1 [ Analysis of Innovation Hubs and Platforms that can Catalyze ASSAPs for Sustainable Farming Murat Sartas1, October 2024 1 Please contact Murat Sartas via m.sartas@cgiar.org for comments and inquiries. 2 @2024 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) This research was conducted as part of the CGIAR Initiative in Excellence in Agronomy and supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund and special investments of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Its science is carried out by 15 Research Centers in close collaboration with hundreds of global partners. www.cgiar.org This publication is copyrighted by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by IITA or the author(s). NOTICE: For any reuse or distribution, the licence terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this licence impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. IITA would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used. Authors: Murat Sartas, Key Words: Hub, Innovation, Scaling, Impact, Platform, Impact Citation: Sartas, M., Analysis of Innovation Hubs and Platforms the can Catalyze ASSAPs for Sustainable Farming, 2024. Kigali, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture 3 Executive Summary 4 Executive Summary 3 Ideation Process Guiding the Report 9 What could be an effective and guiding framework for analyzing and designing innovation hubs? 10 What are the success factors associated with innovation hubs operating in the sustainable farming sectors in Africa? 13 Domain 1: Innovation Hub Strategy 13 Success Factor 1.1 Hub Type 13 Success Factor 1.2 Leadership Models 14 Success Factor 1.3 Geographic Focus 15 Success Factor 1.4 Funding Model 16 Success Factor 1.5 Primary Target Audience 17 Domain 2: farming Niche 18 Success Factor 2.1 Sector focus 18 Success Factor 2.2 Value Chain Focus 19 Success Factor 2.3 Stakeholder Focus 20 Success Factor 2.4 Infrastructure 21 Domain 3: Enterprise Success Instruments 22 Success Factor 3.1 Enterprise Funding Source 22 Success Factor 3.2 Partners 23 Success Factor 3.3 Received training and mentorships 24 Success Factor 3.4 Market Linkage Facilitation 25 Success Factor 3.5 Policy Linkages 26 Domain 4: Regional Hub Management Model 27 Success Factor 4.1 Hub Management Strength 27 Success Factor 4.2 Knowledge transmission instruments 28 Success Factor 4.3 Collaboration instruments 29 What are the major risks that can hinder the performance of innovation hubs operating in the sustainable farming sectors in Africa? 31 Risk 1: Financial Sustainability of the Hub 31 Risk 2: Technology Access Continuity of the Hub 31 Risk 3: Regulatory Barriers 32 Risk 4: Skill Gaps 33 Risk 5: Socio-cultural 34 How is the current innovation hub ecosystem in the sustainable farming sectors in Africa? 35 Continental Sectoral Analysis 35 Innovation Hub Strategy 35 Leadership Model 35 Funding Model 36 Funding Instruments 37 Niches 37 5 Hub Focus 37 Sector Focus 38 Animal Focus 39 Value Chain Focus 39 Stakeholder Focus 40 Infrastructure Focus 41 Enterprise Support Instruments 41 Funding Instruments 41 Major Partnerships 42 Market Linkages with 43 Training and Mentorship Instruments 43 Policy Support Areas 44 Inclusivity Focus Figure 15 Inclusivity Focus of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 45 Regional Hub Management 45 Key Assets of the Hub 45 Knowledge Instruments of the Hub 46 Collaboration Instruments of the Hub 47 Risk 47 Financial Risks of the Hub 47 Technology Access Continuity Risks of the Hub 48 Regulatory Risks of the Hub 49 Skill Access Risks of the Hub 49 Socio-Economic Risks of the Hub 50 IGAD Regional Analysis 51 Innovation Hub Strategy 51 Leadership Model 51 Funding Model 51 Funding Instruments 53 Niches 54 Hub Focus 54 Sector Focus 55 Animal Focus 55 Value Chain Focus 56 Stakeholder Focus 57 Infrastructure Focus 57 Enterprise Support Instruments 58 Funding Instruments 58 Key Partnerships 59 Market Linkages with 60 Training and Mentorship Instruments 60 Policy Support Areas 61 Inclusivity Support Instruments 62 Regional Hub Management 62 6 Key Assets of the Hub 62 Knowledge Instruments of the Hub 63 Collaboration Instruments of the Hub 64 Risk 65 Financial Risks of the Hub 65 Technology Access Continuity Risks of the Hub 65 Regulatory Risks of the Hub 66 Skill Access Risks of the Hub 67 Socio-Economic Risks of the Hub 67 Innovation Hub Profiles 69 No: 1 - Africa Aquaculture Research and Training Center (AARTC) 69 No: 2 - Africa Rising Innovation Platforms 70 No: 3 - African Animal Breeding Network (AABNet) 71 No: 4 - African Food Fellowship Aquaculture Competition 72 No: 5 - African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources -farming investment Master Planning Unit 73 No: 6 - African Youth in farming, Fisheries and Aquaculture Incubators Network (AYLFAIN) 74 No: 7 - Aquaculture Development and Enhancement Programme (ADEP) 75 No: 8 - AquaInvest Platform 76 No: 9 - Aquarech 77 No: 10 - Community Based farming Breeding Programmes (CBBPs 78 No: 11 - Digital Hub for African farming Tech 79 No: 12 - E4Impact Entrepreneurship Center, Kenya 80 No: 13 - Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish 81 No: 14 - Feed the Future Innovation Lab for farming Systems 82 No: 15 - Fish Trade for A better Feature Program 83 No: 16 - Foodtech Africa Co-creation center 84 No: 17 - Impact Hub 85 No: 18 - Impact Hub Footprints Africa Accelerator 86 No: 19 - Impact Hub Skilled Women Initiative (TSWNI) 87 No: 20 - Innovate UK Aquaculture Technology Challenges 88 No: 21 - Innovate UK Technology Awards Program 89 No: 22 - Livelihoods in Africa (Live2Africa) Program 90 No: 23 - farming Industry Foundation for Africa (LIFA) Hub 91 No: 24 - farming private investors group (inofficial) 92 No: 25 - Malabo Montpellier Panel 93 No: 26 - Oceanhub Aquaculture Incubators 94 No: 27 - One Health Centre in Africa (OHRECA) 95 No: 28 - Resilient Aquaculture Design Hub (RAD) 96 No: 29 - The African Knowledge and Information Hub for Aquaculture (Inofficial) 97 No: 30 - The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) Program - Fish Compact 98 No: 31 - The Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) Program - farming Compact 99 7 No: 32 - World Bank Africa Program for Fisheries 100 No: 33 - WorldFish’s Fish for Africa Innovation Hub 101 What are the best options for establishing regional farming innovation hubs? 103 Option 1: IGAD farming Resilience and Innovation Center (IGAD-LRIC) 103 Hub Design 103 Hub Rationale 104 Option 2: IGAD farming Scaling Accelerator (IGAD-LSA) 106 Hub Design 106 Hub Rationale 107 Option 3: IGAD farming Ecosystem Catalyst (IGAD-LEC) 109 Hub Design 109 Hub Rationale 110 References 112 8 ASSAPs ASSAP Summary Q1. What could be an effective and guiding framework for analyzing and designing innovation hubs? Q2. What are the success factors associated with innovation hubs operating in the sustainable farming sectors? Q3. What are the major risks that can hinder the performance of innovation hubs ? Q4. How is the current innovation hub ecosystem in sustainable farming in Africa? Q5. How can Sustainable Farming Program ASSAPs capitalize and leverage the hubs for successful delivery of the sustainable farming program at scale? 9 What could be an effective and guiding framework for analyzing and designing innovation hubs? Identifying and effective engagement with the hubs that catalyze the ASSAPs requires a framework clarifying the main management domains that need to be considered, the success factors in each of the domains, and the management options/considerations designers of the hub should consider. The research and the lessons from the thorough analysis of ASSAPs conducted by the Ernst and Young (EY) led to the identification of 6 major domains to consider, 23 success factors that influence the performance of the hubs, and 106 options/considerations managers need to consider. Table 1: Management Framework for Analyzing and Designing Innovation Hubs Domains Success factors Management Options/ Considerations Innovation Hub Strategy Types Innovation hub, Impact hub, Incubator, Accelerator, Technology and science park, Co-working space, Innovation challenge/hackathon, Angel investment Leadership Model Government-led, Private-sector driven, Research-led, Hybrid, etc. Primary Target Audience Farmers, Entrepreneurs, Researchers, Agribusinesses Geographic Focus Scale of work Country-specific, Regional (East Africa, West Africa, etc.), continental Focus countries Country names 10 Innovation Hub Capabilities Infrastructure Physical (spaces, labs), Digital (platforms, networks) Financial Sustainability Limited revenue streams, Operational costs, Dependence on external funding, none Sustainable Farming Sector Options Sectors Climate adaptation and mitigation, Plant nutrient management, Soils, Plant Health and Safety, Water management, Mechanization, Farming systems, Others Value Chain Input Suppliers, Producers, Processors, Marketers, Consumers Contributions to demand mobilization (governance) Funding Model Private Sector, Private-public partnership, Public Sector, International non-private investors Influencers it can mobilize Investment leaders; sector-industry leaders and media; policy leaders, traditional leaders, religious leaders; science, research and NGO leaders The focus solutions to support Incremental solutions, Contributions to development (research) Development support it can provide Functional performance, cost, simplicity 11 Contributions to use (delivery) Use support it can provide User number, diversity and unreliance What are the success factors associated with innovation hubs operating in Sustainable Farming? The research showed that analyzers and designers of the hubs operating in the sustainable farming sectors should consider the following 5 major domains to create and catalyze impact at scale. 1. Innovation hub strategy 2. Geographic focus 3. Hub capabilities In addition to these, to make maximum contribution to Sustainable Farming ASSAPS, the hubs should contribute to 4. relevant sustainable farming sector niches 5. governance of ASSAPS via demand mobilization (governance) 6. research of ASSAPS via co-development of sustainable farming solutions 7. delivery of solutions in ASSAPs via use support In this section, we provide a description of each domain and its success factors. Domain 1: Innovation Hub Strategy The scientific literature shows that successful innovation hubs result from coherent strategic choices regarding the hub's type, leadership model, geographic focus, funding model, and primary target audience. Success Factor 1.1 Hub Type There is no standard definition of an innovation hub, and it can be branded in many ways. By defining hubs as systematic and long-term organization, enterprise, innovation and impact capability enhancement entities, the research found that innovation hubs can be named innovation hubs, impact hubs, incubators, accelerators, technology, and science parks, co-working spaces, innovation challenges/hackathons, or angel investments. Table 2: Comparison Of Systematic And Long-Term Enterprise Innovation And Impact Capability Enhancement Entities, i.e., Innovation Hub Types Name Description Examples Niche 12 Innovation Hub Central location fostering collaboration for new ideas and solutions. Precision farming farming technologies, Sustainable farming production Broad focus, collaboration across stakeholders Impact Hub Focuses on solutions with positive impact. Food security in marginalized communities, Regenerative grazing practices Emphasis on social/environmental impact Incubator Provides support for early-stage startups. Insect-based protein for animal feed, Animal health technologies Nurturing