Royal danish ministry of foreign affairs - Go to the frontpage of   Publication  

10 Synergy and Coherence

10.1 Introduction

The Evaluation has considered five funding modalities (six if the Minor Studies component is included) over a six-year period. These have not all been operating at the same level or for the same length of time, but represent a succession of funding and activity levels. The Evaluation found evidence of the interaction between these different modalities, not surprisingly since many of the researchers in Denmark, and the South, have been, or are, engaged in more than one funding stream.

The synergy between the different modalities, where it occurs, is on an ad hocbasis, and occurs principally because the same individuals are involved in multiple modalities. There is no systematic or formal set of procedures which give guidance on how information should or could be shared, and the lack of a formal role for embassies means that the knowledge of embassy staff of in-country agricultural and NRM research is limited to initiatives stimulated by personal interest. That is not to say that synergies and coherence does not happen, as the case studies below demonstrate, but that it is dependent on individuals and not institutions.

10.2 Linking Different Modalities

Funding levels

Figure 6 shows the development in funding for FFU projects (both South-driven and North-driven projects), the emergence of BSU as a modality and the decline of funding to networks and centres.

Figure 6 Funding levels (DKK million) between 2006 and 2011 for five modalities (agriculture and natural resource management)

Figure 6

This shifting of funding reflects the role that each modality has played in the overall support Danida has provided to research in agriculture and natural resource management.

In the context of the five funding instruments considered by the Evaluation, funding which started in 2006, was split between FFU North-driven projects (66% of total), centres (23%) and networks (11%) but by 2011 this had changed to North-driven projects (64%), South-driven projects (9%) and BSU (27%).

There is ample evidence to show that funding to centres, which provided both the technical capacity and support for researchers in the South, also provided opportunities for small research initiatives and scoping studies which provided the impetus and inspiration for the development of FFU projects. As the role of the centres changed, and they became merged into a university environment, the Danish staff retained the personal links with colleagues in the South and continued to work and develop research activities. Some of these were supported through FFU and others by development partners (principally the EU) with a greater focus on uptake and application of outputs. Some examples of this are given below.

Similarly the networks initially provided a platform for informing Danida technical staff of key issues, and a forum where researchers could exchange ideas and develop proposals for FFU funding.

Case studies of linkages and synergy from Burkina Faso and Tanzania

For many years Tanzania has been one of the top recipients of Danish development assistance and Denmark is a significant bilateral donor. In recent years the focus of Danida has been on research activities through participating research institutions, especially universities. For the last 20 years, support to agriculture and natural resources has been through UDSM and SUA and Recently Mzumbe University has started to benefit as a newcomer in this collaboration[82], starting with the launching of a pilot research project.

Burkina Faso has also been a major recipient of Danish development assistance and development research since the 1970s and Denmark is today among the largest bilateral donors. The main recipients for Danish support to development research are the National Centre for Scientific and Technological Research (CNRST), the National Forest Seeds Centre (CNSF)and the University of Ouagadougou(see Chapter 2 and Annex L).

Two case studies from Tanzania (Box 3 and Box 4 ) and two from Burkina Faso (Box 5 and Box 6) demonstrate how the different modalities have worked in support of each other and with other funding sources, initiatives and projects. These are not isolated examples.

Box 3 Case Study – Centre, FFU, National Government and Development Partner Links in Tanzania

A small project on forest management started through the Tree Seed Centre in 2003 and developed into an FFU project. The project collected data on PFM and related issued, linking with policy makers in Tanzania who were mainstreaming a participatory forest management (PFM) policy. PFM was used as a tool which linked with Norwegian support to Tanzania’s national initiative to Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) project. The outcome of the project has been a large database which is accessible by professionals to improve the PFM and REDD to provide a baseline of data for the Tanzania National Carbon Monitoring Centre (funded by the Norad for three years) which is bringing together all the REDD-related projects.

Box 4 Case Study – ENRECA, FFU, Multi-stakeholder and Development Partner Links in Tanzania

Original pig project developed under ENRECA in Tanzania and Mozambique addressed the issue of cystercicosis in pigs. The second phase through an FFU project is linking the constraints to wider farming system in order to improve the livelihoods of farmers and reduce the effect of pig diseases to human health. It aims to improve community food security in Mozambique and Tanzania by fostering optimal smallholder pig production model systems through multi-disciplinary and multi-project linkages so that this FFU project has become a cog in a big machine to improve livelihoods.

