Expert) and Steven Ney (Sector Expert).
The team has been supported by: Georg Ladj
(Quality Director), Paulina Bizzotto Molina*, Matthi-
as Deneckere*, Michael Lieckefett, Marian Meller,
Rudy Ooijen, Eunike Spierings*, Fabien Tondel*
and David Watson.
* Staff of ECDPM

The evaluation is being managed by the DG
DEVCO Evaluation Unit.

The author accepts sole responsibility for this re-
port, drawn up on behalf of the Commission of the
European Union. The report does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Commission.

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, as part of the evaluations of the Directorate-General for International 
Partnerships (INTPA). However, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any consequence 
stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 
PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-52113-6 

MN-06-22-194-EN-N 

ISSN 2529-3338 

doi: 10.2841/294658 

Manuscript completed in May 2016 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 

reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a 

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is 

allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the 
respective rightholders. 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) 
Directorate D - Sustainable Development Policy and Coordination 
Unit D.4 - Performance, Results and Evaluation; Internal Communication, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Methods 
Email: INTPA-EVALUATIONS@ec.europa.eu  
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium 

EU International Partnerships: 
https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/our-impact/monitoring-and-evaluation_en 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of the EU support to research and
innovation for development in partner countries
(2007-2013)

Final Report

The report consists of 4 volumes:
Volume 1 – Main Report
Volume 2 – Sector Evaluation Matrices
Volume 3 – Annexes 1 to 8
Volume 4 – Annex 9: Country Notes

VOLUME 1: MAIN REPORT
1. Introduction
2. Key methodological steps
3. Overall policy framework
4. Intervention logic analysis
5. Inventory analysis
6. Answers to the evaluation questions
7. Overall assessment
8. Conclusions
9. Recommendations

VOLUME 2 – SECTOR EVALUATION MATRICES
1. Part A – Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture
2. Part B – Health
3. Part C – Environment and Climate Change
4. Part D – Science, Information Society and Space

VOLUME 3 –ANNEX 1 TO 8
1. Annex 1 – Terms of reference
2. Annex 2 – Inventory
3. Annex 3 – Case studies
4. Annex 4 – Survey to EU Delegations
5. Annex 5 – Final evaluation matrix
6. Annex 6 – List of persons interviewed
7. Annex 7 – Bibliography
8. Annex 8 – Methodology

VOLUME 4 – ANNEX 9: COUNTRY NOTES
1. Burkina Faso
2. Ethiopia
3. India
4. Kenya
5. Mauritius
6. Peru
7. South Africa
8. Tunisia
9. Ukraine
10. Vietnam

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
1
Mandate and scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................... 1
1.1
Structure of the report ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
2 Key methodological steps...................................................................................................... 3
Overall methodological approach ................................................................................................. 3
Selection of country, regions and interventions ............................................................................ 4
Survey to EU Delegations ............................................................................................................. 6
Challenges and limitations ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

3 Overall  policy  framework  of  the  EU  strategy  in  relation  to  Research  and

Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 8
General framework........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1
International co-operation on Research and Innovation ............................................................... 9
3.2
Development and R&I ................................................................................................................. 11
3.3

4 The intended intervention logics of EU support to Research and Innovation in

5

partner countries .................................................................................................................. 14
The intervention logic diagrams for DG DEVCO and DG RTD FP7........................................... 14
4.1
The different levels of the reconstructed DG DEVCO intervention logic .................................... 15
4.2
4.3
The different levels of the intervention logic for DG RTD FP7.................................................... 19
Inventory analysis................................................................................................................. 21
Methodological limits and challenges ......................................................................................... 21
5.1
Main findings ............................................................................................................................... 22
5.2
Total and sector commitments.................................................................................................... 22
5.3
Geographic distribution ............................................................................................................... 23
5.4
Distribution by domain ................................................................................................................ 26
5.5
Distribution by channel of delivery .............................................................................................. 27
5.6
6 Answers to the evaluation questions .................................................................................. 28
EQ 1: Development policy objectives ......................................................................................... 28
EQ 2: Impact on partner country research communities ............................................................ 35
EQ 3: Instruments and modalities............................................................................................... 43
EQ 4: DEVCO-RTD complementarity and coherence ................................................................ 56
EQ 5: Transfer of R&I results into development processes........................................................ 62
EQ 6: EU capacities .................................................................................................................... 78
7 Overall assessment .............................................................................................................. 84
8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 87
Policy and strategic focus ........................................................................................................... 87
Operational approach ................................................................................................................. 91
Complementarity with other EU services .................................................................................... 95
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 96
9 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 100
Policy and strategy focus .......................................................................................................... 102
Operational approach ............................................................................................................... 103
Complementarity with other EU services .................................................................................. 106
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 107

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

ii

List of tables
Table 1
Table 2

Total commitments by sector ...................................................................................................... 23
Top  15  countries  receiving  EU  support  for  R&I (individual  country  contracts),  and  its
distribution within sectors ............................................................................................................ 26
Distribution of commitments by domain and sector (shares of contracted amounts) ................. 26
EUD survey respondents: examples of internal lessons learning............................................... 70
EUD survey: participation in sector-specific policy dialogues..................................................... 72
Prioritisation of recommendations............................................................................................. 101
A varied strategy adapted to different needs and levels of development ................................. 103

Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7

List of figures
Key steps of the evaluation process ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 1
Reconstructed intervention logic DG DEVCO R&I...................................................................... 17
Figure 2
Intervention Logic RTD ............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3
Sector allocation of commitments (shares of total contracted amount) ...................................... 23
Figure 4
Geographic scope of commitments for thematic sectors as given by benefitting zone .............. 24
Figure 5
Shares of total commitments (regional plus individual country contracts) per region................. 24
Figure 6
Commitments per region by thematic sector (shares of contracted amounts) ........................... 25
Figure 7
Distribution of commitments by type of contractor (shares of contract ed amounts).................. 27
Figure 8
Distribution of contracted amounts by sector and type of contractor.......................................... 27
Figure 9
Use of different aid approaches .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 10
Assessment of implementing channels (all sectors) ................................................................... 52
Figure 11
Innovation system: joining science and society for transformation............................................. 69
Figure 12
EUD survey: participants and organisers of policy dialogues by sector ..................................... 72
Figure 13
Figure 14 Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations................................................. 100
Prioritisation of recommendations, schematic overview ........................................................... 101
Figure 15

List of boxes
Box 1
Box 2
Box 3
Box 4
Box 5
Box 6
Box 7
Box 8
Box 9
Box 10
Box 11
Box 12
Box 13
Box 14
Box 15
Box 16
Box 17
Box 18

List of Case Studies presented in Volume 3 ................................................................................. 5
Definition of Research and Innovation .......................................................................................... 8
Key EU policy documents on international co-operation in R&I ................................................... 9
Key findings of the inventory ....................................................................................................... 22
The JAES – R&I policy dialogue built on a regional partnership ................................................ 33
ASARECA - Enhancing regional exchanges for research .......................................................... 41
Innovation for Poverty Alleviation - Sector budget support to R&I in South Africa ..................... 48
EU support to CGIAR - Influencing change in global agricultural research................................ 50
The EIARD: a platform for European donor co-ordination.......................................................... 55
IssAndes - Matching impact pathways with funding cycles ........................................................ 64
SWITCH Asia - The role of the private sector in applied innovation........................................... 66
PASRI – National innovation systems and the private sector..................................................... 67
Science and society: linking up for development impact ............................................................ 68
SWITCH Asia - Transfer of R&I results into development processes......................................... 71
EU support to using R&I results in the Ethiopian coffee sector .................................................. 76
TDCA Dialogue Facility - R&I policy dialogue in South Africa .................................................... 81
The importance of S&T for development .................................................................................... 87
Supporting innovation and the private sector.............................................................................. 98

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

iii

List of acronyms and abbreviations

ACP

AFS

ANDI

ARD

ASAL

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

Afrique du Sud

African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Intervention

Agricultural Research for Development

Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

ASARECA

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

AU

AUC

CAADP

CAREN

CC

CCS

CCT

CG

African Union

African Union Commission

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

Central Asian Research and Education Network

Climate Change

Carbon Capture and Storage

Clean Coal Technologies

Consultative Group

CGIAR

(Former) Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

CIP

CLE

COM

International Potato Centre

Country Level Evaluation

Communication from the European Commission to other institutions

CORDIS

European Commission's Community Research and Development Information Service

CRIS

CRP

CSE

CSO

CSP

DAC

DCI

DG

Common RELEX Information System

CGIAR Research Programme

Country Strategy Evaluation

Civil Society Organisation

Country Strategy Paper

Development Assistance Committee

Development Co-operation Instrument

European Commission’s Directorate General

DG DEVCO

European Commission’s Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development

DG RTD

European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation

DST

EACEA

EBTC

EC

Department of Science and Technology

Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency

European Business & Technology Centre

European Commission

EDCTP

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Platform

EDF

EEAS

European Development Fund

European External Action Service

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

iv

EECA

EIARD

EIB

ENP

ENPI

Eastern Europe and Central Asia

European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development

European Investment Bank

European Neighbourhood Policy

European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument

EnvCC

Environment and Climate Change

EO

EQ

ERA

EU

EUD

Earth Observation

Evaluation Question

European Research Area

European Union

European Union Delegation

EUMETSAT

European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

EUR

Euro

EUROPAN

Apoyo Presupuestario de la Unión Europea al Programa Articulado Nutricional

FED

FP

FSNA

GCARD

GCC

GCCA

GFAR

Fonds européen de développement

Framework Programme

Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture

Global Conferences on Agricultural Research for Development

Global Climate Change

Global Climate Change Alliance

Global Forum on Agriculture Research

GPARD

Global Programme on Agricultural Research for Development

HEI

HIV

HQ

Higher Education Institution

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Headquarters

ICARE

EU-China Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy

ICT

IL

INCO

JAES

JC

JRC

LAC

LMIC

MDG

MESA

NET

NGO

Information and Communication Technology

Intervention Logic

International Co-operation

Joint Africa-EU Strategy

Judgement Criterion

Joint Research Centre

Latin America and the Caribbean

Low and Middle-Income Country

Millennium Development Goal

Monitoring of Environment and Security in Africa

National Expert Team

Non-Governmental Organisation

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

v

National Innovation System

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Programme d’appui au système de recherche et innovation

Policy Coherence for Development

Pilot Project-Action Préparatoire

Reference Group

Research Organisation

Results-Oriented Monitoring

Regional Strategy Paper

Science and Technology Programme

Sector Budget Support

Sustainable Consumption and Production

Sustainable Development Goal

South East Asia

Miscellaneous documents from the European Commission

Science, Information Society and Space

Small and Medium Enterprise

Sector Policy Support Programme

Tuberculosis

Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement

Trans-Eurasia Information Network

Terms of Reference

United Nations

NIS

OECD

PASRI

PCD

PP-AP

RG

RO

ROM

RSP

S&TP

SBS

SCP

SDG

SEA

SEC

SISS

SME

SPSP

TB

TDCA

TEIN

ToR

UN

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNEP

WHO

United Nations Environment Programme

World Health Organization

Note: The Evaluation uses the common acronym “EC” to refer either to the “Commission of the European Union” (post-
Lisbon Treaty) or to the “European Commission” (pre-Lisbon Treaty), as applicable.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

vi

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

vii

Executive Summary

Highlights

This  evaluation  examined  the  support  the  Eu-
ropean  Commission’s  DG  for  Development
and  International  Cooperation  (DEVCO)  pro-
vided  to  Research  and  Innovation  (R&I)  in
partner  countries  during  the  last  EU budget
period (2007-2013).

During  these  years  DEVCO  did  not  have  an
explicit policy document to support R&I and yet
the  study  identified  programmes  worth  over
EUR 1 billion that included some aspect of R&I
work.  The  evaluation  looked  at  four  specific
sectors  and  found  that  within  these  sectors
there was considerable interest in R&I and that
such  elements  were  often  included  in  support
programmes under each one.

Policy basis
The EU’s policy for support to R&I at the interna-
tional level is set by two Commission Communica-
tions from 2008 (588) and 2012 (497). These refer
to R&I supporting the EU’s external policies by con-
tributing to sustainable development and tackling
global challenges.

Moreover  DEVCO  was  active  in  supporting
R&I at  different  geographic  levels  (global,  re-
gional  and  national)  and  with  multiple  actors,
including  not  just  governments  and  research
communities,  but  also  the  private  sector  and
civil society. This support also produced results
which impacted positively on development pro-
cesses  particularly  at  the  local  and  sector  lev-
els, but very little effort was made to capitalise
on research results and make them known and
available to wider audiences.

Support to R&I was therefore a major theme of
DEVCO  work,  yet  one  that  is  hidden,  not  rec-
ognised  and  poorly  understood.  Given  the  im-
portance of scientific knowledge and technolo-
gy  for  economic  development  and  the  rapid
pace of change and  innovation, this high  level
of funding is not surprising but  what  is striking
is  its low  profile. A  new  departure  is  to  be

found in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy signed in
December  2007,  which  identifies  support  to
R&I  as  a  cross-cutting  tool and one  of  eight
pillars of co-operation.

The  evaluation  concluded 
that  while  DG
DEVCO  had  achieved  a  lot  with  its  support  to
R&I  at  the  sector  level,  the  lack  of  an  overall
strategy  or explicit  overall  commitment to sup-
port  R&I  undermined  the  overall  impact  of  its
work in this important area for development.

Background to the evaluation

The  objectives  of  the  evaluation  were  to  pro-
vide an overall judgment on the extent to which
the  EU  development  co-operation  policy  has
adopted  a  strategic  approach  to  support  R&I
and  whether  the  approach  was  appropriate  to
enhance capacity to reach development objec-
tives.

The  conclusions  were  expected  to  specifically
address  areas  of  particular  interest,  namely:
capacity  building;  the  transfer  of  research  re-
sults  into  social  or  economic  process;  the  ap-
propriateness  of  instruments  and  modalities
and  the  approaches  used (country  versus  re-
gional  support,  through  sector  programmes  or
through direct support to R&I).

The scope of the evaluation was set in terms of
sectors, instruments and time.

Two key parameters for the evaluation
The evaluation’s scope was limited to:

Four thematic sectors:
1. Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture (FSNA);
2. Health;
3. Environment and Climate Change (EnvCC);
4. Science, Information Society and Space (SISS).
Three instruments used by DEVCO:
a. The European Development Fund (EDF);
b. The Development Co-operation Instrument

(DCI) incl. both geographic and thematic lines;

c. The European Neighbourhood & Partnership

Instrument (ENPI).

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

The  DG  for  Research  and  Innovation  (DG
RTD) also implements activities supporting R&I
in developing countries. However, RTD’s work
was  not  included  in  the  scope  of  the  evalua-
tion.  Yet,  it  is  considered  from  a  contextual
point  of  view,  and  analysed  from  a  comple-
mentarity perspective.

Finally, the evaluation was limited in time to the
years  2007-2013,  which corresponds  to  the
last EU multi-annual budget period and to that
of  the  10th EDF.  This  is  also  the  period  of  DG
RTD’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7).

The methodology of the evaluation

The  methodology  used  was  based  on  the
guidelines  of  the  DG  DEVCO  Evaluation  Unit.
It consisted of four standard phases: Inception
Phase,  Desk  Phase,  Field  Phase  and  Synthe-
sis  Phase,  the  latter  including  a  dissemination
seminar.

The  evaluation  moved  systematically  through
several  stages.  First,  in  order  to  have  a  clear
understanding  and  overview  of  the  object  of
evaluation,  an  inventory  and  typology  of  DG
DEVCO  support  to  R&I  was  produced.  Based
on  this  the  team  built  the  methodological
framework.  A  key  tool  was  the  identification
and  agreement  with  the  Reference  Group  on
six  evaluation  questions,  with  judgement  crite-
ria  and  indicators  around  which  the  exercise
was organised.

On the basis of this framework, data collection
took  place  in  two  steps:  (i)  document  review
and  interviews  in  Europe  during  the  Desk
Phase,  and  (ii)  country  visits  in  the  Field
Phase.  A  survey  questionnaire  was  also  sent
to a wider sample of EU Delegations

The  field  visits  were  conducted  in  ten  coun-
tries1,  selected  across  the  different  regions
where  the  EU  works  so  as  to  cover  emerging
economies  through  to poorer  ones.  The  main
objectives of these visits  were to fill remaining
data  gaps  and  validate  or  revise  the  prelimi-
nary findings formulated in the desk work. Data
was collected by sector and analysed up to the
level  of  judgements  for  each  of  the  four  sec-

1 Burkina  Faso,  Ethiopia,  India,  Kenya,  Mauritius,
Peru, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine and Vietnam.

viii

tors.  Thereafter,  synthesis  judgements  and
single  responses  to  the  evaluation  questions
were formulated across sectors combined.

The  final  Synthesis  Phase  was  devoted  to
constructing  answers  to  the  evaluation  ques-
tions  and  formulating  conclusions  and  recom-
mendations on the basis of the evidence.

What did DEVCO fund?

total  of 

The  inventory  exercise  concluded  that  DG
DEVCO  committed  a 
roughly
EUR 1.1 billion  for  support  to  projects  with  a
Research and Innovation component in partner
countries over the evaluation period (contracts
signed between 2007 and 2013, or just before
but with more than 50% of their disbursements
in this period).

The  distribution  by  sector  (see  figure  below)
shows  that  EUR 1.0 billion  of  the  total  con-
tracted  amount  were  earmarked  for  the  four
thematic  sectors  chosen  for  the  evaluation.
EUR 0.1  billion went  to  other  sectors.  Out  of
the  four  sectors  FSNA  received  the  largest
share  (EUR 0.5 billion)  of  total  commitments.
In addition, DG DEVCO financed an estimated
EUR 0.3 billion  of  academic  mobility  grants  at
doctoral  and  post-doctoral  levels  and  for aca-
demic staff.

Sector  allocation  of  commitments  (shares  of
total contracted amount)

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

In  terms  of  geographic  distribution,  half  of  the
funds  went  on  regional  level  contracts  and  a
third  through  country  level  contracts. The  re-
maining  16%  of  funds  were  contracted  to  or-
ganisations with global reach. As shown in the
figure below,  Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia re-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

ix

ceived the largest shares of total commitments,
through  both  regional  and  individual  country
contracts. South Africa and China led the rank-
ing of funding by country.

Shares  of  total  commitments  (regional  plus
individual country contracts) per region

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

The  main  funding  instruments  used  were  the
geographical EDF and the thematic instrument
DCI-Food.  Each thematic sector used three to
four  major  funding  instruments.  EU  support
was  contracted  through  a  range  of  different
actors or channels, with international organisa-
tions, the private sector and universities at the
top of the list for the thematic sectors.

Overall assessment

The  overall  assessment  is  two-sided.  On  the
one hand DG DEVCO support to R&I was cer-
tainly relevant, but the assessment against the
other  standard  evaluation  criteria  is  far  more
mixed. At one level, there were many individual
projects  and  programmes  with  worthwhile  R&I
components  that  have  benefitted  from  DG
DEVCO  support.  On  the  other  hand  these  ef-
forts  have  not  achieved  a  critical  mass,  nor  a
substantial  overall  result  that  might  have  left
real  improvements  in  the R&I  institutional
framework across partner countries.

Looking  at  the  OECD  DAC  evaluation  criteria
in turn:

 Relevance – DEVCO  support  to  R&I  is
relevant in different ways at both policy and
practical  levels.  The  support  is  certainly
relevant in terms of the achievement of EU
development objectives and the MDGs. In-
novation  in  particular  is  vital  for  resolving
obstacles  to  sustainable  development.  For

individual  projects  there  was  also  strong
relevance  for  project  objectives.  Equally,
both  the  funding  itself and  the  types  of
support  provided  were  relevant 
to  re-
searchers  in  countries  with  minimal  re-
sources for research.

 Effectiveness – the  assessment  of  the
effectiveness  of  DEVCO  support  to  R&I  is
mixed.  For  individual  projects,  the  support
has  been  largely  effective  in  producing  re-
sults  and  achieving  objectives  or  to  get
partner  country  researchers  involved  in  in-
the
ternational  research  work.  Equally, 
support  to  networks  has  proved  an  effec-
tive  way  of  sharing  knowledge.  Overall,
however,  the  support  is  largely ineffective
and  suffers  from  the  lack  of  an  overall
strategy. Thus,  capacity  building  efforts
were  not  commensurate  with  the  needs;
mobility schemes did help individual capac-
ity  building,  but  did  not  impact  on  institu-
tional  development;  the  modalities  used
have  not  always  been  practical  for  individ-
ual  grantees  and  the  wider  dissemination
of results has proved limited.

 Efficiency – DG  DEVCO  support  to  R&I
has often been efficient at the local level in
individual projects but overall does not add
up  to  a  cost  effective  way  to  develop  na-
tional  R&I  systems.  The  lack  of  an  overall
strategic  approach  has  clearly  undermined
the  DG  DEVCO’s  ability  to  guide  choices
and  focus  action  on  the  most  efficient  ap-
proaches.  In  particular,  insufficient  atten-
tion  has  been  paid to  supporting  national
R&I  or  Science  and  Technology  (S&T)
strategies  and  the  establishment  of  institu-
tional frameworks for innovation that would
have greatly increased the efficiency of R&I
systems at the national level.



Impact – The  impact  of  DG  DEVCO sup-
port  to  R&I  has  been  limited to  specific
aims. Impact can be seen at the local level
in  the  way  many  individual  R&I  efforts  fed
results  into  local  development  processes.
The overall impact has, however, been lim-
ited  in  achieving  the  type  of  objectives  set
out  in  the  reconstructed  intervention  logic,
such  as:  more  innovative  development  so-
lutions to development problems and glob-
al  challenges,  policy  makers  more  attuned

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

to  using  research  results  or  R&I  more  ad-
justed to partner countries’ needs.

report)  that  could  be  used  to  build  a  wider
strategy for support for R&I.

x

 Sustainability – DG DEVCO was not able
to  build  sustainable  solutions  for  its  part-
ners on funding R&I in the longer term be-
yond  the  term  of  the  DG  DEVCO  funding.
Thus,  while  the  projects  and  programmes
funded  were  useful,  they  often  depended
on  continuing  EU  support.  The  project
funding  modality  used  in  many  cases  was
problematic  for  individual  researchers  or
low capacity research organisations, from a
sustainability point of view. In most partner
countries, there was little or no institutional
support for R&I, both in terms of institution-
al  infrastructure  and  in  terms  of  research
funding,  resulting  in  a  heavy  dependence
on external resources.

Main conclusions

The  Conclusions  are  divided  into  four  clusters
relating to (1) policy, (2) operational approach,
(3) complementarity  with  other  EU  services
and (4) the results of research.

Cluster 1 − Policy and strategic focus

These four conclusions relate to the successes
and  limitations  of  DEVCO’s  past  strategy  of
support to R&I and on bringing out some of the
positive  experiences  that  could  be  useful  ele-
ments for a future lesson learning.

Conclusion  1: DG  DEVCO’s  sectoral/pan-
African approach  to  support  R&I  has  been
broadly  effective  within  the  parameters  set  for
each  sector and the  Joint  Africa-EU  Strategy.
However, this approach limits DEVCO’s ability
to have an across-the-board impact on the use
of  R&I  as  a  tool  to  foster  development  and
economic 
a  world
characterised  by  increasingly  rapid  scientific
and technological change.

transformation 

in 

Conclusion  2: The  lack  of  a  clear  overall
strategy  for  DEVCO  support  to  R&I  for  devel-
opment  means  the  valuable  role  it  plays  is
poorly understood and not recognised.

Conclusion 3: Many of the projects supported
and  reviewed  do  provide  examples  of  good
practice  (see  the  series of  text  boxes  in  the

Conclusion  4:  There  are  also  lessons  to  be
learnt  from  some  of  the  well  chosen  partner-
ships DEVCO embarked on to provide support
at  all  the  three  geographic  levels  at  which  it
worked – global,  regional,  national (e.g.  re-
spectively:  CGIAR, the Joint  Africa-EU  Strate-
gy (JAES) and the Programme d’appui au sys-
tème de recherche et innovation (PASRI)).

Cluster 2 − Operational approach

The second cluster of three conclusions relates
to  how  DEVCO  had  operationalised  its  ap-
proach to supporting R&I. They cover the type
of  interventions  supported,  the  use  of  the  dif-
ferent  instruments  and  modalities  and  the  ca-
pacity of DG DEVCO to manage this support.

logic 

to  DG
Conclusion  5: The overall 
DEVCO’s support to R&I is conceptually solid,
but its elements (see text box below) have not
always been  deployed  in  a  consistent  fashion
and have  rather  been  used  as  a  menu  of  ele-
ments to draw on.

The main elements of the DEVCO package of sup-
port to R&I regularly consisted off:
a. Support to research networks (e.g. ASARECA);
b. Capacity development at three levels

(individual, institutional and infra-structural)
(e.g. JAES/African Union Research Grants);
c. Careful selection of suitable partners at all three

geographic levels – global, regional and
national;

d. Policy dialogue on sector research priorities but
also on general S&T policy (e.g. South Africa);
e. Funding of actual research (e.g. JAES/African

Union Research Grants);

Conclusion  6: DEVCO  used  its  full  range  of
instruments  and  modalities  to  fund  R&I  pro-
grammes  yet  with  little  apparent  strategic
thought on how these might affect the conduct
of  research.  R&I  often  operates  in  longer  cy-
cles than are possible with DEVCO procedures
and  sustainability  is  therefore  a  serious  issue.
The more intensive use of budget support (e.g.
case  of  South  Africa) may  need  to  be  consid-
ered in appropriate cases.

Conclusion  7: DEVCO  capacity  dedicated  to
R&I,  particularly  in  EU  Delegations,  has  been
inadequate  for  a  sector  so  important  for  eco-
nomic  development.  At  headquarters  capacity
was  limited  though  more  adequate.  Yet  it  was

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

xi

organised mostly on a sectoral basis, resulting
in  little central capacity  to  guide overall strate-
gic thinking and implementation.

Cluster 3 – Complementarity

The third cluster related to DEVCO’s collabora-
tion  with  other  Commission  services  and  EU
institutions.  The  question  of  complementarity
with  the  international  work  of  DG  RTD  was  a
key  consideration  for  the  evaluation.  Policy
coherence  for  development  (PCD)  was  a  sec-
ond important issue.

Conclusion 8: The division of labour between
DGs DEVCO and RTD resulted in a loose mo-
dus vivendi which generally operates smoothly.
More could have been done to improve under-
standing,  coordinate  and  ultimately  develop  a
joint strategic approach. In a few cases, where
both  DGs  invested  in  capacity,  particularly  in
EU Delegations, a higher level of co-operation
and more systematic outcomes were achieved.

Conclusion  9: PCD  is  clearly  understood  in
both  DGs  DEVCO  and  RTD  and  steps  have
been  taken  regularly  to  promote  PCD  by  the
different EU  actors involved in support to  R&I.
RTD officials in particular are well aware of the
importance  of  PCD  and  make  a  concerted  ef-
fort  to  address  coherence  issues  including  by
engaging  with  DEVCO’s  PCD  monitoring  pro-
cess.

Cluster 4 - Results

The final set of conclusions relate to the results
of the R&I supported by DEVCO. They provide
an assessment of the degree of innovation and
social  uptake  that  was  found  and  the  efforts
made  to  support  capitalisation  of  results.  The
last  conclusion  is  on  the  overall  visibility  of
DEVCO’s support to R&I.

Conclusion  10: R&I  efforts  supported  by  DG
DEVCO  have  contributed  to  development  out-
comes (e.g.
the International  Potato  Centre
(CIP)) but largely in an ad-hoc manner that did
not  promote  systematic  and  sustainable  pro-
gress neither on wider development processes
nor  on  creating  conducive  conditions  for  R&I.
The  lack  of a core  policy  commitment  to  R&I
has weakened uptake and sustainability.

Conclusion  11: Innovation  and  societal  up-
take of R&I results from DEVCO support have
been scarce due to inadequate national institu-
tional  frameworks  for  innovation. While  recog-
nising  the  importance  of  supporting  learning
and dissemination at the individual programme
or  even  sector  level, within  the  period  exam-
ined DEVCO  has rarely felt able  to  deploy
to national  innovation  systems (e.g.
support
PASRI).

Conclusion  12: R&I  results  have  not  been
capitalised  on  and  inadequate  support  has
been provided for the systematisation and dis-
semination  of  results (e.g.
IssAndes). Re-
search  results  are  therefore  by  and  large  only
used in the programmes where they have been
developed or in the immediate networks of the
researchers involved rather than shared further
afield.

Conclusion  13: DEVCO  is  not  perceived  as
an  agent  for  R&I  for  development,  and  little
effort has been made to create such an image
for improved visibility. This would seem largely
due to a lack of a clear policy commitment and
framework to support R&I for development.

Main recommendations

Corresponding  to  the  organisation  of  the  Con-
clusions  into  four  clusters  the  same format  is
used for the Recommendations.

Cluster 1 − Policy and strategic focus

The  evaluation  concluded 
that  while  DG
DEVCO  had  achieved  a  lot  with  its  support  to
R&I  at  sector  level,  it  should  be  more  explicit
about  its  commitment  to  support  R&I  and  de-
velop  a  clear  overall  strategy  for  this  work.
Given  the  importance  of  R&I  for  economic
transformation and the very real danger of de-
veloping countries being left behind by the rap-
id pace of technological change and innovation
DEVCO should have a clear policy in this area.

Recommendation  1:  Formulate  a  strategic
approach to R&I with a focus on establish-
ing institutional frameworks.

DG  DEVCO  should  formulate  its  own  R&I  for
development policy within the overall EU policy
on international co-operation in R&I and better

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

xii

implement  a  division  of  labour  with  DG  RTD.
This should be clearly set in the context of the
overall  contribution  of  R&I  to  sustainable  de-
velopment and the achievement of the new UN
Global Goals.

Recommendation  2:  At  national  level,  de-
velop  a  strategy  for  R&I  that  adapts  the
support  provided  to  the needs  and  level  of
development of partner countries

DEVCO should develop a strategy for R&I that
differentiates between partner countries at var-
ious  stages  of  development  and  provides
adapted  support, based  on  the  examples  of
positive  experiences  with  supported  projects
reviewed in this evaluation.

Cluster 2 − Operational approach

DEVCO’s  experience  with  funding  R&I  throws
up a good many ideas and good practices that
can be used to formulate a solid approach.

Recommendation  3:  DG  DEVCO  support
should  continue  to  focus  on  seven  princi-
pal elements.

These  include  five  common  elements  that
emerge from much of DEVCO’s support to R&I
in  the  past  and  two  elements  that  have  not
been  so  prominent,  but  experience shows  are
important: (i) Support to networks, (ii) capacity
development,  (iii)  careful  selection  of  partner
institutions, (iv) policy dialogue, (v) actual fund-
ing of research for development, (vi) capitalisa-
tion  of  results  and  (vii)  the  establishment  and
strengthening of national innovation systems.

Recommendation  4:  Employ  instruments
and modalities suited to the needs of R&I.

DG  DEVCO  should  recognise  that  R&I  needs
to be built up over the longer term and should
explicitly  address  sustainability 
It
should  examine  the  mix  of  instruments  and
modalities  it  uses  and  review  them  to  design
approaches adapted to the long time frames in
scientific  research,  in  the  research-to-uptake
pipeline, and in R&I institution strengthening.

issues.

Recommendation  5:  Ensure adequate  hu-
man resource capacities for support to R&I.

DG DEVCO’s commitment to R&I for develop-
ment  will  mean  little  if  there  are  no  improve-
in  staff  capacity.  At  Headquarters,
ments 
involvement  will  require  more  re-
greater 

sources.  In  the  field,  R&I  capacity  should  also
be  strengthened  if  the  EU  wants  to  remain  a
relevant partner in this area.

Cluster 3 − Complementarity

DG  DEVCO  is  already  collaborating  with  DG
RTD but this could be taken further.

Recommendation  6:  Consolidate  and  im-
plement  an  explicit  division  of  labour  with
DG RTD.

DGs DEVCO and RTD should agree a clearer
division  of  labour  in  their  respective  roles  in
international co-operation for R&I and ensure it
is  followed  through  at  all  levels.  Cooperation
should be stepped up on the design of frame-
work programme calls so they meet developing
country  needs,  on  the  coordination  of  staffing
in  EUDs  and  on  the  capitalisation  of  research
results ideally using RTD’s CORDIS database.

Recommendation  7:  Maintain  the  political
and  practical  commitment  to promoting
Policy Coherence for Development.

Policy  Coherence  for  Development  (PCD)  on
R&I  for  development  should  continue  to  be  a
major  concern  for  DG  RTD  and  other  EU  ser-
vices and institutions supporting R&I directly or
indirectly.  This  is  particularly important  in  the
new  context  of  the  UN  Global  Goals  and  the
value they attach to Policy Coherence for Sus-
tainable  Development  as  a  vital  component  of
global partnership.

Cluster 4 − Results

DEVCO  should  do  more  to  capitalise  on  re-
search  results.  Supporting interested  partner
countries to develop national S&T policies and
establish  national  innovation  systems  is  a  key
way  to  encouraging  uptake  and  engagement
between researchers and the private sector.

Recommendation  8:  Take  more  deliberate
and systematic steps to foster results.

DG  DEVCO  should  focus  and  coordinate  its
support  to  R&I  more  carefully  so  as  to  create
critical  mass  within  a  national  or  regional  con-
text.  A  clear  approach  to  support  national  and
regional  R&I  frameworks  and  the  establish-
ment of national innovation systems will assist
this focus. Support for R&I inside specific sec-
tors  should  continue  to  play  a  role,  but  wher-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

xiii

ever  possible  this  should  be  linked  to  the  na-
tional and/or regional R&I policy context.

Recommendation 9: Develop a clear strate-
gy for the transfer of results.

Specifically targeting the transfer and dissemi-
nation  of  results  and  ensuring  they  are  sys-
tematically  taken  up  by  EU  Delegations  and
project implementers is essential.

Recommendation  10:  Provide  explicit  sup-
port to the capitalisation of results.

DG  DEVCO  should  develop  and  implement  a
strategy  for  the  systematisation  or  ’capitalisa-
tion’  of  results  of  R&I.  This  could  be  done  in
conjunction  with  DG  RTD  and  would  be  built
around  the  broader  institutional  development
that  DG DEVCO  already  supports  (e.g.  high-
speed internet networks) and further support to
institutional frameworks for innovation.

Recommendation  11:  Build  a  visibility
strategy on a stated commitment to R&I.

DG  DEVCO  should  publically  state  the  im-
portant role it sees for R&I in the achievement
of  EU  development  objectives  and  the  UN
Global  Goals,  as  well  as  the  role  it  sees  itself
as  playing  in  promoting  R&I  for  development.
Such a clear statement will then also provide a
foundation  on  which  to  build  a  communication
and visibility strategy.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

xiv

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Mandate and scope of the evaluation

A broad evaluation scope covering a seven-year period of European
Union (EU) support in third countries, regions and through relevant
instruments.

The thematic scope of the  evaluation encompasses the EU support to Research and
Innovation (R&I) in four key sectors (henceforth “thematic sectors”):

1. Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture (FSNA);

2. Health;

3. Environment and Climate Change (EnvCC);

4. Science, Information Society and Space (SISS).

The  specific  objectives  of  this  evaluation  are  to  provide  an  overall  judgement  on  the
extent  to  which  the  EU  development  co-operation  policy  has  adopted  a strategic  ap-
proach to  support Research  and  Innovation  in  the  key  sectors  and  whether  the  ap-
proach was appropriate to enhance capacity to reach development objectives in these
fields. Moreover, the Terms of Reference (ToR) specify  that the conclusions and les-
sons learned are expected to specifically address areas of particular interest, namely:

 The support provided to capacity building in partner countries;

 The level of the transfer of research results into social or economic process likely

to impact on poverty reduction in longer term;

 The appropriateness of instruments and modalities made available;

 The  approaches,  notably  country  versus  regional  support,  as  well  as  addressing
research directly or through the inclusion of important components of research ac-
tivities within sectoral programmes.

The legal scope of the evaluation is delineated by the activities supported by the Direc-
torate General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO) within the
framework of the following co-operation instruments: the European Development Fund
(EDF), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) – both geographic and thematic
budget lines -, and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).

While the Directorate General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) implements ac-
tivities supporting Research and Innovation in developing countries, its policies, strate-
gies, programmes and activities are not included in the scope of the present evaluation
and  therefore  neither  in  the  in-depth  analysis.  They  are,  however,  considered  from a
contextual point of view, and analysed from a complementarity and synergy  perspec-
tive.

The temporal scope of the evaluation is the period of 2007-2013, which corresponds to
the last EU multi-annual budget period and to that of the 10th EDF. Equally this is the
period of DG RTD’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7).

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

1.2 Structure of the report

The report is structured in four volumes:

2

Volume 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction;

Chapter 2 – Key methodological steps;

Chapter 3 – Overall policy framework of the EU strategy in relation to Research and

Innovation;

Chapter  4 – Intervention  logics  of  DG  DEVCO  and  DG  RTD  support  to  R&I  in  third
countries, based on an analysis of major normative documents and the sector in-
tervention logics presented in Volume 2;

Chapter 5 – Inventory analysis: an analysis of the inventory of interventions related to

Research and Innovation financed by DG DEVCO in the period 2007-2013;

Chapter 6 – Answers to the evaluation questions, including summary findings for each

evaluation question, as well as the synthesis judgements across sectors;

Chapter 7 – Overall assessment;

Chapter 8 – Conclusions;

Chapter 9 – Recommendations.

Sector introductions, judgement criteria and  underlying indicators for each of the four
thematic sectors (FSNA, Health,  EnvCC,  SISS). Volume 2 is accordingly  divided into
four sub-volumes.

1. Terms of Reference;

2.

Inventory  of  interventions  related to  R&I  financed  by  DG  DEVCO  in  the  period
2007-2013 (methodology, analysis and full list of contracts);

3. Regional and global Case Studies;

4. Survey to EU Delegations (approach, analysis and questionnaire);

5. Final evaluation matrix;

6. List of persons interviewed;

7. Bibliography;

8. Methodology.

Country Notes for the countries visited during the Field Phase.

Volume 2

Volume 3

Volume 4

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

3

2 Key methodological steps

2.1 Overall methodological approach

An approach in four phases.

The methodology applied for this evaluation is based on the methodological guidelines
developed by  the DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit. The guidelines give precise  indication
on the design of the study, structure of the evaluation process in several phases, and
provide an array of tools that can be used for evaluations.

The  evaluation  was  conducted  in  four  main  phases  (as  summarised  in  the  following
figure) between January 2014 and May 2016. It was managed and supervised by the
DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit. Evaluation progress was closely followed by a Reference
Group  (RG),  chaired  by  the  Evaluation  Unit,  and  consisting  of  members  of  DG
DEVCO,  DG  RTD  and  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency
(EACEA).  The  figure  also  lists  the  main  tasks  implemented  and  tools  used  in  each
phase, the RG meetings held, and the deliverables for each phase. Each phase start-
ed  after  formal  approval  of  the  deliverables  of  the  previous  phase  by  the Evaluation
Unit. Further methodological details can be found in Annex 8 of Volume 3.

Figure 1

Key steps of the evaluation process

The  evaluation  process  adopted  a  systematic  approach  that  used  various  building
blocks to gradually construct an answer to the evaluation questions (EQs), and to for-
mulate conclusions and recommendations.

The  analytical  tools  used  for  the  evaluation  process  are  summarised  in  Annex  8  of
Volume 3. The remainder of this section briefly discusses the procedure for geographic
and case study sampling, as well as the survey to EU Delegations (EUD) and the limi-
tations encountered during the evaluation.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

4

2.2 Selection of country, regions and interventions

Geographic units and interventions were systematically selected
to obtain a relevant and representative portfolio for in-depth
study.

Since it was not possible to conduct an in-depth assessment of R&I support for all rel-
evant  interventions  and  countries/regions,  a  number  of  country  cases  and  interven-
tions were selected for in-depth study. The selection process aimed to keep the num-
ber of cases within realistic dimensions while simultaneously reflecting the whole R&I
portfolio through sufficient variety of interventions and contexts in order to allow gener-
alising findings and ensuring external validity of the analysis.

The portfolio of R&I interventions was first sampled along geographic levels (national,
regional and global). Within each level, specific interventions were then chosen to rep-
resent a sufficient variety of types of support, contractors and programmatic approach-
es.

2.2.1 Country selection

The country selection took place in three steps. First, a list of criteria was developed to
pre-select  a  ‘broad’  sample  of  38  countries  (see  details  in  Annex  8  of  Volume 3),  for
which  a  ‘light’  (preliminary)  analysis  conducted  at  the  beginning  of  the  Desk Phase
along the following lines:





Identification  of  R&I-specific  evidence  in  Country  Strategy  or  Regional  Strategy
Papers (CSPs and RSPs) and Country Strategy Evaluations (CSEs);

Light screening of contracts in the inventory (including their financial volume);

 Collecting information about countries’ participation in regional EU support to R&I;

 Assessment of the availability of relevant documents.

These 38 countries also represent the set of countries contacted for participation in the
online  survey  to  EU Delegations  (see  details  on  the  survey  approach  in  Annex  4  of
Volume 3).

Subsequently, out of these 38 countries, a ‘small’ sample of 19 countries was selected
for in-depth desk analysis  based on the previous criteria (that is, by  prioritising  coun-
tries that  mention  R&I  in  their  CSPs/CSEs,  received  high  amounts  of  country-level
funding, serve as hubs for regional support and/or for which good documentation was
available) and in discussion with the Reference Group. The evaluation team developed
preliminary country profiles (not included in this report) as a basis for the final selection
of field mission countries.

Finally, the ten countries to be visited in the Field Phase were chosen at the end of the
Desk Phase in consultation  with the  Reference Group: Burkina Faso,  Ethiopia,  India,
Kenya,  Mauritius,  Peru,  South  Africa,  Tunisia,  Ukraine  and  Vietnam.  After  the  field
missions,  the  preliminary  profiles  of  these  ten  countries  were  elaborated  as  detailed
Country  Notes  presented  in  Volume  4,  each  including  at  the  end  a  collection  of  evi-
dence structured by judgement criteria.

A summary table in  Annex 8 of Volume 3 lists the three samples and thus illustrates
how  the  country  selection  was  gradually  narrowed  down  from  initially  38  to  the  ten
countries visited in the Field Phase.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

2.2.2 Case Studies at regional and global level

5

The regional and global level of R&I support has been mainly covered through a selec-
tion of Case Studies presented in Annex 3 of Volume 3 and that feed into the evalua-
tion matrix in Volume 2. The Case Studies provided a useful way of looking at the ma-
terial  evaluated  in  a  more  ‘programmatic’  way  that  examines  cross-sections  of  activi-
ties according to their implementation channels, the different ways they are ‘packaged’
by the  EU to follow a certain strategic logic or for external communication or visibility
purposes. These studies  therefore cover specific major programmes or dialogue pro-
cesses.

