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