Funding for Biotechnology in Africa

1
Funding for Biotechnology in Africa

• Diran Makinde
• NEPAD West Africa Biosciences Network
• Dakar, Senegal
• Oxford Conference on Innovation and Technology
  Transfer for Global Health. University of Oxford,
  UK. 9-13 September 2007

2
Introduction

• Inequalities in health and food security keep
  widening between developed and developing
  countries, esp. SSA e.g. infant mortality rate,
  TB prevalence, food production rate less than
  population growth rate.
• Safe development application of biotech to
  address these face a number of challenges

3
Biotechnology in Africa

• Challenges
• Inadequate resources to develop and safely apply
  biotechnology (human, infrastructure, and
  funding)
• Inadequate policies and legal frameworks
  (biosafety, IPR, Strategies)
• Addressing the Challenges
• Skills/expertise Institutions and Context
• NEPAD Biosciences Initiative 4 regional hubs and
  a growing no of nodes to mobilise Africas scarce
  ST infrastructure, expertise, financial
  resources and international funding for research
  and to generate innovations in agric, health, etc
• Support each Network to prepare IP Protection
  Guidelines

4
.
NEPAD Biosciences Initiative
NEPAD Biosciences Initiative NABNet, Cairo,
Egypt WABNet. Dakar, Senegal BecANET. Nairobi,
Kenya SANBio. Pretoria, South Africa

• ..

5
Factors determining the future of biotech in
Africa

• Proactive policy
• Africa deciding for Africa
• Biosafety legislation and institutions
• Ability to assess the technology for ourselves
• Scientific capacity building
• Ability to appropriate and adapt biotechnology
• IPR regimes
• Protect and encourage private investment
• Public awareness and acceptance
• Credible competent communication

6
Biosafety Status in sub-Saharan Africa
7
Overview of biosafety regulation in Africa

• Pilot studies
• Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia
• UNEP/ GEF projects
• Senegal, Mali, Guinea-Conakry, Siera Leone,
  Mali, Togo, Benin, Niger, Algeria, Congo,
  Botswana, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique,
  Madagascar

Mauritius
Status January 2004
8
Biotech in Africa Key Role Players

• AU-NEPAD Biosciences
• FARA
• REC- ECOWAS, EAC, SADC
• SROs- CORAF/WECARD, ASARECA,
• Institutions- Universities, NARIs, CGIAR Centres
• Intergovernmental- AAB (Algeria), ABPD,
  USAID/PBS, AATF, World Bank,
• NGOs- ABSF, AfricaBio, ISAAA, A-Harvest and many
  others in each country.

9
NEPAD Biosciences Initiative

• Flagship RD Programmes
• Biodiversity, Biotechnology Indigenous
  Knowledge
• Energy, Water Desertification
• Material Sciences, Manufacturing, Laser
  Post-harvest Technologies
• Mathematical Sciences
• Information, Communication Space Science
  Technologies.

10
NEPAD Policy Processes

• African Science, Technology and Innovation
  Indicators Initiative- to monitor Africas
  scientific and technological development useful
  in formulating, adjusting and implementing STI
  policies.
• High level Panel on Modern Biotechnology- to
  facilitate open informed regional
  multi-stakeholder dialogue associated with
  /raised by rapid development of modern
  biotechnology.

11
Priority Areas

• Food security nutrition, healthcare,
  environmental sustainability
• Centre Focus
• BecANet Animal biotech (Central Africa- Forest
  technology)
• SANBio Health biotech
• WABNet Crop biotech
• NABNet Bio-pharmaceuticals

12
Biotech Funding

• South Africa Scenario
• - GDP US 11,400
• -Formal RD Expenditure 0.87
• -Companies contribution1.8 sales
  revenue
• -Knowledge economy key ingredient
  innovation- capacity to innovate internally
  and absorb external innovation with impact on the
  economy and society
• Developed new mechanisms for public funding of
  RD
• -Technology and Human Resources for Industry
  Programme (THRIP)
• -Technology push 3 BRICs of 240 million/year
• -HSRCs Centre for Science Technology
  Innovation Indicators in collaboration with NRF,
  NACI, CHE to provide strategic intelligence and
  analysis to support policy.
• Source OECD- Review of the South Africas
  Innovation Policy (2007)

13
Biotech Funding

• Sub-Saharan Africa Scenario
• Gross expenditure on RD less than 0.3 (some 0)
• International donors provide 75 of NARIs
  budgets
• Govts. contribution to NARIs inadequate,
  irregular and late and do not take into account
  seasonal agric production cycles
• 
  (Wakiibi and Youdouwei, 2007)
• Bilateral Donors EU, DFID, USAID, DANIDA, GTZ,
  SIDA, CIDA, etc
• Foundations Rockefeller Foundation, BMGF, Gatsby
  Trust Foundation, IFS, KirkHouse Trust (AATF for
  agric biotech research and Training in Africa)
• World Bank
• Africa Development Bank
• Others IDRC, IFAD, MAE (France), CTA, etc

14
Political will versus Financial Commitments

• Political will for biotech is in Africa but no
  fund to support the knowledge-based development.
• Funding is less than 250,000/year in most AU
  countries.
• Out of a total 250 million spent each year in
  biotech RD in the developing countries about 20
  comes directly through the Future Harvest Centres
  linked to the CG Centres.
• RSA - 300 million/annum for biotech
• Nigeria- 263 million/annum through NABDA
• AMCOST developing legal instruments for African
  Science Innovation Facility (ASIF) a distinct
  funding scheme for ST in Africa in partnership
  with AU-NEPAD, ADB, and WB.

15
Other sources/possible sources of fund for RD

• AU Maputo Declaration 10 of Agric GDP to RD
• AMCOST 1 of GDP to ST
• Others
• Agro-industry-wide levies e. g. Kenya small
  charge on tea, coffee and sugar.
• Gains from National Lotteries.
• Restructuring and Redefining public expenditure
  to cater for ST Research.
• Banking financial reforms to promote
  technological innovations.
• Capital markets through Venture Capitals.

16
Conclusions

• With NEPAD, it is business unusual
• Universities NARIs in the AU need to be
  re-invented for innovations and PPP piecemeal
  change will not do
• AU leaders must significantly increase public
  investments in biotech RD. Failure to do so will
  impair the continents capacity to stay connected
  to global advances in biotech and to transfer,
  adapt and exploit life sciences knowledge for the
  benefit of all citizens.
• (AU-NEPAD Doc. Freedom to Innovate, 2007)