LINKAGES WITH THE
SECTOR
HOW DID THE ACES PERFORM?

LINKAGES WITH THE SECTOR
Project Development Objective: to promote regional specialization
among participating universities in areas that address regional
challenges and strengthen the capacities of these universities to
deliver quality training and applied research.
The centers were selected based on their ability to implement a
proposal that encompasses an element around the building and use of
industry/sector partnerships to enhance impact of the Center on
development and increase relevance of the centers education and
research.
Linkages with industry/sector includes (i) the curricula boards that
include industry professionals; (ii) innovation/incubator hubs at the
university; (iii) direct partnership with industry for applied research and
trainings; etc.
The ACE Project includes three indicators used to measure university-
industry linkages: (1) internships; (2) revenue generation; and (3)

BENEFITS OF LINKING TO
THE SECTOR
Linkages with the sector can:
 Provide alternative access to funding channels
 Increase the impact and the relevance of university/center research,
thereby contributing to the role of universities as problem-solvers
 Help develop better curricula and training in technology-oriented
programs and enhance employment prospects for students that are
integrated within the industry
 Help universities/centers acquire cutting-edge equipment that they
would not otherwise acquire
 Provide research and technical know-how to the industry
The innovation and the research environment generated by the
collaboration of both parties can bring about technical advance.

KEY RESULTS
5,689
Internships undertaken by faculty
and students in the region and
internationally
12%
Share of regional students and
faculty undertaking internships
under ACE
15,958
Students and faculty trained
in short-term courses
1 student/faculty out
of 3
Trained in short-term courses was
from outside the host country
$52,423,100
Revenue generated externally
65%
of internships conducted* took place
in the private sector
* the figure is computed from an analysis of results
reported per center in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

KEY RESULTS: INTERNSHIPS
In Agriculture,
• 9 internships out of 10 were undertaken in a private institution
• Internships took place in private farms, ministries, and weather
forecast centers.
• Examples include Agudu Farms, the legacy improvement crop
center, Sodexam, la Société de Développement des Forêts, etc.
In Health centers,
• Almost half of all internships were conducted in a private
institution.
• Most internships took place in private and public hospital, medical
centers, pharmaceutical companies, veterinary centers and
Ministries.

KEY RESULTS: INTERNSHIPS
In STEM centers:
• Two thirds of internships took place in a private institution,
• Such as telecommunication firms, engineering and transport firms,
statistics labs, banks, agribusiness industries and Ministries.
• Examples include SENELEC, Atos, Bolloré, Benin Telecom Services, BCEAO,
le Ministère de la Femme et de l’Enfant de Côte d’Ivoire, Shell, le Ministère
des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques du Bénin, la Direction des Mines
et de la Géologie de Côte d’Ivoire, etc.
Top performing
centers
Winning strategies Challenges encountered
ACEPRD, KNUST,
CERSA, CEA-MEM,
2iE, OAU-OAK,
CEFTER, CEA-SMA
• Good planning and work to
build relationships with
industry leaders
• Stipends to support interns
• Learning curve to work outside
traditional mechanisms
• Non-eligibility of research centers
• Limited focused industries in
certain areas
• Inexistent channels to place

KEY RESULTS: INTERNSHIPS
# of internships # of
internships
(regional)
Percentage of
regional
internships
Gains (in SDR) DLI achievement
rate
ACEPRD 580 6 1% 408,000 100%
KNUST 531 30 6% 479,700 92%
CERSA 474 110 23% 520,000 100%
CEA-MEM 440 40 9% 403,793 100%
2iE 394 87 22% 509,600 98%
OAU-OAK 376 28 7% 403,000 76%
CEFTER 365 9 2% 200,000 100%
CEA-SMA 354 99 28% 219,700 41%
CEA-MITIC 253 14 6% 236,600 38%
DRYLAND
AGRIC
251 18 7% 300,000 100%
CEFOR 240 5 2% 292,500 98%
CETIC 228 0 0% 156,000 100%