The project has identified a range of stakeholders including feed millers, drug companies, Ministries of Livestock and Fisheries and Local Government. All stakeholders are present at meetings and a multi-stakeholder platform has been established for planning and implementation.

Smallholder pig production is mainly a women’s occupation or a way for the elderly to maintain a pension. Simple farmer-based solutions to increase productivity contribute to secure protein foods, improve farmers’ livelihoods and contribute to poverty alleviation. Research findings are being disseminated to key local stakeholders and internationally via publications, presentations, educational materials and policy briefs.

There has been spill-over from the project into other projects, and some funding is received through ASARECA’s Biotechnology and Biosafety Programme with additional involvement from ILRI. Sharing networking on a sub-regional basis.

One outcome of project has been development of the Cystercicosis Regional Working Group for Eastern and Southern Africa which is a network involving Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Mozambique, Tanzania, South Africa which meets every two years and has developed a regional action plan to tackle the problem, with each country having a regional taskforce. In Tanzania it involves Ministries of Medical Research, Local Government, Research, University of Dar es Salaam and SUA. The Working Group’s Secretariat is self-funding and sustainable.

This project is also providing key information and inputs and helping to leverage additional funds from ICONZ, Gates Foundation, Merial Drugs and engagement with One Health. There is also additional EU funding through ADVANZ (EUR 0.5 million) for communication. There are also South-South institutional links with University of Zambia and South Africa where analysis is done for the project. Annual planning meetings involving Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, South Africa and Danish stakeholders.

Box 5 Case Study – Centre, FFU and Development Partner Links in Burkina Faso

One researcher working at INERA received MSc and PhD training from Danida under Seed Health Centre support. From this position a small project was also developed with Centre support which evolved into an FFU project using a botanical fungicide, which targets the crops of small-scale sorghum and millet farmers and food security.

The project has synergies with other academic research cooperation programmes/projects including one in Tanzania and there have been several South-South exchanges. EU-funding has been obtained for the next phase (FFU funding was declined) which will concentrate on dissemination and uptake.

Box 6 Case Study – FFU Project support to National and sub-regional outcomes in Burkina Faso

The Institut de Recherche en Sciences Appliquées et Technologies (IRSAT) in Burkina Faso is a member of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique – a national grouping of scientific research institutes. Over the last seven years IRSAT has received support from three FFU projects which have developed its human resource capacity as well as strengthening equipment and laboratory facilities. Currently a laboratory for food analysis has received international accreditation, and leverage EU funds for continued development as well as support from the West African Agricultural Productivity Programme (WAAPP) funded through the World Bank and managed and administered by CORAF/WECARD, a sub-regional organisation for agricultural research covering 22 countries in West and Central Africa. WAAPP support is to recognise the laboratory as a Centre of Excellence for national and sub-regional use.

10.3 Nature of External Links with Development Partners

Under the current system for implementing centrally funded research to agriculture and NRM, there is no role for staff at the Danish embassies in-country in the management of the research programme, and to this extent there is no obligation to connect with other development partners. Donor coordination for agriculture and NRM in Tanzania is limited to an information sharing platform and there are no links to FFU on this platform.

10.4 Conclusions

The links and collaboration that have been developed through Danida-funded activities, irrespective of the funding instrument, have had a synergistic influence, encouraging further collaboration and creating informal networks between researchers. The leveraging of non-Danida support for research is one of the positive consequences. At any one time between 2006 and 2011, a more formal structure for information and knowledge sharing, including a simple mechanism for communicating key research findings to Danida staff in embassies, would have increased these benefits.

Currently BSU initiatives and FFU North- and South-driven projects are the operational funding instruments but these also lack a formal mechanism for sharing information with each other and the embassies, relying on personal contacts and interests, and whilst this appears to some extent to function, a more formal structure, however simple, would almost certainly enhance both synergy and coherence.

[82] In addition to attending the Evaluation’s SWOT Workshop in Tanzania, the Vice Chancellor of Mzumbe University also travelled to Copenhagen to take part in the Emerging Issues Workshop which was also part of the evaluation process.

This page forms part of the publication 'Evaluation of Danida supported Research on Agriculture and Natural Resource Management 2006-2011' as chapter 13 of 16
Version 1.0. 09-09-2013
Publication may be found at the address


  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark © |