Partnerships - General Situation: Annex 4

Country	Case	Characteristics of partnerships or collaborations					General key points
Country	Case	Type of collective structure involved in research	Origin of request	Type of links between research and the collective structures involved	Main sources of funding	Research response mode	General key points
Cameroon	1	Key actors in PNVRA: · Extension; and · Research (IRAD).	(a) Need for collaboration identified at national level in the framework of agricultural services. (b) This is not a request generated by users.	Functional working relationships to improve the delivery of agricultural services to users.	Development partners (BAD, WB, etc.)	(a) This is an inter-departmental structure (b) Research worked directly in collaboration with extension.	(a) Most cases are indirect partnerships between research and fishing communities and via another actor (Extension, NGO, Development Society). (b) Requests for collaboration often come from support partners (Research, Extension, NGO, Development Society, etc.). (c) In most cases partnership was not concretized by agreements. (d) Most collaboration was established not with organized groups of actors (professional organizations of fishermen, women processors, etc.) but with the community.
	2	Small-scale fishing community via a development project (SOWEDA).	Development society (SOWEDA) acted on behalf of communities and submitted its request to Research.	(a) Research plays the role of service provider by offering responses (training, innovation, etc.) at the request of communities through SOWEDA. (b) No formal and direct relations between Research and the Communities.	Development partners (BAD).	Institutional response: The research institute organizes a response to the request.
	3	A non governmental organization (SAILD) acts on behalf of the community.	Common Initiative Groups The request made indirectly via an NGO.	Here there are informal relationships between the NGO and the IRAD researchers. No institutional character.	NGO funding.	(a) No institutional response; (b) Informal response by individual researchers.
	4	The fishing communities of Idenau, Limbe, Londji and Kribi-Mbouamanga.	Collaboration stemming from a need among credit institutions for information on the financial capacities of communities. The request does not originate from the communities.	Working relationship drawing on the communities’ expertise for obtaining socio-economic information.		Research has developed a participatory approach to collection of socio-economic data.
Guinea	(a) Absence of direct or indirect Research - Communities partnerships. (b) Many factors limiting the establishment of partnerships or collaboration. ON THE PART OF COMMUNITIES (a) Very high illiteracy rates among small-scale fishing communities: problem of communications giving rise to difficulties in understanding the part played by Fisheries Research not to mention the possibilities of service contracts. (b) Low organizational, negotiation or dialogue skills among professional organizations in the fisheries sector. Low level of openness to the outside world. No strategic vision for day-to-day management. ON THE PART OF RESEARCH SERVICE PROVIDERS (a) No appropriate mechanisms to exploit research results: presentation of results exclusively in French. No communications strategy. (b) Poor training of researchers in participatory approaches. (c) No formal framework for collaboration: mechanisms for linking and involving communities in the identification and management of research programmes and the dissemination of results. ON THE PART OF INSTITUTIONS AND POLICIES (a) No national policy on demand-driven research in the fisheries sector (paradoxical situation because such a process is ongoing in the agricultural sector). (b) Inadequacy or lack of appropriate channels of communication between research and users. No appropriate mechanisms for reporting results of fisheries research to fishing communities. (c) Over-centralization of administrative services which hampers effective action at grassroots level: absence of a framework for the expression of users’ needs from research service providers; absence of support structures extension of fisheries research results. (d) No formalized document on a national policy for scientific and technical research.
Mali	1	Namaradagam fish processors.	(a) Requests originate from the fish processors. (b) Need arising from a study trip to Ghana.	A working relationship has been established between research and the fish processors - the relationship has not been formalized by a contract.	Development partners (USAID).	An institutional response has been organized given the requests of the fish processors - the research organized a response.	(a) Existence of partnership based on user requests (case for example of the research-CRU partnership. (b) But most partnerships are organized around requests submitted by intermediary structures (research, extension, NGO, Development projects, etc.) on behalf of the fishing communities. (c) Poor exploitation of partnership gains due to: · Low level of organization at the grass roots; · Slow transfer of skills to territorial collectivities. (d) All factors affecting: · Negotiating abilities; · Management of issues relating to supply of factors of production; · Ability to access to credit.
