a brief history en... · 2016-02-26 · idrc at 40: a brief history 3 origins and launch: seeking a...

I N T E R N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T R E S E A R C H C E N T R E

IDRC at40A Brief History

I N T E R N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T R E S E A R C H C E N T R E

IDRC at40A Brief History

Ideas. Innovation. Impact.

To achieve self-reliance, poor communities need

answers to questions like: How can we grow more

and healthier food? Protect our health? Create jobs?

Since1970, IDRC has supported research in developing

countries to answer these questions.

IDRC also encourages sharing this knowledge with

policymakers, other researchers, and communities

around the world. The result is innovative, lasting

local solutions that aim to bring choice and change

to those who need it most.

IDRC AT 40: A BRIEF HISTORY

3 Origins and launch: Seeking a “new instrument”

5 The 1970s: Building credibility, gaining respect

11 The 1980s: Reflection and adaptation

17 The 1990s: Innovation, communication,

and Agenda 21

22 2000+: Collaboration at home and abroad

28 Next: Knowledge for a connected world

30 Corporate milestones

A 40% reduction in child mortality in Tanzania. Legal

reforms ending the “water war” in Bolivia. Employment

and dignity for impoverished women in Morocco.

Modern communications linking the people of Mongolia.

A smooth transition from apartheid to democracy in

South Africa.

When the International Development Research Centre(IDRC) was created in 1970, such dramatic improvements

in people’s lives were a distant hope. These improvements

are just a few of the countless benefits of the applied

research — carried out by the people of those countries

— that has created new knowledge to aid the economic

and social advancement of their societies.

The International Development Research Centre at 40A Brief History

COVE

R PH

OTO

: © C

IDA/D

URR

ELL M

cKEN

NA

IDRC AT 40: A BRIEF HISTORY 3

Origins and launch: Seeking a “new instrument”

The concept of “international development” — mean-ing the quest for sustainable solutions to the social andeconomic problems of poor countries — took concreteform during and after World War II. Spurred by theurgent need for reconstruction, by the precariouseconomies of newly decolonized territories, by ColdWar rivalries, and by other factors, nations quicklyestablished new channels to deliver different forms ofdevelopment assistance. These included the MarshallPlan, the World Bank, the International MonetaryFund, and the United Nations itself.

All these institutions assumed that science, technol-ogy, and rational management would help lift countriesout of poverty. This approach was entrenched by USPresident Harry Truman in his 1949 inaugural address— a statement generally regarded as launching the eraof modern official development assistance (ODA).Convinced that the technologies that had worked forrich countries would provide the same positive resultswhen transplanted to poorer regions, Truman called onhis fellow Americans to “embark on a bold new pro-gram for making the benefits of our scientific advancesand industrial progress available for the improvementand growth of underdeveloped areas.”

Canada’s earliest official involvement in providingdevelopment assistance was its participation, startingin 1950, in the Commonwealth’s Colombo Plan forCooperative Economic Development in South and

Southeast Asia. In 1960, Canada sought to rationalizeits growing provision of ODA by creating a new federalagency, the External Aid Office.

Meanwhile, the wider Canadian community alsocontributed to the assistance effort. The missionarymovement had long been active in providing educa-tion and medical care overseas, and many Canadianscontinued to support non-governmental organizations(NGOs) such as the Unitarian Service Committee andWorld University Service of Canada.

Development from within

When the United Nations declared the 1960s its firstDevelopment Decade, it proposed an ambitious pro-gram of international economic cooperation towardself-sustaining economic growth and “social advance-ment.” Later in the decade, however, it became evidentthat the high expectations raised by this program wouldnot be met. One of several reasons cited for the failurewas that Truman’s assumption had been flawed — thepath to development already taken by rich countriescould not simply be “transferred” to poorer regions.

Another reason was the meagre amount ofresources devoted to research and development (R&D)within developing countries — as little as 2% of globalR&D expenditures. This acute shortage of trainedresearchers and scientists limited progress, as did theisolation of these few experts from their peers else-where in the world.

Thus the idea began to take hold that developmentmust be pursued from within the developing worlditself, if necessary with financial and other kinds of

In the Middle East, access to safe water has been central

to IDRC’s focus.PANOS/

D. T

LELE

MANS

4 I N T ERNAT IONAL DEVE LOPMENT R E S EARCH C ENTRE

support from abroad. The concept — which ultimatelywould form the core principle of IDRC — was cham-pioned during the 1960s by several distinguished andinfluential people.

The concept is embedded, for example, in thenotion of “sustainable development,” an idea promotedby British economist, journalist, and educator BarbaraWard (Lady Jackson) long before the term becamepopular. Ward would play a significant role in the cre-ation of IDRC, particularly by way of her associationwith Canadian entrepreneur, humanitarian, and public servant Maurice Strong.

In 1966 Strong was appointed head of the ExternalAid Office. In 1968, after he led that organization’s evo-lution to become the Canadian International Develop-ment Agency (CIDA), Strong served as CIDA’s firstpresident. Ward and Strong shared a concern about themisconceived preference for large technical assistanceprojects and about the fallacy of “trickle down” assump-tions, which held that benefits for the wealthy would

naturally spread to the wider population. Convinced thatthe gap between rich and poor countries in research andtechnical capability hindered development, Strong andothers decided that a new kind of agency was required.

All-party support

The 1967 celebrations surrounding Canada’s centenaryas a nation — particularly Montréal’s Expo 67 and itstheme of Man and his World — gave this countrygreater confidence about its place in the internationalcommunity. In June, only three weeks before thenational birthday, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearsonproposed that Canada establish a research centre forinternational development, “a new instrument, con-centrating more attention and resources on applyingtechnology to the solution of [. . .] economic and socialproblems on a global basis.”

Strong advocated the creation of Pearson’s “newinstrument.” He saw it as providing forward-thinkingapproaches to international challenges that could notbe addressed by way of more conventional programs.He understood that aid in science and technologyareas differs from other forms of aid: research takes along time to pay off, for instance, and it can be a high-risk venture. For three years, discussion and debateamong politicians and bureaucrats hammered out thedetails of the instrument’s role and structure.

After his retirement from politics, Pearson chairedthe World Bank’s Commission on International Devel-opment, a group of leaders assembled to assess the con-sequences of 20 years of development assistance. Its1969 report, Partners in Development (The Pearson

IDRC

:

Centre, seated, Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson. To his left,

Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson).


