3. IFAD-CPWF mainstreaming innovations Theory of Change
IMPACT
Re-/Packaged
Materials Used by:
Outcome Stories
Main change
agents
Key messages -
Smart card/
posters
IFAD Country
Program Managers
Know about CPWF work &
people most relevant to
their work
Engage and interact
with our networks
Sourcebook
(articles)
IFAD in-country
project staff
Interested towards our
work and social capital
and partnership networks
Adapt and
contextualize what is
useful for their work
Briefing/ insight
notes
Metasynthesis
Institutional
Histories
Any other
materials
Knowledge, attitude and
skills changes
Changes in behaviour
and practice
Project Activities
Improved food
security and
livelihoods of poor
rural communities
OUTCOMESOUTPUTS
Other partner
development &
implementation
professionals
Have the skills to pick the
suitable findings/
technologies
CPWF Mainstreaming tested out new ideas but still:
• Supply driven
• Not jointly designed with country investment
portfolios
4. Current IFAD technical projects – difficult to retrofit in
country portfolios
Technical/thematic project
often are designed with little
inputs from country portfolios
• Lack of buy-in ownership
from CPMs
• Difficult to find synergies
• Research results hard to
adapt to IFAD project
interventions
5. Moving toward a strategic partnership: Example from
Lao PDR between IFAD and WLE
A simple solution: Design partnerships at the country and investment
portfolio level from the start. Different entry points:
• Technical inputs in project design, implementation and evaluation
• Action research around key problems identified in projects
• Strategic entry points based on country context
6. Activities to date
Project level
• Supervisory mission by WLE
staff member
• Identification of key entry
points for project interventions
• Inputs on KM related issues in
one project
• Greater interaction of
WLE/IWMI researchers in
IFAD missions.
Joint work around policy
dialogue:
• Coordinated support to the
Lao Policy Think Tank, not
silo’d
• Joint organization of National
R4D Forum
7. Innovations
Co-design based on
common interests
Flexibility in contracting
Focus on knowledge and
engagement:
• Simple technical advice
• Action research to delve
deeper and find
solutions
Drawing on a pool of
expertise wider than
IWMI
Focused on solving local
problems
8. Advantages of this approach
Fulfil mutual objectives
Large return on investment –
• Small investment (100-200k)
can directly influence large
investment projects
Developing long-term relations
& institutional memory
Access to a pool of expertise
that is locally appropriate
Independent and constructive
advice
9. Challenges
Getting over initial resistance
and myths:
• Myth 1: Researchers are just
acting as consultants
• Myth 2: Hard to create
innovation if you are just
responding to demand
Developing such a relationships
takes interest and trust from
both CPM and CG institute
Developing flexible contracts
has been difficult
10. Questions for discussion
How can such an approach be used in other countries and regions?
What are barriers or incentives for such partnerships to develop?
Editor's Notes
This presentation shows a potential innovative pathway for IFAD and CGIAR to develop new partnerships based on an experience in Laos - the idea is quite simple but also takes some flexibility and commitment to trying to work in a different mode from both CPMs, Technical backtoppers and resaerchers.
Conventional research communication is one-way passive – with the expectation that everyone reads a policy brief or journal article and will use the information.
CPWF and IWMI with IFAD technical specialists has been trying new ways to make sure that resaerch knowledge and expertise get shared. This is what many of the presentations these past two days are showing. But what we have seen in Laos is that getting resaerch knowledge and expertise transferred to development agents or being applied within IFAD investments can only be done through a one-on-one engagement process where resaerchers are directly involved in IFAD investment projects
From CPM perspective current technical projects that most CGIAR grants are done through are not aligned to investment projects in the countries
Regional or thematic project often are hard for CPMs to retrofit into their investment portfolios. They almost become a burden upon CPMs who have to find ways to integrate results or findings into the projects.
Often the research carried out is not relevant or cannot be adapted to the conditions in the investment portfolio’s (working in remote areas with poor farmers
Investment portfolios rarely have a strong learning and action research focus which can help to improve project implementation and fix problems and issues as they arise.
We initially approached Stefania with the Sourcebook and other materials and ideas for collaboration but this did not really seem to meet her needs and it was not clear where we could find mutual interest. We discussed a number of areas but nothing really gelled on either side – typical discussion in many ways…About a year later Stefania approached me to do a supervision mission – she was struggling to find appropriate expertise which understood the context of the projects. As we discussed the mission, we started to think more long-term and saw other options for collaboration.
The mission itself identified a number of areas where both government staff and technical experts agreed, IWMI/WLE could play a big role particularly in water management, knowledge management and gender. We also identified both IFADs and WLE’s support to the National policy think tank as another area of collaboration.
Co-design based on common interests -
Signing flexible contracts which allow for IFAD CPMs to draw upon wealth of knowledge and experience – both global and local
Focused on knowledge and engagement: Researchers work directly with extension and development – rather than providing materials
Simple technical advice
Action research to delve deeper and find solutions to problems
Focused on solving local problems
As the discussions have evovled, we see a number of advantage to this approach
1. In Lao PDR taking a new approach to partnership between WLE and IFAD Country Investment Portfolio. Developing a long-term partnership which fulfils both partners interest:
IFAD – IFAD needs technical inputs which are relevant and based on country context. Stefania has mentioned that it takes a lot of time to identify and source proper assistance which understands local context. By having arrangements with local experts it is more efficient and effective.
CGIAR/WLE/IWMI – we are interested to get to outcomes by engaging directly with investment projects we have opportunity to influence and strengthen these projects –a quick easy win.
2. Its quite clear that this is a great opportunity. If we compare simliar technical grants which can be millions of dollars, a flexible grants of 100-200k could easily influence large scale grants. From stefania: IFAD is moving away from small grants considering them too costly in terms of transaction costs. What we need to work with you is a facility that is flexible enough to mobilize expertise when CPMs need it. Maybe an institutional contract or a large grant designed in this way.
3. WLE is moving ot a more contextual and locallized program through its focal regions and such a partnership helps to develop long-term relationships on both sides. From IFAD perspective provides institutional memory as CPMS move from country to country and having long-term experts (as researchers tend to stay in a coujntry/region for a number of years)
Point 2: -- in Laos we have been able to develop but maybe more difficult in other instances.
Point 3: Institutional and contractual issue from IFAD and CG institutes side –