At  the  regional  level,  the  numbers  of  contractors  and  implementation  approaches  to
choose from turned out relatively large. A first list of ‘candidate’ interventions was pre-
pared  in  the  Inception  Phase,  aiming  to  achieve  balance  across  regions  (relative  to
their  different  weights  in  the  inventory),  implementation  channels  and  to  include  pro-
grammes of large size. The list was then reduced to 13 regional case studies and was
validated by the Reference Group. At the global level, the number of programmes and
contractors was more limited in the inventory. Seven of the major global programmes
and contractors were covered through in-depth Case Studies, chosen by simply look-
ing  at  all  the  global  programmes/channels  individually  and  considering  their  specific
nature and role. The list of all Case Studies is presented in the following box. Annex 8
in Volume 3 shows in addition their sector and geographic coverage.

Box 1

List of Case Studies presented in Volume 3

Regional Case Studies
1. @lis2 (Alliance for the Information Society Phase II) & ALICE2 (Latin America

Interconnected with Europe 2)

2. ACP Science and Technology Programme
3. ACP Sugar Research Programme
4. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

(ASARECA)

(Annual Work Plan for) Poverty-related Diseases 2006

Intra-ACP Energy Facility
Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) 8th Partnership

5. EU-Asia Link Phase III
6.
7.
8. Monitoring for the Environment and Security in Africa (MESA)
9.
10. Promoting Research for Improved Community Access to Health Interventions in Africa
11.

IssAndes (Strengthening Pro-poor Agricultural Innovation for Food Security in the Andean
Region)
12. SWITCH-Asia
13. Technology Transfer for Food Security in Asia
Global Case Studies
1. Former Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
2. Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) and Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS)
3. Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA)
4. Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)
5. Global Programme on Agricultural Research for Development (GPARD)
6. Higher Education
7. World Health Organisation (WHO)

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6

2.3 Survey to EU Delegations

A web-based survey to EU Delegations to reduce gaps of evi-
dence.

The evaluation team conducted a survey to EU Delegations to complement the docu-
mentary review and country visits. The results have been integrated into the synthesis
and sector judgements in Volume 1 and 2 respectively. The survey focused on issues
identified as gaps of evidence during the early Desk Phase and covered the following
thematic areas:

 Dissemination of information about R&I opportunities;

 Policy dialogue;

 Outcomes of support to R&I, dissemination, uptake and innovation;

 Aid delivery methods, funding instruments, implementing channels & approaches;

 Co-ordination and complementarity;



Lessons learnt from support to R&I;

 EU institutional capacities;

 Value added.

A questionnaire including quantitative and qualitative elements was developed by the
evaluation team and was approved by the Evaluation Unit of DG DEVCO. The evalua-
tion team prepared the questionnaire as a web-based survey and managed the survey
in-house. DG DEVCO Evaluation Unit contacted 37 EUDs to obtain contact details of
the main survey respondents in the Delegations. 32  EUDs responded to the request.
Invitations  to  the  survey  were  sent  out  as  soon  as  the  contact  details  were  received,
starting 21 May 2015. The survey was closed on 4 September 2015.

Completed questionnaires were received from 22 EUDs. The main respondents were
Heads of Co-operation and S&T contacts in the Delegations, and questions were gen-
erally  well understood  by the respondents. The final version of the questionnaire and
the survey report with detailed results are presented in Annex 4 of Volume 3.

2.4 Challenges and limitations

The evaluation faced some challenges in terms of data collec-
tion and conceptual work.

A number of limitations, both in the data collection process and of conceptual nature,
have been encountered, most of them during the Desk Phase:

 The ToR required the team to study four different thematic sectors. In the EU sup-
port analysed here, R&I is rarely treated as a separate sector for purposes of pro-
gramming,  but  embedded  into  other  sectors.  Furthermore,  R&I  activities  tend  to
constitute only one of many components of (or add-ons to) thematic interventions.
This resulted in an extended period of document screening and analysis since:
o The  inventory  compiled  during  the  Inception  Phase  was  large  with  over  a
thousand  contracts.  As  a  result,  a  large  number  of  documents  had  to  been
screened – in four sectors, rather than only one.

o The density of relevant information on R&I found in strategy and CRIS (Com-
mon RELEX Information System) documents was generally very low: specific
evidence  came  as  small  bits  of  information,  which  were  scattered  across  an
unusually large number of documents – even within sectors and after filtering
interventions with R&I components to the best extent possible.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

7



In general, strategy and programming documents made little specific reference to
R&I. Potential sources of evidence for R&I in sector dialogues (e.g. Sector Budget
Support  Programmes)  were  scant  in  the  evaluation  period  and  for  the  country
sample.

 The availability  of specific documents within contracts and decisions in CRIS var-
ied  hugely,  with  many  only  providing  one  or  two  programming  documents  and
nothing on monitoring or reporting.



It  was  not  always  possible  to  base  the  analysis  of  performance  and  actual  out-
comes of interventions on existing documentation since progress reports, Results-
Oriented Monitoring (ROM) reports or Mid-term Reviews were partially unavailable.

 The country strategy or thematic evaluations available offered virtually no specific
information  on  Research  and  Innovation.  This  lies  in  the  fact  that  EU  support  is
mainly limited to only two or three focal sectors and possibly a couple of non-focal
sectors. The result is that broad sectors are chosen and that these are very unlike-
ly, if ever, going to include R&I as a focal sector in its own right.



In  the  EUD  survey,  several  Delegations  highlighted  the  problem  of  limited  institu-
tional memory due to staff turnover, which inevitably led to a relatively larger cov-
erage of the later part of the evaluation period.

 Since the survey covered all four sectors, but EU support to R&I was usually con-
centrated  on  one  or  two  key  sectors  the  sample  size  at  sector  level  tends  to  be
low. For  the  sector  judgement  and  country  notes,  evidence  from  the  survey  has
been mainly used in anecdotal fashion whereas more robust statistics are available
at the overall level (synthesis judgements).



Little direct observations of projects was used during the country visits since each
field  missions  lasted  only  five  work  days;  however,  stakeholders  interviewed  pro-
vided information on final beneficiaries.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

3 Overall  policy  framework  of  the  EU  strategy  in  relation  to  Re-

8

search and Innovation

3.1 General framework

EU support to R&I arises from two distinct roots: support to re-
search and support to development.

The ability to generate, absorb and apply new knowledge is an increasingly important
factor  in  determining  the  international  competitiveness  of  modern economies  as  well
as in contributing to sustainable development, prosperity and growth. While developing
countries make political commitments to research that are often expressed in interna-
tional fora, most have limited financial resources for investing in R&I or lack the capaci-
ties  for  accessing  and  adequately  using  available  resources.  Development co-
operation in the area of research can therefore be a key instrument to use if develop-
ment  programmes  are  to  impact  on  poverty  reduction  and  sustainable  growth  chal-
lenges  facing  developing  countries.  As  awareness  of  this  link  has  increased,  EU  de-
velopment  policy  in  R&I  has  evolved  considerably  over  the  past  15  years.  To  date,
however, there has been no evaluation of EU support to R&I for development, so the
current exercise started from first principles.

The policy statements discussed in the following present the EU’s support to R&I as an
EU strategy with DG RTD and DG DEVCO working in complementarity with each oth-
er. Specifically, DG RTD is in charge of the overall EU support to R&I both inside the
EU  and  in  the  wider  European  Research  Area  under  its  International Co-operation
programme,  while  DG  DEVCO  supports  R&I  in  developing  countries  through  funds
destined for development purposes. The need for coherence between both policy are-
as is underlined at various appropriate moments.

EU support to R&I thus arises from two distinct roots: support to research on the one
hand  (discussed  in  Section 3.2)  and  support  to  development  on  the  other  (Section
3.3), institutionally embodied in DG RTD and DG DEVCO respectively. The Strategic
Framework  Communication  (COM(2008) 588,  p.2)  explains  the  policy  objectives  in
R&I as follows:

“The  main  objective  is  to  contribute  to  global  sustainable  development  and  to  foster
Europe’s S&T excellence, which is increasingly a basis for economic competitiveness
at a time when EU companies are ever more facing competition from emerging econ-
omies.”

Thus on the one hand there is an emphasis on the need to protect and enhance the
EU’s  interests and particularly  its global competitive  advantage through excellence in
S&T, and on the other the need to support sustainable development at the global level.
These twin objectives are not necessarily incompatible but individually may not always
lead in precisely the same direction. As this evaluation focuses on EU support to R&I
for development, the prime consideration for this study is the development objective.

In  order  to  clarify  the  scope  of  the  evaluation,  the  evaluation  team  developed  and
worked along the following definition of the terms ‘Research’ and ‘Innovation’:

Box 2

Definition of Research and Innovation

Research:

Innovation:

The process of inquiry into and evidence collection on new or developing areas
of knowledge, so as to build up expertise and knowledge for development pro-
cesses.
The  process  through  which  the  evidence  from  and  outcomes  of  this  research
and  knowledge  creation  are  taken  up  by  society,  translated  and  adapted  into
new knowledge that is then proactively used in development processes.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

9

3.2 International co-operation on Research and Innovation

The policy context of international co-operation in R&I is set
through three Communications.

The  policy  context  for  international co-operation on  R&I  is  mainly  provided  by  three
consecutive EU policy documents on R&I listed in Box 3 below. These are communi-
cations put forward by DG RTD in 2001, 2008 and 2012, but they are supported by the
whole Commission including DG DEVCO. DEVCO for its part does not have separate
policy  papers  on  R&I,  but  the  topic  is  referred  to  in  the  principal  development  policy
documents discussed in Section 3.3 further below.

Box 3

Key EU policy documents on international co-operation in R&I

COM(2001) 346: Communication  on  the  International  Dimension  of the  European  Research
Area
COM(2008) 588: A  Strategic  European  Framework  for  International  Science  and  Technology
Cooperation
COM (2012) 497: Enhancing  and  Focusing  EU  International Co-operation in  Research  and  In-
novation: A Strategic Approach

In 2001, the Communication on the International Dimension of the European Research
Area (COM(2001) 346  final)  emphasised  the  key  role  of  international  scientific co-
operation and  opened  up  the  EU’s  research  Framework  Programmes  to  third  coun-
tries, including developing countries.

The  subsequent 2008  Strategic  European  Framework  for  International  Science  and
Technology  Co-operation (COM(2008) 588  final)  recognises  that  major  global  chal-
lenges  such  as  climate  change,  poverty,  infectious  disease,  and  threats  to energy,
food  and  water  supply  highlight  the  need  for  effective  global  science  and  technology
co-operation to  promote  sustainable  development  and,  consequently,  formulates  a
number  of  principles  underlying  the  framework  for  international co-operation in  R&I.
Chief amongst these is first the widening opening up of the European Research Area
(ERA) and second the need to ensure policy coherence between R&I policy and other
policies  including  those  for  development.  The  strategy  also  seeks  to  foster  partner-
ships with key third countries in different regional groups as well as promote the EU’s
attractiveness as a research partner.

In terms of programmes, the 2008 Communication underpins the FP7 whose duration
corresponds to the 2007-2013 evaluation period. It is thus the main relevant Commu-
nication  on  international co-operation in  R&I  for  this  evaluation.  The  FP7 covers  re-
search  actions  in  a  number  of  areas  such  as  the  environment,  food  and  nutrition,
health  and  climate  change  that  are  important  for  sustainable  development.  Under  its
International  Co-operation  (INCO)  element,  the  programme  facilitates collaboration
with  researchers  from  developing  countries who  participate  directly  in  a  range  of  EU
projects. A major aspect of the policy is to improve the framework conditions for inter-
national S&T co-operation involving among other things support to the development of
global  research  infrastructure  initially  with  emerging  economies  in  Asia  and  Latin
America but also to other regions as well as support to the mobility of researchers.

The  more  recent  Communication Enhancing  and  Focusing  EU  International Co-
operation in Research and Innovation: A Strategic Approach (COM(2012) 497 final) re-
iterates the need for Research and Innovation policy to support EU’s external policies.
For developing countries, it calls for emphasis on complementing the Union's external
policies  and  instruments  by  building  partnerships  to  contribute  to  the  sustainable  de-
velopment  and  address  challenges  such  as  the  green  economy,  climate  action,  im-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

10

proved agriculture, food security and health. The Communication, which forms the pol-
icy  basis  for  current  EU  policy  on  support  to  Research  and  Innovation  and  for  DG
RTD’s Horizon 2020 (the successor programme of FP7), only covers the  last  year of
the evaluation  period.  It  does  however  provide  an  important  marker  indicating  where
evolving  EU  thinking  on  support  to  R&I  had  reached  by  the  latter  years  of  the  study
period and has hence be fully taken into account in terms of strategy analysis.

The  2012  Communication  proposes  a  series  of  activities  for  engagement  with  third
countries2, and developing countries are listed as one of the target groups, with a fo-
cus on building partnerships and R&I to address global challenges such as the Millen-
nium Development Goals (MDGs) or climate change. Equally the communication out-
lines  a  set  of  instruments  including  policy  dialogue,  information  and  data  collection,
funding instrument (principally Horizon 2020), co-ordination with other EU policies and
engagement with international fora.

Shift in the policy focus of R&I co-operation over time towards
developing countries and strategic approaches.

From  the  three  previous  Communications,  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  policy  focus
has shifted over time. The orientation of international co-operation in R&I has essen-
tially evolved along three central strands:

1. The strengthening of the international dimension of the European Research Area

(ERA) (2001);

2.

Improving the framework conditions for international S&T co-operation (2008);

3. The implementation of a sustainable partnership (2012).

A  further  key  change  in  policy,  articulated  through  the  2012  Communication,  is  the
emphasis on innovation in addition to research.

In terms of the ultimate objective or global impact of research policies, throughout the
three  different  Communications,  the  focus  is  clearly  on  fostering  EU  research  excel-
lence.  However, from an emphasis on Europe’s position as the hub of the  worldwide
knowledge-based society (2001), the focus moved to contributing to global sustainable
development and Europe’s S&T excellence (2008), and finally also to including the aim
of  impacting  on  (and  resolving)  global  challenges,  as  well  as  excellence  and  attrac-
tiveness in Research and Innovation (2012). A more detailed analysis in terms of DG
RTD’s inputs, activities and approaches shows that over time DG RTD keeps on striv-
ing  to  be  more  open  to  third  country  researchers  and  organisations,  to  improve  re-
search infrastructures, partnerships and mobility of researchers – and innovators.

Besides  the  explicit  enhanced  emphasis  on  innovation,  other  notable  developments
since  2008  include  the  attention  to  science  diplomacy,  and  reciprocal  access  to  third
countries’  programmes,  the  stakeholder-driven  basis,  the  aim  to  strengthen  demand-
led research, and the promotion of common principles for the conduct of international
research.

Both the 2008 and 2012 Communications pay attention to complementarity with Mem-
ber States and the need to coordinate among the Union’s external policies and instru-
ments. Moreover, in 2012 this also includes involving other relevant stakeholders, such

2 In all three Communications a differentiation is made according to different country groupings: neighbourhood,
key third countries including industrialised and major emerging economics, developing countries and some estab-
lished country groupings, like ASEAN and the AU. For these different country groupings, the strategic objectives
largely remain  the  same,  from  fostering  integration  into,  or  alignment  with,  the  ERA  for  the  EFTA  and  EU  en-
largement  countries;  to  increasing  competitiveness  and co-operation for  industrialised  countries  and  emerging
economies;  and  to  partnerships  and  sustainable development  for  developing  countries.  In  enlargement,  neigh-
bourhood and developing countries support is to also include building research capacity.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

11

as industry, universities and research organisations and other initiatives, platforms and
partnerships.

While in 2008 the identification of areas for co-operation is supposed to be part of the
policy dialogues, especially via S&T agreements, in 2012, the more strategic approach
stands  out,  setting  out  multi-annual  roadmaps  to  identify  areas  for  targeted co-
operation with  key  countries  and  regions.  This  also  entails  better  information  gather-
ing, including on the various policies and programmes by Member States and Associ-
ated Countries.

3.3 Development and R&I

References to R&I in global and regional development strategies.

In 2005, the EU emphasised the close links between research and development. The
Council’s  landmark  Conclusions  on  promoting Policy Coherence  for  Development
identified 12 policy areas that, if made coherent with development policy, could accel-
erate  progress  towards  the  Millennium  Development  Goals,  with  Research  and  Inno-
vation being one of them. More specifically on the development policy side and in the
same  year  the European  Consensus  on  Development (OJ  2006/C  46/01),  Part  I  of
which relates to the EU as a whole (Member States as well as the Commission), reit-
erated  the  commitment  to  Policy  Coherence  for  Development  (PCD)  with  Research
and Innovation as one of the 12 key areas on which to make progress. The Consensus
specifically mentions development-related research as the tool for bridging the  digital
divide in information and communication technologies, and commits the EU to support
global agricultural research to advance rural development and food security.

The  EU’s  most  recent  overarching  development  policy  document,  the Agenda  for
Change (COM(2011) 637  final)  endorsed  by  the  Council  in  May  2012,  (i)  underlines
the importance of promoting sustainable growth with respect to the environment, biodi-
versity  and  the  use  of  natural  resources,  (ii)  calls  for  investment  in  cleaner  technolo-
gies  and  innovation,  and  (iii)  recognises  the  need  for  capacity  development  and  ex-
change of knowledge to carry out and use the results of research.

EU development co-operation, with its policy base as indicated above in the European
Consensus for Development (2005) and the more recent Agenda for Change (2011),
supports  the application  of  science, technology  and  innovation to  address  particular
problems  and  opportunities  at  the  global,  regional  and  national  level  in  developing
countries, focusing on the most serious challenges and those where developing coun-
tries most need assistance (e.g. food security, maternal and child health and infectious
diseases, adaptation to climate change, sustainable  use of natural resources).  At the
same time, as indicated in the Cotonou Agreement referred to further below, the EU is
keen  to  support capacity  development for  research in  the  developing  countries  with
which it cooperates. Thus the EU seeks to promote awareness and capacity-building
in the use of research as a tool for development by encouraging developing countries
to mainstream it in their development strategies and develop an autonomous capability
to design and implement their own programmes. At the African, Caribbean and Pacific
(ACP) and the African level in particular, the building of capabilities to define research
priorities  and  manage  the  transnational  research  programmes  to  address  them  is  of
the outmost importance.

The  EU  also  participates  in  developing  country-led regional  initiatives,  seeks  to  en-
hance international dialogue by promoting developing country participation in research
networks. Equally it works with other donors and in multilateral fora to advocate for the
use of Research and Innovation as enablers for sustainable development.

The EU has concluded bilateral science and technology agreements with a number of

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

12

individual  countries3 – 14  of these  countries  are  developing  or  transitional  countries
also cooperating with the EU under the ENPI, DCI or EDF. These agreements consti-
tute a framework and a privileged forum to identify common interests, priorities, policy
dialogue, and the necessary tools for science and technology collaboration.
More  specifically  in  the European  Neighbourhood policy4,  research  and  scientific co-
operation are a priority to catalyse technological progress and support the process of
extending the internal market and regulatory structures. Integration into the European
Research Area (ERA) through the FP7 for Research was expected to stimulate inno-
vation  and  promote  research  capacities  for  development.  The  establishment  of  the
ENPI5 sets the participation in Community Research and Innovation activities and re-
searchers’ mobility within the areas of co-operation under the Instrument. The revised
Neighbourhood policy in 20116 highlights the particular focus on knowledge and inno-
vation, and presents the commitment to work towards a Common Knowledge and In-
novation Space, pulling together several existing strands of co-operation – policy dia-
logue,  national  and  regional  capacity  building, co-operation in Research  and  Innova-
tion, and increased mobility of researchers and students.

technology  (Art.23), 

The  ACP-EU  Cotonou  Partnership  Agreement of  2000  identifies co-operation on Re-
search and Innovation as an important aspect of ACP-EU development co-operation in
various thematic areas listed in its Part 3 on Co-operation Strategies (Art.18 ff.). Thus
the importance  of co-operation on research is highlighted in agricultural development
(Art.23),  science  and 
the  social  sectors  (education  and
health)(Art.25), regional sustainable development (Art.29) and in institutional develop-
ment and capacity building (Art.33). Later in the Agreement, under the Technical Co-
operation heading (Art.79), the point is also made that ACP experts and research insti-
tutions are to be encouraged to participate in contracts financed by the European De-
velopment Fund (EDF). Moreover,  in the Final  Act of the Agreement research estab-
lishments are specifically  identified  as one of categories of ‘actors of the  partnership’
(Declaration I) referred to under Article 6. Over 80% of the 10th EDF for ACP countries
(2008-2013)  was  budgeted  and  prioritised  through  national  and  regional  strategy  pa-
pers and around 10% through the Intra-ACP co-operation envelope. The Intra-ACP co-
operation strategy (2008-2013) sets research as one of its priorities through the con-
tinuation of the intra-ACP innovations and capacity building programme to address the
issues of building and enhancing strong scientific and technological capacity to support
research,  development  and  innovation  in  the  ACP  region,  and  through  a  new  pro-
gramme to support EU-Africa 8th partnership science component.

The EU-Africa summit in 2007 concluded a new Africa-EU strategic partnership man-
aged  jointly  by  the  EU  and  the  African  Union. The  Joint  Africa-EU  Strategy7 (JAES)
provides an overarching long-term framework for Africa-EU relations, prioritising sup-
port to building capacity in research, and to research in the health sector (vaccines and
new  medicines  for  both  major  and  neglected  diseases),  as  well  as  in  agriculture  and
food security (including support for the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricul-
tural  Development  Programme – CAADP).  The  JAES’  first  and  section  action  plans
covering the period up to 2013 outlines eight Africa-EU strategic partnerships; one of
them being the Africa-EU 8th Partnership on Science, Information Society and Space,
with a priority action on support to science and technology capacity  building in  Africa
and implementing Africa’s science and technology Consolidated Plan of Action.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=countries
4 COM(2003) 104 final – Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and
Southern Neighbours
5 Regulation No. 1638/2006 of the EP and of the Council, laying down general provisions establishing a ENPI
6 COM(2011) 303 final: A new response to a changing Neighbourhood
7 The Africa-EU strategic partnership – A joint Africa-EU Strategy 2007 Council of the EU 16344/07

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

References to R&I in the Development Co-operation Instrument.

13

The EU’s main budget instrument for supporting development co-operation, the DCI8,
sets  up  geographic  and  thematic  programmes.  In  the geographic  programmes,  rele-
vant to Asia and Latin America, scientific and technological co-operation is specifically
promoted in the area of education. The strategic partnership between the EU and the
countries  of  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean9 (LAC)  has  also  prioritised  intensifying
co-operation in research, science and technology.
The thematic programmes outlined in the DCI regulation10 discuss research especially
with  regards  to  Investing  in  People  (health,  education),  and  Food  Security.  The  DCI
Investing in People strategy (2007-2013) elaborates on the priorities in health, includ-
ing accelerating and improving the availability and access to “public goods”, stimulat-
ing development of innovative strategies to confront diseases and improving capacity
of institutions and communities to participate in this process, and support for innovative
environmental measures for disease prevention. Under the DCI strategy for the Food
Security thematic programme (2007-2013), Research, technology transfer and innova-
tion to enhance food security is one of three strategic priorities.11 The main emphasis
is  on  agricultural  research  for  development  (ARD)  with  an  expanded  focus  that  in-
cludes  nutrition  (including  horticulture  and  livestock  production),  ecologically  efficient
intensification  of agriculture, sustainable natural resources management, and  agricul-
tural biodiversity and the sustainable management of agricultural ecosystems. The DCI
thematic  programme  on Environment  and  Natural  Resources strategy  (2007-2013)
prioritises technology capacity building in climate change mitigation to facilitate the de-
velopment of enabling environments, the design of mechanisms for knowledge sharing
and  improvement of know-how.  It should also  help to adapt technologies to local cir-
cumstances. In sustainable energy area, the priority is to boost capacity and technolo-
gy transfer in developing countries with a view to creating an enabling environment for
investments in sustainable  energy solutions, as well as a suitable policy  dialogue im-
proving co-operation with the EU.

8 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development co-operation.
9 COM(2009) 495/3 The European Union and Latin America: Global Players in Partnership.
10 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development co-operation.
11 Strategic priorities were streamlined for the period 2011-2013. In the first period of the strategy (2007-2010),
the relevant strategic priorities were: Supporting the delivery of international public goods contributing to food se-
curity: research and technology; and Promoting innovation to combat food insecurity.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

4 The intended intervention logics of EU support to Research and

14

Innovation in partner countries

The DEVCO-reconstructed intervention logic provides the basis for
defining the evaluation questions. The intervention logic for the DG
RTD 7th Framework Programme is considered from a complementari-
ty perspective.

The evaluation team  reconstructed  six intervention  logics  (ILs)  for  the  EU  support  to
Research and Innovation (R&I) for development in partner countries: (a) one for each
of  the  four  thematic  sectors,  (b)  the  overall  reconstructed  IL  for  DG  DEVCO  support
and (c) the IL diagram for DG RTD’s FP7.

While the sector specific intervention logics are presented in the sector introductions in
Volume 2, this section presents the overall IL for DG DEVCO support to R&I and the IL
diagram for DG RTD. Although the focus of this evaluation is on DEVCO support, the
FP7 is relevant from a complementarity perspective. The objectives of producing these
two ILs were:

 To help clarify the objectives of the EU support and translate them into a hierarchy

of expected effects/results so that they can be evaluated;

 To help propose evaluation questions to assess these effects;

 To help in assessing the internal coherence of the EU support.

4.1 The intervention logic diagrams for DG DEVCO and DG RTD FP7

Overall intervention logic for DG DEVCO support to R&I:

Since there is no overall DG DEVCO strategy document for Research and Innovation,
faithful intervention logic could not be drafted. A key challenge was to deduce an over-
all DG DEVCO policy and strategic approach for supporting R&I from references in a
variety of existing policy and programming documents. The evaluation team looked at
strategy documents of the EU, both from DG DEVCO and from DG RTD. The sources
of  the DG  DEVCO diagram  are  the  Regulations  for  the  DCI  and  ENP (European
Neighbourhood  Policy) for  2006-2013  discussed  in Section 3. These  refer  in  several
places to research as do, for instance, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, the Euro-
pean Consensus on Development from 2005 and the Agenda for Change 2011. How-
ever, in all cases these are passing references in lists of what the EU considers should
be funded. Nowhere is a real case made for why and how R&I is important for promot-
ing development and achieving the EU’s development objectives. Therefore, the over-
all for DG DEVCO support to R&I has been reconstructed from the four sectoral ILs.

The sector-specific ILs, in turn, have been derived from sectoral strategy documents.
The sector ILs are presented in the four sector introductions in Volume 2 together with
the list of documents from which they have been constructed. Deriving one overall IL
for DG DEVCO support from the sector ILs provides a single logical framework for this
evaluation, rather than a series of sectoral evaluations.

Intervention logic for DG RTD’s FP7:

DG RTD has three consecutive policy documents covering the scope of this evaluation
period. As the 7th EU Framework Programme is especially relevant covering the main
part  of  the  evaluation  period,  the  2008/588  Communication  on  the  International Co-
operation side of FP7: A Strategic Framework for International Science and Technolo-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

15

gy Co-operation was used as the key reference document. The IL for DG RTD adds a
complementary perspective to the analysis12.

4.2 The different levels of the reconstructed DG DEVCO intervention logic

Four major strands or priority areas of EU policy: policy dialogue;
capacity development; promoting innovation, societal uptake and
use of research results; research funding for development.

Based on an analysis of the major normative policy documents for DG DEVCO and the
four thematic ILs presented in the sector introductions in Volume 2, four major strands
or “priority areas” of DG DEVCO policy were identified:



Policy dialogue;

 Capacity development via a) individual, b) institutional and c) infrastructure devel-

opment;



Promoting innovation, societal uptake and use of research results via support to
networks, Research and Innovation funding, and harmonised EU approaches to
R&I;

 Research funding for development, via appropriate institutions, alongside the FP7

funds.

The  intended  objectives  or  causal  chains  are  not  explicitly  discussed  in  official  docu-
ments but have been derived from the thematic logics. More specifically, at each verti-
cal level of the intervention logic, the individual elements for the overall IL have been
derived from the underlying sector logics. This is reflected in the discussion of the out-
comes and impacts below.

4.2.1 Global impacts

High-level impacts: more sustainable development, eradication of
poverty and the achievement of MDGs

The intended global (i.e. high-level) impact of DG DEVCO’s efforts in supporting R&I in
developing countries is to contribute to more sustainable development, eradication of
poverty and the achievement of MDGs. This is based on the long-term impacts of the
four sectoral intervention logics that all aim to contribute to the achievement of a range
of MDGs focussing on the poorest people. R&I support by DG RTD is also taken into
account as an important contextual factor.





The FSNA intervention logic ultimately aims to improve Food and Nutrition Securi-
ty for the poorest and most vulnerable people to contribute to achieving MDG1;

The Health intervention logic aims to improve health outcomes especially for the
poorest in line with the MDGs, and strengthen global health security;

12 With  regard  to  the  complementary  actions  by  DG  RTD,  the  funding  DEVCO  manages  in  this  area  could  be
seen as serving the purposes of the FP7 INCO strategy albeit with the caveat that DEVCO money should support
development co-operation objectives. The RTD Communication 2008/588 and other documents for FP7 show that
roughly speaking the Commission wants to concentrate DEVCO funding of Research and Innovation in develop-
ing countries on capacity building of partner country research communities, leaving the actual funding of research
(‘doing research together’) to FP7. DEVCO also directly supports research for promoting development, which is
the INCO element of FP7, to bridge the gap and in particular to strengthen international co-operation in R&I by
improving the frameworks (institutional and material) within which researchers work and building up the networks
within which they can collaborate effectively.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

16





The EnvCC intervention logic focuses on contributing to poverty eradication, com-
bating social exclusion, promoting health, making globalisation work for sustaina-
ble development, achieving sustainable patters of consumption and production,
sustainably managing natural resources and strengthening governance for sus-
tainable development;

The SISS intervention logic aims to contribute to the MDGs and economic and so-
cial well-being.

Hence, DG DEVCO support in the area of Research and Innovation in these four sec-
tors  intends  to  contribute  to  most  MDGs,  notably  MDG1  (eradicate  extreme  poverty
and hunger), MDG 4, 5 and 6 (reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat
HIV/Aids,  malaria  and  other  diseases),  MDG7  (ensure  environmental  sustainability),
and MDG 8 (global partnerships for development).

4.2.2

Intermediate impacts

Enhanced development processes and outcomes, global challenges
increasingly resolved, reduced poverty and inequality, more trans-
parent and open knowledge economics in developing countries.

The  intermediate  impacts  identified  emanate  from  the  four  major  strands  or  “priority
areas”  identified  of  DG  DEVCO  support.  The  intermediate  impacts  anticipated  in  the
overall IL for DG DEVCO are based on those as identified in the four sector ILs.

Enhanced  development  processes  and  outcomes. This  includes  for  the  four  sectors
the  following  more  specific  intermediate  impacts:  a)  improving  the  impact  of  the  EU
Food  Security  policy  on  MDG1;  b)  accelerating  progress  towards  health  MDGs;  c)
mainstreaming  environment  into  development  processes  and  implementing  external
aspects of EU environmental policy; and d) promoting democracy, freedom of speech,
human rights, mutual understanding and peace amongst people.

Resolved global challenges. This encompasses for each of the four sectors intermedi-
ate  impacts  such  as  a)  improving  delivery  of  global/international  public  goods  in  the
area  of  agricultural  R&I;  b)  achieving  policy  consensus  on  global  health  interdepend-
ence  and  improving  health  security;  c)  and  fulfilling  international  and  global  environ-
mental and climate commitments.

Reduced poverty and inequality. Key intermediate impacts in the thematic sectors in-
clude: a) promoting sustainable agricultural development of the poorest and most vul-
nerable and reducing the incidence of hunger and malnutrition; b) reducing health ine-
qualities;  c)  managing  sustainably  natural  resources;  effectively  Global  Climate
Change (GCC) adaptation and mitigation strategies at national and regional level; and
d)  increasing  the  competitiveness  in  the  global  economy,  economic  growth  and  new
employment opportunities.

More transparent and open knowledge economies in developing countries. The specif-
ic  intermediate  impacts  at  sector  level  include:  a)  achieving  policy  consensus  on  the
importance of health R&I; b) having coherent international policy development across
the three pillars of sustainable development; and c) and promoting an inclusive infor-
mation and knowledge society.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Figure 2

Reconstructed intervention logic DG DEVCO R&I

17

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

18

4.2.3

Specific impacts (outcomes)

More innovative solutions to development problems and global chal-
lenges are expected; policy makers more attuned to dispersing devel-
opment results; R&I adjusted to the needs of development countries;
more effective mobilisation of European expertise for addressing global
challenges; more EU funded research conducted in developing coun-
tries.

The specific impacts identified are correlated with the four priority areas. The impacts
identified in the overall reconstructed DG DEVCO intervention logic based on the four
sector specific intervention logics are:

More  innovative  solutions  to  development  problems  and  global  challenges  are  ex-
pected. Partner countries and their research institutions should acquire a strengthened
capacity and infrastructure to conduct their own Research and Innovation and are bet-
ter placed to participate in international Research and Innovation to increase the main-
streaming of Research and Innovation results in development processes. This relates
to the following specific impacts within the four sectors: a) strengthening national, re-
gional  and  global  agricultural  research  and  development  institutions;  b)  incorporating
global  health  threats  and  opportunities  into  policy  and  political  dialogue;  c)  achieving
globally agreed environmental goals.

Policy  makers  more  attuned  to  dispersing  development  results. The  improvement  of
policy and regulatory frameworks should increase coherence and create a conducive
environment for Research and Innovation in countries and internationally. This specific
impact  focuses  on  a)  applying  research  results  and  innovative  approaches  that  pro-
mote  agricultural  development;  b)  increasing  national  contributions  to  global  health
security; and c) contributing to more fruitful policy dialogue and negotiations in the sec-
tor of Environment and Climate Change.

R&I adjusted to the needs of development countries. Actual joint Research and Inno-
vation between EU and developing countries should be more oriented to those coun-
tries’ needs and development processes to assure in each of the four sectors specific
impacts  such  as:  a)  developing  and  innovative  and  locally owned,  sustainable  solu-
tions  in  agriculture,  b)  strengthening  the  link  between  EU  support  to  health  R&I  and
achievement  of  MDGs,  c)  preparing  developing  countries  for  low-emissions  climate-
resistant  development,  ensuring  better  access  to  affordable  and  sustainable  energy;
and d) contributing to private investments and market development.

More  effective  mobilisation  of  European  expertise  for  addressing  global  challenges.
The related specific impacts in the four sector intervention logics are a) advancing the
EU food and nutrition security agenda; b) strengthening of the coherence of EU sup-
port to R&I, addressing the poverty-environment linkage; and d) reducing the scientific
divide and contributing to scientific excellence.

More  EU  funded  research  conducted  in  developing  countries.  Actual  joint  Research
and Innovation based on proposals from consortia of researchers in both EU and de-
veloping  country  research  institutions  contributes  to  the  following  specific  impacts  in
each  of  the  four  sectors:  a)  reducing  food  insecurity; b)  developing  new  health  tests,
products  and  procedures;  c)  preventing  environmental  degradation;  and  d)  reducing
the digital divide.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

4.2.4

Inputs and activities

19

A diversified set of instruments (geographic, regional and thematic)
and types of support, including (i) providing policy dialogue, (ii) support
to networks, (iii) capacity development and institutional development,
and (iv) use of appropriate institutions.

A  variety  of  instruments  and  types  of  support  are  employed  in  the  different outcome
areas to lead to the intended impacts. The instruments used differ for each of the sec-
tors  but  include  geographic  instruments – e.g.  EDF  and ENPI – and  thematic  instru-
ments such as DCI-FOOD. DG DEVCO has a fairly standard approach to supporting
R&I as  suggested  in  the  IL  diagram  through  various  types  of  support:  (i)  policy  dia-
logue,  (ii)  support  to  networks,  (iii)  capacity  development  and  institutional  develop-
ment, and (iv) use of appropriate institutions.

4.3 The different levels of the intervention logic for DG RTD FP7

Three major strands or priority areas of DG RTD policy: strengthen-
ing the international dimension of the ERA, improving framework
conditions for international S&T and the implementation of a sus-
tainable partnership.

Based on the policy documents, comparing the 2008/588 Communication with its pre-
decessor  (COM  2001/346)  and  successor  (COM  2012/497),  the  international co-
operation in Research and Innovation is throughout this time period focused on three
major strands or “priority areas” of the DG RTD policy:

 The  strengthening  of  the  international  dimension  of  the  European  Research  Area

(ERA);



Improving the framework conditions for international S&T co-operation;

 The implementation of a sustainable partnership.

Further details are given in Figure 3 below.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Figure 3

Intervention Logic RTD

20

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

5 Inventory analysis

21

This section presents a synthesis analysis of the resources allocated by DG DEVCO to
support  Research  and  Innovation  in  partner  countries  in  the  period  2007-2013.  The
detailed  explanation  of  the  approach  taken  to  the  mapping  and  classification  of  the
contracts included in this inventory, as well as the key challenges and limitations, are
presented in Annex 2.A of Volume 3. The full analysis is presented in Annex 2.B, and
Annex 2.C shows the complete inventory with all the contracts identified.

The  objective of  the  inventory  is  twofold.  First,  it  illustrates  the realised intervention
logic, as compared to the intended intervention logic coming from the analysis of nor-
mative policy documents (see Section 4). Second, it provides a summary of the scale,
the sectors and the geographic distribution of EU interventions and their evolution over
time via tables and graphs based on objective data, such as contracted funds, year of
commitment  etc.,  directly  extracted  from  the  available  CRIS  database,  which  is  the
source of all data unless otherwise specified.

The  source  of  all  data  in  this  section  is  the  CRIS  database  and  the  evaluation  team
analysis, unless otherwise specified.

5.1 Methodological limits and challenges

A worldwide inventory reconstructed using a sound methodology,
albeit with limitations.

The specific and systematic approach used for the identification, extraction and analy-
sis of financial contributions is presented in  Annex 2.A of Volume 3. Here, special at-
tention is given solely to the limits and choices that needed to be made.

Box 3

Limits and key challenges

The challenges stemmed mainly from the complexity and size of the thematic scope of the eval-
uation,  combined  with  the  type  and  structure  of  data  available  for  exploration.  Here,  the  limits
inherent to CRIS relate in particular to the following aspects:
In many cases no DAC (Development Assistance Committee) sector code has been attributed
to  the  interventions,  or  the  codes  have  been  assigned  inconsistently.  A  more  innovative  ap-
proach, such as that outlined in Volume 3, is required, combining key-word searches with (semi-)
manual line-by-line cleaning and classification of data.
The thematic  scope of  the  evaluation  is  rather  difficult  to  precisely  delineate  using  the  fields
available in CRIS – e.g. by financing instrument, budget line, or similar identifier.
There  is  rather limited  information available  for  each  contract.  This  especially  relates  to  any
information  on  the  content  and/or  objectives  of  any  intervention,  which  is  mostly  limited  to  the
data given in the decision and contract titles. While for selected large interventions it is possible
to find more information e.g. on the internet, it is not feasible to carry out such follow-up search
individually  over  thousands  of  contracts.  Therefore,  the  decision  on  the  inclusion  of  a  specific
contract  in  the  inventory  is  based on incomplete knowledge  and  is  to  some  extent  arbitrary  for
borderline  contracts.  This  risk  has  been  countered  by  sharing  the  draft  inventory  with  key  DG
DEVCO RG staff depending on their geographic and thematic area of operation, to cross-check
its completeness.
The  problem with  incomplete information  about  specific  contracts  extends also  the subsequent
step of classification of the interventions. The area of R&I is cross-cutting in nature with respect
to  thematic  sectors.  Four  focal  sectors  were  stipulated  for  this  evaluation  in  the  ToR,  one  of
which (“Science, Information society and Space”) is rather cross-cutting itself. However, for any
further  analysis  necessary  in  the  evaluation,  it  was  important  to  distribute  the  inventory  within
these sectors to the maximum extent possible. While there was a sound basis for each choice
made, it is clear that it mainly relied on information presented in the database and on the inter-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

22

pretation of this information.
Some  interventions,  especially  larger  programmes,  can  include components, which  are  re-
search-related and as such are part of the scope of this evaluation. However, as there is no reli-
able way to identify the share of resources in support of research activities, these programmes
are not part of the inventory and the quantitative analysis, but are dealt with qualitatively in the
evaluation.

5.2 Main findings

The main findings are set out in the box below.

Box 4

Key findings of the inventory











DG DEVCO committed a total of roughly EUR 1.1 billion for support to Research and
Innovation in partner countries over the evaluation period (largely contracts signed in 2007-
2013, plus some contracts signed before but with more than 50% of their disbursements
concentrated in this period).

The sectoral composition shows that EUR 1.0 billion of the total contracted amount were
earmarked for the four thematic sectors. EUR 0.1 billion went to other sectors. In addition,
DEVCO-supported an estimated EUR 0.3 billion of academic mobility grants for doctoral
and post-doctoral researchers and academic staff.

Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture represented the largest proportion (EUR 0.5 billion
or 45%) of total commitments.

In terms of geographic distribution, the primary benefitting zone of contracts was the
regional level (relative to the global level and individual countries).

Sub-Saharan Africa received the largest shares of total commitments among all regions,
through both regional and individual country contracts.


South Africa and China lead the ranking of commitments by individual countries.
 Within countries, contracts tend to be a highly concentrated in at most two key sectors

(different for each country).







The main funding instruments were the geographical domain EDF and the thematic
instrument DCI-Food; together they account for more than half of total commitments.

Each thematic sector used three or four major funding instruments.

EU support was contracted through a range of different actors/channels, with international
organisations, universities, research institutes and the private sector at the top of the list.

5.3 Total and sector commitments

Total DG DEVCO funding related to Research and Innovation in the
period 2007-2013 was EUR 1.1 billion, with the FSNA sector ac-
counting for almost half of the total amount.

Overall, a total of EUR 1,138 million was found to be committed by DG DEVCO for R&I
related interventions in partner countries in the period of 2007-2013. This also includes
contracts signed before the evaluation period, but for which more than 50% of the dis-
bursements fell within 2007-2013.

Total commitments across all sectors showed a slightly upward trend over the evalua-
tion period (mainly driven by the FSNA sector), albeit with highly fluctuating individual
yearly values, where high peaks were followed by setbacks in the next years.

The  subsequent  table  and  figure  present  the  distribution  of  the  total  contracted
amounts across sectors.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

23

Table 1

Total commitments by sector

Sector

Total contract-
ed (EUR)

Number of
contracts

Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture (FSNA)

Health

Environment and Climate Change (EnvCC)

Science, Information Society and Space (SISS)

Other

Total

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

511,156,844

58,925,013

154,789,754

300,500,585

112,942,196

381

44

110

421

66

1,138,314,391

1,022

Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture represent the largest share of commitments of
all sectors (EUR 511 million or 45%). Science, Information Society and Space received
EUR 301 million  or  26%  of  total  funds  committed  for  all  sectors.  The  remaining  sec-
tors,  Environment  &  Climate  Change  and  Health,  represent  comparatively  only  small
proportions  of  the  funds  supporting  Research  and  Innovation,  with EUR 155 million
and EUR 59 million of respective allocations, or 14% and 5%.