Report), declared that “...cooperation for developmentmeans more than a simple transfer of funds. It means aset of new relationships... founded on mutual under-standing and self-respect... [and]...a clear division ofresponsibilities which meets the needs of both partners.”

Pearson’s successor as prime minister, the Rt. Hon.Pierre Elliott Trudeau, proposed to establish an “inter-national development research centre.” In this organ-ization, the strengths of research, observation,analysis, and collaboration would replace prescriptionfrom afar, and would enable countries being assistedto identify for themselves their development chal-lenges and to mobilize their institutional, financial,and human resources.

The parliamentary bill to establish IDRC attractedall-party support. IDRC was to be a different kind ofpublic institution — apolitical and operating at arms-length from government; scientific in method; andwith governance structures that emphasized long-term priorities. An Act to Establish the International Development

Research Centre passed Parliament unanimously — arare occurrence — and received royal assent on May 13, 1970.

We started out with the feeling that this gap in scienceand technology was a fundamental one, that notenough was being done in this area, as we asked‘How best can Canada take an important initiativein this area?’ And the IDRC, after a long process,became the initiative. — Maurice Strong, in David Spurgeon (ed.) Give Us the Tools: Science and Technology for Development, Ottawa, 1979

The 1970s: Building credibility, gaining respect

The institution that emerged was unique in terms ofits objectives, structure, and operations.

IDRC was a Crown corporation, or parastatal,financed by appropriations made annually by the Cana-dian Parliament (with provision for funds from otheragencies if that was considered desirable). Direction andcontrol came from a board of 21 members, of whomonly 11 needed to be Canadians; the remaining 10 posi-tions ensured that the perspective and experience fromdeveloping and other countries were represented.

IDRC’s objectives, as stated in the Act, are “...to ini-tiate, encourage, support, and conduct research intothe problems of the developing regions of the worldand into the means of applying and adapting scien-tific, technical, and other knowledge to the economicand social advancement of those regions.” The broad

During the 1970s, IDRC’s focus was agriculture, food, and nutrition.

IDRC


scope of this mandate provided the leeway allowingthe Board of Governors to implement IDRC’s collab-orative approach.

At its inaugural meeting in October 1970, the Boardapproved a defining statement that underscoredIDRC’s uniqueness and established its enduring phi-losophy and tone. Recognizing that developing coun-tries might feel “aid weariness,” IDRC pledged to workin collaboration with researchers in poor countries.These affiliations would be “founded on a confidencethat they, not we, are the best judges of what is relevantto their circumstances.”

To provide local perspectives on its programming,to nurture these collaborations, and to monitor risks,IDRC determined to establish a “catalytic presence” indeveloping regions. During the 1970s, therefore, it setup regional offices in Singapore, Colombia (whichlater relocated to Uruguay), Senegal, Kenya, andLebanon (which later relocated to Egypt).

Long-term investment

From its inception IDRC dedicated itself to the task spec-ified in the Act: “to assist the developing regions to buildup the research capabilities, the innovation skills and theinstitutions required to solve their problems.” This kindof long-term investment in self-directed developmentwas at the time an innovation. And, as IDRC wouldcome to appreciate, it was a challenge balancing the need for on-the-job training of inexperienced scientistswith the demand for research products of a standard sufficiently high to guide the development process.

IDRC-supported projects during this first decadeusually focused on single commodities, single crops,and single centres of economic activity, and were typ-ically confined to a single scientific discipline. TheCentre’s programming units were organized along tra-ditional academic lines, under four broad themes.These were selected to help those people least able tobenefit immediately from available technologies: ruraldwellers and women.

IDRC’s prime focus was agriculture (includingforestry and fisheries), food, and nutrition. A secondpriority was health and healthcare delivery, includingwater and sanitation. Because food issues were relatedto population pressures, a large part of this program’swork was dedicated to the study of family planning.These two programs in the natural sciences found aready fit with national and international agricultureand health research activities.

IDRC’s first Board of Governors meeting, October 1970.

In Cambodia, IDRC supports research into infectious disease

transmission.

IDRC

IDRC

: P. B

ENNET

T


Third, IDRC was far ahead of its time in creating a division of information sciences. Long before theInternet was invented, IDRC recognized that the“knowledge gap” aggravating poverty needed to beaddressed by advances in information and communica-tion technologies (ICTs) and the sharing of knowledge.

Finally — and controversially, in a developmentcommunity then dominated by the hard sciences —IDRC established a social sciences division. TheCentre was aware that, even where adequate techni-cal solutions are available, these solutions are notnecessarily “self-executing.” The success of any inno-vation depends also on social, economic, political,and environmental factors; research needs to takeaccount of these “soft” issues as well as the hard science and technology.

The Centre’s operational style stressed a small in-house research capacity, a highly competent scientificstaff, and an emphasis on supporting developing-country researchers. Where possible, IDRC aimed toinvolve several countries and institutions in its grants.And it used its resources to supplement locally sup-ported activities and expand local research opportu-nities through collaboration with those engaged insimilar problems elsewhere. These principles remaincentral to IDRC’s operations today.

IDRC’s regional structure reinforced the multi-coun-try research networks it cultivated. These networks —which have become another hallmark of the Centre’sapproach — helped build capacity by encouragingexperienced researchers to mentor junior colleagues.They promoted comparative research that strength-ened data collection and analysis. And as vehicles fordisseminating results, networks enabled IDRC to make

Food for the hungryIDRC initially focused its agricultural support on sub-sistence food crops such as cassava, a daily staple forhundreds of millions of the world’s poor. The cassavaprogram, co-funded by CIDA, mobilized a network ofglobal experts to pool their knowledge to find ways tocombat diseases affecting this crop.

In 1972, IDRC joined forces with the InternationalCentre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia toestablish the Cassava Information Centre. This pioneer-ing documentation service consolidated a database ofglobal knowledge about cassava, making it easier forspecialists to disseminate and share their findings. Theoutcome has been, over the years, more food for theworld’s hungry. The initiative continues to show lastingimpacts: in 2009 CIAT and other grantees completedthe first draft sequence of the cassava genome, datathat will accelerate breeding programs and developnew varieties adapted to the needs of the poor.

