Comments on: Donors and partners tell CGIAR program leaders to “Show us the impact” http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/donors-and-partners-tell-cgiar-program-leaders-to-show-us-the-impact/ A Global Agricultural Research Partnership Thu, 01 Aug 2013 02:04:09 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kay Chapman http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/donors-and-partners-tell-cgiar-program-leaders-to-show-us-the-impact/#comment-80830 Kay Chapman Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:19:09 +0000 http://www.cgiar.org/?post_type=news&p=226606#comment-80830 Thank you for your comments Doug. They have been forwarded to relevant colleagues, and someone will be following up shortly. Thank you for your comments Doug. They have been forwarded to relevant colleagues, and someone will be following up shortly.

]]> By: Doug Merrey http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/donors-and-partners-tell-cgiar-program-leaders-to-show-us-the-impact/#comment-79247 Doug Merrey Fri, 05 Jul 2013 12:53:51 +0000 http://www.cgiar.org/?post_type=news&p=226606#comment-79247 I am working with a CPWF program, the Nile Basin Development Program, as a consultant, and have assisted in an "institutional history" exercise in which we are interviewing scientists and partners as well as re-examining documentation of the evolution of the program. The program shows considerable evidence for potential impacts in the future, and has developed fairly strong partnerships by the usual CGIAR criteria. However, it is striking to me how few of the scientists have fully understood and bought into the message in this note regarding the importance of demonstrating impact over a decade or so. The social scientists mostly understand this, but the others worry that it dilutes the quality of the science. Apparently their academic training has been rather traditional. It is critical to invest more effort in helping all of the scientists to understand that research must be planned with partners and stakeholders from the beginning, with a strong credible hypothesis regarding the pathway to change and impact, especially in the complex agro-ecological and institutional contexts in which we work. Another clear lesson is that if CGIAR centers really want stronger partnerships leading to real outcomes, they need to re-think their model on how partnerships work. Currently, in most cases, the program is led by the Center(s) and national, regional and international partners are brought on board to implement it. It is rare to see the centers working with the national partners as the "lead" agencies, with the centers playing facilitating, capacity building, etc. roles from the earliest planning phase. I think the CGIAR needs to invest in a study of what are the criteria and characteristics of successful partnerships, especially in NRM programs, and then the donors should consider designing their support to act as an incentive to achieve more effective partnerships. My hypothesis would be that the most successful ones are characterized by greater empowerment of the national partners (among other things). I am working with a CPWF program, the Nile Basin Development Program, as a consultant, and have assisted in an “institutional history” exercise in which we are interviewing scientists and partners as well as re-examining documentation of the evolution of the program. The program shows considerable evidence for potential impacts in the future, and has developed fairly strong partnerships by the usual CGIAR criteria. However, it is striking to me how few of the scientists have fully understood and bought into the message in this note regarding the importance of demonstrating impact over a decade or so. The social scientists mostly understand this, but the others worry that it dilutes the quality of the science. Apparently their academic training has been rather traditional. It is critical to invest more effort in helping all of the scientists to understand that research must be planned with partners and stakeholders from the beginning, with a strong credible hypothesis regarding the pathway to change and impact, especially in the complex agro-ecological and institutional contexts in which we work.

Another clear lesson is that if CGIAR centers really want stronger partnerships leading to real outcomes, they need to re-think their model on how partnerships work. Currently, in most cases, the program is led by the Center(s) and national, regional and international partners are brought on board to implement it. It is rare to see the centers working with the national partners as the “lead” agencies, with the centers playing facilitating, capacity building, etc. roles from the earliest planning phase. I think the CGIAR needs to invest in a study of what are the criteria and characteristics of successful partnerships, especially in NRM programs, and then the donors should consider designing their support to act as an incentive to achieve more effective partnerships. My hypothesis would be that the most successful ones are characterized by greater empowerment of the national partners (among other things).

]]>