In addition, DG DEVCO contributed to academic grants at doctoral  and post-doctoral
levels  as  well  as  for  academic  staff  within  mobility  programmes  managed  by  the
EACEA. The overall value of these grants in partner countries is EUR 281 million (see
details in Annex 2.B in Volume 3).

Figure 4

Sector allocation of commitments (shares of total contracted amount)

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

5.4 Geographic distribution

Half of the contracts benefit the regional level, followed by the coun-
try level. Global contracts account for 16% of the total value but only
2% of the total number of contracts in the inventory.

Contracts were allocated to three different levels of benefitting zones:

 Global contract (benefitting zone “All countries”);

 Regional contract;



Individual country contract.

The following figures illustrates that regional contracts constitute the majority of all con-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

24

tracts, both  in  total financial volume (48% or EUR 546 million)  and  in  number of con-
tracts. Global contracts represent a relatively small number of contracts (2%) but show
a  disproportionately  larger  financial  volume  (16% or  EUR 178 million). Many global
contracts are with international organisations, and thus have above-average values.

Figure 5

Geographic  scope  of  commitments  for  thematic  sectors  as given by
benefitting zone

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

The ACP region represents 60% of all country-level & regional funding.

The  next  figure  represents  the  distribution  of  commitments  by  region.  Total  commit-
ment  per  region  is  composed  of  contracts  to  individual  countries  in  the  given  region,
plus contracts to the entire region. Global contracts are not included precisely because
they are not linked to specific regions. The figure shows that the ACP region was the
biggest  recipient  of  support  for  R&I,  both  in  terms  of  individual  country  and  regional
contracts, with  a share of 59% (EUR 556 million) of all  geographically assigned com-
mitments. The second largest recipient was Asia (18% or EUR 171 million).

Figure 6

Shares  of  total  commitments  (regional  plus  individual  country  con-
tracts) per region

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

The regional distribution of funding differs across sectors. The FSNA
and Health sectors have put much weight on the ACP region and glob-
al contracts. In contrast, the inventory for EnvCC and SISS is regional-
ly more balanced but shows only a negligible share of global contracts.

To analyse regional patterns by sector, the set of figures below adds global contracts
as  an  extra  category  on  top  of  the  four  regions  depicted  in Figure 6 above.  The  four
graphs show the respective distribution of commitments by region for each of the four
thematic sectors. In Food Security, Nutrition and Agriculture, 55% of the total amount

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

25

was committed to the ACP region and 31% through global contracts. This geographic
distribution  is  broadly  similar  for  Health.  In  contrast,  for  Environment  and  Climate
Change,  commitments  are  almost  evenly  spread  between  the  ACP  region  and  Asia
(45% and 41% respectively), while the volume of global contracts is negligible. Global
contracts  also  do  not  play  any  important  role  in  SISS  either.  The  SISS  sector  shows
the  most  even  regional  distribution  of  commitments  but  has  virtually  no  global  con-
tracts.

Figure 7

Commitments  per  region  by  thematic sector  (shares  of  contracted
amounts)

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

Each of the 15 largest recipient countries obtained more than
EUR 10 million of national-level funding for R&I; South Africa and Chi-
na lead the list.

The following table presents the 15 countries (out of 82 in total) with the highest com-
mitments  through  individual  country  contracts,  and  the  distribution  of  these  funds
among  the  sectors.  Each  of  these  15  countries  received  individual  commitments  of
more than  EUR 10 million for  R&I.  The  list  is  headed  by  South  Africa  and  China.  A
common  pattern  is  that  country-specific  support  tends  to  be  focused  on  at  most  two
key sectors per country.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

26

Table 2

Top  15  countries  receiving  EU support  for  R&I  (individual  country  con-
tracts), and its distribution within sectors

Country

SOUTH AFRICA

CHINA

MEXICO

ALGERIA

BANGLADESH

KENYA

UGANDA

EGYPT

TUNISIA

JORDAN

UKRAINE

INDIA

ETHIOPIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

TANZANIA

No. of
con-
tracts

Total con-
tracted
(EUR)

FSNA Health

Env
CC

SISS

7

77

16

6

9

11

4

41

11

20

11

6

6

9

4

34,377,348

29,120,760

18,159,303

16,624,473

15,819,702

15,531,579

15,323,972

15,002,600

14,405,190

14,309,972

12,689,815

12,659,958

12,158,212

11,066,421

10,490,413

0%

2%

0%

7%

77%

86%

69%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

18%

49%

52%

11%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

31%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

48%

1%

67%

0%

0%

16%

14%

0%

5%

18%

52%

4%

19%

82%

7%

0%

1%

29%

56%

93%

7%

0%

0%

78%

81%

48%

92%

58%

0%

44%

0%

Oth-
er

87%

2%

44%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

3%

23%

0%

0%

0%

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

5.5 Distribution by domain

EDF and DCI-Food were the most widely used instruments in terms
of total funding, but instruments vary considerably by sector.

The  EU  support  to  R&I  in  partner  countries  was  funded  by  a  variety  of financing  in-
struments, both geographic and thematic. The following table shows the distribution of
main funding instruments for each sector, as well as for all sectors together (last col-
umn).  Each  cell  shows  the  percentage  of  total  commitments  in  the  given sector  fi-
nanced through the instrument listed in the corresponding row (percentages hence add
up vertically, not  horizontally). Empty cells indicate that the corresponding funding in-
strument was not used in the sector.

Table 3

Distribution  of  commitments  by  domain  and  sector  (shares  of  contracted
amounts)

Domain

FSNA

Health

EnvCC

SISS

Other

All sectors

DCI-ALA

DCI-ASIE

DCI-ENV

DCI-FOOD

ENPI

FED

PP-AP

SANTE

0.59%

0.34%

0.29%

58.95%

0.25%

1.26%

2.00%

19.15% 25.04%

27.54%

34.47%

3.90% 12.53%

6.50%

12.41%

0.13%

33.24%

16.26%

21.79%

37.12% 19.64%

28.19%

44.44%

1.11%

5.51%

Other domains

6.32%

9.87%

6.60%

21.90% 42.66%

Grand Total

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

8.14%

6.17%

4.82%

26.47%

4.29%

30.48%

3.06%

2.30%

14.26%

100.00%

Note: “Other domains” includes all domains that simultaneously account for less than 5% of
funding across all sectors and less than 10% of funding within each of the four thematic sectors.
Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

27

As evident  from  the  last  column,  30%  of  the  total  contracted  amount  was  financed
through the EDF/FED (Fonds Européen de Développement) and more than one quar-
ter through the DCI food security instrument. This distribution was predictably different
across sectors.

5.6 Distribution by channel of delivery

International organisations are the most widely used contractor
channel, in particular in the FSNA sector. Universities and research
institutes play a stronger role in the other thematic sectors.

Figure 8 depicts the distribution of contract amounts by detailed contractor channel for
all  sectors  together.  27%  of  total  commitments  were  channelled  through  international
organisations,  the  single most  widely  used  channel.  Similarly,  universities  and  re-
search institutes combined represent about one third of the total value of the inventory.
The private sector also represents a relatively large share (17%) of total funding.

Figure 8

Distribution of commitments by type of contractor (shares of contract
ed amounts)

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

Finally,  the  following  figure  shows  the  use  of  funding  channels  in  each  sector.  While
the  overall  dominance  of  international organisations  in  the  contractor  portfolio  has  its
origin primarily in the FSNA sector, universities and research institutes are more com-
mon in the other thematic sectors (Health, EnvCC and SISS).

Figure 9

Distribution of contracted amounts by sector and type of contractor

FSNA

Health

EnvCC

SISS

Other

International Organisation

Private Sector

University

Research Institute

Civil Society

Government Institution

Regional Organisation

Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: CRIS, Particip analysis

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6 Answers to the evaluation questions

6.1 EQ 1: Development policy objectives

28

To what extent has EU support to R&I through DEVCO
been successful in promoting the overall development pol-
icy objectives of the EU?

Rationale and coverage of the question

The core of the EU’s development policy is poverty reduction. Over the evaluation period, this goal
was pursued in the context of the MDGs. Key commitments in the European Consensus on Develop-
ment (2002) and the more recent Agenda for Change seek to focus co-operation on poverty reduction.
The MDGs identify not only specific goals and targets, but also more general aspects such as global
partnership for development. For example, MDG 8 on global partnership explicitly included R&I under
the target relating to assuring a reliable and affordable package of drugs and pharmaceuticals to de-
veloping countries. Through the MDGs, and via EU policy commitments, gender equality and envi-
ronmental sustainability are also integrated in the EU’s overall approach to development.

The rationale for the question is simple: DG DEVCO support has to be grounded in EU commitments,
and in the case of development co-operation, those commitments have to do with poverty reduction.

This question is articulated through two judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

EU support to R&I through DG DEVCO has promoted the overall development policy objectives of the
EU. A general EU policy on support to R&I exists that covers the work of both DGs RTD and DEVCO
but without defining a clear role or strategy for the latter. Overall, the EU is supportive of the role of
R&I in development and sees this support as an important element of its pursuit of its development
objectives; however, the link between R&I and development is frequently made but rarely spelt out in
detail. DG DEVCO has thus tacitly adopted what might be termed a ‘mainstreaming approach’ where
R&I components are regularly included in various sector programmes and in policy dialogues at multi-
ple, global, regional and national levels. This has resulted in most of DG DEVCO’s support to R&I be-
ing ‘hidden’ inside wider sectoral programmes. Occasionally, this has been complemented by more
systematic initiatives that address directly the R&I or S&T policy of a particular global, regional or na-
tional authority with targeted policy dialogue and specific support for implementation. There is also a
very wide range of different types and scales of interventions at all levels suggesting no overall clarity
of focus.

Equally there are important variations in approach between the four sectors examined, with support to
R&I work in the more ‘traditional’ and well recognised sectors of Health and FSNA generally better in-
tegrated into partner programmes and policies, than for the more recently recognised EnvCC sector or
generally unrecognised SISS sector.

Key points:



In EU documents it is usually taken as given that R&I, and indeed S&T, is an important element
for achieving EU development policy objectives and the MDGs specifically. Reference to the input
of R&I in the achievement of certain specific MDGs is made from time to time and more frequently

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

29

in some sectors (e.g. FSNA and Health) than others, but for the most part the documentation is
not specific. It is also difficult to trace the details of how the EU supports R&I because much of the
support is spread across a multitude of programmes and projects many of which have quite small
R&I components. The Agenda for Change and EU programming guidelines, by encouraging CSPs
to focus on a limited number of sectors and programmes, have often led to R&I being invisible.

 Despite these difficulties, specific examples, especially in the FSNA sector, do exist where it is



clear that support to R&I has been an important factor for the advancement of the programme in
question and its contribution to achieving EU development objectives. It is also clear that the EU
has an open and encouraging attitude to the use of R&I results in development co-operation and
interventions are, at a general level, placed in a factual context derived from research with a varie-
ty of studies and reports contributing to their design. Evidence of this openness and encouraging
approach to R&I in development was identified at national, regional and global levels and across
all the four thematic sectors for this evaluation.

At a sector level, in FSNA the scale and spread of support is more extensive than for the other
thematic sectors. There are also more specific policy guidelines for R&I in this sector than for the
others, and the EU supported both demand-led R&I at a national level and actively contributed to
R&I for global public goods. In the health sector, the major avenue for support has been through
the EU’s partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), although DG DEVCO has also
supported regional networks, especially in Africa. In EnvCC, the EU supports R&I at all three lev-
els: national, regional and global. In SISS, not a traditional ‘sector’ in its own right, the focus of EU
support has been more broadly to encourage the spread of S&T and its application for develop-
ment. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and tackling the digital divide (MDG8) is
an area that is widely and specifically targeted, particularly at the regional level. While the SISS
programmes are generally more at the regional and national levels, the EU does also engage in
global discussions on the importance of S&T and R&I in development.

6.1.1

The link between R&I activities and EU development objectives as outlined in the Euro-
pean Consensus and Agenda for Change is strong (JC 11)

The link with EU policy
objectives is clearly
made but much of the
support to R&I is hid-
den in sectoral pro-
jects and programmes.

The likely contribution
of R&I to achieving the
MDGs is well spelt out.

EU  policy  documents  at  all  levels  and  co-operation  agreements  with  key
groups such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP), African
Union (AU), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) relate EU
development  co-operation  activities  to  the  EU’s  stated  development  objec-
tives,  including  the  MDGs  and  other  goals  associated  with  the  European
Consensus  and  the  Agenda  for  Change.  Where  R&I  is  mentioned,  the  link
between  R&I  and  the  EU’s  development  objectives,  including  the  MDGs,  is
also  made  though  often  more  implicitly  than  explicitly.  What  is  less  clear,
however,  is  the  role  envisaged  for  R&I  in  the  overall  co-operation  activities
planned and implemented. Partly this is because of the many small R&I ac-
tions that take place within larger sectoral projects and programmes so that
they are not immediately visible and accessible.

Overall,  the  positive  contribution  that  R&I  can  make  to  the  MDGs  and  the
EU’s  development  objectives  is  taken  as  given  and  rarely  spelt  out.  This
does  vary  from  sector  to  sector,  however.  The  role  of  R&I  in  helping to
achieve development objectives is perhaps most explicit in the FSNA sector
where reference is made to the poverty and hunger MDG 1, but also to the
environmental  MDG  7  and  to  MDG  3  on  women  given  their  major  role  in
farming and nutrition. In the SISS sector, two links that are regularly and very
clearly  made  with  MDG8  are  first  on  the  need  to  promote  high-speed  ICT
communication to address the ‘digital divide’ and second on working with the
private  sector  to  encourage  innovation.  For  the  health  sector, the  most  ex-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

In the FSNA sector
alignment was good,
particularly in cases
where domestic policy
was strong.

Though health activi-
ties are policy relevant
it is usually difficult to
identify the contribu-
tion of health R&I.

EnvCC programmes
are also well aligned to
policy objectives but
the specific contribu-
tions to the MDGs are
not apparent.

30

plicit link is with R&I on infectious diseases (MDG 6).

In FSNA, R&I needs figure in high-level EU policy documents and sector pol-
icy Communications, and the link between R&I  in the FSNA sector and the
MDGs  is  explicitly  made.  However,  such  references  are  often  sparse  in
country-level  strategic  documents.  Two  complementary  pathways  can  be
recognised  in  the  documentation:  on  the  one  hand,  a  direct  approach  sup-
porting  demand-driven  research  and  technological  innovation  in  developing
countries  and  on  the  other  hand  a  more  indirect  approach  supporting  the
provision of international public goods through global, regional  and national
agricultural Research and Innovation partnerships. At country level, field vis-
its confirmed that implementation of R&I components shows good alignment
with  EU  development  objectives  and,  where  appropriate,  with  specific
MDGs. But in countries with weak domestic FSNA policies and/or implemen-
tation where Budget Support is used as a modality, alignment with EU objec-
tives was often found to be reduced. In FSNA, the EU participates actively in
various  regional  and  global  fora  on  R&I  and  the  R&I  needs  for  FSNA,  the
MDGs and global public goods do feature in the related statements.

DEVCO-supported  Health  activities  are  almost  invariably  linked  to  the  rele-
vant policy commitments regarding the diseases of poverty and tropical and
neglected diseases, goals in child and maternal health, and improved health
care for the poor. However, within this the contribution to health R&I is diffi-
cult to identify except in specific cases such as support to research on infec-
tious  diseases.  DG  DEVCO’s  contributions  to  pharmaceutical  development
fall  squarely  within  MDG  8  on  global  partnerships.  Aside  from  DEVCO-
supported  R&I,  documents  analysed  also  regularly  mention  the  use  of  DG
RTD funds  for  health  research.  In  partnership  with  WHO,  the  EU  (both  DG
DEVCO and DG RTD) has been involved in high-level international as  well
as regional fora setting policies for R&I.

In EnvCC, global, regional and country-level programmes are well aligned to
EU  objectives.  All  main  programmes  embed  their  activities  in  the  relevant
MDGs including global programmes such as the Global Climate Change Al-
liance  (GCCA)  and  the  Carbon  Capture  and  Storage  (CCS) /  Clean  Coal
Technologies (CCT), the regional efforts (most prominently in EU-Asia Link,
SWITCH  Asia  and  EduLink)  and  the  national  programmes  such  as  Sector
Budget Support (SBS) Ukraine, EU-China Institute for Clean and Renewable
Energy (ICARE Institute) in China and Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Ag-
ricultural Productivity Research Project in Kenya. However, even though the
MDGs  provide  the  thematic  backdrop,  they  are  not  specifically  operational-
ised in any of the programmes and it remains unclear whether and to  what
extent  the  activities  supported  are  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the
MDGs.

Projects in the SISS
sector link well to
MDG8 targets on the
‘digital divide’ and on
working with the pri-
vate sector.

In policy documents related to the different areas covered by SISS there are
frequent  general references to the importance  of S&T for development and
the need for R&I to develop them further, but the case is usually not spelt out
any further, except in the  example of support to ICT  networks and bridging
the ‘digital divide’ from MDG 8 mentioned above. The space element is less
easily linked to the MDGs though there are examples of DG DEVCO funding
for the use of satellite technology applications that support development pro-
cesses that are more indirect (e.g. satellite imagery for environmental man-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

31

agement  and  agricultural  production  in  the  Monitoring  of  Environment  and
Security  in Africa (MESA)  regional project  with the  AU). At  the global  level,
the  EU  has  participated  actively  in  discussions  such  as  the  United  Nations
(UN)  post-2015  debate,  where  the  importance  of  S&T  for  development  is
underlined  and  EU policy  papers contributing to these debates clearly spell
EU support for this position. At the country level, field visits indicate that pro-
ject  implementation  shows  good  levels  of  alignment  with  EU  development
objectives  and,  where  appropriate,  with  specific  MDGs.  This  is  evident,  for
instance, in the Budget Support to the Department of Science & Technology
in South Africa, or in the several projects addressing innovation that can be
linked to MDG8 on working with the private sector to make new technologies
available (e.g. PASRI13 project in Tunisia or the European Business & Tech-
nology Centre (EBTC) in India).

To  conclude,  R&I  is generally  construed  by  EU  policy  makers  as  important
for development and sustainability and useful for the achievement of EU de-
velopment  objectives.  This  is  not  to  say,  however,  that  all  R&I  actions  are
explicitly  tied  to  the  pursuit  of  one  or  another  MDG.  Sometimes  this  is  the
case;  but  more  usually  not.  Moreover,  much  DG  DEVCO  support  to  R&I  is
part of larger projects where the R&I elements are not explicitly spelt out. So
while the general case for R&I contributing to EU development objectives is
made, the link has often remained vague and specific references to R&I are
generally  sparse  in  EU  policy  documents.  Rather  the  argument  of  how,  in
practice,  R&I  will  contribute  to  development  objectives  and  the  MDGs  has
usually been taken as given and rarely stated explicitly in any detail. Project
implementers on the ground are, paradoxically perhaps, often clearer on the
link.

The contribution of
R&I to development
objectives and the
MDGs has usually
been taken as given
and rarely been spelt
out explicitly.

6.1.2 R&I  has  informed  sector  policy  dialogue  and  sector  support  at  national  and  regional
levels though the approach has not always been taken as far it might have been (JC 12)

The positive use made
of R&I results in public
policy only became
apparent in the Field
Phase.

Many specific exam-
ples exist of the value
of R&I components of
wider projects.

Although limited evidence of R&I results informing sector policy dialogue and
sector  support  at  national  and  regional  levels  emerged  in  the  Desk  Phase,
the picture changed with the Field Phase. For the most part, only some indi-
cations of the intention to use R&I results in sector policy dialogue were ap-
parent in the documentation, whereas in practice many small examples were
found during country visits.

While, at a general level, the EU’s sector policy reviewed (in all four sectors)
is  placed  in  a  factual  context  derived  from  research  in  the  form  of  studies
and reports, the documents reviewed did not bring this out in a specific man-
ner.  Equally  the  very  few  examples  of  Sector  Budget  Support  in  the  coun-
tries selected for study did not refer to the use of R&I results.

Nevertheless,  numerous  specific examples  of  sector  support  involving  ele-
ments  of  R&I  did  emerge particularly  from  the  field  missions.  One  example
was in support to the Health sector in South Africa where an R&I component
had been included to improve the quality of medical care for the poor. In Pe-
ru, the EU supported a nutritional programme as part of a national integrated
strategy  against poverty that uses a model based on  research evidence on
the impact of interventions on factors determining malnutrition among under
5-year old children.

13 Programme d’appui au système de recherche et Innovation

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Sector policy dialogue
also played a key role
in encouraging the use
of R&I results.

In the environment
sector programmes
have helped creating
institutional contexts
that provide conduits
for channelling R&I
outputs into policy-
making circles but the
actual impact on policy
is less clear.

32

In terms of sector policy dialogue involving R&I there are also examples from
the health and FSNA sectors:



In  South  Africa,  health  sector  dialogue  between  the  EUD  and the  gov-
ernment  involves  discussion  on  R&I.  Indeed,  the  review  of  the  EU  Dia-
logue Support Facility concluded, and the field mission confirms, that R&I
had been successfully integrated into all sector dialogues in that country.

 The  EU-China  Dialogue  on  Agriculture  aimed  to  encourage  discussion
on a wide range of R&I related issues and, especially at the level of im-
plementation. This Dialogue built an institutional framework for coopera-
tive and collaborative exploration in the field of organic farming. It heavily
involved R&I  actors, in particular faculty, staff and students from Higher
Education Institution (HEIs) in both China and the EU.



In the FSNA sector a wide range of examples was found where R&I has
informed sector policy dialogue and support, especially in Ethiopia, Ken-
ya and Peru as well as at regional and global levels. In Peru, the Interna-
tional  Potato  Centre  (CIP)  has  contributed  to  the  development,  strategy
and implementation of a new law on nutrition and food security and the
law on family agriculture. Evidence from the country visits also suggests
that centres and research of the Consultative Group for International Ag-
ricultural Research (CGIAR) have been relatively successful in informing
policy dialogue and sector support. Impact on policy processes has been
central to the approach of a number of EU-funded CGIAR research pro-
grammes, at national, regional and global level (c.f. CGIAR case study).

In the environment sector, evidence, particularly from the field missions, in-
dicates that the programmes at the global and regional level have succeed-
ed  in  creating  institutional  contexts  that  act  as  conduits  for  channelling  R&I
outputs into the policy-making process at the level of implementation. At na-
tional  level,  EUDs  sometimes  fund  dissemination  activities  for  results  from
DEVCO-funded  projects,  targeting  policy  makers  among  others.  However,
this  funding  is  not  automatic  and  not  even  the  norm.  Where  it  does  take
place,  respondents  to  the  EUD  surveys  consider  that  workshops,  to  which
policy makers are invited, and funding of publications are the most effective
means  of  supporting  dissemination.  Networking  facilities  such  as  the  SEA-
EU-NET14 and the SWITCH Asia Network Facility provided much appreciat-
ed forums for dissemination including, for example, Science and Technology
days in South East Asia. However, no evidence of the actual impact of such
forums on policy makers could be found.

Equally  in the EUD survey, eight  out of 12  EUDs managing EnvCC related
projects  stated  that  they  engage  in  policy  dialogue;  however,  58%  of  these
dialogues  were considered as having  a  low  or very  low  impact on  eventual
R&I  policy  or  strategy.  Rather  policy  influence  is  considered  most  likely
where EU support has led to strengthened capacities of institutions that have
a direct advisory role to government.

14 NET: National Expert Team

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

33

DG DEVCO has been
involved in dialogue on
both regional and na-
tional R&I and S&T
policy but not in a con-
sistent fashion sug-
gesting there is no
overall strategic ap-
proach.

Finally,  as the  SISS ‘sector’ as  used  in this study  is  not  a traditional sector
that  one  might  expect  to  see  in  national  or  regional  plans,  ‘sector’  support
policies cannot really be expected in this area. Under SISS, however, the EU
is  involved  in  a  number  of dialogue  processes  at  national  and  regional  lev-
els,  such  as  the  JAES  8th Partnership  (from  which  the  SISS  name  is  de-
rived), that do stress the importance of S&T for development in various more
traditional  sectors  (e.g.  education,  industrial  development,  ICT).  Details  on
the JAES 8th Partnership, including two specific projects covered in this this
evaluation (AU Research Grants and MESA) are given in the text below.

Equally, at the national level,  in four middle-income countries visited (India,
Tunisia, South Africa and Ukraine), the EU has been directly involved in dia-
logue with the government on S&T policy and has been instrumental in mov-
ing  S&T  policy  development  forward,  to  varying  degrees  dependent  on  oc-
casionally difficult local circumstances. Yet, in other countries such as Ethio-
pia,  the  EU  has  not  been  involved  in  dialogue  on  the  government’s  overall
S&T  policy  suggesting  there  is  no  overall  strategic  approach  to  supporting
R&I policy.

Box 5

The JAES – R&I policy dialogue built on a regional partnership

The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) was adopted by EU and African leaders at the Lisbon Summit in 2007. The
JAES is a platform for both dialogue and collaboration between the EU and the African Union (AU). It includes a
number  of  partnerships,  of  which  ‘Science,  Information  Society  and  Space’,  the  8th  Partnership,  is  intended  to
promote the development of knowledge-based societies in Africa. The JAES partnerships involve not only the EU
and AU institutions but also all Member States. Components are thus funded by different sources, but the bulk of
the funding has come from the EDF Intra-ACP envelope.
The JAES recognises S&T as essential engines of socio-economic growth and sustainable development. Not only
does meeting the MDGs require S&T capacities, but knowledge and innovative ways of applying modern technol-
ogy are  crucial  for  competitiveness  in  the  global  economy.  The  Partnership  thus  aims  to  bridge  the  digital  and
scientific divide by harmonising policy and regulatory frameworks, upgrading capacity and strengthening collabo-
rative links between African and European partners.
Two projects were covered in this evaluation:
African Union Research Grants (ARG):
The AU Research Grant programme aims to ensure that S&T in Africa is used as a catalyst for sustainable devel-
opment, to encourage the participation of African researchers, to ensure intra-regional scientific research collabo-
ration  and  co-operation,  and  to  build  Africa’s  research  capacities  through  direct  funding  of  research  on  the  AU
S&T priorities.
The AU Commission’s (AUC) Department for Science & Technology managed the programme, with support from
the EU, through two open calls for proposals (2011 and 2012), inviting European and African consortia of a mini-
mum of three research organisations from at least two African countries. The focus was on socio-economic issues
in the sectors of food security, sustainable energy and integrated water resources and waste management. The
two  ARG  calls  resulted  in  20 grants  up  of  to  750,000  (total  value:  EUR  13.8 million).  The  contracts  all  end  be-
tween December 2015 and December 2016.
The AU Research Grants are a positive tool for capacity building and for providing a funding opportunity to en-
courage research tailored to the African context and needs. A special effort was also made to build up the capaci-
ty  of  the  AUC S&T  Department  to  manage  research  grants.  The  programme  has  also  encouraged  networking
across research communities and promoted regional integration. Of the 20 projects funded, five were led by Eu-
ropean and 15 by African organisations, (in contrast with FP7 consortia which are usually European led) although
activities always take place in Africa. Although the AU Research Grants are not yet well known, demand was high
and only 5% of the proposals could be funded. The available funding is thus not adequate to meet the strong de-
mand for Africa-focused research grants.
MESA (Monitoring for the Environment and Security in Africa):
The  MESA  programme  seeks  to  make earth  observation satellite  data  available  across  Africa  for  monitoring,
analysis and diffusion of information in support of environment, climate and food security policies, programming,
decision-making and implementation of national, regional and continental sustainable development plans. It works
with the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in sub-Saharan Africa and makes a major contribution to the

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

34

New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) Environmental Action Plan. The AUC has a coordinating role.
Space-based and in situ Earth Observation (EO) technologies and applications are powerful tools to support so-
cio-economic  development;  yet,  many  African  countries  lack  the  human,  technical  and/or  financial  resources
needed to exploit EO data and services in a systematic manner. For monitoring such a large continent as Africa,
where the in situ infrastructure is often inadequate, EO technologies are especially valuable. MESA uses existing
technology,  with  the  aim  to  roll  it  out  and  make  data  available  and  usable  for  development  purposes  and  R&I
across Africa. It provides access to satellite information free of charge.
Data provided under MESA have proven to be highly relevant for development purposes, and a useful basis for
further  R&I. While  MESA  is  not  a  research  project itself, the  technology  and  data  provided  supports  innovation
and provides data for African academics and decision-makers to which they previously did not have access. The
demand and interest is high, particularly in meteorological services, but also for agriculture and fisheries. One key
to the success of the project has been the involvement of universities and research communities. They have been
involved in pilot applications, capacity building to develop user skills, and are now increasingly using the data for
their own research.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.2 EQ 2: Impact on partner country research communities

35

To what extent has DEVCO funding of R&I enabled re-
search communities in partner countries to build up and
develop their own R&I capacity, including the ability to ac-
tively engage in research networks (regional and interna-
tional)?

Rationale and coverage of the question

A fundamental assumption regarding the EQ is that partner country institutions need to be involved in
R&I processes if they are to lead to practical solutions to real-world problems. Local problems require
local participation in the discovery, design and dissemination of solutions. As a result, building capaci-
ty for Research and Innovation in partner countries is a key element in many EU-financed actions.

Capacity is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing not just skills but also institutional capacity and
the ability to participate in and exchange knowledge and data with other researchers worldwide
through networks. This human and institutional capacity is also underpinned by infrastructure. This
means that the coverage of this question is quite broad. It includes mobility of researchers, participa-
tion in networks, the improvement of administrative capacity in research institutions, capacity both to
engage in R&I and benefit from advances in R&I in ministries, and provision of physical infrastructure
and equipment.

This question is articulated through four judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

DG DEVCO funding of R&I, as well as DG RTD’s FP7, have made a valuable contribution to involving
partner country scientists in international research. They have done so principally by promoting inter-
national networks at all levels, global and regional, and promoting bilateral and multilateral scientific
collaboration. Closely related to networks are programmes such as Erasmus Mundus that, by helping
young researchers develop European links, have served as an incubator for later FP7 participation.

At the same time, the evaluation has revealed a number of limitations. DG DEVCO support to R&I is
coherent with global policy agenda and priorities, but particularly at the national level, the alignment
tends to be with national development goals rather than with R&I agenda themselves. Often this is be-
cause the country has no R&I strategy, but the evaluation has found no cases where EU instruments
were used to help develop such policies, even when there was apparent interest. Thus, there was no
capacity building for agenda setting. While capacity building of all kinds was consistently stressed in
programming, this tended to be at the individual level benefitting participating scientists, not at the lev-
el of institution strengthening. There is thus a gap: DG DEVCO cannot support the long-term, predict-
able effort required and DG RTD, with its emphasis on scientific excellence, 2-year funding cycle, and
mission oriented to European science, is ill-suited to capacity building. The result is a weakening of
sustainability. Two other problems with capacity building have been identified. One is adverse selec-
tion; those who benefit most from capacity building, especially through FP7, tend to be those who
have the highest capacity to start with. The second, expressed by scientists in the field, is that capaci-
ty building has become biased towards downstream applications as opposed to the fundamental re-
search needs upstream in the R&I pipeline.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Key points:

36

 While DG DEVCO generally recognises that R&I can be a potent force for development, apprecia-
tion of the sector is highly variable both at Headquarters (HQ) and in EUDs. The Agenda for
Change, calling on EU country strategies to focus on a handful of sectors, essentially makes it im-
possible to identify R&I as a focal sector in its own right.



Both DG DEVCO and DG RTD have supported scattered projects aiming to increase FP7 partici-
pation, but there is no sign of a coherent, thought-out strategy for institution strengthening. The
level of excellence required to compete effectively in the international science marketplace is very
high, indeed, and few partner country institutions are close to it. It is telling that less than half of
respondents to the EUD survey felt that DG DEVCO support to R&I had strengthened participation
in FP7. Three countries (China, India, and South Africa; all with Science and Technology Agree-
ments) accounted for over half the FP7 participations. It is well known in scientific circles that the
administrative and organisational burden of running an FP7 consortium is high. Even when Third
Country researchers are eligible to take the lead, many admit that they prefer to free-ride on the
organisational depth and experience of a European university.

 One of the more valuable EU contributions to capacity has been the financing of high-speed inter-

net networks to enable data and information exchange.

6.2.1 DG DEVCO support to R&I is aligned with relevant policies and strategies (JC 21)

While alignment with
global and regional
policies is good, it var-
ies at national level.

In focusing on only a
few sectors in line with
the Agenda for
Change, DG DEVCO
tends not to stress
R&I.

DG DEVCO support to R&I is aligned and coherent with the EU’s own poli-
cies and well reflects policies at the global and regional levels. However, de-
spite the fact respondents to the EUD survey considered all of the 54 major
R&I  interventions  they  identified  as  relevant  to  country  priorities,  the  field
mission found that alignment with relevant national level policies and strate-
gies  of  partner  countries  is  more  variable.  In  part,  this  is  because  in  many
countries  (e.g.  Burkina  Faso)  these  do  not  exist  and  in  others  e.g.  Kenya,
Ethiopia, Tunisia) these are only now being elaborated. In countries such as
South Africa with a strong R&I policy, field mission visits found DG DEVCO
alignment  with  national  priorities  to  be  excellent.  In  general,  DG  DEVCO
tends to consider R&I strategic alignment with respect to development goals,
not with respect to R&I goals per se.

R&I  is not  uniformly  regarded  across  DG  DEVCO  as  a  key  sector  for  eco-
nomic development. 65%  of EUD survey respondents ranked R&I as a low
priority, a very low priority, or no priority at all – yet over 80% of survey re-
spondents  characterised  the  priority  given  to  R&I  as  “adequate”.  In  all  sec-
tors, DG DEVCO’s interlocutors are usually line ministries, not the Ministry of
Research.  This  probably  accounts  for  the  fact  that,  while  DG  DEVCO  sup-
port for R&I  is coherent  with development policies,  it  seldom takes account
of research priorities. DG DEVCO’s concentration on a handful of broad sec-
tors  under  the  Agenda  for  Change  makes  it  unlikely  that  R&I  would  be  se-
lected as a priority area.

The FSNA global pro-
grammes are well
aligned with EU devel-
opment objectives, but
problems of alignment
have been noted at
regional and country
levels.

In FSNA, at global level DG DEVCO has aligned its efforts successfully with
EU  development  objectives  via  the  CGIAR  and  the  Global  Programme  on
Agricultural  Research  for  Development  (GPARD).  At  regional  level,  EU
monitoring reports have criticised the lack of alignment with regional strate-
gies (e.g. in the case of Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research
in  Eastern  and  Central  Africa (ASARECA) and Technology Transfer in Afri-
ca). Country  Notes  produced  for  this  evaluation  paint  a  mixed  picture – in
some  countries,  there  has  been  adequate  alignment  between  R&I  support

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

In health, alignment
was generally with
health policies (specif-
ically, the fight against
poverty-related dis-
eases), not R&I poli-
cies.

Similarly, EnvCC pro-
grammes have aligned
with strategies and
policies in the envi-
ronmental and climate
change fields, not with
R&I policies.

EUDs are not always
aware of national ef-
forts to elaborate R&I
strategies.

37

and country development priorities, while in others lack of a policy or strate-
gy has been a constraint. The EU is strongly supportive of reform efforts at
CGIAR, where reviews have cited lack of relevance to country-level priorities
and  constraints.  Evidence  from  field  missions  hints  towards  CGIAR  align-
ment with country-level policies improving in Peru, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

In  the  Health  sector,  most  countries  examined,  including  some  with  explicit
S&T  policies,  had  no  explicit  health  R&I  strategic  priorities.  However,  there
was  de  facto  alignment  with  certain  obvious  needs,  for  instance: local  pro-
duction  of  HIV  drugs  in  Tanzania,  malaria  control  in  Mozambique,  drug  re-
sistance in South Africa and the surrounding countries, and tuberculosis (TB)
vaccine development. DG  DEVCO Budget  Support in health financed  inno-
vative operational research in primary health care. At the global level, all of
the  DG  DEVCO  support  to  WHO  was  relevant  to  partner  countries’  needs
and in line with the relevant high level strategies. At regional level, support to
emergent  infectious  disease  research  in  ASEAN  and  pharmaceuticals  de-
velopment in Africa (ANDI) were found to be coherent.

Much the same situation prevails in EnvCC. DG DEVCO support to R&I has
made  considerable  efforts  to  align  with  relevant  priorities  and  strategies  in
partner countries and with policy objectives set in global and regional consul-
tative  fora.  Programmes  such  as  the  GCCA,  CCT/CCS,  and  SWITCH  Asia
were designed to further the overall goals set in regional and global climate
change policy-making. However, the policies and strategies aligned to were
those for  Environment  and  Climate  Change  as  a  whole,  not  those  for  R&I
(with  the  exception  of  EduLink).  EUD  staff  in  all  countries  visited  where
EnvCC was an active sector ranked relevance to country priorities as the key
strategy driver.

For  SISS,  R&I  programme  documents  are  generally  aligned  and  coherent
with relevant policy documents from the EU at the global/thematic, regional
and national levels. At the national level, CSPs make, and CLEs usually con-
firm,  the  link  to  regional-level  framework  policies.  Evidence  from  available
evaluations also suggests  this alignment generally  exists  with national  gov-
ernment policy documents where these exist. In countries with relatively de-
veloped  S&T  policies  such  as  India  and  South  Africa,  policy  dialogue  has
ensured good alignment, and the EU has helped to develop such policies in
countries such as Tunisia, as confirmed by the field mission. However, in two
other field mission countries, Ethiopia and Kenya, the EUD was unaware of
efforts  being  made  at  national  level  to  develop  an  R&I  strategy.  At  the  re-
gional  level,  the  EU  also  supports  S&T  strategies  such  as  the  AU’s
STISA2024 (Science, Technology and Innovation  Strategy for Africa 2024),
a further indication of the search for alignment.

6.2.2

EU has supported on ‘capacity building’ and enhancing institutional sustainability, but
there is a gap concerning long-term sustained support (JC 22)

Precise estimates of
capacity building are
hard to get, but it is
clearly a priority com-
ponent of R&I support.

The precise scale of spending on capacity development is hard to ascertain,
but it is a relatively important element. About 15% of the evaluation’s inven-
tory,  EUR 150 million,  is  coded  to  the  Development  Assistance  Committee
further
(DAC)  Higher  Education  code.  Outside 
EUR 281 million  goes  on  Mobility  Programmes  administered  by  the Educa-
tion, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Across all four sec-

inventory,  a 

the 

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

While the importance
of R&I capacity build-
ing is recognised,
three problems have
been identified: sus-
tainability, adverse
selection, and down-
stream application bi-
as.

While FP7 participa-
tion contributed signifi-
cantly to capacity
building, this tended to
be at the individual,
rather than institution-
al, level. DG DEVCO
instruments are not
well suited to long-
term institution build-
ing and, with its focus
on scientific excel-
lence and research
results, DG RTD is
unable to fill the gap.

38

tors, about three quarters of EUD responses to a question assessing the im-
portance of different types of R&I support ranked individual capacity building
and  institutional  capacity  and  infrastructure  development  as  very  important
or important.

The  need  for  R&I  capacity  building  is  recognised  in  all  documentation  re-
viewed. Monitoring reports and evaluations show that implementation follows
suit with reasonable levels of success. Institutional capacity development is
regularly  covered  in  national  level  programmes  and  there  is  an  important
effort to build up capacity in the form of regional high-speed ICT networks to
support knowledge exchange and data transfer between researchers. How-
ever, a key sustainability concern is what happens after DG DEVCO support
comes  to  an  end.  Another  issue,  raised  in  field  missions,  is  that capacity
building  has  been  skewed  towards  institutions  and  researchers  whose  ca-
pacity is already reasonably high. Scientists interviewed expressed concern
that  there  is  bias  towards  downstream  applications-oriented  R&I  capacity
building  (for  example  in  CGIAR  projects),  leading  to  concerns  that  partner
countries  will failing  to  develop  the  capacity  needed  for  fundamental  re-
search at the upstream end of the R&I pipeline.

Field  interviews  with  EU  officials  and  national  researchers  involved  in  FP7
established that virtually every project helped to build capacity and promote
institutional  sustainability  by  involving  researchers  in  international  networks
which they would otherwise have had difficulty in accessing. The less devel-
oped the partner country, the more important this contribution. However, field
interviews confirmed that FP7 capacity building takes place more on the in-
dividual level, with the effect on institutional strengthening being limited. Ef-
fective  institution  strengthening  would  require  greater predictability  of  fund-
ing, either by the EU itself or in co-ordination with other donors. Field mission
interviews and analysis  of programmes such as ACP S&T suggest that the
process  of  upgrading  capacities  to  the  level  required  for  success  with  FP7
takes time and continued support. Only about 40% of EUD survey respond-
ents  felt  that  DG  DEVCO  R&I  support  had  considerably  increased  national
researchers’ access to FPP7 funding.

DG  DEVCO  instruments  are  not  well  suited  to  long-term  institution  building
and, with its focus on scientific excellence and research results, DG RTD is
unable  to  fill  the  gap. Moreover,  because  of  the  heavy  administrative  and
management responsibilities, as well as the risk of failing to receive funding
after  putting  in  a  great  deal  of work  on  the  application,  participation  in  FP7
consortia managed by another institution is usually more attractive than tak-
ing the lead even  when that opportunity  is open to them. No evidence  was
found  that  DG  DEVCO  support  has  specifically  targeted  the  administrative
and management capacity of research institutions.

While there were
widespread efforts at
individual capacity
building, there was no
consistent strategy for
strengthening re-
search institutions to
achieve long-term sus-
tainability.

In FSNA, the DG DEVCO strategic documents recognise the importance of
adequate  R&I  capacity  for  development.  Capacity  building  and  institutional
development are not seen as separate activities from research, but rather as
an  integrated  part  of  R&I  support.  In  Health,  outside  a  core  of  actions  very
specifically devoted to R&I, EU support to health capacity building, whether
via projects or Budget Support, focused on concrete issues of improving ac-
cess rather than capacity for health R&I. In the EnvCC sector, programmes
that involved local co-operation concentrated sustainability efforts on secur-
ing local ownership. Other programmes, such as SWITCH Asia, EduLink or

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

39

EU-Asia  Link  at  regional  level  as  well  as  the EU-China  Institute  for  Clean
and  Renewable  Energy  (ICARE) at  national  level,  were  designed  to  gener-
ate more tangible products. Here, the available evidence is that market up-
take of the outputs is limited. In SISS, a fairly strong emphasis on individual
capacity building is evident in EU planning documents. However, systematic
attention to building up institutional capacity and sustainability is less regular-
ly apparent in the documentation, though there are certain programmes (e.g.
ACP S&T Programme) where this is a focus. An important contribution of DG
DEVCO  to  capacity  building  has  been  its  support  to  research  infrastructure
in  the  form  of  regional  high-speed  ICT  connectivity  projects  connecting  na-
tional  networks  and  various  EU  funded  projects.  (@lis, Central  Asian  Re-
search  and  Education  Network (CAREN), Trans-Eurasia  Information  Net-
work (TEIN), ACP Connect) address this area.