IDRC

: N. M

cKEE


findings available to varied actors: to other researchers,to policymakers, and to community leaders.

By the end of the 1970s, IDRC had funded about150 networks. Some were small and narrowly focused;for example, the collaboration between scientists inNewfoundland and in West Africa who studied waysto control the black fly, the vector of river blindness.At the other extreme were enterprises like TechnonetAsia: a cooperative network of development-supportinstitutions providing industrial extension services, itbegan in 1972, became self-sufficient in 1983, and wasstill thriving in 2010.

Practical problem solving

While most IDRC-funded projects were small, the Cen-tre carried out one ambitious initiative during this erathat set benchmarks for later efforts. The three-yearmultidisciplinary “science and technology policy instru-ments” project involved 10 countries and was designed,among other goals, to develop indigenous self-reliancein science and technology. Its findings contributed tothe pivotal 1979 United Nations Conference on Scienceand Technology for Development, held in Vienna.

Because IDRC was oriented toward practical prob-lem solving, it began to invite decision-makers to joinin research projects, even at the design stages. Thisinnovation ensured that the ultimate findings wouldmore likely relate to policy goals. It also served tobreak down barriers that often separated decision-makers and scientists. Eventually, this mingling paidoff in other ways, when a number of IDRC-fundedresearchers went on to occupy senior positions in the

Building institutionsHunger and malnutrition are common in many partsof the world. During the years following World War II,research on new varieties of wheat, rice, and othercrops brought the “green revolution” to Asia and Latin America. In 1971, the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was cre-ated to extend these victories through greater coor-dination and investment. CGIAR’s worldwide allianceof governments, NGOs, and international research institutes is devoted to increasing food production indeveloping countries.

Aware that success lay in such intellectual and fund-ing collaborations, IDRC helped create two CGIAR cen-tres, the International Center for Agricultural Researchin the Dry Areas in 1975 and the International Centrefor Research in Agroforestry (now the World Agro-forestry Centre) in 1978. IDRC has continued to sup-port the GGIAR and has renewed its support for thetechnical aspects of agricultural research.

IDRC

: N. M

cKEE


governments of their home countries, as well as in academia and in international organizations (see“Recognizing excellence,” page 27).

By the end of its first decade, IDRC had maturedbeyond its experimental phase and had funded some1,000 projects. Its philosophy of encouraging local self-reliance through collaboration influenced otherkey development organizations, including the Ford Foundation and the Australian Agricultural Centre. Itenjoyed a solid reputation worldwide as a leadingdevelopment organization characterized by integrity,innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness. A 1982review by the Office of the Auditor General of Canadareported: “Most project recipients we interviewed con-sidered the IDRC approach superior to that of otherinternational aid agencies.”

The International Development Research Centre is apublic corporation. Within the familiar frameworkof corporate organization we are the directors; ourshareholders, the people of Canada; our clients, theworld’s poor. Our shareholders have established theenterprise because they believe that this form oforganization can best address the problems of creating,adapting and transferring technologies which, whenapplied, will accelerate the blurring of the linebetween deep poverty and towering affluence thatnow separates the mass of mankind from the few. — W. David Hopper, president, 1970–1978, to the Board of Governors at its inaugural meeting

The 1980s: Reflection and adaptation

At the end of IDRC’s first decade, the global outlookwas bleak. Soaring energy and food prices had deliv-ered crippling blows to developing countries. Foodproduction, while increasing, could barely keep pacewith population growth. Health care and educationcontinued to lag behind demand. Within Canada,meanwhile, the changing domestic political environ-ment in which IDRC operated called for a reassess-ment of the Centre’s operations.

Against this backdrop, IDRC asked itself: what havewe achieved so far, and how can we do better?

In response to these questions, the Centre set out torefine its evaluation mechanisms and its strategic plan-ning. IDRC was one of the first development organi-zations, in fact, to undertake formal self-assessments:it has since become a global leader in the field of eval-uation. And to ensure that maximum use was beingmade of the results of the research it supported — a body of knowledge unique in the development field— IDRC set out to engage with policymakers in devel-oping countries to determine how this research couldmore effectively solve their problems.

Answering Canada’s call

The early 1980s saw a significant increase in the num-ber of projects funded, as well as the launch of a spe-cial program to encourage collaboration betweenresearch groups overseas and in Canada. The impetuscame from the UN Conference on Science and Tech-nology for Development. In fulfillment of a pledge

Information and communication technologies foster learning

and improved livelihoods.

RICH

ARD

LORD


made there, the Canadian government provided IDRCwith additional funds to support this special program.Its mandate ranged across the spectrum of the Centre’sestablished work, but also allowed for cooperativeresearch in any subject of importance to developingcountries and in which there was a recognized Canadian expertise.

Following another UN conference in 1981 on newand renewable sources of energy, the Canadian govern-ment again asked IDRC to take responsibility for a pro-gram of research, this time on the energy problems ofdeveloping countries. Building on previous studies sup-ported by the Centre, the Board approved an expandedprogram of support for energy research, and establishedan international advisory body — the Energy ResearchGroup — to guide the $10 million, four-year effort.

Support for democracy

IDRC’s arms-length relationship with the Canadiangovernment was underscored when the Boardresponded to human rights violations by the dictator-ship in Chile. While Canada’s government maintaineddiplomatic relations with the Government of Chile,IDRC — with the government’s full blessing — used itspolitical neutrality to fund local institutions in whichmany social scientists took intellectual and physicalrefuge during the Pinochet dictatorship. When democ-racy was restored, many of these same researchers wenton to senior political and administrative positions.

In the same way, in 1986 Canada’s official relationswith South Africa were based on outspoken oppositionto apartheid and a call for sanctions — including an

Food security in the PhilippinesMilkfish is the unofficial national symbol of the Philippines. It is a major food in that country and, giventhe population’s rice-based diet, a primary source ofprotein. In the past, wild capture was characterized byfeast-or-famine yields, resulting in unstable prices.

Philippine researchers had shown that milkfishcould be bred in cages immersed in coastal waters, butefforts to breed them and to set up fish farms failed.Research funded by IDRC demonstrated that a hor-mone, gonadotropin, was required to induce spawn-ing. Subsequent studies developed a process to isolatethe active agent from the pituitary gland of the maleand to perfect its inoculation into the female.

