A new way to conceive IFAD – CGIAR Partnerships An example from Lao PDR

By Michael Victor & Stefania Dina

Conventional Research Communication

IFAD-CPWF mainstreaming innovations Theory of Change

IMPACT

Re-/Packaged Materials Used by:

Outcome StoriesMain 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?