What emerged as a general theme across the sectors is the relatively feeble
efforts made to strengthen research institutions with a view to their long-term
sustainability.  There  has  been  some  degree  of  “trickle  up”  from  individual
capacity  building  to  institution  strengthening,  and  the  incorporation  of  indi-
viduals (and institutions) into international networks has made a positive con-
tribution,  but  very  few  of  the  research  institutions  studied  in  this  evaluation
are able to compete effectively for funding in international science.

6.2.3 DG DEVCO helped to improved access of developing countries’ research communities

to EU FP7 (JC 23)

FP7 projects are high-
ly concentrated, with
three countries (China,
South Africa, and In-
dia) accounting for
over half. The evalua-
tion found only scat-
tered instances of pro-
jects to promote FP7
participation.

As mentioned above, only a disappointing 40% of EUDs who answered the
question  whether  they  believed  DG  DEVCO  support  increased  access  to
FP7 stated that they strongly agreed. However, FP7 2007-13 data on a se-
lection  of  countries  that, while  not  suitable  for  establishing  time  trends  or
precise  details  such  as  number  of  collaborating  institutions  and  number  of
publications, suggest a rich portfolio of FP7 support. DG RTD statistics show
that 1,063 FP7 funded projects have participants from some of the 18 coun-
tries selected for closer scrutiny in this evaluation. These projects are spread
roughly  evenly  between  the  four  thematic  sectors,  but  projects  from  coun-
tries  with  S&T  Agreements  dominate  the  country  distribution,  and  three
countries (China,  South  Africa  and  India)  together  account  for  more  than
50% of all projects.

RTD-financed specific projects to  help researchers access FP7 funding, ei-
ther BILAT15 (bilateral) projects (all countries with a Science and Technology
agreement)  or  regional  ones  (INCO-NETs).  Although  doubling  international
participation  is  an  objective  for  DG  RTD,  it  is  not  part  of  the  co-operation
strategy and there are no specified targets. Still, DG RTD provides opportu-
nities for extensive co-operation between European and African researchers
through  the  framework  programmes  and,  increasingly,  this  co-operation  is
becoming more strategic and joint (EU-Africa) as a result of the High Level
Policy  Dialogue.  In  a  few  countries  (e.g.  Tunisia,  Ukraine)  DG  DEVCO,  as
well, financed projects that aimed to encourage participation and help inter-
ested  researchers  in  various  ways  to  submit  FP7  applications.  In  Ukraine,
the DEVCO-financed ERA project put in place and trained National Contact
Points for FP7; these are now functioning on their own in the context of Hori-
zon 2020  and the project is largely deemed to  be  a  success. As confirmed
by field missions, in countries with S&T Agreements with the EU and those

15 BILAT: Bilateral EU Co-operation in Science, Technology and Innovation

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

40

with  S&T  Counsellors  access  is  better  and  efforts  are  made  to  encourage
applicants to FP7.

Because of heavy FP7
administrative re-
quirements, there is
incentive for research
institutions to free ride
off of the administra-
tive capacity of large
European ones.

What  emerged  strongly  from  the  field  missions  is  that,  across  all  sectors,
scientific  collaboration  is  based  in  large  part  on  personal  contacts  estab-
lished over time. Researchers interviewed stressed the importance of build-
ing on existing ties rather than manufacturing artificial ones through the con-
sortium-building  process.  Erasmus  Mundus  made  a  significant  contribution
to  increasing  FP7  participation  because  researchers  who  benefited  estab-
lished  personal  ties  which  they  then  followed  up  on  when  they  returned  to
their home countries.

The field missions found that almost all researchers interviewed still felt that
the  best  way  of  participating  in  an  FP7  consortium  was  as  a  collaborating
institution, not as a leader. The lack of capacity for management and admin-
istration  was  often  mentioned.  ACP  researchers  use  the  ACP  S&T  pro-
gramme as a learning ground to build up their knowledge and experience of
participating in international research projects to subsequently apply to FP7.
However,  the  number  of  cases  of  this  occurring  was  found  to  be  quite  lim-
ited.  In  Peru  and  Ukraine,  field missions  revealed  that  national  researchers
considered EU funding process time consuming and demanding.

6.2.4 DG  DEVCO  support  enhanced  networking  of  developing  countries’  researchers  at  re-

gional and inter-national level (JC 24)

In all sectors, both DG
DEVCO support to
R&I and FP7 have
contributed significant-
ly to network devel-
opment.

In FSNA, support for
networking has been
effective at the global
level, less so at re-
gional level.

In all four thematic sectors, considerable emphasis has been put on promot-
ing  international  networking  among  researchers,  which  is  considered  a  key
aspect of supporting R&I for development. Much of the support to networks
comes  through  regional  level  contracts  involving  both  traditional  confer-
ence/seminar based networking and EU support to building up regional high-
speed ICT networks. Scientists interviewed in Africa stated that, particularly
in countries with weak research institutions, being a partner on an FP7 pro-
ject  or  participating  in  a  DEVCO-financed  network  provides  a  lifeline  to  na-
tional researchers, particularly through reducing brain drain an giving access
to the latest information and data. Among EUDs giving a rating in a particular
category, 71% felt that DG DEVCO support to R&I increased partner coun-
tries’ access to European science, 75% felt that access to European scien-
tific  communities  was  enhanced,  and  73%%  felt  that  EU  support  has  sub-
stantially increased the funding share devoted to network activities.

In  FSNA,  the  share  of  funding  dedicated  to  networking  facilities involved  a
total contracted amount of EUR 8.4 million, or 1.6% of the total. These are all
regional contracts related to inter-university high-speed connection networks,
research  platforms  and  conferences.  At  the  regional  level,  ASARECA,  Fo-
rum  for  Agricultural  Research  in  Africa  (FARA),  Pro  Poor  Innovation  in  the
Andes,  and  Technology  Transfer  in  South  East  Asia  (SEA)  made  verifiable
contributions  to  regional  networking  between  researchers  and  other  stake-
holders. However, in the latter case, the approach chosen failed to produce
regional  priorities;  an  independent  assessment  found  that,  as  a  conse-
quence,  dialogue,  networking  and  learning  across  countries  and  pro-
grammes were less and less effective. While ASARECA has made a signifi-
cant contribution to regional and sub-regional collaboration, a disproportion-
ate  number  of  the  projects  it  has  coordinated  have  been  implemented  in
Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. Box 6 below provides more details

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

41

on the regional exchanges under ASARECA.

At  the  global  level,  the  Global  Forum  on  Agriculture  Research  (GFAR)  or-
ganised global dialogues and networking on R&I priorities, particularly for the
CGIAR (GCARD – Global  Conferences on Agricultural Research for Devel-
opment). GFAR’s main contributions were the building of active and mutually
accountable  partnerships  and  enabling  diverse  partners  to  work  together
effectively.  GCARD  showcases  the  Consortium  and  partners’  research  and
serves as a marketplace of advances in science for uptake by stakeholders
or for further development by the contributors to the Fund.

Box 6

ASARECA – Enhancing regional exchanges for research

The  Association  for  Strengthening Agricultural  Research  in Eastern  and  Central  Africa  (ASARECA)  coordinates
multi-stakeholder research projects at the regional level with national, regional and international partners – such
as national agricultural research extension and training organisations, CGIAR centres and programmes, the Fo-
rum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), farmers, NGOs, etc.; thereby promoting and facilitating regional
collaborative research. Through these research projects, ASARECA has strengthened the network capacities of
research communities in East and Central Africa by establishing collaborative research networks. This has led to
an  increased  exchange  of  ideas,  information  and  data  between  researchers  and  other  key  stakeholders  in  the
region.  Moreover,  researchers emphasised  that  contacts  made  through  the  ASARECA  research  projects  were
useful when they are building regional research partnerships and consortia.
The distribution of resources between stronger and weaker research institutes is an issue that has received signif-
icant attention from ASARECA. The Association has for example adopted a form of ‘affirmative action’ to ensure
weaker countries in the region benefit from calls for proposals, as well as the traditional strong performers such as
Kenya.

In health, by contrast,
DG DEVCO support to
networking integrated
developing-country
experts into global pri-
ority-setting.

In EnvCC, DG DEVCO
support promoted
South-South partner-
ships.

In Health, DG DEVCO was an active player in supporting research network-
ing.  At  the  global  level,  the  major  networking  project  was  “Support  for  re-
search into poverty-related, tropical, and neglected diseases,” the WHO Pilot
Project-Action  Préparatoire  (PP-AP)  project  implementing  Element  1  of  the
Global  Strategy  and  Plan  of  Action  (GSPoA)  (priority  setting).  At  regional
level,  the  standout  example is  ANDI  (African  Network  for  Drugs  and  Diag-
nostics  Innovation),  starting  with  EUR 5 million  in  seed  money  from  DG
DEVCO  and  now  counting  over  30  affiliated  Centres  of  Excellence.  The
Go4Health  project  assembled  a  web-based  network  of  developing-country
experts to provide input into the development of the health SDGs (Sustaina-
ble  Development  Goals);  this  was  RTD-financed  but  DG  DEVCO  took  a
keen  interest  and  followed  the  project  closely.  All  health  projects,  both
DEVCO- and FP7-financed, visited during field missions, contributed strong-
ly to the integration of researchers into international networks.

In EnvCC,  EU support for R&I has expanded the regional and international
networking  activities  of researchers  in  partner  countries  by  creating  institu-
tional spaces and building pathways to existing networks at regional and in-
ternational level. Efforts have focused on building capacities to enable more
effective  participation  in  policy  dialogues  concerning  environmental  and  cli-
mate change issues. At the global level, both the GCCA programme funded
projects  in  Asia  and  in  the  Caribbean  were  based  on  regional  networks  of
institutions from partner countries. The regional programmes, EU Asia Link,
SWITCH  Asia  (including  the  SWITCH  Asia  Network  Facility)  and  EduLink,
funded  22  projects  featuring  South-South  partnerships.  Other  examples  of
programmes  that  have  successfully  put  in  place  sustainable  South-South
networks include the SIFOR (Smallholder Innovation for Resistance) climate
change  programme  under  GPARD,  CGIAR  regional  activities,  EBTC  activi-
ties in India and the ARANetLAC in Latin America.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

42

An exception to the
rule that partner coun-
try institutions rarely
take the lead is the
AU-Africa Research
Grants Initiative under
the JAES.

SISS  documentation  includes  many  references  to  enhanced  networking  of
developing  country  researchers  at  regional  and  international  levels.  Field
visits  also  provided  considerable  evidence  of  networking.  One  Mapping
Study of best practice (see JAES Case Study in Volume 3) stresses the im-
portance  of  networking  as  one  factor  that  tends  to  encourage  quality  re-
search. There are many examples in the inventory of projects with both part-
ner  country  and  European  Research  Organisations  (ROs)  involved  but  the
latter  are  quite  prominent  in  the  contracting.  A  prominent  exception  is  the
AU-Africa Research Grants Initiative funded by DG DEVCO under the JAES:
of  20  grants  allocated  to  consortia  of  African  and  European  universities  in
the first round, 16 were led by African institutions.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.3 EQ 3: Instruments and modalities

43

To what extent has DG DEVCO in its support to R&I used
its available instruments in a way that maximizes their val-
ue?

Rationale and coverage of the question

DG DEVCO has at its disposal different financial instruments (EDF, DCI, and ENPI) that have both
thematic and geographical parameters. These can be used individually or combined in different ways
and the funds deployed via different modalities (project modality, Budget Support). The EU can also
use different channels and types of contractors to work with (e.g. government agencies, multilateral
agencies, research institutions, civil society organisations) depending on what it is seeking to achieve
as well as on the scale of the activity and the flexibility required. The choice of modality will thus be
partly determined by the chosen actor and vice versa. Geographical funds may be used either at
country or regional level.

One of the added values often cited for the EU is the range of instruments and modalities at its dis-
posal. At the same time, combining these instruments is not always smooth and straightforward in
practice. The rationale for the question is that different approaches are designed to meet different
needs and have different strengths and weaknesses. The quality of EU support is greatly dependent
on using the right approach or the right combination of approaches. The EQ is intended to present ev-
idence to respond to Section 3.1 of the ToR that seeks conclusions and recommendations from the
Evaluation on the ways in which instruments and modalities are used.

This question is articulated through three judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

DG DEVCO has used its full available range of instruments, channels and modalities in funding R&I.
Geographic instruments are the main source of funding (75%) though particularly in both FSNA and
Health the relevant thematic instruments are also important (~50%). Funding has also been provided
at global, regional and national levels with regional programmes allocated about half the funds, a third
going to the national level and the remainder to global level programmes. The use of different chan-
nels varies from sector to sector and the rationale for the choices made lie primarily at the sector level.
A third of the funds have gone to universities and other research organisations, while regional organi-
sation and private sectors have had about a quarter each. The modalities used tend to be determined
by practical considerations related to the type of actor to be funded. A few instances of Sector Budget
Support were identified particularly in the FSNA sector. The only case of Sector Budget Support di-
rectly for R&I as a sector in its own right, in South Africa, provides an interesting example of the scope
for funding the development of national R&I and/or S&T policy. The bulk of funds has therefore been
provided using a project funding modality. In certain conditions, for particular purposes (e.g. for long
term capacity development) and for particular actors this modality was not ideal and caused difficul-
ties. Thus, while the choice of modality may be appropriate in the EU’s terms, it is not seen as such by
the grantee.

Overall, it is clear that the EU has an open mind as to which actors to work with on R&I and has been
willing to explore a whole range of options using the different instruments, channels and modalities
available. There is also good evidence that careful consideration has also gone into the choices made

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

44

within the parameters available. However, it is difficult to reach a measured view on whether the op-
tions chosen maximise the value of the instruments.

Key points:

The channels used vary from one thematic sector to another.









In both Health and FSNA, a global organisation exists and which acts as a forum to coordinate
and indeed implement joint R&I programmes – the WHO for Health and the CGIAR for FSNA.
Much of the EU support to R&I in these two sectors goes through these two global level channels.
In EnvCC, the EU has created its own global programme, the GCCA, and in SISS, no global level
programme was identified. A World Bank trust fund is also used for some aspects of FSNA sup-
port to R&I.

In all four sectors different types of channels are used at the regional level. In SISS, regional pro-
grammes via existing regional organisations (e.g. the ACP, AU) are prominent channels for sup-
porting R&I, but support to establishing regional high-speed internet networks is typically chan-
nelled via national and regional ICT, research and regulatory organisations. In EnvCC, a number
of important regional level programmes have been established by the EU (e.g. EduLink, SWITCH
Asia). FSNA also supports regional networks such as ASARECA.

In all four sectors there is extensive national level funding. If the government is not the imple-
menter, this was mostly through the project modality using calls for proposals, a system which was
poorly suited to addressing long-term R&I needs for instance in capacity building.

The civil society channel is extensively used; this can be Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs), but many HEIs and other research organisations are also funded through different modal-
ities. The private sector is also supported though this has not always proved to be straightforward.
Again, the use of these different channels varies from sector to sector.

Both the regular modalities (Budget Support, project funding) have been used:





Aside from in FSNA, only a couple of cases of Budget Support were identified in the Health and
EnvCC sectors, and in both one of these cases involves South Africa. There is of course more
widespread use of Budget Support for health and environment programmes in general but the evi-
dence suggests very little of this goes into supporting R&I. In SISS, there were no cases of Budget
Support. Both programme and project funding are found in each sector.

It is therefore only on Budget Support that there are major variations in the use of modalities be-
tween sectors and this seems likely to relate to the nature of the sector, the stakeholders available
and the type of R&I work supported. The lack of national R&I strategies in many of the countries
would also make Budget Support specifically to R&I very difficult to organise. South Africa is a
strong exception in this regard.

 What is less clear is just how much of an overall strategic approach or effort has gone into making
the choices between or on combining different modalities. Some of the choices are clearly strate-
gic and a strategy is easier to discern in some sectors than others. For instance, in the case of the
WHO or the CGIAR that occupy what are, in effect, monopoly positions as umbrella organisations
to which the EU is committed.

 One might expect more use to be made of Budget Support focusing on R&I, particularly as the

project modality creates difficulties notably in terms of the continuity for long term capacity devel-
opment for research. The main reason why this does not happen appears to be that R&I is never a
chosen as a focal sector in its own. This can be because a government has no overall R&I or S&T
policy or because there are other development priorities such as agriculture or health. In these
cases R&I work may then benefit from Budget Support ‘via the back door’ as one element in the
support to that focal sector.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

45

6.3.1 Appropriate use has been made of the EU’s different financing instruments and modali-
ties, yet the choice of modalities and the way they have been applied has a mixed effect
on enhancing R&I (JC 31)

Funding for R&I
comes largely from
geographic instru-
ments, notably the
EDF, and from one
thematic line, that for
Food Security.

A  wide  range  of  different  funding  instruments  have  been  used  to  fund  R&I
work; however, two thirds of the funds are geographic in origin. As Table 3 in
Section 5.5 shows 30% of the value of the funding came from the EDF. Oth-
er important lines have been the geographic programmes for Asia and Latin
America  of  the  DCI  and  its  pre-2007  predecessor  contributing  around  15%
and  10%  respectively.  The  ENPI  and  its  MED  and  TACIS16 predecessors
contributed a further 8% and the line for South Africa (AFS) 3%.

Most  of  the  remaining  third  of  the  funds  came  from  the  lines  dedicated  to
three of the four sectors examined in this evaluation. The DCI Food Security
line heavily dominated this remaining third with 26% of the total funding.

While all modalities available to the Commission are used for supporting R&I
it is not possible to identify any one that is particularly favoured or appropri-
ate.  However,  responses  from  the  EUD  survey  provide  some  indication  of
the modalities used as indicated in the figure below. This shows that all aid
approaches  listed,  except  global  R&I  programmes,  were  used  in  approxi-
mately 60% of the respondent countries to address R&I challenges. In con-
trast, global R&I programmes were only used in a quarter of these countries.

When  asked  in  another  question  about  the  suitability  of  these  different  ap-
proaches, the respondents expressed more confidence in the project modali-
ty than in wider sector approaches17.

Figure 10

Use of different aid approaches

0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

Specific project approach focusing on
R&I at national level

Support to R&I within wider sector
programmes at national level

Regional (multi-country) approach

Global R&I programme (multi-
country)

Yes

No

N = 17

N = 16

N = 13

N = 12

Note: Multiple approaches per country possible. Each bar displays the fractions of
EUDs that used the given approach - or not.
Source: EUD survey

There is little evidence
to suggest that one
modality is more suit-
able for R&I funding
than another.

There is thus little evidence to suggest that one modality may be more suita-
ble than another in the funding of R&I. R&I is largely financed as part of oth-
er sector projects and less as R&I per se. Moreover, at least in the SISS sec-
tor,  justifications  found  in  programme  documents  are  usually  at  the  level  of
general justifications for different modalities and instruments and not particu-
larly related to R&I considerations. Certainly in Health, but also to some ex-
tent elsewhere, although most choices made seem reasonable, it is not clear

16 TACIS: Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
17 Respondents displayed very little confidence in the regional and global approaches but this may be due to lack
of awareness, as these are generally administered from headquarters or by specialised ‘regional’ EUDs such as
the one for the AU in Addis Ababa.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

While the thematic
lines are the main
source of funding for
the FSNA sectors, ge-
ographic funds are key
for EnvCC and SISS.

A broad range of rele-
vant contractors which
also varies widely be-
tween the four sectors
studied are receiving
support.

Funding global R&I
programmes through
recognised global
players is a key ele-
ment of the FSNA and
Health sectors.

Regional programmes
represent half the total
funding for R&I and
make a valued contri-
bution in all four the-
matic sectors.

46

that there was any strategic consideration in the mix of instruments and mo-
dalities used.

Both geographical and thematic instruments have been used in all four sec-
tors  though  in  very  different  proportions.  On  the  one  hand  as  indicated  in
Table 3, the thematic Food Security line dominates the funding of the FSNA
sector (59%) and the Santé line that of the Health sector (44%). On the other
hand  the  EnvCC  is  62%  funded  from  the  geographic  lines  and  gets  about
36% of its funding from the thematic lines. The SISS sector is virtually entire-
ly funded from the geographic lines and particularly the EDF (37%), the DCI-
ALA18 (19%) and the ENPI (12%).

In both the Health and SISS sectors there were a couple of cases of PP/AP
funding prompted by the European Parliament. In the first case, the funding
stands  out  as  particularly  important  for  global  health  R&I.  In  the  case  of
SISS, these funds were used to support a technology transfer and business-
to-business project in India that proved difficult to implement. Field research
suggested  that  the  reasons  for  the  use  of  this  modality  in  this  latter  case
were entirely related to priorities of the European Parliament.

A wide range of different ROs, NGOs and other actors are funded in all the
sectors and the evidence collected on a case by cases basis suggests that
the choice of beneficiaries is largely appropriate.

As the Figure 9 in Section 5.6 shows however, the distribution of contractors
varies  widely  among  the  four  thematic  sectors.  FSNA  and  Health  show  a
much  greater  use  of  international  organisations.  Universities  and  research
institutes are important in all four sectors. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
are prominent in Health whereas private sector actors are most prominent in
the  EnvCC  and  SISS  sectors.  The  field  work  also  confirmed  that  a  wide
range of relevant research actors are applying for and receiving support.

Global  level  programmes  represent  a  quarter  of  the  value  of  DG  DEVCO’s
portfolio  in  R&I  (see Figure 5 in  Section 5.4 above).  Such  programmes  im-
plemented  through  organisations  like  CGIAR  and  WHO  are  particularly  im-
portant in FSNA and Health. These are key international players that set the
global agenda in R&I in their respective sectors and as such entirely appro-
priate organisations for the EU to fund. In EnvCC, the absence of any simi-
larly dominant global organisation has meant that the EU has established its
own programmes: the GCCA and the CCS/CCT, rather than channel support
though  existing  organisations,  though  it  does  collaborate  on  these  with  the
United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP).  SISS  has  no  global  pro-
grammes reflecting the absence of such organisations.

As indicated in the same charts (Figure 5 further above) regional level fund-
ing  is  important  in  all  four  sectors,  and,  overall,  represents  half  of  the  total
value DG DEVCO funding to R&I.



In the EnvCC and SISS sectors, much of the funding is provided through
a  series  of  successful  regional  programmes  such  as  the  EU  Asia  Link,
SWITCH  Asia  and  EduLink  in  the  former,  and  the  ACP  Science  and
Technology Programme (S&TP) or the JAES 8th Partnership with the AU
for the latter. In SISS, a series of regional high-speed internet networks
are also an important element.

18 ALA: Asia and Latin America

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

National level funding
makes up a third of
DG DEVCO’s R&I ef-
fort.

The choice of global,
regional or national
level funding has been
largely dependent on
the presence of effec-
tive partners.

The Budget Support
modality is rarely used
for funding R&I.

47





In FSNA at the regional level, evidence suggests some channels perform
better than others. Thus, in the case of ASARECA, the EU’s use of the
multi-donor  trust  fund  of  the  World  Bank  (WB)  resulted  in  less  bureau-
cratic  pressure  and  better  co-ordination  in  reporting  demands  and  rec-
ommendations,  while  the  Pro  Poor  Innovation  programme’s  manage-
ment through the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
has not been as satisfactory.

In  Health  there  is  no  funding  of  regional  organisations  but  a  few inter-
university  consortia  programmes  conducting  research  on  health  issues
across particular regions have been funded.

Finally  national  level  funding  from  geographic  and  thematic  budget  lines is
used  in  all  four  thematic  sectors.  It  accounts  for  a  third  of  the  overall  R&I
portfolio.

National level commitments dominate the funding in ENPI countries whereas
in Asia, Latin America and particularly the ACP regional funding is more im-
portant (see Figure 6 in Section 5.4). It is particularly in South Asia and sub-
Saharan Africa that regional contracts are important.

The choice of global, regional or national level funding for R&I is dependent
on the presence of appropriate partners at each level. In the two sectors of
FSNA and Health, a global dialogue on R&I priorities is well established and
the EU participates. In EnvCC and particularly in SISS, this is much less the
case.  At  both  regional  and  national  level  there  exist  many  opportunities  for
funding R&I work in all four sectors and DG DEVCO is well engaged at both
levels.

No evidence was found to suggest that using different geographic or themat-
ic funding instruments or funding at particular levels (global, regional or na-
tional) was more or less appropriate for support to R&I.

Budget  Support is  most  common  in  the  FSNA  sector  where  examples  of
both general Budget Support including FSNA and Sector Budget Support for
the agricultural sector involving R&I were identified. In EnvCC and in Health,
there are a few cases of Budget Support. In this latter sector where Budget
Support  is  used  extensively  for  support  to  general  health  programmes,  evi-
dence suggests, overall very  little of this money finds its way into R&I,  with
the one exception of South Africa.

In the EnvCC sector, there are two cases of R&I being funded out of sectoral
Budget Support funds, again one of which is in South Africa, in SISS none at
all.  In  South  Africa,  Budget  Support  has  also  been  successfully  combined
with the use of the Dialogue Facility to fund the government’s Department of
S&T and the development of an overall national S&T policy.

None of the cases of Budget Support identified provided funds to universities
or  education  institutions  for  training  postgraduate  researchers  or  indeed  to
ministries of education. Rather they were used to fund other government de-
partments and the programmes that they funded (e.g. the EUROPAN19 Child
nutrition programme in Peru, the food security programme Fertipartenaires in
Burkina Faso or to fund a health sector call for proposals for NGOs in South
Africa).

There is only one case of Sector Budget Support directly to a ministry of S&T

19 Apoyo Presupuestario de la Unión Europea al Programa Articulado Nutricional.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

48

or  R&I,  that  is  the  Department  of  Science  and  Technology  (DST)  in  South
Africa (see details in the text box below). Partly, this is the result of general
R&I / S&T development programmes not being selected as a focal sector for
support in EU CSPs, but it is also likely to be due to the lack of specific R&I /
S&T policies in many of the countries where DG DEVCO supports R&I.

Box 7

Innovation for Poverty Alleviation – Sector budget support to R&I in South Africa

Under the Sector Policy Support Programme (SPSP) “Innovation for Poverty Alleviation” (EUR 30 million, 2008-
2013) the EU supported the Department of Science and Technology (DST) of South Africa to implement the coun-
try’s Science and Technology policy, with a particular focus on the domains of applied research that contribute to
poverty alleviation through employment creation. The SPSP was based on the National Research and Develop-
ment Strategy (NRDS) of 2002, as the overarching sector strategy, which builds on the White Paper and on the
Ten Year Innovation Plan (TYIP) 2008-2018, approved in 2007 as the renewed S&T policy framework. The Sector
Programme (SP) was consistent with the EU policy, programming framework and the aid effectiveness agenda,
as  laid  out  in  the  SA-EU  Trade,  Development  and  Co-operation  Agreement  (TDCA),  the  Development  Co-
operation  Instrument  (DCI),  the  “Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council and the  European  Parlia-
ment: towards an EU-South Africa Strategic Partnership” (2006).
The goals of the SPSP included using science and technology to improve development outcomes in a wide varie-
ty  of  areas. Other  results  anticipated  were  the  promotion  of  science  and  technology  amongst  disadvantaged
youth;  improved  access  to  on-line  government  services  and  S&T  knowledge  through  applied  ICTs;  technology
transfer to SMEs; strengthening of DST as an institution; and an increase in resources for S&T efforts targeting
poverty reduction.
The SPSS is broadly regarded as a success and the DST is now in the process of preparing a new proposal in
which sector support will strengthen capacity to identify and pilot R&I outputs with strong anti-poverty potential.

Yet Budget Support,
rather than project
funding appears to be
more suitable for R&I.

During  the  field  missions  it  became  apparent  that  certain  types  of  funding
modalities have different effects on R&I. In particular, EU funding was regu-
larly reported as creating various difficulties in certain circumstances:

 Calls for proposals and project funding create problems of continuity and
matching  long  term  research  cycles  with  short  term  funding  cycles  and
can stifle initiatives to develop innovative business models.

 Paying invoices in different currencies is difficult for ROs situated in non-
hard currency countries, creating an incentive to let European ROs with
Euro bank accounts lead consortia or at least manage the administration.



In  poorer  countries  with  limited institutional  capacity  for  R&I,  funds  for
recurrent  financial  expenditure  are  inadequate  and  EU  project  funding,
with  its  limited  expense  eligibility  criteria,  cannot  cover  the  expenditure
involved.

 Finally, EU accounting procedures are widely seen as excessive and too

rigid, thereby involving excessive transaction costs.

Researchers  interviewed  generally  reported  that  where  EU  funds  could  be
channelled  through  government, alongside national research funds, the ad-
ministration was more straightforward and less cumbersome.

Due to the long-term
commitment required,
project funding is not
adequate for capacity
development for R&I.

While the desire has been expressed from all sides that DG DEVCO should
engage in more R&I capacity building, the long-term nature of what is need-
ed is not well suited to DG DEVCO’s project modality. Yet, there is clearly a
gap to be filled, as DG RTD’s emphasis on scientific excellence and results
excludes many developing countries because of inadequate capacity.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

49

The choice of funding
modality does have
mixed consequences
on R&I and needs to
be thought through
carefully.

In sum, while the choices of modalities may be appropriate in terms of what
is available to EU officials, the regularly used project modality combined with
calls for proposals  is inadequate, unduly cumbersome or even inaccessible
for some of the ROs the EU might wish to fund. In cases where intermediar-
ies  exist  (e.g.  European  ROs  in  research  consortia  or  global  ROs  such  as
the WHO and CGIAR) to manage the funding, these problems are avoided.

On the other hand, the limited cases of Budget Support for R&I identified in
the evaluation do lead to the conclusion that SBS funding to individual sec-
tors  or  specifically  to  support  national  R&I  or  S&T  policies  works  better.
However,  apart  from  in  the  FSNA  sector,  this  has  not  been  not  extensively
used by DG DEVCO.

6.3.2 A strategic approach has been adopted to choosing different possible actors / channels

with whom the EU can work to support R&I (JC 32)

The EU has been
open minded in its
search for partners:
universities and ROs
have benefitted most,
then regional organi-
sations and private
sector actors.

At the global level for
R&I in FSNA the
CGIAR is a strategic
partner for the EU.

A wide choice of actors and channels has been selected for support to R&I,
so  the  EU  has  clearly  had  an  open  mind  in  its  search  for  appropriate  part-
ners.  The  choice  also  appears  objectively  reasonable  for  each  of  the  four
sectors examined. About one third of the funds have gone to ROs and uni-
versities, a quarter to regional organisations and just under a quarter to pri-
vate sector actors. The question is, however: how much of an overall strate-
gic approach has gone into making the choices.

In FSNA at the global level, the choice of R&I partners is limited by the dom-
inant position in agriculture R&I of the CGIAR, the former Consultative Group
of International  Agricultural Research  Centres,  which, during  the period un-
der evaluation, was reformed to become the CGIAR Consortium, to be fund-
ed by a Fund Council in which most important donors including the EU par-
ticipate. One important rationale behind the reform was to increase the Con-
sultative Group (CG) Research Centres’ responsiveness to national and re-
gional stakeholders’  demands. This  was  improved by aligning CG research
into  global  CGIAR  Research  Programmes  (CRP),  focusing  on  a  limited
number  of  agreed  global  agricultural  research  priorities.  Also,  multi-
stakeholder partnerships,  policy outreach and collaborating closely  with  na-
tional institutions, NGOs and farmer organisations  have  become more cen-
tral features of most CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) thereby, making
the  strategic  choice  of  the  CGIAR  as  a  partner  for  the  EU  stronger  (Case
study  CGIAR).  The  text  box  below  summarises  key  messages  and  recom-
mendations that emerged from the in-depth study of the CGIAR.

Other  global  DG  DEVCO  initiatives,  such  as  GPARD  (Call  for  Proposals)
and  GFAR  (dedicated  funding  for  regional  and  global  dialogue  jointly  man-
aged  with  the Food  and  Agriculture  Organisation (FAO)  are  closely  aligned
with EU development objectives. GFAR is designed to operate as the main
global  agricultural  multi-stakeholder  platform  debating  agricultural  research
priorities.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

50

Box 8

EU support to CGIAR – Influencing change in global agricultural research

Key messages
The EU’s coordinated influence on the CGIAR reform has been significant.
European CGIAR donors coordinated their efforts to reform the CGIAR, mainly through the European Initiative for
Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD). EU action in particular helped the CGIAR to strengthen consulta-
tions and policy dialogues with national and (sub-)regional stakeholders, such as farmers’ and research organisa-
tions. CGIAR research is increasingly emphasising the importance of multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach-
es - connecting local, national and global implementation and policy levels. Its research programmes (CRPs) de-
fine impact pathways and build partnerships to increase the relevance and uptake of their results. However, insti-
tutional obstacles remain, for example financial and administrative limitations with regard to building formal, long-
term partnerships with national research institutes and other partners.
DG DEVCO support to CGIAR is distributed over multiple channels and instruments.
CGIAR  centres  have  sometimes  overlapping  mandates,  and  compete  for  the  same  funding  sources.  Besides,
CGIAR donors - by pursuing their own research priorities - have a large impact on defining the research agen-
da/research priorities. The variety of funding channels and instruments the CGIAR engages with contribute to its
complex governance structure; posing severe challenges to the coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of CRP
implementation. Finally, the administrative burden for researchers is felt to be high because of differences in do-
nor requirements.
CGIAR  research  has  contributed  to  development  outcomes,  but  results  and  approaches  could  be  documented
and shared more systematically.
The evaluation has found that investing in CGIAR research produces ‘good value for money’. The EU’s choice to
directly fund CRPs has proven to be an effective way to strengthen the EU agricultural research for development
agenda. Multi-stakeholder partnerships, policy outreach and collaborating closely with national institutions, NGOs
and farmer organisations are now central features of most CRPs. As such the CRPs lay an important foundation
for  a  sustained  delivery  of  global  and  regional  public  goods  for  sustainable  agricultural  development.  Involving
and strengthening national research collaborator partners requires further improvement; at present less than 20%
of  CRP  funding  reaches  national  collaborators.  Furthermore,  in  all  cases  studied  serious  limitations  were  ob-
served with regard to allowed budget lines, the (short) duration of funding periods and the continuity between fun-
ders and funding periods.
Recommendations
Rethink the theory of change for supporting the CGIAR.
A  key  question  is  whether  CGIAR  is  capable  of  going  to  ‘the  last inch’  to  reach  smallholder  farmers.  Complex
partnerships  and  participatory  approaches  do  not  combine  well  with  ever-shorter  funding  cycles  and  high  de-
mands  on  impact  attribution.  In  order  to  achieve  long-term  impact,  funding  cycles  and  reporting  requirements
should  be  longer  and  more  flexible. More  time  should  be  made  available  to  mobilise  the  multiple  stakeholders
needed  to  prepare  and  carry  through  the  medium-term,  multi-level,  multi-stakeholder  and  inter-disciplinary  re-
search proposals needed to achieve such impact.
Research uptake and upscaling is strongly conditioned by the existing local and national innovation systems, in-
cluding  national  agricultural  research  and  extension  system  (NARS)  as  well  as  the  relevant  private  and  public
sectors. DG DEVCO and European Member States should rethink their theory of change and the complementari-
ties between their different instruments for supporting the CGIAR and national innovation systems.
Invest and learn from CGIAR monitoring for impact.
CGIAR is still in search of the best way to monitor and evaluate its work on partnerships, gender, nutrition, and to
identify  and  measure  impact, particularly  with  regard  to  programmes  that  address system-level  challenges.  It  is
also still grappling with how to work more effectively with, and build capacity of NARS. To stimulate understanding
and learning from the complex multi-stakeholder work of CRPs, DG DEVCO could, for example, make sure that
the experiences learned from systems/programmes that have experimented most with innovative and interdisci-
plinary approaches (systems analysis, participatory research, innovation platforms, farmer-led research, etc.) are
capitalised upon and fed into current programs.
This requires a larger and more specific investment into developing methodologies that are better able to docu-
ment,  report  and  assess  the  impact  of  the  more  complex  CGIAR  programs.  Moreover,  DG  DEVCO  should  ad-
dress the institutional barriers that remain to be resolved in order to ensure the full participation of (non-research)
stakeholders in international research and review its funding periods to take into account the need for longer re-
search cycles.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

51

At the regional level in
FSNA partnerships
need to be based on
clearly formulated R&I
priorities.

At  the regional  level in  FSNA,  the  existence  of  clear  R&I  priorities  plays  a
significant  role  in  determining  the  success  of  the  EU  approach  to  selecting
partners and proposals. Where these are well elaborated, and supported by
relevant regional actors, regional support programmes have been more suc-
cessful  (Mercosur20,  ASARECA,  Pro-Poor  Innovation)  than  in  situations
where the agenda has not been defined in advance.

The choice of FSNA
partners for R&I at the
country level respects
national priorities.

In Health the main
partners for R&I were
respected ROs such
as the WHO and a se-
lection of European
universities.

European HEIs play a
prominent in the R&I
funding portfolio for
EnvCC. CSOs are al-
so present though the
amounts involved are
small.

Evidence  at country  level for  the  FSNA  sector  suggests  the  approaches
adopted to choose priorities and partners to support R&I are in line with na-
tional and where applicable, regional agendas. EU actors respect the auton-
omy  and  ownership  of  national  stakeholders  and  require  multi-stakeholder
consultations  as  a  basis  for  programming  EU  support.  Chile,  Peru,  Congo,
Ethiopia and Burkina Faso are examples of county level funding working well
with an integrated multi-stakeholder approach.

In  the Health sector,  project  documents  demonstrate  that  the  choice  of  the
WHO as a global partner in health R&I was reasoned, pragmatic and strate-
gically  sound.  The  WHO  is  responsible  for  coordinating  implementation  of
the Global Strategy and Programme of Action on Public Health, Innovation,
and  Intellectual  Property  Rights  which  effectively  covers  all  health  R&I  and
which  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  were  involved  in  negotiating.  Aside
from this, the largest  implementers, according  to  amounts contracted,  were
European  universities,  and  the  choice  was  generally  appropriate.  The  ab-
sence from the list of implementing partners of health NGOs with expertise
of  the  “what  works”  variety  is  somewhat surprising,  but  in  the  health  sector
these  organisations  are  often  so  concentrated  on  delivering  services  that
they have little time to spend on doing research.

In EnvCC programmes at  all  levels,  analysis  of  relevant  documentation
shows  that  the  EU  has  undertaken  considerable  efforts  to  identify  and  en-
gage appropriate actors and channels and to make inclusive choices of ac-
tors and, where possible, channels. However, project assessments also indi-
cate some instances in which in practice individual choices proved problem-
atic at both global and national levels.

At the global level, the GCCA and other regional programmes such as For-
est Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) included NGOs in all
projects analysed; at regional level, the SWITCH Asia programme engaged
NGOs in promoting Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and, at
national  level,  projects  to  improve  the  livelihoods  of Arid  and  Semi-Arid
Lands (ASAL)  farmers  in  Kenya  also  relied  on  NGOs,  while  the  REDD+21
project  engaged  local  community  NGOs  in  building  capacity  amongst  local
populations. Yet, these efforts must be seen against the backdrop of a mere
7%  project  funding  share  for  Civil  Society  Organisations  (CSOs)  indicating
the small size of the projects.

European  HEIs  play  a  more  prominent  role  among  the  EnvCC  contractors.
There are fewer partner country HEIs given the relative capacities between
HEI from Europe.

There is no indication in the inventory that funds for R&I in the EnvCC sector
have  been  channelled  through  research  programmes  of  other  international
organisations. However, field  work revealed that the  SWITCH Asia collabo-

20 Mercosur: Mercado Común del Sur
21 REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

52

rates with UNEP on some aspects of the programme.

In the SISS sector ac-
ademic ROs and the
private sector are the
main actors.

In SISS, the choices made also appear broadly reasonable and are general-
ly  supported  by  the  few  available  evaluation  reports  that  comment  on  R&I.
Closer  examination  at  the  field  level  confirms  that  an  appropriate  choice  of
actor and channel was made in most cases.

Private sector organisations and academic research institutions were be the
largest  categories  of  beneficiaries.  Again,  EU  universities  generally  play  a
prominent role but one that can be justified in capacity terms and is usually
in  collaboration  with  other  actors,  notably  developing  country  universities.
Where they work in consortia involving both EU and partner country universi-
ties, the EU members of the consortia often hold the lead contract and have
responsibility for reporting and the respect of EU procedures.

Overall,  in  some  SISS  programmes,  it  might  have  been  appropriate  to  in-
crease the proportion of R&I funding going to NGOs and  private sector ac-
tors. However, there are also cases where appropriate NGO consortia have
been supported to carry out major tasks in specialised areas such as in es-
tablishing high-speed ICT data networks.

The EUD survey asked respondents to assess the suitability of the channels
for  R&I  support  in  the  individual  countries.  The  following figure  shows  the
responses  aggregated  across  all  sectors.  Universities,  research  institutes,
civil society organisations and regional organisations were perceived as the
most suitable, followed by international organisations and the private sector.
Given the extent to which the EU does use them as a channel, it is interest-
ing that regional organisations are considered the least suitable channels22.

Figure 11

Assessment of implementing channels (all sectors)23

EUD survey respond-
ents consider universi-
ties and ROs as the
most suitable partners
for R&I. Regional or-
ganisations and the
private sector are seen
as least suitable.

Source: EUD survey.

22 As indicated earlier this response may be influenced by a lack of awareness of the role of regional organisa-
tions in EUDs as these are usually administered from Headquarters. Field missions also indicated that EUD staff
knew little about regional organisations’ spending of EU funds even where this occurred in the countries where
they were situated. This type of lack of information was something EUD staff complained about in interviews.
23 The question was asked by sector, but aggregated across all sectors due to the low numbers of responses per
sector. The different parts of each bar represent the percent of times that EUDs rated the suitability of the specific
implementing channel across all sectors as very high, high, low, very low, or none at all. The total N‘s reflect the
number of total responses (assessments) of the specific type of support by all EUDs in all sectors. The percent
values inside the bars show the fractions of ‘very high’ and ‘high’ responses.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

53

Evidence from the field
missions confirmed
that choices of actors
and channels were
generally robust.

The  field  missions  essentially  backed  the  choices  of  actors  and  channels
made  for  the  different  R&I  programmes and  projects  examined.  Although
some projects under scrutiny had run into difficulties or were not advancing
as  fast  as  planned  this  could  only  rarely  be  ascribed  to  a  poor  strategic
choice  of  actor  or  channel.  The  individual  choices  largely  made  sense  at a
strategic level.

6.3.3 Considerable effort has been taken to choose between and combine different channels,

but the choice of modalities is largely determined by practical considerations (JC 33)

The EU has put con-
siderable effort into its
choice of channels for
funding R&I – with
success.

A  wide  selection  of  channels is  certainly  used  and  actively  considered.  Yet
the  evidence  gathered  does  not  allow  to  make  a  strong  judgement  on  the
level of effort taken to choose and combine modalities and channels.

