Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à AAS CRP introduction and CSISA-AAS integration
Similaire à AAS CRP introduction and CSISA-AAS integration (20)
Plus de AASBD
Plus de AASBD (15)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
AAS CRP introduction and CSISA-AAS integration
- 1. AAS CRP introduction CSISA-AAS integration 6-7 May 2013, Jessore, Bangladesh
- 2. 0
- 3. System Level Objectives CRPs – primary focus Reduced rural poverty Agricultural Systems: (Drylands; Humid Tropics; Aquatic) (1s) Improved food security Commodities (Wheat; Maize; Rice; Roots and Tubers; Pulses; Dryland cereals; Grain legumes; Milk, meat & fish) (3s) Improved nutrition and health Nutrition and Health (4) Sustainably managed natural resources Water Land and Ecosystems (5) Forests and Trees (6) Policies and Institutions (2); Climate Change (7) Strategy and Results Framework
- 6. Aquatic Agriculture Systems •“those farming, fishing and herding systems where the annual production dynamics of natural freshwater and/or coastal ecosystems contribute significantly to household livelihood, including income and food security.” •“These include major wetlands, floodplains and deltas, and most coastal systems.”
- 7. Aquatic Agriculture Systems The Coral Triangle Asia mega deltas African Inland • High numbers of poor High % of total population dependent on AAS • High vulnerability to change (climate/sea level/water) • Potential to scale out
- 8. CRP 1s and rural poverty • Reaching those left behind by the Green Revolution
- 9. Our research agenda Gender transformative approachesGender transformative approaches
- 10. Pillars of AAS CRP
- 11. Impact Pathways of AAS CRP #1 Scaling up and scaling out #2 Societal learning and change #3 Shifts in the practice of research in development
- 12. Engage communities through Research in Development (RinD) • Meaningful participation by local women and men in research • Research that empowers • Shift focus from understanding to learning how to achieve practical outcomes and local change • Get M&E and IA right – pursue change through cycles of action and reflection – flexibility to adjust as we learn • Recognize the need for long-term site-based fieldwork and engagement
- 13. RinD in CRP AAS • emphasis on Participatory Action Research at core of major CGIAR program • Applying it in – and learning across – a coherent set of agricultural systems • If we show it works – make it central to what the CGIAR does in agricultural systems • Explicit intent to learn from this and scale out by working with partners
- 14. “CRP 1.3 is a clear example of best practice” CGIAR Gender Scoping Study Gender transformative approach …… not just “gender accommodating” Actively examine, question and seek to change rigid gender norms and imbalance of power Encourage critical awareness among men and women of gender roles and norms Address the distribution of resources and power relationships between women and others in the community …… not just “gender accommodating” Actively examine, question and seek to change rigid gender norms and imbalance of power Encourage critical awareness among men and women of gender roles and norms Address the distribution of resources and power relationships between women and others in the community
- 15. Gender transformative approach Invest in gender analysis Build gender capacity Make gender part of normal CRP AAS practice – not an add on Experiment systematically on how to overcome gender constraints Evaluate to learn what works and scale out successes Invest in gender analysis Build gender capacity Make gender part of normal CRP AAS practice – not an add on Experiment systematically on how to overcome gender constraints Evaluate to learn what works and scale out successes
- 16. How change happens Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997 Improvements in poverty alleviation, food security and the state of natural resources result from dynamic, interactive, non-linear, and generally uncertain processes of innovation.” EIARD, 2003
- 17. Adapted from Patton (2007)
- 18. Visualizing the innovation required M&E Impact Assessment Social research Business-as-usual AAS concept of an ME&IA system for learning and accountability
- 19. Visualizing the innovation required M&E Impact Assessment Social research Business-as-usual AAS concept of an ME&IA system for learning and accountability Culture of Knowledge Sharing and Learning
- 20. Visualizing the innovation required M&E Impact Assessment Social research Business-as-usual Evaluation AAS concept of an ME&IA system for learning and accountability Culture of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Impact Assessment Establishing worth
- 21. Visualizing the innovation required M&E Impact Assessment Social research Social research Business-as-usual Evaluation AAS concept of an ME&IA system for learning and accountability Culture of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Building and testing ToC Impact Assessment Establishing worth
- 22. Visualizing the innovation required M&E Impact Assessment Social research Social research Business-as-usual Monitoring Evaluation Real-Time Evaluation AAS concept of an ME&IA system for learning and accountability Culture of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Building and testing ToC Impact Assessment Establishing worth
- 23. M&E fundamentals: Build and test nested theories of change • With stakeholders • From the beginning
- 24. M&E fundamentals: Staged / iterative approach • Pathways unclear to begin with • Staged approach • Ex-ante • Mid-term • Ex-post • In support of learning and accountability
- 25. Handbook Roll out goals – Set the tone – Start team building/training – Achieve coordination with existing activities – Start or consolidate partnerships – Produce the plans
- 26. Components •Activities for outputs •Processes for outcomes Research in Development •Balance supply offered by partners with demands from communities Activity Sequence
- 27. Top Line Messages from site start up • First year start ups managed huge learning curve • Second year start ups are better planned and will be better managed thanks to the first year • A program learning culture is well underway • Roll out as designed is robust across different settings • Partners are enthusiastic and communities are engaged
- 28. • Local teams recruited and working • Agreement with stakeholders on development challenge • Agreement with stakeholders on strategic priorities to guide a proposed program of work • Communities selected and engaged • 2013 work plan for implementation Outputs
- 29. Barotse FloodPlain - Zambia To make more effective use of the seasonal flooding and natural resources of the Barotse Flood Plain System through more productive and diversified aquatic agricultural management practices and technologies that improve lives and livelihoods of the poor.
