• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Reaching End-Users: Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development
 

Reaching End-Users: Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development

on

  • 1,992 views

Presentation by Louise Sperling and Mark Lundy for the CIAT KSW 2009

Presentation by Louise Sperling and Mark Lundy for the CIAT KSW 2009

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,992
Views on SlideShare
1,990
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
29
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2

http://cienaga.uniandes.edu.co 1
http://unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This talk aims to give the bigger view on reaching enduser programs (REU), as they currently exist at CIAT. Mark Lundy and I have pulled together this talk– but with specific inputs from many. The aim of this overview-- is stimulate more deliberate thinking on REU research at CIAT.
  • Many of you may know that REU was rejected as a deliberate thrust in CIAT’s strategic directions document. It also doesn’t appear in the MTPs.In contrast, to set the stage for this talk, the CGIAR itself , at last at an executive level, is putting REU front and center. Ren Wang, the Director of the CG has rechristened the CG image as Science for Impact..
  • With this rechristening there will have purported strategy implications as well as substantial money implications. Here I report Dr. Wang’s vision, shared two weeks go.Currently the CG operates in a money relationship where the CG does with say 9 parts, and then links with partners, for delivery, one part.In the future- for impact, the relationship needs to be reversed. CG 1 part, and partners 9 parts– in collaborations. To give you an idea of the scale of the difference- add a few zeros. e.g. scenario 1 CG in 9 millionb, partners 1 million; future scenarios (e.g. megaprograms) CG 1 million, partners million
  • --Unfortunately this type of pipeline vision at the higher CG levels, which predominates. Is quite simple or simplistic.Minimally from the very beginning.Key research has to inform the types of ‘delivery’ mechanisms- reaching clientsAnd quite extensive and continuous feedback loops have to sharpen our impact oriented processes.Simplistic thinking not just in diagrams- on what Dr. Wang called impact pathways. 3 model megaprograms have been mocked up in the CG
  • For those of you who want to see the initial thinking on REU– and the megaprogram. Three programs have been mocked up– and are available for public view. Despite the massive amounts (and proportions of money involved), The REU is still at an early stage. Formative, pre-formative. Jurassic.So where are we: CG is moving towards Science for Impact, CG moving towards serious REU, including Money- CIAT is in a position to help lead- even being modest- in select domains, we are several leaps ahead.Happily CIAT thinking on REU- well advanced….
  • What I want to do is first to Give- two brief examples- to illustrate what REU about- the contentsWe have MANY more at CIAT. THEN SHARE Overall trends at CIAT
  • We were having impact- issue- can we make sure the process strategically designed– efficient, equitable- to reach people CIAT commits itself to reaching ( include poor, women, marginal areas).
  • Many of you know the context seed delivery
  • Counteracted stereotypes of much of the seed industry .
  • Private sector aid farmers- not interested– BUT- aiming 72,000 next season)Beans– rising up towards maize levels– in te
  • Demand driven moving to scale.
  • Don’t have transparent logos…This is the list from Central America. Based on this work, CRS then expanded much broader as we will see.
  • Clear objectivesMultiple stakeholders have different objectives and interests. A learning alliance is based on the identification and negotiation of common interests, needs and capacities of participating organizations and individuals. What does each organization bring to the alliance? What complementarities or gaps exist? What does each organization hope to achieve through the collaboration? How can the alliance add value to partner activities?Shared responsibilities, costs and benefitsOrganizations and individuals participate in learning alliances when: (1) they perceive benefits from this association, (2) transaction costs are lower than expected benefits, (3) benefits from collective action are perceived to be greater than those obtained individually, and (4) results do not conflict with other key interests. Learning alliances seek to benefit all parties. Therefore, transaction costs and responsibilities, as well as benefits and credit for achievements, are shared among partners in a transparent fashion.Outputs as inputsRural communities are diverse and no universally applicable recipes for sustainable development exist. Learning alliances view research and development outputs as inputs to processes of rural innovation that are place and time-specific. Methods and tools will change as users adapt them to their needs and realities. Understanding why adaptations occur, the extent that these lead to positive or negative changes in livelihoods, and documenting and sharing lessons learnt are key objectives.Differentiated but linked learning mechanismsLearning alliances have a diverse range of participants. Identifying each group’s questions and willingness to participate in the learning process is critical to success. Flexible but connected learning methods are needed. Long-term, trust-based relationshipsRural development processes stretch over many years or decades. To influence positive change and understand why that change has occurred requires long-term, stable relationships capable of evolving to meet new challenges. Trust is the glue that cements these relationships, but develops gradually as partners interact with each other and perceive concrete benefits from collaboration.
  • And there are methods behind this, for example the learning cycle is akin to the scientific methodKey elements:Multiple partners, scale and contributes to improved practiceCross-cutting policy implicationsEmpirical evidence Not a one way delivery mechanismThe first step in a learning cycle is to clearly define what we seek to learn from this process. These questions can take the form of research issues, methodological or ‘how-to’ queries or policy level inquiries. In many cases, a combination of diverse questions reflecting the diversity of participants’ interests in a specific topic occurs.  Once the learning objectives are clear, a short review of existing good practice is generated. This process is based on literature review conducted by research organizations, complemented by rapid surveys of partner experience as well as the identification of other relevant field experiences that partners are aware of. The final result is a short ‘state of the art and practice’ document focused on partner needs that combines external ideas as well as partner and regional experience.  Based on the specific learning queries and existing good practice, the alliance develops a prototype for testing and improvement. A prototype may include methods, tools or policy ideas that seem promising to help respond to the knowledge and skill gaps identified by partner agencies. It is not, however, a definitive response but rather a first ‘best-guess’ of what might work. Depending on the novelty of the prototype developed, the alliance provides more or less intensive support for capacity building and backstopping to partner agencies interested in using and improving the prototype to meet their specific needs. This takes the form of regional or national workshops – open to all interested partner agencies – complemented by face-to-face or virtual backstopping to assist in processes of adaptation and improvement. Partner agencies test and improve the prototype in existing development initiatives in a variety of contexts. On-going results from this process are shared via Dgroup as well as the website. When prototype testing is well advanced or completed, the alliance facilitates a face-to-face meeting to assess the learning cycle. This meeting seeks to identify and document lessons learned and make sense of these collectively between partner agencies. Specific attention is paid to how well the prototyping process resolved the initial knowledge and capacity gaps expressed by partner agencies, what policy implications this work has both for partner agencies and others and what positive adaptations and innovations were made during the process to the prototype itself. Products from this workshop may include empirical data to inform theory, practical results to inform diverse policy makers and improved methods and tools for further iterations of learning by partner agencies.
  • 25 direct partners116 indirect partners36k families
  • Co –agenda setting- for research and for impactIf we leverage properly- real bang for the buck
  • Potential– to change mountains