At the global level, in some cases, the choices appear to be straightforward
to  make,  for  instance  in  the  case  of  co-operation  with  the  WHO  or  the
CGIAR that occupy what are, in effect, monopoly position as umbrella organ-
isations. In the case of CGIAR, the EU has also gone to considerable effort
to proactively steer the formulation of its research programme.

At the regional level the choice of channels was constrained, but the EU has
identified some partners to work with. Among these are some to which  it is
politically committed such as the African Union Commission (AUC) but which
have required considerable support to build up their capacity. In other cases,
the  EU  has  taken  the  trouble  to  create  regional  programmes  such  as
SWITCH Asia.

At country  level,  there  is  also  a  wide  range  of  different  channels  employed
suggesting  that  the  EU  has  not  held  back  in  its  efforts  to  identify  suitable
partners.  The  national  level  analysis  of  relevant  documentation  shows
straightforward  rationales  for  the  choices  made  on  instruments,  modalities
and channels used.

The choice of modali-
ties however is largely
determined by practi-
cal considerations.

The  combination  with  different  modalities  is  largely  driven  by  practical  con-
straints once the channel has been chosen. The EU’s procurement rules will
often  impose  the  choice  of  a  project  modality  and  Budget  Support  is  only
possible under specific conditions.

The use of the Budget
Support modality is
largely a function of
the choice of focal
sectors.

One might expect more use to be made of (sector) Budget Support than is
the case but this is related to R&I per se not being chosen as a focal sector
for  support.  Budget  Support  funds  being  used  to  support  R&I  is  in  a  by-
product of a decision on which focal sectors are chosen whether these sec-
tors happen to involve R&I work.

One of the few countries where Budget Support has been used is South Af-
rica where stronger institutions exist than in many poor developing countries
and where the government has had a clear priority to develop its S&T policy.
In  other  countries  with  higher  income  levels  such  as  Ukraine  and  India,
Budget Support has not been used but in both cases this relates more to the
priorities  of  EU  co-operation  with  the  country.  The  EU-India  S&T  collabora-
tion  is  thus  based  on  joint  funding  through  coordinated  calls  for  proposals
(managed by DG RTD in the EU case and the DST for India) with each au-
thority funding its own participating ROs. In Ukraine, the emphasis has been
on  capacity  building  to  enhance  Ukrainian  researcher  participation  in  DG
RTD framework programmes.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Considerable thought
went into choosing an
appropriate combina-
tion of instruments
modalities and chan-
nels for each pro-
gramme.

54

There is no evidence that DG DEVCO had an overall rationale for combining
different instruments, modalities and channels for its funding of R&I in any of
the  four  sectors,  but  careful  reflection  has  gone  into  the  choices  made  for
each programme. Thus, the evidence suggests that on the one hand where
DG  DEVCO  has  specifically  wished  to  support  R&I  in  a  particular  sector,  it
has first identified the instrument to be used for funding. It has then sought
out relevant actors with whom to collaborate. This then has led to a choice of
channel, which may or may not prompt a review of the instrument to be em-
ployed. These choices have then in turn led to a choice of modalities. Where
R&I has occurred within a wider sectoral support programme, the choices of
instrument,  channel  and  possibly  even  of  modalities  has  been  dictated  by
that sector’s needs.

More specifically by sector:





In FSNA DG DEVCO has made an effort to choose and combine differ-
ent modalities and channels strategically. At country level, the documen-
tation studied includes straightforward rationales for the choices made on
instruments, modalities and channels used. In the case of Uruguay, the
CSP includes a quite specific list of instruments, modalities and channels
to support  the  innovation,  research  and  economic  development  focal
sector in the country.

In Health, while there is no evidence that DG DEVCO rationally planned
which  modalities  and  channels  to  use  for  R&I,  the  decisions  reviewed
were in themselves objectively reasonable.

 For  EnvCC,  there  is  little  explicit  documentary  evidence  to  help  recon-

struct EU assessments on modalities and channels.



In SISS, there is a wide variety of channels being used and programming
documents and field  interviews show some thought has gone into mak-
ing  these  choices.
Interviews  in  the  field  suggest  that  considerable
thought has been put into selecting appropriate channels (e.g. PASRI in
Tunisia where is also a combination of different channels).

DG DEVCO has coor-
dinated the use of mo-
dalities and channels
reasonably well and
liaised with other DGs
and Member States.

Efforts  to  collaborate  with  a  variety  of  other  DGs  have  been  made  by  DG
DEVCO  and  not  just  DG  RTD  on  specific  projects.  The  general  pattern  is
that other DGs provide additional inputs or opportunities for stakeholders but
do not directly collaborate in the funding of the DEVCO managed project. At
the same time, EUDs are often not in a strong position to coordinate or even
have an overview of support to R&I from other DGs in that they do not auto-
matically get sent full information on these activities.

More specifically by sector:

 For FSNA at the level of headquarters there has been on-going dialogue
between DGs DEVCO and RTD, but little evidence is available on liaison
with other relevant DGs and Member States (apart from the European In-
itiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD): see text box
below). The wider agricultural Research and Innovation sector in Europe
is, however, densely networked and well organised in its approach to in-
ternational Research and Innovation though this is less the case in part-
ner countries. At the country level, inside the EU no systematic links exist
between DEVCO-funded and RTD-funded R&I projects/programmes and
no systematic effort has become apparent to coordinate and build com-
plementarity  between  different  European  R&I  donors.  Often,  the  EUD
has  not  been  involved  or  sees  no  role  for  itself.  In-country  efforts  are

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

55

therefore left to European research partners, national government agen-
cies, research institutions and other R&I stakeholders.

Box 9

The EIARD – A platform for European donor co-ordination

One example of EU co-operation on a specific channel is the EIARD (European Ini-
tiative for Agricultural Research for Development), a permanent platform that involves
the Commission and Member States that determines, among others, a common posi-
tion to the CGIAR, including on the funding instruments used as well as the restruc-
turing process. While the EU agricultural R&I sector subscribes to a common vision
on  AR4D  and  seems  to  agree  on  the  need  to  improve  European  leadership,  co-
ordination and influence on global AR4D, in their actual funding behaviour of CGIAR
Research Programmes a ‘common position’ is not so apparent.







In  Health  the EU  (DG  SANTE24,  DG  RTD  and  DG  DEVCO)  sought  to
work  within  the  framework  of  the  WHO  Global  Research  Strategy.  DG
DEVCO participates in the Global Health Policy Forum, an important Eu-
ropean network bringing together DGs, the private sector (essentially Eu-
ropean pharmaceutical firms), NGOs, academics, and other stakeholders
that, among other things, discusses priorities for health research.

In  EnvCC  the  available  evidence  suggests  that  policy-makers  under-
stand  the  need  for  co-ordination  across  different  DGs. However,  the
available data are silent on whether and to  what extent co-ordination of
financing of this kind has taken place.

In  SISS  one  of  the  best  examples  of  co-ordination  between  DGs  is  on
the JAES because of the  Commission-wide political  commitment to col-
laboration with the AU. The EU Member States are also involved but less
actively.  Under  the  JAES,  DG  DEVCO  and  DG  RTD  have  collaborated
closely  with  the  AUC  to  establish  the  Africa  Research  Grants  scheme.
The funding  has  so  far  been  provided  by  DG  DEVCO from  the  EDF  as
with most EU funding to the AUC, but in the next cycle will come from the
EU Budget and the new Pan-African instrument agreed by the EU Mem-
ber  States  and  the  European  Parliament.  The  JAES  also  covers  the
MESA  programme  in  which  DG  RTD,  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)
and agencies such as the European Organisation for the Exploitation of
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) are involved.

External consultation
mechanisms exist in
all sectors but their
influence on the
choice of modalities
and channels was lim-
ited.

External  consultation  mechanisms  such  as  the  EIARD  in  the  FSNA  sector,
the  JAES  platform  under  SISS,  or  the  Global  Health  Policy  Forum,  all  just
mentioned  above,  or  the  GCCA  in  EnvCC,  exist  and  the  EU  makes  active
use of them to dialogue on research policy. While these provide fora for poli-
cy discussions and prioritisation which the EU does pay attention to, the evi-
dence  suggests  that  the  influence  of  these  fora  over  the  EU’s  choice  of  in-
struments, channels and modalities is limited.

24 DG SANTE: European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.4 EQ 4: DEVCO-RTD complementarity and coherence

56

To what extent has EU support to R&I by DG DEVCO and
by DG RTD been complementary and their collaboration
promoted PCD?

Rationale and coverage of the question

DGs DEVCO and RTD have declared their intention to work closely together and respect a clear divi-
sion of labour so as to avoid duplication of effort or contradictions emerging. Achieving good levels of
complementarity should not only lead to greater efficiency but ideally also increase the impact of their
work. At the same time, the two DGs have different objectives; they manage different budget lines with
different purposes, and deal with different principal interlocutors, so ensuring complementarity works
in practice is not necessarily straightforward.

Policy coherence for development is a principle rooted in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU)
since 1992. Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) from May 2005 reaffirm
this commitment and identify R&I as one of the 12 priority areas where coherence with development
policy should be actively promoted. Subsequently, in 2009, Council Conclusions identified five policy
areas for particular attention (trade and financial policy, food security, migration, climate change and
security and development). The principle is also reiterated in the 2005 European Consensus for De-
velopment and the 2011 Agenda for Change. An active effort is also made since 2007 to monitor pro-
gress on PCD through the biennial EU PCD reports.

This question is articulated through four judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

At the strategic level, there is a consensus that DG DEVCO should finance capacity building and insti-
tution building in R&I while DG RTD finances research itself. This should result, over time, in en-
hanced developing country participation in framework programmes, which should in turn contribute to
PCD. In fact, while DG DEVCO did mostly finance capacity building and DG RTD did mostly finance
research over the evaluation period – although there was a great deal of stepping over the line in both
DGs -- this model did not operate well, for a number of reasons. The institutional strengthening needs
of developing countries are huge if they are to participate effectively in global science. DG DEVCO
does not have the ability to provide the long-term, consistent, predictable support needed to meet
these needs (c.f. EQ 3). DG RTD, with its mission to serve the needs of European R&I by rewarding
scientific excellence and mandate to finance developing-country researchers only in line with that mis-
sion, is not suited for capacity building. Thus, there is a gap and no meaningful sustained effort has
been made to address it.

The evaluation found few examples of strategic operational planning to achieve complementarity and
reap synergies. At the same time, no examples of wasteful overlap and duplication were identified. In
the field, complementarity was actively pursued, it tended to be in contexts where there was a DG
RTD S&T Counsellor as well as an EUD DEVCO staff member following the R&I portfolio. In the ab-
sence of these favourable conditions, co-ordination was ad hoc, personality-driven and under-
strategised. Less than half of EUDs responding to the relevant question felt that DEVCO- and RTD-
financed activities had been complementary. Communications and informal consultation between the
two DGs in Brussels are relatively good, but formal procedures and processes are missing. While

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

57

each DG has benefited from the activities of the other, these represent external benefits, not the result
of strategically thought through planning. The evaluation looked in vain for concrete examples of DG
DEVCO projects informing FP7 Calls for Proposals or FP7 research results being translated into DG
DEVCO actions.

At the same time, despite the absence of concrete formal mechanisms to ensure it, and despite the
scientific orientation of DG RTD, the situation regarding PCD is not bad overall. In FSNA, Health, and
EnvCC, there is a great deal of overlap between DG RTD research priority areas and development
needs. The fact that FP7 has been opened up to developing country researcher participation is a ma-
jor step forward, as is the putting in place of the INCO unit at DG RTD, although it is reported that the
views of INCO and thematic desks are often not in harmony. Field visits found FP7 projects to be often
highly relevant for development.

Key points:

 Despite the division of labour is spelt out and clearly understood at high level, in practice, there

has been considerable flexibility.

 Capacity constraints, especially serious at field level, have seriously hampered the odds of mean-

ingful co-ordination.

 Communications and informal consultations between the two DGs at HQ level are good; for ex-
ample, DG DEVCO has the opportunity to comment on DG RTD’s Calls for Proposals. However,
interest in R&I in DG DEVCO is variable (a finding from answering EQ 2) and interest in the de-
velopment agenda is varied at DG RTD.

 DG RTD benefitted from DEVCO-implemented actions such as Erasmus Mundus and the financ-
ing of high-speed internet networks, but the examples cited in the EUD survey of concrete support
to FP7 were rather trivial.

6.4.1

There is a strategic consensus at high level on how DGs DEVCO and RTD should co-
operate, but this is not effectively implemented at the operational level (JC 41)

While there is a high-
level consensus on the
strategic division of
labour between DG
DEVCO and DG RTD,
it is not consistently
applied in practice.

There is an overall strategic consensus on a division of labour, with DG RTD
funding  actual  research  and  DG  DEVCO  funding  capacity  development  so
as  to  enable  developing  country  researchers  to  participate  in  RTD-funded
research. This is spelt out in a staff working paper from early in the evalua-
tion  period  (SEC(2008) 434)  but  it  is  not  repeated  in  the  two  Communica-
tions  since  then  (2008  and  2012)  both  of  which  are  DG  RTD  communica-
tions rather than joint RTD-DEVCO ones. However, the division of labour is
not  managed  in  a  consistent  fashion.  Some  HQ  interviewees  refer  to  fre-
quent  (though  irregular)  formal  and  informal  consultations  between  the  two
DGs while others are vague. The work patterns and cycles of the two DGs
are different, resulting in synchronisation issues (for example, DG RTD runs
on  a  two-year  call  for  proposals  basis  that  has  no  counterpart  at  DG
DEVCO).  The  institutional  cultures  are  different:  DG  RTD  is  staffed  by  sci-
ence  administrators,  most  with  a  scientific  background;  DG  DEVCO  is
staffed  by  development  experts,  many  with  backgrounds  in  social  science,
medicine  or  law.  The  basic  mission  of  DG  RTD  is  to  strengthen  European
health science and benefit the European citizen by encouraging international
co-operation  when  it  is  in  the  European  interest;  that  of  DG  DEVCO  is  to
promote development and the MDGs. In Brussels interviews at DG DEVCO,
concern  was  expressed  that,  while  DG  RTD  has  an  excellent  grasp  of  the
research  process,  it  does  not  fully  understand  the  obstacles  that  must  be
overcome to achieve take up. At DG RTD, the concern was that DG DEVCO
does not translate research results into concrete development results.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Field missions seldom
found that a conscious
attempt to achieve
complementarity had
been made.

In an ideal division of
labour, DG DEVCO
would provide long-
term capacity building
and institution
strengthening to bol-
ster partner country
participation in DG
RTD framework pro-
grammes. This is not
happening on a scale
commensurate with
needs.

In all sectors, the story
is repeated – a good
high level vision of
complementarity but
little done to opera-
tionally implement it.

58

Despite the high-level strategic vision for co-operation and complementarity,
country field missions found no evidence of DG DEVCO and DG RTD con-
sciously exploiting complementarities. When they did so, it was on an ad hoc
basis  at  the  level  of  national  programmes  and  project  partners.  Of  those
(admittedly few) EUDs responding to the question, half considered DG RTD
and DG DEVCO support to be not complementary. Field missions found that
assessments  of  potential  overlap  are  rudimentary  and  undocumented.  The
only real exception is in relatively developed economies such as South Afri-
ca  and  Ukraine  where  national  R&I  partners  and  infrastructures  are  strong
enough to create such relationships on their own. It emerged from field mis-
sions that many EUD staff know little about DG RTD. DG RTD communica-
tion channels with ministries responsible for R&I largely bypass the EUD.

The  greatest  need,  and  opportunity,  is  for  long-term  capacity building.  Yet,
such long-term institution building is difficult for DG DEVCO to engage in and
virtually  out  of  bounds  for  DG  RTD  with  its  orientation  towards  rewarding
scientific  excellence  (see  also  JC  42  below).  To  fill  existing  gaps,  DG
DEVCO  would  need  to  investigate  means  of  financing  long-term  institution
strengthening while DG RTD would need to take more into account the con-
straints  and  challenges  faced  by  developing-country  researchers.  As  found
in answering EQ 2, while capacity building was a major focus of DG DEVCO
support  for  R&I,  less  than  half  of  EUD  survey  respondents  to  the  question
felt  that  DG  DEVCO  support  had  led  to  significantly  greater  FP7  participa-
tion. Both DG DEVCO and DG RTD have financed scattered capacity build-
ing  projects  designed  to  improve  developing-country  partner  scientists’  ac-
cess  to  FP7,  but  there  has  been  no  consistent  and  predictable  large-scale,
long-term effort coming close to addressing the needs in this area.

In FSNA, as established in Brussels interviews, there is clear understanding
of the division of labour and complementary roles. DG DEVCO funds region-
al and continental research organisations active in FP7 to build capacity and
translate research results into tangible approaches to food security and nutri-
tion.  DG  DEVCO  also  finances  research  at  the  global  level  (e.g.  CGIAR
through the Food Security Thematic Programme), and this coordinates with
and  complements  FP7.  However,  there  was  little  evidence  at  field  level  of
co-ordination or consciously exploiting complementarities.

In EnvCC, country missions found little evidence of DEVCO-RTD collabora-
tion at the operational level, in part because of a lack of guidelines. DG RTD
had not been directly involved in R&I projects managed by EUDs. However,
country  field  missions  found  that,  when  DG  DEVCO  engaged  in  R&I  in  the
sector,  usually  on  an  ad  hoc  basis,  it  was  in  the  area  of  capacity  building,
and no cases of overlap were identified.

In Health, despite good communications and ad hoc consultations, the DGs
operate with little co-ordination. At country level, there is no substantive divi-
sion  of  labour  between  DG  DEVCO  and  DG  RTD.  For  example, in  South
Africa,  FP7  financed  downstream  pro-poor  public  health  research  projects
while  DG  DEVCO  financed  much  further  upstream  projects  in  TB  vaccine
development and anti-retroviral drug resistance.

In  SISS,  a  grey  area  was  identified,  with  both  DGs  financing  both  capacity
building and pure research, with variable degrees of co-ordination. However,
little  was  done  operationally  to  implement  the  high-level  shared  vision  of
complementary roles.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.4.2 While  co-operation  has  been  ad  hoc,  no  examples  of  wasteful  duplication  have  been

59

found (JC 42)

While no wasteful
overlap and duplica-
tion has been found,
the co-ordination that
has occurred has been
ad hoc, opportunistic,
and under-strategised.

Brussels interviews
painted a mixed pic-
ture on capacity for
HQ-level co-ordination
in the two DGs. Field
missions found that
the two ingredients
needed for effective
co-ordination are an
S&T Counsellor and a
DG DEVCO staff
member tasked with
following R&I.

High-level successes
and failures of co-
ordination have been
identified, but in all
sectors, there is little
co-ordination at field
level.

As described in assessing JC 41, while there is broad agreement on the di-
vision of labour between DG DEVCO and DG RTD, this has not been strictly
respected.  DG  RTD  has  engaged  in  a  certain  amount  of  capacity  building
while DG DEVCO financed a certain amount of applied research, both in an
ad hoc, opportunistic, and under-strategised fashion. While DG DEVCO and
DG RTD have participated in a number of shared fora at HQ level, and there
is a reasonable amount of both formal and informal contact and information
sharing between the two DGs, they coordinate only informally on an ad hoc
basis.  This  results  in  a  personality-driven  style  of  co-ordination,  resulting  in
variations between sectors and regions. The failure to strategically divide up
the R&I pie has not resulted in wasteful duplication of effort – this was con-
firmed repeatedly in country field missions – but it has led to a gap between
the  reach  of  the  two  DGs.  Neither  DG  DEVCO,  whose  instruments  are  un-
suited  for  long-term  institution  building,  not  DG  RTD,  with  its  orientation  to
scientific  excellence  and  the  call-for-proposals approach,  can  provide  the
sustained  effort  needed  to  strengthen  partner  country  R&I  institutions.  At
field level, the examples cited in the EUD survey of efforts undertaken to en-
sure effective co-ordination of DG DEVCO and DG RTD support were rather
trivial. By contrast, actions taken to ensure effective co-ordination of support
from  other  EU  institutions  like  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  and
Member States, mostly information sharing, were judged to have been large-
ly successful.

Brussels  interview evidence  yielded  a  mixed  picture  on  whether  both  DGs
have adequate capacity to identify R&I needs properly. They suffer from lim-
ited  numbers,  but  in  different  ways.  In  DG  RTD,  numbers  appear  to  have
been  adequate  over  the  period  evaluated  but  the  issue  is the  proportion  of
staff time allocated to international co-operation and the limited capacity for
outreach  to  all  countries  and  regions.  There  are  incentive  issues,  with  the-
matic  desk  staff  preferring  to  allocate  time  to  countries  that  are  scientific
powerhouses. In DG DEVCO, the  issue is the number, interest/expertise  in
research and permanence of staff working on R&I. Staff numbers dedicated
to  R&I  have  been  limited,  they  move  around  regularly  and  they  do  not  all
have the same expertise on research. Few have experience in both DGs. At
field  level,  the extent  of co-ordination  and complementarity  depends on ca-
pacity issues, namely the presence of a S&T Counsellor and the presence of
an EUD programme officer identified as the focal point for R&I. In some sec-
tors  in  some  delegations,  sector  experts  will  have  interest  in  R&I  and  the
time necessary to play an active role in co-ordination, but this merely leads
to great variation across EUDs and across sectors within EUDs.

In  FSNA,  an  example  of  successful  co-ordination  is  RTD-financed  EIARD,
which  has  functioned  as  a  platform for  various  DGs  and  Member  States  to
coordinate  a common  position  promoting  pro-poor  reform  of  CGIAR.  Field
missions concluded that systematic alignment with country R&I needs would
require stronger co-ordination between the DGs country level, which in turn
would require greater capacity. In SISS, there has been ad hoc co-ordination
between  the  two  DGs  but  field  missions  found  that  it  varies  greatly  from
country to country and region to region. The opportunity was missed, for ex-
ample,  to  tailor  the  ACP  S&TP  more  to  capacity  building  rather  than  re-
search. In  health,  both  DG  DEVCO  and  DG  RTD  have  adequate  Brussels

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

60

capacity  for  current  purposes,  but  the  shortage  of  health  sector specialised
capacity in EUDs, and the negative impact on policy dialogue, has been the
theme of many country strategy evaluations as well as the Global Thematic
Evaluation  of  support  for  health.  In  EnvCC,  DG  DEVCO  HQ  understanding
and  interest  in  R&I  was  found  to  be  patchy  and,  while  country  visits  found
that  the  division  of  labour  was  respected,  actual  operational  co-operation
between DG RTD and DG DEVCO was limited.

6.4.3

Each DG has benefited from actions of the other (JC 43)

Each DG has benefit-
ed from actions of the
other, but usually
these benefits are bet-
ter considered exter-
nalities, not strategi-
cally planned results.

Examples were identi-
fied in each sector of
general benefits that
each sector enjoyed
from the activities of
the other, but no con-
crete cases of FP7
projects building on
DG DEVCO actions or
DG DEVCO projects
being designed on the
basis of FP7 results.

DG DEVCO has benefited from RTD-financed FP7 projects, but this was not
the  result  of  planned  complementarity.  The  two  sets  of  activities  frequently
involved  the  same  pool  of  researchers  and  research  organisations.  The  in-
crease  in  scientific  capacity  among  researchers  who  participated  in  FP7
consortia had knock-on effects not only for DG DEVCO actions in the area of
R&I, but for DG DEVCO’s bilateral programmes more generally. These rep-
resent FP7 external benefits, not strategic results. There was scattered evi-
dence,  e.g.
from  Ukraine,  that  DEVCO-financed  programmes  to  spread
awareness  of  and  capacity  to  participate  in  FP7  had  positive  results.  Eras-
mus Mundus played an important role as an identifier of potential FP7 partic-
ipants. DG RTD also benefited from DEVCO-financed projects to install high-
speed internet connections and promote data exchange (including earth ob-
servation  data).  Again,  these  are  best  considered  external  benefits  of  DG
DEVCO actions.

About  half  of  19  EUDs  responding  to  the  EUD  survey  question  had  under-
taken  actions – information  events,  workshops  organised  by  specific  FP7
projects, etc. – designed to raise awareness of FP7.

In  FSNA,  linkages  were  found  between  DG  DEVCO  instruments  and  FP7
funding in the sector; for example, in the framework of the CAADP, and the
general DG DEVCO benefit from RTD-funded EIARD was mentioned above.
However, no examples have been found of DG DEVCO interventions feed-
ing back into FP7 projects or the design of FP7 calls. In health, field mission
evidence affirmed that FP7 research projects generally contributed to devel-
opment  policies  and  programmes  but  no  concrete  examples  of  FP7  re-
search-result-to-DEVCO  project  translation  were  found.  Examples  of  DG
RTD  projects  that  had  overall  benefits  for  DG  DEVCO  health  support  were
programmes  in  Neglected  Infectious  Diseases,  EDCTP  (European  and  De-
veloping  Countries  Clinical  Trials  Platform),  the  Go4Health  programme  to
involve  developing-country  (specifically,  African)  experts  in  developing  the
health SDGs. While direct mention of DG DEVCO projects using FP7 results
is never found in EnvCC project documents, there is strong thematic overlap;
for example, in carbon capture and storage and clean carbon technologies.
As in health, researchers involved in DG DEVCO projects did not specifically
identified FP7 results that  had fed into their projects and there  were no  ex-
amples of FP7 projects having substantively benefited from DG DEVCO in-
terventions.  In  SISS,  it  was  found  that  DEVCO-financed  data  infrastructure
and  internet  networks  had  benefited  FP7  research,  but  no  concrete  exam-
ples of FP7 projects benefiting DG DEVCO were identified.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.4.4 Both DGs have made efforts to ensure PCD in R&I (JC 44)

61

There has been pro-
gress on PCD, but DG
RTD remains a scien-
tific agency, not a de-
velopment one, and its
priority setting is influ-
enced only to a limited
extent by the devel-
opment agenda.

Within DG RTD, the
INCO unit and the
thematic desks have
differing perspectives.
There are extensive
field-level consulta-
tions between DG
RTD S&T Counsellors
and DG DEVCO staff
in EUDs where the
former are in post.

Despite overall coher-
ence, no evidence was
found of concrete
mechanisms and pro-
cesses at sector level
to promote PCD.

The basic document here is SEC(2008) 434 on PCD in research, which does
not  cover  all  sectors  but  sets  out  the  main  axes  for  policies  that  should  be
supportive of development. Progress is monitored, with R&I covered regular-
ly by EU PCD Reports issued by DG DEVCO in 2009, 2011, and 2013. The
2013 Report calls for ex ante assessments, but no evidence was found that
these  are  being  implemented.  The  fact  that  FP7  has  been  opened up  to
partner country researchers is a major step forward for PCD. An example is
the Africa Call, which saw a substantial number of Africa research institutes
leading  international consortia.  However, DG RTD’s  mandate is  to  promote
European  S&T,  wellbeing, and  competitiveness  by  cooperating  with  Third
Countries when it would be beneficial and particularly on problems of global
scope.  FP7  operates  as  a  scientific  competition,  and  the  main  criterion  for
gaining support is scientific excellence. Thus, DG RTD priority setting  is in-
fluenced only to limited extent by the development agenda. Calls do not re-
flect are not specifically  designed to address development problems nor do
they reflect a dialogue process with partner countries.

There  are  inter-service  consultations  on  all  FP7  Calls  for  Proposals  before
they  are  issued,  which  has  encouraged  PCD.  Within  DG  RTD,  the  estab-
lishment of an INCO unit has led to greater debate over priorities. Calls are
preceded  by  discussion  between  thematic  desks  and  the  INCO  unit,  which
gives the latter an opportunity to advocate for greater inclusion of developing
country priorities. However, no examples of ex-ante assessments have been
found,  and  HQ  interviews  suggest  that  the  two  parties  have  very  different
perspectives. At country level, field missions found that, there is a good deal
of  co-operation  between  S&T  Counsellors  and  DG  DEVCO  staff,  but  there
are very few Counsellors (and their number is being cut).

In  FSNA,  while  DG  RTD  projects  were  clearly  relevant  to  EU  development
objectives,  no  evidence  of  concrete  mechanisms  for  achieving  coherence
has  been  found.  However,  the  S&T  Counsellor  in  Addis  reached  an  agree-
ment for intensified dialogue with the African Union that resulted in improved
alignment of DG RTD programmes with regional needs. The field mission did
not yield any evidence of mechanisms to promote PCD. In health, while the
sector is not specifically highlighted in SEC(2008) 434 on PCD, many of the
issues  mentioned,  such  as  brain  drain  and  intellectual  property  rights,  are
relevant. There is  overall coherence in health  as both DG DEVCO  and DG
RTD  are  aligning  to  the  same  policy  commitments.  According  to  HQ  inter-
views, PCD is not viewed as a major issue in general terms, but more could
be  done  at  operational  level  to  promote  it.  In  EnvCC  and  SISS,  there  are
consultations between the two DGs at various points in the programme and
project cycles, but these depend on the desk officers and it is not clear that
they all cover PCD.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.5 EQ 5: Transfer of R&I results into development processes

62

To what extent has DEVCO support led to the transfer of
R&I results into processes likely to impact on the
achievement of EU development objectives?

Rationale and coverage of the question

A key result to be obtained from support to R&I is that the results of research feed through into devel-
opment processes that work in the direction of EU development objectives. This includes the out-
comes from Research and Innovation directly supported by DG DEVCO but also the development-
relevant outcomes of RTD-financed research and their uptake by policy makers, researchers and
practitioners in developing countries. Various EU policy documents such as The Agenda for Change25
underline the importance of using research results in development processes. Although the evaluation
of impact is always difficult, this EQ is intended to collect examples of the links between R&I outcomes
and development on the ground. The approach involves looking at some of the key stages in the pro-
cess of creating new knowledge and putting it into use to assess whether they are conducive to this
process of knowledge transfer.

This question is articulated through four judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

DG DEVCO support to R&I has led to some transfer of results into development processes and con-
tributed to the progress against EU development objectives but the full extent of uptake cannot be
measured. There is evidence of lessons learning taking place and there are examples of development
processes making use of research results. Inevitably however, there is also evidence that some pro-
cesses do not go as far as hoped and of obstacles that have not been overcome. One area that has
not been systematically thought through is how and when to engage with partner governments on the
formulation of national R&I or S&T policies.

Routes to impact have generally been thought through at a higher level but also in more varied ways
at lower levels. Support has been provided for processes and infrastructure that encourage knowledge
exchange and dissemination, as well as to networks promoting knowledge exchange. Actual uptake of
R&I results is harder to ascertain from the documentary evidence but emerged strongly from the field
missions.

There is good evidence that DG DEVCO has generally worked out a coherent and logical approach on
how best to support the uptake of R&I results for development in the four different thematic sectors
covered, at least at a higher level. The approach does vary from sector to sector, but there are com-
mon features. Providing support to the creation and maintenance of research networks for the ex-
change of knowledge and dissemination of results has been a regular feature in all four sectors. This
has not only been through support to networking organisations and seminars and conference, but also
through extensive support in the SISS sector to the funding of high-speed ICT infrastructure across all
the different regions. Capacity building both at the individual and the institutional level is another im-
portant element. Investment in capitalisation has however been inadequate.

25 (COM(2011) 637)

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Key points:

63













In Health and FSNA, DG DEVCO has focussed support to R&I around existing institutions with
global reach both in terms of research and in terms of dialogue on results, the WHO and CGIAR.
These partners have helped ensure that lessons are shared and that DG DEVCO support in these
sectors is aligned with global priorities and has greater impact.

Information on internal lesson learning within the EU system is patchy and systems for this seem
better at country level than higher up the system. Yet, there are positive examples notably in
Health, FSNA and SISS.

There is more evidence on external lesson learning particularly as this is where DG DEVCO sup-
port to networks and infrastructure for knowledge exchange plays an important role.

Examples of uptake of R&I results have been found in all sectors. This is particularly so in FSNA
where a variety of instances have been identified partly because the uptake of research results is
currently a major area of debate in the CGIAR, but also because a continuous process of re-
search, innovation and extension is a long standing tradition in agricultural development work.

A fair amount of evidence has emerged that suggests DEVCO-supported networks play a valuable
role in sharing results of R&I and transferring them to development processes. This evidence is
particularly strong in the two sectors with clear links to MDG achievement, Health and FSNA. In
both sectors there are examples of projects and programmes where R&I results are used in the
field and which show impact at the level of end users and farmers in the case of FSNA. On the
other hand the capitalisation of results was often to be inadequately funded at project level.

For EnvCC, the link between networks and sharing results is more ambiguous as projects in this
sector do also aim to help the poorest and more vulnerable, yet many of the innovations supported
are at a different level. Programmes such as SWITCH Asia have played an important role in
demonstrating how production processes can be greened but actual impact is still limited. For
SISS, the link was also often more indirect: S&T is clearly important for development and the sup-
port to ICT infrastructure mentioned above is a valuable tool for knowledge transfer and communi-
cation. At the same time, a number of SISS projects focusing on promoting innovation in the pri-
vate sector have had some effect on economic growth and job creation.

6.5.1 At  sector  level  clear  and  logical  thinking  on  how DG  DEVCO  support  could  ultimately
lead through to research results being used in development processes is apparent but
could have been stronger (JC 51)

Clear and logical think-
ing on DG DEVCO
support to R&I takes
place primarily at sec-
tor level.

In two of the sectors, a global level forum has provided a clear focus for stra-
tegic thinking and dialogue on R&I. Thus, in FSNA, DG DEVCO’s contribu-
tion  to  R&I  is  dominated  by  support  to  the  CGIAR  where  the  Commission
has in fact been one of the CGIAR donors pushing for more strategic think-
ing. Similarly, in the Health sector, by aligning much of its R&I support with
the WHO Global Strategy and Plan of Action, DG DEVCO has ensured that
research results will be coherent with the global agenda as well as the EU’s
own commitments in the 2010 Health Communication. On the other hand, in
the  EnvCC  and  SISS  sectors,  there  is  no  such  institutional  focal  point  and
thus the strategic approaches taken become more diversified.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

In FSNA there is a
mismatch between the
impact pathway of
support to R&I for de-
velopment and the ex-
pected iterative and
practical impact on
commercial, policy and
institutional processes.

64

In  the  FSNA  sector,  strategy  papers  are  forward-looking  and  take  into  ac-
count  new  insights  in  the  area  of  agricultural  research  for  development
(AR4D).  DG  DEVCO’s  main  partner  is  the  CGIAR  which  has  gone  through
many  institutional  changes  to  incorporate  uptake  of  research  outcomes.  As
for the regional programmes, significant differences exist in the way theories
of  change  have  been  elaborated.  ASARECA  and  IssAndes  have  well  de-
scribed impact pathways (see Box 10 below for IssAndes), while Technology
Transfer for Food Security and ACP Sugar Research Programme lack ade-
quate analysis of paths for research uptake. Equally, in CSPs, clear descrip-
tions of how investing in AR4D leads to development outcomes are scarce.

At the programme level, support to R&I is mostly part of an integrated food
security  approach  that  varies  from  programme  to  programme.  Although
some examples exist for programmes in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Ethiopia
of how research results are to be used in development processes this is not
carefully thought through.

DG  DEVCO  and  DG  RTD  financing  modalities  lack  systematic  thought  on
how they can support the interlocking research, innovation and development
processes  that  go  beyond  the  research  project  itself,  with  the  aim  to  influ-
ence  policy,  or  institutional  and  practical  change.  These  modalities  are  not
designed  to  be  adaptive  and  flexible  in  supporting  the  technological,  com-
mercial,  institutional  and  policy  innovation  processes  that,  by  their  very  na-
ture, have to adjust regularly in response to the lessons they learn. As a re-
sult,  there  is  a  mismatch  between  the  impact  pathway  of  support to  R&I  to
development processes and the expected widespread, iterative and practical
impact on commercial, policy and institutional processes.

Box 10

IssAndes – Matching impact pathways with funding cycles

IssAndes is a regional project managed by the EU Delegation in Lima (Peru) to support pro-poor agricultural in-
novation for food security in the Andes.
One of the key strengths of the IssAndes project is its strong design, linking agricultural development to nutrition
and  health.  The  impact  pathway  methodology,  integrating  nutritional  objectives  and  indicators  in  food  security
initiatives were key to ensure that interventions had a positive impact on health and nutrition of families. In Ecua-
dor and Bolivia case studies and a guide about the implementation of the methodology of impact pathways have
been  developed.  Impact  pathways  in  the  IssAndes  project  are  well  defined  by  the  International  Potato  Centre
(CIP) to guide the multi-stakeholder process. The project is inclusive in design and implementation and shows a
clear understanding of the impact of new technologies on development processes as well as policy, and vice ver-
sa. The need for capacity building and enabling policies is accounted for in both design and implementation. The
project builds on a previous regional research and innovation project (Papa Andina), which has contributed signif-
icantly to its success.
However, the evaluation found there was limited scope in DEVCO for supporting such an initiative during its dif-
ferent phases along the projects’ envisaged innovation impact pathway. Subsequent project cycles could not be
funded,  and  the need to  search  for alternative  financial  sources  caused  discontinuities. This,  in  turn,  risked  the
watering down of the policy and institutional impacts that the project had carefully built up over its initial period.
Especially  in projects  like  IssAndes  that  aim  to  contribute  to  both  national implementation  and  policy change in
four different countries, the normal four-year cycle for project funding is inadequate and makes the sustainability
of the research and innovation programme difficult to attain.
Lessons learnt from the IssAndes project were shared with DG DEVCO and a wider public. Communication strat-
egies were an integrated part of the programme, but funding to document, share and capitalise upon the lessons
learned  was  mobilised  separately  thanks  to  the  efforts  of  individual  researchers.  Due  to  this  additional  funding,
four communication products (Story of the Week, video, case study from Peru and a policy brief) were produced
and used during the European Month of Food security.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

65

In Health, the strong
focus on achieving the
MDGs meant R&I was
not explicitly taken into
account.

DG DEVCO health sector policy, and the country sector policies that it sup-
ports  only  implicitly,  not  explicitly,  took  R&I  potential  into  account.  At  HQ,
there is not universal acceptance among DG DEVCO staff that R&I is a key
sector for economic development. In some cases, the same is true at EUD
level  among  sector  experts.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  no  shortage  of  DG
DEVCO support to solid science, mostly in the field of medicines and treat-
ments  (and  mostly  concerned  with  HIV,  TB,  and  malaria).  The  underlying
assumption is that these will be applicable to achieving broader development
goals.

At the country level,
the strategic logic and
clarity is not always
clear.

Moving downstream to more detailed levels of strategy, the picture in Health
is more varied in terms of clarity and logic of the thinking. While country-level
health  sector  support  programmes  examined  paid  attention  to  the  latest  in-
ternational good practice, they were not found to be closely in tune with cut-
ting edge of R&I, except in a few cases such as South Africa where R&I was
mainstreamed in sector dialogue.

In the EnvCC sector,
there is a strong em-
phasis on knowledge
generation projects
and innovation.

A spectrum of projects
exists in the EnvCC
sector including some
that focus on Small
and Medium Enter-
prises (SMEs) but evi-
dence of real impact is
limited.

In  the  EnvCC  sector,  the  evidence  suggests  that  DG  DEVCO  support  has
taken  into  account  global  R&I  development  and  trends. Strategically,  it  did
so in four interrelated ways:

1. Strategies aimed to support R&I interventions that can measure and as-
sess  the  impact  of  interventions  on  the  environment.  This  included  re-
search on impacts, vulnerabilities and risks of mitigation and adaptation
strategies,  but  it  also  comprised  interventions  that  aimed  to test,  proto-
type and demonstrate possible solutions.

2. EU  R&I  interventions  sought  to  tap  into  and  support  areas  of  environ-
mental  policy  where  knowledge  was  growing.  The  strategy  documents
analysed  for  the  fields  of  biodiversity,  climate  change  and  sustainable
development, all stress the need to build on and extend current trajecto-
ries of knowledge generation.

3. Closely  related  to  the  previous  point,  strategy  documents  point  to  the
gaps in policy-relevant knowledge and articulate the intention to address
these gaps in terms of R&I programming, in particular via FP7.

4. Finally the strategy documents identify potential linkages and synergies
between different sectors both in terms of exploring new research fields
and in terms of deploying knowledge for environmental policy-making.

In  EnvCC,  while  the  overall  logic  of  supporting  certain  areas  of  work  was
found to be clear, the detail of how this is to be done in practice was sketchy.
For  instance,  the  evaluation  found  little  indication  of  how  actors  are  to  find
sufficient real opportunities for deploying innovation for development.

Perhaps as a result of this, the spectrum of interventions ranges from fore-
seeing a direct and active role of the private sector, to more indirect and re-
mote ways in which the private sector contributes to R&I in EnvCC (see Box
14 below).  At  the  more  active  end  of  the  spectrum,  programmes,  notably
SWITCH  Asia,  did  address  and  directly  involve  the  private  sector – both  at
SME and at corporate levels – in the research, development, testing and dif-
fusion  of  sustainable  innovations.  Of  most  interest  for  encouraging  impact
and sustainability, are several ‘multiplier’ type projects which support teams
including  SMEs  in  assisting  other  private  businesses  in  the  adoption  of  en-
ergy  and  resource  efficient  technologies  and  practices  or  transformations
towards greener business models.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

66

Box 11

SWITCH Asia – The role of the private sector in applied innovation

There is a strong emphasis in the SWITCH Asia programme on applied innovation. The central principle of the
grant component of the programme is to encourage uptake of SCP practices and technologies amongst local pro-
ject partners with a focus on SMEs. By the end of 2013, 86 projects had been contracted in 15 Asian countries in
greening supply  chains,  marketing of  eco-products,  green public  procurement, cleaner production,  eco-labelling
and  greener  products  for  the  poor.  Multiplier-type  projects  have  particular  potential  in  spreading  innovations.
These are grant projects whose aim is to assist large numbers of SMEs in adopting resource and energy efficient
technologies and practices. Two examples are MEET-BIS and SPIN-VCL.
MEET-BIS promotes sustainable production in urban-based SMEs in Vietnam by developing markets for afforda-
ble water and energy efficiency technologies. The project helped private sector suppliers to develop business in-
novation packages for SMEs comprising tailor-made technical innovations linked to investment options. It has led
to significant energy savings in companies.
SPIN-VCL assisted over 500 SMEs in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in developing green products and business
models  using  a  sustainable  product  innovation  approach.  Activities  included  assisting  SMEs  in  identifying  mar-
kets, and in project branding and marketing. 11 % of the assisted companies were successful in capturing a mar-
ket for their products.
Despite successes both multiplier projects have been hindered by external and internal obstacles. The external
obstacles include a lack of strong price signals in energy and resource prices to adequately rewarded efficiency
improvements,  and  a  lack  of  national  standards  to  support  sustainable  consumption  and  production  practices.
This is a weakness of bottom-up approaches when not supported by top-down activities. SWITCH Asia does in-
clude  a  top-down  policy  component in  four  countries  that  aim  to  create better  framework  conditions in  the  long
term. A key internal obstacle was the three to four year timescales of SWITCH Asia projects. While technology
adoption  is  fairly  straightforward,  the  fundamental  transformation  of  a  company’s  business  model  aimed  at  by
SPIN-VCL and MEET-BIS often require longer-term support.
For innovation to thrive and spread, entrepreneurs are needed who can recognise opportunities and are willing to
take risks. This is strongly influenced by the research culture in a country. In particular, it requires a strong overlap
and mutual relationship between business and research. The leader of the Vietnamese research institution lead-
ing the SPIN-VCL project actively encouraged his team to develop spin-off private businesses. Several successful
green SMEs developed as a result. This is an untypical attitude amongst academic leaders in Vietnam and could
perhaps be actively encouraged in future DEVCO projects.

