The Techno-policy model of agricultural development,IITA’s traditional role,The case of Sub-Saharah Africa,Current Strengths and weaknesses of IITA’s R4D Approach,Improving R4D at IITA,Cassava Food Systems Interventions

1. Improving R4D at IITA
Dr Dave Watson
20th September, 2007
Ibadan, Nigeria.

2. The Techno-policy model of
agricultural development
 Linear model of science-technology-development
 Reductionist:
 Superior technology = adoption
 More profitable = adoption
 Improved management practices = adoption
 Enabling environment (research, development, policy, private
sector, creditors, knowledge systems etc.):
 Corporatist policy communities
 Carrot (financial incentives)
 Stick (mandatory requirements)
 Well-defined and reasonably predictable impact pathways

3. What was deficient about this
model?
 Nothing!!!!!!!!! – aside from significant
environmental, food safety and animal welfare
externalities etc.
 Incredibly successful in Western Europe,
North America, Australia and New Zealand
 Successful in much of S. America and Asia

4. IITA’s traditional role
 A Linear Vision of Science: The traditional
CGIAR paradigm (based on Ekboir, 2001)
Formal research in established Development &
Farmers
CGIAR institutions (IITA)
SSA? extension agencies
Basic Strategic Applied
research research research Technology development Adoption
Knowledge flow

5. What happened to the Green
Revolution in SSA?
 Key differences
 Complex heterogeneous development contexts:
 One size didn‟t fit all
 Disabling policy and institutional environment:
 Variable NAREs (some strong/some very weak)
 Agricultural taxes (outputs and inputs)
 Under investment in rural infrastructure
 Limited private sector involvement/development
 Limited access to credit and poor credit worthiness
 Bio-physical:
 Soil fertility, soil erosion, soil structure
 Low and erratic rainfall
 Diverse range of pests and diseases

6. The case of SSA
 Outcomes:
 Many „superior‟ CGIAR technologies and practices
remained on-the-shelf
 Many „superior‟ CGIAR technologies were promoted but
abandoned
 Did SSA simply lack long-term financial and political
support for agricultural development?

7. Structural Problems
 Linear approaches to agricultural development were
not easily transferable to SSA:
1. Inherently „superior technologies/practices‟ …….
 Do not spontaneously diffuse
 Are not automatically adopted
 Do not always lead to predictable agricultural/livelihood impacts
2. Individuals/small groups do not have the power to
determine a development/impact pathway

8. Changing rules of engagement
 Changing donor relations
 Demands for positive and quantifiable livelihood
impacts
 Changing roles of traditional actors
 CGIAR Centres moved down-stream
 New actors entered (INGOs and LNGOs)

9. Impact and Accountability
NAREs + Positive
Formal research in
INGOs and Farmers changes in
CGIAR institutions (IITA)
LNGOs etc. livelihoods
Basic Strategic Applied Technology
research research research development Adoption Impact
Knowledge flow

10. Non-linear approaches to science
and development
 Growing acknowledgement of:
 Complex problems with complex solutions
 Many potential solutions for heterogeneous contexts
 The need for multi-stakeholder partnerships
 Innovation systems
 Recognition that:
 Success was highly dependent on performance of CGIAR
partners and the suitability of new technologies to local
contexts

11. Non-linear Vision of Science
Researchers Farmers & Positive &
NAREs + INGOs
in IITA communities negative changes
and LNGOs etc.
in livelihoods
Greater focus on Innovation systems that develop, or fail to Impact
applied research develop, solutions to identified context
and knowledge specific problems
?
brokering
Knowledge flow
Answers Questions

13. Why the need for R4D?
 What is R4D?
 Research focused on providing solutions for
identified development needs
 R4D is:
 Demand (opposed to supply) driven
 Responsive to changing needs/contexts
 It evolves/adapts (new partners and approaches)
 Judged by outcomes and not products

14. Current Strengths of IITA’s
R4D Approach
 Widely endorsed:
 FAO, World Bank, CGIAR, EPMR and many donors
 Crop improvement and plant protection in mandate crops
using “conventional” breeding and biotechnology tools
 Yield potential
 P&D resistance
 Drought tolerance
 Nutritional quality
 High value crops
 Agro-food systems/value chain approaches
 Value-addition (processing and marketing etc)