	2	Female fish processors via the RCU (Regional Committee of Users of Research Results).	Request from users through their regional organizations (RCU).	A service contract has been established between research and the CNRA acting on behalf of the RCU.	Development partners (BM, USAID).	An institutional response was organized at the request of Users.
	3	Socio-professional organizations, territorial collectivities.	(a) The need arose from a concern to render professional organizations and local authorities more responsible. (b) The pressure or request is not from socio-professional organizations, but has been imposed by the socio-political environment.	A participatory work process has been initiated between the communities and other technical actors, the administration and civil society.	Development partners.	Institutional response from research and other actors.
	4	The development project (OPM) acted on behalf of fishing communities.	The request emanates from the development project (OPM) (on the basis of a concern of the communities with regards to products from processed fish).	Preparation and signing of a contract between the financial partner (FED) and the project.	Financial partners (FED).	Institutional response from research and the development project.
	5	Socio-professional associations and territorial collectivities.	The need was generated by development actors (Technical extension structures, political authorities, NGOs).	A participatory work process has been initiated between the communities and other actors.	Development partners (FAO, BADEA, BAD, UNDP, EDM, etc.).	Institutional response from different actors.
Mauritania	1	A project (PNBA) acted on behalf of communities grouped into 8 pre-cooperative fishing units.	Request for collaboration with Research (IMROP;e.g. CNROP) came from PNBA	A formal working relationship was established between research, the communities and the project.	Development partners (IFAD).	An institutional response was given by research; the research team organized itself internally to respond to the request.	(a) Most partnerships have been based on requests or needs emanating from development projects, acting on behalf of fishing communities. (b) There is no direct partnership Research - Users based on community requests; the situation is due to: b1. The absence of a partnership policy Research - Community; IMROP being perceived as an instrument providing. decision-making assistance at policy formulation level - very little direct interaction with fishing communities. b2. Poor organization of fishing communities.
	2	A development project (ACGEBA) acted on behalf of the communities.	The collaboration initiative comes from the development project, acting on behalf of the communities - the request was not submitted directly by the communities.	A working relationship was established between Research, the Project and the communities.	Development partners (AFD).	Research is internally organized to respond to requests: institutional response.
	3	Female fish processors via a development project supported by the FAO.	The request comes from a development project acting in the name of the communities.	Working relationship between research (IMROP) and the project in response to the request.	Development partners (FAO).	The research team organized itself to respond to the request.
Nigeria	1 (NIOMR)	Fishing communities (female fish processors) (Magbon-Alade).	Collaboration was initiated in the framework of a development project.	Formal collaborative relationship between research and the communities.	Technical and development partners (CRAT, CRDI).	The research institution (NIOMR) organized an internal response to the request.	(a) Partnerships or collaboration were not often built around professional organizations. (b) In some cases this meant that the partnership spin-offs were not capitalized on, for example: b1. Low rate of loan recovery; b2. Non-application of measures relating to the use of resource-friendly fishing gear.
	2 (NIOMR)	Fishing communities (net makers, fishermen, leaders).	The request emanates from the research institution (NIOMR) acting on behalf of fishing communities (net makers, fishermen, leaders).	Participatory working relationship between research and the communities.		The research institution (NIOMR) organized an internal response to the request.
	3 (NIOMR)	Fishing communities (fishermen and leader within the community).	The request, focus of the collaboration, emanates from a project.	Working relationship between research and the communities.	Development partners (FAO, NORAD).	The research institution organized internally to respond to the request.
	4 (NIFFR)	Fishing communities from 2 villages (Monai and Shagunu).	Request for purchase of inputs came from fishing communities.	Working relationship between research (NIFFR) and the communities.		Research (NIFFR) organized internally to find a response.	(c) Some partnerships based on requests from fishing communities and the implementation of most of these was effected in a project framework.