The main aspects of
SISS are well an-
chored in clear strate-
gic thinking.

SISS programmes are
also well thought
through, though the
final link with devel-
opment processes on
the ground is not al-
ways clearly ad-
dressed.

While the SISS sector does not have an identifiable and distinct ‘sector poli-
cy’,  DG  DEVCO  strategy  in  this area  is  anchored  in  wider  EU  R&I  policy.
Two of its three aspects are featured as priorities in the overall Commission
strategy document26 for international R&I including: making S&T available for
development, improving research infrastructure and capacity building for re-
search.  In  each  of  these  areas  and  indeed  in  the  third  area  of  space,  field
visits also confirm clear and logical strategic thinking at the programme level.

At the level of implementation in the SISS sector, a lot of emphasis has been
put on the development of ICT networks for high-speed internet connectivity
in all the regions (@lis, CAREN, TEIN, ACP Connect, etc.). The thinking on
how  this  infrastructure  for  knowledge  exchange  will  improve  R&I  has  been
straightforward and logical and builds on a number of positive evaluations.

Another  approach  has  been  to  support  to  higher  education  more  generally
and  particularly  institutional  development,  including  capacity  building  for  re-
search.  The  evaluation  identified  various  good  examples  of  researchers,
funded  under  the  ACP  S&T  Programme  or  the  Africa  Research  Grants
scheme,  working  on  topics  that  should have  a  positive  impact  on  develop-
ment.  However,  the  link  from  the  R&I  community  down  to  practice  on  the
ground has often remained unclear, though, at least in Tunisia, the specific
problem of links between researchers and industry is one the PASRI project
addressed directly with some success (see the text box below).

26 (COM(2008) 588) on A strategic European framework for S&T co-operation

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

67

Box 12

PASRI – National innovation systems and the private sector

The PASRI (Programme d’Appui au Système de Recherche et de l’Innovation) in Tunisia aimed to provide solu-
tions to problems identified in the innovation chain and support the strengthening of links between research insti-
tutions and the private sector. It further aimed to support capacity building of research institutes, boost their partic-
ipation in national, regional and international research and develop innovation job profiles in companies. PASRI
ran from 2012 to 2015.
Tunisia faces considerable challenges with competitiveness and youth unemployment, especially since the 2011
revolution.  While  there  is  much  research  activity,  funding  is  scarce  and  many  PhD  graduates  are  unemployed
because their skills do not correspond to industry needs. Tunisian research does lead to articles in peer-reviewed
journals, but it only rarely results in patents. Linkages between the academic world and industry are weak, as ac-
ademic priorities are not aligned with the demands from the private sector, thus inhibiting innovation. At the gov-
ernmental level, there is a lack of dialogue between ministries and no overarching strategy for R&I. Legal frame-
works also constrain improved synergies between the industry and research worlds.
To address this the PASRI consisted of three axes:
1. Governance: strengthening the governance of the national innovation system (NIS).
2.

Interfacing: dynamising the research and economic environments and the interfaces between them both to
build better synergies between actors.

3. Networking: at national and international level to strengthen the capacity of Tunisia to participate in research

programmes such as FP7.

The PASRI was managed by different actors, of which the main ones were the ANPR (Agence nationale de pro-
motion de la recherche) and GIZ27. The programme covered two types of activities: ‘structural’ and ‘priming’ activi-
ties. The Structural Activities were intended to build up the NIS and included various diagnostic studies and train-
ing elements as well as seeking to create networks of NIS actors. The Priming Activities consisted of pilot projects
focused on catalysing collaboration between NIS actors. A key element was the 100 mobility grants (MOBIDOCs)
for  PhD  and  post-doc  researchers  to  carry  out  research  in  companies  (EUR  2.2  million).  These  grants  were  to
encourage research on topics for innovation in business and build synergies between research and industry and
proved to be one of the most successful initiatives of the PASRI.
The diagnostic study on the national R&I system was extremely useful to increase understanding of R&I govern-
ance in Tunisia and the main challenges to be addressed, as this is recognised as a major inhibiting factor. There
is a need to address the lack of an R&I vision and strategic orientation at government level.
DEVCO funding of PASRI is complementary to RTD funding as it contributes to strengthening the capacities of
the  national  R&I  system  and ROs  to  participate  in  FP7  consortia.  The  PASRI  programme  represents  a  serious
attempt to address the R&I continuum with a number of notable successes in challenging circumstances. At the
same time, sustainability remains a question mark and a longer term commitment is needed to consolidate results
that are still fragile.

Engaging the private
sector is often men-
tioned but not taken as
a strategic theme.

While  engaging  the  private  sector  is  often  mentioned  to  the  point  where it
could be seen as a cross-cutting issue, overall it has not been drawn out as
a major theme at the strategic level. For the health sector, the lack of full pri-
vate  sector  involvement  was  brought  out  in  both  the  South  Africa  R&I  SBS
evaluation  and  in  the Mid-term  Review  of  EDCTP.  Equally,  in  some  of  the
EnvCC programmatic and strategic documents analysed (e.g. the GCCA at
global  level  or  the  ICARE  project  at  national  level),  the  involvement  of  the
private sector is mentioned as desirable, but with few concrete proposals for
bringing  this  about  or  managing  this  involvement.  However,  in  practice,  a
good number of projects focus on green business. In SISS, several projects
specifically addressed the need to encourage innovation in industry and pri-
vate sector involvement (e.g. Ukraine Innovation Programme, PASRI in Tu-
nisia, EBTC in India, etc.). In FSNA on the other hand the  private sector is
the main focus.

27 GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

There is no single
clear DG DEVCO
strategy on whether
and how to engage
with partner govern-
ment national R&I pol-
icies.

68

One  other  more  generic  issue  that  comes  out  under  SISS,  but  has  wider
strategic  implications,  is  whether  DG  DEVCO  should  engage  directly  with
partner  governments’  efforts  to  develop  a  national  R&I  or  S&T  policy.  This
has happened in several countries such as Ukraine, Tunisia and South Afri-
ca.  In  other  cases  like  Ethiopia,  even  though  the  government  is  seeking  to
develop such a policy, the EU has preferred not to engage but still to work in
sectors  with  a  considerable  amount  of  R&I  going  on  (e.g.  Coffee  sector  in
Ethiopia). In some cases, the engagement is made by DG RTD (e.g. India)
with DG DEVCO not really being involved. In others, both DG RTD and DG
DEVCO have some involvement (e.g. South Africa). Finally, there are cases
where the government itself does not have a clear R&I strategy  and so the
EU’s efforts remain at the purely sectoral level (e.g. Burkina Faso). The vari-
ety  of  these  cases  indicates  a  lack  of  consistent  approach  and  therefore
scope for some clearer strategic thinking.

A clear strategy for
both DG DEVCO and
DG RTD on how to
engage with national
R&I policy develop-
ment would have been
an asset.

Of course the impact of an R&I partnership strategy would be conditioned by
the existence or non-existence of national R&I policies and a well-functioning
innovation  system  in  partner  countries  (see  the  discussion  in Box 13 and
Figure 12 below).  Particularly,  low  income  and  lower  middle-income  coun-
tries often have no specific R&I strategies or, if they do, their implementation
can be expected to be very weak. But an overall strategy that took these var-
ious  circumstances  into  account  and  formulated  clear  roles  and  objectives
for both DG DEVCO and DG RTD would have been a major asset in further
clarifying DEVCO thinking on support to R&I.

Although the four sec-
tors show generally
strong strategies a
clearer overall strategy
would give a stronger
sense of direction to
DG DEVCO’s support
to R&I.

In sum, the overall quality of sector strategies in terms of clarity and logic is
reasonable in all the four thematic sectors; on the other hand, the manner in
which  this  is  done  varies  a  lot  between  sectors.  In  two  cases,  Health  and
FSNA, global fora – the WHO and CGIAR – provided respective focal points
around  which  the  Commission’s  R&I  strategy  was  articulated.  In  EnvCC,
global  trends  in  R&I  are  also  followed  but  without  any  specific  institutional
focus  other  than  the  EU’s  own  GCCA.  In  SISS,  the  basis  for  strategy  has
been  more  the  Commission’s  support  to  international  R&I  Communication
from  2008.  At  the  same  time,  the  detail  of  the  sector  strategies  is  of  more
variable quality and is not always well worked out. One example of this was
the involvement of the private sector which is often  mentioned as desirable
but generally not problematised. In practice, this lack of detail on R&I strate-
gy for DG DEVCO has resulted in an eclectic diversity of approaches on the
ground with many worthwhile projects but few consistent threads. In the ab-
sence of an overall strategy, the core thrust of DG DEVCO’s support to R&I
and how it expects R&I to impact on development processes has remained
unclear.

Box 13

Science and society – linking up for development impact

Innovation is where science and society meet. On the one hand the scientific community advances scientific un-
derstanding by finding answers to well-defined research questions. On the other, society may or may not incorpo-
rate and put to use the propositions springing from scientific research. In between, innovation systems provide
spaces where multiple stakeholders, from policy and research institutions, from businesses, advisory and user or-
ganisations, meet and interact to specify, pilot and put to use innovations they consider helpful in advancing their
objectives. Industrial and developing societies differ greatly in the extent to which they invest in and maintain a
well-functioning innovation system. In developing countries, the ‘innovation pathway’ from research to societal
transformation is winding and littered with obstacles and contextual determinants. This is particularly relevant if the
aim of research is to contribute to development objectives, which are by nature transformational as expected with

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

69

the SDGs.
Moreover, technological innovation generally does not come alone. Social innovation (policy, regulatory, relational
and organisational changes by government and private actors) is generally needed to turn it into a success. There-
fore, a well-functioning innovation system allows scientists and other knowledge holders to identify potential stake-
holders and beneficiaries of their propositions; to meet and collaborate with them in validating and adapting innova-
tions within the practical conditions (markets, infrastructure, logistics, government policy, availability of services and
inputs) that prevail in their society. It fosters communication between relevant parties (i.e. knowledge platforms,
innovation conferences); it creates opportunities for collaboration (i.e. providing information on, or actually competi-
tive funding for innovation projects), it strengthens intermediary institutions (markets, user organisations, advisory
services, NGOs, policy making bodies) to play their role in enabling the widespread use of innovations; it monitors
results and impact and, where necessary, it regulates particular interactions (i.e. IP, inclusiveness, tax-
es/subsidies).
The science-driven ‘proposition-validation-adaptation-scaling’ pathway (1) is only one of the possible innovation
pathways for development. Other pathways include, (2) market or migration-driven lateral transfer of ideas, tech-
nologies or practices from one country/market where these are well known to other countries/markets where they
are relatively ‘new’, and where they can be validated and adapted for local use. Usually, local adaptive research is
still needed to achieve the contextualisation and widespread acceptance of the innovation in the destination coun-
try. A third pathway (3) involves the recuperation of propositions from traditional knowledge and practices and their
validation and adaptation through exploratory and adaptive research with the communities owning this knowledge.

Figure 12

Innovation system: joining science and society for transformation

Source: Evaluation team with inputs from Practical Action

6.5.2

Internal lessons learning and sharing takes place at the country level but uptake in the
EU Institutions, within sectors and at international level is less obvious (JC 52)

There is good evi-
dence of internal les-
son learning in EUDs
and within some sec-
tors, but less clarity on
wider follow-up by HQ.

The evidence of internal EU lesson learning was mixed and varied from sec-
tor to sector and indeed from one programme to another. At the country lev-
el, EUDs visited during field visits displayed a high level of knowledge of the
R&I-related results achieved in their portfolios and put a clear emphasis on
communication of such results. This is also corroborated by the examples of
specific cases of lesson learning provided by respondents to the EUD survey
are  given  in  the  table  below.  However,  it  was  not  so  evident  whether  this
learning went further with follow-up by headquarters, sectoral desks or other
relevant DGs and institutions.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

70

Table 4

EUD survey respondents: examples of internal lessons learning

Programme

National Support
Programme to
R&I

Research, Devel-
opment and Inno-
vation Pro-
gramme

Innovation for
poverty alleviation

EU funded co-
operation in the
area of R&I

Agricultural inno-
vation for food
security

Sugar sector

Energy from co-
conut oil

Health

Lessons learnt

How they were communicated

The governance and strategic aspects of R&I
are more important and relevant than those
related to specific sectors.

Decentralised programmes provide ownership
of the government and ensure its commitment
to the programme. However, the implementa-
tion might be difficult due to the difference be-
tween EU and national procedures.

DG DEVCO and DG RTD support should be
truly complementary to reinforce each other's
objectives.

Various lessons from an evaluation study in
the country.

The choice of the specific implementer guaran-
teed the credibility and legitimacy because of
its anchorage in the region and high level of
professionalism and institutional capacity.

Research organisations should ensure that
they have necessary financial capacity to meet
their contribution whenever awarded a grant
under any EU programme.

Energy production is technically possible, but
sustainability is limited by the human factor in
management/maintenance.

The research agenda should be coordinated
by the Ministry of S&T and line ministries at the
national level.

Communication through exchanges
with DG RTD.

Lessons not communicated.

Lesson communicated through formal
meetings and action has already been
taken within the framework of the Multi-
Annual Indicative Programming.

Results were discussed at a workshop
with government participation and the
report sent to the Ministry of Education
& Science.

Communication through ROM exercise.

Communication to DG DEVCO (aware
of the problem in the specific country).

[no information given on communica-
tion]

Communication of this lesson through
formal meetings and policy dialogue.

Local plants for
global market

Involvement of the private sector is crucial to
identify research areas.

Communication in stakeholder meet-
ings.

Source: EUD survey

In FSNA lessons were
generally shared at the
country level with ex-
amples of some EUD
officials taking a real
interest and even find-
ing extra funds for
communication work.

In FSNA  lessons  on  AR4D were  generally shared and taken up in strategy
documents. Evidence suggests that there is no systematic strategy to ensure
lessons  learnt  from  CGIAR  experiences  (e.g.  concept  of  innovation  plat-
forms)  or  best  practices  are  shared  at  EUD  level  between  sectors,  or  be-
tween European External Action Service (EEAS) and EUD, or even between
EUD  and Brussels headquarters, and  let  alone beyond. In-country  partners
argued there was little space within R&I projects to document and capitalise
on  experiences  gained.  As  a  result,  evidence  of  lessons  learnt  at  country
level being fed back to DG DEVCO sector officials was found to be scarce,
and  dependent  on  individual  initiative.  In  Kenya,  lessons  were  shared  be-
tween FSNA and EnvCC sectors within EUD, mostly because a small group
of  EUD  staff  was  responsible  for  both  sectors. The  experience  of  the
EUROPAN programme in Peru has also been extensively documented and
published by the EUD with the help of additional non-R&I funds.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

71

Although in Health
lesson learning was
not always strong, in
South Africa various
factors combined to
make it work well.

From the documentation, solid evidence was neither available for the Health
nor the EnvCC sectors on any well-established mechanisms for sharing les-
sons learned. While in Health communication and consultation between dif-
ferent parts of the EU institutions (DG DEVCO and DG RTD) was found to
have  been  extensive,  it  was  largely  ad  hoc  and  its  depth  often  called  into
question in interviews. Yet, field missions showed that good practice can ex-
ist on the ground. Thus, in South Africa, the combination of strong EUD ca-
pacity  in  R&I,  a  strong  government  Department  with  a  clear  policy  vision,
and support from the DG RTD S&T Counsellor in Addis has made for an un-
usually successful sharing of information.

SWITCH Asia includes
a Network Facility to
encourage lesson
sharing across the
whole programme.

One positive EnvCC example is SWITCH Asia which was designed as a re-
gional programme with a strong Network Facility component for lesson learn-
ing,  exchange  and  communication  of  results  between  individual projects.
Yet,  dissemination  of  these  results  remains  a  challenge,  as  in  many  cases
there  is  no  structured  system  of  collecting  R&I  results  and  making  them
available publically beyond the levels of project briefs and newsletters. More
details on the Network Facility and SWITCH Asia are given in the box below.

Box 14

SWITCH Asia – Transfer of R&I results into development processes

The  SWITCH  Asia  programme  includes  at  its  core  the  transfer  of  innovative  technologies  and  practices  to en-
courage  sustainable  growth.  SWITCH  Asia  builds  on  the  Asia  Pro  Eco  Programme’s  concept  of  matchmaking
European engineers with industry in Asia to achieve a win-win in environmental protection and profitability.
Diffusion of innovation is achieved via a number of channels. The key means is via the grant projects that form
the bulk of the programme budget. Many grant projects are focussed on supporting SMEs (and other organisa-
tions) in adopting sustainable production technologies and practices. All projects include a European partner and
many of the innovations have originated in Europe. However, where possible, projects should also utilise locally
produced technology. Along with technologies, innovations include management practices, certification processes
and associated audit methodologies.
SWITCH-Asia projects often focus on the production and consumption cluster around a product/service, with the
aim of creating functioning markets for innovations. They also endeavour to create the organisational ecologies
that can nurture and foster sustainable technological innovation. The project consortia themselves are networks
between  HEIs,  ROs,  enterprises  and  intermediaries  in  both  Asia  and  Europe.  Such  institution-building  and  net-
working is a direct part of project activities.
For broader dispersion, a SWITCH Asia Network Facility was created with the task of further spreading and scal-
ing up successful pilots tested under grant projects, to new companies, and new regions. This includes network-
ing with policymakers and research facilities and SMEs not directly included in grant projects. Networking takes
place via regular regional workshops and network meetings and online forums. The workshops have been report-
ed by researchers as particularly useful for disseminating results and identifying opportunities.
Grant projects have demonstrated significant potential for producing widespread and long-term adoption of inno-
vations.  However,  obstacles  were  also  identified  which  hindered  their  long-term  success.  First, the  typical  time
length of SWITCH Asia project funding, and DEVCO project funding in general, is considered by implementers to
be too short to ensure sustainable transformations in business. Second, even where the adoption of innovations
would lead to cost reductions for SMEs, access, or perceived access, to affordable finance for making the neces-
sary investments is lacking. The Network Facility is taking steps to improve such access.

In SISS some major
programmes went into
2nd phases with lesson
learning from one
phase to the other.

In SISS, there was clear evidence of internal lesson learning both within the
EU and in the supported partner countries in the several cases of major pro-
grammes being renewed  into a second  phase (e.g.  MESA  in  Africa) and/or
replicated in other regions (e.g. high-speed internet networks such as TEIN
or ACP Connect).

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

72

6.5.3

External lessons learning, sharing and uptake within the sectors supported in partner
countries, and at international level is extensive and largely effective (JC 53)

External lessons learn-
ing, sharing and up-
take varies by sector
and project holders
find it inadequately
supported.

Efforts  on  external  lesson  learning,  sharing  and  uptake  have  been  variable
across  the  four  thematic  sectors  being  most  developed  in  the FSNA  and
SISS  sectors.  On  a  general  level,  however,  although  a  communication  ele-
ment is meant to be mainstreamed in all DEVCO-financed R&I programmes,
specific  evidence  on  DEVCO-supported  partner  country  stakeholder  in-
volvement in  international research networks was  limited. This underscores
the view expressed by many partners during the field visits about the lack of
finance and space within R&I programmes to document and capitalise upon
experience with multi-stakeholder R&I processes internationally.

Sector policy dialogue
can provide a forum
for external lesson
learning if good partic-
ipation is ensured.

On the other hand the EUD survey showed that, in each sector, at least two
thirds  of  the  EUDs  in  countries  with  R&I  support  in  that  sector  also  partici-
pated in policy dialogue (see table below). Figure 13 further below shows the
different  group  of  stakeholders  that  have  acted  as  organisers  of  or  partici-
pants in sector-specific dialogues.

Table 5

EUD survey: participation in sector-specific policy dialogues

FSNA

Health

EnvCC

SISS

Total no. of EUDs with R&I support in the given sector

of which:

Participated in policy dialogue in the sector

Did not participate in policy dialogue in the sector

(No information about policy dialogue)

12

6

2

(4)

12

7

2

(3)

13

8

3

(2)

5

2

0

(3)

Source: EUD survey.

Figure 13

EUD survey: participants and organisers of policy dialogues by sector

FSNA

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Health

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EUD

Government

Academic / Research
organisation

International Organisation

Private Sector

Civil Society Organisation

N = 9 policy dialogues in 6 different countries
EnvCC

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EUD

Government

Academic / Research
organisation

International
Organisation

Private Sector

Civil Society Organisation

N = 14 policy dialogues in 7 different countries

EUD

Government

Academic / Research
organisation

International
Organisation

Private Sector

Civil Society Organisation

Organisers

Participants

N = 19 policy dialogues in 8 different countries

Note: Multiple organisers and participant groups per policy dialogue possible. The graphs show the % of all policy
dialogues in the given sector (i) that were co-organised (dark bars) by the indicated stakeholder group and (ii) in
which the indicated stakeholder group participated (light bars). SISS omitted due to low number of responses.
Source: EUD survey.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Lesson learning and
uptake is a major topic
of international debate
in FSNA.

In Health and EnvCC
efforts have been
made to encourage
lesson sharing but ev-
idence of actual up-
take was limited.

In the SISS sector
considerable effort
goes into sharing in-
novations and encour-
aging uptake.

73

The government has been a regular participant in most dialogues, whereas
academics, research organisations and civil society are somewhat  less fre-
quently represented. Private sector participation is more variable and low in
Health. This suggests that such dialogues can be good fora for external les-
son learning between government and non-government actors but an effort
needs to be made to ensure the latter and particularly the private attend.

In FSNA, communication is currently a major topic of discussion internation-
ally and especially within the CGIAR, where the process around the adoption
of  the  revised  Strategy  and  Results  Framework  and  its  integration  in  the
CGIAR  Research  Programmes  has  been  closely  linked  to  the  uptake  and
impact discussions. There is no clear strategy, however, on dissemination of
CGIAR  research  results.  The  reluctance  of  funders  to  contribute  to  core-
funding and a demand for low overhead costs was pushing down the budget
available for information management and communication strategies.

The  FSNA  regional  programmes  examined  by  and large  have  well  defined
strategies  on  knowledge  and  information  sharing  and  the  dissemination  of
best  practices.  The  evaluation  found  a  reasonably  strong  practice  of  learn-
ing, sharing and uptake of lessons from past experiences. However, the role
of EUDs has been rather limited in the systematisation and capitalisation of
these experiences except for additional funding for communication products.

As for the Health sector, explicit mechanisms were not found to exist to en-
sure that results are taken up in sector policy or programme design and evi-
dence  of  uptake  was  limited.  There  are  exceptions,  however,  as  in  South
Africa,  where  R&I  lesson  learning  is  well  mainstreamed  into  Health  sector
dialogue.

In the EnvCC sector, aside from the survey data, there are few explicit indi-
cations  that  sector  policy  dialogues  include  participation  of  researchers,  in-
novation  practitioners  and  entrepreneurs.  That said,  policy  dialogue  is  an
explicit  element  of  the  SWITCH  Asia  programme  both  in  terms  of  the  so-
called Policy Support Component (PSC) as well as at grant-maintained pro-
ject level. The SWITCH Asia Networking Forum observed in Delhi was well
attended  by  project  holders  and  government  officials  from  around  Asia.  In-
ternational  organisations  were  also  present,  but  few  private  sector  partici-
pants other than those directly involved in supported projects.

In SISS, there is a clear general intention to seek out opportunities for lesson
learning, sharing and uptake, but it is not evident how to measure the quality
of the interactions or what they precisely achieve in terms of uptake and fol-
low-up.  There  were  many  levels  at  which  dialogue  took  place  (e.g.  In  the
PASRI project in Tunisia dialogue sessions and multiple seminars took place
involving  large  numbers  of  participants  from  both  the  research  community
and the private sector) and examples of lessons being learnt and rolled over
into  new  programmes  (e.g.  MESA  is  built  on  the  African  Monitoring  of  the
Environment for Sustainable Development). Moreover, the prime objective of
establishing  high-speed  internet  networks  such as  CAREN,  @lis,  TEIN  or
ACP Connect is the exchange of knowledge and data.

Many  examples of such sharing and communication  exercises taking  place
as  integral  parts  of  DEVCO-funded  programmes  (e.g.  the  MESA  Forum  in
Addis Ababa, or the Ukraine Joint Support Office project) were found during
field  visits.  Most  of  these  tended  to  involve  government  and  the  research

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

EU-partner S&T
Agreements are a
worthwhile tool to fos-
ter sustained R&I col-
laboration and dia-
logue. They are man-
aged by DG RTD and
the role of DG DEVCO
is not clearly defined.

74

communities but there are also cases of events, such as those organised by
the PASRI project in Tunisia or the EBTC in India, that specifically focussed
on the private sector and their uptake of innovation.

The EU’s S&T Agreements foster a more established and on-going dialogue
between  the  EU  and  those  few  states  (e.g.  India)  with  which  such  Agree-
ments  have  been  concluded.  These  dialogues  involve  different  groups  of
actors on a variety of themes that cover both substance of different sectors
and  co-operation  on  regulatory  matters.  The  Agreements  thus  have  taken
the dialogue between the EU and its partners to another level and the results
are thus more systematic and sustained.

The processes around these Agreements are extensively supported by DG
RTD  and  not  just  DG  DEVCO  and  while  the  co-operation  between  them
does work well in some instances (e.g. on the JAES) it is more tacit and low
level  in  others  (e.g.  India)  and  the  role  of  DG  DEVCO  in  supporting  could
have been better defined. In India, the Agreement was in place for the entire
period covered by this evaluation and has essentially been managed by DG
RTD on the European side. It resulted in a series of jointly funded coordinat-
ed calls which  were  well regarded by  Indian  officials and researchers alike.
In the case of the JAES, the role for DG DEVCO has been more substantial
as the  S&T dialogue  was  part of a  wider continent-to-continent dialogue  by
EEAS and DG DEVCO.

Networking has been
a frequent and valua-
ble element of DG
DEVCO support to
R&I.

A good deal of effort and support has gone into establishing and supporting
international dialogue networks in all four sectors. There is good evidence of
active participation of partner country stakeholders including researchers at
the  international  level.  DEVCO-supported  research  networks  have  also
played an important role in supporting development processes. There is evi-
dence  of this in all four thematic sectors, though  it is  clearest in FSNA  and
Health.

In both the FSNA and
Health sectors DG
DEVCO supports suc-
cessful international
networks.

In the FSNA sector, GFAR and the regional and sub-regional fora for agricul-
tural  research  function  as  effective  networks  and  platforms  to  promote
knowledge sharing and promote uptake of AR4D. ASARECA is also valued
by researchers as a good forum for regional exchange and knowledge shar-
ing. Several examples of DG DEVCO external networking activities at coun-
try level were also found in the field studies.

In  Health,  the  main  network  in  which  DG DEVCO  is  active  is  the  Global
Health  Policy  Forum. Yet,  DG SANCO28 and,  especially, DG RTD, give the
appearance of being more active members. A second network, financed by
DG  RTD  but  at  DG  DEVCO  request  and  with  significant  DG  DEVCO  in-
volvement,  was  the  Go4Health  network  of  developing-country  experts  con-
tributing  to  the  design  of  the  health  SDGs.  A  number  of  DEVCO-financed
projects  put  international  networks  in  place.  Of  particular  importance  were
ANDI  (African  Network  on  Drugs  and  Diagnostics  Innovation)  and  the  net-
work of 125 researchers involved in “Research and development for poverty-
related,  tropical,  and  neglected  diseases.”  For  both  of  these,  there  is  solid
evidence of active participation of partner country stakeholders.

28 DG SANCO: European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

In the EnvCC sector
however the level and
impact of networking is
limited.

In SISS networking is
well established and
effective.

75

For  EnvCC,  while  there  is  little  direct  evidence  on  external  lesson  learning,
programmes and projects have included significant networking activities and
increased opportunities for researchers in partner countries to participate in
international  networks.  Two  different  types  of  external  networking  activities
have been  initiated by DG  DEVCO R&I interventions. The first are external
networking  activities  ranging  from  institutionalised  networking  approaches
(e.g. SWITCH Asia Network Facility and CGIAR centres) to ad-hoc but none-
theless  frequent  networking  events.  Second,  programme  documentation
suggests  that  DG  DEVCO  staff  participated  in  environmental  international
fora  relevant  to  R&I.  While  networking within programmes  is  fairly  wide-
spread,  no  direct  evidence  was  found  of  networking  activities  which  led  to
exchanges between DG DEVCO programmes or even more broadly, which
allowed  exchanges  between  DG  RTD  and  DG  DEVCO.  Neither  was  any
concrete evidence found of lessons having been taken up as a result of net-
working activities.

For SISS, while there is evidence of partner country involvement in network-
ing and lesson sharing internationally at the regional level (e.g. the DEVCO-
financed  AU-MESA  project  has  a  regular  continental  forum)  and  some  with
Europe,  it  is  not  clear  how  much  this  extends  to  the  global  level. Yet,  just
about all the programmes and projects examined do tend to have communi-
cation  and  networking  components  on  a  regional  as  well  as  national  basis.
Various  examples  of  international  seminars,  networks  and  knowledge  ex-
change  exist  and  some  projects  have  apparently  developed  specific  case
studies  to  demonstrate  this knowledge  sharing  works in  practice.  The  Latin
American  ICT  sector  structures  appear  to  be  among  the  more  developed
institutional partners with whom the EU works in this sector and there is evi-
dence of lesson learning here.

6.5.4 Development  processes  and  outcomes  have  been  built  on  and  used the  results  of  re-
search funded by DG DEVCO or shared through DEVCO-supported research networks
(JC 54)

Field missions provid-
ed good evidence of
development process-
es benefitting from R&I
results.

Particularly  during  field  missions  good  evidence  was  collected  of  develop-
ment processes that had benefitted from R&I results that were derived from
DEVCO-supported  projects.  The  examples  are  perhaps  strongest  in  FSNA
where  research  and  extension  work  are  very  much  part  of  the  tradition  of
agriculture  development  work,  but  also  in  Health  where  public  health  pro-
grammes are generally keen to take up the results of new research on dis-
eases and drugs.

FSNA projects in vari-
ous countries show
impact at the farmer
level.

Thus, in FSNA, significant  evidence  was found that DEVCO-supported R&I
and  knowledge  management  and  communication  have  led  to  improved  de-
velopmental  outcomes.  There  is  evidence  of  both  public  and  private  (farm-
ers) uptake of results. For instance, projects in Peru, Ethiopia (see text box
below), Kenya, Tanzania  and Jamaica have all shown impact at the farmer
level. Some of these also show innovation in locally-owned and sustainable
solutions for the poor. In the public sector, local, regional and national gov-
ernments were effectively engaged and strengthened to improve public sec-
tor uptake of R&I, mostly in collaboration with a range of other actors, includ-
ing  non-governmental  organisations  and  the  private  sector.  Programmes
such as GPARD, Pro-Poor Innovation, ASARECA, IssAndes, applying simi-
lar comprehensive, multi-level and multi-stakeholder approaches on a global

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

76

or  regional  scale,  were  effective  in  doing  so  according  to  other  evaluation
reports and field studies.

Box 15

EU support to using R&I results in the Ethiopian coffee sector

During  field  work  in  Ethiopia,  a  variety  of  independent  sources  (different  ministries,
university researchers, a government research centre and EUD staff) confirmed that
over some 30 years the EU had supported R&I work in the government's Coffee Im-
provement Programme (CIP). The CIP was vital to the Ethiopian economy as coffee
was such an important export crop. The EU funding enabled a continuous process of
research  into  new  seed  varieties,  upgrading  of  husbandry  technologies  appropriate
for different planting conditions around the country and the introduction of new seeds
to  farmers  through  extension  services.  The  EU  is  the  only  donor  at  scale  that  has
consistently supported the CIP and is widely recognised for this. The CIP falls under
the agriculture support focus of the CSP rather than any explicit commitment to R&I.
However,  applied  Research  and  Innovation  including  the  transfer  of  results  to  'end
users'  based  on  EU  funding  has  been  a  continuous  theme  of  this  work  for  many
years.

In Health DG DEVCO
support has encour-
aged the diffusion of
results.

In Health, the link of DEVCO support with development processes is strong
and the support has encouraged the diffusion of results through a variety of
means. There is also reasonable evidence of public uptake of results. In part
because of WHO’s long-standing role as a clearinghouse, the dissemination
function of many major DEVCO-supported projects has been quite good.

EnvCC projects sup-
ported show results in
terms of environmental
factors but the impact
on poverty is less
clear.

Data from SISS pro-
jects in ICT is widely
used in development
processes.

For  EnvCC,  the  evidence  is less  clear.  There  is  an  intention  to  support  the
poorest and most vulnerable but project objectives are often defined more in
terms of environmental results. The evidence does suggest the intention for
R&I interventions to shape development processes and there is some, albeit
limited, monitoring and evaluation evidence to suggest that some of the pro-
jects  seem  to  be  contributing  to  development  processes.  Despite  some  is-
sues and problems, projects and programmes have  achieved a reasonable
level of local  ownership  where this  has been an explicit feature of their  de-
sign. There is also evidence of cases of uptake of R&I results by the private
sector (e.g. the ACIDLOOP project in India under SWITCH Asia). This is in
part due to the strong emphasis within the SWITCH Asia programme on ap-
plied  innovation  in  particular  among  SMEs.  Multiplier  type  projects  and  the
Network  Facility  have  had  particular  potential  in  spreading  innovations  to  a
wide  number  of  companies.  However,  there  was  no  evidence  of  how  suc-
cessful the Network Facility has been in encouraging growth in the uptake of
environmental innovations to wider audiences.

In  SISS,  there  are  various  examples  of  development  processes  and  out-
comes  that  have  built  on  or  used  the  results  of  research  shared  through
DEVCO-funded  networks  and  processes.  One  good  example  is  the  AU
MESA project in Africa which makes earth observation satellite data availa-
ble to multiple users across the continent. The data is then used for provid-
ing services in many areas important for development such as meteorology,
environment,  water  distribution,  flood  warning,  soil  fertility,  farming,  coastal
fishing, river navigation, etc. It has also given African universities access to
data  which  they  use  for  their  own  research  projects  on  local  development
issues.

DG  DEVCO  has  financed  several  regional  ICT  networks  to  encourage  the
diffusion and sharing of knowledge between researchers. Potentially this has

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

77

greatly improved the infrastructure for R&I and with it the capacity of HEI and
other ROs to obtain data and share research results though it is not possible
to measure the impact on the uptake of R&I results by the public or private
sector. There are both regional projects (e.g. such as the AU’s MESA) and
national projects (e.g. PASRI in Tunisia) that have created networks through
which results and innovation have been disseminated to both public and pri-
vate sector actors and subsequently used in development processes.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

6.6 EQ 6: EU capacities

78

To what extent have the EU external relations services
ensured adequate capacities to conduct policy dialogue
related to R&I and to support research and innovation in
partner countries?

Rationale and coverage of the question

EQ 2 looks at EU support to capacity development in partner countries. But in order to develop capaci-
ty in the field, the EU needs adequate capacity of its own, both at HQ and in EUDs. This EQ looks at
the EU capacity in terms of staff and staff time, to formulate and implement R&I support programmes.

This question is articulated through three judgement criteria and a number of indicators, with detailed
reporting in Volume 2.

Summary answer to the evaluation question

Broadly speaking, EU HQ capacity to deal effectively with R&I in development, in both DG DEVCO
and DG RTD, is stretched, though probably sufficient for current needs, but neither DG has sufficient
capacity in the field to deal with R&I as well as the priority assigned to it deserves.

At HQ, the tendency in DG DEVCO is for R&I to be dealt with by sector desks, which is not ideal but
has nonetheless permitted the EU to engage in global and regional policy dialogue. In DG RTD, the
limited time for dealing with developing countries, the skewed incentive system, and the differing per-
spectives of INCO and the thematic desks have been addressed in answering EQ 4; however, there is
no headcount shortage

In the field, the situation is different. Few EUDs regard themselves as are adequately staffed with em-
ployees tasked with following R&I. This leaves the responsibility to sector experts who spend little of
their time on it. On the DG RTD side, the paucity of Science Counsellors (and the plan to reduce their
number further) impairs the EU’s ability to project its priorities and promote its support in R&I for de-
velopment to the level called for in policy statements.

Nonetheless, the EU has participated effectively in global and regional R&I policy dialogue. Many Del-
egations report having participated in national policy dialogue, although this is dependent on govern-
ment interest and self-reported quality of dialogue tends to be either very negative or very positive.

Often underneath the radar, DG DEVCO has done a great deal to facilitate R&I for development, as
has DG RTD. High-speed internet networks have been supported, as has networking broadly speak-
ing throughout both DG’s R&I engagement. DG DEVCO has supported dissemination of R&I results
and has raised awareness of FP7 opportunities. Both DGs, as we have seen in EQ 4, have financed
scattered efforts to build capacity to participate effectively in FP7.

Key points:

 More than 60% of EUDs evaluated their capacity for dealing with R&I related tasks as insufficient



to carry out necessary R&I tasks.
Field missions identified cases where DG DEVCO staff were largely unaware of DG RTD’s activi-
ties. Only 16 EUDs, mostly high- or middle-income countries, have DG RTD Science Counsellors,
whose participation in DEVCO work depends on co-ordination, priorities, and available time.
 While in all sectors the EU has been effectively engaged in global and regional policy dialogue, at
country level, the quality of dialogue has received a mixed assessment. The existence of an S&T
Agreement has a major factor encouraging effective dialogue.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

79



About half of EUDs responding gave support to disseminate the results of research financed by
the EU. Everywhere in their support to R&I, both DG DEVCO and DG RTD promoted international
networks. A major contribution in this respect was DG DEVCO support to the development of
high-speed ICT networks.

6.6.1

EU  internal  capacity  to  manage  R&I  support  and  conduct  policy  dialogue  is  sufficient
for current purposes at HQ but lacking in the field (JC 61)

Few EUDs are ade-
quately staffed to deal
with R&I as it de-
serves.

HQ capacity at DG
RTD is adequate alt-
hough time available
for developing coun-
tries is limited. Staffing
is tighter at DG
DEVCO; probably suf-
ficient for current pur-
poses but not for in-
creased involvement
with R&I.

In three of the four
sectors examined –
FSNA, Health, and
EnvCC – capacity has
been sufficient to en-
gage effectively in
global and regional
policy dialogues.

40% of EUDs have no staff dedicated to R&I, and where EUDs do have ded-
icated  staff,  approximately  80-90%  of  these  spend  less  than  50%  of  their
work time on R&I issues and some 60% spend less than one-quarter of their
time. These figures were stable over the evaluation period.  More than 60%
of EUDs evaluated their capacity for dealing with R&I related tasks as insuf-
ficient  to  carry  out  necessary  R&I  tasks.  This  is  not  so  much  a  problem
where the R&I work supported comes under a specific sector programme or
indeed  a  programme specifically  dedicated  to  R&I  (e.g.  the  PASRI  in  Tuni-
sia).  The  problem  arises  more  in  relation  to  general  national  strategies  on
R&I  or  S&T.  Field  missions  identified  cases  where  DG  DEVCO  staff  were
largely unaware of DG RTD’s activities, in part because (as discussed under
EQ 4) DG RTD channels of communication often bypass the EUD.

At  DG  RTD  HQ  in  Brussels  there  appear  to  be  adequate  levels  of  staffing
though  the  split  between  INCO  (international  co-operation)  and  thematic
units means that not all staff have the same commitment to R&I in develop-
ing  countries.  There  is  currently  one  INCO  post  dedicated  to  sub-Saharan
Africa,  essentially  South  Africa.  In  2015,  only  16  EUDs  have  DG  RTD  Sci-
ence  Counsellors,  whose  participation  in  DEVCO-related  work  depends  on
co-ordination, priorities, and available time. Most of these Science Counsel-
lors have been posted to high or middle-income countries with whom R&I is
a well-developed sector of co-operation.

At  DG  DEVCO,  although  there  was  a  small  increase  in  capacity  during  the
evaluation period, in the DG DEVCO B4 Unit (Education, Research, Health
& Culture) there is effectively only one post devoted to R&I. As a result, the
bulk of the work on R&I must be dealt with through thematic units where R&I
is  only  one  concern  among  many.  There  is  also  about  one  post  in  EEAS.
This  suggests  that  there  is  insufficient  capacity,  or  at  least  that,  should  DG
DEVCO wish to increase its involvement in R&I, current capacity would defi-
nitely be insufficient.

In FSNA, the effective support to push for reform and align CGIAR research
and programmes with European development policies and AR4D good prac-
tice suggests that DG DEVCO has adequate capacity. At the country  level,
there is very limited evidence on the capacity of the available staff to organ-
ise  the  policy  dialogue  around  R&I  related  to  FSNA.  In  Health,  dedicated
health  programme  officers  are  present  in  only  half  the  19  countries  where
health  is  a  focal  sector.  In  the  field  visit  country  where  health  was  a  focal
sector,  South  Africa,  the  situation  was  deemed  satisfactory,  but  as  men-
tioned at many points, South Africa was an exceptionally strong example of
EU R&I co-operation. For current global policy dialogue purposes, e.g. par-
ticipating  in  the  Global  Health  Policy  Forum,  available  capacity  is  sufficient
(and there has been a slight increase at HQ over time). The same goes for
the ad hoc policy dialogue that occurs on the side-lines of meetings at WHO,
at  major  events  such  as  the  launch  of  EDCTP,  etc. In  EnvCC, capacity  for

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

80

conducting  policy  dialogue  and managing  R&I  aspects  of  programmes  is
more in place at regional level than at country level in Africa, but the reverse
is true in Latin America.

6.6.2 R&I policy dialogue is operational at all levels, but is lacking in poorer countries (JC 62)

The EU has participat-
ed in policy dialogues
related to R&I financ-
ing and priority setting
ensuring that EU-
financed R&I results
are included in sector
dialogues.

S&T agreements were
a significant factor en-
couraging R&I policy
dialogue.

Whether R&I is a part
of country policy dia-
logue depends of the
importance Govern-
ment attaches to it.

Assessments of the
quality of policy dia-
logue are variable,
with a tendency to
cluster at the ex-
tremes.

In all the major areas considered, the EU has been involved in policy discus-
sions and has paid attention to the importance of involving a range of stake-
holders,  such  as  members  of  the  research community  (both  European  and
Third  Country),  policy  makers,  civil  society  representatives,  and  the  private
sector. The voice of the EU, and that of researchers whose work has been
supported by the EU, has been heard in discussions about how R&I is to be
carried out  and  how  its results are to  be mobilised for sustainable develop-
ment. However, R&I dialogue with governments and stakeholders in power-
houses such as South Africa, India, and China which takes place at various
levels right from the top down, is of a different order to what occurs in poorer
developing countries. This results in a gap in EU policy dialogue on R&I.

