Study Finds Gaps In Africa-EU Health Research And Innovation Links

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – Health research collaborations between Africa and Europe do not match up with Africa’s own stated funding intentions, says a report published by a European Union-funded project.

The CAAST-Net Plus, a project that aims to encourage EU-Africa science collaboration published the report on 23 March.

The report [pdf] scrutinised close to 90 Africa-European Union health research projects worth billions of euros in the past decade, funded by the EU’s framework programmes, FP6, FP7, and the African Caribbean Pacific Science and Technology Programme.

The programmes were analysed for the uptake of research findings to inform policymakers and adoption by the private sector.

CAAST-Net Plus says the adoption of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000, the first Africa-EU Summit in Cairo in 2000, and the adoption of the Joint Africa Europe Strategy in 2007 with its emphasis on bi-regional cooperation in science, technology and innovation (STI) have shaped cooperation between the two regions.

“The study is a good source of policy measures for building bi-regional cooperation in health research and innovation,” said John Ouma-Mugabe, professor of science and innovation policy at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, and the lead author of the report.

The report provides a detailed analysis of some of the outcomes, outputs and impacts of Africa-EU cooperation in health research and innovation, he said.

“There is no prior analysis of outcomes of the cooperation. It is often taken for granted that Africa-EU cooperation in health research and innovation works, that there are tangible outcomes,” said Ouma-Mugabe.

Besides being a new source of rich empirical data on the diversity of research and innovation projects involving African and EU institutions which demonstrates the growth of the cooperation, the report also suggests ways of deepening Africa-EU partnerships, Ouma-Mugabe told Intellectual Property Watch.

According to the report, cooperation generated tangible outputs and potential outcomes, such as new scientific knowledge, increasing numbers of graduates, new products and processes, some findings that have influenced public policies, and new forms of engagement between researchers from the two regions. It says significant success is noted from those that received relatively large-scale financing over a long period of time.

Gaps in Collaboration

But, amidst these successes, a wide range of gaps in collaboration appear. Africa’s contributions to bi-regional health research and innovation (R&I) cooperation are not significant.

Ouma-Mugabe said the EU provides up to at least 75 percent of the funding for the health research and innovation initiatives.

He attributed Africa’s limited contributions to the health R&I to several reasons. There is absence of domestic funding instruments for research and development. Most African countries have no established national funding mechanisms, and have no strategies to mobilize and direct local resources to research and development (R&D).

Ouma-Mugabe cited weak political commitment to research and development in general and failure of parliaments and political parties in most African countries to devote attention and demand executive organs of the state to invest in R&D.

“There is lack of accountability mechanism, African leaders are not being held accountable for not implementing funding decisions made within African Union and regional bodies such as the SADC,” he said.

For instance, the 2007 Africa Health Strategy, the main policy instrument promoting the continent’s cooperation in health with the international community, says countries should allocate at least 2 percent of national health expenditure and 5 percent of project and programme aid for research, but this is hardly honoured.

While Africa and EU share related health priorities on R&I initiatives, action plans have not been high on the agenda of Africa-EU leadership summits, the report notes.

Ouma-Mugabe said African countries have limited capacities for health research and innovation priority setting.

“Most countries have not established or built the culture of health research and innovation priority setting,” he added, saying their priorities are largely defined by donors or sources of funding. “Priorities tend to be pre-set by donors with little local input.”

African countries have different priorities and have not established clear mechanisms for collective priority setting, he noted.

The study said private sector participation had increased in health R&I cooperation, mainly in drug and vaccine development health priorities, but funding for these efforts mainly came from Europe.

A range of policy deficits associated with weak intellectual property protection, limited R&D incentives, regulatory barriers to clinical trials, and limited research-industry linkages were listed as barriers to private sector participation in Africa-EU health R&I cooperation.

Professor Carel IJsselmuiden, executive director of Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), based in Switzerland, which participated in the study said, Africa was broadly underrepresented in health research.

When it comes to intellectual property, he said, it is a complex business and capacity is needed to do it in Africa.

“The importance of IP in the health sector has to be realised,” IJsselmuiden told Intellectual Property Watch.

He said COHRED is helping by providing people who can help towards building the expertise through Fair Research Contracting (FRC), technical support outfit, run from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

IJsselmuiden said FRC supports international health research at institutions where no legal support exists, where legal resources are minimal and even where there is legal capacity.

The result, he said, is targeted at increasing competitiveness around intellectual property rights and building institutional reputation and research capacity to collaborate.

Plugging the Gaps

Ouma-Mugabe said there is need for a vibrant civil society that advocates for health R&D spending.

“We need public pressure on leaders to implement decisions on health R&D spending,” he said, adding that, political parties and parliaments should provide platforms for holding executive arms of the state to account for not implementing policies on funding health research and innovation.

For IJsselmuiden Africa’s failure to meet its financial commitments does not mean health research should stop.

“There are other things that are inexpensive that Africa can do such as setting up a conducive environment for clinical trials,” he said.

The report called for AU and its international partners to establish an African fund for regional and bi-regional health R&I which could enhance African participation in bi-regional health R&I.

Establishment of an online data database of identified R&I-performing SMEs in Africa was recommended by the report to boost the participation of small companies in Africa-EU health cooperation.

AU member states were encouraged to review their national R&I policies to reduce barriers to private sector participation and effectively use Regional Economic Communities to address at regional level.

CAAST-Net Plus could support further analysis on factors that influence the participation of the private sector in health R&I in Africa, the report noted. These could include a survey of research-performing SMEs, cases studies on the impact of intellectual property rights on private sector, R&D incentives, and socio-economic issues related to clinical trials.

“Encourage European and African policymakers to establish a permanent, joint research and innovation commission to promote more intensive future research and innovation collaborations,” the report said.

Role Model

While Africa falls short on its funding commitments, there are some programmes in the study such as the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) that has emerged as a good example.

The EDCTP which aims to accelerate the development of new or improved drugs and vaccines has cemented its research collaboration through shared objectives, plans, and implementation, said Michael Makanga, EDCTP executive director.

“It is vital that clinical research capacity is developed in sub-Saharan Africa, where the research is actually conducted,” he told Intellectual Property Watch.

“Collaborative research proved to give powerful opportunities to do so and this fosters local ownership and sustainability of investments,” he added.

In its second phase, EDCTP has incorporated its African partners in the governance structure, reinforcing equal partnership and promoting African co-ownership of the research programme where 14 African and 14 European countries work together.

“This is a clear road to better alignment of research with national or regional health needs and will produce highly relevant evidence policy makers can use for creating a healthier future for the African populations,” said Makanga.

He said longstanding contacts with the private sector including the pharmaceutical industry have nurtured partnerships where industry is actively supporting research capacity development.

Caption: Participants at the stakeholder forum of the EU-Africa High Level Policy Dialogue on science, technology and innovation (5-6 April 2016) [Image credit: *Research Africa /CAAST-Net Plus]