Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Is Research for Development (R4D) a good investment? Reflections on lessons from NBDC


Published on

Presented by Douglas J Merrey at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9 – 10 July 2013

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Is Research for Development (R4D) a good investment? Reflections on lessons from NBDC

  1. 1. Douglas J Merrey Consultant-science coordinator, NBDC Is Research for Development (R4D) a Good Investment? Reflections on Lessons from NBDC Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop – 2013 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 9 – 10 July 2013
  2. 2. R4D has a huge potential but this has yet to be fully realized Four recommendations: 1. Effective partnerships – empowered demand-side institutions; 2. Strong linkages to existing development investment programs; 3. Long-term commitment by funding agencies as well as scientists; and 4. Foundation in excellent science Key Message
  3. 3. ∗ Methods, sources ∗ Natural resources management research in CGIAR & CPWF ∗ A little history—roots of R4D ∗ Lessons emerging from Institutional History of NBDC ∗ Recommendations OVERVIEW
  4. 4. ∗ Author’s experience with applied research & action research at IWMI from 1980s ∗ Lessons from CPWF (associated from its inception) ∗ Lessons from NBDC reflected in interviews, review of documents for NBDC “Institutional History” Institutional History (IH) is a team effort but views in this paper are my own responsibility METHODS, SOURCES
  5. 5. ∗ Dilemma: development funding for research ∗ Financers expect measurable concrete development outcomes (confirmed June meetings donors & CGIAR) ∗ Demonstrating clear outcomes, direct benefits easy for commodities, impossible for NR research ∗ Agricultural, aquatic, forest ecosystems are extremely complex as are human behaviors – difficult to attribute changes directly to research outputs ∗ Solution has been various models of “applied research”, “action research”, “integrated natural resources management [INRM] research” ∗  “Integrated Agricultural Research for Development” – IARD, or in CPWF-speak, R4D ∗ Paradigm for new CGIAR Water Land & Ecosystems (WLE) Program [and others] NRM RESEARCH IN CGIAR
  6. 6. ROOTS OF R4D-1 ∗ Anthropology: “applied research” in the service of colonialism—seen as top- down, dis-empowering ∗ “Participatory action research” (PAR) from sociology as solution ∗ Adopted by IWMI & others 1980s ∗ Research is collaborative with communities
  7. 7. ∗ IARD OR R4D also has roots in ecology and innovation systems theory ∗ Places PAR within a firm agro-ecology systems and/or institutional framework. ∗ Broad ecosystems perspective escapes the confines of social science ∗ Now an integrating inter-disciplinary paradigm for doing research ∗ Pioneered by SSA Challenge Program, and some projects in phase 1 of CPWF ROOTS OF R4D-2
  8. 8. ∗ NBDC like other BDCs is based on R4D ∗ Elements include: explicit “theory of change”, Innovation Platforms, consultations with stakeholders at multiple levels, innovative workshop activities, emphasis on communication 1. IH interviews  divergent view of R4D ∗ CPWF management: full participation all stakeholders, integrates notions of power, relations among people, institutions, partners, & how those dynamics evolve; research expected to be relevant by transforming its focus to contributing to real development outcomes* * Disclosure: reflects author’s view as well. 4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC EXPERIENCE
  9. 9. ∗ NBDC researchers: Many hold much narrower views  research that somehow will in future be relevant for development; some mentioned elements such as ‘research into action’ ∗ Concern by some that R4D dilutes rigors of “science” or is not “real” science ∗ Split between social scientists & others ∗ Incomplete buy-in by researchers 2. Over-ambitious--raised high expectations ∗ +/- 3-4 years, limited budgets, yet expect to develop partnerships, test innovations, & achieve measurable outcomes & changes in policy, etc. ∗ Interviews reflect disappointment, obscuring the real achievements of NBDC 4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC EXPERIENCE
  10. 10. 3. Consultative but not sufficiently “demand-driven” ∗ Not well-integrate with existing SLM investment program (ESIF) ∗ Driven by international researchers who seek partnerships, collaboration, & consult stakeholders ∗ “Consumers” may have preferred more “traditional” research ∗ Importance of balancing consumer interests and researchers’ proposed “innovations” ∗ Way forward: empower clients to identify and implement possible innovations, researchers acting as consultants, coaches, and process documenters—as in IPs locally ∗ Gap may be policy makers not adequately involved in selecting & testing innovations ∗ IWMI past experience mixed by positive in doing this in Sri Lanka, Pakistan 4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC EXPERIENCE
  11. 11. ∗ Client-driven research with new roles for researchers challenges deeply held notions researchers hold of their role ∗ Playing activist role, embedded in system not consistent with traditional view of scientist as outside the system, measuring change & processes 4. Large number & diversity of partners is an innovation ∗ Diversity potential source of innovation, uptake ∗ Needs careful management to maximize benefits & minimize transaction costs; create space for partners to participate fully (empowerment) ∗ Used Platforms (IPs, national), steering committee, etc. 4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC EXPERIENCE
  12. 12. R4D has a huge potential but this has yet to be fully realized Four recommendations: 1. Effective partnerships including empowered demand- side institutions ∗“Effective”- 2 dimensions  Strong commitment from the demand side institutions  Commitment must include empowerment vis-à- vis the researchers. ∗Partners must have a strong voice from the earliest stages in designing research programs 1. Needs time, effort for dialogue RECOMMENDATIONS
  13. 13. RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Strong linkages to existing development investment programs ∗ Ideally implementation & research programs developed together though often not possible ∗ Research needs to address priority issues for higher likelihood of impacts ∗ Potential to “leverage” resources – synergies research & implementation
  14. 14. 3. Long-term commitment of adequate resources by funding agencies as well as scientists ∗ Critical for successful R4D in complex human ecosystems ∗ “Long term” = decade plus ∗ Rare but there are a few examples ∗ CPWF originally 15 years [3 phases] but phase 2 only partly built on phase 1, and has been cut short ∗ CPWF limited budget fragments senior scientists’ allocation of time ∗ Concentration and full engagement of scientists over sufficient time is critical RECOMMENDATIONS
  15. 15. RECOMMENDATIONS 4. Foundation in excellent science ∗ CPWF and NBDC scientists emphasis this ∗ Necessary though not ‘sufficient’ ∗ Science Workshop will show our science achievements ∗ Need to publish
  16. 16. ∗ NBDC has been important learning experience ∗ Produced impressive outputs ∗ Emerging evidence of outcomes-impacts ∗ Significant contribution to knowledge on what is needed to “improve the resilience of rural livelihoods in the Ethiopian highlands through a landscape approach to rainwater management” ∗ I hope future programs will build on this knowledge & lessons to achieve the Development Challenge CONCLUSION
  17. 17. THANK YOU