1

SUMMARY REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON THE

BIOSCIENCES FACILITY FOR EASTERN AND CENTRAL AFRICA

28-30 JANUARY 2004, NAIROBI, KENYA

2

Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction Purpose Workshop Process 2. Research Needs and Opportunities Context Why biosciences in Africa? Constraints and Priorities Criteria for selecting Priority Activities Research Themes Cross-cutting Themes Outcomes-driven Approach to Biosciences Criteria for selecting Projects Illustrative Examples of Possible Outcomes 3. Role of a Bioscience Facility Expectations of the facility Scope of the Science International Partners Design parameters Core Competencies and Services of the Facility 4. Bioscience Facility requirements Human resources (skills analysis /capacity Infrastructure Knowledge management and communications Institutional Capacity Finance and funding 5. Governance and Management: Issues and Options Context International Experience Management within the Network Summary 6. The Way Forward Next Steps Design Phase Concluding Comments Appendices

I. Workshop Program II. List of Participants

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose: The purpose of the stakeholder consultation was to discuss the development of the Biosciences Facility for East and Central Africa (the Facility), with a range of stakeholders, as an input into the design phase for the Facility. Approximately 60 participants attended the workshop, coming primarily from national governments, research institutes and universities in East and Central Africa. The objective of this consultation was to provide a platform for key stakeholders to make needed critical input into the design, scope, operations and governance of the planned Facility. The expected outcomes were:

• Increased stakeholder awareness on genesis, evolution and status • Stakeholder involvement and agreements on specific

operational/implementation issues. The workshop was conducted through the Visualization in Participatory Programmes (VIPP) methodology whose strength lies in group work and use of cards to ensure total participation of all in the discussions. The program enabled a broad discussion of the following issues in relation to the design of the Facility:

• Current constraints and priorities for agriculture in East and Central Africa

• Opportunities for the applications of biosciences towards developing solutions to regionally important constraints

• Capacity and skills in biosciences available and required in the region • Capabilities required in a biosciences facility so as to serve the region,

including human resources, institutional capacity, infrastructure, knowledge management and communications, finance and funding requirements to ensure sustainability;

• Implementation requirements including governance and management options

• Next steps towards developing a business plan for the Facility. Constraints and Priorities: There are many constraints to agriculture in Africa, some caused by biological factors while others are the result of poor polices, lack of access to markets, inadequate infrastructure and insufficient investment in the sector. The biological constraints include parasites, pests and diseases, poor soils and lack of well-adapted, high yielding strains of crops and livestock. The priority areas where biosciences and biotechnology offer potential for resolving some of these constraints have been examined extensively over the past decade. For example, ASARECA has recently completed an extensive analysis of priorities for the biosciences and biotechnology in East and Central Africa. These priority analyses will provide a useful framework for the Bioscience Facility in determining its research activities. Research Themes for the Facility: Three broad priority themes were identified, for the applications of biosciences in East and Central Africa, where the Facility may be able to add value to existing efforts. These themes are:

4

• Biotic and abiotic stresses affecting plants and animals • Agriculturally-related biodiversity • Human health and nutrition, in relation to agriculture. Cross-cutting Themes for the Facility: There are also several cross-cutting themes that will affect the successful applications of biosciences in Africa. These are: • Capacity building and training • Knowledge management, information technology and communications • Policy/investments/resources/partnerships for technology delivery Outcomes-driven approach to Biosciences: The NEPAD Science and Technology coordinator advised the consultation workshop that the NEPAD saw its “centers of excellence” program as bringing together groups of scientists who would mobilise science and technology to address specific constraints and deliver solutions to high priority problems in Africa. The NEPAD centers of excellence were not viewed as doing “science for science’s sake”. The consultation had a lively discussion as to how to take an outcomes driven approach to the work of the Facility, both at the Facility’s hub laboratories and with the Facility’s partners in Africa and internationally. It will be critical to identify some specific outcomes and objectives that respond to demands in the region and to which the Facility can add value by its participation along the discovery to delivery chain. Expectations of the Biosciences Facility: The role of the Facility and the required capacity to meet the identified role were subjects of extensive discussions during the consultation. Emerging from these discussions was a strong sense that the Facility would be expected to provide state-of-the-art research capacities to facilitate the application of biosciences in addressing high priority agricultural problems. Specifically, the Facility is expected to:

• Provide affordable, accessible biosciences facilities for the region • Be an integral component of the agricultural R & D establishments of

the region • Promote and support relevant science to solve priority problems • Attract investments in biosciences in, and for, Africa from public and

private sector, African governments, regional and international bodies • Serve as a platform for forging partnerships with other similar

bioscience initiatives in and out of Africa • Promote scientific excellence through partnerships with national,

regional and international scientists, and hosting visiting scientists at the state-of-the-art facilities in the region

• Create and strengthen human capacity in the application of biosciences in agriculture and related areas

• Support advice/training on biosafety and intellectual property issues, and other bioscience - related regulatory and policy issues

• Provide opportunity to retain the ‘best and brightest’ African scientists and attract those in the diaspora

5

• Promote linkages with farmer groups, non-government organizations and the private companies concerned with the development and delivery of new technologies in agriculture in Africa.

Parameters for the design of the facility: The consensus amongst the participants was to develop a Facility that links a set of laboratories and associated services at a Nairobi-based Hub with a network of national facilities in East and Central Africa, and international partners. A unique role of the Facility will be its capacity to attract international collaborators with access to latest technologies and interest in working on African problems. Resulting international networks would enhance opportunities for additional resources both for actual research projects as well as for capacity building. Core competencies and services of the Facility: The workshop examined the generic capacities that would be required for the Facility to deliver its overall goals. It was agreed that the functions of the facility could be sub-divided into three categories: Core scientific competencies, available at the Hub laboratories Scientific Services provided to members by the Facility Advisory services available to members through the Facility or its partners Core scientific competencies available at the Hub include:

• Bioinformatics and broadband access • High throughput genotyping and medium throughput sequencing • Genomics and proteomics • Plant and microbial transformation techniques, with appropriate

containment facilities • Animal handling and containment facilities • Immunology capacity • Molecular diagnostics for DNA and protein-based diagnostics • Biometrics • Imaging technology

Service functions of the Facility • Capacity building and training, for example through

! Research fellowships and grants, including start-up grants for post doctoral fellows beginning their research careers in Africa

! Scientific/technical mentoring by senior scientists ! Training in the use of practical applications of biotechnology such

as tissue culture, disease indexing and marker assisted selection • Accommodation: Provision of appropriate accommodation at the Hub for

visiting scientists and students Communication and knowledge management

• Improving access to knowledge through better access to library resources and more widely available Internet access

• Improving the distribution of knowledge through research publications and internet-based publishing by scientists in Africa

6

• Public communications about biosciences, including outreach, at regional and other international forums

• Advice on writing research proposals and preparing scientific papers for publication

Advisory Services of the Facility There are a number of areas where the Facility may need to provide access to advice, either through its own capabilities, or through linkages with partners in Africa or internationally. Such areas include: • Intellectual property management and freedom to operate guidance • Biosafety and regulations, including advice on the preparation of dossiers

for consideration by regulatory authorities • Private sector linkages, in areas such as seed production and diagnostics

and vaccine production systems • Grant applications to science funding bodies and development agencies in

Africa and internationally. Governance and Management Options Context It is useful to conceptualise governance of the Hub as revolving around three themes:

• Firstly, how the Hub (including the infrastructure and facilities, strategic planning, and the relationship with ILRI) will be organised;

• Secondly, how the Network of stakeholder institutions will be managed. This primarily relates to how information will be managed in a manner most efficient for pursuing the goals of the facility;

• Thirdly, how Science will be managed in terms of priority setting, implementing a scientific advisory committee, and disbursing grants and fellowships.

Management within the network Management within the Network will be essential in terms of facilitating partnerships amongst members and channelling and coordinating access to the Hub. Strong information networks are important and skills for priority-setting, research mentoring and partner-building is essential. Science must be strongly governed if the ideals of both a centre of excellence producing outcome-based science applications are to be met. In summary: There are a number of examples of management models that may prove useful for our purposes but governance, above all else, is context-bound and shaped by the local set of stakeholders of the Facility. Stakeholders made some specific suggestions on management and governance of the Hub, the Network and the overall governance of science. .

