The Sunday Mail
By Sifelani Tsiko
Zimbabwean scientists are set to benefit from a US$15 million research fund facility extended to five African countries to tackle food security challenges through innovative solutions.
That is good news for the science community in Zimbabwe which often face numerous problems in accessing funds to support critical research.
The US$15 million research facility includes contributions from Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) — the major funders of the venture which will support five projects in Eastern and Southern Africa to address food security problems.
The projects funded through Cultivate Africa’s Future (CultiAF), a four-year $15-million partnership between the two agencies will see Zimbabwe scientists and others from four other African countries conducting research on post-harvest systems, nutrition, and sustainable water use.
Such partnerships are quite critical for Zimbabwe and most other African countries as science funding has largely remained elusive due to lack of political will and commitment to science and innovation.
Science funding is at the heart of long-term sustainable economic growth and investing in such research partnerships has the potential to tackle food security challenges facing Zimbabwe and most other African countries.
“The CultiAF projects will help to increase the incomes and improve the diets of the people who need it the most in sub-Saharan Africa, where agricultural productivity is the lowest in the world,” says IDRC president, Jean Lebel, in a statement released recently.
“This partnership between IDRC and ACIAR will increase food security through practical science for development.”
In Zimbabwe, researchers will partner with Government officials and the private sector to address the dangers of aflatoxins, the naturally occurring toxic substances produced by fungi on maize, the funding partners say.
Tests on storage technologies and community education will help reduce contamination of maize and exposure of people, especially children whose early development can suffer if exposed.
The project will also see researchers in Zambia and Malawi evaluate post-harvest fish processing practices to improve their effectiveness, reduce losses, and promote greater equity among the men and women who work in the fish production chain.
In Kenya and Uganda, researchers are testing the feasibility of raising poultry and fish on feed made from insects rather than soyabeans and cereals.
Partners say the switch will help to reduce costs for small-scale producers and redirect the food crops currently used as feed toward human consumption.
In Malawi, fishing is a crucial source of employment and nutrition, yet 40 percent of fish are lost during post-harvest processing. The research team will test and adapt solar fish-drying tents to reduce losses and develop new business models for fishers.
In Kenya and Uganda, researchers will boost food security and support livelihoods by improving the processing of beans.
Their research on the production and marketing chain for precooked beans aims to increase bean production, test new products, and promote the consumption of pre-cooked beans to improve nutrition and reduce women’s time spent on household cooking, the partners say.
“Agricultural research is an efficient means to reduce poverty and promote prosperity. By adopting innovative practices smallholder farmers can be transformed from subsistence to enterprise farmers,” says Mellissa Wood, director of the Australian International Food Security Research Centre.
“Because of early involvement of the private sector in the research, the CultiAF projects have great potential to deliver commercial benefits and growth for the region.”
African governments are still struggling to secure funding to support the development of laboratory infrastructure to promote agricultural research that addresses food security challenges facing the continent.
Scientists say African governments must seriously consider investing in laboratory infrastructure to promote research and ensure that the continent realises its ambition to become an agricultural research hub.
Science funding must be at the heart of Africa’s economic strategy and foreign scientific investment must compliment whatever little investment is being done on the continent.
Embracing and investing in technology acquisition, development, adaptation and adoption for use by the farmers in Africa is the only way to achieve agricultural development.
African farmers face numerous challenges in their quest to increase productivity and investing in laboratory infrastructure and food security-related issues can ensure that we can scale up research that responds effectively to some of their needs.
It will also help African countries to qualify and certify the status of food consumed on the continent.
There is a global race and Africa needs to look at the global picture on science investment.
The best bet is on a knowledge-based economy and figures below just indicate why Africa needs to ratchet up some investment in science.
The US spends 2,8 percent of its GDP on research.
The UK spends 1,79 percent, which is below the EU average of just over 2 percent. Germany, France, Japan and South Korea all invest a greater percentage of GDP while China is increasing spending on research and development at a rate of 19 percent per year, according to latest statistics.
This is all clear for Zimbabwe and Africa to learn from.
We cannot afford to be complacent and to continuously mourn about our financial incapability.
Some research in agriculture, despite the cost, can have significant impacts on our countries’ agricultural outputs.
Even though our scientific base is not built on robust bedrock, political will to just support and offer whatever small amounts there is can help enhance agricultural research outputs that can help fight hunger and humiliating poverty.
Science funding will help to retain our scientists here at home. Western countries have benefited and continue to benefit from our inability to retain our best brains.
Science should be a valuable asset that should be given national and continental priority.
It is something that most other countries have used to exploit Africa’s rich natural resources.
That is why investing in science makes sense and should be given priority. We now need to place it at the heart of a national industrial strategy and that will require a long-term commitment backed up by adequate investment.
So far, the bulk of Western research funds for Africa have mainly focused on Ebola research with little being channelled to other critical sectors such as agriculture, water, energy and other health-related issues.
According to The Scientist, since August 2014, the UK government pledged around £200 million ($318 million), including £3 million ($4,8 million) for research into how Ebola spreads.
In the US, the government committed $350 million in aid and research while other developed countries have also committed various amounts on Ebola vaccines and treatment research.
A whole range of other critical sectors are now orphans as more money is channelled to Ebola research.
The tragedy of current research funding trends is that the agenda for research in Africa is set and directed by the key Western funders.
Because most African countries have failed to prioritise science funding, everything has now been left to external funders who unfortunately drive all research agendas.
“Most of the African researchers are mainly focusing on getting resources, publishing their papers in collaboration, but are not in the position to lead the research that will solve the continent’s problems,” once remarked Solomon Nwaka, an official of the African Network for Drugs and Diagnostics Innovation, an international organisation conceived by the World Health Organisation and launched with seed money from the European Union. “The problem is resources. There is no Pan-African research funding agency.”
Pursuit of research and science funding is vital for Africa’s survival and economic development.
Little wonder then why in the New Scientist 2008, Jean-Jacques Dordain of the European Space Agency (ESA) said: “I don’t think that Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean on a business-case basis. I have not read any books saying he had to demonstrate the return he would get by crossing the ocean. And yet there was a lot of return, especially for Europe.”
