VIII CONCLUSION

1. The present study could provide an indication of the European capacity for research cooperation with developing countries. The characterisation of the human, scientific, institutional and technical resources was possible in selected areas only, as there are:

Fisheries and Aquaculture: 462 institutes (approximately) with about 6648 expert staff

Forestry: 450 institutes

ECART: 7 institutes with about 3002 expert staff

NATURA: 133 institutes with about 4000 expert staff

IPM-EU: 48 institutes

BUROTROP: 8 institutes

In total, the inquiry analysed 1096 institutes involved in research cooperation with developing countries. The number takes into consideration that some institutions are involved in several of the consortia (ECART, NATURA) and networks (IPM Europe, BUROTROP). However, this enormous amount of European research and development institutions can only be considered the tip of the iceberg.

2. The European institutional landscape in research is highly diverse inter alia with respect to the institutional organisation (public, private), institutional orientation (research, research management, research/development, consultancies), institutional specialization (food, industrial goods, environment, etc.) and focus of spatial cooperation with partners in developing countries. However, this heterogeneity of the European institutional landscape implies that there exists

a) a high but diverse technical competence in the field of tropical and subtropical agricultural research,

b) a high degree of complexity (organisational, technical, intellectual) among European research organisations and

c) a high interaction (organisational, technical, intellectual) among the individual European research organisations and national agricultural research systems (NARS) including universities, private sector and local NGOs in developing countries.

These three features become only productive prerequisites to prepare answers to the upcoming global challenges of feeding a fast growing global population if cooperation, participation and interaction beyond disciplines in view of research for development can be achieved. EIARD has to take up these challenges.

3. The present study does not only list institutions specialized in agricultural research for development but also includes the vast majority of institutions cooperating with developing countries in one way or the other (e.g. training, sandwich programmes, small grants, information exchange, personal cooperation). It appears that one of the future tasks of EIARD will be to strengthen, to coordinate and to further mobilize this - in many cases - untapped and sometimes informal human and institutional resource base. This will also cease the waste of a great and innovative European potential to contribute to ARD.

4. Research networks apparently are valuable tools for increasing the scientific interaction, especially information and communication among network participants. Particularly, the multidisciplinary approach (like in the case of IPM EU), the participation of different types of institutes (development, research, business, NGO) and the broad involvement of (smaller) Member States should be monitored and strongly promoted in European networks.

In the short term the characterisation of the European institutional base in ARD will be advisably done by the combination of different approaches as there are

a. establishment of meta-information-databases

b. interactive questionnaires and communication tools in the INTERNET

c. topic oriented searches in the INTERNET

d. traditional inquiries

In the medium term we assume that most of the European institutes and actors will be present in the WWW.

Lessons to be learned from the study:

5. The use of questionnaires to evaluate the European Institutional resources in ARD on a broad base proved inadequate in the rather short period of time available. However, due to the presence of many institutes on the INTERNET information problems could be overcome through this electronic medium. For example in the case of the IPM EU network the INTERNET proved a reliable tool for collecting basic information on the different institutions. This strongly supports a decentralized data management approach.

6. A further shortcoming of the present study is that a sound evaluation of thematic areas is possible. Therefore detailed information on important areas like the European capacity in desertification/water research, biotechnology or agrobiodiversity conservation and utilization cannot be presented at this stage.

7. In general the knowledge base about European ARD institutes is scarce or even missing. Comprehensive descriptions of the European institutional resource base in ARD are limited to examples from isolated research disciplines, e.g. aquaculture and forestry (monographs). In addition, the format of the institutional presentation varies considerably between these inventories so that comparisons are almost impossible. Another point is that links between the different disciplines engaged in ARD are almost missing in these inventories. This makes it difficult for the different partners in ARD projects and activities to cooperate and to work effectively and efficiently.

8. The heterogeneity of the available information (questionnaire, Internet, hard copies, personal communications) calls for greater coherence, as comparisons between the institutes and their activities and projects proved to be very difficult. However, this should be reached by a decentralized data management solution in which the different institutes are responsible for their own presentation and up-dating of relevant information.

IX RECOMMENDATIONS

1. EIARD should further support the development of comprehensive information and communication tools in a decentralized network approach, equally benefitting researchers in Europe and developing countries. The broad participation of ARD stakeholders will be the key to ist success. In this environment, the characterisation of the European institutional research base should be continued.
2. On the individual level EIARD needs to develop mechanisms to strengthen the role of individual researchers and individual institutes in a European ARD system, by:

• providing a definition of ARD: "What is ARD research for development, how is it organised and how can the individual researcher effectively contribute to ARD?"
• contributing to comprehensive access to ARD information and
• facilitating opportunities to participate in and to cooperate within the ARD system

Apparently a solide information base about institutes and research activities is prerequisite in the process of building a European Forum for ARD.

3. On the institutional level EIARD needs to evaluate the needs and bottlenecks within research cooperation with partners in developing countries. A constructional analysis might result in the creation of better mechanisms to support partnerships with developing countries involving a broad European institutional base.

4. On the European level new and open ARD networks (thematical, knowledge based and institutional) between research, business, development cooperation and nonprofit sector should be promoted in order to better link research efforts with development cooperation and better target research to practical needs.

5. The aforementioned recommendations call for a solution in which the individual researchers, institutions and networks present their basic institutional information in a decentralized information system in order to gradually build up a knowledge network in ARD. Recommendations of EIARD with respect to standard formats could facilitate this process.

6. Euope develops mechanisms to strengthen the ARD resource base, being well aware about its' limitations. Therefore the collaboration with other international partners and institutions such as the CGIAR, FAO, UNEP etc is from utmost importnace for the future impact of this initiative.

7. The follow-up of these activities should be ensured in the frame of InfoSys (Internet site, etc).

ANNEX 1

Fig.20: Regional focus of partnerships in research and development of European forestry institutes in Africa (multiple entries of the institutes possible)

Fig.21: Regional focus of partnerships in research and development of European forestry institutes in Asia (multiple entries of the institutes possible)

Fig.22: Regional focus of partnerships in research and development of European forestry institutes in the Latin American region (multiple entries of the institutes possible)

ANNEX 2

Institute Profile of European Institutes in

Agricultural Research and Development

Please note: all fields to be possible in two languages: original and english

# - obligate entries

Institute Profile of European Institutes in

Agricultural Research and Development

Table of Contents