7

Next Steps Design Phase for the Facility: The aim of the design phase of the Biosciences facility is to prepare a comprehensive business plan for the facility by September 2004. The components of the plan will include:

• An indicative research agenda including a project portfolio • A capacity strengthening strategy • A description of the cross-cutting support and service functions of the

Biosciences Facility • A partnership strategy • A communications plan • Governance structure • Management plan • An initial business plan for the Biosciences Facility

In addition, a project document needs to be prepared for the CIDA grant. This is due in August 2004. The project document will address the issues outlined above as well as the results of an environmental assessment and details about the laboratory refurbishment amongst others. The Business Plan and the Project document will continue to be discussed with stakeholders as they evolve during the design phase in 2004. Conclusion NEPAD: The NEPAD representative re-iterated that their role was to facilitate the process of developing the Biosciences facility in the framework of the NEPAD plan of Action for Science and Technology and specifically the concept of “centres of excellence”. NEPAD would continue to provide the political support for the Biosciences Facility. Chair of Interim Steering Committee: The Chair of the interim Steering Committee closed the Stakeholder Consultation. The Chair reminded participants of the importance of science and technology as a major contributing factor in agricultural rural innovation, which can improve livelihoods of millions of Africans. The Biosciences Facility was a hallmark of partnerships and was an institutional innovation in itself. It was a new way of doing scientific research in Africa.

8

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the stakeholder consultation was to discuss the emerging Biosciences Facility for East and Central Africa (the Facility), with a range of stakeholders, as an input into the design phase for the Facility. Approximately 60 participants attended the workshop, coming primarily from national governments, research institutes and universities in East and Central Africa. There were also several participants from international agricultural research centers, United Nations agencies, and other agencies including Doyle Foundation, Syngenta Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. The workshop program (Appendix A) and a list of participants (Appendix B) are attached. Over the past 2 years, the African Biosciences Initiative has been under development as the concept has been developed and discussed amongst various stakeholders. This process has involved a range of stakeholders and has benefited from substantial formal and informal consultations and fundraising efforts. These have resulted into the mobilization of enough resources for the Facility to necessitate a systematic process aimed at developing the modes of operation and program content of the planned Facility. The objective of this stakeholders’ consultation workshop was to provide a platform for key stakeholders to make needed critical input into the design, scope, operations and governance of the planned Facility. The expected outcomes were:

• Increased stakeholder awareness on genesis, evolution and status • Stakeholder involvement and agreements on specific

operational/implementation issues The workshop program enabled a broad discussion of the following issues in relation to the design of the Facility:

• Current constraints and priorities for agriculture in East and Central Africa

• Opportunities for the applications of biosciences towards developing solutions to regionally important constraints

• Capacity and skills in biosciences available and required in the region • Capabilities required in a biosciences facility so as to serve the region,

including human resources, institutional capacity, infrastructure, knowledge management and communications, finance and funding requirements to ensure sustainability;

• Implementation requirements including governance and management options

• Next steps towards developing a business plan for the Facility.

1.2 Workshop Process The workshop was conducted through the Visualization in Participatory Programmes (VIPP) methodology whose strength lies in group work and use of cards to ensure total participation of all in the discussions.

9

The group work requires that a task is discussed in groups and the group conclusions written down on cards. For clarity, the card rule is that only one idea is written on a card in not more than three words: three ideas will therefore be in three different cards. The cards for all the different groups are displayed for plenary discussions. The cards are first displayed separately (each group displays its cards separately) then a clustering process is facilitated to give the overall output of the task. The strength of this process is that it ensures that all possible ideas from the participants on the issue under consideration are teased out and discussed. The final decision is taken by all participants. Hence, the outcome is owned not by the facilitator or any one or few individuals but by all the participants. Basically, all the workshop sessions were structured in three distinct parts. The first part was the presentation of the overview paper followed by a brief question and clarifications session, the second section was the group work where the participants worked in groups of 10 at a task given by the facilitator. The task was always derived from the overview paper and the subsequent questions and points of clarification. To ensure that the task teased out the pertinent issues for the session, the task questions were always developed by the process team which comprised of the facilitating team and a small group of stakeholders. The third part of the process was the presentation and clustering of the cards in plenary.

10

The VIPP Process

11

2.0 RESEARCH NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES 2.1 Context 2.1.1 Food and agriculture in Africa Food and agriculture is the major source of employment for the majority of the population in most countries of sub Saharan Africa. Recent studies by national and international agencies suggest that future strategies for food and agriculture in Africa will focus on:

• Increasing the quantity of food and feed available in Africa; • Improving the quality and nutritional content of food and feed; • Enabling better access and affordability of food to poor people; • Improving the efficiency of production systems, thus enabling workers

to move to other productive enterprises besides farming; • Ensuring environmental sustainability, and the conservation of

biodiversity. 2.1.2 Main farming systems in Africa Farming in Africa is a complex enterprise with many food and cash crops being cultivated and multiple livestock species being kept by millions of farmers, mainly on small plots and/or communally owned land. The main farming systems may be described broadly as:

• Maize-based systems (e.g. in East Africa) • Root-crops based systems (e.g. cassava-based systems in the humid

tropics) • Cereals-livestock systems (e.g. sorghum/millets and cattle in the Sahel) • Agro-forestry/tree crop systems (e.g. coffee/tea cultivation at higher

elevations) The challenge for the biosciences is to increase the productivity of the main farming systems in Africa in sustainable ways; and to improve the livelihoods of the farming families who depend upon these systems. 2.1.3 Policy Issues: Need for Public Investment in Science and

Technology Science and technology could contribute more towards the relief of poverty in Africa through a more productive rural sector, better human health and nutrition and sustainable environmental resources. However, to do so, requires appropriate policies to ensure and enabling environment for science and technology to be applied to constraints and opportunities in Africa. Many such constraints and opportunities in biology are unique to African countries, and are unlikely to attract private investment, or the interest of the multinational biosciences companies, at the research and development stage. Hence there is a role for public investment in the biosciences in Africa, for strategic research on African problems, to demonstrate potential solutions,

12

and to form linkages with local private companies, non-government organizations and entrepreneurs to ensure the delivery of new products to end users. 2.2 Why Biosciences in Africa? Advances in the biosciences promise powerful new ways of improving crop and livestock productivity and minimising threats to environmental and human health. Problems that have proved intractable to conventional agricultural, veterinary, environmental and medical research can be tackled by application of these new approaches. This ‘new science’ has already led to the development of a new generation of safer and more affordable vaccines for important human diseases such as meningitis, and for animal diseases such as rabies. In food and agriculture, applications of biosciences have led to the development of new crop varieties with improved tolerance to pests and diseases, and better storage quality. ‘Marker-aided’ selection of many important food crops and farm animals, which employs genetic markers to select desirable traits allows new plant cultivars and animal breeds to be developed far more rapidly than through conventional breeding and selection programmes. Most of these applications of biosciences have been made in the industrial countries of North America and Europe, and increasingly in emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil. The challenge now is to mobilise this new science to reduce poverty and create wealth in Africa in sustainable and equitable ways. Many problems afflicting Africa require solutions specifically tailored to unique regional, national and local circumstances. Some solutions may be developed from existing knowledge and adaptation of available technologies. Many, however, require new knowledge, new discoveries and endogenous innovation—by Africans, for Africa. 2.3 Constraints and Priorities There are many constraints to agriculture in Africa, some caused by biological factors while others are the result of poor polices, lack of access to markets, inadequate infrastructure and insufficient investment in the sector. The biological constraints include parasites, pests and diseases, poor soils and lack of well-adapted, high yielding strains of crops and livestock. The priority areas where biosciences and biotechnology offer potential for resolving some of these constraints have been examined extensively over the past decade. For example, ASARECA has recently completed an extensive analysis of priorities for the biosciences and biotechnology in East and Central Africa. These priority analyses will provide a useful framework for the Bioscience Facility in determining its research activities. Some examples of the constraints and priorities for biosciences in East and Central Africa identified by the workshop participants are given in Box 2.1.