fledgling startups Accelerator Supports established startups ready for rapid growth. Digital marketplace platforms for farming, Biotechnology startups in animal health Focus on scaling up existing businesses Technology & Science Park The cluster of businesses/researc h organizations focused on innovation farming genomics research, Disease diagnostics development, Precision sensor networks Physical location, concentration of research & tech companies Co-working Space Shared workspace fostering community and collaboration farming data scientists, app developers, and agribusiness specialists collaborating Focus on community, affordability, flexibility Innovation Challenge/ Hackathon Focused, time- limited events for finding solutions to challenges Blockchain solutions for farming traceability, Finding new uses for farming waste products Short-term, competitive, problem-solving focus 13 Angel Investment Funding from high- net-worth individuals for startups, usually early-stage Supporting novel insect- based feed production ventures or regenerative grazing companies Individual investors, focus on high-potential early ventures Success Factor 1.2 Leadership Models Research suggests innovation hubs can adopt various leadership models to drive success. Government-led hubs often have strong policy influence and potential access to significant resources. Private-sector-driven hubs tend to have a focused, market-driven approach with the potential for rapid innovation deployment. Research-led hubs leverage research expertise and offer a strong foundation for fundamental innovation. Finally, hybrid models involve collaboration between sectors, facilitating resource sharing and potentially leading to broader impact, though they may face challenges in aligning diverse stakeholder interests. Table 3: Comparison of Leadership Models of Innovation Hubs Leadership Model Description Examples Unique Elements Government -led Innovation hubs are initiated and primarily directed by government bodies. National research center focused on farming disease control, Government-funded incubator for precision agriculture technologies Policy influence, the potential for large-scale resources, may face bureaucratic hurdles Private- sector driven Hubs spearheaded by corporations or industry groups within the sustainable farming sector Meat processing company's R&D hub for value-addition to byproducts, Technology company's open innovation platform for farming data analytics Market-driven focus, potential for rapid deployment, may have a narrower scope of innovation Research- led Hubs anchored within universities, leveraging research expertise and infrastructure University agribusiness incubator, Veterinary school's animal health innovation center Strong emphasis on fundamental research, and access to talent, may move slower than market demands 14 Hybrid Hubs with collaborative leadership structures involving multiple stakeholders (government, private sector, academia, etc.) Regional innovation hub for sustainable farming with government, university, and industry consortium Potential for broad impact, resource pooling, may face challenges in aligning diverse interests Success Factor 1.3 Funding Model Innovation hubs employ diverse funding models to support their activities. Private sector funding emphasizes market-driven solutions, while public-private partnerships aim for broader impact by combining resources. Public sector funding is often aligns with policy goals, whereas international non-private investors frequently target social and environmental outcomes related to sustainable development. Table 4: Comparison of Funding Models of Innovation Hubs Funding Model Description Examples Private Sector Funding primarily from corporations, industry groups, venture capitalists, or angel investors Agribusiness company's innovation center, Technology startup's accelerator program Public-Private Partnership Collaboration between government and private sector entities to finance the hub Government grant matching private investment in farming biotechnology hub Public Sector Funding is sourced primarily from government agencies and programs National Agricultural Research Institute focused on farming improvement International Non- Private Investors Funding from development agencies, foundations, or international NGOs Hub supported by an international NGO addressing farming-related food security challenges 15 Success Factor 1.4 Primary Target Audience Innovation hubs strategically tailor their activities and offerings to cater to specific target audiences within the sustainable farming sector. Understanding the primary target audience helps shape the hub's focus, the type of innovation it fosters, and the overall impact it can achieve. Table 5: Comparison of Primary Target Audiences of Innovation Hubs Primary Target Audience Description Examples Farmers Hubs focus on solutions that directly address on- the-ground challenges for farmers. Innovation center for smallholder dairy production, technology platform sharing best practices for pasture management Entrepreneurs Hubs support those developing new businesses in the sustainable farming sector. Incubator for farming feed startups, accelerator for animal health tech companies Researchers Hubs facilitate research and knowledge creation for innovation in the industry. Research-led hub for farming genetics research, collaboration platform for disease diagnostics development Agribusinesses Hubs focus on solutions for established businesses in the farming value chain. Technology hub driving supply chain efficiency, innovation center for new value-added farming products Public service providers Hubs focus on solutions for public sector provided services in the farming value chain. Civil society service providers Hubs focus on solutions for civil society provided services in the farming value chain. 16 Domain 2: Geographic Focus Success Factor 2.1 Geographic Focus The geographic focus of an innovation hub plays a crucial role in shaping its priorities and impact. Country-specific hubs concentrate on the unique challenges and opportunities within a nation's sustainable farming sector. Regional hubs tackle issues relevant to several countries in a particular area, such as shared disease threats or market access. Continental hubs have a continental scope, addressing broader challenges like transboundary diseases and facilitating collaboration across the entire African sustainable farming sector. Table 6: Comparison of Leadership Models of Innovation Hubs Geographic Focus Description Examples Country-Specific Focuses on innovation within a single country's sustainable farming sector. National Institute Improving Dairy Cattle Breeding Programs, an Innovation center for developing drought-resistant animal feed varieties Regional (East Africa, West Africa, etc.) Addresses challenges and opportunities across a group of countries within a specific region. Innovation hub for improving small ruminant production across East Africa, Platform for enhancing farming disease surveillance in West Africa Continental Works at the continental level, addressing continental challenges and opportunities in the sustainable farming sector. Innovation hub for developing vaccines for transboundary animal diseases in Africa, continental information system for farming market trends Success Factor 2.1 Country Focus The specific countries an innovation hub is critical in shaping its impact and contribution to EiA ASSAPs. In the report, we will also map the specific countries the innovation hubs operate and contribute to. 17 Domain 3: Innovation Hub Capabilities Success Factor 3.1 Infrastructure Innovation hubs strategically balance the development of physical and digital infrastructure to best support their target audience and innovation goals. Physical infrastructure provides tangible spaces and resources for collaboration and experimentation, while digital infrastructure fosters connectivity, knowledge sharing, and wider access to services. Table 7: Comparison of Infrastructure Focus Types Influencing Innovation Hub Design and Implementation Infrastructure Type Description Examples Physical (spaces, labs) Hubs with co-working spaces, meeting rooms, prototyping facilities, wet labs, or experimental farms provide hands-on environments for innovation. Makerspace with fabrication tools for farming tech, Demonstration farm for regenerative grazing practices, Biotechnology lab for animal disease diagnostics Digital (platforms, networks) Hubs creating online platforms, data repositories, or virtual networks help connect stakeholders, share knowledge, and facilitate collaborations across distances. Digital marketplace for farming trading, Online forum for farming farmers sharing best practices, Data analytics platform for farming health monitoring Success Factor 3.2 Financial Sustainability Innovation hubs must proactively address financial sustainability risks to ensure long-term impact. Limited revenue streams, high operational costs, and over-reliance on external funding can jeopardize their ability to operate effectively. By failing to address these risks, hubs may find themselves unable to deliver essential programs, maintain facilities, or attract top talent. To achieve long-term success, hubs must develop diverse funding models, optimize operational efficiency, and actively pursue financial independence. Table 8: Comparison of Financial Sustainability Risks Influencing Innovation Hub Design and Implementation 18 Financial Sustainability Risk Description Examples Limited revenue streams Hubs may have insufficient income sources to fully cover their operational costs. Relying solely on grants, lacking diversified income-generating activities. Operational costs Hubs face high expenses that can strain their financial resources. Facility maintenance, staff salaries, equipment costs, and program delivery expenses. Dependence on external funding Hubs may become overly reliant on grants or donations, making them vulnerable to funding shifts. Lack of a long-term strategy for financial independence. None Hubs might not have any financial risks N.A. Domain 4: Sustainable Farming Niche Many innovation hubs choose to specialize in a particular farming subsector to maximize their impact and deepen their expertise. This specialization allows them to address the unique challenges and opportunities within that subsector, resulting in targeted solutions and collaborations. Success Factor 4.1 Sector focus Table 9: Comparison of Sector Focus of Innovation Hubs Farming Niche Description Examples Climate adaptation and mitigation Developing and implementing farming practices that adapt to changing climate conditions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Platform for developing drought-resistant crops 19 Plant nutrient management Optimizing the use of plant nutrients to enhance crop productivity and minimize environmental impact. Hub for precision fertilizer application, Center for organic farming practices Soils Improving soil health and fertility to support sustainable crop production. Soil Health Institute, Center for regenerative agriculture Plant Health and Safety Protecting plant health and ensuring food safety through integrated pest and disease management strategies. Center for Integrated Pest Management, Platform for developing disease-resistant crops Water management Managing water resources efficiently to support crop growth and minimize water waste. Center for Water-Efficient Irrigation, Platform for rainwater harvesting technologies Mechanization Developing and improving tools for planting, harvesting, and other farming tasks. Center for precision agriculture, Platform for developing autonomous