Milkfish farms based on this scientific work pro-vided managed supplies of an important food crop,and brought the added benefits of business develop-ment and employment. Today, milkfish remains a significant aquaculture harvest in the Philippines.

IDRC

: N. M

cKEE


academic boycott. Amid the growth of independentorganizations in the country, and the national andinternational momentum of South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement, IDRC reconsidered its own strat-egy. In 1988, IDRC made the promotion of democracyand development in South Africa a priority.

Later — with the knowledge and consent of theMass Democratic Movement in South Africa and theAfrican National Congress in exile, as well as ofCanada’s government — IDRC funded research onhealth, economic strategy, urban issues, the environ-ment, and science and technology. It also co-spon-sored several workshops in which members of thedemocratic movement came together to discuss policyoptions for a new government. Ultimately, IDRCestablished a regional office in South Africa in 1992.Its support through the political and economic transi-tion out of apartheid enabled Canada to operate out-side the confines of strict diplomatic channels.

The work supported by IDRC in South Africaeventually provided the basis for post-apartheid policies on the environment, health systems, urbanissues, economic and industrial strategies, and science and technology. South Africa’s president, Nelson Mandela, made a point of thanking IDRCspecifically when he visited Canada in 1998. IDRC,he said, “played a crucial role in helping the AfricanNational Congress and the Mass Democratic Move-ment to prepare for negotiations (and) was instru-mental in helping us prepare for the new phase ofgovernance and transformation.”

Lasting initiatives

As a result of its proven sensitivity to diplomatic con-cerns and recognition of its convening power, IDRCwas invited to host meetings of the Independent Com-mission on International Development Issues (theBrandt Commission), and of the World Commissionon Environment and Development (the BrundtlandCommission). The archive for the 1987 Brundtlandreport, Our Common Future, resides at IDRC. IDRCalso organized the V International Conference onAIDS in Montreal in 1989.

In response to the worsening of sub-SaharanAfrican economies during the 1980s, the Centresought to expand its work in this part of Africa. In par-ticular it focused on improving research capacity —skills that would strengthen the hand of African officials negotiating with the World Bank and the

South Africa’s President Nelson Mandela is welcomed

by Canada’s Parliament.

CP: T

. HANSO

N


International Monetary Fund. This led to the creationin 1988 of the African Economic Research Consor-tium (AERC) to carry out policy-oriented researchactivities, disseminate findings, train a new generationof African economists, and foster links among schol-ars and practitioners. AERC was housed at IDRC’sKenya office for many years. Its publications, work-shops, seminars, and conferences form the cuttingedge of policy formation in Africa to this day.

During this period IDRC adapted many areas of itswork. For instance, the early emphasis on improvingthe livelihoods of rural residents — particularly in thecontext of agriculture and food security — evolvedinto a growing attentiveness to urban problems. Inter-estingly, the new metropolitan focus was driven inpart by concern for urban food security, and spurredstudies of questions like the role of hawkers and ven-dors in distribution.

As well, gender issues came to the fore with theestablishment in 1987 of a women-in-developmentunit. And the decade saw a growing recognition of theneed for an integrated “ecosystem approaches tohuman health,” an awareness that later gave birth to anew intellectual discipline called ecohealth.

Another realignment took place in the balancebetween Centre support for research projects and directsupport for post-secondary and postgraduate training.In the beginning IDRC had been reluctant to fundscholarships for scientists — on account of the costs

Research on health has involved community participation.

Employment equity for womenConcerns about the status of women employed inArgentina’s public sector spurred IDRC-funded studiesof work histories and public policies affecting occupa-tional segregation. The research explored how informalpractices combined with formal regulations can createworking conditions disadvantageous to women.

The data — gathered from 1980 to 1989 — uncoveredsignificant patterns of discrimination in the public sector.The study found that even with similar levels of educa-tion and experience, women were less likely than men tooccupy senior positions. The research helped sensitizeunion leaders to these concerns, and informed improve-ments to Argentina’s labour policies affecting women.

CIAT

: N. P

ALM

ER

PANOS PI

CTU

RES: C

. PEN

N


involved — but later it recognized the need to boost themanagement capability of its grant recipients, especiallyin Africa. In 1983 the Centre established a fellowshipsand awards division specifically to improve skills inresearch planning and administration.

IDRC created other lasting initiatives during thisera. It forged early links with the People’s Republic ofChina, for example. One outcome was the Interna-tional Network for Bamboo and Rattan, which became

the first international organization to be based in Bei-jing. IDRC’s MINISIS database management software— developed in 1975 — was by 1980 being used bymany countries and institutions to support a widerange of applications: MINISIS still thrives as a pri-vately owned multinational company. And the Cen-tre’s support for multidisciplinary networks continuedwith the Asian Fisheries Social Science Research Net-work, which flourished from 1983 to the mid-1990s.

In 1988, IDRC’s approach was bolstered by the Cana-dian government’s new aid strategy, which made thedevelopment of local skills the priority. As the decadeended, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society,selected IDRC as the first recipient of its 21st CenturyAward for being the organization anywhere in the worldthat was “best preparing society for the next century.”

IDRC will continue to focus its attention on people,will continue to insist that their welfare be the centralgoal of all Centre projects. Human beings are notonly the beneficiaries of development activity, theyare the only true engines of the development process. — Ivan Head, IDRC president, 1978-1991, IDRC Reports, October 1980

In China, IDRC-supported researchers look for ways to boost

bamboo growth.

IDRC

: D.D

. SIN

G


The 1990s: Innovation, communication, and Agenda 21

During much of the 1990s, the Canadian government’said budget experienced a long decline as a result of thegeneral fiscal crisis then facing Canada. IDRC was notspared. In company with many other federal agencies,it suffered several cuts to its resources and staff.

Faced with diminished resources, the Centrerethought its program rationales and delivery mech-anisms. During the months leading up to its 20thanniversary, it conducted a comprehensive review toensure its effectiveness and efficiency. The result wasa new Board-approved strategy, “Empowermentthrough knowledge.” This blueprint stressed the need to address global and regional research issues,acquire additional funds from non-traditionalsources, emphasize an interdisciplinary approach toresearch, and expand affiliations in both developedand developing regions. It also highlighted the needto ensure that the products of research are actuallyused, and to understand “what works” in develop-ment research.