13

The outcomes of the discussions at the workshop as to what are the constraints that are currently constraining the successful applications of the biosciences in East and Central Africa are summarized in Box 2.2. These constraints are either biological or institutional constraints. Box 2.1. Examples of Biological Constraints and Priorities for Biosciences in Eastern and Central Africa (from overview paper) Example 1 Constraints: Lack of clean planting material due to diseases caused by viruses, bacteria and fungi. Crops affected: Cassava, bananas, potatoes, citrus, coffee, sweet potato, sugar cane Technology required/available for wider use

• Tissue culture protocols, new diagnostics, gene technology __________________________________________________________________________ Example 2 Constraints: Low crop productivity due to drought, insect pests, striga, maize streak virus Crops affected: Maize, sorghum, pigeon pea, groundnuts, cotton. Technology required/available for wider use

• Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) to identify desirable traits for new crop varieties • Gene technology (Bacillus thuringiensis – Bt genes for insect resistance) • Bioinformatics to assist in trait identification

__________________________________________________________________________ Example 3 Constraints: Low productivity of livestock species due to disease such as:

• Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) • Rift Valley fever virus (RVRV) • Nairobi sheep disease (NSD) • Contagious caprine pleupneumonia (CCPP) • East coast fever • Tryponosomiasis • Foot and mouth disease • Rinderpest

Livestock species affected: cattle, small ruminants, camel. Technology required/available for wider use

• Diagnostics for improved identification of livestock diseases • Vaccines for improved protection of animals against diseases

14

Box 2.2. Outcome of Constraint from Facilitated Process Biological Constraints 1. Abiotic and biotic stresses

-declining soil fertility -water management and quality -environmental degradation -soil fertility -insects / pests

2. Biodiversity -access to genetic resources -characterization of source materials

3. Human health and nutrition -food quality -mycotoxins -enhanced nutritional values -human health -diseases -poor nutrition

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Institutional Constraints

4. Policy -poor governance -lack of enabling conditions/policy environment -lack of policy, lack of policy implementation, lack of policy awareness -lack of political will -biosafety and IP

5. Human and institutional capacity

-institutional capacity building -lack of regional coordination, collaboration and networking -need for physical capacity building -capacity building in agricultural sciences -limited human capacity -illiteracy

6. Information -lack of and under-utilisation of information -lack of extension and dissemination -poor/inadequate scientific knowledge management at both the local and regional level

7. Marketing

-quality standards -high transaction costs (cost of transport, cost of storage) Poor linkages between research, technology and market requirements

8. Funding/Resources -sustaining funding mechanisms -inappropriate funding priorities

15

2.4 Criteria for Selecting Priority Activities by the Facility The workshop considered that it was not possible, given the time available and the level of technical details that would otherwise be required, to come up with specific discrete activities that would constitute the agenda of the Facility at this stage. It was decided that, instead, what was needed was a set of criteria that could be used in identifying broad areas within which specific projects could be identified. The following were suggested as some broad criteria for selecting activities that could be implemented by the Facility and its partners:

• that the activity is addressing a major constraint in the region • that the constraint is in the area of agriculture and related areas

(e.g. environment, human health) • that the constraint lends itself to a ‘bio-scientific’ solution • that the activity/approach requires input by a ‘center of excellence’, • that the input would be adding value to, and not competing with,

national capacities It was concluded that these criteria and a framework for their application be further developed as part of the design of the Facility. 2.5 Research Themes for the Facility The consultation workshop identified three broad priority themes, for the applications of biosciences in East and Central Africa, where the Facility may be able to add value to existing efforts. These themes are:

1. Biotic and abiotic stresses affecting plants and animals

2. Biodiversity, especially agriculturally-related biodiversity 3. Human health and nutrition, in relation to agriculture, such as poor

nutrient content of food, and diseases that affect human and animal health.

2.6 Cross-cutting Themes for the Facility As well as the thematic research areas, there are also several cross-cutting themes that will affect the successful applications of biosciences in Africa. These may be grouped into three broad themes of:

• Capacity building and training • Knowledge management, information technology and

communications • Policy/investments/resources/partnerships for technology delivery

16

2.7 Outcomes-driven Approach for the Biosciences Facility The NEPAD Science and Technology coordinator (John Mugabe) advised the consultation workshop that the NEPAD saw its “centers of excellence” program as bringing together groups of scientists who would mobilise science and technology to address specific constraints and deliver solutions to high priority problems in Africa. The NEPAD centers of excellence were not viewed as doing “science for science’s sake”. The consultation had a lively discussion as to how to take an outcomes driven approach to the work of the Facility, both at the Facility’s hub laboratories and with the Facility’s partners in Africa and internationally. One of the overview presentations (Gabrielle Persley) noted that it would be critical to identify some specific outcomes and objectives to which the Facility can add value by its participation along the discovery to delivery chain. In identifying the requisite steps from discovery to delivery, some steps will require additional biosciences-based research, at the hub laboratories and/or at partner laboratories, while other steps will require linkages to other partners, including some in the public and private sector concerned with enabling technology delivery. The latter group, for example, may involve areas such as intellectual property management, biosafety regulations, breeding, seed production and delivery, vaccine production and distribution. The exact requirements and potential partners will depend on the specific objective being pursued. It is critical that the links in the chain from discovery to delivery are identified early in the process, so that all partners can be involved in the design of the project and are aware of their roles and responsibilities towards achieving an overall outcome of benefit to the region. In developing its initial portfolio of research activities, there would be merit in the Facility identifying a range of projects with short, medium and long-term objectives, in response to demands in the region. Such a portfolio could lead to the early demonstration of the benefits of biosciences towards food and agriculture in Africa, as well as identifying some areas where strategic research was required to deliver a successful outcome in the longer term. 2.8 Possible Selection Criteria for Outcome-orientated Projects There was some discussion as to possible selection criteria for some flagship or pilot projects for the Biosciences Facility, which would lead towards specific outcomes. These selection criteria may include:

• Constraint of importance in more than one country • High probability of developing bioscience-based solutions • Potential market for new technologies • Pathway from discovery to delivery feasible • Potential partners identified and interested to participate • Project management skills available • Successful outcome would lead to measurable benefits in Africa

17

2.9 Examples of Possible Outcomes “What we have to learn to do we learn by doing” As an exercise, the consultation workshop considered potential areas for collaborative projects of the Biosciences Facility that address how to develop and deliver a solution to a priority problem. Three thematic groups (abiotic/biotic stresses; biodiversity; human health and nutrition) were challenged to address the following questions: • What would be three desirable outcomes to result from the work of the

Biosciences Facility and its partners by 2014? • What is required in research, development and delivery to achieve one

such outcome, as a pilot project, identifying the steps from discovery to delivery, the responsibilities and contributions of partners, and what additional human, physical and financial resources are required to deliver a solution, and how may these be mobilised?

The examples discussed by the consultation, to illustrate some areas for potential contributions of biosciences in Africa, are summarised in Box 2.3.

18

Box 2.3. Illustrative Examples of Possible Outcomes-driven Approaches to Biosciences in East and Central Africa =======================================================================Theme 1: Abiotic and Biotic Stresses: Illustrative Outcomes from Biosciences Higher quality planting material: Increase the availability of high quality planting material for the region’s major crops, through the use of certified seeds and disease-indexed vegetative planting material from tissue culture. This requires improved diagnostics for the major crop pests and diseases that can be transmitted through seed and tissue cultured plants and certification systems for resulting planting materials. Maize: Increase maize production through the development and cultivation of maize varieties with drought tolerance and insect resistance. This requires the identification and evaluation of genes conveying traits for drought tolerance and resistance to stem and grain borers, and their introduction into locally adapted maize varieties. Livestock diseases: Increasing cattle productivity for meat and milk production in East and Central Africa through the development and delivery of more effective vaccines for the control of East Coast Fever in cattle. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Theme 2: Biodiversity: Illustrative Outcomes from Biosciences Plant biodiversity: Ensure future options for food security and environmental service through a complete inventory and assessment of the plant genetic resources available in East and Central Africa. Livestock biodiversity: Characterise and utilise the genetic diversity of indigenous livestock breeds to improve access/utilization and commercialization to livestock products. Microbial biodiversity: Identify, characterise, conserve and utilise the wealth of microbial biodiversity available in East and Central Africa, to provide solutions to agricultural, environmental, food, forest and public health problems. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Theme 3: Human Health and Nutrition: Illustrative Outcomes from Biosciences Root Crops: Improve the nutritional status of more than 200,000 farm families in at least 6 countries in East and Central Africa through the development and distribution of locally adapted sweet potato varieties with higher content of Vitamin A and tolerance to sweet potato weevil, leading to better yield stability and improved storage quality of sweet potato in the region. Groundnuts: Re-establish African countries in the world export market for groundnuts, through the development and delivery of resilient groundnut varieties, with resistance to the major diseases (especially rosette virus) and low aflatoxin content. Village poultry production: Increase the availability and affordability of protein at the village level in East and Central Africa through the better control of virus diseases in village chickens (e.g. Newcastle disease and Avian influenza).

