Document of
The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: ICR00005391
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
ON CREDITS TO
REPUBLIC OF BENIN IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR5.3 MILLION
(US$8.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
BURKINA FASO IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR5.2 MILLION (US$8.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR5.2 MILLION
(US$8.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
REPUBLIC OF GHANA IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR15.6 MILLION
(US$24.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR1.3 MILLION
(US$2.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR45.3MILLION
(US$70.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR10.4 MILLION
(US$16.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
REPUBLIC OF TOGO IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR5.2 MILLION (US$8.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
AND AN ADDITIONAL FINANCING TO
COTE D’IVOIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF EURO 13.4 MILLION
(US$15 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
AND PROPOSED GRANTS TO
REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR0.7 MILLION
(US$1.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
AND THE ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR3.3 MILLION (US$5.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)
FOR AN
AFRICA HIGHER EDUCATION CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE PROJECT
March 30, 2021
Education Global Practice
Western and Central Africa Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective March 10, 2021)
Currency Units = United States Dollars (US$)
CFA Franc (Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal
and Togo) (XOF) 552.50 = US$1
CFA Franc (Cameroon) (XAF) 551.53 = US$1
Ghanaian Cedi (GHS) 5.74 = US$1
Nigerian Naira (NGN) 380.50 = US$1
Gambia Dalasi (GMD) 51.40 = US$1
Cote d’Ivoire (Euro) 0.84 = US$1
SDR 0.70 = US$1
US$ 1.43 = SDR1
Regional Vice President: Ousmane Diagana
Country Director: Deborah L. Wetzel
Regional Director: Dena Ringold
Practice Manager: Halil Dundar
Task Team Leader(s): Himdat Iqbal Bayusuf
ICR Main Contributor: Huma Ali Waheed
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
2iE Institut International d’Ingénierie de l’Eau et de l’Environnement
AAU Association of African Universities
ACE I Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project
ACE II Eastern and Southern Higher Education Centers of Excellence
ACE Impact Africa Higher Education Centers for Excellence for Development Impact
ACEGID Africa Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases
ACENTDFB Africa Center of Excellence on Neglected Tropical Diseases and Forensic Biotechnology
ACEPRD Africa Center of Excellence for Phytomedicine Research and Development
AF Additional financing
AFSLD Africa Food Security Leadership Dialogue
AMSI Africa Mining Skills Initiative
APHEA Agency for Public Health Education Accreditation
AQAS Agency for Quality Assurance through Accreditation of Study Programs
AU African Union
CDA Center of Excellence in Dryland Agriculture
CEA -SMA Centre d’Excellence Africain en Sciences Mathématiques et Applications du Bénin
CEA-CCBAD Centre d’Excellence Africain sur le Changement Climatique, la Biodiversité et l’Agriculture
Durable
CEADESE Center for Agricultural Development and Sustainable Environment
CEA-MEM Centre d’Excellence Africain Mines et Environnement Minier
CEA-MITIC Centre d’excellence Africain en Mathématiques, Informatique et Technologies de
L’information et de la Communication
CEA-SAMEF Centre d’Excellence Africain - Sante de la Mère et de l’Enfant
CEFOR Center for Oil Field Chemicals
CEFTER Center for Food Technology and Research
CERHI Center for Excellence in Reproductive Health and Innovation
CERSA Centre d’Excellence Régional sur les Sciences Aviaires
CETIC Centre d’excellence en Technologies de l’information et de la Communication
CTI Commission des titres d’ingénieur
DLI Disbursement Linked Indicator
DLR Disbursement Linked Result
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ENSEA Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Statistique et d’Economie Appliquée
ESMP Environment and Social Management Plan
FM Financial Management
FWCI Field-Weighted Citation Impaction
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographic Information System
HCERES Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur
HEI Higher Education Institution
ICR Implementation Completion Results Report
IDP Internally Displaced Persons
IFR Interim Financial Reports
INPHB Institut National Polytechnique Felix Houphouët-Boigny
IOS International Organization for Standardization
IR Intermediate Results
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ISR Implementation Status Report
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MTR Midterm Review
NCDC Nigerian Center for Disease Control
NGO Non-governmental organization
NMI Nelson Mandela Institutes
NPD Neglected Tropical Diseases
NPV Net Present Value
NTD Neglected Tropical Diseases
NUC National Universities Commission
OAU Obafemi Awolowo University
OAU-PARK Knowledge Park: A Model for National Science Technology and Knowledge Park Initiative
PAMI Pan African Materials Institute
PDO Project Development Objective
PSC Project Steering Committee
QA Quality Assurance
R&D Research and Development
RBF Results Based Financing
RF Results Framework
RFU Regional Facilitation Unit
RWESCK Regional Water and Environmental Sanitation Center Kumasi
S&T Science and Technology
SDR Special Drawing Rights
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SOE Statements of Expenditure
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
STC Short-Term Courses
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
TTL Task Team Leader
US$ United States Dollar
UCAD University Cheick Anta Diop
UFHB Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny
WACCBIP West Africa Center for Cell Biology of Infectious Pathogens
WACCI West Africa Center of Excellence for Crop Improvement
WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union
WASH Water and Sanitation
WHO World Health Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DATA SHEET .......................................................................................................................... 1
A. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 6
A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL .........................................................................................................6
B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE)...................................... 11
B. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................... 12
A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs ............................................................................................................ 12
B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) ...................................................................................... 14
C. EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................... 23
D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING .................................................................... 25
E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY) ............................................................................ 25
C. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 28
• KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION ................................................................................ 28
• KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................... 29
D. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ... 31
A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) ............................................................ 31
B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE ..................................................... 33
C. BANK PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 34
D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ....................................................................................... 36
E. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 37
ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 40
ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ......................... 58
ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 62
ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 63
ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS .... 79
ANNEX 6. LIST OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS AND RELATED MEDIA LINKS ...................... 97
ANNEX 7. COUNTRY WISE PERFORMANCE ......................................................................... 100
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
DATA SHEET
BASIC INFORMATION
Product Information
Project ID Project Name
P126974 Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project
Country Financing Instrument
Western Africa Investment Project Financing
Original EA Category Revised EA Category
Partial Assessment (B) Partial Assessment (B)
Organizations
Borrower Implementing Agency
National University Commission, Ministry of Higher
Education, Ministry of Higher Education, Ministry of
Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education,
Association of African Universities, Ministry of Higher
Education, Research, Science and Technology, Ministry of
Ministry of Finance
Higher Education, Cameroon, National Commission for
Tertiary Education, NCTE, Ghana, Economic Community
of West African States (ECOWAS), Ministry of Higher
Education, Ministry of Higher Education, Ministry of
Higher Education and Scientific Research
Project Development Objective (PDO)
Original PDO
The Project Development Objective is to support the Recipients to promote regional specialization among
participating universitiesin areas that address regional challenges by strengthening the capacities of these
universities to deliver quality training andapplied research.
Page 1 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
FINANCING
Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$)
World Bank Financing
8,000,000 7,974,061 7,260,246
IDA-54200
2,000,000 1,999,672 1,845,470
IDA-54120
8,000,000 5,842,710 5,114,924
IDA-54220
8,000,000 7,420,329 6,803,949
IDA-54210
70,000,000 69,065,849 62,198,146
IDA-54150
1,000,000 999,796 992,874
IDA-H9300
16,000,000 14,422,831 12,907,646
IDA-54190
8,000,000 7,972,634 7,233,717
IDA-54240
5,000,000 4,999,458 4,740,376
IDA-H9320
24,000,000 22,453,217 20,209,853
IDA-54230
15,000,000 15,000,000 14,095,421
IDA-57330
Total 165,000,000 158,150,557 143,402,622
Non-World Bank Financing
0 0 0
Borrower/Recipient 140,800,000 158,150,557 143,402,622
Total 140,800,000 158,150,557 143,402,622
Total Project Cost 305,800,000 316,301,115 286,805,243
KEY DATES
Approval Effectiveness MTR Review Original Closing Actual Closing
15-Apr-2014 16-May-2014 17-Nov-2014 31-Dec-2018 30-Sep-2020
Page 2 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING
Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions
30-Sep-2015 19.56 Additional Financing
17-Sep-2018 98.89 Change in Results Framework
Change in Components and Cost
Change in Loan Closing Date(s)
Cancellation of Financing
Reallocation between Disbursement Categories
Change in Legal Covenants
Change in Implementation Schedule
30-Apr-2019 114.58 Change in Results Framework
Change in Loan Closing Date(s)
Reallocation between Disbursement Categories
KEY RATINGS
Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality
Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial
RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs
Actual
No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements
(US$M)
01 07-Jul-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.00
02 25-Dec-2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.15
03 25-Jun-2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.82
04 23-Dec-2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 21.14
05 23-Jun-2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 35.16
06 23-Dec-2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 45.08
07 29-Jun-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 55.74
08 28-Dec-2017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 77.65
09 27-Jun-2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 87.93
10 27-Dec-2018 Satisfactory Satisfactory 107.67
Page 3 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
11 28-Jun-2019 Satisfactory Satisfactory 119.39
12 29-Dec-2019 Satisfactory Satisfactory 134.51
13 03-Apr-2020 Satisfactory Satisfactory 139.77
14 07-Oct-2020 Satisfactory Satisfactory 142.96
SECTORS AND THEMES
Sectors
Major Sector/Sector (%)
Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry 15
Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support
15
Activities
Education 60
Tertiary Education 60
Health 15
Health 15
Energy and Extractives 5
Oil and Gas 5
Water, Sanitation and Waste Management 5
Other Water Supply, Sanitation and Waste
5
Management
Themes
Major Theme/ Theme (Level 2)/ Theme (Level 3) (%)
Private Sector Development 10
Business Enabling Environment 10
Innovation and Technology Policy 10
Page 4 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Human Development and Gender 91
Health Systems and Policies 15
Health System Strengthening 15
Education 76
Access to Education 19
Science and Technology 19
Teachers 19
Standards, Curriculum and Textbooks 19
ADM STAFF
Role At Approval At ICR
Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Ousmane Diagana
Country Director: Colin Bruce Deborah L. Wetzel
Director: Tawhid Nawaz Dena Ringold
Practice Manager: Peter Nicolas Materu Halil Dundar
Task Team Leader(s): Andreas Blom Himdat Iqbal Bayusuf
ICR Contributing Author: Huma Ali Waheed
Page 5 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
A. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL
Context
1. Regional Context: At project appraisal in 2014, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) was experiencing unprecedented
growth after more than two decades of stagnation. This growth was a result of increasing macroeconomic stability,
reforms which addressed market imperfections, and a rapidly increasing global demand for the natural resource-based
commodities exported by SSA. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew from an average annual rate of 2 percent during
the 1990s to 5.5 percent in the first decade of the 21st century, with seven West African countries being among the
fastest 35 growing countries in the world in 2012. Despite the strong economic growth, West and Central Africa faced
significant development challenges. First, an undiversified production structure was hindering growth and required
diversification of national economies by stimulating development of new competitive sectors. Second, significant
challenges remained in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Prevalence of infectious diseases such as
malaria and Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and
neglected tropical diseases (NTD) continued to weaken population health outcomes, as well as economic productivity
and growth. Malnutrition, lack of food security, and low productivity in agriculture were other considerable challenges
facing the region.
2. Sector Context: Skill shortages across SSA affected significantly the region’s ability to address development
challenges and poverty reduction. In many countries in the region, specialized positions were filled by expatriates. The
lack of skills was preventing African countries from establishing local suppliers that could generate domestic economic
spillovers and additional jobs. Increases in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) capacity, more skilled
labor, and applied research were needed to increase technology absorption, raise total factor productivity, and generate
new competitive sectors. SSA was at the bottom of almost every knowledge economy indicator. For instance, it
contributed only 0.07 percent of global patent applications. The region had some of the lowest researcher-to-population
ratios in the world with 17 researchers in Research and Development (R&D) per one million people in Ghana, 38 in
Nigeria and 45 in Burkina Faso compared to an average of about 481 in Latin America, 1,714 in East Asia and Pacific and
2,664 in Europe and Central Asia.
3. West and Central African countries faced a shortage of human resources and capacity within Science and
Technology (S&T) as well as agriculture and health disciplines. A key common characteristic was a pattern of skills
production that did not match labor market demand or development needs. The percentage of graduates in areas of
engineering, agriculture, health and science was extremely low with the result that while graduates of many West and
Central African higher educational institutions were unemployed, substantial shortages of skilled labor persisted. There
was a need to increase both the quantity and the quality of graduates through investments in facilities such as
laboratories and human resources for these disciplines, improve linkages with employers to increase the relevance of
education and training provided, and foster strong international collaboration to increase the quality of education.
4. Higher education in West and Central Africa was under-developed and had been a low priority for the prior two
decades. Access to higher education for the relevant age group remained at 5 percent, the lowest regional average in
the world, and just one-fifth of the global average of about 25 percent. Further, women were underrepresented in higher
education, particularly in the S&T fields. With regards to quality, not a single university in West and Central Africa
Page 6 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
featured in the rankings of the world’s best 500 academic institutions. A key consequence of underdeveloped higher
education institutions was a high rate of migration of talent out of the region in pursuit of education, training and
research opportunities abroad (brain drain).
5. Further, limited investment in higher education had meant that institutions in West and Central Africa were not
capable of responding to the immediate skills needs or supporting sustained productivity-led growth in the medium
term. There were insufficient faculty or sustainable financing, the provision of skills/education was not aligned with labor
market needs and higher education institutions faced shortcomings in governance and leadership. More broadly, there
was inadequate regional specialization of the higher education systems in West and Central Africa.
Theory of Change (Results Chain)
6. The Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence (ACE I) Project was the first in SSA to propose an innovative
regional approach to providing and strengthening higher education. The basic premise of the Project was that since it
would be costly and difficult for all countries in the region to raise the capacity of technical institutions in a range of
disciplines at the same time, a regional approach could strengthen specialization and collaboration so that all countries
could benefit from access to quality higher education across key disciplines. The Project introduced a Centers of
Excellence approach that aimed to support competitively selected higher education institutions across West and Central
Africa to respond to the need for specialized skills and applied research in critical areas of development that are relevant
for the region (Agriculture, Health and STEM). Figure 1 depicts the theory of change for the Project that was created for
this Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR). The Project aimed to support the region in establishing
regional specialization in these priority sectors and providing quality and relevant training and applied research while
strengthening the governance and management of the sector. This, in turn was expected to strengthen the technical
capacity of the region to identify and devise solutions to common social and economic development challenges faced by
the region and contribute to its growth through increased productivity and innovation in key sectors.
Page 7 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 1: Results Chain
Impact • Homegrown solutions for the region’s social and economic development challenges
• Reduction in skills shortages in STEM, health and agriculture sciences and increased productivity
of priority sectors
Outcomes • Increased regional specialization to address development challenges
/PDO o Increased number of new specialized programs in priority sectors
o Increased number of national and regional students enrolled in new specialized short-
term courses, and Master and PhD programs in priority sectors
• Strengthened capacity of institutions to deliver quality training and research
o Increased number of internationally accredited education programs in priority sectors
o Increased number of students and faculty with at least 1-month internship in companies
or institutions relevant to their field
o Increased quality of research in priority sectors.
o Increased amount of externally generated revenue by the ACEs
Results • Globally competitive postgraduate programs
• Enhanced capacity to deliver regional high-quality training
• Enhanced capacity to deliver applied research
• Increased industry/sector partnerships
• Increased regional and international academic partnerships
• Enhanced governance and management of the ACE and the participating university
• International evaluation and accreditation of quality of education programs
• Published articles in internationally recognized and peer reviewed journals
Activities • Improve learning resources, including lab equipment, and minor rehabilitation/extension of
existing facilities
• Update curricula of existing programs or create new education programs to meet the
development challenges
• Meet international benchmarks for quality education (e.g. international accreditation)
• Deliver short-term courses for professionals
• Training of faculty to introduce new approaches to teaching and learning
• Work-place learning such as internships
• Networking activities with national and international partners
• Joint delivery of education programs and joint research and conferences
• Faculty exchanges/visiting faculty
• Monitoring of labor market outcomes of graduates (tracer studies)
• Administration, fiduciary management (including financial management (FM), procurement,
oversight and capacity), transparency
• Generation of external resources
Page 8 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Project Development Objectives (PDOs)
7. The Project Development Objective (PDO) was to support the Recipients 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. 1
i. Areas for regional specialization chosen were Agriculture Sciences, Health Sciences and STEM.
ii. The project selected 22 ACEs in 21 host institutions through an open, rigorous, transparent and merit-based
selection process in eight countries. The list of institutions by country is included in annex 6. The selection
mechanism sought to ensure a reasonably equitable distribution across countries, language groups and
disciplines.
Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators
8. Key outcome indicators included:
• Number of national and regional students enrolled in new specialized short-term courses, and Master and PhD
programs;
• Number of regional students enrolled in new specialized short-term courses, and Master and PhD programs;
• Number of internationally accredited education programs;
• Number of students and faculty with at least a 1-month internship in companies or institutions relevant to their
field; and
• Amount of externally generated revenue by the ACEs.
Components
9. The ACE I Project included two components, as follows.
Component 1: Strengthening Africa Centers of Excellence – (Total costs including contingencies at appraisal -
US$281.6 million, of which IDA US$140.8 million; Actual – US$153.75 million)
10. 22 ACEs across 21 institutions (universities) in eight countries were funded under the Project. Each center could
receive between US$4 and US$8 million. These ACEs are focused in three different fields: agriculture sciences (six), health
sciences (six), and STEM (nine). See annex 6 for the centers by country, theme and institution. The selected ACEs entered
into Performance and Funding Contracts with their respective national governments which included details of the five
elements of work, and accompanying activities described below, that each ACE was expected to pursue:
• Enhance capacity to deliver regional high-quality training to address the development challenge, including, inter
alia, (i) updating curricula of existing programs or creating new education; (ii) meeting international benchmarks
for quality education (e.g. international accreditation); (iii) delivering short-term courses for professionals; (iv)
attracting a regional student body; (v) training faculty to introduce new approaches to teaching and learning; (vi)
enhancing work-place learning such as internships; (vii) encouraging entrepreneurship among students; (viii)
upgrading qualifications of faculty; (ix) improving learning resources such as lab equipment; and (x) minor
rehabilitation or extension of existing facilities.
• Enhance capacity to deliver applied research to address the regional development challenges, including, inter
alia, (i) faculty development and staff training; (ii) minor rehabilitation works or extension of existing facilities;
1 This PDO statement is extracted from the Legal Agreement and PAD of the Project.
Page 9 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
(iii) scholarships and post-doctoral studies; (iv) networking activities with national and international partners; (v)
hosting and participating in conferences; (vi) research equipment and material; (vii) laboratory refurbishment;
(viii) research dissemination; (ix) knowledge and technology transfer; and (x) patenting or other intellectual
property rights-related costs.
• Build and use industry/sector partnerships to enhance impact of the ACE on development and increase relevance
of said centers’ education and research, including, inter alia (i) industry advisory boards; (ii) internships; (iii)
industry lectures; (iv) training of facilitators for sector training institutions (such as polytechnics, nursing, teacher
or agricultural colleges); (v) joint research; (vi) training; and (vii) other activities to communicate, interact with,
and reach out to the civil society, the private sector, and grassroots communities.
• Build and strengthen regional and international academic partnerships to raise quality of education including (i)
joint delivery of education programs; (ii) professional courses for faculty across the region; (iii) faculty
exchanges/visiting faculty; (iv) joint research and conferences; and (v) the sharing of specialized equipment and
library resources.
• Enhance governance and management of the ACE and the participating university to improve monitoring and
evaluation (M&E), including (i) monitoring of labor market outcomes of graduates; (ii) administration; (iii)
fiduciary management; (iv) transparency; (v) ability to generate resources; and (vi) project implementation.
11. Funds for Component 1 were disbursed based on the achievement of Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs)
which were common across all ACEs. The DLIs were closely tied to the five elements outlined above, as well as more
process-oriented results such as timely implementation. Upon achievement of the DLIs, the disbursement was processed
by the Bank against a set of Eligible Expenditure Program (EEP). The EEPs were equivalent to the disbursements made
by the project.
12. Additional parameters under the performance and funding contracts for ACEs to follow included:
• A requirement that 15 percent of funding be invested in partnerships, including at least 10 percent in partnership
activities with regional (non-national) African partners.
• ACEs could not spend more than 25 percent of moneys on civil works.
• Vehicle purchases must be included in the approved annual work plan to be eligible
• A commitment by the government to fund institutional staff (regular institutional staff could not be compensated
using project moneys).
Component 2: Enhancing Regional Capacity, Evaluation and Collaboration – (Total cost including contingencies at
appraisal - US$9.2 million, of which IDA US$9.2 million; Actual – US$9.2 million)
13. Component 2 focused on building capacity for regional coordination and collaboration. This was largely in
support of the ACEs, or to complement their work. Disbursements under this component were based on statements of
expenditure (SOEs). There were three sub-components.
14. Under subcomponent 2.1, financing in the amount of US$5 million was provided to the Association of African
Universities (AAU) to serve as the regional facilitation unit (RFU). In this capacity, the AAU was responsible for supporting:
• Capacity building, knowledge sharing and coordination between the ACEs, for example through join lesson
learning as well as the implementation of a communications plan;
• Regional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities to improve and assess the performance of the selected
institutions, including through graduate tracer studies, technical audits, collection of academic data, and topic-
wise evaluations;
Page 10 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Technical assistance (TA) to regional bodies, including the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) to support regional policy making on
a regional higher education, science, and technology agenda; and
• Activities required for regional project facilitation and overall guidance.
15. Under subcomponent 2.2, financing in the amount of US$1.2 million was provided to the National Universities
Commission (NUC) in Nigeria, to finance project implementation support and facilitation, including training and
supervision in fiduciary aspects as well as national monitoring and evaluation and other TA. This additional support was
provided to Nigeria since 10 of the 22 ACEs were located in the country.
16. Under subcomponent 2.3, financing in the amount of US$3 million was provided to The Gambia in an effort to
boost demand-driven use and benefit from the supported ACEs. More specifically, the funds sought to support the
participation of students, faculty and civil servants from The Gambia in specialized training and professional development
programs, degree studies, exchanges and curriculum development, delivered by the ACEs. The Gambia did not have any
ACEs.
B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE)
Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets, PDO indicators and components
17. The ACE I Project (in the amount of US$150 million) was approved by the World Bank Board of Executive Directors
in April 2014. There were no revisions to the PDO, targets or indicators. The changes to the components were reallocation
between ACEs in countries in two countries and in a third country a small partial cancellation. An Additional Financing
(AF) was processed for the Project in 2015 and the project was restructured twice (see description below). However, these
did not entail changes to the overall project PDO, targets, indicators or changes to components. Overall aggregated results
framework remained the same and changes were made to ACE level DLI allocations.
18. Restructuring in September 2017. Following the midterm review (MTR), the Project was restructured in response
to variations in performance among the ACEs. Based on the performance-based financing contracts and agreed DLIs,
those centers that had not made sufficient progress had their funds reallocated to other ACEs in the country or partially
cancelled. In Nigeria, funds were reallocated from the Center for Agricultural Development and Sustainable Environment
(CEADESE) at University of Abeokuta and Center of Excellence in Reproductive Health (CERHI) at University of Benin to
Africa Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases (ACEGID), Africa Center of Excellence on Neglected
Tropical Diseases and Forensic Biotechnology (ACENTDFB), Center of Excellence for Oil Field Research (CEFOR) and Center
of Excellence in Dryland Agriculture (CDA). In Senegal, funds were reallocated from Sante de la Mère et de l’Enfant (CEA-
SAMEF) to Centre d’excellence Africain en Mathématiques, Informatique et Technologies de L’information et de la
Communication (CEA-MITIC). In Cameroon, the Center of Excellence in Information and Communication Technology
(CETIC) at the University of Yaoundé was unable to achieve results with only 20 percent utilization of funds by midterm.
As a result, SDR 1.4 million was canceled from Cameroon under the results-based design of the Project. As there was only
one ACE in Cameroon this funding could not be reallocated to another ACE in another country given the use of national
IDA in the country allocations. These reallocations required an adjustment to center level targets to reflect the increase
or decrease in funding at each ACE. For instance, the ACEs in Nigeria and Senegal that benefited from additional funds
increased their DLI targets to earn these reallocated funds, while those ACEs that underwent a reduction in their funding
had a reduction in the DLI targets. The Project used an agreed criterion to ensure these adjustments were applied fairly
Page 11 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
across all the affected ACEs. The main changes in allocations are summarized in Table 1. Additionally, given the delays in
project effectiveness across countries supported under the ACE Project, with the Project becoming effective in Ghana a
year after approval in July 2015, and due to other operational challenges in some of the participating countries, the Project
was restructured to extend the Project closing date by 15 months from December 31, 2018 to March 31, 2020.
Table 1: Reallocations between ACEs following the MTR
Country ACEs for which Reduction ACEs for which Increase amounts
allocations reduced amounts allocations increased
Cameroon CETIC SDR 1,400,000 - -
Nigeria CEADESE SDR 1,700,000 ACEGID SDR 500,000
CERHI SDR 1,500,000 ACENTDFB SDR 500,000
CEFOR SDR 760,000
CDA SDR 760,000
Senegal CEA-SAMEF SDR 1,300,000 CEA- MITIC SDR 1,300,000
19. Restructuring in September 2019. A restructuring was processed in Cote d’Ivoire to reallocate unallocated funds
of EUR 1.7 million across the 3 ACEs in Cote d’Ivoire. This reallocation was based on performance of the ACEs and resulted
in ENSEA and CCBAD receiving EUR 800,000 and 700,000 respectively and CEA-MEM, EUR 100,000. Additionally, during
the restructuring, a nine-month extension of the closing date was processed from the closing date of December 31 2019
to September 21, 2020.
Other Changes
20. Additional financing (AF) in September 2015. An AF in the amount of US$15 million was provided to Cote d’Ivoire
in September 2015, bringing the total Project amount to US$165 million. At the time of the original financing, Cote d’Ivoire
could not participate in the ACE due to IDA availability and country was emerging for a prolonged crisis. Following
Government of Cote d’Ivoire request to participate in the ACE project, an additional financing was processed to add Cote
d’Ivoire in the project. Three ACEs with a total AF of US$15 million in the areas of (i) climate change; (ii) statistics; and (iii)
mining were competitively selected to receive financing. These ACEs underwent the same criteria applied in the previous
regional competition and were expected to obtain the minimum benchmark of the other regional ACEs in the selection.
B. OUTCOME
A. RELEVANCE OF PDOs
Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating
21. The development objectives of ACE I remain highly relevant in addressing the development challenges faced
by the region. After a decade of strong growth between 2003 and 2013 in SSA which averaged 5.3 percent, recent growth
has been at its lowest level in the past few years (2.6 percent in 2017) while poverty reduction continues to be a challenge.
To achieve strong economic growth and reduce poverty, increased productivity across key economic priority sectors and
economic diversification were essential at the time of Project appraisal and continue to be so today. The World Bank’s
Page 12 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
regional integration strategy for Africa, Supporting Africa’s Transformation: Regional Integration and Cooperation
Assistance Strategy (2018-2023) articulates the need for Africa to transform from the ‘first stage of development’ where
economies are factor driven and their competitiveness is based on factor endowments (unskilled labor and natural
resources) to the second ‘efficiency driven’ stage where economies adopt efficient production practices to increase
productivity. It recognizes that to reach this latter stage, stronger higher education systems will play a key role in
improving competitiveness. It explicitly mentions the need for more capacity and better-quality tertiary education in the
region to meet its goals. The strategies of ECOWAS and WAEMU also emphasize the need for improvements in
productivity through investments in the region’s human resources. As such, the Project’s higher-level objectives of
meeting the labor market demands for skills within specific areas where there are skill shortages affecting development,
productivity, economic growth and poverty reduction remain highly relevant.
22. The Project’s aim to address the low institutional capacity of the higher education system in the region to train
adequate numbers of professionals with the technical skills required to incorporate new knowledge and technologies
into products and services remains highly relevant in today’s context. The Project aimed to achieve this through
investments in laboratories and the professional development of faculty, by improving links with employers to strengthen
program relevance, and by fostering strong international collaboration – all of which are activities that address constraints
to system improvement and continue to be relevant in today’s context. The Project has made significant contributions to
building the region’s capacity in a range of priority economic sectors. However, given the large needs for highly skilled
labor, there continue to be significant shortages in workers with high-level (postgraduate level) skills. There also remain
limitations in human resource capacity for undertaking applied research which is needed to increase productivity.
Therefore, the development objectives of the Project continue to be highly relevant for the region.
23. The Project sought to help address challenges faced by the region specifically by building human resource
capacity, both in quantity and quality, in the key sectors of Agriculture; Health; and STEM. These areas were and remain
critical for the region’s growth while facing considerable skills shortages and low research capacity to improve
productivity.
• Agriculture: Africa’s food security situation continues to deteriorate while productivity remains low with weak
capacity of adopting digital and other technologies. This is a priority of the SSA governments and the African Union
(AU). The Africa Food Security Leadership Dialogue (AFSLD) launched by the World Bank in Rwanda in August 2019
to mobilize urgent action on food security under climate change in Africa called for uptake of scientific innovations
in agriculture and foster a new generation of farmers, entrepreneurs and policy makers with the skills commensurate
with the scale of the challenge. Currently, only two percent of Africa’s students specialize in agr iculture. To reach
today’s research capacity of India, for example, which has a similar population to all of Africa, some 75,000 more
African researchers are required.