In this new milieu, it is more important than ever tocooperate with developing countries in the pursuit ofsolutions to the problems they face. This cooperationmust include an approach to applied research andaccess to knowledge that allows these countries tocontribute to solving global problems and to participate in worldwide innovation. This kind of cooperation is not an act of charity. — Keith A. Bezanson, president, 1991–1997, IDRC Annual Report 1993–1994

In March 1993, IDRC adopted a three-year Corporate Program Framework to deliver on its revi-talized mandate.

To attract collaborators and funding, IDRC mobi-lized its special strengths: research for development,an international board, intellectual alliances withresearchers in developing countries, and its own orga-nizational flexibility and agility. “Empowermentthrough knowledge” reiterated IDRC’s conviction thatdevelopment means giving local people the power andthe means to fulfill their destinies.

IDRC’s work during this period was heavily influ-enced by Agenda 21, the program that emerged fromthe UN Conference on Environment and Develop-ment (UNCED, or the Earth Summit) held in Rio deJaneiro in 1992. IDRC had contributed to UNCEDpreparations, notably in establishing the Commissionon Developing Countries and Global Change andundertaking major studies on options for Canada at

Research on urban agriculture has increased food security in

communities across Africa.

IDRC

: G.K

. DANSO


UNCED. At the conference, Prime Minister BrianMulroney designated IDRC as Canada’s “prime vehi-cle” for working with developing countries on imple-menting Agenda 21.

This special assignment proved an excellent fit: con-cern for environmental issues had long been implicit inmuch of the research IDRC funded. Now, this concernbecame a responsibility. To better meet these goals,IDRC reoriented many of its program activities, andestablished new core themes, including food systems,biodiversity, health and environment, among others.

Notable in these new directions was an increasingattention to urban issues, such as the availability ofclean water and sanitation. IDRC was one of the firstinternational development agencies to recognize theimportance of urban agriculture.

During the latter years of the decade, IDRC madegreat strides in the area of ICTs for development, particularly in Africa. The proliferation of networksand program initiatives had highlighted the need formodern communication tools to help connect IDRCstaff and research grantees. Early successes in provid-ing basic technical support informed IDRC’s largestsingle venture, the Acacia program, which sought tospread these technologies beyond the realm of devel-opment practitioners to the broader African commu-nity. Acacia and similar initiatives in other worldregions prompted IDRC to dedicate a new unit to ICTsfor development.

Rural telecentres – supported by IDRC – offer the hope of a

better life to India’s poor.

Travelling the information highway IDRC was one of the first donor organizations to antic-ipate the “digital divide.” For instance, as early as 1995,it responded to requests from developing countries forhelp in establishing Internet connectivity. In Mongo-lia, IDRC introduced software and hardware to launchelectronic networking services within the country andlinks with international systems. These services madeuse of satellite-based wireless Internet technologies,which proved well-suited to Mongolia’s vast andsparsely populated land. The result: better health careand improved distance education for Mongolians. Lessons learned from these successes informed simi-lar efforts in other Asian countries, including Sri Lanka,Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Vietnam.

IDRC

: N. L

ESSA

RD

IDRC

: S. M

URR

AY


All the while the Centre continued to stress theimportance of self-assessment, of observing and meas-uring results, and of gauging the impact of its activities.None of this was clear-cut, by any means. How, forexample, even to define what kind and level of “suc-cess” will justify continued funding and support for any initiative — was it finding new knowledge? or improving lives? or changing government policy?or boosting the skills of junior researchers? or merelyputting scientists in touch with one another? To tacklethese thorny questions, in 1992 IDRC created a sepa-rate unit for planning and evaluation, and two yearslater it conducted its first annual corporate evaluation.

Radical departures

As IDRC marked its quarter-century, it experiencedits most dramatic and ambitious change to that date.In response to the 1995 cut in government fundingfor international development, IDRC not only down-sized, but it sought to transform its own institutionalstructures and even the very manner in whichresearch was conducted.

Traditionally, science has been organized around dis-crete academic disciplines — economics or chemistry ormedicine, for example — that each in its own way seeksto address specific questions. In an increasingly complexand interconnected world, however, scientists began toacknowledge the limitations of such a monodisciplinaryapproach. IDRC proposed instead to institute a newmethod: first, define the development problem, thenconsider what combination of scientific disciplines canbest come up with solutions — and implement them.

IDRC’s 1996 corporate plan reflected this freshway of thinking with an innovative institutionalstructure and the adoption of new research themes.Under the umbrella of six broad topics — food secu-rity, equity in natural resource use, biodiversity con-servation, sustainable employment, strategies andpolicies for healthy societies, and information andcommunication — the Centre now funded researchthrough specific “program initiatives” managed bymultidisciplinary teams of staff members.

IDRC undertook this radical realignment towardissue-based programming while handicapped bydecreased staff and management levels. As one seniormanager summed up this turbulent time: “...manyinstitutions have downsized; some have restructuredtheir operations; and a few have tried to reorient theirthinking towards a new paradigm. Very few have doneall three at the same time.”

Needless to say, the transition was complex andarduous, with countless stumbling blocks. For exam-ple, most of the academic institutions that teamed upwith IDRC maintained their traditional monodisci-plinary structure and outlook, which hindered collaboration. Formerly autonomous scientists werecompelled to spend time “learning from oneanother,” which slowed progress. Decision-makingbecame more complicated. Overall, however, theresult was a sharpened and more economical focuson those areas where IDRC already had provenexpertise, and a less bureaucratic, more flexible, andmore action-oriented system.

IDRC further modified its operations by introduc-ing international “secretariats” — research consortiaof several donors that pursue goals in common with

IDRC. Secretariats were able to undertake researchthat was more ambitious than the Centre — or indeed,any single donor — could pursue on its own. Exam-ples include the Micronutrient Initiative, the Economyand Environment Program for Southeast Asia, and theInternational Model Forest Network. Gradually, sec-retariats demonstrated their potential as incubators fornew research that, eventually, might continue inde-pendently. Lessons learned from these mechanismsencouraged IDRC to seek more donor collaborationaround research that was high-risk and beyond themeans of a single funder.

The success of these mechanisms persuaded newdonors to collaborate with IDRC. These included theNorwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, theUN Development Programme, the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation, and private sectorfirms such as Microsoft Corporation.