19

Intense group discussions

20

3.0 ROLE OF THE BIOSCIENCES FACILITY 3.1 Expectations of the Facility The role of the Facility and the required capacity to meet the identified role were subjects of extensive discussions during the consultation. Emerging from these discussions was a strong sense that the Facility would be expected to provide state-of-the-art research capacities to facilitate the application of biosciences in addressing high priority agricultural problems. Specifically, the Facility is expected to:

• Provide affordable, accessible biosciences facilities for the region • Be an integral component of the agricultural R & D establishments of

the region • Promote and support relevant science to solve priority problems • Attract investments in biosciences in, and for, Africa from public and

private sector, African governments, regional and international bodies • Serve as a platform for forging partnerships with other similar

bioscience initiatives in and out of Africa • Promote scientific excellence through partnerships with national,

regional and international scientists, and hosting visiting scientists at the state-of-the-art facilities in the region

• Create and strengthen human capacity in the application of biosciences in agriculture and related areas

• Support advice/training on biosafety and intellectual property issues, and other bioscience - related regulatory and policy issues

• Provide opportunity to retain the ‘best and brightest’ African scientists and attract those in the diaspora

• Promote linkages with farmer groups, non-government organizations and the private companies concerned with the development and delivery of new technologies in agriculture in Africa.

3.2. Scope of the Science at the Facility The stakeholders also discussed the scope of ‘science coverage’ that the Facility should have in order to meet the needs of the region. The workshop considered where, in the ‘excellence continuum’, the Facility would need to be so as to effectively serve its purpose. It was clear that this would very much depend on the problem being addressed and hence the technology to be applied. For some areas, the level of ‘excellence’ would not be any different from those in advanced laboratories while for others, the technologies need to be only modestly superior to those already available in national facilities. There were also examples of cases in which the greatest advantage of a shared Facility would be in terms of ‘economies of scale’, especially for sharing essential but relatively costly equipment or technologies, across a number of institutions and countries. Genotyping was given as and example. Overall, the facilities at the Hub have to ensure that it has a significantly better scientific capacity and technical support than those presently available in the countries of the sub-region. The facility will be able to bring together a critical

21

mass of scientific expertise and resources to address priority problems in partnership with scientists in Africa and in the international scientific community. Thus, the positioning of Facility on the ‘excellence continuum’ would be determined by the projects as these evolve and the associated human capacity at the Hub and through the network of member institutions.

Figure 3.1. Positioning the technology; typical gradient that shows at one end the levels of capacity generally available in the national institutes in eastern and Central Africa and at the other those obtaining in some of the best biosciences laboratories in industrialized countries. 3.3. International partners A unique role of the Facility will be its capacity to attract international collaborators with access to latest technologies and interest in working on African problems. Resulting international networks would enhance opportunities for additional resources both for actual research projects as well as for capacity building. 3.4. Parameters for the design of the facility The aim is to develop a Facility that links a set of laboratories and associated services at a Nairobi-based Hub with a network of national facilities in East and Central Africa, and international partners, which will create a bioscience capacity hitherto not available in Africa. (This overall design is illustrated in Figure 3.1)

Global Centre

Local lab

Cost per unit

Cost to establish Complexity of

technologyVolume of research Diversity of research

Diversity of research

Biosciences Centre

22

Stakeholders considered that, not only should the Facility provide state of the art research laboratories for biosciences and related disciplines but that it should also have containment facilities for safe genetic manipulation of plants and micro-organisms as well as safe handling of pathogens that will be used in the research programs. It was suggested that, in designing the Hub laboratories, the following parameters be considered:

• that it should complement rather than compete with existing national capabilities

• that it should provide facilities to undertake new research that is difficult or impossible for individual countries to achieve today

• that it should provide a platform to provide high priority and high demand research

• that associated costs should be internationally competitive • that it should provide a level of excellence that will attract national

and international research funding and partnerships • that training and capacity development to equip scientists in Africa

to compete and contribute internationally should be an integral component

• that access to the Hub by ‘members’ should be uncomplicated • that operations of the Facility should fulfil local and international

biosafety, environmental impact and animal care standards 3.5 Core competencies and services of the Facility The workshop examined the generic capacities that would be required for the Facility to deliver its overall goals. It was agreed that the functions of the facility could be sub-divided into three categories: These three categories were identified after the following task was worked on: What are the key capabilities that the centre should have in order to respond to the constraint areas earlier identified?

• Core scientific competencies, available at the Hub laboratories

• Scientific Services provided to members by the Facility

• Advisory services available to members through the Facility or its partners

23

Figure 3.2. Scope of the biosciences facility, with three possible thematic research areas (abiotic and biotic stresses; biodiversity; and human health and nutrition) and cross-cutting themes including delivery systems, capacity building/training and communications). The themes are connected with other nodes in Africa and internationally e.g. the communication node is connected with national and international research centres whereas the node for delivery systems is connected to biosafety, policy, etc. 3.5.1 Core scientific competencies at the Hub laboratories Areas identified under the first category of core scientific competencies that should be available at the Hub include:

• Bioinformatics and broadband access • High throughput genotyping and medium throughput sequencing

(including hybridoma and marker technology) • Genomics and proteomics (e.g. micro-array, large scale genotyping,

EST, BAC, sequencing) • Plant and microbial transformation techniques, with appropriate

containment facilities • Animal handling and containment facilities • Immunology capacity • Molecular diagnostics for DNA and protein-based diagnostics • Biometrics

Abiotic/ biotic

stresses

Capacity Building/Training

Human health & nutrition

Delivery Systems

Communications

Bio-diversity

THEMATIC RESEARCH AREAS

CROSS CUTTING THEMES

24

• Imaging technology 3.5.2 Service functions of the Facility • Capacity building and training

! High quality training in biosciences and biotechnology at all levels (e.g. through research fellowships and grants);

! Research fellowships and grants, including start-up grants for post doctoral fellows beginning their research careers in Africa

! Scientific/technical mentoring by senior scientists ! Training in the use of practical applications of biotechnology such

as tissue culture, disease indexing and marker assisted selection ! Training in equipment maintenance and repair ! Short training courses ! Seminar series, including travelling seminars in the region

• Accommodation: Provision of appropriate accommodation at the Hub for

visiting scientists and students 3.5.3 Communication and knowledge management

• Improving access to knowledge through better access to library resources and more widely available Internet access

• Improving the distribution of knowledge through research publications and internet-based publishing by scientists in Africa

• Public communications about biosciences, including outreach, at regional and other international forums

• Advice on writing research proposals and preparing scientific papers for publication

3.5.4 Advisory Services of the Facility There are a number of areas where the Facility may need to provide access to advice, either through its own capabilities, or through linkages with partners in Africa or internationally. Such areas include: • Intellectual property management and freedom to operate guidance • Biosafety and regulations, including advice on the preparation of dossiers

for consideration by regulatory authorities • Private sector linkages, in areas such as seed production and diagnostics

and vaccine production systems • Grant applications to science funding bodies and development agencies in

Africa and internationally

25

4.0 BIOSCIENCE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Human Resources This was discussed in terms of information on human resources available and the skills required. There is limited human capacity in terms of skills and numbers. Therefore, human capacity development has to be an integral part of the programs of the Facility. The skills required fall into two broad categories, namely skills in biosciences and management. The bioscience skills include skills in molecular biology, information services, bioinformatics, cell and developmental biology, genetics and breeding, immunology, protein chemistry, pathology, biochemistry, applied genetics, genetic transformation, diagnostics and vaccinology. Management skills include laboratory technology, research leadership, financial and research management, grant applications, communication skills, research execution, biometrics, bioinformatics, laboratory management, instrumentation, internet and other research skills, social sciences/economics and legal/policy skills. Many of the required skills are available amongst scientists in Africa. However, the scientists are widely disbursed and often under resourced, in terms of both research facilities and operating funds for research. There are only a few areas in East and Central Africa where there are substantial groups of scientists working with adequate resources. Some such groups are located in strong national research programs, at the international research institutes, and in research institutes devoted to export crops (e.g. coffee, tea, sugar). There are some existing regional programs that are addressing this issue of lack of adequate support by providing research grants and networking arrangements amongst likeminded scientists. Examples include the BIOEARN program (sponsored by Sweden), the ARPIS program for insect scientists, sponsored by ICIPE, and Rockefeller Foundation program of research grants. 4.1.1 Inventory of Bioscientists in East and Central Africa It is not clear how many scientists in the bioscience fields are in the region, and although there might be information regarding the number of bioscientists, this is not readily available. Where it is available, it is dispersed and not easily accessible or utilizable. There is therefore a need for a regional HR inventory of available skills in the biosciences in East and Central Africa. The inventory could be achieved through a survey of secondary data, and the establishment of a website where scientists could register. It would best be carried out by biotechnology focal points and should involve, national institutions, Universities, NGOs, ASARECA in consultation with the networks, NARs, IARCs, national science councils, and the private sector. The website would have the additional advantage of attracting scientists in the diaspora. There are several surveys of capacity building needs in Africa for S&T broadly and biosciences/biotechnology in particular, which have either been conducted or are in process. These surveys of capacity building needs will be

26

valuable to the facility in identifying specific gaps where the facility has some comparative advantages to offer capacity building and training opportunities.