	5 (NIFFR)	Fishing communities.	Request for alternative low wood consumption technologies, the focus of the collaboration comes from the fishing communities.	Working relationship between research (NIFFR) and the communities.	Development partners (GTZ).	Research (NIFFR) organized internally to find a response to the community’s request.
	6 (NIFFR)	Fishing communities around the Lake Kainji area.	Request for preservative materials, focus of the partnership comes from the fishing community.	Working relationship between research (NIFFR) and the users.	Development partners (GTZ).	Research organized a response to the request.
	7 (NIFFR)	Lake Kainji fishing communities.	The request was submitted by fishing communities in relation to the damage caused by water hyacinth - this request was submitted via research (NIFFR).	Formal working relationship between research (NIFFR) and the communities of Lake Kainji.	Development partners (GTZ).	Institutional response of research to the communities’ requests.
Senegal	1	Partnership initiated by an international NGO (ENDA TM) and formulated jointly with research (CRODT) - It is not a Research - Users partnership based on a request from the latter.	The request is from an international NGO (ENDA) acting on behalf of the communities.	Implementation of a participatory work approach between different research and development institutions.	Development partners.	The main research institution (CRODT) joined partners to find a response to the request.	(a) It was more a situation of joint projects between research and the other partners than real research - fishing community partnerships built on requests from the latter. (b) Apart from research, partnerships were also established between professionals in the fisheries sector and other actors from the private sector. (c) In the case of research - fisheries professionals, partnerships requests often emanate from users, reflecting the existence of certain capacities.
	2	An international NGO (UICN) acted on behalf of fishing communities.	The request was formulated by UICN on behalf of the fishing communities.	Working relationship between the main research institution (CRODT), the service requestor (UICN) and the other actors involved.	Partners (UICN...).	Research acted as service provider and found an internal response to the demand.
	3	Partnership between research institutions (CRODT, CREDETIP, UCAD) in the framework of a sub-regional programme - it is not a Research-User partnership.	The request is based on a research need (acquisition of scientific skills).	Working relationship between the main institutions involved and the foreign ones.	Development partners.	This was collaborative research and each research institution contributed its expertise.
	4	Partnership initiated by research (CRODT).	Several development partnerships have submitted requests - this is not a request from users.	Working relationship between partners involved (CRODT, DOPM, OEPS).		The main partners organized themselves to find a response to the request.
	5	Farmer organization (National Council for Rural Cooperation and Dialogue), on behalf of its members.	Request submitted by a farmer organization (FENAGIE-Pêche) to an individual (MANOBI).	Formal relationship between the PO and the service provider (MANOBI).		The individual mandated to provide the service found an internal response to the problem.
	6	A farmer organization (National Council of Artisanal Fishermen of Senegal-CNPS).	The farmer organization (CNPS) submitted the request to research (CREDETIP).	Functional working relationship between research, the PO and the mutual (credit company in Senegal).	External financial partners.	(CREDETIP), the research institution organized internally in collaboration with other partners to respond to the request.
	7	Small-scale fishing professionals via an Association (OCEANIUM).	The Association (OCEANIUM) submitted a request on behalf of fishing professionals.	Functional working relationship between the association (OCEANIUM), the professionals and the other actors using a participatory approach.	External financial partners.	The main institution (OCEANIUM) organized an internal response to the request.
	8	Partnership initiated by an international NGO (WWF).	Request submitted by the international NGO (WWF) - the need is not on the part of fisheries professionals.	Implementation of a reflective participatory approach.	External financial partners.	The lead institution which initiated the partnership organized with the professionals (FENAGIE-Pêche) and other actors to find a response to the request.
	9	Female fish processors GIE via a research Institution (Institute for Food Technology - IFT).	Request from professionals (GIE) via a research institute.	Working relationship between research (ITA), the professionals (GIE) and other partners.	External financial partners.	The lead institution (ITA) found an internal response to the request.