We are proud to note that the innovative approach todevelopment assistance that defined the Centre at itsoutset is still at its heart: a conviction that men andwomen must control their own social and economicdestinies; that researchers in developing countriesmust take the lead in producing knowledge for thebenefit of their own communities; and that theacquisition and use of knowledge is key to progress. — Maureen O’Neil, president, 1997–2008, IDRC Annual Report 1999–2000


A strategy for better healthIn Tanzania, an IDRC-supported project has produceda road map for improving health policies and strength-ening health systems. The Tanzania Essential HealthInterventions Project, or TEHIP, was based on simple,cost-effective approaches to planning and managinghealth services. It aimed to improve health, not so muchby spending more, but by spending more effectively,according to where the needs were greatest. TEHIPresearchers developed several tools to help districthealth teams analyze and use information. These toolsprovided the evidence that enabled the teams to setpriorities and allocate resources, rather than merelyimplement plans imposed from above. TEHIP demon-strated that government health systems can be revital-ized by an annual financial investment of an additional80 cents per capita, along with training of district healthmanagers and front-line health workers. The result: agreater than 40% reduction in the mortality of childrenaged under five, and a reduced burden of disease.

IDRC

: P. B

ENNET

T


2000+ : Collaboration at home and abroad

At the turn of the millennium, IDRC increasinglyfocused on finding better ways to translate researchresults into policy and practice — a goal reflected in itsfive-year plan. While remaining true to IDRC’s keyprinciples, this plan pointed in new directions, amongthem an emphasis on governance, an examination ofthe types of institutional environments that most effec-tively create knowledge for development, and greaterattention to gender issues. Activities clustered aroundthree broad fields of enquiry: environment and naturalresource management; ICTs for development; andsocial and economic equity.

Always alert for new approaches to conductingapplied research, in 2001 IDRC embarked on an“exploration,” a program called Research on Knowl-edge Systems (RoKS). RoKS examined the institu-tional and policy frameworks governing theproduction of new knowledge, how knowledge fostersdevelopment, and the influence of knowledge on orga-nizational performance. These enquiries echoedIDRC’s preoccupation with “science and technologypolicy instruments” during the 1970s, and foreshad-owed its growing relationships with other Canadianorganizations that support science and technology.

RoKS informed a new program area, begun in 2005,called Innovation, Policy, and Science. It sought tostrengthen knowledge and institutions in developingcountries and at the same time to contribute toCanada’s domestic innovation strategy. This programalso signalled a renewed recognition of the importanceof the hard sciences in IDRC programming.

Digital opportunities

IDRC’s long experience in advocating the benefits ofICTs was recognized by Canada’s government when itappointed the Centre’s president as co-chair of the Digital Opportunities Task Force (DOT Force), a com-mittee assembled in 2000 by the G8 major industrial-ized democracies. The DOT Force was a tool todevelop concrete measures to help bridge the interna-tional digital divide.

The following year, IDRC was charged with launch-ing the Institute for Connectivity in the Americas,announced by the Canadian government at the Summit of the Americas in Québec City. And in 2003,Canada confirmed a $12 million contribution to createa centre for connectivity in Africa, managed by IDRC.

In 2008 IDRC opened its Digital Library, giving theinternational research community admission to itscomprehensive collection of research results and doc-uments generated by IDRC-funded projects, IDRCfunding recipients, and staff.

IDRC’s plan for 2005–2010 reflected the Centre’scontinuing efforts to refine its research directions andensure their relevance to emerging developmentissues. The objectives it specified were: to strengthenand help mobilize the local research capacity of devel-oping countries, to foster research that will influencepublic policies, and to rally additional Canadianresources in support of research.

Researchers in Cambodia and across Asia are implementing

community-based monitoring systems to reduce poverty.

IDRC

: M. H

IBLE

R


Domestic alliances

In Canada, the Centre continued its collaboration withdomestic institutions, especially CIDA and the Depart-ment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The internationalization of Canadian research dur-ing the decade presented important opportunities forIDRC. In May 2003, for example, the Centre took adetermined step forward in forging new links betweenCanada’s research community and the developingworld. The Centre’s Canadian Partnerships Program,with the Association of Universities and Colleges ofCanada, hosted a national roundtable on new direc-tions in international research in Canada, followed byconsultations on campuses across the country.

Increased collaboration with Canadian organizationswas reflected in other new ventures. The Global HealthResearch Initiative, for instance, brought together IDRC,the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIDA,Health Canada, and the Public Health Agency ofCanada to develop practical solutions for the health andhealthcare problems of low- and middle-income coun-tries. And the International Research Chairs Initiative— a joint endeavour of IDRC and the Canada ResearchChairs Program — links eight stellar scientists from thedeveloping world with a Canada Research Chair on afive-year program of research and training.

In 2008, the government announced a new $50 mil-lion Development Innovation Fund to search forbreakthroughs in global health and other areas, andnamed IDRC the lead agency. In 2009, responding tothe global food crisis, IDRC and CIDA jointly estab-lished the $62 million Canadian International FoodSecurity Research Fund.

Job creation through small business Egypt’s private sector has long been dominated bysmall-scale enterprises. Lacking credit, marketingchannels, or the time and resources needed to explorenew business approaches or technologies, these farm-ers, furniture makers, metalworkers, and restaurantowners struggle to earn a living.

Egypt’s government recognized that strengtheningthis sector was critical to boosting employment andexports. In 2000, with help from CIDA and IDRC, itlaunched the Small and Medium Enterprise PolicyDevelopment Project (SMEPol). SMEPol’s research andcase studies explored how reform of policies, regula-tions, and legislation can create an atmospherefavourable to small entrepreneurs. Its efforts have paidoff with new supportive legislation, for example gov-erning income tax and the tendering of governmentprocurement, and with the opening of “one-stopshops” for business registration and licensing. Perhapsthe most promising output has been an action plan forpromoting the growth of small enterprises.

WORL

D B

ANK:

B. L

YONS


Global alliances

IDRC’s reputation enabled it to expand its cooperationwith other donor agencies. Among the prominentorganizations that collaborated with the Centre werethe United Nations Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Notably, in 2006 IDRCpooled resources with the UK’s Department for Inter-national Development to conduct an ambitious five-year program of research and skills-building onclimate change adaptation in Africa.