4.2 Infrastructure: Facilities, Equipment and Personnel The focus on infrastructure is on what is required in terms of skills, facilities and finance to run scientific programmes. It emerged that in order to determine already available infrastructure there was need for facility and equipment inventory. The ILRI facility is already in place and an accurate assessment of what is available there and in the countries needs to be made through a systematic collation/survey. The inventory, will further determine any existing infrastructure gaps. Such an inventory should be compiled along with the assessment of HR status. The critical needs in terms of facilities, is to have minimal functioning laboratories in the region not only to encourage good science but also to stem brain drain and attract back African scientists from overseas. 4.3 Knowledge Management and Communication There are major knowledge and communication gaps in the sub-region. This situation is largely the result of a lack of funding for sources of knowledge such as journals and internet access. It also stems from a lack of knowledge management and communication skills. Bioscientists cannot access information because there is insufficient literature, e.g. missing or outdated journals in biosciences, expensive and therefore unaffordable internet access and unavailability of hardware and software. Wherever internet access is available it is slow and ineffiecient. Poor management of information as well as lack of communication manifests themselves in poor documentation of results to peer, partners and end users, inadequate access to different communication outlets, limited awareness of sources of information, and poor production and distribution of local journals. Funding for journals should be inbuilt into project proposals, hardware and software should be included in the funds drive and fellowships should be sourced for in-service training of communication specialists. To solve the problem of poor information management, training in such skills as repackaging information (from broadband to narrowband, user-friendly etc); and more focused E-training in librarianship should be carried out. There is a need for improving the quality of libraries in the region. Programs such as AGORA address some of these issues. Some suggestions to address the (lack of) communication problems were: apply for dispensation to get free access to information services e.g. AGORA, TEAL; sensitization of different communication outlets; institutionalization of data archiving; publication of annual reports; simplification of technical publications for use by extension services; support for existing regional journals; push for citation of African journals in citation index (Thompson Index); encourage and organize more conferences; encourage partnerships, mentoring and networking to achieve quality articles in order to ensure quality journals.

27

Some outcomes of the information and communication session

28

4.4 Institutional Capacity Discussions on institutional capacity focused on how the facility would work with and strengthen national institutions to be able to deliver research outcomes and products in the short and long terms. The consensus was that the Facility should focus not only on project implementation but should also provide advice on such areas as outreach/advocacy, communications etc.; and also provide services in biotechnology training and related services. To strengthen the capacity of national institutions the workshop proposed that the Facility should assist/support the establishment of minimum functioning laboratories in key institutions in the sub-region. This could be done through the development and implementation of collaborative projects and mobilizing additional support for partner laboratories from national and international sources. 4.5 Finance and Funding Every aspect of the centre will need funds and various fundraising sustainability strategies were proposed. First and foremost NEPAD has proposed a financing scheme for research and development through the creation of an African S&T finance fund. The Facility should position itself to tap into this fund. Secondly educating and lobbying governments to allocate resources for biosciences, applying to foundations, partnerships with the private sector (product-oriented partnership), and competitive grants and fellowships managed by the Facility. To ensure sustainability, it is imperative that the sub-region maintains a bioscience network and that all the countries should own and support the Hub and the network. Guidelines are currently being developed towards the achievement of this. To use available resources efficiently, it was suggested that partnerships be forged to enable sharing of facilities for more effective use. This could be done through memorandums of understanding, for example, between the Hub and the networks, between countries in the region, between the networks, and between the centre and the private sector.

29

5.0 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS 5.1 Context Examining the international experience of biosciences centres of excellence highlights one thing, that nothing as complex as the Biosciences Facility of Eastern and Central Africa has been attempted, in terms of the number of countries involved, the enormous diversity of the region, and the wide range of issues to be tackled. It is useful at this stage to conceptualise governance of the Hub as revolving around three themes:

• Firstly, how the Hub (including the infrastructure and facilities, strategic planning, and the relationship with ILRI) will be organised;

• Secondly, how the Network of stakeholder institutions will be managed. This primarily relates to how information will be managed in a manner most efficient for pursuing the goals of the facility;

• Thirdly, how Science will be managed in terms of priority setting, implementing a scientific advisory committee, and disbursing grants and fellowships.

It is important to note that in practise the Facility will be much more organic and these themes are closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing (Figure 5.1). 5.2 The International Experience Three case studies that differ in the way in which they point to solutions for particular issues of governance were presented and discussed. Several prerequisites for a functioning centre of excellence were identified:

• Mechanisms for distributing internal funds are clear; • Research coordination is actively managed; • There is focused educational development and systematic mentoring

support; • There is regular and focused internal formal and informal interaction; • There are clear lines of communication and interaction between

centres of excellence and a wide range of partners. It is also clear that management systems must be iterative and evolutionary. Within the Hub clearly defined structures of governance, from the steering committee to the Director or CEO via administration and management down to the level of research themes and projects are fundamental. The John Innes Centre (UK) model was presented as a useful point of departure. Figure 5.2a illustrates a potential management infrastructure for the hub that is based on a centralized management option. A further variation of this model (Fig. 5.2b) would be to devolve further administrative and strategic functions down to the level of the research theme. This decentralized model

30

would have the benefit of promoting strong stakeholder relationships at the level of the research theme and the project, but would possibly require additional resources unless creative use of secondments, visiting staff and synergies between ILRI and the Facility were adopted. 5.3 Management within the network Management within the Network will be essential in terms of facilitating partnerships amongst members and channelling and coordinating access to the Hub. Strong information networks are important and skills for priority-setting, research mentoring and partner-building is essential. Science must be strongly governed if a centre of excellence in science has to lead to outcome-based science applications. The Biocentrum Helsinki (Finland) is a good model of the ways in which Science Directors responsible for specific themes can – if given the proper support - manage a wide range of projects and institutions very effectively.

Figure 5.1 Components of Bioscience Facility

ILRI

Steering Committee

‘Horizontal’ resources, knowledge, research partnerships

‘Ver

tical

’ gov

erna

nce,

pol

icy,

man

agem

ent

Kenyan State

NEPAD S&T

M.O.U. IARCs

Universities

NARS

NGOs

Other users

Regional States

Biosciences Facility

31

Figure 5.2: Governance option 1 – A more centralized management structure (a) and Governance option 2 – Devolved management structure (b)