• Health: Across the globe, COVID-19 has brought to the forefront the need for capacity to fight pandemics. ACE
investments to build excellence in the health sciences strengthened the region’s response to the COVID -19
pandemic. This reinforced capacity will remain critical in the future as the region continues to face other health
challenges such as Ebola and as parasite borne diseases such as Malaria increase due to climate change.
• STEM: There continues to be a strong need for innovative solutions to SSA’s biggest challenges. The extractive sector
for example, will need relevant skills to facilitate the set-up of local industries to generate domestic economic
spillovers and additional jobs. However, only 4 to 12 percent of students graduate with STEM-related degrees in the
region. The region needs to continue to build skills in STEM to improve productivity and contribute to economic
Page 13 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
growth.
24. Rapid expansion in access to basic and secondary education across the region continues to translate into
increased demand for higher education. To accommodate this growing cohort of students and help them to realize their
human and economic potential, transformation of the higher education system will continue to be a priority. At the same
time, the Project’s aim to improve the quality of higher education also continues to be a critically important development
goal for the region in order to avoid the situation of low-quality and low-employability expansion experienced in North
Africa.
Rating: High
B. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY)
25. ACE had two main objectives – (i) to promote regional specialization and (ii) to strengthen capacity of
participating institutions to improve quality of training and research. By achieving these objectives, ACE I would
contribute to the achievement of a longer-term higher-level objective to address regional challenges. Overall, the Project
was very successful in achieving both parts of the PDO. There is also strong evidence of the Project making significant
progress toward achieving the higher-level impact objectives. Given Project performance, the efficacy of the Project is
rated as High. Table 2 summarizes the ratings for each aspect of the PDO which are described in greater detail in the
section below.
Table 2: Summary of efficacy ratings
PDO Rating
PDO 1 – Promote regional specialization High
a) New programs High
b) Higher education expansion High
PDO 2 – Improve quality of training and research High
c) Quality of training High
d) Quality of research High
Overall efficacy HIGH
Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome
Objective 1 – Promote regional specialization
26. The efficacy of the Project on this objective is rated High. To promote specialization in key sectors, the Project
was successfully able to exceed targets set for (i) enrolling regional students and training large numbers of experts to
address regional development challenges in priority fields; and (ii) developing new specialized programs in the areas of
agriculture, health and STEM. Table 3 summarizes performance in achieving the targets set for this part of the PDO.
Page 14 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Table 3: Achievements on PDO and Intermediate Results (IR) indicators for promoting regional specialization
Indicator Baseline End Target End result % of target
No of newly established or substantially revised curricula 0 60 231 385
(IR)
Total number of students enrolled in new specialized 1,580 15,600 30,821 197
short-term courses, Master, PhD, programs (PDO)
No. of regional students enrolled in specific specialised/ 987 8,900 9,480 106
new ACE courses (PDO)
New programs
27. The Project supported the development of new programs in the identified priority sectors . It overachieved its
target of developing new programs or substantially revising existing curricula by more than three times with the
development of 231 programs against a target of 60. Academic programs in several of these areas had never been offered
in West Africa before which had required students to leave the region. For example, the post-graduate program in
biotechnology with a focus on NTDs developed by ACENTDFB at Abu Zaria University in Nigeria, and the MSc and PhD
programs in Crop Seed and Science Technology at West Africa Center for Crop Improvement (WACCI) at the University of
Ghana were the first of their kind in the region. WACCI is now producing more graduates in plant-breeding than any other
institution in the world.
Higher education expansion
28. The Project contributed significantly to an increase in the number of highly qualified professionals in the
priority sectors. A total of 30,821 students were enrolled in the new specialized programs at the master’s and PhD levels,
and in professional short courses, double the target number (15,600). This achievement is significant considering the
ambitious target set at appraisal which aimed to increase enrollment by almost 10 times from the baseline of 1,580
students enrolled at the centers at Project appraisal. Of the students enrolled during the Project period, 2,300 students
were enrolled in PhD programs and 12,000 in master’s degree programs with the remaining having benefitted from short-
term courses. Figure 2 shows enrollments by sector and country. Under the Project, the number of regional students
enrolled in the new specialized programs reached 9,480, exceeding the target of 8,900, thus contributing significantly to
increased regional specialization.
29. The expansion supported by the Project was significant with respect to existing postgraduate enrollments at
both the regional and national level. For the academic year 2017/2018, ACEs in Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal represented
more than 20 percent of postgraduate enrollment in the key field of studies (see figure 3) showing that the Project made
significant contributions to increasing the supply of highly qualified professionals in the priority sectors. In addition, there
is evidence emerging that graduates of the ACE programs are contributing to knowledge transfer and innovations. In the
graduate tracer survey, 48 percent and 49 percent of respondents respectively indicated that they were involved with
technology transfer or an innovation output during or following their studies at an ACE.
30. The Gambia benefitted from the regional approach of the Project by increasing its number of highly qualified
professionals even though it did not have an ACE . The Gambia purchased education services from other centers of
excellence in the form of training and curricula support. The country’s institutions of higher learning at that time could
Page 15 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
not provide relevant higher education training, nor establish vibrant research environments and used the regional ACE I
Project as an opportunity to train faculty and other experts in STEM, Health and Agriculture. As a result, 124 students –
17 PhD and 107 master’s – enrolled in different ACEs across the region. The experience of The Gambia provides a useful
model for smaller countries to benefit from regional approaches while they begin building critical expertise. The support
to The Gambia under ACE 1 has paved the way for the establishment of an Emerging Center in The Gambia under the
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence for Development Impact Project (ACE Impact) (P164546). The new center
builds extensively on the partnerships established under ACE I such as with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology (KNUST) in Ghana to support the establishment of engineering programs.
Figure 2: ACE enrollment by sector and country Figure 3: ACE share of postgraduate enrollments
14,000 GHANA NIGERIA*
12,000 SENEGAL** COTE D'IVOIRE***
10,000
26%
23%
8,000
21%
21%
21%
6,000
18%
4,000
13%
11%
2,000
0
0
0
0
0
STEM AGRICULTURE HEALTH
STEM Agriculture Health ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT
Sources: World Bank calculations using ACE I data, 2018, country data on Higher Education Enrollment and UNESCO UIS.
Notes: Data for Nigeria were given as an aggregate postgraduate enrollment. Thus, PhD and Master enrollment estimated using share of all students in tertiary
education enrolled in ISCED 7 (Master level or equivalent) and in ISCED 8 (PhD level or equivalent)
* Nigeria: Data on Students enrolled in Agriculture and Health major not available
** Senegal: No centers in Agriculture under ACE I
*** Côte d’Ivoire: No centers in Health under ACE I
Objective 2 - Strengthened capacity of participating universities to improve quality of training and research
31. The efficacy of the Project on this objective is rated High. The Project aimed to improve both the quality of (i)
training to produce high quality professionals; and (ii) research that could address the region’s challenges. The Project
achieved its goals on both these dimensions with all PDO level indicators surpassing their targets.
Quality of training
32. The Project was successful at improving the quality of the selected higher education programs. The most
important indicator of strengthened capacity and quality of training was the international accreditation of ACE programs
– globally, the best available measure of higher education program quality. International accreditation processes are
rigorous and give the assurance of meeting international standards for quality in the respective areas of study. Before the
Project, only 3 higher education programs at the selected institutions had received international accreditation. The Project
Page 16 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
promoted international accreditation by including it as a DLI under the Project. As a result, all the ACEs received
international accreditation for their programs, reaching 61 programs with international accreditation by the end of the
Project against a target of 15. Additionally, CERHI at University of Benin in Nigeria was able to obtain institutional
accreditation, going beyond only program accreditation. By creating emphasis on meeting widely accepted benchmarks
of quality, the Project has had a wider system level impact in Nigeria where the country is pursuing accreditation for all
its postgraduate programs learning from the experience of ACE I.
Table 4: Achievement on PDO and IR indicators for improving quality of training
Indicator Baseline End Target End Result % of target
No. of internationally accredited education programs (IR 3 15 61 406
indicator)
No of regional and national faculty trained by the ACEs (IR 100 900 3583 398
indicator)
No of partnership agreements between ACEs and engaged 48 170 447 263
Partner Institutions (IR indicator)
No. of Students /faculty with at least 1-month internship 1,037 5,900 6,257 106
in a company or a local institution relevant to their field/
sector (PDO indicator)
Amount of externally generated revenue by the ACEs (PDO US$ 976,877 US$ 8,000,000 US$ 51,655,331 646
Indicator)
33. The capacity of universities/ACEs was strengthened substantially through support from the Project. Some of
the areas which were noted during the accreditation process included (i) international calibre scientific leadership; (ii)
high calibre research staff and output; (iii) strong research ethics; (iv) pedagogy quality ranging from good to exceptional
depending on the ACE; (v) strong relationships between faculty and students; (vi) strong attention to student welfare; (vii)
competitive selection of students; (viii) proper documentation and updating of course material; (ix) Quality Assurance
(QA) systems in place; (x) student and industry representative involvement in QA procedures; (xi) program relevance to
national development goals; and (xii) industry recognition of programs. A survey of ACEs as part of preparation of the ICR
indicated that accreditation promoted a reflection on improvement, raised the importance of quality assurance, or
developed a new ethos of success at their institutions. In terms of areas for further improvement, accreditors highlighted:
engagement with industry, including industry involvement in the assessment of academic programs; and the duration of
internships.
34. Several factors supported by the Project led to this strengthened capacity. As described below, specific activities
financed by the Project were crucial for the ACEs to improve the quality of their programs.
• Faculty training. There were direct efforts under the Project to help instructors improve their teaching, and especially
their supervision. Training addressed issues such as pedagogy, curriculum development, and supervision. The Project
exceeded its target for number of faculty trained by 400 percent with 3,583 faculty trained under the Project. In a
survey of faculty conducted for this ICR, 94 percent of faculty agreed that their teaching improved as a result of the
ACE I Project (see Annex 5 for details).
• Partnerships. Academic partnerships were another major factor in improving quality. Partners have been heavily
involved in the development and delivery of academic programs. Partner institutions helped to (i) deliver classes; (ii)
collaborate on curriculum review; (iii) assess the quality of laboratories; and (iv) provide supervision of graduates –
all in order to overcome limitations in the time and expertise of faculty members within ACEs. For instance, faculty
Page 17 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
from Paris-Sorbonne have helped Center for Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (CEA-SMA) develop its
programs and deliver instruction. The Project significantly exceeded its targets for establishing partnerships with a
total of 447 partnership agreements by the end of the Project against a target of 170 across the ACEs.
• Improved teaching and learning environments. The ACEs benefitted from improved teaching and learning
environments with investments from the Project. Most ACEs used Project funds to improve the quality of their
laboratories and scientific equipment. As an example, CEA-SMA at University of Abomey-Calavi developed a super-
calculator, as an asset for not only their institution but the wider region. Investments were also made to improve the
quality of classrooms, administrative buildings, and student accommodations. At least 14 ACEs completed
construction and installed equipment to improve the learning environment on their host university campus. This
included the commissioning of new buildings, laboratories, conference rooms, lecture halls, and smart classrooms.
Specific examples include the West Africa Center for Cell Biology of Infectious Pathogens (WACCBIP) which has
strengthened its research facilities by investing over US$2 million to procure laboratory equipment such as a Flow
cytometer, Gel imager, Biosafety cabinets, Centrifuges, computers as well to set up a bioinformatics laboratory. This
bioinformatics laboratory and new equipment was made available to all the departments of the university and not
only WACCBIP.
• Linkages with industry. The Project strengthened the quality and relevance of the programs through establishing
“outreach periods” through internship for students. The more applied nature of instruction in ACEs was an important
source of improved quality. Overall, the Project achieved its target of internships with 6,257 students or faculty
completing at least 1 month of an internship in their field. In the graduate tracer survey, 70 percent of ACE I
respondents indicated that they participated in an internship or some form of industry collaboration. Internships
helped graduates to understand how their scientific work translated in the field. Other benefits included (i) learning
about rural communities, cultures, and languages; (ii) an impetus for completing their thesis; and (iii) close mentorship
and network-building. In follow up surveys, multiple graduates indicated that they were still benefitting from
connections made during their internships.
• Revenue generation. ACE I has provided a strong and unique platform for the ACEs to generate external revenue with
over US$50 million generated by the ACEs during the life of the Project. All of the ACEs were able to achieve their
targets on this key PDO indicator. The Project supported several revenue generation capacity building efforts with
external experts supporting the centers in establishing systems for revenue generation and processes to allow
generated funds at the center to be used by the center. The revenue generation aspect of the Project has been key
for sustainability of the ACEs and continuing to ensure they have funds for investing in training, equipment, facilities,
partnerships and outreach events, which are all critical for maintaining the quality of programs offered by the ACEs.
A review of those centers that generated the highest revenue shows that factors critical to their success in this effort
included: having the autonomy to establish partnerships, better communication systems such as well-developed
websites and dedicated focal persons responsible for partnerships.
Quality of research
35. The Project was highly successful in improving both the quantity and quality of research . The Project achieved
almost double its target for internationally recognized research publications with a total of 2,559 publications by the end
of the project period.
Page 18 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Table 5: Achievement on IR indicators for improving quality of research
Indicator Baseline End Target End result % of target
No. of internationally recognized research publications by 1098 1331 2559 192
the ACEs (IR)
36. Evaluations provide strong evidence of the high quality of publications. AAU through Elsevier conducted a
detailed review of ACE peer-reviewed research to assess quality of the publications. Table 6 summarises measures of
publications and citations by ACE theme. Elsevier documented 2,616 peer-reviewed publications. The evaluation found
that 19 percent of ACE publications were in the top 10 percent of cited journals, which is well above the African and Asian
averages (respectively 13 percent and 14 percent) but below the averages for the Americas (29 percent) and Europe (24
percent). Aggregate field-weighted citation impaction (FWCI) for all of the ACEs is 1.06, which is above the world average
by six percent. In addition, eight percent of publications involved intra-regional collaboration, which is second only to
Europe.
Table 6: Publications and citations by priority sector
Publications Citations
Total Per ACE Share in top- Share in top- Total Per ACE
10% cited 10% highly
journals cited
Agriculture 526 87.7 7% 5% 4,743 790.5
Health 616 102.7 35% 10% 26,619 4,436.5
STEM 1,474 147.4 13% 8% 16,996 1,699.6
TOTAL 2,616 118.9 19% 8% 47,749 2,170.4
37. The Project contributed directly to improvements in quantity and quality of research . Faculty qualitative
responses indicated that improved technology, equipment, and infrastructure offered at the ACEs with support from the
Project were the primary cause for improvements in faculty research, including better laboratories, internet and library
facilities. Strengthened networks were also an important factor, followed by training opportunities, grants or funding,
and stronger or larger cohorts of students. Other factors included greater application of research to social problems and
more multidisciplinary research work – each reflected in approximately one-in-ten faculty comments. The Project also
helped to generate grant money for research, but with requirements to compete to secure these funds.
38. Further evidence indicates that the regional approach of the Project is promoting stronger research
performance. More than half (53 percent) of ACE publications involved international collaboration, which is slightly higher
than the 49 percent of publications across Africa over the same period – rates which in turn are much higher than in any
other comparable region. Importantly, ACE publications involving international collaborations are cited more often. The
advantage is 39 percent, well above the 33 percent average across Africa. Stronger connections with industry or other
stakeholders promoted by the Project also benefitted research, including through opportunities to use equipment or
facilities unavailable within the ACE or its higher education institution. Having stronger postgraduate training programs
also helped ACEs to produce more research. The tracer survey indicates a very high share of master’s degree graduates
participating in research projects during their studies (77 percent) as well as after (48 percent). Moreover, many graduates
(39 percent) participated in publishing a research paper during their studies, and 21 percent afterwards. The ACEs have
been very effective in engaging master’s students in research which also contributes to this result.
Page 19 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Higher level objectives
39. The Project was successful in contributing to the achievement of its higher-level objectives of creating capacity
within the region to address its development challenges. While this is not a project PDO per se, this ICR reports on the
achievements against the higher-level objectives given the extent to which the project was able to affect improvements
across a number of critical development challenges. It did this in two main ways which will continue to fulfill its goals well
beyond the Project period.
• Supporting the training and graduation of qualified doctorate holders who have gone into positions at universities
and research institutes. The skills of these highly qualified professionals are being used (i) in higher education
institutions to train new, larger cohorts of students or in research institutes continuing to generate knowledge;
(ii) in public or para-public agencies in areas relevant to social development (specifically in the health and
agriculture fields); and (iii) in knowledge-intensive private sector companies, thereby helping to speed technology
absorption and total factor productivity.
• Supporting ACEs to address regional development challenges and providing knowledge-transfer into the
economy. Examples from select sectors are highlighted below.
40. Response to pandemic and epidemics. The ACEs' scientific capacity has been an important resource to the Ebola
crises response and COVID-19 pandemic response, where the health centers have been involved in the testing and
sequencing of the virus. Specific examples include:
• ACEGID in Nigeria has been at the forefront of gene sequencing work. It first sequenced 250 Ebola virus genomes and
developed a database available for use by researchers and health agencies. Subsequently, the Center sequenced the
Lassa virus to identify its origin and evolution, and then perhaps most significantly the first SARS-CoV-2 genome from
the first Nigerian COVID-19 case.2 After it made the data available to the international community to facilitate a
coordinated response, ACEGID was mandated by the African Center for Disease Control to sequence all African
samples from the member-states of the African Union who do not have domestic capacity to conduct sequencing.
ACEGID’s work led it to win the first prize in the Life Sciences and Medicine category at the sixth Nigerian Universities
Research and Development fair.
• ACEGID developed and patented two rapid diagnosis test kits for the Ebola Virus and the Lassa Virus, which have been
approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United States Food and Drugs Agency. ACEGID and CERHI
also received a grant to validate rapid diagnostic tests kits for COVID-19 testing in Nigeria.
• ACENTDFB was selected to conduct testing for COVID-19 in Kaduna State in Nigeria.
• WACCBIP at the University of Ghana, is the designated laboratory for testing suspected cases of COVID-19 in Ghana.
WAACBIP has also, through one of its networks, been providing reagents for sequencing the virus where positive cases
are identified.
41. Use of applied health research to address health challenges. The health centers have been leading applied
research and developing real-time responses to societies challenges. Specific examples include:
• Pan African Minerals Institute (PAMI) has been involved in work to develop a rapid test for COVID-19. It also first
successfully identified Triple X breast cancer receptors and has since developed a targeted therapy for which the
National Hospital in Abuja is preparing to begin clinical trials.
2Following an outbreak of Monkey Pox in October 2017, ACEGID also received over 100 suspected samples from the Nigerian
Center for Disease Control (NCDC) and undertook efforts to sequence the genome of the virus.
Page 20 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• ACENTDFB in Nigeria introduced the first MSc program in forensic biotechnology and is currently a key partner with
Kaduna state government in assisting police with forensic testing.
• CERHI in Nigeria has been pursuing research with internally displaced persons (IDPs) with regards to gender-based
violence, as well as testing for hepatitis and providing opportunities for vaccination. There are large numbers of IDPs
in Nigeria, and the research team has engaged with representatives of the relevant federal government agency to
help ensure research findings feed into policymaking. CERHI has also been studying the roles of men and boys in
family planning and working on malaria eradication (the latter in partnership with Harvard University).
• Africa Centers of Excellence for Phyto medicine and Research and Development (ACEPRD) in Nigeria developed and
has sought to commercialise a tea with properties effective in combatting malaria and COVID-19.
• Center of Excellence in Maternal Health (CEA-SAMEF) in Senegal has been very engaged in healthcare service delivery.
The ACE conducts regular community outreach activities to diagnose and treat diseases such as urinary tract
infections, anemia, breast cancer and uterine cancer. Aside from this ground-level work, but also informed by it, CEA-
SAMEF has sought to influence policymaking. The ACE has conducted research on vaccine coverage to identify gaps
and has informed the national committee responsible for vaccines. The ACE similarly conducted an evaluation of
healthcare for newborns to identify needed policy changes and has put forth significant effort into fostering tele-
healthcare delivery.
42. Addressing Water and Sanitation (WASH) challenges. A number of ACEs have also taken on applied research
work to tackle social challenges revolving around community health research and water.
• 2iE in Burkina Faso has been working with the state water company in Burkina Faso on developing new ways to filter
arsenic.
• Regional Water Environment Sanitation Center Kumasi (RWESCK) students in Ghana have been pursuing projects
relating to toilet technologies and the ACE has also been producing briefs addressing water policy.
43. ACEs have generated considerable knowledge transfer in the agriculture sector. The Agriculture ACEs have
undertaken applied research such as increasing yield productivity and sustainable agriculture which can have a significant
impact on improving productivity and consequently addressing food scarcity and malnutrition in the region. Some
examples include:
• WACCI in Ghana has developed 90 improved crop varieties, including three new maize hybrids that have been
released and yield between nine and eleven tonnes per hectare. WACCI is also working with a private seed company
to develop a legacy crop improvement center and to help facilitate the distribution of seeds developed by WACCI to
farmers.
• Africa Center of Excellence for Agricultural Development and Sustainable Environment (CEADESE) at the University of
Abeokuta in Nigeria, has been working on developing a new productive goat breed for agriculture, seeking to
“revolutionise” the goat industry in Nigeria. The KALAWAD goat is a cross between a local West African breed and
between local breeds and a special breed brought in from South Africa. The goats have been distributed to partner
institutions for further research, and students in their own food processing and value-addition programs have been
working to try to add value to the goats’ meat and milk. CEADESE has also developed a new machine for producing
palletised poultry droppings as organic fertilizer.
• Center of Excellence Poultry Science (CERSA) at Lome University in Togo, specialises in poultry and has been
collaborating with various relevant companies. Through partnership with a private sector company, it is developing
different experiments to improve the selection of chickens, while another collaboration is focused on improving feed.
• Climate Change and Biodiversity Agriculture Development (CCBAD) at UPHB, Cote d’Ivoire, developed and patented
a bio-pesticide and is in the midst of establishing a factory to produce the bio-pesticide for the national market.
Page 21 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Center of Excellence in Food Technology and Research (CEFTER) at Benue State University, Nigeria, has focused on
processing food. The Center has developed and fabricated agricultural equipment including a freeze drier, a fish
processing machine, a motorised groundnut shelling machine and a fruit juice pasteuriser. It is currently planning to
commercialise these inventions. CEFTER also produced and sold almost $1 million in cassava biscuits to government
authorities for use in public schools.
• 2iE in Burkina Faso, has been developing a new water collection basin technology to help low moisture environments
to better sustain crops. In collaboration with the state company SOIFTEX, the aim is to use this technology to help
grow cotton, while the ACE also aspires to distribute the product in neighbouring companies.
• CDA at Bayero University, Nigeria, developed a means of sexing date palms at the seedling stage, and is now working
towards breeding 50:50 batches of seedlings for commercialisation. This issue addressed a problem where 90 percent
of seeds were female, but farmers could not identify females until trees were three-to-four-years-old and therefore
could not develop date palm groves that would be sustainable with male and female trees. Not only does the ACE’s
discovery promise to foster date production, but also to help build a “great green wall” of plants with anti-
desertification properties.
44. In the extractive, mining and ICT sectors, ACEs that focus on building STEM capacity have been able to make
important achievements. The work of the ACEs is finding practical solutions for improving productivity of key economic
sectors of the region and introducing innovations that will lead to develop of new sectors and value-addition. Some
examples follow:
• CEFOR, at University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, pilot tested an oil-field chemical made from cassava starch, while a
second research is seeking to develop corrosion inhibitors with Shell. The ACE also recently signed an MOU with an
oil field chemical producer that aims to produce a corrosion inhibitor locally.
• Center of Excellence in Mining and Environment (CEA-MEM) at Institut National Polytechnique Felix Houphouët-
Boigny (INPHB) in Côte-d’Ivoire is seeking to develop projects around a number of different mining initiatives. Three
projects have been seeking to analyse the effect of mining activities on water: one has centerd on opportunities to
improve production at a gold mine, and another has focused on consultations with a community close to a mine,
aiming to help with adaptation and the mitigation of environmental impacts.
• Obafemi Awolowo Knowledge Park (OAU-OAK PARK) at Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) University, Nigeria,
reports having spun-off five registered companies. One of these companies, Intelifarm, has developed for
commercialisation a fingerprint device, a multipurpose drone and a microcontroller board.
45. These examples demonstrate how the ACEs have, over time, contributed to addressing the region’s most pressing
development challenges by strengthening regional specialization. The capacity built in the region in these technical areas
is expected to continue to contribute to achieving the longer-term objectives of increased productivity for growth of the
region well beyond the Project period. Country-wise achievements under ACE I are summarized in Annex 7.
46. The ACE model introduced by the Project has now been expanded to cover all of SSA through follow-on projects.
ACE 2 (P151847) in Eastern and Southern Africa launched in 2016 covers 24 centers in 8 countries, and ACE Impact (1 and
2) which together finance ACEs in 10 countries were launched in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The model has been
recognized for its success in creating high-quality higher education programs that are contributing to developing the
competencies of the region’s workforce necessary to develop, adapt and apply solutions to ke y sectoral challenges in
Africa, such as supporting industries in producing higher value-added products and services. The ACE projects laid the
foundation for the ACE II and ACE Impact as well as other World Bank-financed projects in other regions and global best
practices. The design features that have proved to be successful include (i) results based financing , in particular getting
the right set of indicators and applying performance based metrics; and (ii) competitive selection of the beneficiary
Page 22 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
institutions with a focus on importance of addressing sectoral priorities. Other key drivers for successful ACEs have been
capable faculty teams; strong government and university ownership; and visionary center directors that have attracted
relevant international partners as well as additional donor funding.
Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating
47. The overall efficacy of the Project is rated as High. The Project was not only able to fully achieve its direct
objectives of promoting regional specialization and strengthening capacity of the participating institutions to improve the
quality of training and research, but also made significant contributions to achieving its higher level objectives of finding
and supporting solutions to key regional challenges. It introduced an innovative regional approach to strengthening higher
education in the region and was successful in doing so which is evident from the expansion of the model across the region.
48. The latest IEG guidelines for reviewing World Bank ICRs clearly provides the following guidance: (i) if the scope of
the project expanded and project commitments remained the same, a split rating is not warranted, and the project should
be assessed based on the revised objectives/targets; (ii) if the reason for additional financing was to add to the scope of
the project and the targets related to the increased scope were met, then this supports a decision not to apply a split
rating and instead to assess the project based on the revised targets; (iii) changes in a project’s components, outputs, and
output targets should not trigger a split rating, as these kinds of changes reflect a different (and presumably better) path,
in the absence of a revision of PDOs or outcome targets, to achieve the same expected outcomes; and (iv) if the scope of
the project shrank, project commitments decreased (for example through cancellation of funds), and a good case is made
that the lowering of project scope was commensurate with the lower commitment size, then this would support a decision
not to apply a split rating and to assess the project based on the revised scope (and objectives). Thus, the changes that
the project undertook to reallocate within component one (to apply the performance-based financing clause) , small
partial cancellation (approximately one percent of the project amount) and project closing date extensions, directly
contributed to the PDO-level indicators and outcome targets, which were not changed. Based on these, this ICR concludes
that a split rating is not warranted.
Rating: High
C. EFFICIENCY
Assessment of Efficiency and Rating
49. The efficiency of the Project is assessed in terms of internal and external efficiency. Overall, internal efficiency
of the Project was substantial with 98 percent of project funds disbursed by project closing. This reflects high achievement
of project results given the results-based financing design of the Project. Togo achieved 100 percent of its DLIs followed
by Burkina Faso with 99 percent, and Nigeria and Cameroon with 98 percent. Senegal’s performance was the lowest with
86 percent achievement (Annex 4 and 7 summarize country level performance). In terms of achievement by type of DLR,
all centers/countries achieved 100 percent of DLIs on institutional readiness and research publication. All but one center
(ACENTDFB at 98 percent) achieved 100 percent achievement for PhD student enrollment. The total average achievement
of all centers for all DLRs is 95%. Besides institutional readiness, research publications, and PhD student enrollments, the
next highest DLRs are International Accreditation and Teaching and Learning Environments, both at 98 percent. All other
DLRs were above 93 percent achievement, except for internship achievement which was 80 percent among all centers.
This was due to several factors, including lack of comprehension of the indicator definition, scarcity of internships
opportunities for highly specialized subject areas, and the absence of related industries within the participating countries
and in the region. Part of the initial internship results reported were deemed ineligible due to the issues associated with
Page 23 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
the DLR’s definition. However, clarifications and guidance were provided to the centers to help improve their results and
performance.
