Kick Off Workshop: Impact Assessment - Kenya

Kenya: Impact Assessment of Phase II (continued)

Page 2 of 3

 

Impacts
Secondly, our view is that impacts are the performance indicators expected at the long term or goal objective at the programme, sub-sector, or sector level. As such, we agree that they are subject to many variables and influences which are outside the control of an institution or programme like BIO-EARN.

Our assessment of impact therefore will be at institutional and national levels. We also distinguish national or systemic level impacts from institutional ones because the former are critically important to society and the economy.

Unfortunately the Phase II programme is not founded on a logically derived structured hierarchy of objectives. Rather, a mission and overall objectives are given. The overall objectives of the phase II programme were to:

  • Enable the countries in the region to develop biotechnologies and policies according to their own needs, abilities and opportunities;

  • Promote collaboration in biotechnology, biosafety and biotechnology policy development to address key challenges and opportunities in the region;

  • Foster communication between scientists, policy makers, biosafety regulatory officials and private sector nationally and regionally.

Because of the lack of a complete logical framework, it is not easy to assess or evaluate this Programme because the goals, purpose and expected outputs are not given. Similarly, it is not easy to assess impact because this should ideally be based on an estimation of the extent to which the programme has contributed towards achieving the stated goal. However, it is still possible to make the following assessment.

Our assessment is that significant scientific impact was achieved at the institutional level. Highly trained scientists in biotechnology are now serving their institutions within an enabling technological environment. This environment is not only created by the considerable equipment inputs from BIO-EARN II but is accentuated by ICT support resulting in improved communication and collaboration.

Regarding economic, environmental or social impacts, we have no evidence of indicators showing that these classes of impacts have been achieved. Our view is that these are long term systemic impacts that still require time to be perceived. It is probable that they will be apparent at the end of the present BIO-EARN programme.

At individual level, the BIO-EARN II graduates were emphatic on the benefits they have reaped from the programme, not just because of their personal skills development but because of the jobs they now hold and the contribution they are able to make to their institutions.

BIO-EARN II was a critical contributor to the strengthening of research teams in the partner institutions. At Moi and Nairobi Universities, BIO-EARN seeded training and research laboratories are now fully operational and capable of independently implementing their own programmes. At KARI, perhaps the most developed biotechnology laboratory in Kenya, is carrying out advanced crop research, with the BIO-EARN Phase II input (both human and material) playing a key role.

BIO-EARN II had significant impact on the Kenyan partner institutions with regard to:

  • Provision of highly trained manpower

  • Higher awareness of biosafety;

  • More enabling IPR policy/regulatory environment;

  • Efficient communication systems, and

  • Better institutional linkages.

These institutions now have better equipped laboratories and an improved capacity for training. Most of them are now well on the way to developing intellectual property (IP) policies as well as rolling out institutional IP management systems. A few have entered into product development partnerships, while others are taking measures to do the same.

BIO-EARN, among other initiatives, has been instrumental in sensitizing key institutions in Kenya on biotechnology policy issues, and in particular, IP policy. Several institutions are now in the process of formulating institutional IP policy frameworks. The impact on IP development has been notable at institutional level.

(Page 2 of 3)

Go to page 3: Kenya: Key Questions and Conclusions

Back to Kenya: Impact Assessment of BIO-EARN Phase II

 

East African Regional Programme and Research Network for Biotechnology, Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy Development

All content ©BIO-EARN Programme 2006-2008   Website updated 29 May 2008