farming robots Farming systems Designing and implementing integrated farming systems that optimize resource use and crop production. Center for agroecological farming systems, Platform for vertical farming technologies Others Exploring and developing innovative farming techniques and technologies that do not fit into the other niches. Center for cellular agriculture, Platform for developing drone- based crop monitoring systems Success Factor 4.2 Value Chain Focus Innovation hubs can choose to focus on a specific stage of the farming value chain to create targeted solutions and maximize their impact. This targeted focus enables 20 hubs to address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by actors at each stage, contributing to overall value chain efficiency and sustainability. Table 10: Comparison of Value Chain Stage Focus of Innovation Hubs Value Chain Stage Focus Description Examples Input Suppliers Hubs target innovations related to feed production, breeding stock, animal health products, and technologies for input suppliers. Hub developing cost- effective farming vaccines, center improving access to quality genetics for smallholder farmers Producers Hubs focus on production-level innovations to improve efficiency, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. Innovation center for regenerative grazing practices, Platform for precision farming farming technologies Processors Hubs address challenges in processing, value addition, food safety, and waste reduction for farming products. Center developing new processing techniques for extending shelf life, Hub for exploring alternative uses of farming byproducts Marketers Hubs concentrate on market access, branding, and enhancing the connection between producers and consumers. Digital platform for direct-to- consumer sales of farming products, the Innovation hub for developing traceability systems 21 Consumers Hubs may focus on consumer trends, education, and innovations to improve the nutritional profile and appeal of farming products. Center exploring consumer preferences for alternative proteins, Hub developing consumer-facing apps for nutrition tracking Domain 5: Contributions to Demand Mobilization Blurb Success Factor 5.1 Fund Mobilization Blurb Table 11: Contribution of Innovation Hubs to Fund Mobilization Contributions Description Examples Private sector funding Public sector funding 22 Non-private International funding Success Factor 5.2 Scale of demand that can be mobilized Blurb Table 12: The Scale of the Demand Innovation Hubs Contribute Contributions Description Examples Organizational level Sectoral level Multi-sectoral level Success Factor 5.3 Influencers that can be mobilized Blurb 23 Table 13: The Influencers the Innovation Hubs Can Mobilize Contributions Description Examples Organizational level Sectoral level Multi-sectoral level 24 How is the current innovation hub ecosystem in the sustainable farming sectors? Continental Sectoral Analysis Innovation Hub Strategy Leadership Model Figure 1. Leadership Models of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The analysis of leadership models within the dataset reveals a preference for collaborative and knowledge-driven approaches. The most prevalent model is "Hybrid," emphasizing partnerships across various sectors. This suggests that innovation hubs are increasingly recognizing the value of combining diverse expertise, resources, and perspectives. Additionally, the prominence of "International-Led" hubs highlights the important role of global knowledge exchange and potential external funding in shaping innovation efforts, particularly in developing regions. The data also underscores a strong connection between innovation hubs and the research community. The significant presence of the "Research-Led" model points to the emphasis on knowledge generation and technology development as key drivers of innovation. This reliance on research likely reflects a desire to create and utilize cutting-edge solutions to address complex challenges. Interestingly, the "Government-Led" model plays a less dominant role within this subset of hubs, potentially indicating a desire for operational flexibility and the exploration of alternative funding sources. 25 Funding Model Figure 2. Funding Models of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The funding landscape for innovation hubs is dominated by support from International Non- Private Investors. This highlights a significant role played by international NGOs, development agencies, and other non-profit entities in fueling innovation efforts. The Private Sector also features prominently, both independently and in partnership with other entities. This collaborative approach, reflected in the presence of several Public-Private Partnership models, suggests a desire to combine resources and expertise to address complex challenges. Interestingly, direct Public Sector funding appears to be less common among these hubs. The funding models employed often reflect the scope and focus of individual hubs. International Non-Private Investors likely support hubs with strong social impact or development objectives, while Private Sector funding implies a focus on market viability and commercialization. Public-Private Partnerships potentially provide a balance between these approaches, creating a space for innovation that leverages both public resources and private sector expertise. 26 Funding Instruments Figure 3. Specific Funding Instruments of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The analysis reveals a heavy reliance on Project-Based Grants and Research Grants as the primary funding instruments for innovation hubs. These grants likely come from various sources, including government agencies, development organizations, and foundations. Many hubs supplement grants with other mechanisms like Service Income (likely revenue from consulting or training) and Membership Fees. Interestingly, a few hubs utilize alternative instruments like Equity investments, Prizes, and even Crowdsourcing, indicating a diverse funding landscape. The specific mix of funding instruments often varies between hubs, likely reflecting their focus areas and operational models. Hubs engaged in research-intensive activities naturally prioritize Research Grants, while those offering direct services to businesses or communities might generate Service Income. The presence of Equity investments suggests some hubs are actively seeking commercial or venture capital support. Niches Hub Focus Figure 4. Types of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 27 The dataset reveals a vibrant and multifaceted landscape of innovation hubs. While Innovation Platforms remain prevalent, there's now a more balanced mix of Incubators, Think Tanks, Technology & Science Parks, and broader Innovation Hubs. The presence of Accelerators, Innovation Challenges/Hackathons, and even Angel Investment networks highlight diverse support mechanisms. This suggests a maturing ecosystem where hubs are tackling various stages of innovation and engaging with different funding sources. A strong relationship emerges between hub types and their geographic focus. Many hubs appear dedicated to localized innovation efforts with a Country-Specific focus, indicating a desire to address specific regional challenges. Conversely, Think Tanks and Innovation Platforms often operate at continental or even Global scales, emphasizing knowledge sharing, policy-level influence, and broader cross-border collaboration. This interplay between localized and broader approaches demonstrates how hubs address innovation needs across different levels, from grassroots solutions to sector-wide transformations. Sector Focus Figure 5. farming Sub-sector Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a rich landscape of innovation hubs addressing diverse farming subsectors. Aquaculture emerges as a major focus area, with numerous hubs dedicated to advancing this promising sector. Many hubs also concentrate on traditional subsectors like Dairy, Meat, Eggs, Feed/Nutrition, and Animal Health. This emphasis aligns with the pressing need to improve the availability and quality of animal-sourced foods. Additionally, hubs specializing in Breeding underscore the importance of strengthening genetic potential and productivity of farming across Africa. An interplay exists between subsector focus and geographic scope. Aquaculture hubs are often continental or global, likely reflecting the need for cross-border knowledge sharing and technology transfer in this expanding field. Hubs addressing multiple subsectors (e.g., Dairy, Meat, Eggs) tend to have a broader regional or continental scope, tackling the interconnected needs of farming systems. Conversely, many country-specific hubs target a niche subsector, indicating a focus 28 on localized solutions (specific breeds, feed resources, etc.). This multi-level approach suggests that innovation efforts consider both specific on-the-ground challenges and broader systemic changes required across the sustainable farming sector. Animal Focus Figure 6. Animal Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset shows a diverse focus on specific farming and aquaculture species. Hubs targeting Aquaculture exhibit a strong emphasis on Tilapia and Catfish, reflecting the growing importance of these species for food security. Traditional farming species also feature prominently, with many hubs specializing in Cattle, Chicken, Goats, and Sheep. Interestingly, several hubs target less widespread species, like Seaweed and Shellfish, highlighting the potential for innovation across various segments of the value chain. The geographic focus of hubs often reveals a connection to the targeted species. Hubs addressing multiple farming species (Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Chicken) tend to operate at a broader continental or regional level, reflecting common production systems across regions. Country-specific hubs often focus on species relevant to their local context (e.g., focus on Catfish in certain countries). The presence of global hubs specializing in niche species like Seaweed underscores the importance of international collaboration in developing new and innovative sectors within African agriculture. Value Chain Focus Figure 7. Value Chain Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 29 The dataset reveals a strong emphasis on supporting the early stages of the value chain. Many hubs focus on 'Producers' and 'Input Suppliers', indicating efforts to enhance production capacity, improve input quality, and address challenges directly faced by farmers and aquaculturists. Several hubs also work with 'Processors' and 'Marketers', highlighting the importance of post- harvest value addition and market development. Interestingly, the value chain focus often aligns with the hub's geographic scope. Country-specific hubs tend to have a more specialized focus (e.g., solely on producers or combining producers with one other segment). Conversely, continental and regional hubs often address a wider range of value chain segments, suggesting a broader focus on overcoming systemic challenges for farming or aquaculture sectors. Notably, a few hubs target the entire value chain, including 'Consumers', illustrating a holistic approach to developing sustainable and demand-driven food systems. Stakeholder Focus Figure 8. Stakeholder Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset showcases a diverse approach to stakeholder engagement. Many hubs prioritize working with 'Farmers', emphasizing direct support to producers. 