Reaching End-Users: Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development Reaching End-Users: Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development Presentation Transcript

  • REACHING END-USERS Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development Louise Sperling and Mark Lundy with inputs from: Andy Farrow Bernard Vanlauwe Enid Katungi Reinhardt Howeler Jean Claude Rubyogo Helena Pachon Andy Jarvis Michael Peters Rod Lefroy
  • CGIAR VISION Ren Wang, CG Director SCIENCE FOR IMPACT
  • CGIAR VISION: Ren Wang, Director funding allocations Current Near Future (New CG) CG: 9 CG: 1 Part. 1 Partners: 9
  • ‘Delivery’
  • MEGAPROGRAMS http://sites.google.com/a/cgxchange.org/alliance/mega-program-team-reports
  • REU program at CIAT: WHY? Reaching Endusers is a CORE VALUE at CIAT 1. Advance Research • for reaching client groups– on the ground • for policy change (toward) client groups) 2. Shape R+ D (affect implementation) 3. Serve as a framework for Funding CIAT Working Group: REU- Dec 2008
  • REU RESEARCH Advances Example 1: Beans: moving of varieties- Africa Example 2: Agro-enterprise: linking farmers to markets
  • Moving of bean varieties : Africa Problem: varieties not getting out fast enough or widely enough
  • Conventional Model Bean NARS led centralized seed systems A few released popular On farm variety testing varieties Parastatal seed producers/ Farmer research groups/individual farmers suppliers GO/NGOs (for development projects + as seed relief) Farmers Farmers Traders
  • Use of certified seed in percent area sown in a selection of African countries (DANAGRO 1988, CIAT 2002, 2004, SSN 2005) Maize Sorghum Wheat Rice Common Bean Angola 15 0 50 0 0 Lesotho 75 5 38 4 - Malawi 10 5 19 4 0 Mozambique 10 5 13 - - Rwanda - - - - 1 Tanzania 14 9 15 0 0 Zambia 75 0 97 <1 <1 Zimbabwe 83 25 97 <1 <1
  • Research Dynamism. vs. Seed Supply Country # var. # var.supplied by formal Seed coverage released seed channels by formal seed (96-04) supply (%) DRC 18 4 <2 Ethiopia 23 3 0.8 Rwanda 20 5 2 Uganda 11 2 5
  • Figure Modified from R. Kirkby (CIAT) 2003 Seed company Traders promotion training / Local R/D service provider training local seed sales access to technology Research Farmer enterprises free evaluation station Re-Conceptualization of seed production and supply chain •More partners (100s) •Clear complementary divisions of labor • New platform building (Rubyogo et al, forthcoming)
  • Research on Seed quality- what product was safe- met user needs? 16 14 12 seed infec tion (% ) 10 8 6 4 2 Trained farmers Non-trained Local market KARI group Otysula et al., 2004
  • STRONG RESEARCH ON MARKETING • Small packs – 75g (‘cup of tea’) – 200g – 400g • Multiple varieties • In venues farmers’ frequent • With Information-from trusted source
  • RETHINKING IMPACT PATHS 20 . Millions of Farmers 10 Wider Impact Conventional 2 6 10 14 Years
  • No. of partners in bean seed multiplication and delivery: PABRA/ECARBEN/SABRN #3 CIAT/partners have recognized track record in REU Households reached 2003-2007 Ethiopia 992,755 Malawi 793,430 S. Tanzania 807,160 Uganda 3,584,590 Zambia 1,001,400 Zimbabwe 819,300 _____________ __________ Total 7,998,635 Rubyogo et al, 2009
  • NEW PUBLIC –PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP • 28,000 packs sold (Sept 09- Jan 09) LELDET LTD CROPS SOLD at Ol Kalou Field Day on 18th March 2009 80 70 WEIGHT(kgs) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 maize beans cow pigeon sorghum peas peas SEEDS
  • GENDER RESULTS Small packets sales Oct-Nov 08 N= 5404 customers male 10 Ksh ( $ 0.12) 42% female 58% Most popular size
  • SUMMARY: REU Research Beans  Tested Partnership reorganization  Tested Market innovation (GATES/AGRA)  Developed production and model- for use in 24 countries- across crops  Opened up lucrative possibilities- private sector.  Developed a model which reaches even poor women  .... Reached… 8 million households (5 years)
