is research for development (r4d) a good investment? reflections on lessons from nbdc
Upload: international-water-management-institute-iwmi-cgiar-water-land-and-ecosystems-program
Post on 24-Jun-2015
679 views
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Douglas J Merrey at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9 – 10 July 2013TRANSCRIPT
Douglas J MerreyConsultant-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, Ethiopia9 – 10 July 2013
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
Methods, sources Natural resources management research
in CGIAR & CPWF A little history—roots of R4D Lessons emerging from Institutional
History of NBDC Recommendations
OVERVIEW
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
RECOMMENDATIONS2. 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
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
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
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
THANK YOU