'Researchers' also feature prominently, highlighting the link between innovation and knowledge generation. Several hubs target 'Businesses', reflecting the role of the private sector in scaling solutions. 'Policymakers' and 'NGOs' are also common stakeholders, suggesting that many hubs aim to influence policy and work alongside development organizations. 30 A hub's geographic scope often shapes its stakeholder focus. Country-specific hubs tend to engage more directly with 'Farmers' and 'Businesses', addressing localized needs. continental and regional hubs often partner with 'Policymakers', 'NGOs', and 'Regional Organizations' to tackle broader challenges across borders. Interestingly, a few hubs engage with 'Investors', highlighting the need for capital to fuel innovation and scale solutions. 31 Infrastructure Focus Figure 9. Infrastructure Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a mix of approaches to infrastructure within innovation hubs. Many hubs prioritize 'Digital' infrastructure, such as platforms and networks, underscoring the importance of virtual collaboration and knowledge sharing. However, a significant number of hubs also emphasize 'Physical' infrastructure like spaces and labs, highlighting the need for practical experimentation, testing, and hands-on training within the innovation landscape. Interestingly, several hubs exhibit a hybrid approach, investing in both physical and digital infrastructure. A hub's geographic scope often influences its infrastructure focus. Country-specific hubs frequently prioritize 'Physical' infrastructure, likely to meet the needs of localized innovation and provide essential facilities for prototyping and development. Conversely, hubs operating at a continental or global scale often focus on 'Digital' infrastructure to facilitate connections and knowledge exchange across borders. The presence of hybrid hubs suggests that a balance between physical and digital infrastructure might be the most effective approach for driving innovation in specific contexts. Enterprise Support Instruments Funding Instruments Figure 10. Enterprise Funding Instruments of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 32 The dataset reveals a strong emphasis on 'International Non- Private Investors' as a primary funding source for many hubs. This highlights the significant role played by international NGOs, development agencies, and other non-profit entities in fueling innovation efforts. The 'Private Sector' also features prominently, both independently and in partnership with other entities. Several hubs utilize 'Public-Private Partnerships', indicating a preference for shared investment and risk-sharing for innovation. The specific funding instruments utilized often reflect the scope and nature of individual hubs. Hubs engaged in research-intensive activities, or supporting early- stage ideas likely rely more on 'International Non-Private' funding instruments. Those focused on commercialization and market-driven solutions tend to attract 'Private Sector' investment. The presence of 'Public-Private Partnerships' suggests a need to balance social impact with financial returns within the innovation landscape. 'Public Sector' funding appears to be less common amongst these hubs. Major Partnerships Figure 11. Key Partnerships of the farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset showcases a diverse range of partnerships for the innovation hubs. 'Research Institutions' emerge as a frequent and vital partner, reflecting the strong link between research and innovation. Collaboration with 'Businesses' highlights a focus on market-driven solutions and commercialization pathways. 'NGOs' are also common partners, emphasizing the role of non-profit organizations in development initiatives and addressing social impact goals. 33 The types of partnerships formed often reveal the focus and stage of individual hubs, as well as their geographic scope. Hubs operating at a Country-Specific level tend to prioritize partnerships with localized 'Businesses', 'Universities', and often 'Governments' to address specific regional challenges. Regional and continental hubs often forge broader partnerships with 'International Organizations', 'Regional Organizations' and 'NGOs' to enable knowledge exchange and tackle challenges that transcend borders. Interestingly, several hubs directly partner with 'Farmer Organizations', indicating a commitment to grassroots innovation and addressing the needs of producers, regardless of their geographic scale. 34 Market Linkages with Figure 12. Market Linkages Supported by farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a diverse set of market linkages supported by innovation hubs across the sustainable farming sector. Many hubs prioritize connections with upstream segments of the value chain, particularly with 'Input Suppliers'. Several hubs emphasize links to downstream segments focusing on 'Processors' and 'Buyers'. Interestingly, a few hubs focus on facilitating connections with 'Investors' and even 'Retailers', highlighting support for funding and market access across the value chain. The types of market linkages supported often reveal a connection with a hub's geographic scope and focus. Country-specific hubs tend to connect with localized 'Input Suppliers', 'Buyers', and often 'Producers' to address specific needs within their regions. continental and Regional hubs often expand their focus, supporting linkages with downstream segments like 'Processors' and 'Retailers'. Notably, the presence of hubs targeting 'Investors' and connections with other 'Innovation Hubs' suggests efforts to address funding gaps and foster collaboration regardless of geographic scale. Training and Mentorship Instruments Figure 13. Training and Mentorship Instruments of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 35 The dataset shows a wide range of training and mentorship instruments employed by innovation hubs. 'Technical Skills' development appears as a common priority, underscoring the importance of practical know-how in the sustainable farming sector. Additionally, many hubs focus on 'Business Development', helping entrepreneurs build viable and sustainable ventures. Interestingly, 'Investment Readiness', 'Networking', and 'Market Access' support also feature, revealing efforts to bridge gaps in funding and market connections. The types of training and mentorship offered often correlate with the hub's focus and geographic scope. Country-specific hubs often prioritize practical 'Technical Skills' and localized 'Market Access' support, addressing immediate needs on the ground. Regional and continental hubs tend to offer a broader mix, including 'Business Development', 'Networking', and 'Investment Readiness', likely designed to enhance competitiveness on a larger scale. The presence of hubs supporting 'Advocacy' suggests that some work towards creating a more enabling policy environment for the sustainable farming sector. Policy Support Areas Figure 14 Policy Support Areas of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a mix of policy support areas engaged in by farming innovation hubs, but with noticeable gaps. Several hubs focus on 'Policy Research', likely aiming to generate evidence-based insights to inform policy decisions. 'General Advocacy' also features, suggesting efforts to raise awareness and influence broader policy dialogues. Hubs offering 'Pilot Policy Support' and those 'Influencing Regulations' are involved in more direct efforts to shape specific policies or regulatory frameworks. The types of policy support offered often align with a hub's geographic scope. Country-specific hubs seem less likely to engage in policy activities, possibly due to limited capacity or a focus on more localized needs. Conversely, continental and regional hubs often participate in 'Policy Research', 'General Advocacy', and 'Influencing Regulations', reflecting their potential to contribute to broader policy changes. The lack of data in several fields for many hubs underscores that policy 36 engagement might not be a primary focus for the majority of farming innovation hubs in Africa. 37 Inclusivity Focus Figure 15 Inclusivity Focus of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a mixed picture regarding the inclusivity focus of farming innovation hubs. Several hubs target marginalized groups with a specific emphasis on 'Women', 'Youth', and 'Small-scale' producers. This highlights a commitment to addressing the needs of those often underserved within the sustainable farming sector. However, many hubs have no specific inclusivity focus listed, suggesting that inclusion might not be a central priority for everyone in the innovation landscape. The presence or absence of an inclusivity focus seems connected to the hub's geographic scope and overall objectives. Country-specific hubs often prioritize localized inclusivity efforts, with some focusing specifically on 'Women' or 'Small- scale' producers. Conversely, continental and regional hubs, while sometimes addressing 'Youth' or general inclusion, might have a broader mandate that doesn't directly focus on specific marginalized groups. The significant number of empty fields underscores the need for the farming innovation ecosystem to place greater emphasis on inclusive practices and strategies. 38 Regional Hub Management Key Assets of the Hub Figure 16 Key Assets of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals diverse key assets among farming innovation hubs, but also significant gaps in the data. Hubs frequently cite 'Representation' structures within their organizations, emphasizing stakeholder involvement. 'Funding Mechanisms' are also prevalent, highlighting their importance for sustaining hub activities. 'Decision- making Bodies' are listed by several hubs, suggesting a degree of internal governance and strategic direction. However, many hubs have no assets specified, underscoring a need for better data collection or perhaps lack of fully developed organizational structures. The types of key assets possessed by hubs often seem connected to their geographic scope and focus. Country-specific hubs often prioritize 'Representation' of local stakeholders. Regional and continental hubs frequently list 'Decision-making Bodies', potentially reflecting the need for more formalized coordination at a larger scale. Many hubs rely on 'Funding Mechanisms', regardless of their scope, indicating the universal challenge of securing resources for innovation. The significant data gaps suggest the need for the African farming innovation ecosystem to better articulate the key assets of hubs to potential partners, funders, and beneficiaries. Knowledge Instruments of the Hub Figure 17 Knowledge Transmission Instruments of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a diverse range of knowledge transmission instruments employed by farming innovation hubs. 'Workshops' and 'Publications' feature prominently, suggesting a focus on sharing research findings and practical information. Several hubs also utilize 'Training Programs', 'Conferences', and 'Online Platforms' for more structured learning and 39 broader knowledge exchange. 'Practical Demonstrations' are used by some hubs, emphasizing hands-on learning. The types of knowledge transmission instruments often seem linked to the hub's focus and scope. Hubs engaged in research or capacity building frequently use 'Publications', 'Conferences', and 'Training Programs'. Country-specific hubs often prioritize 'Practical Demonstrations' and 'Workshops' for localized knowledge transfer. continental and regional hubs often utilize 'Online Platforms' to facilitate exchange across borders. The gaps in data suggest that some hubs might prioritize knowledge generation over structured dissemination or lack the capacity to fully implement knowledge-sharing strategies. Collaboration Instruments of the Hub Figure 18 Collaboration Instruments of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals a mix of collaboration instruments employed by farming innovation hubs. 