  • Agro-enterprise REU challenge  Productivity is not enough to reduce poverty  Markets are also needed  Questions from NGOs – Methods and tools for market linkages? – Training & backstopping on tool usage?  Questions from CIAT – How to move from training to co-learning? – How to achieve impact at scale?
  • Some participants in Central America
  • Organizing principles  Clear and shared objectives.  Shared responsibilities, costs and benefits.  Outputs as inputs for innovation.  Differentiated but linked learning mechanisms.  Long-term, trust-based relationships.
  • Learning cycles Development of key questions (what do we want to learn?) Document external Document field experience knowledge (literature) (local, national) Existing ‘good practice’ (what is already known?) How can we use/improve ‘good practice’ Empirical evidence (prototype 1.0 - toolkits of for theory approaches, methods, tools and policies) development Capacity development Contributions Policy implications / to large- briefs scale, systemic Field application Field application Field application change (context A) (context B) (context C) Shared documentation, analysis, reflection and Improved practice learning around the selected topic (prototype 2.0)
  • Reach and Influence in Central America (2003-2007) Innovation system Direct learning Indirect learning Partner for rural enterprise alliance partners alliance partners beneficiaries development in (25 organizations) (~116 organizations) (~35,786 families) Central America
  • Results Central America  Farm level gains  Increased income, better NRM and gender equity  Income gains from using alliance tools of 10m US reported (Swisscontact Honduras)  Estimated regional income impact over 60m US (4 years)  Sustainable process  Regional facilitation unit spun off of CIAT  Currently funded by partner contributions  CIAT now focused on further strategic research for impact
  • Results Central America  More strategic and collaborative projects  ACORDAR Nicaragua (CRS) 28m US  PYMERural Nicaragua, Honduras (Swisscontact) 12m US  Sustainable trading relationships Honduras, Guatemala (Oxfam) 10m US
  • Reach and influence globally S. Asia: India, Afghanistan S.E. Asia: Philippines, Vietnam, Timor- Leste, Cambodia West Africa: Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Gambia, DR Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Benin Andes: Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia Peru East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi and Eritrea Central America: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008
  • SUMMARY: Agro enterprise REU  Uptake of CIAT research outputs, business models  Major organizational changes in partners  More effective collaboration between development and research agencies  Sustainable platform for science for impact, not just for agro enterprise  And field level impacts in more 30+ countries
  • SUMMARY :Types of REU Impacts • New organizational models developed for science for impact • Policy Changes (public, NGO, donor and private) • Re-focus on ---Types of end users redefined • Scaling up processes refined (across countries, across regions,-- global changes) • (and yes. massive results on the ground: # people reached, $$$ income, distribution of benefits– toward poor, marginalized, women QUESTION: Is this just ‘DELIVERY”
  • Some Overview Tables REU at CIAT
  • SELECT REU IMPACTS Program Technology Where When REU target reached Cassava Improved varieties 11 countries (1994-2007) 2.8 million famers Asia and agronomic SE Asia ($ 916 million increased income /yr) practices (incl China) Forages Forage options in Laos, Viet 2002 - 2008 40,000 farmers Asia crop livestock Nam, South systems East Asia Forages Brachiaria accessions LAC, 2001 - 2008 100,000 to 150,000 ha (mainly including hybrids Thailand LAC) Forages Knowledge systems Global Launched 120,000 to 150,000 hits per year SoFT 2005 Seed Seed Aid Briefs Global 2006-present  60,0000 downloads Systems in stress Agro-enter Territorial approach Global 2002-2008 30 country programs of CRS trained LAC to rural enterprise in agro enterprise development; development (empowered)
