Unreliable funding can create significant barriers to cooperation between stakeholders. Khan and colleagues (2004) report that in Africa, the provision of adequate financial and technical resources is the key to sustainable co-management. In the Caribbean, CANARI (1999) finds that the implementation of participatory decisions and management measures requires not only political support, but also adequate technical and financial resources.  In collaborative research, many discoveries fall into CE2. A well-written research cooperation agreement defines how and by whom findings of ownership are to be made in cases where IP/TP is detected by either party. For simplicity and to facilitate the discussion of related issues, the chapter focuses on one scenario: the development of a research agreement between a public laboratory of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and a private company. Many of the points raised also apply to research cooperation between other types of organizations. The last part of the section devoted to general provisions is the amendment process. Strong partnerships are developing and transforming; It is therefore necessary to amend the agreements. In fact, many of the best research cooperation needs to be constantly modified. It is not uncommon for research cooperation to be changed as often as every six months or every year. Because researchers often identify dynamic new opportunities that partners want to explore together. Thus, a well-written agreement can be modified so that the declaration of objectives, the specifications and the budget meet the new needs.
A multifaceted practice of partnership has been established in a paradigmatic premise. Partnerships are made in three modalities. The first part of research cooperation is commonly referred to as the declaration of objectives. This explains the general state of the agreement. It describes what the parties want to accomplish together and why cooperation is important. Granting an option is usually very useful, as it is very difficult to predict which IP/TP will be generated. In addition, it is difficult to predict the value of such a new IP/TP. Therefore, agreements that directly grant a license and fully represent the conditions of the certificate can lead to a gross miscalculation of the value of new IPs/TPs, either undervalued or overvalued. If the IP/TP is overvalued, it would likely have a deterrent effect on the future development of such an IP/TP.
If the new IP/TP is significantly undervalued, it can act as a block for future relations between the parties, as one party has been treated unfairly. The fourth section of well-written research cooperation is the budget. There is a tendency to consider this to be the most important section, since it documents the funding that the parties contribute. However, this is an unreasonable emphasis. While it is true that public sector agricultural research is severely underfunded and that, therefore, funds received from cooperation partners have an extremely important place in the overall research budget, related research should never be seen as a means of increasing revenues. Cooperation is much more than that. The focus solely on research funding neglects both the use of the agreement as a means of technology transfer and as a means of creating an effect of intellectual synergy that can result from the collaboration of researchers. The evolution of the budget must begin with a clear statement of work. . . .