'Multi- stakeholder Dialogues' are widespread, highlighting the importance of bringing together diverse actors within the sector. 'Joint Research' is also common, suggesting a focus on collaborative knowledge generation. Several hubs engage in 'Cross-border Trade Facilitation' and 'Policy Harmonization', emphasizing efforts to address regional and cross- border challenges. However, the lack of instruments listed for many hubs indicates that collaborative approaches might not be a primary focus for everyone. 40 The types of collaboration instruments used often align with a hub's focus and geographic scope. Research-oriented hubs frequently engage in 'Joint Research'. Country-specific hubs often prioritize localized 'Multi-stakeholder Dialogues', while continental and regional hubs focus more on 'Policy Harmonization' and 'Cross- border Trade Facilitation'. Notably, gaps in the data suggest a need for the African farming ecosystem to foster greater collaboration across hubs and with a wider set of stakeholders. Risk Financial Risks of the Hub Figure 19 Financial Sustainability Risks of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals common financial risks faced by farming innovation hubs. A recurring theme is 'Dependence on External Funding', highlighting their reliance on grants, donations, or project-based funding. Many hubs also cite 'Limited Revenue Streams', indicating challenges in generating self- sustaining income. Specific factors like 'Market Fluctuations' and 'Operational Costs' also pose risks for some hubs. The large number of missing fields suggests that financial risk assessment might not be prioritized by all hubs. The types of financial risks faced sometimes correlate with a hub's focus and scope. Early-stage hubs focused on research or providing support services often express 'Dependence on External Funding'. Country-specific hubs might be more vulnerable to 'Market Fluctuations' due to localized economic conditions. Regardless of scale, most hubs seem to grapple with 'Limited Revenue Streams', underscoring the challenge of developing sustainable business models within the innovation space. The lack of data on financial risks points to a need for greater transparency and awareness about these challenges within the African farming innovation ecosystem. Technology Access Continuity Risks of the Hub Figure 20 Technology Access Continuity Risks of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 41 The dataset shows that various factors jeopardize farming innovation hubs' continuous access to technology. 'Infrastructure Limitations' (like unreliable internet or electricity) are a common concern. 'Incomplete Information' about technologies, maintenance, or potential suppliers also poses risks. Several hubs cite 'Cost' as a factor, indicating challenges in affording technology solutions. Additionally, 'Digital Literacy' gaps are mentioned, highlighting the need for adequate skills and training. The significant number of empty fields suggests a possible lack of awareness or prioritization of technology risks within some hubs. The types of technology access continuity risks often reflect the hub's focus and geographic scope. Hubs operating in areas with less developed infrastructure frequently cite 'Infrastructure Limitations'. 'Incomplete Information' might be prevalent in more remote locations. 'Digital Literacy' challenges likely affect hubs supporting grassroots innovation or working directly with producers. continental and regional hubs, potentially coordinating technology transfer across geographies, might be more attuned to the risks posed by 'Cost' variations and 'Incomplete information.' The lack of data across many hubs underscores the need to proactively address technology continuity risks to ensure the sustainability of innovation efforts. Regulatory Risks of the Hub Figure 21 Regulatory Risks of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa 42 The dataset reveals a diverse range of regulatory risks faced by farming innovation hubs. 'Complex Licensing' procedures, 'Standards and Certifications' requirements, and 'Import/Export Restrictions' are frequent concerns. This highlights the complexity of navigating regulatory frameworks, which can act as barriers to innovation. The large number of missing fields, however, suggests that regulatory risk assessment might not be prioritized by all hubs, potentially leaving them vulnerable to unexpected hurdles. The types of regulatory risks faced often correlate with the hub's focus and scope. Hubs engaged in technology development or product commercialization often express concerns about 'Standards and Certifications'. Country-specific hubs seem more likely to be affected by 'Complex Licensing' due to localized bureaucratic processes. continental and Regional hubs engaged in cross-border activities often cite 'Import/Export Restrictions' as a hindrance. The limited data on regulatory risks might be underscoring a potential blind spot within the sector, calling for greater awareness and support in navigating complex regulatory environments. Skill Access Risks of the Hub Figure 22 Skill Access Risks of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset indicates that farming innovation hubs face challenges in accessing various skills. 'Technical' skills are the most commonly cited risk across all hubs, highlighting the sector's need for specialized agricultural and farming expertise. Many hubs also express concerns about 'Business' skills, emphasizing the need for entrepreneurial and commercialization capacity. 'Digital', 'Scientific', and 'Regulatory' skill gaps are mentioned by several hubs. The numerous empty fields, however, suggest that some hubs might not fully assess their skill access needs or 43 lack the resources to mitigate such risks. The types of skill access risks often reflect the hub's focus and scope. Research- intensive hubs are more likely to cite 'Scientific' skill gaps. Country-specific hubs often express concerns about localized 'Technical' and 'Business' skills gaps. continental and Regional hubs engaged in market development or cross-border activities often mention 'Regulatory' skill risks. The widespread need for 'Technical' and 'Business' skills underscores the importance of capacity building and knowledge exchange across all types of hubs. The lack of data on skill risks suggests the need to create greater awareness of this challenge and proactively address it within the farming innovation ecosystem Socio-Economic Risks of the Hub Figure 23 Socio-Economic Risks of farming Relevant Hubs in Africa The dataset reveals diverse socio- economic risks challenging farming innovation hubs. 'Adoption Resistance' emerges as a widespread concern, highlighting potential reluctance toward new technologies or practices among farmers and other stakeholders. 'Gender/Age Disparities' and 'Economic Inequality' are also acknowledged by some hubs, emphasizing the need for inclusive innovation. 'Traditional practices' are listed occasionally, suggesting potential friction between innovation and established ways of doing things. The large number of missing fields, however, indicates that some hubs might underestimate these risks or lack tools to assess them. The types of socio-economic risks faced often reflect the hub's focus and scope. Early-stage hubs focused on technology transfer or adoption seem more attuned to 'Adoption Resistance'. Country-specific hubs are more likely to grapple with localized 'Gender/Age Disparities' and 'Economic Inequality', reflecting the social realities on the ground. Hubs operating at a larger scale are less likely to report specific socio- economic risks, suggesting they might face challenges addressing them or that these issues are not a key focus. The lack of data points to a need to prioritize inclusion assessments and proactively address socio-economic barriers to innovation. 44 IGAD Regional Analysis Innovation Hub Strategy Leadership Model Figure 25 Leadership Models of farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset reveals a diverse range of leadership models employed by farming innovation hubs within the IGAD region. International leadership from NGOs and development agencies is prevalent. A significant number of hubs adopt a hybrid model, combining elements of different leadership styles. Research-led hubs are also notable, emphasizing a focus on knowledge generation. The presence of private sector-led and government-led hubs suggests a mix of market-oriented and policy-driven innovation approaches within the region. The dataset reveals striking differences in leadership models across IGAD countries, significantly influencing their key partnerships. Kenya stands out with a strong preference for private sector leadership, potentially fostering close ties with commercial networks and emphasizing market-driven innovation. Ethiopia, on the other hand, exhibits a dominance of research-led and university-led models, suggesting a focus on knowledge generation and strong partnerships with academic and research institutions. Internationally-led hubs across the IGAD region likely collaborate heavily with global development agencies, research institutions, and NGOs with a strong presence in their respective countries. While hybrid models are present in all countries, their specific mix of partners (governments, universities, farmers, private sector) likely varies based on the local context. 45 Funding Model Figure 26 Funding Models of farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset reveals a diverse mix of funding models employed by farming innovation hubs in the IGAD region, with the potential for even greater diversity. Reliance on 'International Non-Private Investors' (e.g., development agencies, NGOs) is widespread, highlighting the significant role of external funding in the innovation landscape. Several hubs operate on a 'Private Sector' model, indicating market-driven approaches and a commercialization focus. Interestingly, while no hubs currently utilize a 'Public-Private Partnership' model, this category's presence suggests that such collaborations might be in development. Some hubs utilize a combination of funding sources, often including international funding, private investment, and potentially some government support. The choice of funding models seems to vary across IGAD countries. Kenyan hubs appear more likely to incorporate private sector funding, potentially reflecting a stronger entrepreneurial environment. Ethiopian hubs frequently rely on international non-private investors, which might be linked to the availability of development- focused funding in the country. The presence of the 'Public-Private Partnership' category, even without currently assigned hubs, suggests the potential for these collaborative models to emerge within the IGAD region. The diversity of funding models points to the ongoing exploration of adaptable and sustainable financial strategies for farming innovation 46 Funding Instruments Figure 26 Specific Funding Instruments of farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset reveals a diverse range of funding instruments employed by farming innovation hubs within the IGAD region. 'Project-based Grants' are widely used, indicating reliance on targeted project funding. 