- 30. Mailata – Solomon Islands rising population and declining quality and availability of marine and land resources. challenge is to improve their lives through more productive, diversified livelihoods that empower communities to be better able to adapt to change and more effective use of their resources. to develop and test alternative approaches to livelihood diversification and resource stewardship that will accelerate development and restore the productivity of their resources.
- 31. Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone The AAS development challenge is to achieve sustainable and continual improvements in agricultural productivity, livelihoods and nutrition of poor communities in the Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone in the face of increasing salinity, changing hydrology and climate change
- 32. Outcomes • Explorations by program teams of what business not- as-usual means for AAS • Awareness of the program among stakeholders • Hub-level partners willing to participate • Communities engaged and willing to participate
- 33. Learning – community engagement Front line human resources strategy •Community facilitators •Program community engagement staff Engagement process and outputs •Strength based approach excellent for empowerment objectives •Good community visions but incomplete action plans •Major concern with expectations management
- 34. Coming up for roll out in 2013 Implement work plans in first year sites •Complete detailed planning on initiatives •Continued engagement in communities •Capacity building of teams and stakeholders Roll out in second year sites Continued development of cross cutting themes
Notes de l'éditeur
- But to do so, for our research processes to be catalytic, we need to learn how to work better in these systems. AAS and the other CRP 1s are ‘systems’ programs because we share, together with the other so-called NRM CRPs, the same view of the change progress that EIARD has helped embed in the CGIAR. The quotation comes from an epilogue article in a special issue of Agricultural System published in 2003 on impact assessment and evaluation in R4D. With respect to the model - our view is that while change processes may be uncertain, there is value in anticipating change (e.g., by making explicit our assumed theories of change) using our best available knowledge. We then start ‘doing’ – it is a mistake to over characterize and not get started (we learned that from the EcoRegional Approach in the 1990s). Once we intervene things start to happen. We seek to amplify positive emergence and dampen what is less positive, learning as we do. We revisit our theories of change and change our plans accordingly. And so the cycle continues.
- Another way of looking at this is by realizing that the CGIAR has always worked in both ordered and complex systems. Much of our genetic improvement work appears ordered because it happens in well established vertically integrated networks that link scientists to farmers. Our relational work with networks is complex. But whether ordered or complex, ‘theory-made-explicit’ in project proposals, program design, reward structures and evaluation assume we operate in ordered systems To reach the billion left behind we need to trigger social potentialities. This means building partnerships and coalitions as well as doing cutting edge research biophysical research. We need to become more comfortable and effective engaging in complex systems. Our mental models, both individually and collectively, need to change to better match this need. Part of this requires us to see ourselves as part of the system, not apart from it. For this reason, CRP AAS has coined the term ‘research in development’ to capture the embeddedness idea. Putting it another way, the complex issues that hold rural people in poverty won’t fall to single interventions. It requires systemic change, and we in the CGIAR need to become much more comfortable and able to work in this arena. AND mirroring this, the approaches that we need to use will not be recipes or instruction manuals. They will be principles underpinned by networked learning and reflection.
- I now want to give you some more detail on the evaluation and learning system we are building in AAS based on these foundation stones. Forgive me a straw-man for contrast. Generally speaking impact assessment, social research and M&E happen in isolation in most research organizations. M&E is usually understood to be about financial and milestone compliance to donors. Support to knowledge sharing and learning has been more rhetorical than real.
- In AAS we begin with a commitment to KS&L led from the top, and legitimized in a research program that I lead (Research Theme 6 on Knowledge Sharing, Learning and Innovation). I depict this culture box as open to indicate that this cultural shift cuts across all aspects of program activity, not least research, open access to information, etc.
- An expanded role for evaluation has a critical part to play in building the KS&L culture, not least because a big part of the required culture shift is learning to be critically self-evaluative and making time for standing back and reflecting. We see impact assessment as a subset of evaluation as do most evaluation theorists and practitioners, contributing to learning.
- We see a much expanded role for social research, in particular to build and test theories of change. We want to know how our projects and programs act on, and change, patterns of interactions between people and their capacities. We want to know how better to use research as a lever for change both as adaptive managers and to influence policy.
- And finally we seek to be clear about the roles monitoring has to play, in its contribution to testing theories of change, as part of real-time evaluation to guide adaptive management and, last but not least, in its traditional role to monitor milestones and financial compliance.
- Impact evaluation has a leadership role to play in working to build project and program theories of change from the start. Our experience is that little builds common commitment to agreed priorities like a shared vision and creatively thinking through the pathways to achieve that vision. These pathways, made explicit as theories of change, can provide the basis of ex-ante impact assessment and formative mid-term evaluations, as well as providing the evaluation questions and causal explanations for ex-post impact assessment. In practice theories of change need to explain overall program logic and one level as well explaining how specific project interventions trigger change. In practice we need to work with ‘nested’ or ‘scaled’ theories of change.
- Pathways to impact are through networks – through people working together. In most NRM projects, unlike many genetic improvement ones, relationships need to be built. To deal with uncertainty, NRM R4D impact evaluation must be staged and contribute to building and testing theories of change, as just discussed. Staging provides opportunity for reflection and theory testing. Indeed self-reflective learning is the hallmark of an evaluative culture needed to underpin our intent to work more effectively in systems.