50. The disbursement rate of the Project was high. The Project disbursed 98 percent of its proceeds by project closing
(September 2020 for Cote d’Ivoire and March 2020 for all other countries). In Cote ‘Ivoire, the last disbursement were
still processed despite the challenges related to COVID-19 pandemic. As illustrated in Table 7 below, disbursement rate
remained steady and constant throughout project implementation with the rate increasing every year. The low
disbursement rate at the beginning of the Project (2 percent in 2014) was mainly due to delays in the effectiveness of the
Project caused by parliamentary approval delays and funds flow challenges in the Project. However, consistent support
and supervision helped resolve these challenges and ensure smooth flows of funds throughout the Project life cycle. Also,
the two project restructurings, which included a project extension from December 31, 2019 to March 31, 2020 in eight of
the participating countries and to September 30, 2020 for the Additional Financing in Cote d’Ivoire helped make up for
these delays. In addition, though the restructurings included a fund reallocation across ACEs in Nigeria and Senegal, a
partial cancellation in Cameroon and a reallocation of unallocated funds in Cote d’Ivoire, annual disbursements remained
substantially high with disbursement surpassing projections in 2015 and 2017. It is also important to note that the total
amount disbursed has been fully committed and all advances have been documented by all countries by project closing.
These positive results show that the main activities under ACE I Project have been efficiently implemented. Additionally,
overtime there was an estimated currency exchange rate loss of approximately US$13.9 million that was spread across
the nine participating countries and AAU. Despite this exchange rate loss, the ACEs were still able to achieve their DLIs.
Table 7: Disbursement under ACE Project by country (%)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
GAMBIA 25% 49% 72% 93% 100% 100%
NIGERIA 12% 31% 50% 57% 95% 100%
SENEGAL 21% 21% 27% 47% 73% 100%
BURKINA FASO 21% 31% 49% 75% 91% 100%
BENIN 9% 21% 31% 44% 73% 100%
CAMEROON 22% 22% 22% 31% 69% 100%
GHANA 10% 24% 60% 72% 88% 93%
TOGO 21% 21% 26% 40% 84% 100%
COTE D'IVOIRE 0% 12% 19% 26% 68% 93%
Source: World Bank Project Documents
51. Fund utilization3 consistently improved over the project life cycle. On average, 90 percent of the funds received
by all 22 centers have been used as of August 2020 with 12 centers reaching 100 percent. The top three performing
countries with rates over 95 percent are Togo, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire have the lowest fund
utilsation rates with 60 percent and 56 percent, respectively. However, at the time of the ICR the grace period for Cote
d’Ivoire had just closed and it was expected that this would be higher. Additionally, given the project is a results based
financing project, it is expected that even after project closing, given the funds are obtained following achievement of
results, the few ACEs who have not fully utilized the remaining funds will be able to do so.
52. The Project demonstrated strong external efficiency as evidenced by an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) higher
than the discounted rate and falling within the range of IRR estimated at appraisal. The Cost-Benefit Analysis conducted
at project completion (see Annex 4) shows that the Project was economically viable. The present discounted value of
benefits for the overall project is estimated to be US$158.2 million and the corresponding NPV of project benefits is
3 Rate at which ACEs have used funds over the funds allocated and disbursed to them.
Page 24 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
US$49.5 million. The IRR associated with this NPV is 32 percent. Overall, the cost-benefit ratio estimated that for every
US$1 invested there is a return of US$2.03. This rate of return falls within the estimation conducted at appraisal
(estimated IRR ranged from 3 percent in Burkina-Faso to 18 percent in Nigeria and 32 percent in Cameroon). Therefore,
with an IRR of 32 percent, a discount rate of 12 percent, and a benefit-cost ratio of 2:1, the ACE I Project demonstrates
strong evidence of the efficiency of investments.
53. The Project demonstrated very strong implementation efficiency with 98 percent of Project funds disbursed at
project closing. Furthermore, substantial internal and external efficiency gains (substantial contribution to Master and
PhD enrollments in participating countries) were observed over the project’s life cycle with all PDO indicators successfully
achieving and exceeding their targets. These significant achievements bring the efficiency rating to Substantial. This rating
takes into consideration the project restructuring which included an extension of the closing date, and a small partial
cancellation in Cameroon to ensure effective use of project financing. A rating of Substantial for Efficiency is considered
to be the most appropriate rating for such a complex innovative regional project with its overwhelming achievements and
its internal and external efficiency. Any minor challenges experienced are in line with what would be expected for a
project of this complexity in this sector in this region. Lastly, this Project has served as an example for other similar
operations and has led to major improvements to address critical development challenges, beyond original expectations.
Rating: Substantial
D. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING
54. Overall, the Project is rated High for the achievement of outcomes. The development objectives of the Project
remain highly relevant to priorities of the region. It was overwhelmingly successful in achieving its objectives of creating
regional specialization and improving and improving the capacity of the system to deliver quality training and research
as measured by its achievement against ambitious targets set at project appraisal. The Project applied an innovative
regional approach to help raise the capacity of higher education institutions in disciplines that present the biggest
development challenges to the region, acknowledging that it would be challenging for all countries to raise the capacity
of their institutions in a range of disciplines. The regional approach has helped to strengthen specialization and
collaboration so that all countries can benefit from access to quality education across disciplines. The Project was also
able to achieve these results in an efficient manner as demonstrated by the high utilization of funds and the high benefit
to cost ratio.
Table 3Table 8: Overall Outcome Rating
Relevance Efficacy Efficiency Overall
Rating High High Substantial Satisfactory
Rating: High
E. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS (IF ANY)
Gender
55. The Project contributed to increasing female participation in postgraduate programs in all priority sectors,
especially STEM. At baseline, the selected ACEs had only 332 female beneficiaries in their programs. By the end of the
Project, the number of female beneficiaries increased to 8,456, of which 8,271 were students. Overall, at approximately
Page 25 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
25 percent of all beneficiaries were female at project completion. To take just one example, the CEA-SMA initially had no
female students but now has over 300. Importantly, there was a tenfold increase in the number of female students at the
STEM ACEs, from 343 to 3,400. Overall, by the end of the Project, the share of female students was at 26.6 percent.
56. The Project took several steps to encourage more female participation . A 25 percent bonus for female
enrollment was an integral part of the design of the Project. Several strategies to enhance female enrollment were
implemented by the Aces, including (i) providing female students flexibilities in their studies when needed notably for
reasons relating to pregnancy and childbirth; and (ii) supporting upfront efforts to attract female secondary students. For
instance, the National School of Statistics and Economy (ENSEA), in Côte d’Ivoire, has organized a girls’ ‘statistics’ caravan,
touring around the country’s secondary schools and universities to provide more information to girls and women on its
training course, the statistician profile, and the conditions for entry at ENSEA. Furthermore, to encourage young girls to
apply to the ENSEA entrance exam, those who register for the engineering level receive free refresher courses and a free
laptop once they are admitted. Similarly, the Center of Excellence in Mathematics, Computer Science and Applications
(CEA-SMA), in Benin, has offered a free short-term course to women on Big Data. Around 40 women from the region
(Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Central African Republic, and Ghana) made the trip to Cotonou to attend the training.
57. Despite the above examples of enhanced enrollment, more support for gender equity is required for the ultimate
goal of progressing and retaining women in leadership roles at institutions of higher education in the region. The
experience of ACE can provide important lessons for factors that are important to attracting women to higher education
programs.
Institutional Strengthening
58. The Project incentivized several actions to strengthen the participating higher education institutions. The
Project design was focused on building capacity of the participating institutions to achieve project results. It supported
this institutional strengthening through focus on: (i) Building leadership: ACE provided funds and training for center
leaders and other administrative staff to develop their visions for strengthened higher education and research. This
investment in strengthening leadership of institutions had a significant impact on overall institution strengthening. (ii)
Partnerships: With support from the Project, ACEs entered into 447 partnerships with local, regional and international,
industry and academic, partners to strengthen the participating institutions. Partnerships took the form of joint delivery
of education programs, professional courses for regional faculty, faculty exchanges/visiting faculty, joint research, joint
conferences, sharing of specialized equipment and library resources. These partnerships led to considerable institutional
strengthening. (iii) Building capacity for external revenue generation: the Project included a DLI to incentivize ACEs to
develop and implement strategies for sustainable finance and revenue generation. Over US$ 50 million has been
generated as revenue from tuition fees, consultancies, laboratory services, rental of equipment and premises, and grants
from other partners. This achievement is significant compared to the baseline value of less than US$ 1 million. (iv)
Improving the quality of infrastructure and equipment has also led to strengthening of institutions. (v) Lastly, the Project
provided incentives for improving fiduciary performance through improved audit processes and procurement procedures.
The majority of ACEs met the DLIs linked to strengthening fiduciary systems which had a direct impact on overall
institution strengthening.
Mobilizing Private Sector Financing
59. The Project was able to create linkages with the private sector including raising financing from the private
sector. As an example, TOTAL sponsored the UNIPORT program given the company’s interest in training industry-ready
Page 26 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
experts and engineers who can work for the company after they graduate. Two Geographic Information System (GIS)
companies were working with ACEs and their higher education institutions to encourage take-up of GIS technologies in
programs and research across disciplines. The companies’ interest was to encourage broader use of GIS regionally, which
could eventually increase take-up of their services, and also to foster potential future partnerships that might apply their
GIS know-how in areas that were outside of their own expertise, such as in agriculture. Two other partners were NGOs,
financing agricultural work involving ACEs in an effort to promote economic development and food security. In both cases,
the partners felt that their efforts with ACEs, including providing direct funding to students, were supporting the creation
of crucial human capital. 4 Additionally, the project supported a matching grant mechanism under the DLI on revenue
generation and through this, capacity building was provided for resource mobilisation with successful ACEs including
WACCBIP in Ghana, which able to attract philanthropic funding of approximately US$ 5 million from Welcome Trust, UK
based agency.
Poverty Reduction
60. The Project did not have a direct impact on poverty reduction, however, several of the results it has been able
to achieve have the potential for impacting poverty reduction in the medium to long term, specifically through its
contribution to human capital formation in the participating countries. Additionally, the Project supported work on the
health and agriculture sectors have strong potential for poverty reduction in the sub-region. For example, ACEGID’s work
to sequence the Ebola and COVID-19 genomes has the potential for significant impact. With regards to COVID-19, with
capacity it had been able to develop from Project support, ACEGID was able to test the first COVID-19 sample in Nigeria
within 48 hours, in contrast with the two-to-three weeks it would have taken to complete this task outside of the
continent, thereby contributing significantly the containment of COVID-19 in Nigeria.5 Additionally ACEGID was also
integral in the health capacity development and response in Liberia and Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak, through
testing capacity and training of health workers in these countries. This allowed policymakers and health providers to
sooner understand characteristics of the pandemic in the region. ACEGID’s ongoing gene sequencing of the COVID -19
virus is important to track how the disease will manifest and detect any differences in the virus from what has been
observed elsewhere in the world – including most importantly mutations that might make the virus more dangerous. In
December 2020, ACEGID identified a mutation, which it has been monitoring. The direct impact of ACEGID in the region’s
ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ebola outbreak is a clear impact of the ACE Project. This capacity is
expected to improve health outcomes of the region and thus to an extent contribute to poverty reduction.
61. There is emerging evidence of the potential of ACEs to address poverty through the agriculture sector. ACEs are
participating in policy dialogue and engage with governments on developing strategies to address agriculture and health
related challenges. The impact of ACEs is also beginning to trickle down to the grassroots level. As an example, a partner
who had worked with an ACE to develop an agricultural extension training manual indicated that over 3,000 farmers have
been trained based on the ACE’s work. This highlights the direct impact of the ACE Project on the agriculture sector and
points to the potential of the ACEs in influencing poverty reduction across the region.
Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts
N/A
4 One of these partners also provided advice to their ACE with regards to the development of their facilities.
5
https://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/pandemics-know-no-borders-africa-regional-collaboration-key-fighting-covid-19
Page 27 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
C. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME
• KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION
62. Regional approach: A regional approach to building and sustaining excellence in higher education in African
economies was pursued by the Project. This was an effective way that West and Central African countries could
financially and academically deliver quality higher education as demonstrated by project results. A regional
specialization of higher education: (i) concentrated the limited available top-level faculty into a critical mass that can
attain academic excellence; (ii) established and sustained the necessary number of centers of excellence to support
the region’s demand for specialized human capital and knowledge; and (iii) generated increased knowledge and flow
of students across borders.
63. Selection of focus areas: The sectors selected by the Project to build human resource capacity and focus
research on, remain highly relevant to the region’s development and economic growth as described in section II.A
above. Focus on these sectors has promoted development of solutions to some of the most challenging issues the
region faces. This is most apparent in the considerable contributions to the management of the COVID-19 pandemic
from health sector ACEs.
64. Competitive selection of participating institutions: The process followed during appraisal for selection of
participating institutions was credible, transparent and rigorous. This is evident from the fact that ACEs that were
highest ranked tended to be among the strongest performers even during implementation. The selection also adopted
an equity lens to ensure discipline, geographic and linguistic balance across countries. Some of the ACEs included on
this basis had greater difficulty in pursuing the Project successfully, and often required additional resources, attention
and stewardship support. Having top performing centers in the Project not only raised the credibility of the Project but
also provided a strong demonstration effect to the other centers. The selection of beneficiary institutions on a
competitive basis, and the reliance on merit for fund allocation set an important precedent for the region and for all
the countries that participated. At the country level, it has helped to promote a culture of positive competition and
emulation. In the case of Nigeria, for example, the success of several private universities has sent a powerful message
to the public sector to improve performance.
65. Design based on sound analysis of issues in the higher education sector: Strong diagnosis of the issues in the
sector led to selection of activities that directly contributed to achievement of results under the Project. The selected
activities addressed (i) the inertia in opening new or updating existing degrees, including new S&T degrees closely
corresponding to emerging labor market needs; (ii) the limited focus on applied or practical experience during training;
(iii) the limited employer input into curricula and the teaching-learning process; (iv) the need to upgrade learning
equipment and infrastructure; (iv) the focus on quality through international accreditation; and (v) sustainable
financing. The results-based approach which tied financing to achievement of results in these key areas was also
instrumental in achieving impact under the Project. The Project incentivized greater interaction between employers
and faculty by placing students in internships during studies, introducing new or reshaped education programs, and
investing in faculty training and learning resources as well as increasing measurement and accountability of results.
Page 28 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION
66. Results based financing approach: The Project was effective at using the results-based design of the Project
to incentivize performance and enhance final outcomes of the Project. Project implementation demonstrated optimal
use of the financing instruments by triggering actions based on performance – this aspect of implementation was
critical for the Project’s success. At the midterms stage, funds were reallocated between centers to reward those
performing well and reduce allocations for those that were not achieving results based on the Performance-based
Contracts signed between individual centers and their respective governments. In Nigeria, SDR 3.3 million was
reallocated from ACEs that were lagging behind. In Senegal, SDR 1.3 million was reallocated within the country from
SAMEF and UCAD to MITIC. In Côte d’Ivoire, the process entailed merit-based reallocation of unallocated funds of
Euros 1.7 million which resulted in CCBAD and ENSEA receiving an additional Euros 800,000 while CEA-MEM received
only Euros 100,000 given their slow progress in the first three years. Funds were also canceled from ACEs that did not
show much progress at midterm. These actions sent strong signals to the ACEs on the link of financing with
performance and resulted in improved implementation of planned activities at several of the ACEs. The use of RBF also
presented several challenges. This was the first time the instrument was being used in the participating countries and
the lack of familiarity with the instrument caused delays in the initial phase of implementation. This was addressed
through intensive support from the Bank team. By the mid-term review of the Project, several improvements in the
verification process had led to streamlining of the process, reflected in improved disbursements.
67. Strong national ownership and support. ACEs operated under the authority of their national governments.
National Review Committees were established to supervise ACE performance at the country level and ensure
alignment with the national government’s strategic agendas. Support from this level was essential for the effective
development of centers themselves, but perhaps even more importantly was critical for lessons from the development
of ACEs to impact the broader higher education institutions and systems in their country. The role of the national
review committees has been fundamental in addressing governance and project management challenges at the ACEs.
In situations where governments have been responsive, for instance in Nigeria, there has been a positive turnaround
in performance on the part of some centers and the proactive reallocation of funds towards ensuring the achievement
of project objectives. During implementation, the actors at the national level were critical for resolving conflicts
between ACE leaders and institutional leaders and tackling challenges to accelerate the release of funds or to improve
performance on specific DLIs. The national capacity to support the Project varied between countries, and within
countries, over time. It took time for some countries to put National Review Committees in place and for them to fully
understand the Project and its RBF mechanism. At the same time, there were administrative complexities with the
involvement of at least two ministries– the Ministries of Higher Education and of Finance – and in some cases, other
relevant Ministries, such as Ministries of Health or Agriculture. Inconsistencies or conflicting perspectives between
these ministries impacted the ACE’s basic functioning and its downstream ability to affect the PDO. This manifested
more at the earlier stages of implementation as reflected in delayed effectiveness for most countries. However, when
these structures were functioning well, the ACEs in the country benefitted tremendously and were able to run more
smoothly.
68. Institution-level factors: The ACEs operated within their larger institutions/universities and under their overall
governance structures. The ACEs needed to have autonomy within their institution, but not full independence because
they would need their institution’s support for long term sustainability. Institutional leadership played a strong role in
determining performance of the ACEs. There was some variation in the level of commitment of institutional leaders to
the goals of the Project which had a direct impact on performance. Some institutional leaders approached the Project
Page 29 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
as an opportunity to promote ongoing reforms within their institution. Whether they participated in an ACE steering
committee or otherwise engaged in oversight of their ACE, institutional leaders were more likely to take their learning
and apply it across their institution. Similarly, more impact was observed when the institution leaders participated in
ACE supported management and governance training. The challenges in the relationship between ACE and institutional
leaders often stemmed from the significant sums made available to ACEs under the Project. In many cases, ACE leaders
came to control larger discretionary budgets than those available to the Vice Chancellor or Rector of their higher
education institution. ACE leaders were given these funds with specific guidance on how they could spend it, but at
the same time positioned within an institution that would need to have ownership in the long run. Thus, ACEs almost
necessarily needed to find ways to collaborate with their broader institutions which resulted in spillover of some of
the benefits.
69. Support from regional level: The regional steering committee provided strong direction to achieve project
goals. It met at least 16 times during project implementation, signaling the regional ownership and support of the
project decision making body to the Project. As the Regional Facilitation Unit for the Project, the AAU provided
extensive technical and implementation support for implementation of the Project with financing from a regional
grant. The AAU established a strong technical implementation support and supervision structure that paired each
center with scientific and academic leaders in their sector. These academic and scientific supervisors provided: (i) in-
depth technical review on overall center management to ensure the centers are moving in the right direction; (ii)
guidance and linkages to relevant industry and sector partners; (iii) guidance on international accreditation agencies
and possible fund-raising opportunities; and (iv) up-front identification of project management and governance
challenges at the centers. This support was critical for the ACEs being able to achieve their goals. AAU was also
responsible for handling complex administrative tasks associated with the verification process for the Project which
had a direct impact on funds availability for the ACEs. Although there were some issues in the earlier rounds of
verification, there was improvement in the processes throughout implementation. The AAU also handled logistics for
the Project very effectively, which was an important role for the overall Project. However, the AAU could have played
a stronger role in organising training activities for ACEs, or spearheading activities to spread awareness of ACEs and
inform other actors in African higher education of lessons from the ACE I experience. It also could have supported
more action on promoting women participation for which there was insufficient attention and little gender
programming.
70. Intensive implementation support through Peer-learning, community of practice and regular national and
regional implementation support. As part of supervision of the Project, bi-annual regional meetings were held which
made a significant contribution to the Project’s overall success. This forum allowed ACEs to identify common challenges
and share solutions for those challenges. Over the course of the Project, twelve regional peer-learning and
implementation support workshops were convened in which all the 22 ACE I center teams participated, including the
center leader, deputy center leader, and officers for FM, procurement, and M&E. These regional workshops fulfilled
two main functions:
• Project operations learning. The regional workshops provided an important platform for clarifying procedures
and introducing improvements to project operations including on DLI verification, fiduciary, safeguards
compliance and disbursement processes. Specifically, obtaining feedback from the centers on verified results
prior to disbursement was important in building trust in and strengthening the verification process.
• Peer-learning. The regional workshops also provided opportunities to share global and regional best practices
within higher education. An example of demonstration effect shared by the ACEs include the experience on
obtaining international accreditation, where for the first two years, most ACEs found this to be challenging and
were not advancing on this important DLI, however once the first ACE obtained this DLI, almost two years into
Page 30 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
implementation, the other ACEs accelerated their plans to attain this important milestone. The regional
workshops also provided capacity building on key objectives of the Project, including: (i) attracting regional
students; (ii) meeting international accreditation standards; (iii) generating external revenue and financial
sustainability; and (iv) fostering university-industry partnerships. In 2017 a joint regional meeting between ACE
I and ACE II centers was held in Ghana to share lessons from implementation between ACEs in West and
Eastern and Southern Africa.
• Country level implementation support. Each country participating under the ACE Project had different factors
that affected project implementation. Some are highlighted below to reflect that in addition to advancing the
regional project implementation, it was important to ensure adequate country level ownership and support:
o Nigeria, for example in 2017, underwent a country wide currency adjustment where all commercial
bank accounts were closed, and all project accounts had to be transferred to the central bank. The
NUC led the acceleration of the opening of the treasury single accounts (TSA) as well as encouraging
the universities to provide advances to the ACEs during this challenging period. NUC also accelerated
the national accreditation process for the 10 Nigeria ACEs as well as undertaking joint fiduciary
coordination for the 10 ACEs in Nigeria.
o In Benin, where following a change in Minister there was an information gap in the operations of the
Project, which required collaboration between the Bank and new Ministry to ensure adequate
knowledge transfer. Following this transition, there was improved communication with a newly
appointed steering committee member that improved the oversight between the Ministry and ACE.
o Country level implementation support also included joint World Bank and AAU implementation
support missions to 5-10 ACEs that required additional support. These visits entailed a review of the
annual work plan progress and challenges, site visit to the newly installed equipment’s and
rehabilitated/constructed labs, smart classrooms or lecture halls as well as independent stakeholder
discussions with project beneficiaries including students and partners. The findings of these country
level visits would be communicated through a high-level letter to the Vice Chancellor with copy to the
center team and relevant agency in charge of higher education. A review of the Project documentation
shows that these visits were fundamental to identifying the governance challenges facing some of the
centers as well as providing recommendations on how to address these implementation issues.
D. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME
A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E)
M&E Design
71. The PDO statement articulated two objectives, which were to be measured by a set of key performance indicators
that were clearly defined to track progress. The objectives were ambitious but realistic and supported by a clear Results
Framework that reflected the Project’s theory of change.
72. The results-based design of the Project that closely linked the results framework to disbursement of project funds
contributed to additional focus and careful attention to the indicators that were selected to track project performance
and their link to achievement of objectives. All of the PDO level indicators were also DLIs under the Project. As a result, a
Page 31 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
robust results framework was developed with clear mechanisms for collecting data to track progress and a verification
system that meant that the information would be independently validated by a third party.
73. In addition to tracking of outcomes, the Project’s M&E design also included qualitative and quantitative
assessments and studies to evaluate project performance and enable informed decision-making. Student satisfaction
surveys were planned under the Project and integrated into the results framework. In addition, AAU was expected to
undertake regional evaluation activities to improve and assess the performance of the selected institutions, including
through tracer studies, technical audits, collection of academic data and topic-wise evaluations
M&E Implementation
74. The M&E design of the Project envisioned a robust mechanism for monitoring project progress and
performance but there were several challenges in operationalizing this system . First, data submitted by the ACEs was
not of the quality expected and led to several rounds of exchange between the verification agency and the ACEs to elevate
it to a level where it could be verified. Second, it became evident that some of the definitions for the DLIs/DLRs led to
ambiguity and needed to be crafted more carefully to ensure standard application across the various ACEs. Third,
verification was challenging in the initial phases due to several reasons including language barriers, time lapse between
end of training and verification (specifically for short term courses) which led to issues with tracking beneficiaries for
verification and the need to build up M&E systems of the ACEs to reliably track progress in a timely manner.
75. Despite these initial challenges, the Project was able to strengthen its monitoring systems to improve the quality
of data provided by the ACEs and to streamline verification process including continuous verification of short-term
courses. The definitions of the DLI/Rs were also refined to ensure clarity in language to assist standardized verification.
76. The Project was also able to undertake several evaluations which informed decision-making with respect to
project activities and outcomes. These included:
• Student satisfaction surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018. The sample of responses was in excess of 2,000 in 2018.
The findings of the survey pointed to the need for improvement of facilities. For every single ACE, aggregate
satisfaction scores were lower with regards to measures of facilities than measures of teaching. This prompted more
focus on improving facilities, such as student housing under the Project.
• A Tracer Survey conducted of master’s program graduates from nine ACEs in March-April 2019. The nine ACEs
were ACEGID, CCBAD, CERSA, MITIC, PAMI, RWESCK, WACCBIP, WACCI and 2iE. The survey received 524
responses from ACE I graduates. The survey covered a range of topics. Overall, 96 percent of ACE I master’s
graduates who responded to the tracer survey reported that they were satisfied with the overall quality of
teaching and learning at their ACE and 98 percent indicated that their ACE educational experience was important
to their current job or academic studies/research.
• Evaluation questionnaires were conducted at the ACE I regional meetings twice per year over the course of the
Project. These questionnaires provided a sense of the evolving impressions of key ACE stakeholders over the
length of the program, which was useful for identifying main issues that needed attention.
• A bibliometric analysis of research output of the ACEs from 2011 to 2018 which was compiled into a report by
Elsevier - Output, Impact, Excellence and Collaboration. This analysis was critical for determining the quality of
publications produced by the ACEs and has been used by this report as well to assess performance.
• A review of Training and Research Quality prepared by AAU in February 2020 which included feedback to the
Centers from international accreditors. This report was critical in highlighting areas for further improvement for
the ACEs and has informed the way forward for several of the ACEs to further strengthen their programs.
Page 32 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
M&E Utilization
77. Utilization of M&E was promoted by the design of the Project which linked disbursements to achievement of
key project indicators necessitating use of the monitoring activities for project implementation. It was also essential in
holding ACEs accountable for implementation of the performance agreements that they had entered into for
implementation of project activities. Beyond that, the evaluation work provided useful information with respect to
contribution of the Project in achieving its immediate and higher-level objectives. The data collected as part of the
monitoring systems were used regularly to inform the regional bi-annual discussions on project progress and were used
by the steering committee of the Project to determine the support that the ACEs needed to achieve project objectives.
Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E
78. Design, implementation and utilization of M&E in the Project enabled systematic tracking of project progress in
achieving project development objectives. There were some shortcomings in design and challenges during
implementation which were addressed by midterm of the Project. The Project gathered substantial amount of data which
was utilized in ways that ultimately improved overall project performance and provides sufficient evidence to assess
achievement of objectives. The quality of M&E is thus rated as Substantial.
Rating: Substantial
B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE
79. Safeguards. At appraisal the Project was classified as low to moderate with an Environmental Assessment
category of B and triggered an Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01). The Project supported several rehabilitation
and extensions of the selected institutions with no new land acquisition for the Centers of Excellence. The Project
focused on quality enhancements of the Centers of Excellence, which primarily required "softer items" i.e. faculty and
curriculum development, and learning resources, while construction was capped at maximum 25 percent of the
funding, with the requirement of a strong rationale for proposed new construction. The Project maintained this clear
rule on the maximum amount of civil works throughout implementation. ACEs that undertook construction prepared
Environment and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) that were disclosed to manage environmental and social impacts.
80. The Project maintained a Satisfactory rating on the environmental and social safeguards throughout
implementation and at project closing. Environmental and social safeguards were applied through a checklist of actions
that were undertaken by each ACE when undertaking any civil works. Each ACE that undertook civil works, prepared
ESMPs prior to construction. Additionally, as part of the DLI on Improved Teaching and Learning Environment, Milestone
1 included the publication of the ESMP conformity certificate on the ACE website. An independent engineer/architect
was recruited by the AAU to visit the ACEs as part of the verification of the improved teaching and learning activities.
No safeguards issues were raised during these verification visits.
81. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). The Project established several mechanisms for beneficiaries to provide
grievances. These included: (i) anonymous online student survey that is administered on an annual basis; (ii) bi annual
onsite visits by the AAU funded academic experts and Bank teams who meet students and faculty; and (iii) regular bi
annual project workshops where faculty working on the Project meet with Bank team to provide critical feedback and
comments on the Project. The last ACE I student survey was administered in November 2019 and over 100 students
Page 33 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
met during AAU/WB on-site visits between January and February 2020. General complaints from students related to
the timeliness of scholarship transfers to timeliness of the academic calendars. Such complaints were addressed
through an official letter from the AAU and WB to the university management for a concrete plan by relevant ACE to
address the complaints. Follow up meetings and ICR survey and focus group discussions with students confirmed
improved learning environment facilities such as better internet connection and access to facilities.
82. Financial Management (FM). The FM performance of the Project is rated Satisfactory. With regards to
compliance with the key FM covenants of timely submission of IFRs and annual audit reports, the ACEs complied
satisfactorily with the submissions, though with occasional delays. Generally, these reports were reviewed and
considered to be acceptable to the Bank. As at the time of project closing there were no overdue IFRs or audit reports.
Finally, the project is a results-based financing project, where upon achievement of the DLIs, the disbursement was
processed by the Bank against a set of Eligible Expenditure Program (EEP). These EEPs were discussed and agreed upon
and at each submission of the IFR were presented. The EEPs were equivalent to the disbursements made by the project.