'Research Grants' are also common, emphasizing the knowledge- generation focus of many hubs. Interestingly, a few hubs utilize income-generating mechanisms like 'Service Income', suggesting efforts towards self-sustainability. Other instruments, such as 'Prizes', 'Credit', 'Equity', 'Membership Fees' and 'Crowdsourcing,' are utilized less frequently and none in other countries except Kenya but highlight a variety of approaches that can be explored to finance innovation. The choice of funding instruments seems to align with a hub's focus and scope. Early-stage hubs focused on research often rely heavily on 'Research Grants'. Hubs adopting market-oriented approaches might utilize 'Credit' or explore 'Prize'-based funding. Hubs with income-generating activities are more likely to report 'Service Income'. The use of less common instruments like 'Crowdsourcing' and 'Membership Fees' could point to experimentation with alternative funding models within the region. The diversity of funding instruments suggests that hubs are actively seeking sustainable and innovative financial solutions to support their work. 47 Niches Hub Focus Figure 27 Types of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset reveals a diverse range of hub types within the IGAD region. Several hubs classify as 'Think Tanks', focusing on research, policy analysis, and knowledge generation. 'Incubators' and 'Accelerators' are also prevalent, supporting entrepreneurship and the development of early-stage ventures. 'Innovation Platforms' foster multi-stakeholder collaboration and problem-solving. Other hub types include 'Technology & Science Parks', specialized in technology development, 'Innovation Challenge/Hackathons', focused on rapid solutions, and 'Angel Investment' groups, providing seed funding. The types of hubs often align with their core focus and geographic scope. Research- intensive hubs or those working on policy issues frequently identify as 'Think Tanks'. Hubs supporting startups and commercialization often classify as 'Incubators' or 'Accelerators'. East Africa seems to have a higher concentration of entrepreneur- focused hubs compared to the broader African landscape, as evidenced by the prevalence of incubators, accelerators, and innovation challenges. Country-specific differences likely exist within IGAD. For instance, Kenya appears to be a hotspot for entrepreneurial hubs and angel investment groups and have unique hub types within the region. The diversity of hub types highlights the multifaceted nature of farming innovation and suggests adaptation to local and regional needs. 48 Sector Focus Figure 28 Sub-sector Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset highlights a diverse range of farming subsectors targeted by innovation hubs in the IGAD region. 'Aquaculture' emerges as a major focus, indicating attention towards the development of fish farming. Hubs also address traditional sustainable farming sectors, with 'Dairy', 'Meat', 'Eggs', 'Breeding', 'Feed/Nutrition', and 'Animal Health' featuring prominently. This suggests a multifaceted approach to improving farming productivity, addressing challenges across the value chain. The focus on specific subsectors likely varies between IGAD countries. Kenyan hubs seem to prioritize 'Aquaculture', potentially reflecting the country's aquaculture potential and market demand. Ethiopian hubs often address multiple subsectors like 'Dairy', 'Eggs', 'Meat', likely reflecting the diverse nature of the Ethiopian farming industry. Interestingly, hubs with a broader African focus tend to target a wider range of subsectors, suggesting a more comprehensive approach to farming development across the continent. The strong presence of 'Animal Health' focused hubs highlights the importance of disease prevention and management within the IGAD region. Animal Focus Figure 29 Animal Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries 49 The dataset reveals a focus on a few key farming species across the IGAD region. 'Cattle', 'Chicken', 'Goat', and 'Sheep' are widely targeted, reflecting the importance of these traditional farming for livelihoods in the region. Interestingly, there's a strong emphasis on aquaculture species, namely 'Tilapia' and 'Catfish', highlighting the growing importance of fish farming. Hubs also address niche sectors, like 'Seaweed' and 'Shellfish', suggesting diversification within the innovation landscape. The choice of animal focus likely aligns with local farming production systems and market demands within IGAD countries. The emphasis on 'Chicken', 'Goat', and 'Sheep' in Ethiopia could be linked to the prevalence of smallholder farming systems. Kenya's focus on aquaculture species like 'Tilapia' might reflect the growth potential in this sector and increasing consumer demand for fish. Hubs with a continental focus often target a wider range of animals, potentially mirroring the diverse farming production systems across the continent. Value Chain Focus Figure 30 Value Chain Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset highlights that farming innovation hubs within IGAD engage with various segments of the value chain. A strong emphasis is placed on 'Producers', reflecting efforts to directly improve farming production practices and farmer livelihoods. 'Input Suppliers' also feature prominently, suggesting attention towards enhancing access to feed, breeding stock, and other essential inputs. Several hubs focus on 'Processors' and 'Marketers', highlighting initiatives to address post-production activities, value addition, and market access. 50 The value chain focus of hubs often aligns with their overall scope and objectives. Hubs focused on primary production often prioritize 'Input Suppliers' and 'Producers'. Those supporting market development might engage more with 'Processors' and 'Marketers'. Interestingly, some hubs target multiple value chain segments, suggesting a holistic approach to farming development. Hubs operating at a continental level or those addressing complex challenges often engage across a wider part of the value chain, potentially including a focus on 'Consumers'.There was no significant difference among the countries in terms of value chain level focus. Stakeholder Focus Figure 31 Stakeholder Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The dataset reveals that farming innovation hubs in IGAD engage with a diverse range of stakeholders. 'Farmers' and 'Researchers' are primary target groups, highlighting efforts to directly address on-ground production challenges and bridge the gap between research and practice. 'Businesses' also feature prominently, indicating a focus on private sector development and market-oriented solutions. Several hubs engage with 'Policymakers', suggesting an understanding of the importance of an enabling policy environment for innovation. Certain stakeholder focuses appear to correlate with geographical scope. Hubs with a broad African focus often target policymakers and investors, likely seeking to influence continental-level policy and attract larger investments. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa frequently include businesses and farmers in their stakeholder mix, suggesting an emphasis on local value chains and commercialization. Country- specific hubs, such as those in Kenya, show a diverse stakeholder blend, sometimes driven by the specific programs and innovation focus of the hub. 51 Infrastructure Focus Figure 32 Infrastructure Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data presents a mix of infrastructure approaches adopted by hubs. A significant number emphasize physical infrastructure, such as spaces and labs, suggesting a focus on hands-on research, experimentation, and training. Many hubs prioritize digital infrastructure, highlighting the importance of platforms and networks for knowledge sharing, collaboration, and potentially even service delivery. Interestingly, several hubs appear to employ a hybrid approach, combining both physical and digital infrastructure components. Geographical trends seem to emerge within the infrastructure focus. Hubs with a broad African focus often lean towards digital infrastructure, likely aiming to facilitate connection and knowledge exchange across vast distances. Hubs operating at the regional level (Eastern Africa) show a mix of physical and digital infrastructure, potentially balancing localized activities with broader regional networking. Kenya- based hubs exhibit a diversity of approaches, with some emphasizing physical labs and spaces, while others focus purely on digital platforms. 52 Enterprise Support Instruments Funding Instruments Figure 33 Enterprise Funding Models of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a diverse range of funding models employed by the hubs. A significant portion rely on international non-private investors, likely including development agencies, foundations, and philanthropic organizations. Private sector funding plays a notable role, either as a standalone model or in combination with other sources. Public-private partnerships also emerge as a mechanism to leverage resources and expertise from both the government and private sectors. Interestingly, a small number of hubs indicate a solely public sector funding source. Distinct funding patterns seem linked to geographic focus. Hubs with a broad African mandate often depend heavily on international non-private investors, reflecting the reliance on external support for large-scale initiatives. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa exhibit a mix of funding models, including private sector involvement and public-private partnerships, suggesting a greater emphasis on local investment and collaboration. Within Kenya, there's remarkable diversity, with hubs utilizing various combinations of private, public, and international non-private funding. Key Partnerships Figure 34 Key Partnerships of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries 53 The data reveals a strong emphasis on collaboration across various sectors within the farming industry. Partnerships with research institutions and universities are a common thread, highlighting the importance of knowledge generation and innovation. Many hubs actively partner with businesses, suggesting a focus on commercialization and value chain development. NGOs feature prominently as partners, indicating an emphasis on community-level engagement and impact. Collaboration with governments and international organizations is also evident, emphasizing the need for policy support and coordination at broader regional or international levels. Interesting patterns emerge when considering partnerships alongside geographical focus. Hubs with a broad African reach frequently engage with international organizations, likely to ensure alignment with continental initiatives and access resources. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa show a diverse mix of partnerships, including universities, businesses, NGOs, and governments, potentially reflecting a localized focus on addressing specific challenges and opportunities. Kenyan hubs display a remarkable range of partnerships, aligning with the diverse innovation landscape within the country. 