Figure 5.2a

Steering Committee

Admin / Lab Management

ILRI

NEPAD NATIONS

Technical Advisory Body

- Regulations - Proposals - Training - Regional consortia - Planning

Biotic/ Abiotic

Stresses

Human Health

and nutrition

Bio-

diversity

Thematic Areas

Figure 5.2b

Steering Committee / Governing Council

NEPAD NATIONS

Technical Advisory

Body

Biotic/Abiotic Stresses

Human Health and nutrition

Biodiversity

Science & Laboratory

Management

Science & Laboratory

Management

Science & Laboratory

Management

Res

earc

h Th

emes

ILRI

Thematic Areas

32

Network management will primarily focus on sharing of information and allocation of resources. Information sharing will include such issues as identifying potential projects and mobilizing stakeholders to implement them. In the early stages, then, management will need to be pro-active in order to generate demand for the use of the facilities. There is a clear capacity building role to governing and managing the network. Allocation of resources will encompass issues like the award of fellowships and seed grants, and prioritising laboratory and facility use. Network management is clearly strongly linked to the strategic goals of the steering committee and the day-to-day running and administration of the laboratory facilities. In many ways science is the key linkage between the governance of the Hub and the Network. Scientific activities will be the articulation of the Facility’s strategic planning processes and steering committee decision-making. Scientific activities will also be the key outcome of the network, of the ways in which stakeholders interact with each other. Finally, science will be the hinge around which the Biosciences Facility links with the region, through priority-setting and outcome-based science leading to concrete poverty alleviation impacts. It is necessary to provide strong scientific leadership through the appointment firstly, of an experienced, world class Advisory Body, and secondly through the appointment of pro-active, dynamic Scientific Leaders for each of the research themes. At this stage in the process it may be worthwhile to examine in more detail the management structures of similar centres around the world. The Biocentrum Helsinki in particular appears to be an example of a relatively small entity, encompassing over 20 projects that has a small, responsive management structure that produces large volumes of applied, quality research. It would be worth understanding more about how a centre of this sort works before examining the complex local context and iterating suitable management and governance structures. 5.4 Summary In summary: There are a number of examples of management models that may prove useful for our purposes but governance, above all else, is context-bound and shaped by the local set of stakeholders of the Facility. Stakeholders raised a range of pertinent issues at the workshop including the relationship between ILRI and the Facility, transparency, and devolved decision-making. It was quite heartening to see so many stakeholders actively thinking about issues of overarching governance at this early stage in the Facility’s genesis. Stakeholders made some specific suggestions on management and governance of the Hub, the Network and the overall governance of science. These are summarised below. The workshop recommended that the management and governance of the Hub should consider the following:

33

! The relationship between ILRI Management/Governance and that of the Facility - to avoid conflicts of interest; establishment of strong and effective financial, human resources and administrative support/management structures/systems. It was proposed that a Steering Committee (SC) be established to be responsible for the governance of the Facility. Membership to the SC should consider: balance in representation across the sub-region; track record in leadership and management of science, including resource mobilization. Gender representation on the committee was also considered an important issue. The SC will have overall oversight on the governance of the Facility, including: resource mobilization; and monitoring and evaluation of the overall operations of the Facility.

! Issues discussed with regard to the management and governance of

the network included membership to the Facility, management of resources and management of information. The workshop suggested that a membership fee for both countries and institutions be considered with memoranda of understanding used to formalise relationships amongst members as well as with the Facility itself. Participants felt it was important to develop formal procedures for prioritising projects and activities both in terms of timing (‘queue management’) as well as resource allocation, where relevant. It was recommended that the Facility should establish a web-portal to facilitate information management and that some kind of editorial board/group be put in place for this purpose.

! The governance and management of science should be the

responsibility of a scientific advisory body composed of persons with international reputation based on track record in the conduct of research and innovation; should be drawn, in a gender-sensitive manner, from a combination of local (sub-regional), continental, and international scientific communities. Members should have fixed terms. The role of the scientific advisory body should be to: over-see the peer-review and selection process of proposals; to undertake monitoring and evaluation of on-going projects; and work with the steering committee in developing fund-raising strategies.

34

6.0 THE WAY FORWARD 6.1 Next Steps 6.1.1 Continuing Stakeholder Consultations The Chair of the session (Bruce Scott) reminded participants that the stakeholder consultation was an important part of the design and planning phase of the Biosciences Facility. The views and input from stakeholders was key to ensure that the Biosciences Facility responds to the needs and demands of partners in the region. An interim Steering Committee was in place to guide the process of designing the Biosciences Facility. The outputs and recommendations from the Stakeholder Consultation would be presented to the interim Steering Committee at their next meeting on 2 February 2004. For this purpose a draft report would be prepared immediately. The draft report would also be sent to participants for their input, as part of an on-going consultation with stakeholders. 6.2 Design Phase for the Facility The aim of the design phase of the Biosciences facility is to prepare a comprehensive business plan for the facility by September 2004. The components of the plan will include:

• An indicative research agenda including an initial project portfolio • A capacity strengthening strategy • A description of the cross-cutting support and service functions of the

Facility. • A partnership strategy • A communications plan. • Governance structure • Management plan • An initial business plan for the Facility

In addition, a project document needs to be prepared for the CIDA grant. This is due in August 2004. The project document will address the issues outlined above as well as the results of an environmental assessment and details about the laboratory refurbishment amongst others. The interim steering committee will be examining how to proceed with all of these elements on 2 February. It was proposed that that further consultation would be required with stakeholders in the region to verify the draft Biosciences Facility business plan before it is sent to the interim Steering Committee for approval in September 2004.

35

6.3 Concluding Comments 6.3.1 NEPAD The Chair then invited the representative from NEPAD (John Mugabe) to say a few words. NEPAD re-iterated that their role was to facilitate the process of developing the Biosciences facility in the framework of the NEPAD plan of Action for Science and Technology and specifically the concept of “centres of excellence”. NEPAD would continue to provide the political support for the Biosciences Facility. He made the following points:

• There is an urgent need for action and to move from concept to implementation.

• NEPAD would continue to facilitate the process and provide political legitimacy.

• NEPAD would be involved in sharing experiences and lessons learned about “centres of excellence” in biosciences from across the regions in Africa.

• It was important to involve the private sector in the development of the Biosciences facility, as they were the major investor in biosciences in Africa.

6.3.2 Chair of Interim Steering Committee The Chair invited the Chair of the interim Steering Committee and the Director of KARI (Romano Kiome) to close the Stakeholder Consultation. In his closing remarks, Dr. Kiome reminded participants of the importance of science and technology as a major contributing factor in agricultural rural innovation which can improve livelihoods of millions of Africans. He mentioned that the Biosciences Facility was a hallmark of partnerships and was an institutional innovation in itself. It was a new way of doing scientific research in Africa. He highlighted the fact that the interim Steering Committee was active and fully engaged in developing the Biosciences Facility and would continue to play a strong advocacy role. 6.3.3 Session Chair In closing the Session Chair (Bruce Scott) thanked the participants and organisers for an efficient and effective meeting. He also thanked the sponsors who had made the meeting possible.

36

Appendix I: Workshop Programme

DAY 1, Wednesday 28th January 2004

TIME ACTIVITY MODERATOR/PRESENTER 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM Registration of

participants Rosalynn Gichimo (ILRI)

Session 1: Opening and Introduction Chair: Norah Olembo

9:00 AM – 9:05 AM Introductory Remarks Ed Rege (ILRI) 9:05 AM - 9:30 AM Welcome and Opening

Statements Norah Olembo representing Romano Kiome (ISC Chair), John McDermott (ILRI DDG-R)

9:30 AM – 10:00 AM Background and Expected Outputs

Ed Rege (ILRI)

10:00 AM – 10:20 AM Tea/Coffee Break Session II: Constraints and Priorities for Biosciences in

Eastern and Central Africa, Chair: Rose Kingamkono

10:20 AM – 10:40 AM Overview Paper Norah Olembo (University of Nairobi/Biotechnology Trust Africa, Kenya)

10:40 AM – 10:50 AM Points of clarification 10:50 AM – 12:30 PM Facilitated process to

identify highest priority areas

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

12:30 PM – 2:00 PM LUNCH 2:00PM – 3:10 PM Facilitated process to

identify highest priority areas

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

3:10 PM – 3:30 PM Tea/Coffee Break Session III: Identification of Science-Based Opportunities and

Potential African and Global Partners Chair: Onesmo Ole-MoiYoi

3:30 PM – 3:50 PM Overview Paper John Gibson (ILRI) 3:50 PM – 4:00 PM Points of clarification 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Facilitated session to

identify scientific opportunities

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

6:00 PM – 7:30 PM Cocktail

DAY 2, Thursday 29th January 2004

Session IV: Capacity Analysis for Biosciences in Eastern and Central Africa Chair: Eugene Terry

9.00 AM – 9.10 AM Statement by NEPAD Representative

John Mugabe (NEPAD Secretariat)

9:10 AM – 9:25 AM Overview Paper Christopher Ngichabe (ASARECA)

9:25 AM – 9:30 AM Points of clarification 9:30 AM – 10:30 AM Facilitated process to

identify highest priority human resource and

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

37

infrastructural needs 10:30 AM – 10:50 AM Tea/Coffee Break

Session IV Continues… 10:50 AM – 12:30 PM Facilitated process to

identify highest priority human resource and infrastructural needs

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

12:30 PM – 2:00 PM LUNCH Session V: Knowledge Management and Communications: Management of