  • REU- CIAT : Money currently involved Program Theme-Issue Where When Total Funds $ Funds/Year $ Beans (TLII) Drought-tolerant Bean Kenya and Ethiopia 2008-2010 1.4 million 460,000 seed systems Beans Seed Systems- strategy Malawi 2007-2010 400,000 100,000 Mozambique S. Tanzania Forages Several projects combine Nicaragua, 2007 -2011 500,000 200.000 with REU Colombia, Congo, Laos, Viet Nam Asia Farming systems- Agri-bus Cambodia, Vietnam, 2008-2012 1.5 million 375,000 Laos ISFM-TSBF CIALCA Central Africa 2007-2011 3.1 million 740,000 Agro –enter. New business models for Kenya, Ethiopia, 2008-2011 5.3 million 1,325,000 New Biz Model sustainable trading Ghana and Ivory relationships Coast Decision and Climate Change and Nicaragua 2009-2014 200,000 40,000 Policy Analysis Coffee in Central America Guatemala SSA-CP IAR4D Kivu area, (DRC) 2007-2010 750,000 250,000 PABRA- REU Cross programs Pan-Africa 2009-2011 1 million 250,000 thrust Nippon Found. Improved var + agronomic Laos, Cambodia, 2009-2013 2.3 million 450,000 Cassava practices Myanmar, Vietnam Total (partial) 16.5 million 4.2 million
  • Money leveraged Theme Where When Funds Funds Comments directly Leveraged available $US $US Rural Agro- Honduras 2002-2007 490,000 1.4 million > 50 million $US enterprise Guatemala brought in via new development El Salvador projects in Central Nicaragua America Livestock Laos 2008-2015 0 19.8 million CIAT designed the Development loan and grant (Tropical project Forages) Forages in Colombia 2006-2010 100,000 200, 000 Exponential uptake systems in Cauca and Valle
  • Pea and the elephant
  • ‘Powerful Pea’ Shift from vet fix to forage solution across Mekong Delta Private companies, e,g Costco, pro-poor supply chains…. Cassava approach change towards FPR across 11 countries in Asia Biorfortification as Change UN routine trait in NARS guidelines- seed aid (e.g. Cuba + Panama)
  • REU funds (projects next 1-2 years) Program Theme-Issue Where When Funds requested $US Forages Forage network with CATIE Central America and the c. 2010 1 million INIA Caribbean Agro-enterprise, forages Dairy chain development Nicaragua, Colombia, c. 2010 2.5 million Costa Rica Beans Wider impact seed chains Uganda, DRC, Burundi 2009-10 750,000 (?) Decision and Policy Support Site specific agriculture SSA 2010-2015 c. 2 million (SSAFE) TSBF Biological nitrogen fixation- SSA 2010-2014 c. 6 million legumes Agro-enterprise Linking farmers to markets Laos 2009-2013 2.3 million AgroSalud Biofortified rice and beans Cuba 2010-2012 250,000 Nicaragua Coffee Under Pressure (CUP) Climate change adaptation + Central America and 2009-2013 200,000 pro-poor business models Building Sustainable Trading Pro-poor business models and 2009-2012 750,000 Relationships Designing inclusive + effective Pro-poor public sector supply Honduras, Nicaragua, 2009-2012 850,000 public sector supply chain policies chain support policies Colombia, Peru, Ecuador Building NGO and farmer capacity Farmer and NGO capacity ,,,,,, 2009-2011 300,000 to partner effectively with buyers development Total (partial) 16.9 million
  • Coordinate vs. Conflict RWANDA Bean Seed HP+ Supply Systems CIALCA PABRA
  • PROPOSED STEPS FOR MOVING FORWARD CIAT team: 1. Review what is our ‘reaching end-user mandate’ (what is ‘in’ what is ‘out’) 2. Synthesize some of the ‘startling’ High profile lessons (maybe edited volume) 3. Synthesize STRATEGIC VISION, STRATEGIC PATHS 4. Map: intra-center (+ partner) opportunities for impact, on-the ground synergies 5. Fund raise- specifically Strategic ‘REU’
  • CHECKLIST for REU Program Development Question No Yes 1. Does CIAT adhere to the goal of ‘Science for impact’ √ 2. Does CIAT currently engage in REU activity √ 3. Will CIAT intensify REU activity in the future √ √ 4. Does REU demand strategic work in areas of : • Organization al models • Client-oriented policy • Methods development • Shared agenda setting