The existence of an EU S&T Agreement for the country concerned is an in-
dicator of the importance the parties attach to the dialogue though this also
varies over time. In India for example the dialogue was very active during the
period  covered  by  this  evaluation  but  has  slowed  down  latterly.  Dialogue
around the EU’s formal S&T Agreements has essentially been supported by
DG  RTD  and  from  two  of  the  cases  reviewed  (India  and  African  Union)
where  there  is  an  S&T  Counsellor  this  appears  to  have  worked  well.  For
Ukraine, however, despite the existence of an S&T Agreement there was no
counsellor post at the time of the field mission in 2015.

At national level, the dialogues follow priorities set by the country and/or de-
velopment  partners. Where  R&I  is  not  seen  as  a  priority  for  national  devel-
opment, as in Burkina Faso, it has not been part of the policy dialogue. Yet,
evidence  that  stakeholder  dialogues  help  matching  country  and  regional
needs with appropriate EU programmes for R&I support was found in Burki-
na Faso where this dialogue was initiated by the project implementers them-
selves.  Where  countries  attached  more  priority  to  R&I,  it  has  been  part  of
policy  dialogue  and  might  have  required  more  R&I  capacity  from  the  EUD.
These latter countries may be those where DG DEVCO programmes may be
phasing out (such as Peru).

According to the EUD survey, six of 12 EUDs with R&I support to FSNA par-
ticipated  in  policy  dialogue  in  the  area;  in  Health,  seven  of  12,  in  EnvCC
eight of 13 and in SISS two of five. In 85% of all cases, government took the
lead or co-lead in organising dialogue. Assessments of the success of policy
dialogue were mixed - in FSNA, success was judged low or very low by 75%
of  EUDs  responding;  in  Health  the  corresponding  statistic  was  54%,  in
EnvCC 58%. However, corresponding figures for success being judged high
or  very  high  were  25%,  45%,  and  42%  for  the  three  sectors,  respectively.
Among major outcomes identified were consolidation of national R&I policy,
identification  of  long-term  research  priorities  for  bilateral  EU  support,  and
initiation  of  the  Horizon  2020  Association  Membership.  Only  five  of  17  re-
sponding EUDs had participated in regional R&I policy dialogue.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

In every sector, exam-
ples were found of ef-
fective policy dialogue
at regional and global
levels.

81

In health, the EU supported groundwork for implementing the flagship policy
regarding  access  to medicines  in  poor  countries,  the  WHO  Global  Strategy
and  Plan  of  Action  for  Public  Health,  Innovation,  and  Intellectual  Property.
Health  priority  setting  has  taken,  place,  in  addition,  at  major  international
meetings  such  as  those  of  the  Global  Health  Research  Forum,  Ministerial
Summits such as that in Bamako in 2008, and specialist international scien-
tific conferences and congresses. In Southeast Asia, the Regional Asia Dia-
logue  Instrument  funded  by  DEVCO-financed,  among  other  things,  discus-
sions  on  human  and  animal  health  and  infectious  disease  surveillance  and
control. At country level, the EU did not generally engage in policy dialogue
on  health  R&I  because  few  countries  where  the  EU  provides  substantial
support  have  such  a  policy.  For  South  Africa,  where there  is  a  DEVCO-
financed Dialogue Facility (see Box 16 further below), the field mission con-
firmed that R&I had been successfully integrated into all policy dialogues.

in  SISS,  the  actual  frequency  and  quality  of  the  dialogue  varies  from  one
country to another. Policy dialogue is more frequent at the sector level than
at the overall national level where the EU is not always involved (e.g. Ethio-
pia). At the sector level where the EU invests in support to SISS it generally
also ensures it is equipped to handle the policy dialogue, including any dia-
logue on R&I that is relevant to the sector.

In  FSNA,  global  and  regional  programmes  such  as  GFAR,  ASARECA  and
Pro-Poor Innovation actively  aim to strengthen spaces for dialogue  and  ac-
tively participate in these. Global and regional policy dialogues of relevance
to the CG system (GFAR) directly influence how DG DEVCO R&I funding is
spent by the CG Research Programmes.

In EnvCC, the outputs of R&I related projects have  been reflected in policy
dialogue  at  global,  regional  and  country  level.  Programme  and  project  de-
signs have explicitly aimed to inform environmental policy dialogues with R&I
outputs.  Examples  at  global  level  are GCCA;  at  regional  level,  SWITCH
Asia;  at  national  level,  Sector  Budget  Support  in  Ukraine  and  South  Africa,
the Environmentally & Socially Responsible Tourism Capacity Development
Programme  in  Vietnam  and  the Caficultura  Sostenible project  in  Peru. For
the projects at national level mentioned, policy dialogue has been carried out
via the project team with little involvement of EUDs. While programmes and
projects  at  all  levels  created  institutional  entry  points,  few  direct  indications
were  found  that  sector policy  dialogue  had  led  to  either  a  formulation  of
country and regional needs or that these needs were matched to appropriate
EU R&I programmes.

Box 16

TDCA Dialogue Facility – R&I policy dialogue in South Africa

A number of “dialogue support projects” in the key areas of co-operation were identified in the sector support with
the Department of Science and Technology financed via the “TDCA Dialogue Facility.” The Dialogue Facility was
used  to  finance  several  projects  (especially  studies  and  events  to  foster  sharing  of  experience)  which  had  a
strong  dimension  on  innovation  and  which  involved  academic  institutions  on  both  sides  (EU  and  South  Africa).
For  instance,  the  Dialogue  facility  financed  the  elaboration  of  a  “Research  Infrastructure  Road  Map”  (130,000
EUR, with DST on the South African side and DG RTD on the EU side).
Generally,  R&I  is  a  strong  cross-cutting  dimension  in  the  whole  EU  portfolio  in  South  Africa  and  informs  many
areas of EU-South Africa dialogue. Dialogue support projects covered environment and sustainable development,
health, green growth sustainable energy and more. DG DEVCO was directly involved in support to policy dialogue
on national health insurance. Dialogue has been particularly influenced by the clear priorities of the South African
government, which is interested in attracting know-how and funds for policy experimentation. There is high level
interest in government, academia, and the private sector for new methods, approaches, and exchange of experi-
ences with other countries to feed the ongoing country-level debate. Many SBS-funded activities respond to gov-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

82

ernment interest in piloting the outputs of their internal policy research processes. Factors underlying the strength
of dialogue included a strong legal basis, a good S&T policy base in-country, the EU priority on “smart growth,”
the  availability  of  EU  research  framework  programmes,  good  EUD  capacity,  and  the  support  of  the  Science
Counsellor in Addis. Areas of mutually reinforcing interest were, on the South African side, interest in attracting
funding, interest in accessing the best available knowledge, and interest in partnerships with global experts; on
the EU side, the relatively strong research base in South Africa, geographic advantage in specific areas such as
astronomy, and South Africa’s interest in being a regional promoter of S&T.

6.6.3 DG DEVCO actions have facilitated R&I activities (JC 63)

While there were a
scattering of FP7 pro-
jects specifically aimed
at increasing participa-
tion, the most con-
sistent role was played
by DG RTD Science
and Technology
Counsellors.

Significant efforts were
made to advertise op-
portunities and share
information on funding
and academic mobility
and scholarships.

DG DEVCO only rare-
ly funded dissemina-
tion activities related to
R&I results.

S&T Counsellors play an important role in facilitating R&I by information dis-
semination  in  the  few  countries  they  are  based,  but  the  decision  has  been
taken  to  reduce  their  numbers.  Activities  under  FP7  helped  to  inform  re-
searchers of opportunities and increase their capacity to apply and adminis-
ter – examples are EECA_LINK in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, BILAT,
and ERA-NET. The latter two also encouraged dialogue between research-
ers and other stakeholders, another form of facilitation. There are also a few
projects  (e.g.  Ukraine  Joint  Support  Office,  Tunisia  PASRI)  specifically
aimed at providing practical support to researchers seeking to access wider
EU research funds, but there were few projects with this as a key objective.
In South Africa, FP7-financed projects successfully increased awareness of
FP7  funding  opportunities  and  offered  concrete  assistance  in  working
through  the  process.  DG  RTD  also  helped  to  publicise  the  2010  Africa  call
using  INCO  CAAST-NET.  Both  region- and  country-level  programmes  con-
tributed, albeit  not  everywhere.  Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  actual
availability  of  information  in  the  research  community.  Here,  a  range  of  FP7
assessments have found barriers to Third Country researcher participation in
the form of low awareness and high barriers to entry. FP7 funding has a rep-
utation of being difficult to obtain and demanding to administer.

Half of 19 EUDs responding to the question had provided information actions
related  to  FP7  and  37%  had  provided  information  about  DEVCO-financed
research.  These  actions  involved  dissemination  of  information  on  thematic
programme  calls  for  proposals  through  EU  Delegation  websites,  but  also
information  fairs  and  events.  A  few  projects  in  countries  such  as  Ukraine,
Tunisia and Georgia specifically aimed to encourage national researchers to
participate  in  EU-supported  R&I  initiatives.  A  handful  of  responding  EUDs
had provided direct assistance in the form of workshops and written advice.
As  confirmed  by  field  missions,  EUDs  also  provided  to  support  to  external
stakeholders (e.g. researchers) who had been involved in DEVCO-financed
research; this support took the form of financing workshops, logistic support
for conferences, etc.

EUDs  sometimes  funds  additional  dissemination  activities  for  results  from
DEVCO-funded projects. However, such funding is not an automatic part of
DG DEVCO projects and not the norm. EUDs that do carry out such funding
assist with practical advice on format of dissemination activities. EUDs con-
sider  that  funding  of  workshops,  to  which  policy  makers  at  national  and/or
local level are invited, and publications are the most effective means of dis-
semination  support,  The  EU  had  some  dedicated  communication  channels
for  informing  stakeholders  in  countries  of  international  opportunities  for  re-
search under FP7 and other DG RTD programmes. An example is the South
East  Asia  and  European  Union  Network  Facilitator  (SEA-EU-NET),  an  ac-
cess point for research  institutions to engage  in FP7  projects. However,  in-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

EU-financed ICT infra-
structure facilitated
information and
knowledge exchange
as well as formation of
networks.

In each sector exam-
ined, DG DEVCO and
FP7 projects led to the
formation of interna-
tional networks.

83

formation exchanges on R&I opportunities  within sector development areas
are  less  obvious  though  channels  were  identified  in  India  and  South  Africa
and at regional level in Africa.

EU-supported  high-speed  ICT  infrastructure  encouraged  and  facilitated  in-
formation  and  knowledge  exchange.  Researcher  networks  have  been  en-
couraged  or  even  built  around  these  internet  connections,  leading  to
knowledge  exchange  and  collaborations.  In  some  cases,  EU-sponsored
networks  encouraged  the  sharing  of  knowledge;  in  others  such  as  health,
some  EU  (DEVCO)  financed  projects  were  able  to  disseminate  and  share
information  using  the WHO  websites  or  information  networks  developed  by
WHO.  In  all  areas,  the  EU  encouraged  the  formation  of  international  net-
works.  Networking  of  R&I  stakeholders  in  the  field  of  the  Environment  and
Climate Change has taken place both in an institutionalised form (e.g. in the
SWITCH Asia Network Facility) as well as project driven.

In FSNA, networking, visibility and dissemination of research results is cen-
tral to the strategy of national and regional programmes (e.g. the Chile and
Mauritius,  Technology  Transfer  Action  Fiche,  Pro-Poor  Innovation  pro-
gramme  proposal).  Practical  support  has  been  given  in  some  of  the  coun-
tries by the EUD though quite some limitations in terms of reach and efforts
to coordinate and communicate are noted. GFAR and ASARECA serve as a
facilitator of global and regional research co-operation and creating partner-
ships between institutions and sectors.

In  Health,  DG  DEVCO  and  FP7  initiatives  served  as  the  basis for  network
formation  and  informing  national  researchers  of  opportunities.  Some  of  this
occurs,  as  well,  in  the  context  of  participation  in  DEVCO-financed  regional
and  global  networks  such  as  ANDI,  the  WHO  co-ordinated  network  under
Global  R&D 
into  poverty-related  diseases,  and  additional  WHO-
implemented,  network-based  projects  in  community  health  public  health  in-
terventions and promoting R&I and technology transfer. In Africa, the Coun-
sellor in Addis has successfully identified local researchers in the context of
EDCTP.  In  EnvCC,  networking  of  R&I  stakeholders  has  been  successfully
taking place both in an institutionalised form (e.g. in the SWITCH Asia Net-
work  Facility)  as  well  as  at  project  level.  SISS  network  activities  took  the
form of financing the high speed internet networks described above.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

7 Overall assessment

84

This Overall Assessment is built up using the framework of the OECD evaluation crite-
ria and based on the responses to the EQs. The additional criteria of complementarity,
policy coherence and visibility asked for in the ToR are covered with specific Conclu-
sions in the next section (Section 8).

Based  on  the  OECD  DAC  evaluation  criteria,  as  detailed  below,  the  overall  assess-
ment is two-sided. DG DEVCO support to R&I is certainly relevant but the assessment
against the other DAC criteria is far more mixed. At one level there are many individual
projects and programmes with a worthwhile R&I component that have benefitted from
DG DEVCO support. The majority of these can also be seen to contribute to EU devel-
opment objectives and the MDGs. On the other hand these efforts have not achieved
critical mass nor a substantial overall result that might have left real improvements in
the R&I institutional framework across partner countries.

Relevance – DG DEVCO support to R&I is relevant in different
ways at both policy and practical levels.

DG  DEVCO’s  support  to  R&I for  development  is  relevant  at  several  levels.  First,  it  is
relevant as a contribution to achieving the EU’s development objectives and the MDGs
(EQ 1).  Research  and  Innovation  are  important  inputs  to  development  processes  in
terms of encouraging economies to become more dynamic and to resolve constraints
(see text box below). Innovation  is particularly essential for resolving problems in de-
velopment, such as the need to adapt to climate change, with locally appropriate solu-
tions.  As  the  new  2030  Agenda  makes  clear  (SDG 17,  Targets 17.6-8),  R&I  will  also
continue to be  a  very relevant input to  development processes. Second, DG DEVCO
support for R&I has been relevant in relation to complementarity with the work of DG
RTD which is not in a position to support R&I in developing countries to the extent and
in the manner that it would be needed. Third, it is also relevant at the local level where
the results of many individual R&I projects feed into local development efforts (EQ 5).
Fourth, DG DEVCO support for R&I is seen as very relevant by research communities
in partner countries (EQ 2) not least because it represents an important source of re-
search funding in countries with little or no resources for R&I. Finally, DG DEVCO sup-
port to R&I is relevant in terms of the types of support DG DEVCO has provided: sup-
port to networking, capacity development at individual and institutional levels, dialogue
on policy development and actual financing of research (EQ 5).

Effectiveness – The assessment of the effectiveness of DG
DEVCO support to R&I is mixed.

Effectiveness of DG DEVCO support to R&I for development is more mixed. At the in-
dividual  project  level,  the  support  has  in  many  cases  been  effective  in  producing  re-
sults  and  achieving  objectives  or  for  instance  in  getting  some  partner  country  re-
searchers involved  in international research  work (EQ 2). Equally,  the support  to net-
works has proven an effective way of sharing knowledge (EQ 5). Overall, however, the
support is largely ineffective because it suffers from the lack of an overall strategy.

Specific indicators of the overall lack of effectiveness include:



Judged simply on the basis of whether DG DEVCO support to building up research
capacity in partner countries to make their research communities better able to par-
ticipate  in  DG  RTD  framework  programme  calls,  the  programme  is  not  effective.
DG RTD data shows some limited progress in this direction, but in most countries
the capacity building task involved is too great and a much more concerted effort,
stronger  partnerships  with  other  donors  and  a  clearer  strategy  and  stronger  com-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

mitment would be required (EQ 2).

85

 For  instance,  the  EU’s  different  mobility  schemes  may  be  an  effective  means  of
individual capacity building, but as they are largely administered in a manner that is
not coordinated with wider R&I support they are not an effective input to institution-
al development (EQ 2).

 The modalities  used  are  not  always  effective  in  terms  of  the  needs  of  end  users.
There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  funding  via  large  scale  intermediaries  and  some
limited use of Budget Support, but there was also much reliance on project funding
and calls for proposals which are problematic for individual project holders (EQ 3).

 The EU has used a wide diversity of different actors (channels) for support to R&I
(EQ 3). While this indicates an open approach and a willingness to explore possi-
bilities  there  is  no  overall  strategy  and  decisions  have  therefore  been  essentially
opportunistic. The effectiveness of different actors can therefore only be assessed
on a case by case basis.

 The dissemination and uptake of results is largely ineffective except perhaps at the
most  local  level.  Effectiveness  in  this  area  is  particularly  affected  by  the  wide-
spread lack of attention paid to establishing conducive institutional frameworks for
innovation.

 While the EU has the capacity to participate effectively in policy dialogue on R&I at
the global and regional levels, it generally did not have the capacity to do so effec-
tively at the national level (EQ 6).

 Despite  an  overall  entente  and  some  good  examples  in  certain  EUDs,  co-

ordination with DG RTD is not as effective as it could be.

Efficiency – DG DEVCO support to R&I is often efficient at the
local level in individual projects but overall does not up to a cost
effective way to develop national R&I systems.

The  support  provided  to  R&I  is  again  often  efficient  at  the  individual  project  level  but
inefficient  as  an  overall  contribution  to  R&I.  The  support has  been  very  dispersed  at
three geographical levels (global, regional and national) and with multiple different ac-
tors (EQ 3). While this is certainly commendable as an open and exploratory approach
the  efficiency  involved  is  very  variable  (EQ 3).  The  lack  of  an  overall  strategic  ap-
proach undermines the DG DEVCO’s ability to guide choices and focus action on the
most efficient approaches. In particular, insufficient attention has been paid to support-
ing national R&I or S&T strategies and the establishment of institutional frameworks for
innovation which would have greatly increased the efficiency of the R&I system at the
national level.

Many of the elements of the support provided can make an efficient contribution at the
local level but, overall, without a coherent overall strategy they do not add up to an ef-
ficient contribution. Equally, support to individual capacity building has also been ineffi-
cient in terms of its overall contribution to the EU’s R&I for development effort though it
helped individuals. Co-ordination between DG DEVCO and DG RTD has not been as
efficient as it could be (EQ 4).

Impact – The overall impact of DG DEVCO support to R&I is lim-
ited.

Again  impact  can  be  seen  at  the  local  level  in  the  way  many  individual  DEVCO-
supported R&I efforts fed results into local development processes (EQ 5). The overall
impact has however been limited. An assessment can be made against the objectives

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

86

by  using  the  reconstructed  intervention  logic  for  DG  DEVCO  support  to  R&I  which
suggests  five  specific  impacts.  Considering  each  in  turn  the  impact  achieved  can  be
seen to be limited:

1. More innovative development solutions to development problems and global chal-
lenges – The impact here is limited. As indicated the impact of individual projects
can  be  seen  at  the  local  level  in  many  cases  (EQ 5)  but  the  overall  progress
against this result is not evident.

2. Policy makers more attuned to using and dispersing development results – Again
examples  of  this  can  be  found  in  relation  to  a  good  number  of  the  projects sup-
ported, but an overall impact of this nature across all developing countries cannot
be demonstrated.

3. R&I  in  developing  countries  adjusted  to  their  needs – There  is  no  evidence  that
this has been achieved on any meaningful scale, though individual projects show
impact in this respect.

4. More effective mobilisation of European expertise for addressing global challenges
– European expertise on global challenges has been mobilised on a limited scale
through the various joint research consortia and the global research programmes
of organisations such as CGIAR and WHO.

5. More  EU  funded  research  conducted  in  developing  countries – The  inventory
shows that the volume of EU funded R&I in developing countries is substantial and
has increased with respect to the previous funding cycle (pre-2007).

Sustainability – DG DEVCO was not able to build sustainable
solutions for its partners on funding R&I in the longer term.

Various issues with sustainability were identified during the evaluation, giving rise to an
overall negative assessment. The essential problem was that in providing support DG
DEVCO was not  able to build up sustainable solutions for its partners to funding R&I
beyond the term of the DG DEVCO funding. Thus, while the projects and programmes
funded  were  useful  in  themselves,  they  often  depended  on  continuing  EU  support
(EQ 2). The project funding modality used in many cases is also problematic for indi-
vidual researchers or low capacity research organisations, from a sustainability point of
view  (EQ 3).  In  most  partner  countries,  there  was  little  or  no  institutional  support  for
R&I, both in terms of institutional infrastructure for R&I and in terms of research fund-
ing.  Many  researchers  were  therefore  operating  on  minimal  resources  unless  they
could join international research consortia funded by the EU or other donors.

As with effectiveness, finding sustainable solutions for supporting R&I for development
in partner countries will thus require a much more concerted and strategically thought
through approach, which DG DEVCO and DG RTD could be a part of, but is likely to
also require wider partnerships.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

87

8 Conclusions

Four
clusters of
conclusions.

The conclusions are grouped under four headings:

1. Policy and strategic focus: conclusions 1 to 4.

2. Operational approach: conclusions 5 to 7.

3. Complementarity with other EU services: conclusions 8 and 9.

4. Results: conclusions 10 to 13.

8.1 Policy and strategic focus

8.1.1 Conclusion 1: DEVCO’s sectoral approach to R&I has been effective but has limitations

DG DEVCO’s sectoral approach to support R&I has been broadly effective within the parame-
ters set for each sector. However, this approach limits DEVCO’s ability to have a major impact
on  the  use  of R&I  as  a  tool  to  foster  development  and  economic  transformation  in  a  world
characterised by increasingly rapid scientific and technological change.

DG DEVCO’s support to R&I for development was conducted in a dispersed manner as part of indi-
vidual sectoral programmes and the regional pan-African programme under the JAES. While this was
valuable at sector level it has not created a wider momentum that could have a more strategic impact
on  establishing  conducive  environments  and  a  stronger  overall  drive  for  promoting  R&I. As  a  result,
the  economic  transformation  that  would  result  from  a  clear  overall  commitment  to  R&I  for  develop-
ment, including support to national innovation systems as well as sectoral work, was not achieved.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 1.

DG DEVCO’s support to R&I for development has been conducted at a sector level. This has general-
ly  worked  well  and  in  each  sector  examined  a  more  or  less  effective  strategy  was  developed  that
aligned well with EU development policy objectives. The scale of funding from one sector to another,
however, varied considerably with FSNA accounting for 45% of the total identified.

Of  the  four  sectors  examined,  FSNA  was  found  to  be  the  one  with  the  best  developed,  and  indeed
widely respected, policy on agricultural research for development (AR4D) with a consensus on strate-
gy that encompasses not just the Commission but also EU Member States. In Health, there was also a
wider  European  consensus  around  the  WHO  Global  Agenda  which  has  been  the  prime  basis  of
DEVCO  support  for  R&I  in  this  sector.  In  EnvCC,  the  approach  revolved  more  around  EU  designed
programmes (e.g. GCCA, SWITCH-Asia), and in SISS the emphasis has been on support to regional
bodies (e.g. ACP and AU/pan-African JAES) interested in developing science and technology and on
the building up of regional ICT infrastructure.

However,  what  does  not  emerge  from  the  evidence  is  any  strong  commitment  to  supporting  R&I  or
S&T in a systematic way in partner countries, despite the growing importance these have for econom-
ic transformation at a time when scientific and technological change is occurring rapidly and develop-
ing countries are in increasing danger of being left behind (see following Text Box).

Box 17

The importance of S&T for development

The World Bank has regularly argued that S&T policies are important for development and with the rapid pace of
advancement of scientific knowledge, this is becoming ever more true. Most developing countries are ill-prepared
for the rate of change in S&T which places them at a serious disadvantage in development terms.29 The Bank has
also advocated building up what it calls the four pillars of the knowledge economy: (i) the policy and institutional

29 Watson R, M Crawford and S Farley, Strategic Approaches to Science and Technology in Development, World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3026, Washington DC, April 2003

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

88

framework, (ii) innovation systems, (iii) education and lifelong learning, and (iv) information technology infrastruc-
ture and electronic development.30
The Bank’s Guide for developing countries on Innovation Policy31 takes this further and stresses the importance
of technological innovation for developing countries and their need to tap into fast changing technologies in fields
such as IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology. This can be supported by appropriate government policy. “Innova-
tion depends significantly on overall conditions in the economy, governance, education and infrastructure. Such
framework  conditions  are  particularly  problematic  in  developing  countries,  but  experience  shows  not  only  that
proactive innovation policies are possible and effective but also that they help create an environment for broader
reforms.” The Guide emphasises the value of ‘innovation systems’ involving multiple private and public actors and
outlines the role of governments in facilitating them, by:


Supporting innovators through appropriate incentives and mechanisms;





Removing obstacles to innovative industries;

Establishing responsive research structures:

Forming a creative and receptive population through appropriate educational systems.


The innovation systems approach is also seen by researchers at UNU-MERIT32 as a valuable tool to explain the
reasons behind varying economic performance in developing countries. OECD33 notes on innovation also outline
a similar list of five key areas for government action:
1. Effective skills strategies;
2. Sound, open and competitive business environment;
3. Sustained public investment in an efficient system of knowledge creation and diffusion;
4.
5. Sound governance and implementation.
The UNCTAD Technology and Innovation Report34 underlines the importance of innovation policies for industrial
development in developing countries.

Increased access and participation in the digital economy;

8.1.2 Conclusion 2: R&I contribution to EU development objectives is poorly understood

The  lack  of  a  clear  overall  strategy  (beyond  sector  strategies)  for  DEVCO  support to  R&I  for
development  means  the  valuable  role  this  support  plays  in  achieving  EU  development  objec-
tives is poorly understood and not recognised.

As a result of the lack of a clear overall strategic approach in DG DEVCO’s support to R&I, the exten-
sive and often well-targeted support DG DEVCO provided to R&I within individual sectors was hidden,
poorly understood and not widely recognised, neither internally nor externally. Internally, this has un-
dermined the ability of staff to work together in a coordinated fashion that can achieve higher impact.
Externally, a lack of recognition of DEVCO as a major actor in R&I is likely to weaken demand from
partners.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 1.

While  DG  DEVCO  acknowledged  the  potential  contribution  of  R&I to  development  and  the  achieve-
ment of the MDGs and there was recognition that it  had a different role to  play than DG RTD, there
was no clearly formulated strategy or policy statement recognised across the DG or by other DGs. As
a result, the importance attached to R&I has varied both by sector and by country or region. In addi-
tion, the guidance of the Agenda for Change for EU support to focus on two or three sectors per coun-
try militated against support to R&I as the latter was hardly ever seen as a priority ‘sector’ in its own
right. As a consequence, much of DG DEVCO’s support to R&I was below the radar, hidden in sec-
toral support  programmes where  its true extent  and  value  was neither recognised nor capitalised on
more widely.

30 Goel VK, E Koryukin, M Bhatia and P Agarwal, Innovation Systems: World Bank Support of Science and Tech-
nology Development, World Bank Working Paper 32, 2004
31 World Bank, Innovation Policy: Guide for developing countries, Washington DC, 2010
32 Lizuka,  Michiko, Innovation systems  framework:  still  useful  in  the  new  global context?, UNU-MERIT Working
Paper Series 2013-005, Maastricht, 2013
33 OECD, The innovation imperative: Contributing to productivity, Growth and Wellbeing, STI Policy Note, October
2015
34 UNCTAD, Technology  and  Innovation  Report  2015:  Fostering  Innovation  Policies  for  Industrial  Development,
UN, Geneva, 2015

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

89

In various places and contexts, DG DEVCO policy documents and officials spelt out the link between
R&I and the development objectives in clear and convincing terms. The overall picture of the approach
that  could  be  built  up  from  these  statements  was  logical  and  coherent  (see  IL  diagram  in Figure 2).
What  was  lacking,  however,  was  a  single  statement  of  intent  on  R&I  for  development  and  a  clearly
articulated commitment to its implementation. The Commission-wide policy statements on R&I that did
exist  spelt  out  the  role  of  DG  RTD  and  did  not  distinguish  a  particular  complementary  role  for  DG
DEVCO support to R&I for development.

8.1.3 Conclusion 3: Possible pillars for a structured strategy

Despite  the  lack  of  an  overall  policy  and  strategy,  many  of  the  individual  projects  with  R&I
components supported by DEVCO showed potential as examples of good practice on which to
build  a  wider  structured  strategy  that  can  also  be  adapted  to  the  varying  circumstances  of
countries at different stages of development.

DEVCO funded projects showed a wide variety of effective practices in support of R&I. These include,
inter alia, examples related to supporting research networks for knowledge exchange and capacity de-
velopment,  encouraging  innovation  uptake  in  the  private  sector,  developing  institutional  capacity,
providing  infrastructure  for  research,  as  well  as  funding  actual  research  and  supporting  the  establish-
ment  of  national  innovation  systems.  The  manner  in  which  these approaches  are  deployed  and  com-
bined vary by sector and by level (global, regional, national) according to the availability of appropriate
partners  (see  Conclusion  4)  and  by  the  level  of  development  reached  in  each  country.  Lessons  from
experience at the national level provide solid building blocks from which to derive a typology of differen-
tiated approaches for R&I support in different circumstances (see Recommendation 2).

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2, 5 and 6.

Among  the  initiatives  funded  by DEVCO  a  number  stand  out  as  providing  examples  of  good  practice
that can be a replicated or provide a source for inspiration in future support to R&I and should be inte-
grated in future strategies.

1. Research networks such as ASARECA (see Box 6 in Section 6.2.4) provided researchers with use-
ful support for knowledge exchange and capacity development. A number of supported projects al-
so included a networking element (see SWITCH-Asia or the MESA project under the JAES – Box
14 and Box 5 in  Sections 6.5.1 and 6.1.2 respectively)  which  produced  useful  exchanges  among
researchers and with other stakeholders

2. Encouraging innovation uptake in the private sector was not extensively represented in the sample
of projects studied. However a few examples did stand out: (i) The European Business Technology
Centre in India or EBTC (see India Country Note, Volume 4, Box 2) which facilitates the introduction
and adaptation of technologies in use in Europe to the Indian market; (ii) the PASRI project in Tuni-
sia (Box 12 in Section 6.5.1) which sought to encourage innovation in the private sector by encour-
aging  the  academic  community  to  research  into  the  needs of  industry;  and  (iii)  the  SWITCH-Asia
programme (Box 11 in Section 6.5.1) which sponsored the introduction of innovative green technol-
ogies to the private sector (see also India and Vietnam Country Notes in Volume 4).

3. Developing  institutional  capacity:  In  South  Africa,  DEVCO  has  supported  the  government’s  De-
partment of Science and Technology (DST) (Box 7 in Section 6.3.1) to develop its capacity to sup-
port R&I in the country. Similarly, in Tunisia the DEVCO funded PASRI programme (Box 12 in Sec-
tion 6.5.1) has helped the government develop a national S&T policy.

4. Providing  infrastructure  for  research:  One  of  the  major  areas  of  DEVCO  support  in  collaboration
with  DG  CONNECT  has  been  to  fund  the  establishment  of  high-speed  internet  networks  for  data
and knowledge exchange between researchers in different regions (e.g. TEIN, @lis, ACP Connect).

5. Funding  actual  research: While  much  of  DEVCO  support  has  been  for  capacity  development  the
DG also responded to the dearth of research finance in developing countries by funding actual re-
search through different routes. For instance, this occurred as part of sectoral support programmes

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

90

(e.g. Coffee Improvement Programme in Ethiopia – Box 15 in Section 6.5.4) or through global re-
search organisations such as CGIAR (Box 8 in Section 6.3.2) or even by helping regional organisa-
tions such as the AU to establish the Africa Research Grants programme (Box 5 in Section 6.1.2 on
JAES). Equally, DEVCO has worked with RTD to help design a dedicated research call, the FP7 Af-
rica Call which was widely welcomed in Africa. RTD has also done dedicated Calls for other devel-
oping countries such as the India FP7 Co-ordinated Calls, but usually its FP7 calls were global in
nature which means they tended to be less relevant for developing country needs and competition
is global.

6. Supporting  the  establishment  of  national  innovation  systems.  The  importance  for  development  of
establishing such systems has regularly been spelt out by the World Bank and others (see Box 17
above).  The  value  of  these  systems  was  noted  in  a  few  cases  where  DEVCO  support  has  been
provided to efforts to promote such initiatives (e.g. DST, South Africa and the PASRI programme in
Tunisia – Box 7 and Box 12 in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.5.1 respectively). Equally, the lack of such con-
ducive environments for R&I was sorely felt in other countries (e.g. Burkina Faso Country Note) vis-
ited. Where opportunities exist and partner country  governments are  interested, this is  an  area  of
major potential for DEVCO support to R&I.

8.1.4 Conclusion 4: Partnerships at different geographic levels are effective

Well-chosen partnerships at different geographical levels have allowed DG DEVCO to support
different types of effective R&I initiatives.

DG  DEVCO  has  effectively  supported  R&I  actors  at  multiple  levels – global,  regional  and  national.
While practice varies somewhat from sector to sector, some commonalities emerge. Thus, each level
has its own value and logic, and, where opportunities in terms of effective partnerships exist, all three
can be usefully combined to provide a range of specific types of support within an overall strategy.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2, 3 and 6.

DEVCO worked at all three geographical levels – global, regional and national – with varying degrees
of effectiveness depending on the opportunities and partnerships available. The alignment of the DG
DEVCO  support  with  identified  R&I  needs  has  been  good  at  the  global  and  regional  levels  though
more variable at national level (EQ 2).

At  the  global  level,  the  EU  has  been  an  active  participant  and  strong  supporter  of  international  fora
that identify priorities and conduct research (e.g. WHO in the health sector, CGIAR/GFAR for agricul-
ture).  Involvement  in  policy  dialogue  on  research  priorities  and  methods  has  proved  to  be  vital  for
these  partnerships  to  work  well  for  effective  R&I  for  development  (e.g. Box 8 in  Section 6.3.2 on
CGIAR). At the regional level, the EU sought to engage with and use regional partners as a vehicle for
supporting research programmes with some promising results (e.g. Box 8 in Section 6.3.2 on CGIAR),
but the extent to which this has been possible was limited by a general lack of relevant actors in differ-
ent regions.

At country level, the importance attached to R&I was found to be largely dependent on EUD capacity
(EQ 6) and whether or not the country had a clear R&I policy (EQ 2). Where partner country govern-
ments  had  a  clear  stated  policy  and interest  in  developing  R&I  this  was  occasionally,  though  not  al-
ways, taken up as a good entry point for providing EU support, sometimes even through Budget Sup-
port (EQ 3). The approach was, however, largely ad hoc, country by country, and no apparent effort
has been made to think through an overall strategy for the different types of support for R&I that part-
ner countries might need at different stages of their development. Where R&I support was framed by a
sector policy, it has tended to be invisible, though in some sectors (e.g. agriculture) it often constituted
an important element of the work the EU supported.

The lessons from these experiences do however suggest that all three levels can provide appropriate
and  useful  opportunities  for  specific  types  support  of  R&I  for  development. These  lessons  can  be
characterised as follows:

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

91



Partnerships with global organisations such as the CGIAR in FSNA and the WHO in Health have
given the EU the opportunity to effectively influence and support global research agendas tackling
global challenges in these areas. While global in design, these programmes also contribute to R&I
results that impact on development outcomes at the national and even local levels.

 Working  with regional organisations  such  as  the  African  Union (JAES)  has  allowed  DEVCO  to
support initiatives that build up the R&I ‘infrastructure’ (strategies, funding for research, access to
data and physical ICT infrastructure) across multiple countries, helping both regional organisations
and  governments.  The  regional  level  has  also  been  very  important  in  terms  of  encouraging
knowledge exchange, learning and capacity development through support to regional networks of
researchers such as ASARECA in FSNA or around the DEVCO’s own regional initiatives such as
SWITCH-Asia in the EnvCC sector. In due course these networks provide the building blocks for
future participation in wider international networks and consortia.



Finally, national level  partnerships  have  been  more  about  support  to  individual  R&I  projects  and
sector programmes. But equally and very significantly, as a couple of examples show (PASRI Tu-
nisia, DST South Africa), action at this level can be about supporting government initiatives to es-
tablish national frameworks for R&I with elements such as a well formulated S&T policy, a condu-
cive  regulatory  framework for  R&I  and  a  national  innovation  system  that  brings  together  govern-
ment, research and private sector actors in a common endeavour to encourage collaborative work
and mutual cross-fertilisation.

8.2 Operational approach

8.2.1 Conclusion 5: Main elements of support to R&I need to be supplemented

The  basic  logic  of  DG  DEVCO’s  support  to  R&I  is  similar  from  one  sector  to  another  and  is
generally solid, but it has not been deployed in a consistent fashion and could be further de-
veloped.

The overall logic to DG DEVCO’s sectoral support to R&I for development is generally solid and con-
sists of five principal elements: support to networks, capacity building, careful selection of partner insti-
tutions at different levels, policy dialogue and some actual funding of research. However, the capitali-
sation of results (covered in Conclusion 12) is not well catered for and little attention has been paid to
establishing  national  or  regional  environments  that  are  conducive  to R&I  or  specific  innovation  sys-
tems  (Conclusion  11). Moreover,  the  package  has  not  been  deployed  in  a  consistent  or  even  well-
argued manner, but has rather been used as a menu of elements to be drawn on in a piecemeal fash-
ion.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2 and 3.

Many examples of all these five inputs, which are all reflected in the reconstructed intervention logic,
were found and were regularly present in different programmes. The one item of the intervention logic
that  is  largely missing, however, is the promotion of  innovation, societal uptake and use of research
results. The five inputs can thus be seen to constitute the basic features of a DG DEVCO approach to
R&I for development. However, they were not all used everywhere and the evaluation could not identi-
fy convincing arguments why certain elements were present in some cases and not others. Their use
therefore seems opportunistic, ad hoc, and personality-driven and there is little sense that this pack-
age  was seen  as  whole to be strategically deployed  and systematically  adapted to  each situation  or
set of circumstances.

1. Support to networks: The mainstreaming in all DG DEVCO R&I actions of support to networking
and  international  scientific  networks  was  found  to  be  one  of  the  most  valuable  contributions  of
support to R&I (EQ 2). The practice of support to networking was also found in cases of DG RTD
support and the networking between DG DEVCO and DG RTD supported research projects often
intermeshed.  Networks  provided  a  framework  on  which  to  build  Research  and  Innovation  efforts
by underpinning capacity building, knowledge and data exchange, collaborative work and dissem-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

ination of results.

92

2. Capacity  Building: Support  to  capacity  building  was  interpreted  in  a  broad  manner  and  provided
for individual and institutional development, the latter both at the level of individual research organ-
isations and at the national/regional institutional levels.

a) One  effect  of  supporting  networks  was  to  build  individual-level  capacity  though  this  also
tended to create the basis for effective institutional collaborations necessary for future re-
search. Extensive and growing use has been made of Erasmus Mundus and other mobili-
ty  programmes  to  develop  research  capacity  (doctoral  and  post-doc  levels).  Although
these  essentially  supported  individual  capacity  building  rather  than  that  of  institutions,
down the line these individual grants played a significant role because it was often through
them that partner country researchers were first integrated into international networks and
research consortia that would later be important for future R&I development.

b) Although DG DEVCO did provide some support for institutional capacity building, the sim-
ple hypothetical model whereby DG DEVCO would finance the institutional strengthening
of  research  organisations  with  the  result  that  there  would  be  greater  participation  in  DG
RTD’s FP7 was found to be too simplistic (EQs 2 and 4). Two main reasons for this were
identified.  First,  the  level  of  excellence  in  both  science  and  research  management  re-
quired  to  take  the  lead  in  FP7  (now  Horizon  2020)  or  other  international  consortia  suc-
cessfully  is very  high.  Years of sustained, predictable  institutional support  would  be nec-
essary to bring most institutions in poorer countries up to this level. But DG DEVCO’s mo-
dalities and systems are not well suited to provide such long-term support (EQ 3). Equally,
the  evaluation  found  no  concerted  or  coordinated  approach  to  promote  FP7,  although
some efforts have been made to do so in a few instances and networks supported turned
out to be particularly helpful for this (EQ 6 and EQ 2). Second, even in better-off Low and
Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) where institutions are capable, or close to it, of leading
international research consortia, the heavy administrative management responsibilities of
FP7 reduced its attractiveness (EQ 2); so too, for institutions without a solid track record,
does  the  relatively  high  risk  of  being  turned  down  after  investing  considerable  efforts.
However, FP7 funding has been recognised by project holders as valuable for internation-
al  research  collaboration,  capacity  building,  institutional  development  (EQ  2)  and  as  a
source of research results and data. All in all, the evaluation found a strong incentive for
partner country  institutions to ‘free-ride’ off the management capacity of major European
universities and there is quite some way to go therefore to build up institutional capacity of
developing country ROs to the point where they would easily take on the leadership of DG
RTD framework programme projects.

c)

In certain cases DG DEVCO support to institutional capacity building went beyond individ-
ual ROs to work on establishing more conducive environments for research. Thus, a few
programmes  focused  on  supporting  the  development  of  national  or  regional  policy  and
regulatory frameworks. Some even took this to the level of supporting the development of
a national system of innovation. Where partner governments were open to such collabora-
tion,  this  support  proved  an  extremely  promising  approach.  DG  DEVCO also  enhanced
the physical working environment for R&I by supporting infrastructure development for in-
stance  with extensive funding of high-speed regional internet networks for the exchange
of data and knowledge for research.

3. Suitable partners: DG DEVCO worked with a wide range of partners on R&I at national, regional
and  global  levels.  These  included  universities,  research  institutes,  government  departments,
NGOs, private sector organisations and aid agencies as well as regional and global organisations
such as the ACP Group, the AU Commission, CGIAR and WHO. Overall, the  choice of partners
was  well  reasoned  and  appropriate  (see  Conclusion  3)  in  each  case  and  adequate  steps  were
taken  to  make  the  selection.  The  evaluation  found  no  systematic  efforts  to  choose  one  type  of
partner  or  another,  nor  did  one  type  emerge  as  particularly  appropriate  overall.  That  said  some
partners,  depending  on  their  capacities,  had  difficulties  with  some  of  the  modalities  and  proce-

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

93

dures used by the Commission (see below). In sum, DG DEVCO was open to supporting research
wherever it was being done and considered all options in terms of actors, though it was not always
able to adapt its modalities to suit the capacities of partners.