KEY RESULTS: REVENUE
GENERATION
Top
performing
centers
Winning strategies Challenges encountered
WACCI,
ACEGID, 2iE,
WACCBIP,
PAMI, CEFOR
• Leadership and excellent grantsmanship;
• Excellent management of donor funds;
• Strong policy support from the University;
• Mechanisms for short-term courses;
• “Money calls for money”
• Misunderstanding over what counts as
revenue generated – designated
account vs. university account
• Limited existing avenues to generate
revenue
$1,858,650 $1,946,260
$6,422,971
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
North America Europe Africa
Research grants;
Scholarships
Academic exchange
Programs;
Scholarships;
Research grants
Revenue from
private industry;
Research grants;
Scholarships;
Tuition fees

KEY RESULTS: REVENUE
GENERATION
ACE Revenue generated
(USD)
Gains (in SDR) DLI achievement rate
WACCI 8,667,359.26 780,000 100%
ACEGID 7,760,340.12 1,540,000 100%
2iE 5,522,281.93 780,000 100%
WACCBIP 4,993,742.63 780,000 100%
PAMI 4,462,927.81 760,000 100%
CEFOR 4,017,272.00 466,900 100%
KNUST 2,929,332.26 780,000 100%
ACEPRD 2,592,318.29 254,285 40%
OAU-OAK PARK 2,155,123.73 750,000 100%
ENSEA 1,796,932.27 721,443 100%
CETIC 1,532,400.00 220,795 97%
CEA-SMA 1,508,730.00 790,000 100%
CERSA 1,033,526.00 780,000 100%
TOTAL 52,423,100.82 13,399,021

KEY RESULTS: SHORT-TERM
COURSES
Big Data Training for women in Benin
Testimony: “I find this course
very important and useful to
my research. (…) My
expectation is that I am going
to achieve my goal of having
in-depth knowledge in Big
Data and Data science which
will be very useful for me in
finishing up my research.”
Top
performing
centers
Winning strategies Challenges encountered
WACCI,
CETIC,
ACEPRD,
CEFTER
• Adapt and quickly change strategy;
• Strong communication strategy;
• Decentralized training/designation of
focal points; and
• Building networks (alumni and
regional relations)
• Governance issues around payment
of trainers;
• Regionality

KEY RESULTS: SHORT-TERM
COURSES
Top
performing
centers
Winning strategies Challenges encountered
WACCI,
CETIC,
ACEPRD,
CEFTER
• Adapt and quickly change strategy;
• Strong communication strategy;
• Decentralized training/designation of
focal points; and
• Building networks (alumni and
regional relations)
• Governance issues around payment
of trainers;
• Regionality
Poultry science training in Cotonou
Training of hundreds of
farmers from several countries
(Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali,
Senegal and Togo) to poultry
technique to produce quality
chicken meat, eggs in large
quantities. This contributes to
increasing animal protein
consumption in the framework
of food security.

KEY RESULTS: SHORT-TERM
COURSES
ACE Number of
STC
Number of
STC (regional)
Percentage of
regional STC
Gains (in SDR) DLI
achievement
rate
WACCI 1,419 417 29% 260,000 100%
CETIC 1,379 215 16% 234,000 100%
ACEPRD 1,261 346 27% 380,000 100%
CEFTER 1,096 231 21% 425,000 100%
PAMI 1,078 292 27% 250,000 100%
OAU-OAK 1,007 509 51% 250,000 100%
CERSA 907 300 33% 260,000 100%
CEA-SMA 900 363 40% 270,000 100%
2iE 710 446 63% 260,000 100%
CEA-MITIC 704 125 18% 204,750 57%
KNUST 688 104 15% 260,000 100%
ACEGID 656 385 59% 200,000 100%
DRYLAND
AGRIC
598 173 29% 150,000 100%
TOTAL 15,958 5,284 33% 4,451,888

LESSONS
Winning strategies Challenges encountered
Short-term
courses
• Adapt and quickly change strategy;
• Strong communication strategy;
• Decentralized training/designation
of focal points; and
• Building networks (alumni and
regional relations)
• Governance issues around payment
of trainers;
• Adopt the regionality requirements
Internships • Good planning and work to build
relationships with industry leaders
• Stipends to support interns
• Non-eligibility of research centers
as institutions
• Paucity of focused industries in
certain areas
• Inexistent channels to place
students in internships in past
curricula
Revenue
generation
• Leadership and excellent
grantsmanship;
• Excellent management of donor
funds;
• Misunderstanding over what counts
as revenue generated – designated
account vs. university account
• No mechanisms in place for