83. Overall achievement of the FM DLIs across the Project was 89 percent. The FM related DLIs have progressed
well, with almost all the ACEs, achieving FM DLI 3.1 on timely submission of IFR, and FM DLI 3.4 on financial web
transparency. The remaining two FM DLRs 3.3 and 3.4 on functioning audit committee and internal audit have also
mostly been achieved by a large number of ACEs. The final audit reports for 2020 transactions that were successfully
carried out, including for the grace period of four months (from April 1, 2020-July 31, 2020).
84. In terms of capacity building and training, during project implementation, the respective country office FMS
organized a series of in-country FM & Disbursement training sessions for the ACEs in addition through bi annual regional
workshops where FM training was regularly provided on financial matters to the FM officers recruited under the Project
as well as the university FM specialists. The rating for Financial Management performance of the Project was
Satisfactory throughout implementation and at project closing.
85. Procurement. In general procurement was for the most part rated as Moderately Satisfactory. Each center
prepared a procurement manual as part of the project effectiveness conditions to together with the implementation
plans as well as having dedicated procurement officers on the Project. All procurement activities have been completed,
with the largest procurement on construction and renovations of ACE buildings, laboratories and facilities completed.
During the Project implementation, all ACEs had dedicated procurement officers, that benefitted from support provided
during the regional workshops, where at least 12 regional workshops with sessions on procurement have been provided
by the Project. On the procurement DLIs, the DLI on timely post procurement audit has been well implemented with all
ACEs undertaking their procurement audit annually. The outcome of these audits was discussed and shared during
regional workshops with recommendations and guidance provided. The second DLI on timely procurement was re-
defined as part of the operations manual update in early 2019 to reflect no new procurement with contract value of
over US$50,000 in the last 6 months of the Project as per the procurement plan. Based on this updated Procurement
DLI 4.2, most of the ACEs have received this DLI earning. The procurement rating is moderately satisfactory.
C. BANK PERFORMANCE
Page 34 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Quality at Entry
86. Quality at entry of the Project is rated High. The Bank team took several steps during Project identification,
preparation and appraisal which contributed directly to achievement of results under the Project.
• The PDO was strongly aligned with a clear identification of regional needs and strategies and thus remained highly
relevant throughout the Project period.
• A transparent, competitive process was undertaken to select the most deserving institutes of higher education in
the sub-region for support under the Project. The Bank team ensured that relevant stakeholders were included
in the process. The high credibility of the process and results led to a promising start for the Project which set it
on a critical path to establish Centers of Excellence in the region.
• There were extensive consultations held during preparation on the Project design and the selection process for
the ACEs with stakeholders. An advisory working group comprising of higher education and science disciplinary
experts was established during preparation that provided conceptual input and guidance on project design. The
team was also proactive in creating relevant linkages for the participating institutions with technical bodies such
as Africa Mining Skills Initiative (AMSI), Agreenium, CIRAD and RUFORUM to provide technical assistance to the
ACEs to strengthen their proposals. The team effectively brought in highly qualified and committed African
academic diaspora who were familiar with the African scientific, linguistic and cultural context to support the
design process.
• The selection of a results-based financing modality was instrumental to incentivizing the behavior change that
was needed for achieving results. The disbursement linked indicators selected were closely linked to achievement
of the PDO and directed efforts at the institution level to the most important aspects of implementation. They
also promoted accountability of institutions with repercussions for not achieving goals.
• Setting a regional mechanism for support for the ACEs through the Regional Facilitation Unit was also important
for the ACEs to achieve results. AAU as the RFU was able to provide support to the ACEs on critical aspects of
project implementation and created an effective knowledge sharing platform and strong communities among the
participating institutions.
Quality of Supervision
87. The quality of Project supervision is rated High. The Bank team provided strong implementation support to the
Project throughout its implementation. The Project was unique in many ways. Not only was it the first to take a regional
approach to build capacity of higher education, it was also the first Project to introduce results-based financing in 8 out
of the 9 participating countries. The low level of experience with results-based financing led to a slow start to
implementation as the countries familiarized themselves with the instruments and the Bank team played an important
role in filling these knowledge gaps and providing detailed hands on support to guide the countries through the processes.
The team did this through:
• Providing strong technical, fiduciary and safeguards support to the ACEs, countries and the RFU throughout
implementation. The Bank team comprised of Regional Task Team Leaders (TTLs) with overall implementation
support responsibility and technical oversight of the Project. The regional TTLs were supported by fiduciary and
safeguards staff who supervised the RFU. Bi-annual regional workshops in which all ACEs participated provided a
forum for knowledge sharing, training, and technical support to the ACEs on common issues faced during
implementation. Task team continuity at the regional level was an important success factor for the Project.
Specifically, throughout ACE preparation and implementation, the task team was maintained, with the TTL at
preparation leading project implementation for the first three of implementation and the core team member at
preparation, transitioning into Co-TTL and TTL of the Project.
Page 35 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Country-level support. The regional team was supported by country level Co-TTLs for each of the countries that
provided regular, hands on support to the ACEs, together with country level fiduciary and safeguards staff on both
technical and operational matters. Together, the Bank team was adequately staffed with technical, fiduciary and
safeguards staff to support implementation of the Project.
• Enforcing the results-based design of the Project. When results were not achieved, the team implemented actions
such as reallocating funds from non-performing to performing ACEs. When needed, funds were also canceled.
This was a strong signal and promoted the results-based approach which led to several of the ACEs improving
effort and performance.
• Flexibility. The team demonstrated flexibility when needed to facilitate funds flow to the ACEs. For instance, based
on implementation experience, for short courses, it allowed continuous rather than twice-per-year verification
which helped several of the ACEs.
• Elaborate implementation support structure. The Bank team undertook joint Bank and AAU implementation
support missions to at least 8-10 ACEs prior each regional workshop. As such in any given year, in addition to the
implementation support and supervision that took place during the regional workshops, this implementation
support structure ensured that at least 15-20 ACE site visits took place in any given year. Following these visits, a
joint WB and AAU letter would be shared with the university vice chancellor with the center leadership in copy to
ensure that the highest level of attention was obtained to address challenges identified during the visits.
88. ACE Feedback Survey. The ACE biannual project survey rated education and technical advice of the World Bank
team at 4.06 out of 5 (on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the lowest rating and 5 being the highest rating for the quality of
technical advice). Responsiveness to queries and timely and adequate information was also rated at 4 and above. The
lowest rating for the Bank team was on procurement support with a rating of 3.8. The AAU and Government also
experienced improved overall performance ratings of 4 and 3.7 respectively. The ACEs were generally satisfied with the
facilitation and technical support provided by both the World Bank and AAU.
Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance
89. Based on the assessment above, Bank performance is rated Satisfactory.
Rating: Satisfactory
D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME
90. The risk to development outcomes not being maintained beyond the Project period is rated Low.
• The Project contributed to improving the sustainability of the participating universities by providing
incentives for building systems for generating external financing which will help the institutions
beyond the project period. The participating institutions developed strategies and mechanisms
including recruitment of foreign students, research collaboration and consultancies to help them
generate revenue. This ability to generate revenues complements government efforts and helps to
sustain the transformational change that ACE engenders. To date, over US$51.7 million (from a
baseline of US$0.9 million) in revenue has been generated through the implementation of the ACE I
Project.
• The Project focused on establishing financially independent and cost-efficient institutions. As a result,
the cost of running an ACE is a small portion of the public expenditure on higher education in the
participating countries. An ACE represents less than 1 percent of annual public expenditure in higher
education for most of the participating countries (exceptions are Benin where it stands at 1.63 percent
Page 36 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
and Togo at 4.51 percent).
• Project funds were utilized by the ACEs to invest in infrastructure and equipment which would need
only limited recurrent financing for upkeep. These are a form of capacity that help ACEs to be
attractive partners and educational institutions, and therefore to attract other resources, with
minimal ongoing costs. Other critical areas of capacity development related to leadership,
management, grant-seeking, and procurement, as well as the reputation of the ACEs which allow
them to better attract students, faculty and partners are expected to continue well beyond the project
period reducing risk to loss of development outcomes. Importantly, the culture changes that have
been ingrained by the Project with respect to focus on delivering results are likely to be sustained.
• One outcome at risk is that of maintaining regionality. It is often expensive for regional students to
pursue higher education outside their country without support in the form of scholarships or other
sources of financing. At the same time, it is costly for the ACEs to offer this financial support to regional
students. To meet project targets, ACEs did offer these incentives to regional students but it is not
clear that they would continue to do so without the Project putting results achieved on regionality at
risk.
Risk Rating: Low
E. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Lesson 1: Results-based financing can be a powerful mechanism for incentivizing effort and
behavior change when used appropriately. The implementation experience of the Project provides
important lessons for not just introduction of RBF in countries, but also using it to reward performance
and enforce accountability when results are not achieved. Implementation performance clearly
improved after the midterm when the concept of RBF was put into practice with reallocations
between ACEs and cancelations which sent a strong signal to the institutions and resulted in greater
effort and subsequently achievement of results. That said, the Project also provides important lessons
for ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are educated on the design of the results-based approach
when it is first introduced. Efforts to promote understanding of the mechanism, specifically with
respect to verification procedures, can be a critical activity during preparation which may help avoid
delays in initial phases of implementation.
• Lesson 2: Strong institutional ownership is an essential component for a successful Center of
Excellence model. In the ACE I Project, there appears to be a reasonable correlation between an ACE’s
success and the institutional support it received. The centers that succeeded had strong commitment
and support from University leadership and those that faced institutional ownership and commitment
challenges struggled to implement their activities throughout project implementation. This points to
the need for ensuring adequate incentives for institutions to provide an enabling environment for
ACEs in future projects. The follow-on ACE Impact Project incorporates this lesson and includes a DLI
for the host institution which ACE I experience shows will be critical for greater institutional buy-in
and augment impacts on broader institutions and higher education systems.
• Lesson 3: Leadership plays an important role in the Center of Excellence model . The strength of
Center Leaders was an essential variable that shaped ACEs’ overall effectiveness. In cases where there
was slow implementation at an ACE in the initial stages, change in center leadership alone led to
Page 37 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
dramatic improvements in performance highlighting the critical role center leadership played in
successful implementation of the Project. This experience also highlights the need for focus on
leadership development as an explicit goal of future projects.
• Lesson 4: National efforts to reform higher education systems will be essential to complement
efforts made by the Project for sustained results . ACEs provide an effective roadmap for improving
quality and relevance of higher education and research at the program level in an effort to create
regional specialization. However, implementation experience of ACE points strongly to the need for
systemic higher education reforms at the national level to address issues related to governance and
financing of higher education to meet the large unmet demand for highly skilled labor. The Project
has provided inspiration for granting greater autonomy to higher education institutions, adoption of
additional “cents of excellence” programs, and the broader use of performance based financing
mechanisms to fund higher education development, however, much needs to be done to
institutionalize these reforms in the national higher education systems and build the capacity to
design and manage more outcome-focused funding and management systems. Success of ACEs was
heavily dependent on the level of support provided from the national higher education bodies to
resolve governance related bottlenecks to implementation of the ACE Project. While this targeted
support was helpful for the ACEs to achieve results, it points to the significant challenges faced by
higher education institutions in the region to provide high-quality and relevant higher education.
These challenges will need to be addressed through national level higher education reform programs
for sustainable results.
• Lesson 5: Increasing participation of women will require greater attention. While progress is being
made, more needs to be done to encourage female participation in higher education, especially in the
sciences. While some ACEs were able to attract women to join their programs through awareness
raising and outreach, systematic institution level changes to ensure environments were genuinely
inclusive of female students needs significant effort such as policies relating to sexual harassment. As
an example, there are also no female leaders of ACEs, and participation of female faculty members in
ACE activities was low. The Project included financial incentives to incentivize change, however,
Project experience shows that more will need to be done for reaching gender parity in higher
education in the region. ACE I experience shows that this is an area that will need more efforts and
attention in future higher education projects.
• Lesson 6: Strengthened linkages with the private sector will be important for knowledge transfer.
Under ACE I, collaborative knowledge partnerships with private-sector entities included participation
of industry representatives on curricula boards and ACE advisory committees, research consultancies
and internship placements and partnership with visiting faculty from industry. Experience from ACE I
shows that although there was some success in placing master’s and Doctoral students in internships
in private sector settings, this was the biggest challenge for many of the ACEs, and that further
capacity building on engagement with the private sector is important to include upfront in a higher
education project.
• Lesson 7: There is a need to expand the role of the RFU beyond its core mandate tasks of
verification, implementation support and technical assistance . Under ACE I, the RFU was responsible
for verification of results achieved, organizing regional meetings for the ACEs and coordinating
Page 38 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
implementation support and technical assistance structure for the 22 ACEs. However, areas where an
RFU can play a truly transformational role is on building regional networks and partnerships, capacity
building on commercialisation of research, and on project management and strengthening leadership
in higher education. This expanded role should be considered under future projects to ensure
maximum impact for a regional project in higher education.
• Lesson 8: Extensive multi-layered implementation support is important for success of a large
regional project. At the time of project appraisal, ACE was the only higher education project in most
of the participating countries, with various levels of leadership from the Ministries or agencies of
higher education. At the same time, it was complex in design given that it was implemented in nine
countries, many of which were using the results-based instrument for the first time. The project used
a multi-layered approach to support implementation. First, it employed a strategic technical
assistance approach, where each ACE was paired with technical academic and scientific experts that
provided technical implementation support to the ACEs in close coordination with the Bank team.
This was complemented by a regional platform for regular exchange of information and experience
where ACEs could learn from each other. Second, a highly participatory approach to implementation
support which included members of the university faculty and leadership, provided important
contextual insights, built university ownership, and enhanced the sustainability of project initiatives.
Third, the Project was supported by a large Bank team that provided support both at the regional level
through TTLs and at the country level by dedicated country teams that provided technical and
operational support. The Project undertook over 100 country level site visits jointly between the AAU
funded technical experts and Bank staff over the Project implementation period. This ensured
adequate consideration of the local context in helping address country level challenges while ensuring
a regional approach to creating specialization.
.
Page 39 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS
F. RESULTS INDICATORS
A.1 PDO Indicators
Objective/Outcome: Strenghening Africa Centers of Excellence
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No. of national and regional Number 1,580.00 15,600.00 30,821.00
students enrolled in new
specialized short-term 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
courses, and Master and PhD
programs
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No. of regional students Number 987.00 8,900.00 9,480.00
enrolled in new specialized
short-term courses, and 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Master and PhD programs
Page 40 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No. of internationally Number 3.00 15.00 61.00
(regionally/sub-regionally)
accredited education 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
programs
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No. of students and faculty Number 1,037.00 5,900.00 6,257.00
with at least 1 month
internship in companies or 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
institutions relevant to their
field
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Page 41 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Amount of externally Number 976,877.00 8,000,000.00 51,655,331.00
generated revenue by the
ACEs. 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators
Component: Component 1: Strenghening ACEs
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No of faculty trained by the Number 100.00 900.00 3,583.00
ACEs
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No of newly established or Number 0.00 60.00 231.00
revised curricula (meeting
labor market skills), as 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
approved by the appropriate
institutional organ
Page 42 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Increase of internationally Number 1,098.00 1,331.00 2,599.00
recognized research
publications in disciplines 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
supported by the ACE-
Programme
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
ACE project implementation Number 0.00 120.00 990.00
team meetings with openly
disclosed minutes 15-Nov-2015 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Page 43 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Number of regional faculty Number 27.00 335.00 657.00
trained by the ACEs
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Number of female faculty Number 7.00 100.00 185.00
regionally trained by the
ACEs 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Number of national faculty Number 73.00 565.00 2,926.00
trained by the ACEs
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Page 44 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Number of national female Number 14.00 300.00 741.00
faculty trained by the ACEs
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Direct project beneficiaries Number 2,717.00 16,690.00 34,404.00
01-Nov-2013 31-Dec-2018 12-Dec-2018
Female beneficiaries Percentage 332.00 3,606.00 8,456.00
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No. of partnership Number 48.00 170.00 447.00
agreements between ACEs
and engaged partner 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
institutions
Comments (achievements against targets):
Page 45 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
ACE project implementation Number 0.00 120.00 990.00
team meetings with openly
disclosed minutes 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Annual disclosed unqualified Number 0.00 37.00 98.00
external financial audit with
the ACE annual budget 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Direct project beneficiaries Number 1,995.00 16,690.00 34,404.00
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 12-Dec-2018
Page 46 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Female beneficiaries Number 332.00 3,606.00 8,456.00
14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 12-Dec-2018
Comments (achievements against targets):
Component: Enhancing Regional Capacity, Evaluation and Collaboration
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
RFU holding regular Number 0.00 8.00 12.00
meetings with at least 15
ACEs participating 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Level of satisfaction of ACE Number 0.00 75.00 80.00
Page 47 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
and ACE Steering Committee 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
on quality of support
provided by the Regional
Facilitation Unit
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
No of ACE-Institutions Number 0.00 19.00 22.00
reporting on at least 85% of
their indicators, submitting 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 18-Sep-2020
the RF to the AAU in time
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Annual program report Text N/A Done done (exceeded) Six
prepared and submitted to semi-annual activity
WB program reports have
been delivered by
AAU
01-Nov-2013 31-Dec-2018 30-Mar-2020
Page 48 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Comments (achievements against targets):
Formally Revised Actual Achieved at
Indicator Name Unit of Measure Baseline Original Target
Target Completion
Annual program report Text n/a Done Done
prepared and submitted to
WB 14-Apr-2014 31-Dec-2018 30-Mar-2020
Comments (achievements against targets):
Page 49 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
A. KEY OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT
COMPONENT 1: Strengthening Africa Centers of Excellence (US$ 140.8 million – Results-based Financing)
Objective/Outcome 1: Promote regional specialization
1. No. of national and regional students enrolled in new specialized short-term
courses, and Master and PhD programs (DLIs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 respectively)
Outcome Indicators 2. No. of regional students enrolled in new specialized short-term courses, and
Master and PhD programs (DLIs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 respectively)
1. No of newly established or revised curricula (meeting labor market skills), as
approved by the appropriate institutional organ
Intermediate Results Indicators
2. Direct project beneficiaries, including number of female beneficiaries
Key Results linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1
Increase in the number of students registered in new specialized short-term courses, master’s and PhD
Achievement of this objective was promoted through the following Disbursement Linked Indicators:
• DLI 2.1: New short-term students in ACE courses of which at least 30 percent must be regional students. (Amounts: 400 per national
student, 500 per female student, 800 per regional student, and 1000 per female regional student).
• DLI 2.2: New Master students in ACE courses of which at least 30 percent must be regional students (Amounts: 2,000 per national
student, 2,500 per female student, 4,000 per regional student and 5,000 per regional female student).
• DLI 2.3: New PhD students in ACE courses of which at least 30 percent must be regional students Amounts: 10,000 per national student,
12,500 per female student, 20,000 per regional student, and 25,000 per female regional student).
The final achievement of DLIs at project closing was as below:
DLI Achievement level
DLI 2.1 95%
Page 50 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
DLI 2.2 93%
DLI 2.3 100%
During the project, over 30,000 students enrolled in the Africa Centers of Excellence, of which about a third were regional and slightly over 8,000
were women. These numbers vary from center to center, without a particular trend to be identified. In Cameroon, for instance, CETIC enrolled
over 2,600 students; and in Senegal, MITIC enrolled almost 2,300 students. In Ghana and Nigeria, centers have enrolled between 770 and 1,600
students. CEFTER and SAMEF have had the most important share of women in their centers, at respectively 54 percent and 68 percent. CETIC,
despite its high enrollment, has received only 14 percent of women. Some centers have been particularly good at attracting regional students and
setting up mechanisms to attract and retain regional students. At ACEGID, for instance, over 50 percent of students came from the region; at
WACCBIP and OAU-OAK, almost 40 percent; and at SAMEF, almost 35 percent.
Almost 16,000 participants have enrolled in professional short-term courses (STCs) hosted by the centers. These courses helped professionals from
the region further strengthen their skills in thematic areas relevant to their countries’ development challenges. For instanc e, CERSA, in Togo,
trained hundreds of farmers from multiple countries in the region (e.g. Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, or Senegal) to poultry technique to produce
quality chicken meat and eggs in large quantities. This directly contributes to increasing animal protein consumption in the framework of food
security, a key issue for the countries in the region, especially in the Sahel. In Benin, CEA-SMA hosted big data training courses for women from
the region, a fundamental skill in the transition to artificial intelligence. In terms of numbers, WACCI hosted close to 10 percent of the project’s
total number of participants in STCs, with over 1,400 people having enrolled in the center’s STCs. CETIC, ACEPRD, CEFTER, PAM I, OAU-OAK have
each trained over 1,000 professionals during the life of the project. In Burkina Faso, 2iE trained 710 professionals but had a broad reach across
other countries, with over 60 percent of all its participants coming from outside the region. Project-wide, a third of participants were regional, i.e.
came from outside the host country to attend, thereby contributing to collaboration and sharing of skills and knowledge across the region through
the project.
The following contributed to achievement of results:
Revised or established new curricula that meet the labor market skills
ACEs are making available unique courses and programs that are in short supply in the region yet directly related to issues that influence its
development trajectory. In Benin, for instance, CEA-SMA has established the first data science school in the country. In Nigeria, ACENTDFB is the
only institution in the whole of West Africa that runs post-graduate programs in biotechnology with focus on neglected tropical diseases. CERHI,
in Nigeria, has introduced new master’s and PhD programs in Nursing, Public Health, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Health Economics.
Page 51 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Objective/Outcome 2: Enhancing Regional Capacity, Evaluation and Collaboration
1. No. of internationally (regionally/sub-regionally) accredited education programs
(DLI)
Outcome Indicators 2. No. of students and faculty with at least 1-month internship in companies or
institutions relevant to their field (DLI)
3. Amount of externally generated revenue by the ACEs (DLI)
• No of faculty trained by the ACEs
• Increase of internationally recognized research publications in disciplines
supported by the ACE-Project
• Number of regional faculty trained by the ACEs
Intermediate Results Indicators • Number of female faculty regionally trained by the ACEs
• Number of national faculty trained by the ACEs
• Number of national female faculty trained by the ACEs
• No. of partnership agreements between ACEs and engaged partner
institutions
Key results linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 2
The achievement of this objective were promoted by the following DLIs:
1. DLR 2.4: No. of outreach “periods” for faculty, master and PhD students (Amounts: 2,000 per outreach period within the country and 4,0 00
per outreach period within the region).
2. DLR 2.5: International evaluation and accreditation of quality of education programs (Amounts: 600,000 per program internationally
accredited; 100,000 per program nationally or regionally accredited; 100,000 per program per gap-assessment certified or undertaken by an
international quality assurance agency; 100,000 per program for self-evaluation a satisfactory international standard; 100,000 per program
description meeting international standard).
3. DLR 2.6: Published articles in internationally recognized and peer reviewed journals (Amounts: 15,000 per article and 30,000 per article with
a regional co-author).
4. DLR 2.7: Externally revenue generation (Amounts: US$ 1 per externally generated revenue, and US$ 2 per externally generated revenue from
the region).
Page 52 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
5. DLR 2.8: Meeting milestones for improved learning and research environment specified in the Performance and Funding contracts (Amount
per milestone: 400,000).
The final achievement of the DLI at project closing was as below:
DLI Achievement level
DLI 2.4 80%
DLI 2.5 98%
DLI 2.6 100%
DLI 2.7 93%
DLI 2.8 98%
DLI 2.4: No. of outreach “periods” for faculty, master and PhD students
Achievement of this DLI was 80 percent. Over 6,250 staff and students did an internship in a relevant institution from a baseline of 1,037, about
two third of which in the private sector. Of these, 12 percent were regional students. Internship host institutions included:
1. In agriculture centers: private farms, ministries, weather centers;
2. In health centers: private and public hospitals, hospital, medical centers, pharmaceutical companies, veterinary centers and ministries; and
3. In STEM centers: as telecommunication firms, engineering and transport firms, statistics labs, banks, agribusiness industries and Ministries.
On average, STIM centers performed the best in terms of number of internships undertaken, although it is a health center – ACEPRD – that records
the highest number of internships undertaken, at 580.
DLI 2.5: International evaluation and accreditation of quality of education programs
Achievement of this DLI was 98 percent. 63 international accreditations acquired during the project, from a baseline of 3. Examples include the
accreditation of WACCBIP’s MPhil and PhD programs in Molecular Cell Biology of Infectious Diseases as the first courses in Africa to receive
international accreditation from the Royal Society of Biology. CERSA, in Togo, also received an international accreditation in poultry science. Beyond
international accreditation, centers also received 88 national accreditations and conducted 81 self-evaluations under the project.
DLI 2.6: Published articles in internationally recognized and peer reviewed journals
Achievement of this DLI was 100 percent. Overall, 2,599 publications have been produced during the life of the project, from a baseline of 1,098.
Some centers have fared particularly well: RWESCK, for instance, has produced 248 publications; WACCBIP, 150; CERHI, 125. Amongst the
Page 53 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
francophone centers, CETIC has produced a staggering 306 publications, and 2iE ranks amongst the best centers in terms of research production,
with 108 publications.
DLI 2.7: Externally revenue generation
Achievement of this DLI was 93 percent. Centers have generated US$51 million from external revenue under the project, exceeded by far the target
of 8 million US$. At the beginning of the project, some centers did not have existing frameworks to generate revenue. The design of a DLI on
revenue generation incentivized centers that did not already have the mechanisms in place to start building processes for revenue generation. The
results for this DLI were particularly outstanding for some centers: in Burkina Faso, 2iE raised US$5 million; in Nigeria, ACEGID raised over US$ 7.7
million; PAMI, US$4.6 million; CEFOR, US$ 4.4 million; and in Ghana, WACCBIP raised almost US$ 5 million. External revenue was mostly raised
from within the Africa region through, for instance, consultancy assignments from the private industry (e.g. oil research at CEFOR), research grants,
scholarships and tuition fees. Revenue generated from North America and Europe was raised mostly from research grants, scholarships and
academic exchange programs. Beyond numbers, center leaders under the project have shown and developed great leadership and excellent
grantsmanship as well as management of donor funds. Raising external revenues has also, in some instance s, reinforced the center’s links to its
host institution which showed strong policy support.
DLI 2.8: Meeting milestones for improved learning and research environment specified in the Performance and Funding contracts
Achievement of this DLI was 98 percent. Several outputs were delivered under the Performance Funding contracts. These included:
• Improved environment for learning and teaching
o In Senegal and in Togo, centers inaugurated brand new buildings financed under the project to improve the teaching and learning
environment:
o MITIC inaugurated a pedagogical block with 6 classrooms of 50 places, 4 laboratories, 1 office for doctoral students and a hall of free
access in computer science; a research block with 20 offices for researchers and laboratories; an administrative block with reception
and orientation services for students, laboratory technology for the management and maintenance of equipment, and offices for the
CEA execution unit; a facilities block composed of a multipurpose room of 100 places and apartments for visitors.
o SAMEF inaugurated a building with 7 renovated offices, 1 auditorium, 1 laboratory, 1 conference room, and teaching and research
equipment provided to improve teaching and learning.
o At CERSA, in Togo, a new teaching and research complex which includes a 200-seat conference room, two 40-seat classrooms, six
specific laboratories, two multi-purpose laboratories, a library, some 20 offices and a meeting room to improve teaching and
learning.
o New cutting-edged laboratories and equipment at the centers:
• Super-calculator acquired (with over 1,000 knots capacity) at CEA-SMA, the first in Benin and one of the few in the continent
Page 54 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Fully equipped mechatronics and IT laboratories at CETIC
• New language laboratories (CCBAD)
• ACEGID acquired a new teaching Laboratory refurbished and equipped with Generation Sequencer, Real-Time PCR, Thermocyclers, Gel
documentation equipment, Water purification system & computers.
• At ACENTDFB, a new Forensic Lab Mini Class refurbished and equipped with internet compliant Smart Board and 120kVa power inverter;
Real Time qPCR, Thermal cycler, Fluorescent Microscope, Eppendorf mini- centrifuge, Horizontal gel electrophoresis equipment, Gel
documentation system, Laminar flow hood and Nanodrop spectrophotometer procured, installed and verified.
• At RWESCK, a new complex was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and teaching aids for improved teaching and research
• New classrooms, student centers and student dormitories, for instance at CCBAD and CETIC
• Better learning sources
1. Renovated, equipped libraries with online bibliographic and digital resources (CETIC, CCBAD). At CEA-SMA, a new library offers access to
journals and books from Springer Verlag.
Centers have strengthened regional and international academic partnerships
They have jointly delivered education programs with other education institutions across the world and facilitated student exchanges internally.
For instance, CEA-SMA in Benin hosted a Benin-Brazil meeting on mathematics and mathematical physics. Project-wide, students were able to
participate in research trips and internships in the West Africa region but also in China, the US, and European countries such as Spain, France, or
the United Kingdom.