15. Current Weaknesses of R4D
Approach at IITA
 Neglect of many traditional partners (NARs)
 Biased towards development and the expense of research
 Lack of key expertise in key areas
 Focus on output markets at the expense of input markets
 Natural resource management (particularly soil fertility management and
soil degradation)
 Analysis, synthesis and documentation of lessons learned from both past
and present research activities
 Too many bases to cover

16. Improving R4D at IITA (1)
 Geographical
 Current focus on SSA is sensible:
 Diversity of crops (current & potential)
 Heterogeneity of development contexts
 Heterogeneity of food and livelihood systems
 Occurrence of poverty
 Focus of donor investment
 Africa wide focus for germplasm health and transfer
 Most populous countries?
 Greatest impact (numbers)
 Neglect some of the poorest communities

17. Improving R4D at IITA (2)
 What should IITA focus on?
 Key food systems/value-chains & improvements in
subsistence-based livelihoods
 Systematic assessment (actual & latent opportunities)
 Proactive – rather than reactive – interventions
 Scaling-up successful pilot interventions
 Outcome Mapping and Case Studies
 Planning, re-adjustment and institutional learning (internal)
 Best practices and principles (external)

18. Improving R4D at IITA (3)
 Why focus on food system/value-chain
activities?
 Development
 Greatest potential to unlock market-based opportunities
 Productivity & competitiveness of poor producers
 Value-addition
 Marketing
 Potential spill over into local economy
 Research
 Learning important lessons from pilot and up-scaling activities
 Sustainable natural resource management

19. Improving R4D at IITA (4)
 Why focus on subsistence-based livelihoods?
 Development
 Increased food security (quantity and quality)
 Improved natural resource management
 Research
 Learning important lessons
 Better understanding and characterisation of:
 Complex livelihood systems
 Vulnerability, poverty and food insecurity
 Sustainable natural resource management

20. Improving R4D at IITA (5)
 With whom?
 Strong multi-stakeholder partnerships with:
 ARIs – knowledge brokering
 The private sector:
 Knowledge brokering (corporate)
 Critical investments for sustainability (corporate and SMEs)
 Value-chain expertise (corporate - including monitoring & evaluation)
 Key in exit strategy (corporate and SMEs)
 INGOs, LNGOs, CBOs, producer, processor and retail groups –
extension and PTD
 NAREs – R&D, extension and PTD
 Donors – (bi-directional alignment of IITA and donors‟ priorities)
 Policy-makers (bi-directional alignment of IITA and decision-
makers‟ priorities)

21. Improving R4D at IITA (6)
 How to work with internal colleagues & partners?
 Action-research mode
 Innovative Partnerships (new partners and new ways)
 Learning Alliances (creating and brokering knowledge for
innovation)
 Systems-based approaches
 Food & farming systems analysis (holistic-integrated-dynamic)
 Value-chain analysis
 Simultaneous (multi-partner and multi-node) interventions
 Innovation Systems
 Actor Network Theory (ANT)
 Understanding interactions and outcomes

22. Cassava Food Systems
Interventions: An example
What does IITA aim to achieve?

23. Policy Market-based Consumption
advocacy
Processed cassava Fresh cassava
Donor Increased Value- Improved
advocacy income for addition cassava
commercial through processing
cassava processing &
Private processors marketing
Sector Increased
Increased
Partners productivity, Food
income for
Security
NARES commercial competitiveness,
cassava profitability and
Partners stability of
producers
ETC. cassava Subsistence
Cassava production cassava
IITA Breeding producers & the
Agronomy displaced
Biotechnology Sustainable NRM

24. Conclusions
 “Work with whoever it takes to get the job done!”
 What can be done and with whom?
 Strategic focus!!
 Opportunistic?
 How best to do it?
 Action research (food or livelihood systems framework)
 Experiment, learn, reflect and refine
 Communicate lessons (good and bad)
 Communicate principles and best practices

25. Thank You