54 Market Linkages with Figure 35 Market linkages Supported by the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a focus on different links within the farming value chain. Some hubs prioritize connecting with input suppliers, ensuring access to essential resources for production. Others emphasize linkages with processors, aiming to add value and expand market opportunities. Investor connections are also prominent, highlighting the importance of securing funding to support innovation and growth. Interestingly, a few hubs indicate collaboration with other innovation hubs, suggesting a focus on building networks and fostering knowledge exchange. While geographical trends are somewhat obscured by missing data, a few potential patterns emerge. Hubs with a broad African focus appear to engage with investors, potentially seeking large-scale funding. Within Eastern Africa, there seems to be a focus on both input suppliers and processors, suggesting efforts to strengthen the value chain. Kenyan hubs display some diversity, targeting investors, buyers, and even retailers, reflecting a potential interest in a full spectrum of market connections. Training and Mentorship Instruments Figure 36 Training and Mentorship Instruments of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a strong emphasis on both technical skills development and business development support. Many hubs aim to enhance the technical knowledge of farming producers and value chain actors. Business development skills, including market access, networking, and investment readiness, also feature prominently, suggesting a commitment to fostering 55 entrepreneurship and commercialization within the sector. Interestingly, hubs occasionally include advocacy training, likely to support efforts to influence policy and create an enabling environment for the farming industry. Hubs with a broad African focus tend to offer a mix of technical skills and business development training, indicating a comprehensive approach. Eastern African hubs also exhibit a similar multi-faceted emphasis. Kenyan hubs seem to display a slightly stronger focus on business development elements, including market access, networking, and investment readiness. This could reflect a more mature entrepreneurial ecosystem within Kenya. Policy Support Areas Figure 37 Policy Support Areas of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals that a limited number of hubs actively engage in policy support activities. Among those that do, there's a focus on policy research, which involves generating evidence to inform policymaking. General advocacy, aiming to raise awareness and influence broader policy discussions, is also present. Some hubs work on influencing regulations, likely targeting specific rules and standards. Pilot policy support suggests involvement in the design and testing of new policy approaches. Hubs with a broad African focus appear more involved in policy support, frequently engaging in policy research and sometimes influencing regulations. This suggests efforts to shape continental-level frameworks. Hubs with a regional focus (Eastern Africa) and country-specific focus (Kenya, Uganda) demonstrate less consistent engagement in policy work, potentially prioritizing other activities like technology development or capacity building. Notably, a few hubs across different geographical scopes engage in pilot policy support, indicating an interest in innovation at the policy implementation level. 56 Inclusivity Support Instruments Figure 38 Inclusivity Focus of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a mixed picture regarding inclusivity within the hubs. While several hubs have a clear focus on specific groups, a significant portion do not indicate a particular inclusivity target. Those that do prioritize inclusivity often focus on women, aligning with a broader recognition of gender disparities within the agricultural sector. A few hubs target youth, emphasizing the importance of engaging the next generation of farming producers and entrepreneurs. Interestingly, some hubs aim to be inclusive of small-scale producers, a critical demographic within the sustainable farming sector. While the data is somewhat incomplete, potential patterns emerge. Inclusivity appears less pronounced in hubs with a broad African focus. This could be due to the complexity of addressing diverse needs across a vast region. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa, and those operating within specific countries like Kenya, occasionally demonstrate a clearer inclusivity target, especially towards women and small-scale producers. This might suggest a more tailored approach based on localized needs and demographics. Regional Hub Management Key Assets of the Hub Figure 39 Key Assets of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries 57 The data reveals a focus on a few core assets that likely underpin the hubs' operations and impact. Funding mechanisms are crucial, ensuring the resources needed to implement activities. Representation emerges as an important asset, potentially referring to diverse stakeholder involvement or inclusive decision- making structures. Several hubs highlight decision-making bodies, suggesting well-defined governance mechanisms that guide their objectives and strategies. While some missing data exists, potential trends emerge based on geographical focus. Hubs with a broad African scope frequently mention decision-making bodies, likely reflecting the need for formalized governance when operating across multiple countries. Representation is a recurring asset for regionally focused (Eastern African) and country-specific hubs (Kenya), which might indicate efforts to ensure the voices of local stakeholders are included. The consistent importance of funding mechanisms across all geographies highlights the universal need for financial resources within the innovation space. Knowledge Instruments of the Hub Figure 40 Key Knowledge Transmission Instruments of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a diverse range of tools used to disseminate knowledge and share best practices within the sustainable farming sector. Workshops and training programs are common, enabling hands-on learning and capacity-building. Publications, both traditional and online, play a key role in documenting and sharing research findings. Conferences facilitate networking, knowledge exchange, and exposure to the latest innovations. 58 Hubs with a broad African focus utilize a combination of traditional and digital approaches for knowledge transmission. This likely reflects the need to reach audiences across vast distances and diverse contexts. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa also employ a mix of tools and demonstrate increasing use of online platforms. Kenyan hubs display a significant reliance on training programs, suggesting a strong focus on skills development. Kenyan hubs also use a broader choice of knowledge transmission instruments. Notably, several hubs integrate practical demonstrations into their knowledge transmission strategies, emphasizing experiential learning. Collaboration Instruments of the Hub Figure 41 Collaboration Instruments of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a diverse toolbox for facilitating collaboration within the sustainable farming sector. Joint research emerges as a core mechanism, underscoring the importance of knowledge generation through partnerships. Multi-stakeholder dialogues play a prominent role, enabling diverse actors to align on priorities and strategies. Networking events foster connections and knowledge exchange. Interestingly, several hubs prioritize cross-border trade facilitation, highlighting the transnational nature of farming value chains. Policy harmonization is also mentioned, suggesting efforts to create a conducive regulatory environment across borders. Hubs with a broad African focus employ several collaboration instruments, including multi-stakeholder dialogues, joint research, and policy harmonization. This reflects the need for coordination and knowledge sharing across vast and diverse regions. Regionally focused hubs in Eastern Africa also use a mix of tools while adding focus on cross-border trade facilitation, likely reflecting the region's interconnected farming market. Kenyan hubs sometimes include networking events and investor events, suggesting efforts to match innovators with potential funders for greater impact. 59 Risk Financial Risks of the Hub Figure 42 Financial Risks of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a significant challenge across the majority of the hubs: limited revenue streams and a heavy dependence on external funding. This reliance on grants or donor support introduces uncertainty and highlights the need for hubs to diversify their income sources. A few hubs indicate market fluctuations as a risk, suggesting that their revenue models might be linked to volatile market conditions within the sustainable farming sector. Operational costs are also mentioned as a risk factor, pointing to the challenge of managing day-to-day expenses. A striking pattern emerges: dependence on external funding is a pervasive risk for hubs with a broad African focus, as well as those within Eastern Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia. This suggests a systemic issue within the farming innovation landscape, potentially influenced by limited local investment opportunities and nascent markets for innovation services. The few hubs mentioning market fluctuation risks seem to be those with a narrower focus, likely operating within specific value chains where prices can be less stable. Technology Access Continuity Risks of the Hub Figure 43 Technology Access Continuity Risk of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries 60 The limited data available suggests challenges to ensuring continuous access to technology for farming Relevant Hubs. Infrastructure limitations, such as unreliable power supply or poor connectivity, emerge as a potential barrier. Some hubs mention cost as a factor, indicating that acquiring and maintaining necessary technologies might strain their budgets. The significant number of entries with "Incomplete Information" underscores a concerning lack of attention to, or lack of data on, this crucial aspect of innovation. While the missing data makes it difficult to discern clear geographical patterns, infrastructure limitations seem to be a concern across geographies, from broadly focused hubs to those operating in Eastern Africa. The lack of information on technology access continuity hints at a potential blind spot within the farming innovation sector. Disruptions to technology access could significantly impede hubs' ability to deliver services, conduct research, and foster innovation, ultimately hindering their impact. Regulatory Risks of the Hub Figure 44 Regulatory Risk of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The available data points to several regulatory challenges. Import/export restrictions emerge as a concern, suggesting that cross-border trade of farming products or technologies might be hindered by complex regulations. Complex licensing procedures are also mentioned, potentially creating bureaucratic hurdles for innovation and commercialization. Some hubs indicate standards and certifications as a risk factor, implying that meeting necessary regulatory standards could be difficult or costly. 61 The substantial number of empty fields highlights a significant lack of information on regulatory risks faced by farming Relevant Hubs. This could indicate that regulatory challenges are either not a major concern or that the hubs haven't systematically assessed the risks posed by the regulatory environment. The absence of data makes it difficult to discern geographical patterns in these regulatory risks. However, considering the interconnected nature of farming value chains, it's likely that unfavorable regulations in one area can have ripple effects across regions and countries. 