Another large multi-donor program, the ThinkTank Initiative, started in 2008. IDRC joined with theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William andFlora Hewlett Foundation on a 10-year, US$90 millioneffort to strengthen independent policy research insti-tutions in developing countries by enabling them tobetter provide sound research that both informs andinfluences policy.

Policy-relevant research has contributed significantlyto higher economic growth in much of the developingworld and to more equitable social policy in manycountries. Regional networks are central to thisdynamic. They enable experts to learn from eachother’s research and experience in shaping advice totheir own publics and governments. — David M. Malone, IDRC president 2008– , IDRC AnnualReport 2008–2009

Brokering consensus on resource managementPeople have often clashed over the natural resourcesthey need for survival. For many years, IDRC supportedresearch to help communities arrive at inclusive andequitable resource management decisions and insti-tutions. For example, Bolivia’s Cochabamba region hadbeen troubled by a long-running “water war.” In 2002,a team of local researchers set out to draft a water man-agement law that would be acceptable to all parties— a task at which others had failed dozens of timesover many decades. In this instance, dialogue based onsolid research brokered consensus. In 2004 Bolivia’sgovernment introduced a more equitable irrigationlaw, settling key disputes. In 2006, further progress wasachieved when the country’s new government estab-lished a water ministry.

IDRC

: M. H

IBLE

R


Recognizing excellence

Throughout the 2000s, as in earlier decades, IDRC col-laborated with outstanding academics, scientists, andleaders, from both the public and the private sectors, inCanada and elsewhere.

For example, while Argentina and Chile were underdictatorship and South Africa was under apartheid,IDRC supported committed and talented researchersin those countries. After the dictatorships andapartheid collapsed, a number of these experts tookup leadership positions in their home governments.They include:• Dante Caputo, Argentina’s Minister of Foreign

Affairs (1983–1989) • Alejandro Foxley, Chile’s Minister of Finance

(1990–1994) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (2006–2009)

• Trevor Manuel, South Africa’s Minister of Finance(1996–2009)

Several researchers supported by IDRC early intheir careers later achieved global distinction for theirscientific work. Recent awardees include:• Anthropologist Gilles Bibeau received the Prix du

Québec, the province’s most prestigious scientificaward, in 2009. Bibeau’s association with IDRCbegan in the 1970s while he studied traditionalAfrican medicine, and continues through the

Teasdale-Corti Global Health Research PartnershipProgram.

• Indian-born Canadian Asit K. Biswaswas awardedthe 2006 Stockholm Water Prize for his outstandingand multi-faceted contributions to global waterresource issues.

• Ethiopian-American plant breeder and geneticistGebisa Ejeta was awarded the 2009 World FoodPrize for his contributions to improving sorghumproduction.

• Indian scientist Modadugu Gupta won the 2005World Food Prize for his work to improve nutritionthrough the expansion of aquaculture and fish farm-ing in South and Southeast Asia.

• Yuyun Ismawati and Syeda Rizwana Hasan eachwon the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prizefor 2009. Ismawati was recognized for her work pro-moting community-based wastewater and solidwaste management in Indonesia. Hasan’s efforts totighten regulations for Bangladesh’s ship-breakingindustry netted her the prize.

• Vijaya Lakshmi received India’s 2007 NationalAward for Women’s Development through Applica-tion of Science and Technology.

• Mario H. Rodriguez López of Mexico’s NationalPublic Health Institute was named a 2009 MalariaChampion of the Americas by the Pan AmericanHealth Organization for his success in eradicatingmalaria using alternatives to pesticides, and buildinga health information system in the region.

• American political scientist Elinor Ostrom sharedthe 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for herresearch on managing collective resources.

IDRC support has helped Mongolia join the digital age.

IDRC

: S. M

URR

AY


• Canadian Amanda Vincent, co-founder and direc-tor of Project Seahorse International, was a winnerof the Yves Rocher Foundation Women of the EarthAward in 2007. Vincent also won a 2006 ChevronConservation Award for her efforts to protect sea-horses around the world.

• Bangladeshi banker Muhammad Yunus won the2006 Nobel Peace Prize for the microcreditGrameen Bank he founded.

Next: Knowledge for a connected world

IDRC’s history can be regarded as a continuing con-versation about the best way to carry out developmentresearch. Persistent negotiation, experimentation, andfine-tuning have sought to find a balance among alter-native approaches.

These alternatives have included, for instance:whether to focus on the needs of rural or urbandwellers; whether to entrench IDRC’s objectives andprogramming in formal plans or to invite people indeveloping countries to set the priorities; whether tofund short-term projects or to provide core supportthat will sustain institutions in the long term; and howbest to manage the delicate transition from research topolicy, knowledge to action, objectivity to engagement.

Few of these difficult choices have been made conclusively. These and similar questions remain un-resolved, and such conversations will likely endure aslong as the organization exists.

In late 2009, IDRC’s Board approved a strategicframework to guide the Centre’s research agenda until2015. While maintaining many of IDRC’s core activi-ties, the new framework introduces new thrusts, inkeeping with current challenges.

Some highlights: In 2007–2008 the world experienced a drastic food cri-sis, provoking widespread fears about future food secu-rity. Thus, agricultural productivity, nutrition, and foodsecurity issues are a priority among research themes.Since this and other key development challenges — climate change, energy scarcity, and emerging infec-tious diseases — have environmental overtones, IDRC

2009 World Food Prize winner Gebisa Ejeta

IDRC

: TEC

KLES

PHOTO

S


will integrate this work into activities related to theenvironment and the management of natural resources.

The impacts of climate change are now inevitableand will greatly affect developing countries. The mostvulnerable regions are the Arctic, Africa, small islands,dry lands, and Asian mega-deltas. IDRC’s work on climate change adaptation will continue in Africa, and extend to Asia and to Latin America and theCaribbean. The Centre will invest in mapping andmeasuring vulnerability, finding public policies toensure resilience in the face of climate change, andsupporting the shift to cleaner energy.