COMPONENT 2: Enhancing Regional Capacity, Evaluation and Collaboration
1. Regional Capacity Building, M&E, and facilitation
2. Project Facilitation in Nigeria
3. Demand-driven regional services – The Gambia
• ACE project implementation team meetings with openly disclosed minutes
• ACE project implementation team meetings with openly disclosed minutes
• Annual disclosed unqualified external financial audit with the ACE annual
budget
Page 55 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Regional Facilitation Unit (RFU) holding regular meetings with at least 15
ACEs participating
• Level of satisfaction of ACE and ACE Steering Committee on quality of
support provided by the Regional Facilitation Unit
• No of ACE-Institutions reporting on at least 85 percent of their indicators,
submitting the RF to the Association of African Universities (AAU) in time
• Annual project report prepared and submitted to WB
Regional capacity building, M&E and facilitation
• Successful hosting of 16 Project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings and 12 regional workshops
The RFU held regular, bi-annual meetings with the project’s center team and PSC members during the whole period of the project. The number of
participants became increasingly higher throughout the years. At the first workshop, in Abuja, in 2014, 120 participants enrolled, compared to over
500 participants at the last workshop held in Abuja in February 2020. This is mostly due to the addition of the ACE Impact project’s centers since
Djibouti in February 2019 but, even before then, the number of participants had more than doubled.
• Survey revealed good level of satisfaction of ACE and ACE Steering Committee on quality of support
1. Satisfaction of ACE on quality of support:
Latest survey results reveal the, overall, centers (i) feel proud of being part of the ACE project; and (ii) are satisfied with the implementation
progress. During the first three years of the project, centers put an average grade of 3.9 out of 5, compared to an average of 4.2 over the
last two years. Furthermore, on the question whether they felt proud to be part of the ACE Project, available aggregate survey results
indicate an average of 4.44/5, with an upward trend over the years, meaning that the teams felt even more strongly about the project as
they moved forward with it.
2. Satisfaction of national governments on quality of support:
Satisfaction of national governments falls slightly below that of the ACE project across its three indicators, namely (i) overall facilitation of
project implementation; (ii) provision of timely and adequate information; and (iii) responsiveness to inquiries. Based on available
aggregate survey results, average grades on these indicators were respectively 3.7, 3.6, and 3.6 out of a full grade of 5. That being said,
indicators have all gone through an upward trend during the lifetime of the project, increasing by approximately 0.4 points.
• Centers reported a significant portion of their indicators by submitting to the RFU in time
Project-wide, centers have submitted and verified 95 percent of their results via the AAU, the RFU for the project. The AAU ensured timely and
Page 56 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
accurate verification of all results submitted by the centers and collaborated closely with center leaders and center teams to clarify the submission
and verification processes.
Project facilitation in Nigeria
The National Universities Commission (NUC) in Nigeria undertook ten annual implementation supervision visits and produced regular
communication outputs. NUC also provided technical assistance to the ACEs in the areas of health, STEM and Agriculture through national
consultants that collaborated closely with the AAU technical experts. Throughout the lifetime of the project, they provided direct implementation
support to the centers, acting as a liaison with the AAU and the World Bank.
Demand-driven regional services – The Gambia
Under the ACE project, The Gambia purchased education services from other centers of excellence in the form of training. The country’s institutions
of higher learning in the country could not provide relevant higher education training, nor establish vibrant research environments and saw the
opportunity to train faculty and other experts in STEM, Health and Agriculture in identified centers of excellence under the project. As a result, 124
students (including 24 women) – 17 PhD and and 107 MSc – enrolled in different ACEs across the region, almost half of which in Senegal, its
neighboring country. Programs the Gambian students enrolled in included master’s in Computer Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Mechanical and
Civil Engineering, Reproductive Health, Food Science Technology, Crop Protection and Seed Science Technology.
Page 57 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION
1. TASK TEAM MEMBERS
Name Role
Preparation
Andreas Blom Task Team Leader(s)
Hector Pacheco Procurement Specialist(s)
Robert Wallace DeGraft-Hanson Financial Management Specialist
Liba Chaja Strengerowski Social Specialist
Hocine Chalal Social Specialist
Paivi Koskinen-Lewis Social Specialist
Supervision/ICR
Himdat Iqbal Bayusuf Task Team Leader(s)
Mountaga Ndiaye, Laurent Mehdi Brito, Mamata Procurement Specialist(s)
Tiendrebeogo
Uchechi Chizomam Oloba Financial Management Specialist
Henie Dahlia Takodjou Meku Financial Management Specialist
Sandrine Egoue Ngasseu Financial Management Specialist
Josue Akre Financial Management Specialist
Angelo Donou Financial Management Specialist
Eucharia Nonye Osakwe Financial Management Specialist
Fatou Fall Samba Financial Management Specialist
Robert Wallace DeGraft-Hanson Financial Management Specialist
Akinrinmola Oyenuga Akinyele Financial Management Specialist
Fatou Mbacke Dieng Financial Management Specialist
Mathias Gogohounga Procurement Team
Aisha Garba Mohammed Team Member
Andreas Blom Team Member
Page 58 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Charles John Aryee Ashong Procurement Team
Anta Tall Diallo Procurement Team
Haoua Diallo Procurement Team
Mouhamadou Moustapha Lo Team Member
Colombe Blandine Yabo Allabi Procurement Team
Anita Bimunka Takura Tingbani Environmental Specialist
Bertille Gerardine Ngameni Wepanjue Team Member
Monique Mogue Kamga Procurement Team
Gertrude Marie Mathilda Coulibaly Zombre Social Specialist
Ukamaka Stella Maris Nnaemeka Team Member
Monique Ndome Didiba Epse Azonfack Team Member
M'Bahly Maud-Andree Kouadio IV Team Member
Suzane Kabore Rayaisse Procurement Team
Mamady Kobele Keita Environmental Specialist
Alexandra C. Bezeredi Social Specialist
Rim Wazni Team Member
Lydia Sam Procurement Team
Joyce Chukwuma-Nwachukwu Procurement Team
Helene Simonne Ndjebet Yaka Team Member
Hamoud Abdel Wedoud Kamil Team Member
Aissatou Diallo Team Member
Sameena Dost Team Member
Anna L Wielogorska Procurement Team
Yacinthe Gbaye Team Member
Kouami Hounsinou Messan Procurement Team
Yassin Saine Njie Procurement Team
Ndeye Magatte Fatim Seck Procurement Team
Sylvie Charlotte Ida do Rego Procurement Team
Carole Ndjitcheu Team Member
Page 59 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Adama Ouedraogo Team Member
Esinam Hlomador-Lawson Procurement Team
Hector Pacheco Procurement Team
Eunice Yaa Brimfah Ackwerh Team Member
Ruth Adetola Adeleru Team Member
Ryoko Tomita Team Member
Sylvie Munchep Ndze Team Member
Ibrah Rahamane Sanoussi Team Member
Vincent Perrot Team Member
Khady Fall Lo Procurement Team
Daniel Rikichi Kajang Procurement Team
Celestin Adjalou Niamien Team Member
B. STAFF TIME AND COST
Staff Time and Cost
Stage of Project Cycle
No. of staff weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs)
Preparation
FY12 20.317 363,482.66
FY13 79.982 483,895.62
FY14 84.708 594,263.89
FY15 8.118 30,916.33
FY16 12.804 48,141.84
FY18 0 12,996.82
Total 205.93 1,533,697.16
Supervision/ICR
FY14 0 0.00
FY15 75.220 415,105.44
Page 60 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
FY16 77.874 418,304.37
FY17 86.591 498,966.81
FY18 75.393 478,278.92
FY19 51.800 302,112.38
FY20 31.997 211,847.94
Total 398.88 2,324,615.86
Page 61 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT
Amount with Actual at
Amount at Additional Amount at Project
Components
Approval Financing Closing Closing6 Execution rate
(US$M) (US$M) (US$M) (US$M) (Percentage)
Component 1:
Strengthening Africa 140.80 155.80 148.95 137.1 92
Centers of Excellence
Component 2: Enhancing
Regional Capacity;
9.20 9.20 9.20 8.89 97
Evaluation and
Collaboration
Total 150.00 15.00 158.15 146.3 93
6An estimated currency exchange rate loss of approximately US$13.9 million was spread across the nine participating countries
and AAU.
Page 62 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Introduction
1. This section provides an economic and financial analysis of the Africa Higher Education Centers of
Excellence Project (ACE I). The analysis provides an overview of the assessment undertaken at
appraisal and examines the efficiency of gains observed over the life cycle of the ACE I. It also includes
an update of the analysis conducted at appraisal using the most recent information, including actual
costs and benefits incurred at project closing.
2. The economic analysis conducted at appraisal focused on five sections to assess the expected
efficiency and benefits of the project. First, the analysis presented the rationale for investment in
higher education and returns to higher education in the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Secondly, the
analysis included a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed project and also assessed economic
efficiencies through changes in outbound and inbound mobility of students. Finally, key financial
indicators for higher education were also analyzed.
3. The first segment of the economic analysis conducted at appraisal for the ACE I Project presented the
benefits associated with higher education graduates in the areas of agriculture, engineering,
mathematics, science, and health; as well as market failures that avert investment in higher education
in SSA. The analysis also presented empirical results on returns to higher education in the participating
countries, which show that acquiring higher education degrees results in higher earnings. Benefits
associated with Component 1—Strengthening Africa Centers of Excellence—were measured using the
benefit-cost methodology and indicated expected Internal Rate of Returns (IRR) at national levels of
3 percent in Burkina-Faso, 30 percent in Cameroon, 28 percent in Ghana, and 15 percent in Nigeria.
These rates closely follow the labor market returns across all sectors of the economy. The last segment
of the analysis focused on a financial analysis, which demonstrated that the investment into the
typical ACE I center represents a small portion of the public expenditure on higher education. It was
expected that ACE expenditures would represent, in a given year of the project, approximately 5.2
percent of Benin public expenditure in higher education, 2.9 percent of Burkina-Faso, 2.0 percent of
Cameroon, and 0.4 percent of Ghana.
4. In a similar vein, the analysis undertaken following project closure and captured in this
Implementation Completion and Results Report (ICR) includes the following: (i) rates of returns to
higher education in SSA; (ii) contribution of the ACE project to the higher education in SSA; (iii) cost-
benefit analysis; (iv) economic efficiency of implementation and spending; and (v) an assessment of
key financial indicators for higher education.
Page 63 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Economic Context
a. Rational for investing and return to in higher education in SSA
5. As observed at appraisal, private rates of returns in SSA to higher education remains higher than
the returns to primary and secondary education. A study conducted in 2014 by the World Bank
education global practice demonstrated that the average private return to higher education in SSA
(21.0 percent) is higher than those for primary (14.4 percent) and secondary education (10.6 percent).
A similar trend is also observed at national level in the participating countries where public data is
readily available (see Table 1), demonstrating that investing in higher education yields substantial
economic benefits for the youth and society at large in SSA.
Table 1. Returns to schooling by educational level (latest available year)
Countries Primary (%) Secondary (%) Tertiary (%)
SSA 14.4 10.6 21
Ghana 2.7 8.8 28.7
CIV 12.6 12.1 24.9
Senegal 9.8 6.5 21.8
Togo 15 8.2 n/a
Source: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/442521523465644318/pdf/WPS8402.pdf
Data: Ghana (2012), CIV (2008), Senegal (2011), Togo (2011)
6. Despite the higher returns associated with higher education, enrollment rates in the sector in SSA
remains the lowest across the world’s regions with a rate of 9.4 in 2018 (see Table 2). As observed
at appraisal, African countries have successfully increased and maintained high access and enrollment
in primary education and reduced the gap with the rest of the world over the last two decades.
Despite this progress over the last two decades, SSA still lag behind in terms of higher education and
considerable efforts are still needed to reduce the gap and meet the world’s average enrollment rate.
As described in Figure 1 below, the gap in enrollment rate for primary education between SSA region
and the world reduced from 18.47 in 1999 to 2.67 in 2019, while the gap in enrollment rate for higher
education more than doubled over the same timeframe —increasing from 14.55 to 29.41 percent.
Table 2. Enrollment Rates in Higher Education Across the World Regions (2010, 2018)
Country 2010 2018
Arab World 25.1 32.2
Central Europe and the Baltics 68.2 62.5
East Asia & Pacific 28.2 46.6
Europe & Central Asia 61.2 72.0
Latin America & Caribbean 41.3 52.7
Middle East & North Africa 31.4 40.6
North America 89.7 86.5
South Asia 15.8 24.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 7.9 9.4
Source: World Development Indicators Databank, https://databank.worldbank.org/ retrieved January 8, 2021
Page 64 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 1. Evolution of Primary and Higher Education enrollment rate in SSA (1999-2019)
Primary Education enrollment rate Higher Education enrollment rate
Source: World Development Indicators Databank, https://databank.worldbank.org/ retrieved January 8, 2021
7. The number of graduates has increased in SSA since appraisal with some improvement in the share
of graduates in key priority sectors, though the numbers remain low compared to other regions.
The most recent available data for Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroon show an increase in the share
of graduates in key priority sectors. In Benin, the share of graduates in agricultural fields increased
from 0.8 percent in 2009 to 4.7 percent in 2018 and from 3.5 percent in 2010 to 11.3 percent in the
sciences. In Burkina Faso and Ghana, the share of graduates who majored in engineering has more
than tripled for the former and doubled for the latter. An increase has also been observed in health
majors, with an increase in the share of graduates of 4.8 percent in Burkina Faso and 5.6 percent in
Ghana. These trends are very encouraging but numbers remain low when compared to other
economies such as Brazil where the share of graduates in health and engineering is significantly higher
(See Table 3).
Table 3. Percentage of higher education graduates by field of study
Benin Burkina Faso Ghana Brazil
2009 2018 2010 2018 2011 2018 2010 2018
Agriculture 0.8 4.7 1.5 1.4 7.4 1.9 1.8 2.8
Education - 9.8 7.6 1.6 25.6 30.9 22.8 19.1
Engineering, manufacturing and
5.6 4.8 2.8 12.8 3.9 9.0 5.8 13.0
construction
Health and welfare 2.8 3.0 0.6 5.4 3.4 9.0 13.9 16.3
Humanities and arts 14.5 5.2 11.4 2.5 - 8.8 2.2 3.1
Social sciences, business and law 52.5 53.7 55.6 63.5 43.2 32.5 40.2 37.5
Science 3.5 11.3 15 6.9 15.5 4.2 5.5 2.0
Services 7.5 2.8 5.5 5.9 - 0.9 1.7 2.7
Unspecified programs 12.6 .. - 0.1 1.1 .. 5 ..
Total number of graduates* 14,638 14,877 14,782 .. 28,005 67,472 1,024,743 1,226,212
Source: UNESCO UIS, http://stats.uis.unesco.org retrieved January 11,2021.
Notes: - negligible; … missing data; *latest available data from 2015
Page 65 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
b. Contribution of the ACE project to the Higher Education
8. ACE I supported several activities to improve access to quality higher education in key priority
sectors (including STEM, Agriculture and Health) for SSA region with focus on promoting
recruitment regional and female students. Overall, a total of 30,821 PhDs, master’s and Professional
short courses have been enrolled in all of the 22 centers during the course of the project. Out of these
students enrolled, 9, 480 are regional students and 8,271 are female students. At national level, these
results represent a substantial share of postgraduate enrollment at the centers’ host universities.
Figure 2 presents master’s and PhD enrollment under ACE I as share of postgraduate enrollment in
host universities for participating countries with data available per university. Data shows that for the
academic year 2017/2018, ACEs in Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal represented more than 20 percent of
postgraduate enrollment in some of the key field of studies. Ghana ACEs are more prolific and
represent 26 percent of STEM and 21 percent of health enrollment in their host universities. Shares
are lower in Côte d’Ivoire with 11 percent in STEM and 13 percent in agriculture. A broader analysis
also shows that ACEs in all four countries represent 7-12 percent of postgraduate total enrollment in
their host universities. By level of education, share of ACEs is higher for PhD enrollment with Ghana
ACEs enrollment representing 16% of their host universities PhD enrollment.
Figure 2: ACEs master’s and PhD enrollment as share of postgraduate enrollment in ACE I host
universities
Sources: World Bank calculations using 2018 data on ACE I results, country Data on Enrollment and UNESCO UIS.
Notes: Data for Nigeria were given as an aggregate postgraduate enrollment. Thus, PhD and Master
enrollment estimated using share of all students in tertiary education enrolled in ISCED 7 (Master level or
equivalent) and in ISCED 8 (PhD level or equivalent)
* Nigeria: Data on Students enrolled in Agriculture and Health major not available; ** Senegal: No centers in
Agriculture under ACE I; *** Côte d’Ivoire: No centers in Health under ACE I
Page 66 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
9. ACE I centers fostered international and intraregional collaboration and networking within SSA
through the publication of more than 2,500 research articles over the project lifecycle. According to
the ACE Research Publications report issued in 2019, a total of 2,593 research articles on diverse
topics7 were published by the 22 ACE I centers. STEM-related ACEs were most prolific with more than
half of all ACEs' publications, followed by Health centers with 24 percent and then Agriculture with 20
percent. Differences observed across the three subject areas may be due to variation in output
volume between subject areas and also to the numbers of centers in each area (10 STEM related
centers, 6 health and 6 agriculture centers). Data from the report also indicates strong intraregional
collaboration with at least 8 percent of the publications involving regional collaboration. This
achievement is only second to Europe which understandably has a stronger research network.
Moreover, results from the report demonstrate high quality and substantial impact of the research
output of under the ACE I project. Altogether, the centers recorded 47,749 citations with a significant
share (19%) being in the top 10 percent cited journals. Also, the analysis of the field-weighted citation
impact (FWCI) shows that all ACEs aggregated show an FWCI of 1.06, which is higher than the world
average8. This score followed leading regions America (1.3) and Europe (1.2) but surpasses the FWCI
for Africa and Asia (see Table 4).
Table 4. Bibliometric indicators for ACEs and comparators
ACE or Scholarly Citations Publications in Publications in FWCI
benchmark Output top 10% cited top 1% cited
journals journals
Europe 6,876,817 77,760,731 1,628,377 160,466 1.18
America 5,929,217 80,081,175 1,755,345 226,990 1.34
All ACE 3,421 47,749 658 98 1.06
Africa 515,775 4,173,527 67,363 4,532 0.96
Asia 7,731,706 61,034,263 1,118,093 86,997 0.87
Source: ACE Research Publication Report, 2019
7 Research topics under ACE I can be grouped into the three thematic areas of Health, Agriculture, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics).
8 Field-weighted citation impact is an indicator of mean citation impact and compares the actual number of citations received by an article with
the expected number of citations for articles of the same document type (article, review or conference proceeding), publication year and subject
field. Where the article is classified in two or more subject fields, the average (or harmonic mean) of the actual and expect ed citation rates is
used. The indicator is therefore always defined with reference to a global baseline of 1.0 and intrinsically accounts for differences in citation
accrual over time, differences in citation rates for different document types (reviews typically attract more citations than research articles, for
example), as well as subject-specific differences in citation frequencies. It is one of the most sophisticated indicators in the modern bibliometric.
Page 67 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Cost Benefit Analysis
a. Economic analysis of Components I
10. Similar to the economic analysis conducted at appraisal, this section presents a cost-benefit analysis
of Component 1, Strengthening capacity of selected universities, of the project. As indicated at
appraisal, Component 1 accounts for the largest quantifiable portion (72 percent) of the project’s total
investment with the purpose of improving the labor market outcomes from students in target
universities. Component 2 – Enhancing Regional Capacity, Evaluation and Collaboration is less easily
quantifiable. The main objective of Component 2 is to facilitate effective implementation of
Component 1 and, hence, the benefits of the Component 2 portion are embodied in the benefits of
the Component 1 portion. The economic feasibility of the study is examined through the calculation
of an IRR and the Net Present Value (NPV). Calculations used aggregated data for SSA countries.
Project benefits and cost
11. This analysis considered beneficiaries represented by regional and national students enrolled in ACE
I centers’ programs. External revenues generated by the all 22 centers are also considered in the
estimation of project benefits. The total number of students benefitting from the project equals to
the number of regional students enrolled and reported by the centers during project implementation.
In terms of cost, the analysis considered total project costs which are comprised of the total allocation
to each participating center.
12. A challenge in calculating both private and social returns to education is the difficulty in objectively
measuring the benefits of higher education. Following a similar approach used at appraisal, benefits
in this analysis were also measured by earnings, a proxy for productivity, but it does not quantify in
monetary terms the improvements in the quality of life of the graduates, mobility, and ability of
individuals to re-skilled themselves later in life. In calculating social returns to education, it is difficult
to capture longer-terms benefits associated with an improved supply of graduates with higher
education such as improved economic growth linked to investing in human capital, a workforce better
able to adapt technologies that help countries catch-up faster, and investments made possible from
higher savings. Consequently, the benefits calculated in this cost-benefit analysis are restricted to
salaries only, and disregard a number of externalities such as the impact of graduates on co-workers,
productivity improvements, innovation, etc.
Assumptions
13. The analysis is done for all the Centers of Excellence and is based on the actual number of students
enrolled in these centers . For these individuals, the private rates of return are calculated using the
assumptions listed below. The benefits are then multiplied by the number of expected graduates 9
from ACE I centers’ programs to calculate the cost-benefit analysis estimation.
1. Opportunity cost—the loss of productive capacity measured as the loss of
earnings for individuals that enroll for graduate studies in the Centers of Excellence.
9 Data collected by project only capture enrolled students, number of students who graduated from the program is estimated using graduation
rate from ACE I graduate tracer studies and survey.
Page 68 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
The calculation of opportunity costs assumes that students would not be idle or
unemployed if they were not enrolled in education.
2. Discount rate— assumed discount rate of 12 percent based on literature on
discount rates that suggest a range of 8 to 12 percent for developing countries. Base
scenario is done with a rate of 12 percent and the sensitivity analysis is done with
discount rate of 15 percent.
3. Inflation rate— inflation is assumed to be zero, so that the wage-experience
profiles estimated at one point can be used to calculate life-time wage experience
profiles for graduates.
4. Graduates salaries—it is assumed that the salary of the graduate does not vary
from year to year.
5. Benefits—benefits are calculated using the differences in the life-stream of both
the treatment and control groups attributable to higher education.
6. Retirement age—it is assumed that individuals work until they are 60 years-old.
7. Regularity of lectures and courses – it is considered that all lectures and courses
have been delivered on a regular basis because very minor interruption such as
faculty strike have been experienced during ACE I project implementation and no
delays in the academic calendar have been reported.
14. The Cost-Benefit Analysis demonstrates a strong and convincing investment decision under the
project. Table 5 presents the Cost-Benefit Analysis Calculations of the IRRs and NPVs for the largest
quantifiable portion of the project’s total investment under two scenarios (base case and lower
bound). Results show that the project was economically viable. The present discounted value of
benefits for the overall project is estimated to be US$158.2 million and the corresponding NPV of
project benefits is US$ 49.5 million. The IRR associated with this NPV is 32 percent. Overall, the cost-
benefit ratio estimated that for every US$1 invested there is a return of US$2.03. This rate of return
falls within the estimation conducted at appraisal (estimated IRR ranged from 3 percent in Burkina-
Faso to 18 percent in Nigeria and 32 percent in Cameroon). Additionally, the IRR (32 percent) is higher
than the discount rate of 12 percent and the benefit-cost ratio of 2:1, demonstrate strong evidence
of the efficiency of investments undertaken under the ACE I project.
15. The sensitivity analysis relaxes the base-case discount rate to explore the IRR under different
scenarios. The sensitivity analysis was conducted assuming a more conservative discount rate of 15
percent. Under the assumptions adopted in this scenario, it is estimated that the project generates a
present discounted value of benefits of US$127.3 million (corresponding NPV is US$ 18.6) and yields
an IRR of 16 percent. This IRR remains above the lower-bound discount rate of 15 percent. These
results demonstrate that the project will still generate positive returns even under narrow
conservative assumptions, and for each dollar invested in the project, US$1.76 will be generated in
benefits.
Page 69 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Table 5. NPV and IRR for Component 1
Discount rate 12% 15%
IRR 32% 16%
Discounted cost (present value of costs) $77.85 $72.29
Present value of benefits $158.21 $127.30
NPV $49.50 $18.60
Benefit/cost ratio 2.03 1.76
Sources: World Bank calculations
b. Economic Efficiencies
16. Under the ACE I project, several activities were supported to improve regional mobility of students,
peer-to-peer learning, and faculty exchanges. These set of activities; which promote adequate
educational opportunities in the region and minimize brain-drain; contribute to the higher education
sector’s immediate goals. Hence, capturing the internal efficiency which is concerned with the
maximization of the relationship between the inputs and outputs. Studies show that key factors
affecting mobility of students in the region include education access and quality, employment
opportunities and international recognition of qualification. Under the ACE I project, activities to
promote regional mobility and collaboration included recruit foreign students, programs
accreditations, organization of students and faculty internships, and collaboration with key industry
partners. Despite the slow performance at beginning, the project demonstrates strong results and full
achievement of project target (minimum is 30 percent) in terms of regional mobility of students by
end of project (see Figure 3). These results show that more than 9,300 regional students have been
enrolled in the 22 centers by project closing, representing 30 percent of total enrollment. It is
worthwhile to note that professional short course students represent more than half of the regional
students, while master’s students represent 37 percent and PhD students 6 percent. This trend was
principally caused by the higher cost of training for PhD and master’s programs.
17. With this focus on regionalization of higher education, the ACE I project facilitated mobility of
student in the region. Analysis of student’s mobility patterns at appraisal indicated that the outbound
mobility ratio was significantly larger than the inbound mobility rates in some of the participating
countries, especially for Burkina Faso and Cameroon. Latest data on these ratios, demonstrated that
the gap has substantially reduced with highest drop in Burkina Faso and Cameroon (See Table 6).
Page 70 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 3. Total Number of Regional Students Enrolled in ACEs
Regional Students Actual vs Target Percentage of Regional Students per year
4,000 124% 150%
(Compared to project target of 30%)
70%
3,000 81% 60%
100%
50%
2,000 49% 54%
40%
50% 30%
1,000 20%
10%
0 0% 0%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Total number of enrolled regional students (Target)
Total number of enrolled regional students (Progress Percentage of Regional Students per year (Compared to
toward Target) project target of 30%)
Total number of enrolled regional students (Actual) Project target of 30%
Source: World Bank calculations using data on ACE I results from The World Bank ACE Team, 2019.
Table 6. Student Mobility Patterns in Participating ACE countries
Inbound mobility rate, both Outbound mobility ratio, all
Countries/Mobility
sexes (%) regions, both sexes (%)
Indicators
2011 2018 2011 2018
Benin .. 4.50 4.57 5.66
Burkina Faso 3.59 2.72 6.65 5.46
Cameroon 1.39 2.81 9.83 7.91
Côte d'Ivoire 1.90 2.17 14.61 ..
Ghana 2.0 2.25 3.55 3.60
Nigeria .. .. 3.77 ..
Senegal 6.93 7.81 10.10 7.51
Togo .. .. 7.85 6.72
Source: UNESCO UIS, http://stats.uis.unesco.org retrieved January 11,2021.
Notes: … missing data
18. In terms of quality of education, the ACE I project also demonstrated strong results and achieved the
project’s objective of improving the quality of training in the centers and raising the profile of
academic programs. All the 22 centers obtained international accreditation for at least one of their
academic programs. A total of 61 master’s and PhD programs have been obtained accreditations by
project closing and were received from prominent agencies including the Royal Society of Biology
(UK), Agency for Quality Assurance through Accreditation of Study Programs (AQAS, Germany), the
High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (HCERES, France), CTI-Engineering
Degree Commission (France), Agency for Public Health Education Accreditation (APHEA, Belgium) and
the International Organization for Standardization (IOS). In terms of relevance of education, the ACE
I project has also achieved substantial results with more than 6,200 students and faculty undertaking
Page 71 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
internships in relevant local and international institutions despite the low results recorded during the
first years of project implementation. Moreover, analysis of the data showed that even though the
overall project targets for this result was fully achieved, few centers did not meet their targets.
19. The project contributed to improving the productivity in priority economic sectors in SSA region.
The project impacted the supply of qualified faculty through a range of activities focused on faculty
improvement, including faculty training, faculty exchange and outreach programs. The ACE I Project
demonstrates significant results and impact with 3,573 faculty trained by the ACEs. Results on faculty
outreach were conversely lower with 273 faculty who undertook internships under the project.
Although this result is low, it represents a significant increase from the baseline of 23 considering SSA
context where for most countries this was novel.
Table 7. Number of Regional and National Faculty Trained in the ACE I Project
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Regional 16 77 67 163 278 56
National 105 437 534 969 539 332
Female 31 116 172 223 296 87
Male 90 398 429 909 521 301
TOTAL 121 514 601 1,132 817 388
Source: World Bank calculations using data on ACE I Project results from The World Bank ACE Team, 2019.
20. The ACE I project contributed to improving the financing systems of the participating universities.
The project supported activities focused on learning the ACEs and their host universities how to
generate external revenue. These activities included recruitment of foreign students, research
collaboration and consultancies and impacted the sustainability of the centers and their host
universities. This ability to generate revenues complements government efforts and help to sustain
the transformational change that ACE engenders. To date, over US$51.7 million (from a baseline of
US$0.9 million) in revenue has been generated through the implementation of the ACE I Project.
However, a closer analysis per center shows that only 8 centers out of the 22 recorded high
performance with the STEM and health centers leading (See Figure 4).
