Improving R4D at IITA

download Improving R4D at IITA

of 25

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


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

Transcript of Improving R4D at IITA

  • 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, privatesector, 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 significantenvironmental, food safety and animal welfareexternalities etc. Incredibly successful in Western Europe,North America, Australia and New Zealand Successful in much of S. America and Asia 4. IITAs traditional role A Linear Vision of Science: The traditional CGIAR paradigm (based on Ekboir, 2001) Formal research in establishedDevelopment &FarmersCGIAR institutions (IITA)SSA? extension agenciesBasicStrategicAppliedresearch researchresearch Technology developmentAdoptionKnowledge flow 5. What happened to the GreenRevolution in SSA? Key differences Complex heterogeneous development contexts: One size didnt 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 practicesremained on-the-shelf Many superior CGIAR technologies were promoted butabandoned Did SSA simply lack long-term financial and politicalsupport for agricultural development? 7. Structural ProblemsLinear 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 impacts2. 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 livelihoodimpacts Changing roles of traditional actors CGIAR Centres moved down-stream New actors entered (INGOs and LNGOs) 9. Impact and AccountabilityNAREs +PositiveFormal research in INGOs and Farmerschanges inCGIAR institutions (IITA) LNGOs etc. livelihoodsBasicStrategic AppliedTechnologyresearch research research development Adoption ImpactKnowledge 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 CGIARpartners and the suitability of new technologies to localcontexts 11. Non-linear Vision of ScienceResearchers Farmers &Positive & NAREs + INGOsin IITAcommunities negative changes and LNGOs etc. in livelihoodsGreater focus on Innovation systems that develop, or fail to Impactapplied research develop, solutions to identified contextand knowledgespecific problems ?brokeringKnowledge flowAnswers Questions 12. Why the need for R4D? What is R4D? Research focused on providing solutions foridentified 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 13. Current Strengths of IITAs R4D Approach Widely endorsed: FAO, World Bank, CGIAR, EPMR and many donors Crop improvement and plant protection in mandate cropsusing 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) 14. 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 andsoil degradation) Analysis, synthesis and documentation of lessons learned from both pastand present research activities Too many bases to cover 15. 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 16. Improving R4D at IITA (2) What should IITA focus on? Key food systems/value-chains & improvements insubsistence-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) 17. Improving R4D at IITA (3) Why focus on food system/value-chainactivities? 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 18. 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 19. 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) 20. 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 21. Cassava Food SystemsInterventions: An exampleWhat does IITA aim to achieve? 22. PolicyMarket-based Consumptionadvocacy Processed cassava Fresh cassava Donor IncreasedValue-Improvedadvocacyincome for additioncassavacommercial through processingcassava processing&Private processors marketingSector Increased Increased Partnersproductivity, Foodincome forSecurity NAREScommercial competitiveness,cassava profitability and Partners stability of producers ETC. cassava Subsistence CassavaproductioncassavaIITA Breeding producers & the Agronomydisplaced Biotechnology Sustainable NRM 23. 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 24. Thank You