The key drivers of environmental change are globalwarming, globally interdependent economies, deforesta-tion, agricultural intensification, and food shortages:all these factors also affect human health. In fact, asmany as 13 million deaths could be prevented every yearif environments were healthier. Drawing upon theknowledge gathered through its ecohealth research,IDRC’s environment and human health research agendawill focus on new and emerging diseases and pan-demics. It will concentrate on improving agro-ecosys-tems to reduce poor health, detecting the environmentaland social drivers of infectious diseases, and strength-ening ecohealth methods, monitoring, and evaluation.

Clearly, the world’s problems are immense. Mucheffort will be needed to solve them. But if one simplelesson can be drawn from IDRC’s first 40 years, it isthis: knowledge works. Scientific and technical know-how can improve the lives of people in developingcountries, often in dramatic ways.

It is through the interaction of ideas, people, and money in development research and policy institutions in Canada and around the world that the Centre puts its precepts into action.— Innovating for Development: Strategic Framework 2010–2015

IDRC support for microfinance initiatives helps empower women.

IDRC

: J. T

AYLO

R


1970: Parliament passes the IDRC Act.The Right Honourable Lester B.Pearson, former Prime Minister ofCanada, chairs the inaugural Board of Governors meeting. IDRC’s firstpresident is agricultural economist W. David Hopper.

1971: IDRC’s first regional office opensin Singapore.

1973: Louis Rasminsky, formerGovernor of the Bank of Canada, isappointed chair of the Board ofGovernors.

1973: Regional offices open in Bogotaand Dakar. The Bogota office moves toMontevideo in 1989.

1974: A regional office opens inBeirut. This office moves to Cairo in 1976.

1975: A regional office opens inNairobi.

1977: Maurice Strong, formerpresident of CIDA, is appointed chairof the Board of Governors.

1978: Ivan Head, former senior policyadvisor to Prime Minister Pierre ElliottTrudeau, is appointed president ofIDRC.

1981: The Hon. Donald S. Macdonald,former Minister of Finance, isappointed chair of the Board ofGovernors.

1983: A regional office opens in New Delhi.

1985: Janet M. Wardlaw, former Dean,College of Family and ConsumerStudies, University of Guelph, isappointed chair of the Board ofGovernors.

1991: Keith A. Bezanson, formerCanadian diplomat, is appointedpresident of IDRC.

1991: The Board of Governorsapproves a four-year corporatestrategy “Empowerment throughKnowledge.”

Corporate milestones

IDRC was an early supporter of the inter-national agricultural research centres.

IDRC was one of the first donors to focuson ICTs.

IDRC support for Chilean researchersendured, even under dictatorship.

IDRC

: C. S

ANGER

IDRC

IDRC

: R. V

ERA


1992: A regional office opens inJohannesburg. This office closes in 2001.

1993: Following Agenda 21, IDRCgives focus to its strategy byapproving a Corporate ProgramFramework 1993–1996.

1992: The Hon. Flora MacDonald,former Secretary of State for ExternalAffairs, is appointed chair of the Boardof Governors.

1997: Gordon S. Smith, formerDeputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, is appointed chair of the Board ofGovernors.

1997: The Board of Governorsapproves IDRC’s Corporate ProgramFramework 1997–2000.

1997: Maureen O’Neil, formerpresident of The North-SouthInstitute, is appointed president of IDRC.

2000: The Board of Governorsapproves IDRC’s Corporate Strategyand Program Framework2000–2005.

2004: The Board of Governorsapproves IDRC’s Corporate Strategyand Program Framework 2005–2010.

2008: The Hon. Barbara McDougall,former Secretary of State for ExternalAffairs, is appointed chair of the Boardof Governors.

2008: David M. Malone, scholar andCanadian diplomat, is appointedpresident of IDRC.

2009: The Board of Governorsapproves IDRC’s Strategic Framework 2010–2015.

2010: IDRC celebrates its 40th anniversary.

Managing water supplies is an IDRC priority throughout the Middle East.

With IDRC support, the telecentremovement reached across continents.

IDRC leads a pan-Asian effort to fightavian flu and other infectious diseases.

IDRC

: P. B

ENNET

T

IDRC

: P. B

ENNET

T

IDRC

: P. B

ENNET

T


Further reading

Spaceship Earth, by Barbara Ward.Columbia University Press, 1966.

Partners in Development: Reportof the Commission onInternational Development, byLester B. Pearson. Praeger, 1969.

An Act to Establish theInternational DevelopmentResearch Centre, c. 36, Statutes ofCanada, vol. 1: 1969-70. Queen’sPrinter for Canada, 1971.

Give Us the Tools: Science andTechnology for Development,edited by David Spurgeon. IDRC, 1979.

The Independent Commission onInternational Development Issues,chair Willy Brandt. Reports:North-South: A Program forSurvival. Pan, 1980; and CommonCrisis: North-South Cooperationfor World Recovery. Pan, 1983.

With Our Own Hands: Research for Third World Development:Canada’s Contribution through the International DevelopmentResearch Centre 1970–1985,preface by Bradford Morse. IDRC, 1986.

The World Commission on theEnvironment and Development,chair Gro Harlem Brundtland.Report: Our Common Future.Oxford University Press, 1987.

Empowerment through Knowledge:The Strategy of the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre.IDRC, 1991.

Pearsonian Internationalism inPractice: The InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, by Peter Stockdale. Unpublishedthesis, McGill University, 1995.

Innovating for Development:Strategic Framework 2010–2015.IDRC, 2009.

The International DevelopmentResearch Centre: Forty years ofIdeas, Innovation, and Impact, byBruce Muirhead and Ron Harpelle.Wilfrid Laurier University Press,forthcoming 2010.

Contact us

Mailing address:International DevelopmentResearch CentrePO Box 8500Ottawa, ONCanadaK1G 3H9

Street address:150 Kent StreetOttawa, ON CanadaK1P 0B2

Phone: (+1) 613-236-6163Fax: (+1) 613-238-7230Email: [email protected]

www.idrc.ca

IDRCAbout Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Centre

IDRC supports research in developing

countries to promote growth and

development. IDRC also encourages

sharing this knowledge with policy-

makers, other researchers, and

communities around the world.

The result is innovative, lasting local

solutions that aim to bring choice and

change to those who need it most.

International Development

Research Centre

PO Box 8500

Ottawa, ON

Canada K1G 3H9

www.idrc.ca

Ideas. Innovation. Impact.

a brief history en... · 2016-02-26 · idrc at 40: a brief history 3 origins and launch: seeking a...

Documents