4. Policy  dialogue: Considerable  emphasis  has  been  put  on  policy  dialogue  on  R&I  and,  in  many
cases sufficient resources were made available for this work at all levels, though not in countries
with  weakly  developed  R&I  infrastructure  and  institutions.  At  the  same  time  instances  of  the  EU
engaging the government in a dialogue on overall national (rather than sectoral) R&I or S&T policy
were rare. In answering EQ 6, the evaluation found that the EU has been involved in a full range
of policy dialogue processes and generally has the capacity to do this at global and regional levels
but not at national level (see Conclusion 1). As a result, the content and quality of this dialogue al-
so varied hugely. Effective regional authorities with whom to engage on R&I do not always exist.
Nor are all partner country governments in a position to  institute a national  R&I  policy  or  indeed
follow  it  through  with  clear  implementation  programmes  even  with  external  support.  However,
where they are, a few cases showed this was a valuable opening the EU could exploit, and did not
(e.g.  Ethiopia). In many cases the policy  dialogue remained at the sectoral  level and  did not ex-
pand beyond that.

5. Research  funding: While  actual  funding  of  research  is  the  core  remit  of  DG  RTD,  rather  than  of
DG DEVCO, it emerged from many interviews and examples that there is an also a strong case
for DG DEVCO to be involved in the direct funding of R&I for development. First, because actually
doing  research  and  engaging  in  innovation  processes  with  multiple  stakeholders  is  crucial  to  or-
ganisations and institutions in developing countries ‘learning-by-doing’ research for development.
Second because of the dire need for applied and operational research as a core contribution in ef-
fective development programmes. DG DEVCO financing of actual research is already occurring in
many ways through sector projects and programmes that involve an R&I element (common in the
agriculture sector), through funding the internationally negotiated research programmes of global
organisations  such  as  the  WHO  and  CGIAR  and  even  through  a  couple  of  research  grant
schemes such as the ACP S&T Programme or the AU Research Grants which are run on a call for
proposals basis akin to that used by DG RTD in FP7. There is a dearth of funding for research in
many developing countries and these limited grant schemes have been welcomed locally as filling
a gap, though the longer term sustainability of these promising initiatives remains in doubt.

8.2.2 Conclusion 6: Use of instruments and modalities not strategic

The  use  of  instruments  and  modalities has  shown  little  strategic  thought  and  created  issues
regarding  flexibility  and  matching  funds  with  the  longer  cycles  required  for  research  and  for
innovations to achieve impact.

DG  DEVCO  used  its  full  range  of  instruments  and  modalities  to  fund  R&I programmes  yet  with  little
apparent strategic thought on how these might affect the conduct of research. Research and innova-
tion often follow unpredictable paths and some DEVCO modalities are not as flexible as would be de-
sirable.  Equally, R&I  often  operates in longer cycles than  are  possible  with DG  DEVCO procedures.
Sustainability is therefore a serious issue.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 3.

DG DEVCO flexibly  used  a variety of channels to support R&I including appropriate  global channels
such as WHO and CGIAR or regional channels such as the AU or the GCCA. Civil society organisa-
tions, NGOs, research organisations and universities with appropriate expertise  were  well represent-
ed.  The  matching  of  channels  to  needs  was  generally  good  and  comparative  advantage  was  taken
into account. However, the limited use of Budget Support is striking. The obvious explanation for this
(see also Conclusion 3) is that relatively few countries where Budget Support is in use have sector or
overall national R&I or S&T policies.

However, also missing was the use of Budget Support funds particularly to encourage nascent efforts
to formulate national research policies and priorities, either at the sector (e.g. Peru nutrition policy) or

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

94

national  (e.g.  South  Africa)  levels.  Such  efforts  to  establish  national  S&T  policies  and  frameworks
were found to be underway in some countries studied (e.g. South Africa, Tunisia, Peru and Ethiopia),
but the relevant EUDs were not always engaging with them (e.g. Ethiopia and initially Peru).

While considerable programme or project funding has been channelled through government entities or
international organisations which by and large are well equipped to work with EU procedures, difficul-
ties  did  arise  in  matching  the  three  to  four  year  cycles  of  EU  with  the  longer  cycles  required  for  re-
search (e.g. research on livestock typically requires a minimum of seven to ten years). Equally, build-
ing up institutional research capacity requires sustained funding over at least a decade. Sustainability
is therefore a serious issue with DG DEVCO procedures.

Moreover,  project  funding  with  Non-State  Actors  or  universities  using  calls  for  proposals  raised  a
whole  series  of  issues  for  grantees  (e.g.  high  transaction  costs,  unworkable  procedures,  costs  that
could  not  be  financed,  lack  of  sustainability)  which  meant  that  dealing  directly  with  the  Commission
was often not an attractive or viable option.

Thus overall, the full range of available instruments was used, but, judging from strategic documents
and interviews, the choices between them were largely ad hoc. Moreover not all modalities suited the
needs and constraints of beneficiaries even though they were appropriate in Commission terms.

8.2.3 Conclusion 7: Inadequate capacity

DG DEVCO capacity dedicated to R&I has been inadequate, particularly in EU Delegations.

DG DEVCO capacity dedicated to R&I has been inadequate for a domain so important for economic
development.  This  reflects  the  lack  of  strategic  priority  attached  to  it  in  DG  DEVCO.  Yet  R&I  is  im-
portant for  economic  transformation  in  all  developing  countries  and  as  countries  develop  and  move
towards LMIC status, demand for support and capacity in R&I will grow. If DEVCO wants to be part of
the response to this demand then it needs to invest in the necessary capacity.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 6.

Throughout the period under evaluation, DG DEVCO capacity for supporting R&I as a sector in its own
right  at  the  national  level  has  remained  inadequate  in  EUDs,  though  better  when  R&I  was  covered
within sectoral programmes. Experience in sectors such as FSNA demonstrate the importance of in-
vesting in R&I even in poorer countries and DG DEVCO has, by and large, responded to this with ex-
pertise  at  the  sector  rather  than  national  level.  At  HQ,  capacity  also  remained  limited  and  has  also
been organised mostly on a sectoral basis with little central capacity to guide overall strategic thinking.
Capacities  to  support  regional  and  global  policy  dialogue  and  programmes  have  been  stronger  par-
ticularly when supported from HQ by sectoral desks.

The extent of resources allocated to support R&I for development managed by DG DEVCO is hard to
ascertain  with  any  degree  of  precision.  But  over  EUR 1 billion’s  worth  of  contracts  which  included
some element of support to R&I were identified, indicating substantial support. In some sectors such
as  health  and  agriculture  the  importance  of  R&I  is  well  recognised  and  better  catered  for,  but  even
these efforts would benefit from a more concerted overall strategic approach to supporting R&I for de-
velopment.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

8.3 Complementarity with other EU services

95

8.3.1 Conclusion 8: Division of labour could be strengthened

Greater impact could be achieved by a stronger and more consistent effort by DGs DEVCO and
RTD to work together.

While there is a high-level understanding on a division of labour between DG DEVCO and DG RTD, in
practice it is only loosely respected. Both DGs do venture into the grey areas between their respective
remits  without  undue  problems  emerging  and  although  the  loose  modus  vivendi  currently  in  place
generally operated without incident, more could have been done to improve understanding, coordinate
efforts and ultimately develop a joint strategic approach. Only in a very few specific cases, where both
DGs invested in capacity, particularly in EUDs, were a higher level of co-operation and more system-
atic outcomes achieved. Such effects could be much more widespread with clear and conscious joint
policy making and implementation.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 4.

While it is often argued that DG RTD should focus on funding research and DG DEVCO on capacity
development, instances were found of DG DEVCO supporting pure research and DG RTD supporting
capacity building (specifically, scattered FP7 projects to improve countries’ ability to participate). Yet,
no instances of clear overlap between DG RTD and DG DEVCO have been found in any one place.

At  HQ  level,  there  has  been  a  reasonable  amount  of information  sharing  between  DG  RTD  and  DG
DEVCO.  For  instance  the  latter has  participated  in  the  process  of  defining  RTD  calls  for  proposals.
These exchanges appear to have been largely ad hoc, however, and not helped by the two DGs hav-
ing  very  different  missions  and  institutional  cultures.  There  is  a  fair  bit  of  mutual  incomprehension –
DG RTD not appreciating the complexity of the development process and DG DEVCO underestimat-
ing  the  development  relevance  of much  work  done  by  DG  RTD,  including  highly  applied  and  opera-
tional research. Some of this reflects not only the absence of regular co-ordination mechanisms at the
top, but also patchy capacity on both sides at the field level (EQ 6) – one element being that there are
only  few  S&T  Counsellors  in  the  field  (and  the  number  is  being  cut).  Moreover,  these  tend  to  be  in
countries where DG DEVCO support has been limited during the period under evaluation, e.g. China
and India. Few EUDs have a staff member tasked with following R&I and sector managers were often
found to be too busy with project and programme management to be able to follow R&I systematically
let  alone  systematise  the  lessons  learnt.  Consequently,  there  is  very  little  “trickle  up”  of  information,
lessons  learnt,  and  emerging  opportunities,  for  better  collaboration  on  international  development  in
either DG (EQ 5). However, the ideal conditions for DEVCO-RTD complementarity emerged in a cou-
ple of cases at the field level with (i) an S&T Counsellor present, (ii) an EUD staff member tasked with
following R&I, and (iii) a government R&I policy backed up by a strong agency (EQ 4).

DG RTD has been somewhat responsive to DG DEVCO requests and to the critique that the topics of
FP7 calls tend to be Eurocentric (EQ 4), for instance with one specific FP7 Africa Call. However, it is
clear  there  is  considerable  demand  for  more  financing  among  partner  country  researchers  and  that
inadequate  co-ordination  between  the  two  DGs  undermines  the  scope  to  further  increase  the  rele-
vance of calls for proposals (EQ 4). While capacity at DG RTD HQ has been adequate, the amount of
staff time devoted to international co-operation was found to be limited and tended to be focused on
scientific  powerhouses  like  Japan  and  the  United  States.  Within  DG  RTD  itself,  the  INCO  unit  and
thematic desks do not share common priorities.

Overall,  complementarity between  DG  DEVCO’s  support  to  R&I  and  the  work  of  other  EU  services,
institutions  and  agencies  has  been  good,  for  instance,  DG  CONNECT  being  directly  involved  in  the
implementation of the regional high speed internet networks for research data transfer, the JRC and
EUMETSAT collaborating on one of the regional projects on satellite earth observation in Africa, and
the EIB investing in one of the industrial Research and Innovation poles in Tunisia.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

8.3.2 Conclusion 9: Policy coherence for development has been well understood

96

Policy coherence for development has been well understood.

Policy coherence for development is clearly understood as an important concern in both DGs DEVCO
and RTD. Efforts have been made to promote PCD by different EU actors involved in support to R&I.
In so much as no cases of policy incoherence affecting development were identified these efforts are
meeting with some degree of success. That said, there is never room for complacency in  promoting
policy coherence as it is an on-going process.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 4.

The biennial EU PCD Reports detail various efforts made in a series of different fields where support
to  R&I  address  development  issues.  This  includes  in  climate  change,  energy,  low-carbon  technolo-
gies, food security, information society and the EU’s DG RTD framework programmes all areas where
DG DEVCO support to R&I was prominent.

On the input side DG RTD officials are well  aware  of the importance of PCD and make a concerted
effort to address coherence issues including by engaging with DG DEVCO’s PCD monitoring process.
As  always  with  PCD  measurement  of  progress  on  outcomes  is  not  straightforward.  However,  one
positive indication was that the evaluation identified no cases of work by DG RTD that was contrary to
PCD.

8.4 Results

8.4.1 Conclusion 10: Results achieved but largely ad-hoc and localised

R&I efforts supported by DG DEVCO have contributed to development outcomes but largely in
an ad-hoc and localised manner that did not promote systematic and sustainable progress on
creating conducive conditions for R&I.

DG DEVCO has supported many R&I efforts that contribute to development outcomes. Yet, the lack of
a transversal strategic framework for support or any core policy commitment to R&I means these con-
tributions  are  too  dispersed  and  ad-hoc  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  any  serious  sustainable  effect
where the full value of R&I results can be exploited and a more conducive environment for R&I is cre-
ated.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 2, 3 and 5.

Individually and at the local level many of the R&I for development projects and programmes that DG
DEVCO  has  supported  in  all  four  sectors  show  results  that  contribute  to  development  processes
(EQ 5).  Yet  the  process  of  ensuring  these  results  have  occurred  and  are  then  taken  up  by  relevant
stakeholders to be translated through into sustainable development outcomes has been largely left to
individual project holders.  Wider uptake and more sustainable development effects are therefore not
present. In practice therefore too little investment has gone into ensuring these latter stages of the up-
take process occur.

This has also been undermined by the absence of a clear core strategy for DG DEVCO support to R&I
for  development.  As  indicated  above  (Conclusions  1  and  2)  the  overall  approach  to  supporting  R&I
and capacity development for research has by and large been piecemeal without any strategic focus
or overall sense of direction. In particular no emphasis, except in a very few cases, has been put on
creating  the  institutions  for  national  innovation  systems  that  would  encourage  that  R&I  results  are
picked up and passed on to users to create sustainable development outcomes at a more aggregate
level.

That being said various efforts have been made to promote the process of achieving results and en-
couraging uptake. There has generally been consideration of routes to impact, at higher levels in pro-
ject design and in the implementation of individual projects. DG DEVCO has also taken some steps to
encourage dissemination of results with, for instance, considerable emphasis on networking so as to

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

97

encourage researchers to  share results and lessons learnt.  Some institutional  and infrastructural  de-
velopment support has also been provided. One important contribution to this has been DG DEVCO’s
support  to  knowledge  and  data  exchange  infrastructure,  (e.g.  high-speed  internet),  which  promotes
networking (EQ 2), with positive implications for dissemination of results and for sustainability.

DG RTD’s FP7 projects have also included developing country researchers thereby integrating them
into  international  networks  that  keep  them  on  the  cutting  edge  of  scientific  progress  and  help  them
share knowledge and results. Developing country partners in FP7 projects were also regularly found to
have taken steps to ensure that results would be disseminated to policy makers.

Institutional development has also been hampered by inadequate resources particularly in the poorest
countries visited for field missions. Neither DG DEVCO nor DG RTD is individually in a strong position
to ensure sustainability of support and tackle the longer-term funding needs of research organisations
and  institutions  in  partner  country  where  Research  and  Innovation  funding  is  limited  or  non-existent.
Interest in R&I at DG DEVCO is variable at every level (EQ 2) and DG DEVCO’s instruments are not
suited to giving the long-term support necessary to supporting research institutions (EQ 3). On the DG
RTD side, FP7’s call for proposals cycles are also not well suited to promoting sustainability. The ex-
tent to which partner country institutions have been strengthened to a level that they can reliably par-
ticipate in European projects has thus generally remained limited. In many developing countries there
remains a long path ahead to build sustainable high-quality capacity for R&I.

8.4.2 Conclusion 11: Societal uptake of results has been limited

Innovation and societal uptake of R&I results from DG DEVCO support have been scarce due
to inadequate investment in national institutional frameworks for innovation.

DG DEVCO has largely failed to ensure wide-spread innovation and societal uptake of R&I results in a
systematic fashion. While recognizing the importance of supporting learning and dissemination at the
individual  programme  or  even  sector  level,  it  has rarely  felt  able to  support  national  institutional
frameworks for innovation. This has meant that the impact of this R&I work has often been limited be-
cause  the  institutional  environment  is  not  conducive  to  encouraging  societal  uptake  of  the  results
achieved.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 5.

The transfer of R&I results to end users has worked better in countries where national innovation sys-
tems  are  well  developed  and  where  advisory  services,  financial  institutions,  private  companies,  user
organisations  and  government  policymakers  work  together  to  drive  wide-spread  innovation.  For  in-
stance in sectors such as agriculture the transfer of results of R&I to end users has clearly worked bet-
ter because research and extension work on new technologies is very much part of a well-developed
best  practice  organised  around  government  or  non-government  extension  services.  Equally,  in  the
health  sector  new  drugs  and  other  innovations  are  continually  being  fed  into  public  health  care  sys-
tems. However, in other areas such as innovations for Environment or Climate Change or new tech-
nology for industrial production, the transfer of results from DEVCO-funded R&I projects was found to
be much more tentative and ad-hoc.

Thus while, overall, project design generally took transfer issues into account in a limited fashion, of-
ten considerably more resources would have been needed to create stronger effects. Networking has
clearly  been an  important  vehicle for sharing results  and  learning  with other researchers and  institu-
tional users and as such a valuable component of many EU supported R&I projects.

In a very few instances, such as the PASRI project in Tunisia, DG DEVCO has however engaged with
the government, researchers and end users, including the private sector, to support the development
of a national system for innovation. This work in Tunisia is far from complete but it shows promising
signs  of  a  much more  systemic  approach  to  helping  to  build  a  conducive  environment  for  Research
and Innovation.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

Box 18

Supporting innovation and the private sector

98

“Innovation should be understood as the dissemination of something new in a given context, not as
something new in absolute terms.”35
If innovation is seen as societal uptake the link between researchers and the private sector where a new idea can
be scaled up through commercialisation (see Box 13 in Section 6.5.1) is vital. Although this did not emerge as a
major achievement of DEVCO’s R&I, a variety of projects reviewed in the evaluation do good examples of how
this can be done that can be built on in the future.
The Coffee Improvement Programme in Ethiopia (see Box 15 in Section 6.5.4), for instance, provides an example
of dissemination among farmers. In the industrial sector both EBTC in India (see Volume 4, Box 2) and several of
the  SWITCH-Asia  projects (see Box 11 in  Section 6.5.1)  are  examples  of  researchers  from  academic  and  civil
society settings working with SMEs to test existing technologies and see how they can be adapted to local market
conditions so as to permit scaling up. The PASRI project in Tunisia (see Box 12 in Section 6.5.1) went a step fur-
ther with its MOBIDOC scheme to facilitate researchers working in commercial firms. It also sought to train private
sector actors in ways of encouraging innovation inside their companies.

8.4.3 Conclusion 12: Capitalisation of results has been inadequate

R&I results have not been capitalised on and hence their potential impact has not reached be-
yond the specific programmes or immediate researcher networks involved.

DG DEVCO has made no real effort to systematise and capitalise on the results of the R&I it has sup-
ported. Research results are therefore by and large  used  in  the programmes where they  have  been
developed or used in the  immediate networks of the  researchers involved rather than shared further
afield. Grantees have not been supported in taking these results further to wider audiences or in get-
ting them included in widely accessible repositories where they can be used by others.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQ 5.

The  evaluation  found  a  virtual complete  lack  of  support  to  this  ‘capitalisation’  (from  French),  or  ‘sys-
tematisation’  (from  Spanish)  work,  that  is  systematic  documentation  of  project/programme  activities,
experiences and the results produced so that these can be analysed and shared with others, lessons
can be learned and consequently practice may be improved. This issue is clearly not a priority for DG
DEVCO, not even during evaluations and project  budgets frequently did not allow such expenditure.
Some examples were, however, found of EUD staff who took the initiative to mobilise additional funds
for this purpose or researchers themselves raised complementary funds from other sources including
from non-EU donors.

8.4.4 Conclusion 13: DEVCO’s is not seen as an agent of R&I for development

DG  DEVCO  is  not  perceived  as  an  agent  for  R&I  for  development,  and  few  efforts  have  been
made to create such an image for improved visibility.

The overall visibility of DG DEVCO’s support to R&I for development is minimal, the exception being in
some particular projects and programmes or international fora where DG DEVCO funds represent an
important share of the funding. This would seem largely due to a lack of clear policy commitment and
framework to support R&I for development. In particular, DG DEVCO is not perceived as an agent for
R&I for development and no real efforts have been made to create and enhance such an image. This,
in turn, affects the level of demand from potential future partners.

This conclusion is based mainly on EQs 5 and 6.

The EU has been extensively involved, and visible, in policy dialogue related to R&I (EQ 6), but more
consistently at global and regional level than at national level, where in many countries either R&I is a
low government priority or EU capacity is lacking. EU visibility was, to some extent, hampered by the
fact  that  there  have  been  no  concerted  and  coordinated  efforts  devoted  to  promoting  developing-

35 World Bank, Innovation Policy: Guide for developing countries, Washington DC, 2010, p. 2.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

99

country participation in FP7 despite a few scattered interventions.

DG  DEVCO  has  taken  some  steps  to  encourage  researchers  to  disseminate  of  results,  but  this  has
not been a major preoccupation (see Conclusion 11 and 12). At the same time, the scientific incentive
system  also  ensures  this  happens  on  its  own  to  some  extent  as  researchers  are  keen  to  advertise
their own work. Visibility has also been increased by the success of networking activities. There is also
an issue of whether DG DEVCO can or even should have a separate and distinct image from DG RTD
in R&I if the EU policy is promote a unified image.

Internal visibility of R&I in the Commission is often low because of insufficient internal sharing of les-
sons learned and success stories. This is a widespread problem in DG DEVCO but is particularly wor-
rying in R&I where the objective is precisely to develop knowledge and encourage innovation. In con-
trast, on the DG RTD side, FP7 projects studied had usually taken steps to encourage outreach and
the inclusion of policymakers.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

9 Recommendations

100

Four  sets  of
recommen-
dations 
strengthen
EU support.

to

Following on  from  the  Conclusions  a  number  of  recommendations  can  be  proposed
under the same headings:

 Policy and strategic focus: recommendations 1 and 2;

 Operational approach: recommendations 3 to 5;

 Complementarity with other EU services: recommendations 6 and 7;

 Results: recommendations 8 to 11.

The linkages between EQs (findings), conclusions and recommendations are illustrat-
ed in the following figure.

Figure 14

Major links between EQs, conclusions and recommendations

EQ1 Development policy
objectives

EQ2 Impact on partner country
research communities

EQ3 Instruments and modalities

EQ4 DEVCO-RTD complementarity
and coherence

EQ5 Transfer of R&I results into
development processes

C1 EU sectoral approach

C2 EU contribution to
development objectives

C3 Pillars of a structured
strategy

C4 Partnerships

C5 Elements of the support
logic

C6 Instruments & modalities

C7 EU capacities

C8 Division of labour DEVCO-
RTD

C9 Policy coherence for
development

C10 Achievement of results

EQ6 EU capacities

C11 Uptake of results

C12 Capitalisation of results

C13 EU visibility

Source: Particip

R1 Strategic approach for
R&I institutional frameworks
R2 Varied national level
strategy

R3 Seven elements of EU
support

R4 Suitable instruments and
modalities
R5 Adequate human
resource capacities

R6 Explicit division of labour
DEVCO-RTD

R7 Maintain commitment to
PCD

R8 Systematic steps to
foster results

R9 Strategy for transfer of
results

R10 Support capitalisation
of results

R11 Build a visibility strategy

&
y
c
i
l

o
P

s
u
c
o
f

c
i
g
e
t
a
r
t
s

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
O

h
c
a
o
r
p
p
a

-
a
t
n
e
m
e
p
m
o
C

l

r
e
h
t
o
h
t
i

w
y
t
i
r

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
U
E

s
t
l
u
s
e
R

Prioritising
recommen-
dations.

The table below provides an overview of the level of priority in terms of importance of
the recommendations and the urgency of their realisation. The first recommendation is
key  as  one  of  the  main  conclusions  of  the evaluation  is  the  need  for  a  clear  DG
DEVCO strategy to support R&I for development. Implementation of the other recom-
mendations is to some extent dependent on this strategy. Formulating such a strategy
will take time however. In the meantime, it should be possible to proceed with a num-
ber of the other recommendations as indicated below. This information is also provided
schematically in the figure below. Addressing these priorities requires actions by differ-
ent  actors.  Therefore,  each  recommendation  includes  suggestions  for  operational
steps to put it into practice, and proposes implementation responsibilities.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

 
 
 
 
101

Table 6

Prioritisation of recommendations

No.

Issue

Importance*

Urgency*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Formulate a strategic approach

National level strategies should be adapted to levels of
development

DG DEVCO support should focus on seven principal
elements

Employ instruments and modalities that are suited to
the actors chosen and the needs of R&I

Ensure adequate human resource capacities for sup-
port R&I

Consolidate and implement an explicit division of la-
bour with DG RTD

Maintain the political and practical commitment to pro-
moting PCD

Take more deliberate and systematic steps to foster
results

9 Develop a clear strategy for the transfer of results

10 Provide explicit support to the capitalisation of results

11

Build a visibility strategy on a stated commitment to
R&I

* 1 = low, 4 = high

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

3

4

4

2

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Figure 15

Prioritisation of recommendations, schematic overview

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

9.1 Policy and strategy focus

102

9.1.1 Recommendation 1: Formulate a strategic approach with a focus on establishing insti-

tutional frameworks for R&I

Considering  the  rapid  pace  of  change  of  science,  technology  and  innovation  and  its  importance  for
economic transformation DG DEVCO should formulate its own R&I for development policy within the
overall  EU  policy  on  international  co-operation  in  R&I  and also better  implement  a  division  of  labour
with DG RTD. This should be clearly set in the context of the overall contribution of R&I to sustainable
development and the achievement of the SDGs. The strategy should draw on DEVCO’s past experi-
ence of the last decade of support to R&I in different sectors and in particular the positive lessons from
working  at  different  geographical  levels  (global,  regional  and  national).  While  at  the  global  level  the
strategy should continue to support research agendas on global challenges, a key focus for the strate-
gy  should  be  on  establishing  institutional  frameworks  for  R&I  at  regional  and  national  levels.  At  the
national  level,  this  should  involve  a  differentiated  approach  providing  different  types  of  support  for
partner countries at different stages of development (see also Recommendation 2).

This recommendation is linked to Conclusions 1 to 4 related to policy and strategic focus.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG RTD, EEAS

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 Having formulated such a policy, DG DEVCO should state it clearly in a Commission Communica-
tion. This will require discussions with DG RTD (and EEAS, in the context of science diplomacy)
and must include specific commitments to implementing the generally agreed division of labour. A
Staff Working Paper with a more detailed strategy should also be prepared.





Building on past experience the strategy should include work at all three geographic levels (global,
regional and national). At the global level, the objective should be to support international research
agendas related to global challenges in relevant sectors.

The strategic focus of the DG DEVCO contribution should be to assist regional authorities and na-
tional  governments  to  develop  appropriate  regional  and  national  R&I  strategies  and  institutional
frameworks to support their development processes and plans.

 While sectoral R&I strategies will be important elements of these regional and national strategies,
the focus should be on establishing overall regional and national institutional frameworks for R&I.
The national level approach is developed further in the next recommendation.

9.1.2 Recommendation  2:  At  national  level,  develop  a  strategy  for  R&I  that  adapts  the  sup-

port provided to the needs and level of development of partner countries

For supporting partner countries at the national level, DG DEVCO should develop a strategy for R&I
that differentiates between partner countries at various stages of development and provides adapted
support, based on the examples of positive experiences with supported projects reviewed in this eval-
uation.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 3 on the strategic approach.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, EEAS, DG RTD

The implementation of this recommendation would involve drafting a strategy around a range of posi-
tive past experiences of supported projects which provide a basis for a rough typology of three stages
of different types of support for more or less developed countries ranging from:

1. Laying the foundations with poorer countries (individual capacity development, institutional devel-
opment with sectoral research institutes and government support to R&I) and funding to sectoral
R&I; then moving on to

2. Building  up  the  infrastructure  with  somewhat  advanced  countries  (targeted  individual  capacity

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

103

linked to ROs, developing a national S&T policy, building up national innovation systems and fund-
ing of research through national agencies such as research councils); to lastly

3. Supporting international co-operation in R&I where DGs RTD and DEVCO would work more jointly

but DEVCO would still have a clear complementary role.

More detail is provided in the following table.

Table 7

A varied strategy adapted to different needs and levels of development

Type of partner
country

R&I Strategy Components

Poor developing
countries

Laying the Foundations for R&I:


Individual capacity building for researchers;









Institutional development with sectoral research institutes;

Funding of R&I as part of sector support programmes;

Policy dialogue with governments on extending support to R&I;

EUDs designate a person with responsibility for identifying opportunities to support
R&I.

More advanced de-
veloping countries

Building up the Infrastructure for R&I:


Targeted individual capacity development linked to research organisations;











Developing a national S&T policy;

Establishing national innovation systems and institutional framework;

Funding of research through national agencies such as research councils;

Develop support to capitalisation with DG RTD;

EUD person with responsibility for R&I policy dialogue with government.

Supporting International co-operation in R&I:


DEVCO support for institutional capacity development;











Encouraging uptake of DG RTD calls;

Further support to national S&T policy development;

Strengthening national innovation systems and support to capitalisation;

Close DEVCO-RTD co-operation and joint programming;

EUD DEVCO staff for R&I and established link with an RTD S&T Counsellor.

Graduating countries
(Fully graduated coun-
tries would normally be
the responsibility of DG
RTD)

9.2 Operational approach

9.2.1 Recommendation 3: DG DEVCO support should focus on seven principal elements

The DG DEVCO approach to R&I for development should continue to consist of the five principal ele-
ments  of  past  support  and  supplement  this  with  two  further  priorities:  (i)  support  to  networks,  (ii)  ca-
pacity development, (iii) careful selection of partner institutions, (iv) policy dialogue (v) actual funding
of research for development, (vi) the capitalisation of results and (vii) support to the establishment and
strengthening of national innovation systems:

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 5 on the support logic of DG DEVCO support.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO and EUDs

The five common elements that have been identified in past DEVCO support to R&I can continue to
be improved in parallel with the preparation of the new DG DEVCO policy on R&I. To these should be
added two further elements where past experience has not been so strong.

All seven elements can also be developed in more detail as part of the new policy. In the meantime
implementable steps include:

 Networks: Support  to  networking  should  continue  as  this  is  a  good  multi-purpose  vehicle  for
strengthening R&I. DG DEVCO should strengthen its ties with major regional and global research
institutions in thematic areas, which will have implications for HQ capacity.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

104

 Capacity development should continue at various appropriate levels: individual, institutional (both
in ROs and in society) and infrastructural. Individual capacity building for research should continue
to be supported through Erasmus Mundus and other mobility programmes, but the implementation
of these programmes should be coordinated with EUDs and ideally also with government R&I in-
stitutions  and  ROs  in  order  to  enable  greater  institutional  benefits.  For  institutional  development
DG  DEVCO  should  investigate  innovative  approaches – perhaps  through  Budget  Support  to  na-
tional  research  organisations  or  networks – through  which  it  can  fill  the  gap  for  long-term,  con-
sistent, predictable institution strengthening that is not being met by project support (whether from
DG DEVCO or DG RTD). DG DEVCO should continue to assess needs and support where nec-
essary the data, information and infrastructure needs for R&I.







Partners: DG DEVCO should continue to be open to supporting a range of actors in R&I for devel-
opment chosen in terms of their effectiveness. This should continue at all three levels – global, re-
gional  and  national – as  all  three  levels  are  effective  routes  for  supporting  R&I.  In  order  to
strengthen innovation and  take up, DG DEVCO should increase the  attention paid to  the  private
sector in partner countries. This will have implications for EUD capacity.

Policy dialogue: To further strengthen policy dialogue  at national  level on overall R&I needs and
priorities,  i.e.  in  setting  national  (or  regional)  R&I  strategies  and  institutional  frameworks,  DG
DEVCO should act in concert with DG RTD. Staff capacity at national level (EUDs) should be in-
creased  in  order  to  make  this  possible.  DG  RTD  should  reconsider  its  intention  to  reduce  the
number of S&T Counsellors and should coordinate their deployment in developing countries close-
ly with DG DEVCO and EEAS to ensure maximum synergies.

Actual funding of research: The EU should recognise the actual funding of research for develop-
ment as an important part of DG DEVCO’s remit. As partner countries develop, this remit should
continue  until such time as other national or regional  sources effectively take up the task and/or
DG RTD funding is adequately accessible for partner research communities. In the context of DG
DEVCO’s  graduation  policy  for  middle  income  countries,  the  remit  will  normally  be  transferred
from DG DEVCO to DG RTD and the DGs should work closely together to ensure a smooth transi-
tion. DG DEVCO should fund appropriate global, regional and national organisations as interme-
diaries for funding actual research (e.g. WHO, CGIAR, AUC, national research councils) in partner
countries. Where needed, the capacity and institutional development needs of these organisations
to function as effective conduits for research funding should also be supported.

 Capitalisation  of  Results (see  also  Recommendation  10  below):  The  evaluation  identified  this  as
an area that had had insufficient attention in the past and needed to be strengthened. This is also
an  area  where  closer  DEVCO  co-operation  with  RTD  and its  CORDIS research  database  would
be useful (Recommendation 6).

 National Innovation systems are widely recognised in the literature (see Box 17 under Conclusion
1) as a valuable concept for developing countries to pursue and that can be promoted by govern-
ment policy. DEVCO has some very limited experience of supporting the establishment of such a
system  in Tunisia  (see Box 12 in  Section 6.5.1 on  PASRI).  This  type  of  support  should  become
more widespread in the future wherever opportunities exist and partner countries express interest.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

105

9.2.2 Recommendation 4: Employ instruments and modalities that suit the needs of R&I

DG DEVCO should recognise that R&I needs to be built up over the longer term and should explicitly
address  sustainability  issues  in  the  support  it  offers.  It  should  examine  the  overall  strategic  thinking
about the mix of instruments and modalities it uses. In particular it should review these tools so as to
design approaches that recognise the long time frames involved in scientific research, in the research-
to-uptake pipeline, and in R&I institution strengthening.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 6 on instruments and modalities.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO and co-ordination with DG RTD

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 Where  a  strong  government  department  for  S&T  exists  DG  DEVCO  should  consider  supporting

these with Budget Support (inter alia as a way to tackle sustainability).

 Where  there  is  no  national  R&I  policy  but  there  is  government  interest,  DG  DEVCO  should  find
suitable means of supporting policy dialogue on developing such a policy to respond to R&I priori-
ties for national needs (see Box 16 on policy dialogue in South Africa and Box 12 on PASRI Tuni-
sia).

 DG DEVCO should look for modalities, including perhaps longer term programme type support to
a  national  science  council  organisation,  to  strengthen  capacity  at  research  organisations.  DG
DEVCO should recognise that in many respects R&I needs to be built up over the longer term and
should explicitly address sustainability issues in the support it offers.

 DG DEVCO should consider using project support, either stand-alone or linked to major research
efforts,  to  finance  research  administration  and  management  units  at  major  partner  country  re-
search institutions. This could  be done, for example, with the specific goal of increasing Horizon
2020 participation.

 DG DEVCO should analyse which actors have difficulties with the calls for proposals approach for
funding research and find themselves effectively excluded. They should then proactively find ways
round  this  either  by  simplifying  procedures  in  specific  cases  or  by  working  through  intermediary
organisations.

9.2.3 Recommendation 5: Ensure adequate human resource capacities for support to R&I

DG DEVCO’s commitment to R&I for development will mean little if there are no improvements in staff
capacity. At HQ, greater involvement would require more resources. In the field, R&I capacity should
also be strengthened if the EU wants to become/remain a relevant partner in this area. For DG RTD to
function adequately with regard to developing countries, staff capacity constraints also need address-
ing.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 7 on EU capacity.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG RTD, EEAS

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:



In order to engage  with R&I as an overall theme rather than as a bundle of sector priorities, DG
DEVCO HQ will need more staff assigned to handle R&I overall and not just sector staff.

 DG DEVCO and DG RTD should ensure the presence of adequate staff capacity at HQ to coordi-

nate R&I support between them and with EUDs and S&T Counsellors.



In  the  field,  at  each  EUD,  DG  DEVCO  and  EEAS  should  ensure  that  there  is  one  staff member
tasked with following the R&I sector (although this need not be a full-time position).

 DG RTD should re-evaluate current plans to reduce the number of S&T Counsellors, whose pres-
ence has been found to serve a crucial role of co-ordination between DG DEVCO and DG RTD.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

9.3 Complementarity with other EU services

106

9.3.1 Recommendation 6: Consolidate and implement an explicit division of labour with DG

RTD

DG DEVCO and DG RTD should work out a clearer division of labour between their respective roles in
international  co-operation  for  R&I  and  ensure  it  is  followed  through  at  all  levels.  In  particular  they
should coordinate more closely on the design of framework programme calls so that they also cover
developing country needs, on staffing in EUDs and on the capitalisation of results of research.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 8 on an explicit division of labour with DG RTD.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO and DG RTD

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:









Promulgating guidelines on the division of labour and ensuring that all DG DEVCO staff with R&I
responsibilities  should  have  clearly  designated  lines  of  communication  with  appropriate  counter-
parts and focal points in DG RTD.

For  each  partner  country  government,  clearly  designate  which  DG  takes  the  lead  in  policy  dia-
logue and the role of each DG in providing support.

The two DGs should systematically review proposals for DG RTD Calls for Proposals in terms of
their appropriateness for developing country R&I needs and consider how this might be improved
in a majority of Calls.

The  deployment  of  DG  RTD  S&T  Counsellors  should  be  carefully  coordinated  between  the  two
DGs,  the  EEAS  and  the  EUDs  to  ensure  maximum  synergies  are  achieved  between  their  work
and that of the EUDs in R&I both at national level and within individual focal sectors.

 DEVCO and RTD should devise common systems for the capitalisation of the results of research
so that DEVCO funded researchers can also make use of and benefit from RTD’s CORDIS sys-
tem established for storing information on RTD’s framework programme projects and their results.

9.3.2 Recommendation 7: Maintain the political and practical commitment to promoting PCD

PCD on R&I for development should continue to be a major concern for DG RTD and other EU ser-
vices and institutions supporting R&I directly or indirectly, for instance through the provision of financ-
ing  for  infrastructure  or  institutional  development.  This  is  particularly  important  in  the  new  context  of
the UN Global Goals and the value they attach to PCSD36 as a means of implementation and a vital
component of global partnership.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 9 on PCD.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG RTD, EEAS and other DGs, Secretariat General

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:



The EU should continue to use its existing tools for promoting PCD in particular: the biennial EU
PCD  report,  inter-service  consultation  processes  and  ex-ante  impact  assessments  with  R&I  for
development tackled both at a sectoral and a generic level.

 DG DEVCO should focus on increasing PCD by deepening its policy dialogue on R&I with partner

countries, focusing not on sectors, but on overall priorities and institutional needs.



At  DG  RTD  HQ,  examine  incentive  structures  which  have,  to  date,  tended  to  dampen  thematic
desk  enthusiasm  for  R&I  in  poor  countries.  Ensure  adequate  lines  of  communication  between
INCO and thematic desks.

36 PCSD: Policy coherence for sustainable development – see SDG17

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

9.4 Results

107

9.4.1 Recommendation 8: Take more deliberate and systematic steps to foster results

DG DEVCO should focus and coordinate its support to R&I more carefully so that it is more likely to
create critical mass within the national or regional context. Having a clear approach to support for na-
tional and regional R&I frameworks and support for the establishment of national innovation systems
will assist this focusing of efforts. Support for R&I inside specific sectors should continue to play a role,
but wherever possible this should be linked to the national and/or regional R&I policy context.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 10 on achieving more systemic results.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 DG DEVCO and its implementing partners should regularly review the intervention logic and theo-
ries  of  change  for  each  project or  programme  to  maximise  the  orientation  for  achieving  R&I  re-
sults.

 DG DEVCO should seek to increase the incentives for researchers with good performance on R&I

results by facilitating follow-up funding for successful projects.

 DG  RTD  should  consider  setting  up  a  system  to  reward  researchers  with  good  performance  on
R&I by explicitly taking account of their performance record on previous EU funded projects in the
award of new grants to research consortia proposals in which they are involved.

9.4.2 Recommendation 9: Develop a clear strategy for the transfer of results

DG DEVCO should develop a clear strategy for the transfer and dissemination of results and ensure it
is systematically taken up by EUDs and project implementers.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 11 on the transfer of results.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 DG DEVCO should adopt promoting innovation for development as its principal objective in sup-

porting R&I.

 DG  DEVCO  should  support  the  establishment  of  institutional  frameworks  along  the  lines  of  Sci-
ence  and  Technology  Councils  bringing  together  government,  research  institutions,  and  the  pri-
vate sector for innovation at national and regional levels.





Support  to  networking  among  research  communities  and  with  potential  users  and  stakeholders
such as the private sector should remain another important element of DEVCO’s approach to the
transfer of results.

Build on the examples of good practice of working with the private sector on innovation and social
uptake  to  be  found  in  the  PASRI-Tunisia,  SWITCH-Asia  and  EBTC-India  (see Box 2 in  Section
8.4).

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

108

9.4.3 Recommendation 10: Provide explicit support to the capitalisation of results

DG DEVCO should develop a strategy and provide explicit support for the systematisation or ’capitali-
sation’ of results of R&I. This could be done in conjunction with DG RTD and would be built around the
broader  institutional  development  that  DG  DEVCO  already  supports  (e.g.  high-speed  internet  net-
works) and further support to institutional frameworks for innovation.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 12 on the capitalisation of results.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO, DG RTD

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 DG  DEVCO  should  have  supplementary  funds  available  for  R&I  funded  projects  for  use  on  the
capitalisation  of  results  once  it  is  clear  what  the results  have  been  and  the  potential  for  use  is
clear.

 DG DEVCO should consider working establishing a system for the collection of results so that they
can be retrieved and used more systematically. This could probably be done most easily with DG
RTD using their CORDIS database.

 DG DEVCO should consider supporting projects specifically aimed at encouraging the capitalisa-
tion and use of results at the national level by funding national institutional frameworks for innova-
tion.

 DG DEVCO should maintain guidelines for EUDs on the capitalisation of R&I results.



Individual  and  institutional  capacity  building  should  include  practical  aspects  of  capacity  for  pro-
moting  the  capitalisation  and  uptake  of  research  results,  including  aspects  such  as  intellectual
property rights, raising venture capital, marketing, etc.

9.4.4 Recommendation 11: Build a visibility strategy on a stated commitment to R&I support

DG DEVCO should publically state the important role it attaches to R&I in the achievement of EU de-
velopment objectives and the UN Global Goals for sustainable development as well as the role it sees
itself  as  playing  in  promoting  R&I  for  development.  Such  a  clear  statement  will  then  also  provide  a
foundation on which to build a communication and visibility strategy.

This recommendation is linked to Conclusion 13 on the capitalisation of results.

Main implementation responsibility: DG DEVCO and supported by DG RTD and EEAS

The implementation of this recommendation would involve:

 Once a clear statement of intent has been agreed it should be well publicised so as to provide the

foundation for a communication and visibility strategy.





The  statement  should  be  closely  coordinated  with  DG  RTD  and  EEAS  and  make  clear  their  re-
spective roles. It should explain the complementary role envisaged for DG RTD’s framework pro-
grammes  in  supporting  R&I  in  developing  countries  and  it  should  detail  the  links  with  the  EEAS
policy on science diplomacy.

Building  on  this  DG  DEVCO  should  develop  a  communication  strategy  for  its  support  to  R&I  for
development and ensure it is implemented at HQ and by EUDs.

Evaluation of the EU support to research and innovation for development in partner countries (2007-2013)
Final Report; Particip; May 2016

The  European  Commission  Directorate 
General  for  International  Partnerships  - 
INTPA 

INTPA Mission 
Our  mission 
to  sustainable 
to  contribute 
is 
development, the eradication of poverty, peace and 
the 
through 
international  partnerships  that  uphold  and  promote 
European values and interests. 

protection 

human 

rights, 

of 

Follow us: 

: @EU_Partnerships 

: EUPartnerships 

: eu_partnerships 

: EUintheWorld