Existing and New Knowledge Products and Systems Chair: Canisius Kanangire

2:00 PM – 2:20 PM Overview Paper Elisabeth Dodsworth (CABI, United Kingdom)

2:20 PM – 2:30 PM Points of clarification 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM Facilitated process to

identify key IT issues Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

3:30 PM – 3:50 PM Tea/Coffee Break Session VI: Scientific Infrastructure Design to Implement Priority

Projects/Areas Chair: Deborah Delmer

3:50 PM – 4:10 PM Overview Paper Gabrielle Persley (The Doyle Foundation, Australia)

4:10 PM – 4:20 PM Points of clarification 4:20 PM – 5:30 PM Facilitated process to

agree on key elements of infrastructure design

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

DAY 3, Friday 30th January 2004

Session VI continues…

8:30 AM – 9.30 AM Facilitated process to agree on key elements of infrastructure design

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

Session VII: Governance and Management Options Chair: Bruce Scott

9:30 AM – 9.50 AM Overview Paper on Options/Scenarios

James Smith (University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

9:50 AM – 10:00 AM Points of clarification 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM Tea/Coffee Break 10:30 AM – 12:15 PM Facilitated process to

agree on key elements of governance and management

Apondi Nyang’aya (Facilitator)

12:15 PM – 2:00 PM LUNCH Session VIII: Next Steps and Closing

Chair: Bruce Scott Summary of workshop Gabriella Persley Next Steps Bruce Scott Perspectives of NEPAD John Mugabe Statement by Chair of Interim Steering Committee

Romano Kiome

2:00 PM – 3:00 PM

Vote of thanks Ed Rege

38

Appendix II: List of Participants

Country / Institution Name Contact Details Burundi, University of Burundi

1.Samuel Bigawa Chief of Department of Biology, University of Burundi, Faculty of Sciences Dept. Of Biology, P. O Box 2700, Bujumbura – Burundi - Burundi Tél: 257 215070 (home) 257 225556 (service) Email: s.bigawa@hotmail.com

Burundi, Institut de Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU)

2. Denis Bandushubwenge

Technical Director Institut du Rescherch Agronomique du Burundi (ISABU) Institut du Sciences Agronomique du Burundi Avenue du Cathedrale, B.P. 975 Bujumbura. Tel:257-213279 isabu@usan-bu.net

Ethiopia, EARO 3. Endale Gebre Coordinator, Agricultural Biotechnology Program EARO P.O. Box 2003 Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA Phone:+ 2511454446/462633/454443 Fax: + 2511461294 Email:endale_gebre@yahoo.com

Ethiopia, EARO 4. Aberra Deressa Deputy Director General, Ethiopian Agricultural Organization. (EARO), P. o. Box 2003, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Tel :251-1-460380 Fax :251-2-114632 ddg@earo.org.et

Kenya, KARI Biotechnology

5. Ben Odhiambo Coordinator, Biotechnology Program, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Biotechnology Centre, P. O. Box 57811, Nairobi. Tel : 254-20-4440113/4447983 Fax : 254-20-4440113 biotech@skyweb.co.ke; bodhiambo@skyweb.co.ke

Kenya, NEMA 6. Ben Ithagu Research Officer, National Environment Management Authority, P. O. Box 67839, Nairobi Tel : 254-20-608999 benithagu@yahoo.com

Kenya, Egerton University

7. Moses Limo Chair, Dept. Of Bioc.d Mol.Bio/Associate Professor, Dept. Of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Egerton University, P. O. Box 536, Njoro Tel : 254-051-62566 mobile : 0722719923 Fax : 254-051-62213

39

mklimoh@yahoo.com Kenya, Moi University 8. Osano Odipo Senior Lecturer, Moi University,

school of Environmental Studies, P. O. Box 3900, Eldoret. Tel : 254-5343226 Fax : 254-53-43047 odipo@africaonline.co.ke

Rwanda, National University of Rwanda

9. Canisius Kanangire Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Rwanda P.O.Box. 629 Butare RWANDA Tél 00250 530823 (Office) 00250 (0)8408288 (Mobile phone) Email : 'ckana@nur.ac.rw'

Rwanda, Rubona Research Centre

10. Cassien Byamushana DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH CENTER INSTITUT DES SCIENCES AGRONOMIQUES DU RWANDA B.P 138 BUTARE/ RWANDA TEL : ( 250)08831454 FAX : (250)530145 Email: byamushanacass@yahoo.fr

Tanzania, Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology

11. Rose Kingamkono Director, Research Coordination & Promotion, Tanzania Commission for Science & Technology, P. O. Box 4302, Dar-es-salaam Tanzania. Tel:255-22-270052 Fax:255-22-277513/4 rkingamkono@costech.or.tz

Tanzania, Sokoine University of Agriculture

12. Paul Gwakisa Professor Paul Gwakisa (Immunology and Molecular Biology), Dept of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P O Box 3258, Morogoro, Tanzania, Phone - 255 (0) 23 2604339, 255 23 2603511 ext. 4550 Mobile - 255 (0) 744 490678 Home - 255 (0) 23 2601750 Fax - 255 23 2604647 gwakisa@suanet.ac.tz

Madagascar, Department of Agricultural Research (DRA)

13. Aimee Rabakoarihanta Bean Programme DRA FOFIFA, Ambatobe P. O. Box 1444 Antananarivo 101 Mail: fofifa-atobe@dts.mg Tél: 261 20 22 527 07 Fax:261-20-22-402-70 Mail : fofifa-atobe@dts.mg

Madagascar, FOFIFA DRZV

14. Hanta Razafindraibe FOFIFA-DRZV, B.P 04, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar, Tel/fax: 261 20 22 402 70 or 261 20 22 401 30 fofifa-drzv@dts.mg fofifa@dts.mg razafindraibehanta@yahoo.fr

40

SUB-REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

IGAD 15. Awad Abdi Rahim Head of Agricultural Research, Intergovernmental Authority on Development IGAD, P.O. Box 2653, Djibouti. Tel:253-354050/312746 Fax:253-356994.356289/353520 Awad.abdelrahim@igad.dj

PRIVATE SECTOR Kenya, Delmonte 16. Albert Macharia

Chege Agriculture Research Manager, CIRIO DelMonte Kenya Ltd, P. O. Box 147, Thika, Kenya. Tel : 254-067-21601/9 Fax : 254-067-21424 albert-chege@delmonte.co.ke C/o lorenzo_bertolli@delmonte.co.ke

Kenya, Applied Biosystems

17. Yasmin Verjee Sales Manager, Applied Biosystems Ltd, P. O. Box 66814-00800 Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel : 254-02-3754885 Fax : 254-20-3754885/220075 yverjee@iconnect.co.ke

Regional Organizations

ASARECA 18. Christopher Ngichabe Coordinator, ASERECA Biotechnology & Biosafety Program, P. O. Box 765, Plot 5, Mpigi Road, Entebbe, Uganda. Tel:256-41-322126 Fax:256-41-321126 asarbiotech@infocom.co.ug

AU/IBAR 19. Karim Tounkara AU-IBAR P.o. Box 30786, Nairobi Tel : 254-20-251517 Fax : 254-20-226565 karim.tounkara@oau-ibar.org

DONOR AGENCIES

Rockefeller, USA 20. Deborah Delmer Associate Director, Food Security The Rockefeller Foundation, 420 Fifth Ave., New York NY 10018-2702, USA. Tel : 1-212-852-8342 Fax : 1-212-852-8442 ddelmer@rockfound.org

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Development, South Africa

21. Willy de Greef Consultant, Syngenta Foundation, R-1002.1151, G002 Basel, Switzerland Tel : 7-28-3410368 willydegreef@telkomsa.net; willy.degreef@ibrs.be

USAID, Nairobi 22. Silas Obukosia Biotechnology Specialist, USAID, P. O. Box 30261, Nairobi, Kenya.