Figure 4. External Revenue Generated by ACEs
Source: World Bank calculations using data on ACE I Project results from The World Bank ACE Team, 2019.
Page 72 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Cost-effectiveness Analysis
21. On average, ACE I has a lower public PhD unit cost compared to other public programs for the same
quality of output, highlighting the cost efficiency of the program. On average, the ACE I PhD unit cost
is $7,668.20, with an average cost of $6,339.12 for national students and $8,997.28 for regional. The
average variance between national and regional PhD unit costs is $2,658.28, with a minimum cost of
$2,786 (CERHI, national) and a maximum cost of $16,850 (WACCBIP, regional). All ACE I public PhD
unit costs are lower than PASET-RSIF and the RUFORUM programs. The annual PhD unit cost of the
PASET – RSIF programs is $28,558, averaging the costs of the AHU/KIST, WPI, and SNU/GBST
programs. The RUFORUM annual PhD unit cost is $21,666.67. These unit costs mainly reflect student
tuition and associated research fees. Table 1 summarizes the unit cost comparison, showcasing that
the ACE I program is more cost effective than comparable programs.
Table 8. Average Annual Unit Cost
ACE I PASET – RSIF RUFORUM
PhD $7,668.20 $28,558 $21,666.67
Master’s $5,474.08 N/A N/A
Efficiency of implementation
a. Achievement of DLIs achievements
22. Overall, the ACE I centers’ performance in terms of proportion of results achieved was substantial
with 98 percent of funds disbursed by project closing (See Table 9). A close analysis of performance
at country level shows that all countries (except for Senegal with 86 percent) have achieved of at least
92 percent. Togo has achieved 100 percent of all the DLRs followed by Burkina Faso with 99 percent,
and Nigeria and Cameroon with 98 percent. In terms of achievement by type of DLR, all
centers/countries have achieved 100 percent of DLRs 1 on institutional readiness, 2.2 and 2.3 on
master’s and PhD students enrollment and 2.6 on research publication. The lowest performance
recorded by the centers was 80 percent for DLR 2.4 on internships. This was principally due to a
number of factors, including lack of comprehension of the indicator definition, scarcity of internships
opportunities from highly specialized subject areas, and the absence of related industries within the
participating countries and in the region. Part of the initial internships results reported were deemed
ineligible due to the issues associated with the DLR’s definition. However, clarifications and guidan ce
were provided to the centers to help improve their results and performance. Besides DLR 2.4 on
internships where centers recorded the lowest performance with 80 percent of results achieved,
centers have achieved 93-98 percent of all the other DLRs.
Page 73 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Table 9. Assessment of ACE I DLIs and DLRs achievement over project life cycle
TOTAL TOTAL PERCENTAGE EARNED PER DLR
TOTAL
COUNTRY ACE AMOUNT EARNE DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR DLR
ALLOCATION
EARNED D (%) 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3 4
Benin CEA-SMA 5,300,000 4,973,450 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 41% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100%
Burkina
2iE 5,200,000 5,157,100 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88%
Faso
Cameroon CETIC 3,775,750 3,682,304 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 71% 75%
Togo CERSA 5,200,000 5,200,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
KNUST 5,200,000 5,187,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Ghana WACCBIP 5,200,000 4,633,655 89% 100% 84% 90% 100% 17% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75%
WACCI 5,200,000 4,560,725 88% 100% 100% 37% 100% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75%
TOTAL/AVERAGE 15,600,000 14,381,380 92% 100% 95% 75% 100% 45% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83%
ACEGID 5,600,000 5,440,525 97% 100% 100% 35% 100% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
ACENTDFB 3,100,000 3,005,450 97% 100% 100% 90% 98% 40% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
ACEPRD 5,100,000 4,784,297 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100%
CEADESE 3,400,000 3,400,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CEFOR 3,660,000 3,652,500 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Nigeria
CEFTER 4,500,000 4,500,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CERHI 3,600,000 3,600,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CDA 5,260,000 5,260,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
OAU-OAK 4,500,000 4,500,000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PAMI 5,100,000 4,732,800 93% 100% 100% 99% 100% 36% 100% 100% 100% 100% 84% 100%
TOTAL/AVERAGE 43,820,000 42,875,572 98% 100% 100% 92% 100% 85% 100% 100% 95% 100% 98% 100%
CEA-
6,500,000 5,280,160 81% 100% 57% 100% 100% 41% 100% 100% 28% 100% 81% 75%
MITIC
Senegal
CEA-
3,900,000 3,574,450 92% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 81% 75%
SAMEF
TOTAL/AVERAGE 10,400,000 8,854,610 86% 100% 78% 96% 100% 71% 100% 100% 64% 88% 81% 75%
CCBAD 4,755,780 4,609,879 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 69% 100%
Cote
CEA-MEM 4,127,658 3,492,349 85% 100% 58% 100% 100% 100% 63% 100% 73% 75% 100% 100%
d'Ivoire
ENSEA 3,140,610 3,110,331 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 75%
TOTAL/AVERAGE 12,024,048 11,212,559 94% 100% 86% 100% 100% 97% 88% 100% 91% 92% 85% 92%
AVERAGE 95% 100% 95% 93% 100% 80% 98% 100% 93% 98% 94% 93%
Source: World Bank Project Documents
b. Project Disbursements
23. A total amount of US$148.7 was disbursed out of the US$ 158.2 million allocated to the project as
of September 2020 for Cote d’Ivoire and March 2020 for all other countries. This corresponds to a
disbursement rate of 98 percent. As illustrated in Table 10 below, disbursement rate remains steady and
constant throughout project implementation with the rate increasing every year. The low disbursement
rate at the beginning of the project (2 percent in 2014) was principally due to delays in the effectiveness
of the project caused by parliamentary approval delays and funds flow challenges in the project. However,
consistent support and supervision helped resolved these challenges and ensure smooth flows of the
funds throughout the project life cycle. Also, the two project restructurings, which included a project
extension from December 31, 2019 to March 31, 2020 in eight of the participating countries and to
September 30, 2020 for the Additional Financing in Cote d’Ivoire helped make up for these delays. In
addition, though the restructurings included a fund reallocation across ACEs in Nigeria and Senegal, a
partial cancellation in Cameroon and a reallocation of unallocated funds in Cote d’Ivoire, annual
disbursements remained substantially good with disbursement surpassing projections in 2015 and 2017.
Page 74 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
It also is important to note that the total amount disbursed have been 100 percent committed and all
advances have been documented by all countries by project closing. These positive results show that the
main activities under ACE I project have been efficiently implemented. Finally, the project is a results-
based financing project, where upon achievement of the DLIs, the disbursement was processed by the
Bank against a set of Eligible Expenditure Program (EEP). These EEPs were discussed and agreed upon and
at each submission of the IFR were presented. The EEPs were equivalent to the disbursements made by
the project.
Table 10. Cumulative Disbursement of the US$ 148.7 million over project life cycle
PAD Original amount Revised Add. Financing Revised Restructuring
Total Disbursement
150,000,000 165,000,000 158,150,000
Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Initial Projected
-
(Annual) 10,000,000 30,000,000 60,000,000 97,000,000 137,000,000 150,000,000
Revised Projected
- -
(Annual) 10,000,000 38,000,000 22,000,000 40,000,000 42,000,000
Actual (Annual) 3,423,654 18,603,436 24,476,603 35,115,142 29,395,142 28,308,264 9,372,424
Actual (Cumulative) 3,423,654 22,027,090 46,503,692 81,618,834 111,013,976 139,322,240 148,694,664
Disbursement rate 2% 15% 28% 49% 70% 87% 98%
Source: World Bank Project Documents
23. A close analysis of the disbursement trends by country shows some variations in terms of
disbursement level between participating countries (See Table 10). Although there is a high
disbursement rate under the project, there were variations across countries over the years, with
constant high levels of disbursement in Burkina Faso, Ghana, The Gambia and Nigeria. Constant
support were provided through dedicated sessions and regional workshop to address specific issues
in countries/centers with lower disbursement. This support helped accelerate their performances and
improve disbursement rate during project implementation. As shown in Table 10, seven out of the
nine participating countries achieved 100 percent disbursement rate while disbursement rate is 93
percent in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. It is worthwhile noting that the project in Cote d’Ivoire start in
2016 as an additional financing to the ACE I project.
Table 11. Disbursement under ACE project by country (%)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
GAMBIA 25% 49% 72% 93% 100% 100%
NIGERIA 12% 31% 50% 57% 95% 100%
SENEGAL 21% 21% 27% 47% 73% 100%
BURKINA FASO 21% 31% 49% 75% 91% 100%
BENIN 9% 21% 31% 44% 73% 100%
CAMEROON 22% 22% 22% 31% 69% 100%
GHANA 10% 24% 60% 72% 88% 93%
TOGO 21% 21% 26% 40% 84% 100%
COTE D'IVOIRE 0% 12% 19% 26% 68% 93%
Source: World Bank Project Documents
Page 75 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
c. Funds utilization
24. The fund utilization10 consistently improved over the project life cycle and reached 80 percent (on
average) as at June 2020. This fund utilization data is based on the Interim Financial Reports (IFRs)
submitted between January 2019 and August 2020. The top three performing countries with rate over
95 percent are Togo, Burkina Faso and Ghana. Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire have the lowest rate with
60 percent and 56 percent, respectively. It is worthwhile noting that fund utilization rates have
increased significantly over the last year of project implementation due to the final expenditures on
large purchases of equipment as well as rehabilitation and civil works of the project to improve the
learning environment of the centers, especially for centers in Senegal, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon..
On average, 90 percent of the funds received by all 22 centers have been used as at August 2020 with
12 centers reaching the 100 percent (over 100 percent mainly due to exchange rate). This shows that
centers continuously ensured full implementation and utilization of the resources gained under
project. Though fund utilization rate is a key indicator to capture efficiency of implementation, it is
also important to consider the percentage of result achieved in the analysis to evaluate if all the funds
were efficiently utilized during project implementation. As shown in Figure 5 below, all centers with
a fund utilization rate of at least 72 percent (15 out of 22 centers) have achieved more than 80 percent
of results achieved (with 7 centers achieving 100 percent).
Figure 5. Implementation Progress per Center
Source: World Bank Project Documents
10 Rate at which ACEs have used funds over the funds allocated and disbursed to them.
Page 76 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Financial and Institutional sustainability
25. As estimated at appraisal, the cost of an ACE represents a small portion of the public expenditure
on higher education. Following the same approach from the economic analysis conducted at
appraisal and using actual cost of the ACEs per country at project closing the average cost per center
in each participating country have been estimated over four years. Results show that an ACE only
represents less that 1 percent of public expenditure in higher education in a given year for most of
the participating countries, 1.63 percent for Benin and 4.51 percent for Togo (See Table 12). When
compared with the analysis conducted at appraisal which included Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon
and Ghana, these countries (except for Ghana) are much lower than share estimated at appraisal. This
is mainly due to significant increase in public expenditure on higher education which more than
doubled in Benin and Burkina Faso. In Cameroon however, this lower share could mainly be associated
with the total fund allocation reduction completed at midterm-review.
Table 12. Key Financial Indicators for Higher Education
Burkina Côte
Country/Indicators Benin Faso Cameroon d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Senegal Togo
At Project Closing
Government expenditure on
2.93 5.38 3.13 3.26 3.99 .. 4.83 5.37
education as a % of GDP (%)
Government expenditure on tertiary
0.70* 1.52++ .. 0.46 0.82** .. 1.58 0.89+
education as a % of GDP (%)
GDP, current US$ (millions) 14,251 16,060 58,011 38,694 65,557 397,191 23,236 5,364
Expenditure on tertiary education
(% of government expenditure on 22.15* 13.653* 14.03+ 10.21*** 18.27** .. 32.8 17.74+
education)
Government expenditure on tertiary
80.03* 194.51++ 91.42*** 263.66 440.25** .. 368.82 42.67+
education, US$ (millions)
Total funds used under ACE I (all
centers), US$ (millions) 5.22 7.43 3.48 7.34 20.77 42.68 11.83 7.70
Average annual funds used under
ACE I (per centers), US$ (millions) 1.31 1.86 0.87 0.61 1.73 1.07 1.48 1.93
ACE I center’s cost as share of
public expenditure on higher
education 1.63% 0.95% 0.95% 0.23% 0.39% … 0.40% 4.51%
At Project Appraisal
Government expenditure on tertiary
education as a percentage of GDP,
US$ (millions) 38.19 68.61 100.92 … 564.48 … … …
ACE (US$ 2 million) as share of
public expenditure on higher
education 5% 3% 2% … 0.40% … … …
Source: UNESCO UIS, http://stats.uis.unesco.org retrieved on January 12, 2021.
Notes: … missing data + 2017 ++ 2016 * 2015 ** 2014 *** 2013
Page 77 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Efficiency Rating
26. The project demonstrated strong efficiency in investments undertaken during implementation with
IRR higher than discounted rate (also falling within the range of IRR estimated at appraisal) and with
NPV of the largest quantifiable benefits greater than the NPV costs. The project also demonstrated
very strong implementation efficiency with 95 percent of the DLIs achieved, 98 percent of the funds
disbursed. Furthermore, substantial internal and external efficiency gains (substantial contribution to
Master and PhD enrollments in participating countries) were observed over the project’s life cycle
with all PDO indicators successfully achieving and exceeding their targets. These significant
achievements bring the efficiency rating at High. However, considering the project restructuring
which included an extension of closing date, a partial cancellation (less than 2 percent of total project
cost) in Cameroon to ensure effective use of the project financing and funds reallocations in some of
the participating countries, the project’s overall efficiency is rated Substantial.
Page 78 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
1. This ICR was prepared during the period when restrictions on travel and gatherings were in place due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Borrower ICR was prepared by the Association of African Universities with
contributions from all nine participating countries. As part of the last ACE regional workshop in Abuja,
Nigeria in February 2020, just before the onset of COVID-19, stakeholders and beneficiaries at the closing
of the project shared the project achievement, challenges lesson learned and ensured strong knowledge
transfer between the ACE I project and newly approved ACE for Development Impact Project.
2. A comprehensive borrower completion report was prepared by the AAU and finalized following the
closure of the last loan on September 30, 2020. Specifically, the World Bank received the ACE Project
own project completion report on October 2020 and archived it in World Bank Docs for reference and
information.
3. Additionally, extensive consultations with the stakeholders involved in the implementation of the project
were held. These consultations sought to assess the project performance from the viewpoint of the
beneficiaries. This information gathering was facilitated through online surveys, focus group discussions
and virtual interviews. This annex summarizes the feedback from the various stakeholders consulted
during preparation of the ICR. Groups consulted during the ICR included 19 out of the 22 Center leaders,
(ii) 9 Vice Chancellors (iii) faculty (iv) 17 ACE partners and (v) 18 ACE graduates. Additionally, surveys with
an estimated 100 faculty and students were also conducted
Summary of ACE Graduate Focus Groups
4. Six focus groups consulting a total of 18 ACE graduates from ten centers were conducted. This was
supplemented with data from a short questionnaire circulated to graduates to help arrange the focus
groups, which received 29 complete responses. Main findings are summarized below.
• Improvements in Program Quality at ACE Institutions
5. Graduates of ACE institutions unanimously reported that they benefitted from improved infrastructure
and equipment at their respective institutions. Graduates considered that their facilities were better than
what was on offer at other institutions in their home countries, and in some cases that these facilities
could be considered world-class. However, some graduates felt that equipment or materials were still
lacking relative to international standards. Some graduates also reported experiencing issues with living
conditions in student housing at ACE institutions – though there were indications that such issues were
subsequently addressed.
6. Graduates of ACE institutions reported that ACEs offered better environments, better equipment, more
international opportunities, and so forth relative to other institutions in the region. Some graduates
indicated that faculty were especially engaged during their ACE experiences. These graduates had more
opportunities to operate autonomously in the ACE context and focus on their specific area of interest.
For example, one graduate indicated that they conducted a broader array of research tasks at their ACE
than they would have otherwise, such as recruiting research participants, sample storage, etc.
Page 79 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
7. Graduates remarked that unlike many regular university programs they completed their degrees on time.
Many graduates expressed gratitude to have been able to study at an ACE, relative to other learning
opportunities that might have been available to them. Yet, the most significant quality concern from
graduates related to delays in obtaining final transcripts.
• Applied Learning at ACE Institutions and Student Internships
8. Most ACE graduates in the focus groups, though not all, considered their ACE institutions to have been
very applied environments, strongly oriented towards helping African societies to tackle concrete
problems. Very few indicated that their ACE institutions were more theoretically oriented. One benefit,
reported by graduates, is to make research work matter beyond one’s own training, which is in turn
motivating.
9. The value of internships was very clear from the comments of graduates in focus groups. Many appeared
to identify this as among the most valuable components of their programs. Typically, the message was
that internships helped graduates to understand how their scientific work translates in the field.
10. Other benefits reported by graduates included learning about rural communities and cultures (and
languages), impetus for completing theses, as well as close mentorship and network-building. Multiple
graduates indicated that they were still benefitting from connections made during their internships.
Internships that involved travel, either nationally or internationally, seemed to offer added value for
graduates.
11. However, some graduates in focus groups also emphasised the need for more support from ACEs to help
them find work after graduation. Others argued that ACEs could arrange for them to have internships
after their graduation, in their home countries in the case of regional students.
• Regional Aspects of ACE
12. Graduates consistently reported that the regional dimension of ACE added value to their studies. They
benefitted from studying with peers and faculty from other countries, or from studying elsewhere in the
region in the case of regional students. Graduates took advantage of differences in training and skillsets
and appreciated simply learning about other cultures and developing an international network. Some
related recommendations from graduates were to provide more opportunities for students to travel and
learn internationally, and to bring in more international faculty. One regional student also recommended
improved orientation of new students, based on observations studying in Europe.
• Financial Support for ACE Students
13. ACE graduates indicated that they received scholarships, and then funds for publishing, for research
travel and for attending conferences. Students reported that expanding student financial aid further
would help to strengthen the ACEs.
• Student Academic Publications
14. Graduates in focus groups were generally very positive regarding the publication’s element of the project.
They noted how it was a value-add for their degree, and critically facilitated through ACE financing. Some
had returned after their studies to academic roles and indicated that they were now leading in publishing
among their colleagues – one had earned a prize from their institution as a promising young faculty
Page 80 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
member. Others indicated that they had been invited to conferences because of their publications. Some
were still working with their ACEs on publications.
• Early Indications of Graduate Activities
15. The majority of graduates expressed a strong preference for working in their home countries after
graduation. For many, this was because they had opportunities in their home countries following their
degrees, such as promotions from their previous employers, different kinds of recognitions, and
opportunities to do work that could have real-world impact (for instance in combatting infectious
diseases). With such opportunities, interviewees expressed interest to stay in country or region. Most
indicated that the majority of their peers felt the same. Most of those who indicated some willingness to
move elsewhere did so because they were having difficulties finding opportunities. A few interviewees
indicated that studying outside of your home country, if not on a study leave, could be disadvantageous
because of lack of contacts when trying to find work afterwards. This should be a point of concern for a
regional project.
Summary of ACE Partner Interviews
16. As part of the ICR beneficiary stakeholder consultations, 17 short interviews were conducted with
partners of eight ACEs, including 11 non-academic partners and six academic partners. The non-academic
partners included four private sector representatives, six international NGO representatives and one
public sector representative.
• ACE Student Internship Sites
17. The partners who were consulted, and who had hosted interns, reflected motivations in line with ACE
project intentions. Some partners spoke of applying the skills of students to resolve real-world problems,
but many focused more on providing high quality lear ning experiences and supporting ACE’s further
development. These partners wanted to invest in developing students, building up the future of their
countries, and perhaps their own workforces. During interviews, one partner expressed the following
(paraphrased):
We work with the students on a daily basis to look at case studies from other sources. We make
sure the students are working with committee members, and give them opportunities to see
measurements done, participate in doing measurements and analysis, and participate in the
engineering design of interventions. Every Thursday, we sit down with students and interact on
different issues of interest for their projects.
18. Another described a similar process of joint reflection on challenges and brainstorming solutions. They
involved their interns in the following process (again paraphrased):
Recently there was a hike in soy and maize prices. Together with our interns, we looked at
replacements that could change the composition of feed to reduce production costs so farmers
earn better profits. We ended up creating locally a product called REDACTED that was milled and
distributed to farmers. Interns played an important role in this, participating in every part of the
activity.
19. ACE partners interviewed also reported challenges for internships, arguably affecting the quality of
placements. These relate notably to whether internships are sufficiently long and if circumstances, such
Page 81 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
as transportation and accommodation, would allow for students to make the most of their internships.
For example, one partner interviewed was located at a distance far from their partner ACE institution
and could not provide accommodation, which meant students could only be on-site for part of the week.
For some days when it would be important to have interns, the partner might have to pay interns to
come in. The partner felt that they still offered a high-quality experience, but they were exploring
providing intern accommodations in the future. A similar resource-related issue for another partner was
that they might not be able to transport interns to complete their tasks on dispersed sites. Lastly, one
partner indicated that at times supervising internships was a challenge given staff’s other responsibilities,
and that they might be taking on interns in excess of their carrying capacity. These challenges led the
interviewee to suggest that logistical arrangements for internships with their partner ACE institution
might need improvement.
• ACE International Partners
20. Two ACE partners from North American universities both reported that the ACEs were conducting
research at a very high level. One further remarked that the productivity of their ACE partner was
admirable and that they did not leave anything unpublished, whereas this Western researcher had
considerable data unpublished. These comments were in regard to an ACE institution that was a modest
performer in terms of publications, as reported by Elsevier.
• Regional Academic Partners
21. Regional partnerships showed to be bringing forth several opportunities. Some experiences are detailed
below:
o 2iE partnership with a university in Ghana focused on irrigation and water studies which led to the
Ghanaian university submitting one of the best proposals for ACE Impact and this reflected the
efforts of and lessons learned from 2iE. This was similar to other experiences where ACEs have
supported the development of new centers under ACE I’s successor project.
o In another case, a regional institution had a longstanding relationship with an ACE institution’s
home university, which was formalised through the ACE project. The partner was therefore
included in the ACE institution’s initial application as a partner, and ultimately received various
pedagogical and research materials under the program; in addition to participating in exchanges
and sharing support to train doctorates at the ACE. Benefits included obtaining better quality
equipment than they could have obtained otherwise, and developing contacts with additional
partners, including through participation in the ACE regional meetings. In the future, the university
hoped to develop a doctoral program with the support of their ACE partner.
o Another institutional partner reported working with a regional ACE in a number of ways. Firstly,
they were regularly sending faculty to complete postgraduate degrees at the ACE (with the faculty
allowed to use the sending institution’s facilities for research), which was supporting the partner
institution’s efforts to become more research intensive and offer m ore advanced degrees.
Secondly, the two entities were delivering short courses together – with the ACE sending
instructors.
o The two representatives from regional higher education institutions that were collaborating with
ACEs on the delivery of short courses emphasised that the courses greatly expanded what they
were able to do on their own, notably by recruiting participants from Francophone countries and
educators to deliver the courses who they would have been unable to recruit otherwise.
o Finally, a regional university partner to an ACE indicated that their collaboration with an ACE
Page 82 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
allowed them to do research they could not have otherwise done, leading to publications. The
partner was eager to continue their collaboration.
• ACE Partnerships with International NGOs
22. Interviews with international non-governmental organizations reflected a number of successful
partnerships.
o In one case, an ACE led a multi-country project’s component in the relevant country. The project
was seeking to bring a new method of maize agronomy to scale, including through testing a mobile
phone application. The ACE researchers included PhD students who received scholarships, as well
as master’s students. The ACE researchers managed everything from running field experiments
and analysing results, to implementing a large household survey, to additional stakeholder
engagement. The ACE institution also conducted soil sampling for a related project. The partner
indicated that this was one of the best partnerships it had ever had engaged in. The success made
the partner open to additional work with universities in the future.
o In another case, ACE faculty developed a training manual for agriculture officials to use with
extension agents, addressing livestock and natural resources management. The partner reported
that the manual exceeded expectations, in terms of addressing a broad range of issues in great
depth, while still using language farmers and extension agents can appreciate. The partner
indicated that over 3,000 farmers have been trained based on the ACE’s work so far. Building on
this experience, the ACE will finalise training manuals and modules for use elsewhere.
o A third partner hired ACE faculty to do some consultancy work, establishing the baseline
circumstances in areas to benefit from a project and conducting a resources inventory, as well as
conducting quality review of the work of other consultants. So far, the partner reported being
satisfied, and in fact intends to expand the engagement. The partner also indicated that they have
learned from their work with the ACE faculty, and that they want to support the ACE as a part of
their own project’s impact.
• Knowledge Spillovers
23. Partners suggested that establishing ACEs as competitors for national agriculture research systems could
be beneficial, as the research systems can be very difficult to work with. In terms of the impacts of their
specific project, they indicated one company picked up some of the methods advanced by the project,
but they were not sure the extent to which they were still using the methods promoted.
24. Where collaborative knowledge partnerships with private-sector entities have been built, they have
tended to revolve around placing master’s and Doctoral students in private sector internship and do not
appear to have been primarily a vector for skills moving from Centers to firms, but rather the opposite
(i.e. they have been more about making students better researchers, understanding real-world problems
and applications, than they have been about increasing knowledge-intensity in firms).
25. One of the ACE partner companies focused on GIS offered interesting reflections on the challenge to
translate collaboration into economic outcomes. A student intern helped them to use GIS and soil
sampling techniques to create a model that farmers could use to determine how much fertiliser to apply
in a field. Having developed the model, however, they could not proceed with creating the necessary
device. They did not have fabrication capacity in house, and could not finance a partner developing
anything beyond a prototype. Moreover, the intern was only with them for a month, which was not
Page 83 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
sufficient time. However, the partner felt they had learned from the experience and identified some clear
potential.
26. Partners spoke of working with ACEs on projects that regularly fell short of commercialisation. Obstacles
would emerge at this point, with little support to overcome them, though some ACEs were optimistic
that they would manage to commercialise innovations soon. One example of this is CEFOR, which has
identified chemicals that could be produced locally to boost oil production, but has not gotten to the
point of commercialisation.
27. WACCI’s partnership with the Syngenta Foundation also provides a model of the kind of initiative that
can help to translate the research and teaching work of an ACE into economic impact. The Foundation
has been working with WACCI surrounding the communication of their research, using market principles,
with the goal of having put to use every single seed variety developed by WACCI PhD cohorts. Together,
they have developed product profiles – a form of marketing materials – that meet or exceed global
standards. For instance, one student developed a variety of tomato good for humid and hot conditions
such as in Ghana, and the profile outlines all the attributes of this variety for prospective investors.
Summary of ACE Leader and Institutional Leader Interviews
28. Interviews were conducted with leaders from 19 of the 22 ACEs, as well as eight institutional leaders (two
of whom were also center leaders).
• Improvements in Infrastructure at ACE Institutions
29. During evaluative interviews with leaders of ACE institutions, nine of the leaders cited improvements in
infrastructure or equipment as the most important success of the ACE project. The majority of ACE
leaders specifically referenced the improved quality of laboratories and scientific equipment. For
example, CEA-SMA has developed a super-calculator, as an asset for not only their institution but the
wider region.
30. Six leaders indicated that students across their institutions were permitted to use augmented ACE
facilities and equipment. Four leaders indicated that their wider institutions benefitted from improved
internet connectivity due to the ACE project, and four pointed to subscriptions for more journals as a
benefit. ACE leaders reported that other key procurement areas included computers, teaching, and
administrative materials. In some cases, ACE leaders reported the improvement of facilities such as
student housing.
• Improvements in Program Quality at ACE Institutions
31. Nine ACE leaders interviewed considered the quality of instruction in their programs as among the most
important accomplishments of the ACE project. ACE leaders generally focused on the attraction of
students as a signal of program quality or profile. One institutional leader described their ACE, to
paraphrase, as the “posterchild for what academic programs should look like in terms of content and
management”.
32. ACE leaders suggest that the most transformative single activity of the ACE project, with regards to the
Page 84 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
broader institution, was program accreditation. ACE leaders indicated that the drive for accreditation
promoted reflection on program improvement, raised the importance of quality assurance, or developed
a new culture of success. Accreditation was not only seen as benefitting the university (by improving its
competitive profile), but as having transformed the institution’s thinking around quality. In their words,
it demonstrated what it meant to pursue and accomplish excellence, and increased commitment to
quality assurance. Three leaders indicated that institutions intended now to roll out international
accreditation across more or all of their programs. Furthermore, ten ACE leaders and three institutional
leaders referenced program accreditation, or at least program review and quality assurance, as having
had an impact on the wider institution or higher education system. In one Francophone country, an ACE
leader indicated that all institutions were now looking to accredit their programs, while in another case
the Ministry is looking to have faculty evaluations by students (a requirement for their program
accreditation) written into regulations for all universities.
33. ACE leaders also highlighted important efforts to directly help instructors improve their teaching, and
especially their supervision. Training addressed issues such as pedagogy and curriculum development,
and supervision. Such efforts sometimes involved external partners, such as the University of
Copenhagen providing its certificate in innovative university teaching. Some leaders reported that the
ACE is introducing or legitimating more multidisciplinary programs as well.
