Collectively, Africa can find new research funding – Expert

The consequences of the United States’ foreign aid freeze introduced in January have been interrogated from many vantage points, including that of higher education – in particular in Africa, where the university sector has benefited from US aid dollars for many years.

University World News spoke to Professor Atta-ur-Rahman, a UNESCO Science Prize laureate and former coordinator general of the Standing Committee on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, or COMSTECH, of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which includes 22 African states, about the impact on research in Africa following the US decisions to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization (WHO).

UWN: What is the impact of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change education and research for and in Africa?

Atta-ur-Rahman: From 1990 to 2020, research institutions based in Western Europe and the US have received most of the funding for climate change-related research on Africa, accounting for 78% of the total funding of US$480.25 million. In contrast, African institutions received only 14.5% of this funding.

The withdrawal of the US, the second-largest greenhouse gas emitters globally after China, means that Africa may lose a substantial portion of its funding for climate research. This could lead to a slowdown in the development and implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.

The US has also been a significant contributor to the Green Climate Fund, which supports climate projects in developing countries. The withdrawal could reduce the overall funding available for such projects.

Many African research institutions collaborate with US-based organisations. The withdrawal could disrupt these partnerships, leading to a decline in joint research projects and knowledge-sharing.

The decision may also affect the training and capacity-building programmes supported by US institutions, which are crucial for developing local expertise in climate science.

Funding from the US has supported educational programmes aimed at raising awareness and building capacity in climate science. The withdrawal could limit access to these educational resources, affecting the ability of African institutions to train the next generation of climate scientists.

The reduction in funding could also impact the development of new educational programmes focused on climate change, which are essential for preparing students to address the challenges posed by global warming.

UWN:What is the role, if any, of the international community in dealing with the US’ withdrawal?

Atta-ur-Rahman: There are broader global consequences. The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sends a negative signal to the international community, potentially discouraging other countries from increasing their climate commitments.

This decision could also reduce the global momentum needed to achieve the ambitious goals set out in the Paris Agreement, particularly considering recent climate disasters and record temperatures.

While the US withdrawal is a setback, it is important for the international community to continue to support climate action in Africa through alternative funding sources and collaborative efforts.

The resilience and adaptability of African institutions will be crucial in addressing the challenges posed by climate change, despite the changing global landscape.

UWN: What is the impact of the US’ withdrawal from the WHO on medical education and research in Africa?

Atta-ur-Rahman: The US intention to withdraw from the WHO and cease funding has significant implications for medical education and research in Africa.

The US has been a major contributor to global health initiatives, and its withdrawal could lead to substantial funding gaps and disruptions in health programmes across the continent.

The US is the largest state donor to the WHO, contributing approximately 18% of the agency’s total funding. This includes significant support for HIV/AIDS, polio eradication, and health emergencies. Its departure could lead to a reduction in the funding for medical education and research programmes in Africa, affecting the development of new treatments and interventions.

The WHO plays a crucial role in supporting health systems in Africa, particularly in the areas of pandemic preparedness and response. The US withdrawal could weaken these systems, making it more difficult for African countries to respond to health emergencies and outbreaks, such as the recent Marburg virus and mpox [monkeypox] outbreaks.

UWN: How could African countries mitigate the impact of US withdrawal from the WHO?

Atta-ur-Rahman: To mitigate the impact, African countries should seek alternative funding sources to compensate for the loss of US contributions. This could include increased support from European countries, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and the Gulf states.

Additionally, African governments should explore partnerships with private-sector entities and philanthropic organisations. The African Union and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention can play a pivotal role in coordinating regional responses and pooling resources to address health emergencies. This could help in maintaining the momentum of health initiatives, despite the funding gap. Investing in local capacity-building is crucial.

African countries should focus on developing their own research and healthcare infrastructure to reduce dependency on external funding.

This includes training more healthcare professionals and researchers, and establishing robust health information systems.

African countries can leverage existing initiatives like the WHO’s Investment Round, [for which] 14 African countries and partners pledged over US$45 million to support the core work.

This demonstrates the potential for collective action and resource mobilisation within the continent.

The global community, including African leaders and health organisations, should continue to advocate for the US to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the WHO. Highlighting the negative impacts on global health and the importance of international cooperation can help in influencing policy decisions.

UWN: How can African countries counter the impact of disruptions in research funding?

Atta-ur-Rahman: Previous disruptions in research funding from the US and other international sources have significantly impacted research initiatives in Africa.

For example, in 2023, the Swedish Research Council slashed US$16.4 million in grants for development research, affecting researchers at institutions such as the University of Nairobi in Kenya.

This withdrawal of funding during a call cycle, with proposals already under review, disrupted planned research projects.

Similarly, in 2020, UK Research and Innovation announced budget changes that resulted in a US$166 million shortfall in its aid-supported programmes, affecting researchers at the University of Cape Town.

In 2021, scientists from Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania wrote an open letter to major international funders, highlighting the exclusion of African institutions from a US$30 million grant awarded to the non-profit health organisation PATH by the US government’s President’s Malaria Initiative. The grant funded a consortium of institutions in the US, UK and Australia, leaving African researchers without funding.

To counter the impact of such stoppages, African countries must prioritise local funding, leverage regional initiatives, build local capacity, expand their foci beyond health, encourage South-South partnerships, and increase government investment in R&D.

African governments must prioritise R&D in their budgets and work with local scientists to prioritise domestic programmes for targeted research funding.

They should also leverage existing initiatives such as the Africa Centres of Excellence, the Pan-African University, the African Research Universities Alliance, and the Coalition for African Research and Innovation.

These initiatives can help pool resources and provide a collective response to funding cuts. African universities and research institutions should focus on integrating teaching with scientific research to build local capacity and reduce dependency on external funding.

Additionally, governments should invest in infrastructure and training to support local research initiatives. African countries should seek more South-South partnerships and initiatives focusing on the African bloc to secure more stable and reliable funding sources.

National governments should prioritise science beyond health ministry budgets, recognising R&D [research and development] as a pillar of development and national security. African governments need to increase their investment in R&D.

Despite commitments to spend 1% of GDP on R&D, most countries have not met this target. By 2019, Africa’s R&D funding was only 0.42% of GDP, compared to the global average of 1.7%.

African researchers and institutions should continue to advocate for more equitable funding and representation in international research initiatives, highlighting the importance of addressing Africa-specific challenges that may not feature on international agendas.