62 Skill Access Risks of the Hub Figure 45 Skill Access Risk of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries The data reveals a strong emphasis on the risk of not being able to access necessary technical skills. These skills likely include specialized knowledge in farming production, breeding, health, and value chain development. Business skills are also identified as a significant risk, highlighting the need for entrepreneurial and commercialization expertise. Interestingly, a few hubs mention digital skills and knowledge of regulatory frameworks, reflecting the growing importance of technology and the need to navigate the regulatory landscape. The focus on technical skills appears consistent across hubs with varied geographical scopes. This suggests that access to specialized farming knowledge is a fundamental challenge within the sector. The emphasis on business skills within East Africa and Kenya might indicate a recognition of the need to strengthen the commercial side of farming innovation. The lack of data for many hubs makes it difficult to identify clear patterns and highlights potential gaps in assessing or addressing skill access risks. Socio-Economic Risks of the Hub Figure 46 Skill Socio-Economic Risk of the farming Relevant Hubs in IGAD Countries 63 The data highlights several socio- economic challenges that could hinder the success of farming innovations. Adoption resistance emerges as a common concern, suggesting reluctance from potential beneficiaries to embrace new technologies or practices. Gender and age disparities are also recognized as a risk, indicating that certain groups might face exclusion or marginalization. Economic inequality is mentioned, potentially limiting access to innovations based on affordability. Interestingly, some hubs identify traditional practices as a risk factor, pointing to potential tensions between established ways of doing things and new approaches. While limited data makes it challenging to identify clear geographical patterns, adoption resistance seems to be a widespread concern across hubs operating in various regions. This highlights the need to consider social and cultural factors when introducing innovations. The focus on gender and age disparities by a few hubs, especially within Kenya, suggests a growing awareness of the need for inclusivity within farming innovation. The lack of data on socio-economic risks for many hubs could indicate either a lack of attention paid to these issues or a difficulty in fully assessing such risks. 64 Innovation Hub Profiles No: 1 - Africa Aquaculture Research and Training Center (AARTC) HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Research led continental Africa, Egypt Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Project based grants, research grants, service income Researchers, farmers NICHE Hub Focus Sector focus Animal focus Technology & Science Park Aquaculture Tilapia Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Input suppliers, producers Farmers, researchers, farmer advisors,policy makers, NGOs Physical, digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Research institutions, businesses Input suppliers, processors Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills, business development Policy research REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Decision-making bodies Practical demonstrations, workshops, publications Joint research RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Limited revenue streams Incomplete tech information Skill gaps Socio-economic 65 Technical Adoption resistance No: 2 - Africa Rising Innovation Platforms HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Research led Regional (East and West Africa) Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mali, Ghana, Zambia, Malawi Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Research grants Farmers NICHE Hub Focus Sector focus Animal focus Innovation platform Eggs, Diary, Meat, Feed/Nutrition, Animal health Goat, Sheep, Cattle, Chicken Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Input suppliers, producers Farmers, researchers, farmer advisors Physical, digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Research institutions,NGOs Input suppliers Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills, market access Policy research, general advocacy Small-scale REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Representation, Workshops, publications Joint research, multi-stakeholder dialogues RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Dependence on external funding Skill gaps Socio-economic 66 Technical Adoption resistance No: 3 - African Animal Breeding Network (AABNet) HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Hybrid continental Africa Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Project based grants, research grants, membership fees Researchers, regulators NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Think & Tank Breeding Goat, Cattle, Chicken Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Producers Researchers, farmer advisors Digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Input suppliers, processors Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills General advocacy REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Decision-making bodies Training programs, publications, conferences Joint research RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Limited revenue streams Skill gaps Socio-economic 67 Scientific No: 4 - African Food Fellowship Aquaculture Competition HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Private sector led Country specific Kenya Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Prize Agribusiness, Entrepreneurs NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Innovation Challenge/Hackathon Aquaculture Tilapia Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Input suppliers, producers Farmers, businesses, ,policy makers Digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Investors, universities Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Market access REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Training programs Multi-stakeholder dialogues RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Skill gaps Socio-economic Technical 68 No: 5 - African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources -farming investment Master Planning Unit HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies International led continental Africa Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Project based grants, research grants, service income Regulators NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Think tank All farming Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Businesses, policy makers Digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Research institutions, NGO Investors Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills, business development Policy research, influencing regulations, pilot policy support REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration Online platforms, workshops, publications Multi-stakeholder dialogues RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Dependence on external funding Skill gaps Socio-economic Technical, Business, Digital, Regulatory 69 No: 6 - African Youth in farming, Fisheries and Aquaculture Incubators Network (AYLFAIN) HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Government led continental Africa Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Project based grants Entrepreneurs NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Incubator Aquaculture, Dairy, Meat, Eggs Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Producers, processors International organizations Digital ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private International organizations Innovation hubs Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills, business development General advocacy Youth REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Decision-making bodies Publications Joint research RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Dependence on external funding Skill gaps Socio-economic Business Gender/age disparities 70 No: 7 - Aquaculture Development and Enhancement Programme (ADEP) HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Hybrid continental Africa, South Africa Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience Public-Private Partnership Entrepreneurs, Agribusinesses NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Innovation Challenge/Hackathon Aquaculture Tilapia, Catfish Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Input Suppliers, Producers, Processors Farmers Physical (spaces, labs) ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with Public-Private Partnership Businesses, Governments Input suppliers, processors Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills, business development General advocacy REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Conferences RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Limited revenue streams Infrastructure limitations Skill gaps Socio-economic 71 No: 8 - AquaInvest Platform HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies International led Global Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Credit Regulators, Agribusinesses NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Angel Investment Aquaculture Seaweed Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Policymakers, Investors ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private International organizations, Investors Producers Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Policy research Women REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Publications RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Import/export restrictions Skill gaps Socio-economic 72 No: 9 - Aquarech HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Private sector led Country-Specific Kenya Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience Private Sector, International Non- Private Investors Project-based grants, Service income Agribusinesses NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Incubator Aquaculture Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Input Suppliers, Producer, Marketers Farmers, Businesses Digital (platforms, networks) ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with Private Sector, International Non- Private Investors Businesses, NGOs Buyers, Investors Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills Women, Small-scale REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Digital Apps, Practical demonstrations RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Market fluctuations Skill gaps Socio-economic Technical, Business ender/Age Disparities 73 No: 10 - Community Based farming Breeding Programmes (CBBPs HUB STRATEGY Leadership Model Geographic Scope Specific Geographies Hybrid Global Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Carribean Funding Model Funding Instruments Target Audience International non-private Project based grants, research grants Researchers Regulators NICHE Hub focus Sector focus Animal focus Incubator Breeding Sheep, Goat Value chain focus Stakeholder focus Infrastructure focus Producers Farmers, NGOs, Researchers Physical (spaces, labs), Digital (platforms, networks) ENTERPRISE SUPPORT INSTRUMENTS Funding via Partnerships Market linkages with International non-private Training and mentorship Policy Support Inclusivity Support Technical skills Pilot policy support, General advocacy REGIONAL HUB MANAGEMENT APPROACH Main strengths Knowledge instruments Collaboration instruments Representation Training Programs, Publications Conferences Joint research, Networking events RISKS Financial Tech access continuity Regulatory Limited revenue streams Skill gaps Socio-economic Technical, Scientific Adoption resistance 74 No: 11 - Digital Hub for African farming Tech HUB STRATEGY