• Regional and International Aspects of ACE
34. Strengthening academic networks is crucial for improving research. Fourteen ACE leaders in some way
identified network development as a cause for improvement in research during interviews – more than
the number citing facilities. Most institutional leaders saw the ACE project as an important opportunity
to improve international competitiveness or better integrate with international networks. Other specific
goals related to diversifying program offerings and meeting global standards for post-graduate
education. For two institutions, the ACE project offered an opportunity or renewal after an extended
period of crisis.
35. ACE Leaders almost unanimously agreed that the regional model was successful, although some
suggested it was highly funding contingent or a work-in-progress. Five ACE leaders interviewed
referenced recruitment of regional students as amongst their most important accomplishments as part
of the ACE project. Student numbers were one element of this, but the other was the diversity of source
countries. ACE leaders also emphasized the importance of language skills development for students
during the course of the ACE project. In particular, Francophone students in Anglophone countries
improve their English skills, which is very important for engaging with the global scientific community.
ACE leaders highlighted this consistently in interviews, with one going so far as to describe supporting
students’ language-learning as a key to their success.
36. At least five institutional leaders indicated that the project had enhanced their institution’s international
recognition or ranking. In addition, five ACE leaders also indicated that the project had enhanced the
profile or visibility of their institution. In a few cases, this effect came notably through the un iversity’s
inclusion in many research networks. In one case, an interviewee argued that this was consequently
improving the institution’s ability to attract students.
Page 85 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Applied Learning at ACE Institutions and Student Internships
37. Some leaders reported that the ACE is introducing or legitimating more applied programs. They
suggested that the concept of internships for graduate students is spreading, as are expectations for the
quality of internships, while one institutional leader indicated that their wider institution had learned
about the importance of engaging regional partners and including industry in curriculum development.
At the same time, leaders of four ACEs cited internships as an area in which they fell short of their goals.
Some ascribed their difficulties specifically to their discipline, while one suggested that it was hard to fit
internships into their academic calendar and another questioned the appropriateness of internships for
the specific goals of their academic program. They felt it challenging to provide internships for all
students, and that there was a need to provide greater incentives for organisations hosting interns.
• Improvement of ACE Institution Research Performance
38. Nine of the ACE leaders reported that the ACE project helped to strengthen their research activities
through improved equipment. Interviewees further confirm that the ACE project raised expectations for
faculty research, in terms of quantity as well as the quality of journals. Furthermore, one ACE leader
indicated that their faculty realised they would receive funds if they had a good research protocol, but
not otherwise, while another indicated more broadly that the program made faculty members think
differently about their research, and as a result they were winning many more national-level research
projects. One ACE leader suggested that the project helped to expand research interests from simply
descriptive work to other forms, including implementation research. A second leader spoke to the
development of stronger multi-disciplinary approaches to research, which had not been the prior norm.
39. Fourteen ACE leaders in some way identified network development as a cause for improvement in
research. These collaborations offered a host of benefits, including joint research projects and grant
proposals, and research training for faculty and students. Six ACE institutions referenced the project as
benefitting their research simply by supporting faculty and students to attend conferences.
• Sustainability of ACE Institutions
40. At least six ACE leaders expressed clear confidence in their ability to sustain their operations after the
end of World Bank support. On the other hand, four expressed significant concerns with regards to their
sustainability.
41. Eight ACE leaders indicated that from the beginning of the project they had been focused on
sustainability, while others still had great difficulty envisioning a path forward. However, fund generation
was the most common area where center leaders felt they had fallen short of their goals. Concerns about
generating additional funding was mentioned by leaders from five ACE institutions.
42. Grant-seeking was by far the most often cited element of ACE strategies for sustainability, explicitly
referenced by 11 Center leaders. Tuition fees and revenue-generating short courses were also identified
in interviews as potential sources of revenue. Six ACE institutions referenced tuition fees as a revenue
source moving forward, but only one of the ACEs confident was in the sustainability of such funding. Five
ACE institutions spoke of short courses as part of their strategy for long-term sustainability, though two
leaders expressed frustration at the difficulty of generating resources from these. One ACE specified that
they were not receiving resources that they earned either because student tuition fees went to their
institution as a whole, or because the government was not paying for short programs they were
Page 86 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
delivering on its behalf.
43. Seven ACE institutions spoke of charging fees to access their infrastructure and equipment, or to use their
equipment, infrastructure, and expertise and to deliver revenue-generating services to outside parties.
Another approach reported by ACE institutions was to commercialise different products. Two ACEs
specifically referenced patents as a source of revenues for the future, while others were aiming to
generate revenues through a mushroom farm and through a factory for agricultural inputs. One ACE had
even opened an on-campus store. The potential for these kinds of revenue sources likely depends on the
private sector relevance of a given ACE.
44. ACE leaders emphasised that they had focused on infrastructure and equipment which provides capacity
to help ACE institutions be attractive partners and educational institutions, and therefore attract other
resources, with minimal ongoing costs. Other critical areas of capacity development related to
leadership, management, grant-seeking, and procurement, as well as the reputation-building for the
ACEs which allows them to better attract students, faculty and partners.
45. Five ACE leaders and at least three institutional leaders specifically indicated that the ACE project was
helping to strengthen procedures at their institution, in areas such as financial management,
procurement, human resources and admissions. Three other ACE leaders were optimistic about impact,
but could not speak to specific examples. Instead, their optimism related to the university observing
practices underway at the ACE and being essentially “sure to learn”.
• Improving ACE Institutions’ Management and Governance
46. The project led to changes to human resources models, as one ACE leader and his institutional leader
referenced their institution having adopted a more equitable and merit-driven approach to staff selection
and promotion. This same ACE indicated that their student admissions system was becoming more
equitable too, while another suggested their admissions system was now better adapted for regional
students.
47. Many ACE leaders referenced greater access to training for institutional staff due to the ACE project;
some of which was for faculty and administrators, but in a few cases especially benefitted institutional
leaders. For instance, at least one institution’s leadership participated in training on postgraduate
supervision in Denmark, while those at another participated training at Cornell University. One center
leader also argued that ACE I would impact management and governance because it facilitated
institutional leaders’ participation in training activities.
48. In the area of transparency, three ACE leaders referenced greater transparency as a critical area of
progress. They pointed to university accounts being published online, as well as broader improvements
to their web presence to meet their need for better marketing.
49. ACE affected some institutions’ thinking on how to finance their activities, according to ACE leaders. One
contact said that revenue generation had not previously been a part of their university’s “vocabulary”,
while another felt that the project had taught them to be more entrepreneurial – with international
recruitment being one new opportunity. At time of interview, one ACE leader indicated that they were
still sorting out the administrative structure to receive external funds, while for others this challenge had
Page 87 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
been only recently resolved.
50. Most of the emphasis of financing benefits however was with regards to grants, which interviewees
suggested institutions now considered more important and were more capable of pursuing. In at least
one case, the development of grant-writing capacity within the ACE was already paying dividends for the
wider institution, based on the ACE paying overhead charges. One ACE leader also reported that their
institution had learned about how to form partnerships because of the project.
51. However, four ACE leaders and at least one institutional leader expressed skepticism that the project had
any significant impact on their institution’s governance and management. One interviewee felt the
system was conservative and difficult to change and this was an important area where progress fell short
of intentions, while another indicated that the project fell short of objectives specifically in that the ACE
did not have sufficient autonomy. In other cases, interviewees saw little need for changes in governance.
One indicated that their institution had little room for improvement, while for another – an institutional
leader – the framework for autonomous centers within the institution was well established and so there
was limited scope for improvement in governance.
• Factors contributing to achievements
52. Many ACE leaders indicated that faculty strength and engagement was key for the project’s success,
while faculty motivation to undertake the activities was the most important implementation risk. A core
issue identified in interviews is that World Bank rules do not allow faculty members to be paid from
project funds. Often, faculty did not know or understand this fact at the start of the project, but even
once understood this might be difficult to accept.
53. Multiple ACE leaders considered student quality and buy-in to be another key ingredient for ACE success.
Centers needed to make their students believe in the center’s mission, and successfully recruit the best
students to pursue the ACE activities. This required strong processes and important collaboration from
recruitment services at the relevant institution. Once at the institutions, the students needed to
participate effectively in research production, and also cooperate with verification to allow ACEs to
receive disbursements for their results.
54. Thinking about the national level, a few institutions pointed to support from national authorities as
critical for project success, as in one case where a cabinet committee was formed to support the project.
The national capacity to support the project varied between countries, and within countries over time.
Interviewees referenced national steering committees meeting at certain points in the project but not
others.
55. One institutional leader also indicated that they supported RBF “100 percent”, while our interviews with
ACE leaders suggested wide acceptance of RBF with few exceptions. We should not exaggerate this buy-
in however. Only one ACE cited RBF as a key factor in the success of the project – saying that the need to
achieve results to be able to receive funds motivated their center team to work hard – while just one
other specifically recommended continuing the RBF approach.
56. Interviewees had a few recommendations on how the World Bank could better support implementation.
Some of these amounted basically to advocacy with national agencies, including by providing better
Page 88 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
training national policymakers regarding governance under the project, and monitoring and seeking to
promote the autonomy of ACEs. Other recommendations focused more narrowly on implementation
concerns, such as providing more capacity-building around RBF-related administrative issues and
procurement under World Bank rules, especially at the outset of the project
Summary of ACE Faculty Survey Data
57. The following data is based on a survey administered to ACE faculty, which received 101 responses from
12 ACEs. However, 87 percent of responses were from seven ACEs, including 24 percent and 17 percent
from CDA and CEFTER respectively. To adjust for this composition slightly, all analysis of survey results is
reweighted to reduce the respective proportions from CDA and CEFTER by 50 percent and 33.3 percent.
• How Faculty Perceive ACE in Supporting their Work
58. The following figure provides an overview of faculty agreement with statements relating to improvement
“because of the ACE project” in their personal performance or satisfaction across four areas. A majority
of faculty at least somewhat agree with all four statements, though less than 85 percent with the
statement relating to non-academic stakeholders compared to well over 90 percent for the others.
Additionally, we see the highest rate of strong agreement, which we consider the more reliable overall
measure, for research impact and then secondly teaching.
Figure 1. Extent to which ACE faculty agree with statements relating to improvement "because of the
ACE project"
Stakeholder connections
Academic network
Teaching
Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
• Sources of Improvement to Faculty Teaching and Supervision
59. Among faculty who said that their teaching improved, the majority strongly agreed with all of our
statements regarding different ways their teaching might have improved. However, over 60 percent
agreed with the statements relating to teaching students from different cultures and delivering course
content more relevant to professional practice and industry/sector concerns. This would seem to reflect
the project’s focus on greater relevance and regional education.
Page 89 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 2. Amongst faculty who agreed that the ACE project improved their overall teaching
performance, extent of agreement with statements regarding how their teaching improved
performance improved
Among those who feel
Better able to teach students from different cultures
Deliver better graduate supervision
Course content is more relevant to professional…
Course content better addresses the cutting edge of…
Teaching more responsive to how students best learn
Overall teaching performance
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
60. In open responses, three sources of teaching improvement stood out in particular. The first was teaching
methods, including references to training in pedagogy, to encouraging greater participation and
inclusiveness, and to better lesson planning or design. The second was improved facilities or
infrastructure which we have already addressed, including better classrooms, laboratories, library
services and internet. The third element was improved teaching tools, including different projector
hardware or software, which likely overlaps with both facilities and teaching methods.
• Sources of Improvement in Research Performance
61. In terms of faculty research, survey respondents reported having published on average nine peer-
reviewed articles in the past five years, while having 2.9 on average accepted but not yet published. More
importantly, 54.7 percent of weighted respondents indicated that “because [they] have been working at
an ACE [they] have published more peer-reviewed research [than they] would have published
otherwise”, compared to 33.5 percent who felt they published about the same and 1.7 percent who
published less. Sixty-one percent of weighted respondents indicated that they were “currently publishing
in higher impact journals than prior to ACE”, as compared to 19.4 percent who were not and 20 percent
unsure.
62. As shown in the figure below, comparable majorities of respondents agreed to statements indicating that
they are “pursuing more cutting-edge research” or “research more relevant to economic and/or social
development because of the ACE project”.
Page 90 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 3. Among faculty who agreed that the ACE project improved their research, extent of
agreement with statements as to ways their research improved
More relevant to economic and/or social development
More cutting edge
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
63. Faculty qualitative responses indicated that better technology and infrastructure were the primary cause
for improvements in their research, including better laboratories, internet and library facilities. Similarly,
nine ACE leaders reported that the ACE project helped to strengthen their research activities through
improved equipment. Strengthened networks appeared to be the next most important factor for faculty
(a topic we will return to shortly), followed by training opportunities, grants or funding, and stronger or
larger cohorts of students. 11
• Building Networks to Strengthen Research
64. The figure below indicates the weighted share of surveyed faculty at various levels of agreement with
the statement: “I have a stronger academic network because of the ACE project”. Ninety-four percent of
faculty strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement.
Figure 4. Rates of agreement among faculty with the statement: I have a stronger academic network
because of the ACE project
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
65. The following figure breaks down the specific colleagues with whom ACE faculty believe they have
strengthened their relationships – based on questions asked only to those who strongly or somewhat
agreed with the statement that the project improved their academic networks.
11 Having regional students was cited specifically by a few faculty as being beneficial for their research work.
Page 91 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 5. Share of faculty agreeing with statements regarding the ACE project strengthening their
relationships with specific groupings of academic colleagues
Colleagues outside of Africa
Colleagues elsewhere in Africa
Other universities in country
Same university and other discipline
Same university and same discipline
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
66. An open follow-up question asked faculty how the ACE project helped them to improve their academic
network. Support for hosting or attending conferences or workshops was the most common response.
Others include hosting visiting faculty, having study visits and internships elsewhere, more diverse
student bodies, joint supervision, and ACE project activities.
• Improvement of Faculty Connections to Non-Academic Partners During ACE Project
67. The figure below indicates the extent to which surveyed faculty who had improved connections to non-
academic stakeholders agreed that they were more connected to partners within the country of their
ACE because of the ACE I project. Once again, in comparison with most agreement statements from the
survey, the results are low. We observe the greatest increase in engagement with the private sector,
followed by government and public services.
Figure 6. Extent to which faculty agreed that they are more connected to partners within the country
of their ACE because of the ACE I project
Not-for-profit NGOs
Government and public services
Private sector
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
68. The figure below indicates faculty agreement with statements indicating that they are more connected
to partners in other African countries because of the ACE I project. It seems that faculty engagement with
Page 92 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
external stakeholders is an even greater challenge regionally. The share who agree with the statements
are about one-third lower than for the equivalent questions with regards to national stakeholders – about
60 percent lower in terms of strong agreement. This is a concern, as to be applied centers of regional
excellence it is important to have connections to regional non-academic stakeholders.
Figure 7. Extent to which faculty agreed that they are more connected to partners in other African
countries because of the ACE I project
Not-for-profit NGOs
Government and public services
Private sector
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
69. Follow-up open questions asked faculty members what the ACE project has done to strengthen their
connections to stakeholders outside of academia, and any concrete benefits of these stronger
connections for their research, teaching or service on behalf of economic/social development. Promoting
student internships and short training were the most important means by which faculty felt the project
strengthened this form of connections – by no coincidence the most direct areas of intervention under
the project. About one-third fewer faculty members referenced direct collaborations with stakeholders
on applied projects, and then a lower number spoke of speaking at conferences. Very low numbers
referenced industry input on curriculum (five) and industry participation in an advisory board (two).
70. Roughly one-in-ten faculty indicated explicitly that they had little or no concrete benefits from stronger
connections to stakeholders outside of academia in terms of strengthening their research, teaching or
service on behalf of economic/social development – which at least suggests that a majority felt there
were benefits. The most benefits related to having more relevant research, followed by more relevant
instruction – including through stronger curriculum development.
• Sustainability of ACE Impacts
71. The following figure indicates the likelihood reported by faculty that they will still benefit from the ACE
project in ten years across various dimensions, among those faculty who indicated that they had
benefitted from the ACE project to date. In general, the patterns are consistent with those for agreement
that the ACE project impacted each area, likely because those who less strongly agreed that the ACE
project had delivered benefits felt it was less likely that those benefits would sustain themselves. Still, in
all cases over 90 percent of faculty felt that benefits would be at least somewhat likely to sustain for ten
years.
Page 93 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 8. Amongst faculty who agreed that they benefitted from the ACE I project, extent of
agreement that they would still benefit from the ACE project in ten years for various dimensions
Stakeholder connections
Academic network
Teaching
Research
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Not sure/NA
72. In their qualitative responses, faculty reported that the learning from the ACE project was the greatest
source of sustainable impact, followed by their improved facilities, and the opportunities that may come
with their improved profile.
• General Impressions of ACE
73. Overall, faculty clearly believe that the ACE project is benefitting their universities as a whole, as shown
in the figure below. Ninety-eight percent of weighted respondents in our faculty survey at least
somewhat agreed that the ACE project has strengthened their higher education institution as a whole,
and 80.5 percent strongly agreed. Moreover, the subsequent figure indicates that among those who
agreed with this statement, 63.5 percent felt that their university would still be greatly strengthened ten
years after World Bank financial support ends and 91.5 percent that it would be at least somewhat
strengthened.
Figure 9. Extent to which faculty agree with the statement: The ACE project has strengthened my
higher education institution as a whole
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
Figure 10. Among faculty who previously agreed that ACE I strengthened their higher education
institution as a whole, extent of belief that their higher education institution will still be strengthened
by participation ten years after the end of financial support
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A great deal Somewhat Only a little Not at all Not sure/NA
Page 94 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 11. The extent to which faculty members agreed with statements regarding the impact of the
ACE project on the hosting higher education institution as a whole
Greater engagement outside academia
Greater regional focus
Helped to strengthen governance
Expectations for quality of management
Expectations for teaching quality
Expectations for research
Strengthened reputation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not sure/NA
• Faculty Buy-in
74. The faculty survey results provide indications of the extent of faculty buy-in for the project – with the
caveat that less motivated faculty might have been less likely to respond to our survey. The figure below
indicates that almost 74 percent of faculty would be very likely to recommend to a colleague working at
an ACE, and 97 percent would be at least somewhat likely to make such a recommendation. This appears
to be a strong endorsement for working at an ACE.
Figure 12. Likelihood that faculty would recommend that a fellow professor work at an ACE 12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely
75. The following figure presents data regarding decisions by faculty about whether to join their current
higher education institution (HEI) if they were not employed at the HEI prior to the ACE project, or
otherwise to remain at their HEI. Surprisingly, the ACE project is ascribed a greater motivating role for
those already working at the university than those seeking to join the university. Still, the ACE project did
not play a role for roughly 40 percent of faculty hired in recent years.
12The specific question wording is: If a fellow professor who does not currently work at an African Center of Excellence were
considering working at an ACE (regardless of whether this meant changing their university or remaining at the same university),
how likely would you be to recommend that they do so?
Page 95 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Figure 13. Faculty assessment of the importance of an ACEs’ presence in their decision to work at their
university13
To continue at university
To join university
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Important Minor No Not sure/NA
76. Most significantly, as shown in the following figure, most faculty agree that they better enjoy their work
as a professor because of the ACE project, with 35 percent strongly agreeing with this statement and 43
percent somewhat agreeing. However, this rate of agreement is among the lowest for any polled
statement regarding benefits from the ACE project.14
Figure 14. Extent of agreement with the statement: I better enjoy my work as a professor because of
the ACE project
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
77. Among those who agreed that they better enjoyed their work because of ACE, the most common
qualitative response was that the work environment was better, principally in terms of facilities and
technologies. Other common responses referenced stronger or more numerous collaborations, training
opportunities, greater recognition of them individually or the institution as a whole, greater relevance of
their work to solving real-world challenges, and having the opportunity to teach regional students.
78. Those who did not better enjoy their work as a professor because of the ACE project indicated that this
was because of the lack of any specific remuneration and the extra work involved, or simply reported
that they enjoyed their work much the same regardless. Together, these data provide a sense that there
may be some concerns regarding faculty motivation, but on the whole faculty are appreciative of the ACE
project.
13 The specific question wording was: Has the presence of an ACE played a role in your decision to continue working at your
university? for those who were already employed at their university when the program started, and did the presence of an ACE
play a role in your decision to join the faculty of your university?
14 Sample sizes are small but there also appear to be wide variations in assessments across centers, considering only those with
at least eight responses to the survey. Two ACEs had disagreement rates of 40% or more, while two had rates of agreement in
excess of 95%.
Page 96 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 6. List of participating institutions and related media links
Africa Centers of Excellence by country, theme and higher education institution
Country ACE Theme Higher Education Institution
Benin Center d’Excellence Africain en Sciences STEM Université d'Abomey
Mathématiques et Applications du Bénin
(CEA -SMA)
Burkina Center d’Excellence pour la formation et STEM Institut International
Faso la recherche en Sciences et Technologies d’Ingénierie de l’Eau et de
de l’Eau, l’Energie et l’Environnement en l’Environnement (2iE)
Afrique de l’Ouest et du Center
Cameroon Centre d’excellence en Technologies de STEM Université de Yaoundé I
l’information et de la Communication
(CETIC)
Côte- Centre d’Excellence Africain sur le STEM/ Université Felix Houphouët-
d’Ivoire Changement Climatique, la Biodiversité et Agriculture Boigny (UFHB)
l’Agriculture Durable (CEA-CCBAD)
Centre d’Excellence Africain Mines et STEM Institut National
Environnement Minier (CEA-MEM) Polytechnique Felix
Houphouët-Boigny
Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Statistique STEM Ecole Nationale Supérieure de
et d’Economie Appliquée (ENSEA) Statistique et d’Economie
Appliquée
Ghana West Africa Center for Cell Biology of Health University of Ghana
Infectious Pathogens (WACCBIP)
West Africa Center of Excellence for Crop Agriculture University of Ghana
Improvement (WACCI)
Regional Water and Environmental STEM Kwame Nkrumah University of
Sanitation Center Kumasi (RWESCK) Science and Technology
(KNUST)
Nigeria Africa Center of Excellence for Genomics Health Redeemers University
of Infectious Diseases (ACEGID)
Pan African Materials Institute (PAMI) STEM African University of Science
and Technology, Abuja
Center for Agricultural Development and Agriculture Federal University of
Sustainable Environment (CEADESE) Agriculture, Abeokuta
Africa Center of Excellence on Neglected Health Ahmadu Bello University
Tropical Diseases and Forensic
Biotechnology (ACENTDFB)
Africa Center of Excellence for Health University of Jos
Phytomedicine Research and
Development (ACEPRD)
Center for Excellence in Reproductive Health University of Benin
Health and Innovation (CERHI)
Page 97 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
Country ACE Theme Higher Education Institution
Center of Excellence for Oil Field Research STEM University of Port Harcourt
(CEFOR)
OAU Knowledge Park: A Model for STEM Obafemi Awolowo University
National Science Technology and
Knowledge Park Initiative (OAU-PARK)
Center of Excellence in Dryland Agriculture Bayero University
Agriculture (CDA)
Center for Food Technology and Research Agriculture Benue State University
(CEFTER)
Senegal Sante de la Mère et de l’Enfant (CEA- Health Université Cheikh Anta Diop
SAMEF)
Centre d’excellence Africain en STEM Université Gaston Berger de
Mathématiques, Informatique et Saint-Louis
Technologies de L’information et de la
Communication (CEA-MITIC)
Togo Centre d’Excellence Régional sur les Agriculture Université de Lomé
Sciences Aviaires (CERSA)
Page 98 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ACE Project Relevant Media Links
Website:
1. https://ace.aau.org/ . All project material including regional workshop presentations and related
project reports are online.
Photos & Videos on ACE:
2. Higher Education Fair (English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Z0z2uTbA8&t=25s
3. SCIDEV Video : http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/multimedia/world-bank-thinking-
african-university.html
Articles and blogs on ACE (WB, AAU and external sites)
4. https://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/pandemics-know-no-borders-africa-regional-collaboration-
key-fighting-covid-19
5. http://blogs.worldbank.org/nasikiliza/africa-centers-of-excellence-in-nigeria-and-senegal
6. http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/next-generation-african-scientists-need-more-sustainable-
career-path
7. ACE I Project has kept its promise: https://ace.aau.org/the-ace-1-project-has-kept-its-promise/
Photos & Videos on ACE:
8. Photos: https://ace.aau.org/gallery/
9. WB ACE Video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pvx2QWTXY8
10. News: https://ace.aau.org/news-announcements/
Articles and blogs on ACE (WB, AAU and external sites)
11. Newsletters (five editions): https://ace.aau.org/newsletter/
12. Financial Times Article on ACEGID: https://www.ft.com/content/16c8d40f-39eb-496a-8f0f-
e6761a10bbeb
13. Urgent need for HE to bridge digital divide and share resources:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200716105729578
14. Celebrating academic excellence: https://ace.aau.org/celebrating-academic-excellence-in-africa/
15. Universities encouraged to continue good work: https://ace.aau.org/ace-i-and-ace-ii-universities-
encouraged-to-continue-the-great-work/
16. ACE Higher Education Fair: https://ace.aau.org/highlight-of-ace-higher-education-fair/
17. Universities pull their academic weight in fight against COVID-
19: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200423073646854
18. Steady progress for Africa’s Centres of Excellence :
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20150703093224633
19. Centres of Excellence project – ‘A model that works’:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20170630172118277
20. Higher education is key to development – World Bank:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20150409152258799
21. 2iE Centre of Excellence to host workshop, student fair:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180504153146350
22. World Bank rolls out African Centres of Excellence:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20140220173512722
Page 99 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
ANNEX 7. COUNTRY WISE PERFORMANCE
BENIN
1. With a total commitment of US$ 8 million, Benin has one ACE hosted by the Université d’Abomey-Calavi:
The Center d’excellence africain en science mathématiques et applications (CEA-SMA), focused on STEM.
2. Key highlights:
• Disbursement: The total rate of disbursement in Benin was 94 Disbursements
percent.
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved.
$326,550
• DLI 2.1: 100 percent of short courses achieved. CEA-SMA
enrolled 1,154 students in short courses which included training
in mathematics for secondary school mathematics teachers and $4,973,450
a free course on Big Data exclusively for women.
• DLI 2.2 & DLI 2.3: 100 percent of master’s and PhD student
enrollment achieved, totalling 876 master’s students and 224
PhD students (second highest among the ACEs for both). CEA- Undisbursed Disbursed
SMA increased its female enrolments from 0 to over 300.
• DLI 2.4: 41 percent of internships achieved. However, this low DLI Achievement
attainment was due in large part to a relatively high target for DLI 4
internships. CEA-SMA students and faculty participated in 354 DLI 3
total internships, 28 percent of which were regional – one of the DLI 2.8
highest figures among all ACEs in the project. DLI 2.7
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of international accreditation achieved. DLI 2.6
CEA-SMA’s programs in Mathematics and Applications; and DLI 2.5
DLI 2.4
Information and Communication Technology have been DLI 2.3
accredited by HCERES (France). DLI 2.2
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research targets achieved. CEA-SMA DLI 2.1
produced 79 publications and had the sixth highest field- DLI 1
weighted citations impact (FWCI) score among all ACEs, at 0% 50% 100%
roughly 1.2. Such success is due to a revamped reference library
in mathematics and computer science with more than 1,000 books and online subscriptions, in
addition to the organization of research trips for students to other countries in the region and
abroad.
• DLI 2.7: 100 percent of external revenue achieved. CEA-SMA raised more than $1.5 million
• DLI 2.8: 100 percent of teaching and learning environment achieved. CEA-SMA acquired a super-
calculator which is instrumental for high quality digital and engineering research; it is the first one
in the country and region. CEA-SMA also opened a Data Science School, with free big data training
for women
• Fiduciary Management: CEA-SMA achieved 88% of their FM DLIs.
• DLI 4: 100 percent of procurement related DLI achieved.
• Highlights of programs offered : (i) Master’s and doctorate courses in Fundamental Mathematics
and Applications; (ii) Mathematics and Teaching; (iii) Probability and Statistics; (iv) Operational
Research; (v) Science and Technology; (vi) Networks and Telecom; and (vii) Information Systems.
Page 100 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• Partnerships: CEA-SMA has several international partnerships including with CIMPA, ADIMA, and
Purdue University. CEA-SMA has also been involved with the development of the digital economy
of Sémé City, and it enrolled the second highest number (35%) of regional students of any ACE in
the project.
• CEA-SMA was successfully renewed for support under the ACE Impact Project.
BURKINA FASO
3. With a total commitment of US$ 8 million, Burkina Faso has one ACE hosted by the Institut international
d’ingénierie de l’eau et de l’environnement (2iE): The Centre d’excellence pour la formation et la recherche
en sciences et technologies de l’eau, l’énergie et l’environnement en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre (CEA-
2iE), focused on STEM.
4. Key Highlights:
Disbursements
• Disbursement: The total disbursement rate was 99 percent 42,900
(second highest in the project).
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved.
• DLI 2.1: 100 percent of short course enrollment achieved,
enrolling 692 students in short courses.
