Reu1final Sperling+Lundy

Editor's Notes

• #2: This talk aims to give the bigger view on reaching enduser programs (REU), as they currently exist at CIAT. Mark Lundy and I have pulled together this talk– but with specific inputs from many. The aim of this overview-- is stimulate more deliberate thinking on REU research at CIAT.
• #3: Many of you may know that REU was rejected as a deliberate thrust in CIAT’s strategic directions document. It also doesn’t appear in the MTPs.In contrast, to set the stage for this talk, the CGIAR itself , at last at an executive level, is putting REU front and center. Ren Wang, the Director of the CG has rechristened the CG image as Science for Impact..
• #4: With this rechristening there will have purported strategy implications as well as substantial money implications. Here I report Dr. Wang’s vision, shared two weeks go.Currently the CG operates in a money relationship where the CG does with say 9 parts, and then links with partners, for delivery, one part.In the future- for impact, the relationship needs to be reversed. CG 1 part, and partners 9 parts– in collaborations. To give you an idea of the scale of the difference- add a few zeros. e.g. scenario 1 CG in 9 millionb, partners 1 million; future scenarios (e.g. megaprograms) CG 1 million, partners million
• #5: --Unfortunately this type of pipeline vision at the higher CG levels, which predominates. Is quite simple or simplistic.Minimally from the very beginning.Key research has to inform the types of ‘delivery’ mechanisms- reaching clientsAnd quite extensive and continuous feedback loops have to sharpen our impact oriented processes.Simplistic thinking not just in diagrams- on what Dr. Wang called impact pathways. 3 model megaprograms have been mocked up in the CG
• #6: For those of you who want to see the initial thinking on REU– and the megaprogram. Three programs have been mocked up– and are available for public view. Despite the massive amounts (and proportions of money involved), The REU is still at an early stage. Formative, pre-formative. Jurassic.So where are we: CG is moving towards Science for Impact, CG moving towards serious REU, including Money- CIAT is in a position to help lead- even being modest- in select domains, we are several leaps ahead.Happily CIAT thinking on REU- well advanced….
• #8: What I want to do is first to Give- two brief examples- to illustrate what REU about- the contentsWe have MANY more at CIAT. THEN SHARE Overall trends at CIAT
• #9: We were having impact- issue- can we make sure the process strategically designed– efficient, equitable- to reach people CIAT commits itself to reaching ( include poor, women, marginal areas).
• #10: Many of you know the context seed delivery
• #14: Counteracted stereotypes of much of the seed industry .
• #18: Private sector aid farmers- not interested– BUT- aiming 72,000 next season)Beans– rising up towards maize levels– in te
• #21: Demand driven moving to scale.
• #22: Don’t have transparent logos…This is the list from Central America. Based on this work, CRS then expanded much broader as we will see.
• #23: Clear objectivesMultiple stakeholders have different objectives and interests. A learning alliance is based on the identification and negotiation of common interests, needs and capacities of participating organizations and individuals. What does each organization bring to the alliance? What complementarities or gaps exist? What does each organization hope to achieve through the collaboration? How can the alliance add value to partner activities?Shared responsibilities, costs and benefitsOrganizations and individuals participate in learning alliances when: (1) they perceive benefits from this association, (2) transaction costs are lower than expected benefits, (3) benefits from collective action are perceived to be greater than those obtained individually, and (4) results do not conflict with other key interests. Learning alliances seek to benefit all parties. Therefore, transaction costs and responsibilities, as well as benefits and credit for achievements, are shared among partners in a transparent fashion.Outputs as inputsRural communities are diverse and no universally applicable recipes for sustainable development exist. Learning alliances view research and development outputs as inputs to processes of rural innovation that are place and time-specific. Methods and tools will change as users adapt them to their needs and realities. Understanding why adaptations occur, the extent that these lead to positive or negative changes in livelihoods, and documenting and sharing lessons learnt are key objectives.Differentiated but linked learning mechanismsLearning alliances have a diverse range of participants. Identifying each group’s questions and willingness to participate in the learning process is critical to success. Flexible but connected learning methods are needed. Long-term, trust-based relationshipsRural development processes stretch over many years or decades. To influence positive change and understand why that change has occurred requires long-term, stable relationships capable of evolving to meet new challenges. Trust is the glue that cements these relationships, but develops gradually as partners interact with each other and perceive concrete benefits from collaboration.
• #24: And there are methods behind this, for example the learning cycle is akin to the scientific methodKey elements:Multiple partners, scale and contributes to improved practiceCross-cutting policy implicationsEmpirical evidence Not a one way delivery mechanismThe first step in a learning cycle is to clearly define what we seek to learn from this process. These questions can take the form of research issues, methodological or ‘how-to’ queries or policy level inquiries. In many cases, a combination of diverse questions reflecting the diversity of participants’ interests in a specific topic occurs.  Once the learning objectives are clear, a short review of existing good practice is generated. This process is based on literature review conducted by research organizations, complemented by rapid surveys of partner experience as well as the identification of other relevant field experiences that partners are aware of. The final result is a short ‘state of the art and practice’ document focused on partner needs that combines external ideas as well as partner and regional experience.  Based on the specific learning queries and existing good practice, the alliance develops a prototype for testing and improvement. A prototype may include methods, tools or policy ideas that seem promising to help respond to the knowledge and skill gaps identified by partner agencies. It is not, however, a definitive response but rather a first ‘best-guess’ of what might work. Depending on the novelty of the prototype developed, the alliance provides more or less intensive support for capacity building and backstopping to partner agencies interested in using and improving the prototype to meet their specific needs. This takes the form of regional or national workshops – open to all interested partner agencies – complemented by face-to-face or virtual backstopping to assist in processes of adaptation and improvement. Partner agencies test and improve the prototype in existing development initiatives in a variety of contexts. On-going results from this process are shared via Dgroup as well as the website. When prototype testing is well advanced or completed, the alliance facilitates a face-to-face meeting to assess the learning cycle. This meeting seeks to identify and document lessons learned and make sense of these collectively between partner agencies. Specific attention is paid to how well the prototyping process resolved the initial knowledge and capacity gaps expressed by partner agencies, what policy implications this work has both for partner agencies and others and what positive adaptations and innovations were made during the process to the prototype itself. Products from this workshop may include empirical data to inform theory, practical results to inform diverse policy makers and improved methods and tools for further iterations of learning by partner agencies.
• #25: 25 direct partners116 indirect partners36k families
• #35: Co –agenda setting- for research and for impactIf we leverage properly- real bang for the buck
• #36: Potential– to change mountains