41

Tel : 254-20-862400 Fax : 254-20-870/860-949 sobukosia@usaid.gov

UN AGENCIES UNEP, Nairobi 23. Charles Gbedemah Programme Officer – Biosafety,

UNEP, P. O. Box 47074, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel : 254-20-624066 Fax : 254-20-624041/42 Charles.Gbedemah@unep.org

NGO’s ABSF 24. Dorington Ogoi Member, African Biotechnology

Stakeholders Forum, Dept. Of Biochem, P. O. Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya Tel : 254-20-4442534 Fax : 254-20-4442841 doogoyi@hotmail.com absf@absfafrica.org

ISAAA

25. Margaret Karembu

Senior Program officer, International Service For the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications – ISAAA Africenter, C/o CIP-CAMPUS, P. O. Box Nairobi 00603, Kenya Tel : 254-20-630743 Fax : 254-20-630005 m.karembu@cigar.org

AATF 26. Eugene Terry Implementing Director, The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) C/o ILRI, P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. Tel : 254-020-630743 Fax : 254-020-631499 e.terry@cgiar.org

FAO - Zimbabwe

27. Laurie Kitch

Plant Production and Protection Officer for Southern and Eastern Africa, Food and Agriculture Organization UN, P. O. Box 3730, Old Mutual Centre, Harare, Zimbabwe. Tel: 243-4-252-022 Fax:263-4-252-022 Laurie.kitch@fao.org

CGIAR CENTRES ICRISAT, India 28. Jonathan Crouch ICRISAT-India, Global Theme

Leader-Biotech, P. O. Box 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India. Tel : 91 40 23296161 j.crouch@cgiar.org

IITA, Nairobi 29. Morag Ferguson Crop Biotechnologist, International Institute For Tropical Agriculture

42

(IITA), C/o ILRI, P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel : 254-20-630743 Tel : 254-20-631499 m.ferguson@cgiar.org

CIP, Nairobi 30. Charles Crissman Regional Representative, CIP, P. O. Box 25171, Nairobi. Tel : 254-20-630743 ext. 4937 Fax : 254-20-630005 c.crissman@cgiar.org

ICRAF, Nairobi 31. Ramni Jamnadass Scientist, ICRAF/ILRI, C/o ICRAF, Nairobi. Tel : 254-20-254000 r.jamnadass@cgiar.org

IPGRI, Nairobi 32. Kwesi Attah-Krah

Regional Director, SSA, P. O. Box 30677, Nairobi Tel: 254-20-524507 Fax : 254-20-524501 k.attah-krah@cgiar.org

IPGRI, Nairobi 33. Mikkel Grum Genetic Diversity Scientist, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, (IPGRI), P. O. Box 30677-00100 Nairobi. Tel : 254-20-524505 Fax : 254-20-524501 m.grum@cgiar.org

CIAT-Kawanda 34. Robin Buruchara Pathologist & Pabra Coordinator, CIAT, P. O. Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda. Tel : 256-41-567670-567259 Fax : 256-41-567635 r.buruchara@cgiar.org

CIAT-Nairobi 35.Paul Kimani Regional Breeder, CIAT, Dept. Of Crop Science, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 29053, Nairobi. Tel : 254-630705/632037 Fax : 254-20-631956 kimanipm@nbnet.co.ke

IFPRI, Uganda 36. Steven Were Omamo Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, P. O. Box 28565, Kampala, Uganda Tel : 256-41-234613 Fax : 256-41-234614 w.omamo@cgiar.org

ILRI, Nairobi 37. Evans Taracha Senior Scientist-Project Leader, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi. Kenya Tel : 254-020-630743 Fax : 254-020-631499 e.taracha@cgiar.org

ILRI, Nairobi 38. Etienne de Villiers Bioinformatician, ILRI, P. O. BOX 30709, 00100, Nairobi, Tel ; 254-20-630743 Fax : 254-2631499 e.villiers@cgiar.org

ILRI, Nairobi 39. John McDermott Deputy Director General, ILRI, P.O.Box 30709 Nairobi. Tel:254-20-630743

43

Fax:254-20-631499 j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

ILRI, Nairobi 40. Bruce Scott Director, Partnership & Communications, ILRI, P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi. Tel:254-20-630743 b.scott@cgiar.org

ILRI, Ethiopia 41. Azage Tegegne ILRI, P. O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Tel : 251-1-463215 Fax : 251-1-461252 a.tegegne@cgiar.org

WorldFish Centre 42. Patrick Dugan Deputy Director General, Africa and West Asia, The Worldfish Center, P. O. Box 3 Abu El Feda St., Zamalek 11211, Cairo, Egypt. Tel : +20-2-7364114(Ext. 110) Fax : +20-2-7364112 p.dugan@cgiar.org

WorldFish Center, Malawi

43. Daniel Jamu Worldfish Center, P. O. Box 229, Zomba Malawi. Tel : 2651-536298 Fax : 2651- 536274 d.jamu@cgiar.org

CABI, Nairobi 44.Jane Frances Asaba Information Scientist, CABI International, Africa Regional Centre, P. O. Box 633-00621, Nairobi. Tel : 254-20-524462 Fax : 254-20-522150

INVITED SPEAKERS

University of Nairobi/BTA

45. Norah Olembo Dept of Biochemistry, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, Nairobi Tel: 254-20-4442534 Email: noraholembo@yahoo.com And Chairman, Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA), Family Health Plaza, 1st Floor, P. O. Box 1285-00100, Nairobi Tel: 254-20-603983/ 600040 Mobile: 254-0733 854575 Fax: 254-20-603358 Email: bta@swiftkenya.com

The Doyle Foundation, Australia

46. Gabrielle Persley Chair, The Doyle Foundation, P. O. Box 1101, Toowong, Brisbam, Australia, 4066. OR 45 St.Germains, Bearsden, Glasgow, Scotland U.K Tel: 61-7-38705240. Tel : Scotland-44-141-9423331 Fax : 61-7-38705240 g.persley@uq.edu.au

ILRI, Nairobi 47. John Gibson Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute, (ILRI) P. O. Box 30709 Nairobi 00100.

44

Tel : 254-020-630743 Fax : 254-020-631499 j.gibson@cgiar.org

University of Edinbourgh, United Kingdom

48. James Smith Researcher, Innogen Centre, University of Edinburgh, Infirmary Str. Edinburgh, U.K Tel : +44-136-650-6391 Jsmith8@staffmail.ed.ac.uk

CABI, United Kingdom 49. Elizabeth Dodsworth Director, Information for Development, CAB International, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8DE Tel : +44 1491 829473 e.dodsworth@cabi.org

INTERIM STEERING COMMITTEE

Uganda Council for Science and Technology

50. Peter Ndemere (representing Z. Nyiira)

Assistant Executive Secretary, Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, Plot 10 Kampala Road, Uganda House, 11th Floor, P. O. Box 6884, Kampala, Uganda. Fax: (256) 41-250499, Tel(256) 41 234579 Email: uncst@starcom.co.ug

NEPAD, Pretoria 51. John Mugabe john@nepadst.org; ICIPE, Nairobi 52. Onesmo Ole-MoiYoi Oole-moiyoi@icipe.org SECRETARIAT/ FACILITATORS

Secretariat 53. Ed Rege Director, Biotechnology Theme, International Livestock Research Institute, P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi. Tel:254-20-630743 Fax:254-20-631499 e.rege@cgiar.org

Secretariat 54. Lusike Wasilwa SRO, KARI, P. O. Box 57811, 00200, Nairobi. Tel:254-20-583301-02 Fax:254-20-583344 lwasilwa@kari.org

Secretariat 55. Agnes Odanga ILRI, P.O.Box 30709 Nairobi. Tel:254-20-630743 Fax:254-20-631499 a.odanga@cgiar.org

Secretariat 56. Rosalynn Gichimo Programme Assistant, Biotechnology Theme, ILRI, P. O. Box 30709, Nairobi. Tel:254-20-630743 Fax:254-20-631499 r.gichimo@cgiar.org

Facilitator 57. Apondi Nyang’aya kalausi@nbi.ispkenya.com

Facilitator 58. Justus Nyang’aya kalausi@nbi.ispkenya.com

Facilitator 59. Judith Attyang kalausi@nbi.ispkenya.com PRESS The People 60.Wahinya Henry Feature Writer and Section Co-

ordinator, The People Daily Newspaper, P. O. Box

45

10296,00100 GPO, Nairobi Tel: 254-20-253344 hwahinyas@yahoo.com

Daily Nation 61. Naftali K. Mungai Science Editor, The Nation Media Group, P. O. Box 49010, 00100 GPO, Nairobi. Tel:254-020-221222, naftalik@yahoo.co.uk-nkure@nation.co.ke

The East African Standard

62. Ochieng Ogodo Ogodo16@hotmail.com