• DLI 2.2 & 2.3: 100 percent of master’s and PhD student
enrollment achieved, totalling 2,437 master’s students and 5,157,100
37 PhD students. 2iE enrolled more students than any other
ACE and in particular far more master’s students than any
other ACE. Among all ACEs, 2iE has most regional student Undisbursed Disbursed
body of any ACE, as 63 percent of its students were regional
and only 37 percent domestic
DLI Achievement
• DLI 2.4: 98 percent of internships achieved, having 394
DLI 4
student and faculty internships. DLI 3
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of international accreditation DLI 2.8
achieved. 2iE’s two engineering programs have been DLI 2.7
internationally accredited by CTI (France), and its training DLI 2.6
courses have been certified by ISO DLI 2.5
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research targets achieved. 2iE DLI 2.4
DLI 2.3
produced 108 publications and accounted for 7 percent of DLI 2.2
citations of ACEs according to Elsevier. 2iE was second DLI 2.1
among all ACEs in its share of publications in highly cited DLI 1
journals and had an FWCI of 1.3 – indicating that its 0% 50% 100%
publications had 30 percent more citations than the
average for its field.
• DLI 2.7: 100 percent of external revenue achieved. 2iE has generated more than $5.5 million, the
third highest figure among all ACEs.
• DLI 2.8: 100 percent of teaching and learning environment achieved. 2iE has established new
laboratories and an online vocational training platform (FPL) to offer certifying training courses
on water, environment, and agriculture to over 300 people in the region.
• Fiduciary Management: 2iE achieved 100 percent of their FM DLIs.
Page 101 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 4: 88 percent of procurement achieved.
• Partnerships: 2iE was a leader amongst ACEs in using partnerships to help extend impacts from
the project to other institutions. In particular, 2iE supported the development of institutions in
Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, and Niger, and partners with institutions abroad including Center of Ecology
and Hydrology (UK) and HydroSciences Montpellier (France).
• Select Additional Achievements : Currently, 95 percent of CEA-2iE’s graduates find employment
within six months of graduation due to the implementation of sector companies with these short
courses. In addition, 2iE has been developing a new water collection basin technology to help low
moisture environments to better sustain crops. A collaboration with the state company SOIFTEX
aims to make use of this technology to help grow cotton, while the ACE also aspires to distribute
the product in neighbouring countries. 2iE has also been working with the state water company
in Burkina Faso on developing new ways to filter arsenic.
• 2iE was successfully renewed for support under the ACE Impact Project.
CAMEROON
5. With an initial total commitment of US$ 8 million, Cameroon has one ACE hosted by the Université de
Yaoundé I: The Centre d’excellence en Technologies de l’information et de la Communication (CETIC),
focused on STEM.
6. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: The total disbursement rate was 98 percent DLI Achievement
(tied for third highest in the project) DLI 4
DLI 3
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved. DLI 2.8
• DLI 2.1: 100 percent of target for short courses achieved, DLI 2.7
enrolling 1,379 students total (second highest in the project) DLI 2.6
• DLI 2.2 & DLI2.3: 100 percent of master’s and PhD student DLI 2.5
DLI 2.4
enrollment achieved, totalling 1,127 master’s students (third DLI 2.3
highest in the project) and 177 PhD students (second highest). DLI 2.2
CETIC enrolled more students than any other ACE and in DLI 2.1
particular far more master’s students than any other ACE. DLI 1
• DLI 2.4: 100 percent of internships achieved, having 1,051 0% 50% 100%
student and faculty internships.
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of accreditation achieved. CETIC has eight Disbursements
93,446
accredited programs: four programs in computer, civil,
mechanical, and industrial engineering have been accredited
by CTI (France), and four programs in computer, energy,
mechanical, and telecommunications engineering by HCERES
(France). This is the highest accreditation found in the project.
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research publications have been 3,682,3
achieved, producing 306 research publications. CEITC had the 04
largest share of research achievement publications in the
project, making up 15 percent of the total project publication
and 7 percent of total project citations. This is due to the
Undisbursed Disbursed
Page 102 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
completion of the University of Yaoundé Research Center, funded by the AFD.
• DLI 2.7: 94 percent of external revenue achieved, generating over $1.5 million.
• DLI 2.8: 25 percent of teaching and learning environment achieved. Despite this, CETIC made
considerable improvements to their infrastructure, including fully equipped mecatronic and
computer libraries, equipment for Moocs production, a Project Management Unit, renovated
classrooms, and a refurbished library with subscriptions to newspapers and books.
• Fiduciary Management: CETIC achieved 59 percent of its FM DLIs.
• DLI4: 50 percent of procurement achieved. CETIC experienced challenges with governance, which
contributed to a slow rollout of the project and only 20 percent disbursement at mid-project. The
decision was made to partially cancel funding to Cameroon and CETIC as a result of this trend, a
decision that received the agreement of the Government of Cameroon.
• Partnerships: CETIC has formed a partnership network between the University of Yaoundé I and
the largest regional universities.
• Degrees offered at CETIC include Computer Science and Telecommunications, Mechatronics,
Mathematical Modeling, and Scientific Computers, among others.
• Select Additional Achievements: CETIC implemented a computerized financial management
system based on the TOM2PRO software, and it has secured internet network availability
throughout all of the NSPI campus.
COTE-D’IVOIRE
7. With a total commitment of US$ 15 million, Côte-d’Ivoire has three ACEs. Two of these focus on STEM
(ENSEA and CEA-MEM), and one focused on agriculture (CEA-CCBAD). The ACEs were located at three
separate institutions. Côte-d’Ivoire started and completed the project later than the other countries
8. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: The total rate of disbursement was 93 percent.
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved.
• DLI 2.1: 86 percent of short courses achieved. In total, the Ivorian ACEs enrolled 1,093 students
in short courses.
• DLI 2.2 & 2.3: 100 percent of both masters and PhD student enrollment achieved. In total, The
Ivorian ACEs enrolled 1,131 masters students and 224 PhD students. CCBAD enrolled a relatively
significant number of PhD students (seventh overall) while CEA-MEM and ENSEA enrolled
comparatively more Master’s students (ranking seventh and ninth respectively). In particular,
ENSEA was a leader in enrolling regional students, with 56 percent of its enrolment coming from
the region, likely due to the renovation of its language laboratory.
Page 103 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 2.4: 97 percent of internships achieved. In total, the Ivorian
DLI Achievement
ACEs had 866 student and faculty internships, which is the
DLI 4
strongest performance in the project. These ACEs
DLI 3
outperformed the ACE average achievement by 17 percentage DLI 2.8
points. In particular, CEA-MEM ranked fourth among all ACEs in DLI 2.7
the number of internships offered (440), largely due to its DLI 2.6
partnership with 4 non-national universities and 4 mining DLI 2.5
companies for research and development opportunities. DLI 2.4
• DLI 2.5: 88 percent of accreditation achieved. Two of CCBAD’s DLI 2.3
DLI 2.2
programs in Mining and Mining Environments have been DLI 2.1
accredited by HCERES (France) and one of ENSEA’s programs in DLI 1
Actuarial and Applied Statistics has been accredited by CTI
70% 80% 90% 100%
(France).
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research publications achieved. In total, Disbursements
the Ivorian ACEs produced 155 research publications. Elsevier
found that the Côte-d’Ivoire ACEs were among the least 811,489
research intensive, for instance accounting for just 2 percent of
publications. However, this may only reflect these ACEs joining
the project later, as Elsevier’s data collection covered the
period only up to 2018. 11,212,559
• DLI 2.7: 91 percent of external revenue achieved. In total, the
Ivorian ACEs generated over US$ 3.6 million in revenues.
CCBAD generated most of these funds (US$ 1.9 million).
• DLI 2.8: 92 percent of teaching and learning environment Undisbursed Disbursed
achieved. ENSEA installed new computer equipment, an
electronic archive of all documents and investigation, a FOAD Disbursement by ACE
platform, and a graduate information system. CCBAD installed
5,000,000
new classrooms, laboratories, dining halls, and research
equipment. 4,000,000
• Fiduciary Management: The Ivorian ACEs met 85 percent of 3,000,000
their FM DLIs.
2,000,000
• DLI 4: 92 percent of procurement achieved. Additional funding
to ACEs that were performing more strongly at midterm was 1,000,000
provided through reallocations from an unallocated 0
component. CEA-CCBAD and ENSEA each received an additional CCBAD CEA-MEM ENSEA
EUR 800,000, while CEA-MEM received EUR 100,000 in
additional funds
• Partnerships: ENSEA leads the Ivorian ACEs in international partners, with examples such as the
Institut de Medecine Tropical d’Anvers (Belgium) and UNESCO (France). All three ACEs have
several regional partners.
• Highlights of Programs Offered:
o CCBAD: Masters and PhD programs in (i) Climate Change relating to climate systems; (ii)
Climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (iii) Climate change and
sustainable agriculture.
o CEA-MEM: Masters and PhD programs in Mining and Mining Environment
Page 104 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
o ENSEA: Masters and PhD programs in Agricultural Statistics and Data Science
• Select Additional Accomplishments:
o CCBAD has developed and patented a bio-pesticide, which it is establishing a factory to
produce for the national market.
o ENSEA conducted extensive efforts to recruit and otherwise reach female learners. For
instance, it organised tours of national secondary schools and universities, directly
speaking with over 1,500 girls – while also reaching out to almost 18,000 people via
social media. Further, this ACE offered free refresher courses to female applicants for its
engineering courses and a free laptop upon admissions.
• CEA-MEM is seeking to develop projects around a number of different mining projects. This ACE’s
partnerships are less limited to its own country than is common for most cases.
GHANA
9. With a total commitment of USD 24 million, Ghana has three ACEs. The University of Ghana hosts West
Africa Center for Crop Improvement (agriculture) and West Africa Center Cell Biology and Infectious
Pathogens (STEM), while the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) hosts
Regional Water Engineering Sanitation Center Kumasi (water).
10. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: The total rate of disbursement in Ghana was 92%.
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved.
• DLI 2.1: 95 percent of short courses achieved. In total,
Ghanaian ACEs enrolled 2,963 students in short term DLI Achievement
DLI 4
courses. WACCI enrolled the highest number of students DLI 3
(1,419) in the ACE I project. RWESCK enrolled the 6th highest DLI 2.8
(1,014), and trained 356 professionals in water, sanitation, DLI 2.7
and hygiene (WASH) technology. DLI 2.6
• DLI 2.2: 75 percent of master’s student enrollment DLI 2.5
DLI 2.4
achieved, totalling 533 master’s students.
DLI 2.3
• DLI 2.3: 100 percent of PhD enrollment achieved. Currently, DLI 2.2
WACCI is producing more graduates in plant-breeding than DLI 2.1
any other institution in the world. DLI 1
• DLI 2.4: 45 percent of internships achieved. In total, Ghana 0% 50% 100%
had 677 internships, which is lower than the country target
number of 1,505. However, RWESCK ranked second highest Disbursements
among all ACEs due to its high engagement with regional
and local partnerships in academia and the health sector. It
hosted the first regional conference on Climate Change, 1,218,620
Water, and Environmental Sanitation.
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of international accreditation
achieved. All of WACCI’s programs have been accredited by
AQAS (Germany); WACCBIP’s by the Royal Society of Biology
(United Kingdom), which is the first endorsement of the 14,381,380
Society in Africa; RWESCK’s by AQAS (Germany).
Undisbursed Disbursed
Page 105 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research targets achieved. WACCBIP produced 150 publications. It
accounted for 8 percent of total ACE publications (the highest in among all ACEs) and 11% of
citations (tied for the second highest figure among all ACEs).
Disbursement by ACE
The field-weighted citations index (FWCI) for WACCBIP was
roughly 1.3, approximately the fifth highest figure among all
ACEs. WACCI produced 92 publications and RWESCK 5,400,000
produced 248. 5,200,000
• DLI 2.7: 100 percent of external revenue achieved. WACCI 5,000,000
generated $8.6 million, one of the highest of the ACEs. One 4,800,000
notable explanation is its production of 90 improved crop 4,600,000
varieties, including 3 new maize hybrids yielding between
4,400,000
9-11 tons per hectare. WACCBIP generated $4.9 million
(fourth highest of the ACEs), and RWESCK $2.9 million. 4,200,000
RWESCK WACCBIP WACCI
Together, the Ghanaian ACEs accounted for almost one-
third (31 percent) of all revenues generated by ACEs in the
project.
• DLI 2.8: 100 percent of teaching and learning environment milestones achieved. WACCI created
a complex with lecture theatres, conference facilities, offices, and laboratories, in addition to an
upgraded model farm for practical work. WACCBIP installed new improved lab equipment such as
a flow cytometer, a confocal microscope, and a High-Performance Computing unit. In addition, it
has completed a complex providing additional seminar and lecture rooms, a Bioinformatics lab, a
cold room, and a student resource center. RWESCK has completed a complex with state-of-the-
art laboratory equipment and teaching aids.
• Fiduciary Management: As with most other ACEs, the Ghanaian ACEs achieved 99% of their FM
DLIs.
• DLI 4: 83 percent of procurement DLI achieved.
• Highlights of Programs Offered from the Ghanaian ACEs:
o RWESCK: (i) three PhD programs in Water Resources, Environmental Sanitation and
Water Management, and Water Supply and Treatment Technologies; and (ii) two
master’s programs in Water Resources Engineering and Management, and Water Supply
and Environmental Sanitation.
o WACCBIP: One MPhil and one PhD program each of Molecular Cell Biology of Infectious
Diseases
o WACCI: One PhD program in Plant Breeding and one MPhil program in Seed Science and
Technology
• Partnerships: All three ACEs have strong regional partnerships, with WACCBIP having the most.
WACCI partners with the National Agricultural Research Institutes and the International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture, and WACCBIP’s many regional partners include the Insti tute of Child
Health at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. These regional partnerships explain the high
percentage of regional students WACCI and WACCBIP, at 37% and 31% respectively. RWESCK also
has regional partners in Nigeria, Senegal, and Cote d’Ivoire. Global partners among these ACEs
include Cornell University, UNESCO-IHE, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
• Select additional accomplishments :
o WACCBIP secured an additional $7.8 million grant from the Wellcome Trust’s Developing
Excellence in Leadership, Training, and Science (DELTAS) Africa Initiative Two of
Page 106 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
WACCBIP’s researchers have been selected to become Affiliate members of the African
Academic of Sciences from 2020-2024. In addition, WACCBIP is the designated laboratory
for testing suspected cases of COVID-19 in Ghana. This ACE has also, through one of its
networks, been providing reagents for sequencing the virus where positive cases are
identified.
o WACCI has been pursuing extensive activities in plant breeding in an effort to strengthen
agriculture in the sub-continent. is working with a private seed company to develop a
legacy crop improvement center and help facilitate the distribution of seeds developed
by WACCI to farmers. A book published by WACCI and partners has sought to practically
address why take-up of new seeds is so low in Africa – a number of ACE faculty members
wrote chapters, along with other researchers across the continent. WACCI is similarly
working with the Syngenta Foundation to develop and publish internationally a manual
for training plant breeders in Africa. The Foundation has also been working with WACCI
surrounding the communication of their research, using market principles, with the goal
of having put to use every single seed variety developed by WACCI PhD cohorts. Together,
they have developed product profiles – a form of marketing materials – that meet or
exceed global standards.
o RWESCK students have been pursuing projects relating to toilet technologies and the ACE
has also been producing briefs addressing water policy. It is positioned to become a
renowned International Center for Water and Environmental Sanitation.
• All three Ghanaian ACE I Centers were successfully renewed for support under the ACE Impact
Project.
NIGERIA
11. With a total commitment of US$ 70 million, Nigeria has ten Centers of Excellence. Four of the ACEs (PAMI,
CERHI, ACENTDFB, and ACEGID) are focused on health, three (CDA, CEFTER, and CEADESE) on agriculture,
and three (OAU-OAK, CEFOR, and ACEPRD) on STEM. Most of the ACEs are based at federal universities,
but there are also ACEs at State universities and even one private university. The National Universities
Commission (NUC) received close to US$ 2 million to assist with project implementation.
12. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: The total disbursement rate in Nigeria was 98
DLI Achievement
percent, well above the overall average among the other DLI 4
countries participating in the ACE project. Nigeria DLI 3
outperformed the average in every DLI except for DLI 2.2 where DLI 2.8
DLI 2.7
it only underperformed by one percentage point. Six Nigerian DLI 2.6
ACEs achieved 100 percent disbursements, while the lowest DLI 2.5
figure (PAMI) was reasonably high at 93 percent. DLI 2.4
DLI 2.3
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved. DLI 2.2
DLI 2.1
DLI 1
70% 80% 90% 100%
Page 107 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 2.1: 100 percent of short courses achieved. In total, the Nigerian ACEs enrolled 7,358 students
in short courses, roughly 45 percent of the project total. ACEPRD, CEFTER, PAMI and OAU-OAK
had the third, fourth, fifth and seventh highest enrollments among all ACEs.
• DLI 2.2 & 2.3: 92 percent of master’s enrollment achieved, and
100 percent of PhD enrollment achieved. In total, the Nigerian Disbursements
ACEs enrolled 3,965 master’s students and 1,044 PhD students. 944,429
In particular, ACEPRD enrolled more PhD students than any
other ACE. ACEPRD, CEFOR and CERHI had the fourth, sixth and
eighth highest total graduate student enrollment among all
ACEs. Only 12 percent of total Nigerian ACE enrolments were
regional students. Initiatives such as hostels for regional
42,875,572
students (CEADESE and CERHI) and translation equipment to
attract non-English speaking students (CEFTER) are underway
to increase regional enrolment. Undisbursed Disbursed
• DLI 2.4: 86 percent of internships achieved. In total, the
Disbursement by ACE
Nigerian ACEs produced 2,404 student and faculty internships.
ACEPRD had the highest number of internships of any ACE in 6,000,000
the project, while OAU-OAK and CEFTER ranked sixth and 5,000,000
4,000,000
seventh.
3,000,000
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of international accreditation achieved. Of 2,000,000
the agriculture ACEs, two of CDA’s programs in dryland 1,000,000
agriculture have been accredited by HCERES (France), three of 0
CEFOR
CEFTER
CDA
ACENTDFB
CERHI
ACEPRD
CEADESE
OAU-OAK PARK
ACEGID
PAMI
CEADESE’s programs by AQAS (Germany), and one of CEFTER’s
by HCERES (France). Of the STEM ACEs, HCERES (France) has
accredited three of CEFOR’s programs, two of OAU-OAK’s, and
two of PAMI’s. Of the health ACEs, two of ACEGID’s programs
have been accredited by AQAS (Germany), two of ACENTDFB’s
by HCERES (France), nine of ACEPRD’s by HCERES (France), and one of CERHI’s by APHEA
(Belgium).
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research publications achieved. In total, the Nigerian ACEs produced 1,123
research publications. Specifically, ACEGID was the leader amongst all ACEs for research,
accounting for 35 percent of total citations as of 2018 across all ACEs and having a FWCI of 3.5,
more than double that of the next highest ACE. PAMI was the next highest performing Nigerian
ACE, accounting for 11 percent of citations with an FWCI of 1.4. Explanations for these top
performers include (i) for ACEGID a refurbished teaching laboratory and state-of-the-art
equipment including a Generation Sequencer, Gel documentation equipment, and
Thermocyclers; and (ii) for PAMI three focus groups for cancer research, increased bandwidth and
fibre-optics, and new equipment such as an X-ray Diffractometer.
• DLI 2.7: 95 percent of external revenue achieved. In total, Nigerian ACEs generated US$ 20.7
million in revenues. They were among the leaders in generating revenues, contributing to 39
percent of the total for all ACEs. ACEGID generated US$ 7.76 million, the second highest figure
among ACEs, while PAMI and CEFOR each generated over US$ 4 million. In addition, CERHI
secured additional funding from the Ford Foundation and the African Research Excellence Fund
for staff training and program expansion.
Page 108 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 2.8: 100 percent of teaching and learning environment achieved. Multiple Nigerian ACEs
refurbished their laboratories and installed new equipment including a Biotechnology Cold Room
(ACENTDBF); a Phytomedicine Proteomics and Molecular Laboratory (ACEPRD); a complex of six
laboratories for cloud and data computing (OAU-OAK); and tissue culture laboratories and
research farms (CDA). ACEs also installed new infrastructure for instruction and students, such as
multimedia facilities (CEADESE); a complex containing an E-Library, language laboratory, and
smart classrooms (CEFOR); fully furnished seminar rooms and an auditorium (CEFTER); and a
generator to ensure power stability (CERHI).
• Fiduciary Management: In total, Nigerian ACEs met 98 percent of its FM DLIs. Funding in Nigeria
was reallocated at the midpoint of the project from two ACEs (CEADESE and CERHI) to four others
(ACEGID, ACENTDFB, CEFOR and CDA) based on relative performance, as well as to the NUC.
• DLI 4: 100 percent of procurement achieved.
• Partnerships: All Nigerian ACEs have several regional and international partners. Noteworthy
partnerships are ACEPRD with the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion, and
ACEGID with Harvard University, University of Cambridge, the Wellcome Trust, and the Joint West
Africa Research Group.
• Select Additional Achievements by sector
o Health: ACEGID provides the clearest example of any ACE in the project delivering impact on
wider society. There can be little question that the sub-region would have been less well
prepared to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ebola outbreak, without ACEGID. It
was the first to sequence 250 Ebola virus genomes, and developed a database for use by
researchers and health agencies. Subsequently, the center sequenced the first SARS-CoV-2
genome from the first Nigerian COVID-19 case. This allowed policy-makers and health
providers to sooner understand characteristics of the pandemic in the region. In December
2020, ACEGID identified a mutation of the virus, which it has been monitoring. PAMI has made
considerable progress in cancer research, identifying Triple X breast cancer receptors and
developing target therapies. Lastly, ACENTDFB is the only institution in West Africa running
programs in biotechnology with a focus on neglected tropical diseases.
o STEM: CEFOR has been pursuing a number of projects with industrial partners, all of which
are pre-commercialisation. One effort is pilot-testing an oil-field chemical made from cassava
starch, while a second is seeking to develop corrosion inhibitors with Shell. Meanwhile, OUA-
OAK reports spinning-off five registered companies, one of which (Intelifarm) has developed
for commercialisation a fingerprint device, a multipurpose drone and a microcontroller board.
Lastly, ACEPRD developed the world’s first Indigenous anti-snake vaccine (COVIP-Plus) in
collaboration with the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion.
o Agriculture: CDA developed a means of sexing date palms at the seedling stage, and is now
working towards breeding 50:50 batches of seedlings for commercialisation. Not only does
this discovery promise to foster date production, but also to help build up a “great green wall”
of plants with anti-desertification properties. CEFTER has designed many new agriculture
equipment that they are commercializing, including a freeze drier, an Ohmic heating system,
and pulsed electric field equipment for milk pasteurization. Lastly, CEADESE developed a new
breed of goats (Kalawad) and developed a machine to produce pelletized poultry droppings –
an important initiative in the push for more organic fertilizer.
Page 109 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
SENEGAL
13. With a total commitment of US$ 16 million, Senegal has two centers of Excellence. CEA-SAMEF, a health
ACE based at the Université Cheikh Anta Diop and CEA-MITIC, a STEM ACE and based at the Université
Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis.
14. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: The two Senegal ACEs have a
disbursement rate of 87 percent, the lowest rate in the DLI Achievement
DLI 4
project.
DLI 3
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional preparation DLI 2.8
achieved DLI 2.7
• DLI 2.1: 79 percent of short term achieved, totalling DLI 2.6
DLI 2.5
1,196 students enrolled in short courses.
DLI 2.4
• DLI 2.2 & 2.3: 96.5 percent of master’s student DLI 2.3
enrollment achieved, and 100 percent of PhD DLI 2.2
enrollment achieved. The Senegalese ACEs enrolled DLI 2.1
1,620 master’s students and 313 PhD students. The DLI 1
Senegalese ACEs together did especially well in 0% 50% 100%
recruiting PhD students, with CEA-MITIC ranking third
and CEA-SAMEF ranking sixth among the project. They both have comparatively high numbers of
PhD students who were regional. Overall, CEA-MITIC
had the fourth-highest total enrolment among all Disbursements
ACEs.
• DLI 2.4: 69 percent of internships achieved. The 1,545,390
Senegalese ACEs in total reported 409 student and
faculty internships.
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of accreditation achieved. For
CEA-MITIC, the master’s programs in Information
System Development and in Networks and 8,854,610
Telecommunications have been accredited by HCERES
(France). For CEA-SAMEF, four of its programs have
been accredited by HCERES (France). Undisbursed Disbursed
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research publications Disbursement by ACE
achieved. The Senegalese ACEs produced 323
research publications, accounting for 13 percent of 6,000,000
total publications recorded by Elsevier but just 5 5,000,000
percent of citations and below 1 percent of FWCI. 4,000,000
• DLI 2.7: 64 percent of external revenue achieved. 3,000,000
The Senegalese ACEs generated $1.2 million in total. 2,000,000
• DLI 2.8: 88 percent of learning and teaching 1,000,000
environment achieved. CEA-MITIC constructed 0
seven renovated offices, one ampitheathre, one CEA-SAMEF CEA-MITIC
laboratory, and one new conference room, along
with new teaching and learning resources. CEA-MITIC completed: (i) a new education block with
Page 110 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
six 50-seat classrooms, four laboratories, one PhD desk, and an open computer access hall; (ii) a
research block with 20 researchers’ offices and laboratories; (iii) an administrative block for
student reception, orientation, laboratory equipment, and offices for staff; and (iv) an amenities
block consisting of a 100-seat multipurpose room, and apartments for visitors.
• Fiduciary Management: The Senegalese ACEs achieved 81 percent of their FM DLIs.
• DLI 4: 75 percent of procurement achieved. At the mid-point, CEA-SAMEF was having difficulty
disbursing funds in a timely manner, which led funds to be reallocated to CEA-MITIC.
• Partnerships: Both ACEs have partnership agreements with national, regional, and international
institutions, such as the International Science Program (Sweden) and the University of Science
and Technology of Bamako. Specifically, CEA-MITIC has a contract with the University of Gambia
to host and train 53 master’s students and 14 PhD students.
• Select Additional Achievements
o CEA-MITIC launched the project “Digital Saint Louis 2025” to transform the living and
working conditions of the city of Saint Louis through digital transformation. In addition,
15 PhD students have been selected into the PASET scholarship program.
o CEA-SAMEF has been very engaged in service delivery. The ACE conducts regular
community outreach activities to diagnose and treat diseases such as urinary tract
infections, anemia, breast cancer and uterine cancer. A major investment of the Center
in the context of the ACE I project was to purchase a medical bus, to allow the ACE to
deliver healthcare and health awareness campaigns in remote areas. CEA-SAMEF has also
sought to influence policymaking. Areas of focus have included vaccination and tele-
health delivery.
TOGO
15. With a total commitment of US$ 8 million, Togo has one Center of Excellence: Center d’Excellence
Régional sur les Sciences Aviaires (CERSA). This agriculture ACE was based at the Université de Lomé.
16. Key Highlights:
• Disbursement: Togo was the only country in ACE I to achieve
a 100 percent overall disbursement rate. DLI Achievement
• DLI 1: 100 percent of institutional readiness achieved DLI 4
• DLI 2.1: 100 percent of short courses achieved. CERSA DLI 3
DLI 2.8
enrolled 907 students in short courses. DLI 2.7
• DLI 2.2 & 2.3: 100 percent of master’s enrollment and 100 DLI 2.6
percent of PhD enrollment achieved. CERSA enrolled 173 DLI 2.5
DLI 2.4
master’s students and 58 PhD students. Thirty-five percent of DLI 2.3
students at CERSA were regional, the sixth highest figure DLI 2.2
among all ACEs. In particular, a majority of PhD students at DLI 2.1
DLI 1
CERSA were regional students.
0% 50% 100%
Page 111 of 112
The World Bank
Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence Project (P126974)
• DLI 2.4: 100 percent of internships achieved. CERSA 474 student and faculty internships, the
largest number of internships occurring regionally of any ACE
(110). Disbursements
• DLI 2.5: 100 percent of accreditation achieved. CERSA’s one -
master’s degree program in avian science has been accredited
by HCERES (France).
• DLI 2.6: 100 percent of research publications achieved,
producing 25 research publications.
5,200,000
• DLI 2.7: 100 percent of external revenue achieved, raising just
over US$ 1 million over the course of the project
• DLI 2.8: 100 percent of teaching and learning environment
Disbursed
achieved. CERSA installed a new educational and research
complex including a 200-seat conference room, two 40-seat classrooms, eight laboratories, a
library, and a meeting room.
• Fiduciary Management: CERSA met 100 percent of its FM DLIs.
• DLI 4: 100 percent of procurement achieved.
• Partnerships: CERSA has regional partnerships in Nigeria and Benin, as well as international
partnerships with universities in Belgium, China, the Netherlands, and France.
• Select Additional Achievements: CERSA is the only Africa Center of Excellence whose activities
focus on poultry science and production and related sciences. To address reginal challenges facing
the sector, CERSA launched the Pan-African Conference on Poultry. CERSA has been collaborating
with various poultry-related companies and has been training hundreds of farmers from
surrounding countries in poultry technique. One collaboration is seeking to improve the selection
of chickens, while another is focused on improving feed – all contributing to food security in the
region.
• CERSA has been successfully renewed for support under the ACE Impact Project.
Page 112 of 112