08448380779 Call Girls In Diplomatic Enclave Women Seeking Men
Reu1final Sperling+Lundy
1. REACHING END-USERS
Facts for helping CIAT move forward
on strategic program development
Louise Sperling and Mark Lundy
with inputs from:
Andy Farrow Bernard Vanlauwe Enid Katungi
Reinhardt Howeler Jean Claude Rubyogo Helena Pachon
Andy Jarvis Michael Peters Rod Lefroy
6. REU program at CIAT: WHY?
Reaching Endusers is a CORE VALUE at CIAT
1. Advance Research
• for reaching client groups– on the ground
• for policy change (toward) client groups)
2. Shape R+ D (affect implementation)
3. Serve as a framework for Funding
CIAT Working Group: REU- Dec 2008
7. REU RESEARCH Advances
Example 1: Beans: moving of varieties- Africa
Example 2: Agro-enterprise: linking farmers to markets
8. Moving of bean varieties : Africa
Problem: varieties not getting out
fast enough or widely enough
9. Conventional Model
Bean NARS led centralized seed systems
A few released popular On farm variety testing
varieties
Parastatal seed producers/ Farmer research groups/individual farmers
suppliers
GO/NGOs (for development projects
+ as seed relief)
Farmers Farmers Traders
10. Use of certified seed in percent area sown in a selection
of African countries (DANAGRO 1988, CIAT 2002, 2004, SSN 2005)
Maize Sorghum Wheat Rice Common
Bean
Angola 15 0 50 0 0
Lesotho 75 5 38 4 -
Malawi 10 5 19 4 0
Mozambique 10 5 13 - -
Rwanda - - - - 1
Tanzania 14 9 15 0 0
Zambia 75 0 97 <1 <1
Zimbabwe 83 25 97 <1 <1
11. Research Dynamism. vs. Seed Supply
Country # var. # var.supplied by formal Seed coverage
released seed channels by formal seed
(96-04) supply (%)
DRC 18 4 <2
Ethiopia 23 3 0.8
Rwanda 20 5 2
Uganda 11 2 5
12. Figure Modified from R. Kirkby (CIAT) 2003
Seed company
Traders
promotion
training /
Local R/D
service provider
training
local seed sales
access to technology Research
Farmer
enterprises free evaluation station
Re-Conceptualization of seed production and supply chain
•More partners (100s)
•Clear complementary divisions of labor
• New platform building (Rubyogo et al, forthcoming)
13. Research on Seed quality-
what product was safe- met user needs?
16
14
12
seed infec tion (% )
10
8
6
4
2
Trained farmers Non-trained Local market KARI
group
Otysula et al., 2004
14. STRONG RESEARCH ON MARKETING
• Small packs
– 75g (‘cup of tea’)
– 200g
– 400g
• Multiple varieties
• In venues farmers’ frequent
• With Information-from trusted
source
15. RETHINKING IMPACT PATHS
20
.
Millions of
Farmers
10
Wider Impact
Conventional
2 6 10 14
Years
16. No. of partners in bean seed multiplication and delivery: PABRA/ECARBEN/SABRN
#3 CIAT/partners have recognized
track record in REU
Households reached 2003-2007
Ethiopia 992,755
Malawi 793,430
S. Tanzania 807,160
Uganda 3,584,590
Zambia 1,001,400
Zimbabwe 819,300
_____________ __________
Total 7,998,635
Rubyogo et al, 2009
17. NEW PUBLIC –PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP
• 28,000 packs sold
(Sept 09- Jan 09) LELDET LTD CROPS SOLD
at Ol Kalou Field Day on 18th March 2009
80
70
WEIGHT(kgs)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
maize beans cow pigeon sorghum
peas peas
SEEDS
18. GENDER RESULTS
Small packets sales Oct-Nov 08
N= 5404 customers
male
10 Ksh ( $ 0.12) 42%
female
58%
Most popular size
19. SUMMARY: REU Research Beans
Tested Partnership reorganization
Tested Market innovation (GATES/AGRA)
Developed production and model- for use in 24 countries- across crops
Opened up lucrative possibilities- private sector.
Developed a model which reaches even poor women
.... Reached… 8 million households (5 years)
20. Agro-enterprise REU challenge
Productivity is not enough to reduce poverty
Markets are also needed
Questions from NGOs
– Methods and tools for market linkages?
– Training & backstopping on tool usage?
Questions from CIAT
– How to move from training to co-learning?
– How to achieve impact at scale?
22. Organizing principles
Clear and shared objectives.
Shared responsibilities, costs and benefits.
Outputs as inputs for innovation.
Differentiated but linked learning mechanisms.
Long-term, trust-based relationships.
23. Learning cycles
Development of key questions
(what do we want to learn?)
Document external Document field experience
knowledge (literature) (local, national)
Existing ‘good practice’
(what is already known?)
How can we use/improve ‘good practice’ Empirical evidence
(prototype 1.0 - toolkits of for theory
approaches, methods, tools and policies) development
Capacity
development Contributions
Policy implications / to large-
briefs scale, systemic
Field application Field application Field application change
(context A) (context B) (context C)
Shared documentation, analysis, reflection and Improved practice
learning around the selected topic (prototype 2.0)
24. Reach and Influence in Central America (2003-2007)
Innovation system
Direct learning Indirect learning Partner
for rural enterprise
alliance partners alliance partners beneficiaries
development in
(25 organizations) (~116 organizations) (~35,786 families)
Central America
25. Results Central America
Farm level gains
Increased income, better NRM and gender equity
Income gains from using alliance tools of 10m US reported
(Swisscontact Honduras)
Estimated regional income impact over 60m US (4 years)
Sustainable process
Regional facilitation unit spun off of CIAT
Currently funded by partner contributions
CIAT now focused on further strategic research for impact
26. Results Central America
More strategic and collaborative projects
ACORDAR Nicaragua (CRS) 28m US
PYMERural Nicaragua, Honduras (Swisscontact) 12m US
Sustainable trading relationships Honduras, Guatemala
(Oxfam) 10m US
27. Reach and influence globally
S. Asia: India, Afghanistan
S.E. Asia: Philippines, Vietnam, Timor-
Leste, Cambodia
West Africa: Mali, Niger, Burkina
Faso, Ghana, Gambia, DR Congo, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, Senegal, Benin
Andes:
Colombia,
Ecuador,
Bolivia
Peru
East Africa:
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi
and Eritrea
Central America: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008
28. SUMMARY: Agro enterprise REU
Uptake of CIAT research outputs, business models
Major organizational changes in partners
More effective collaboration between development and
research agencies
Sustainable platform for science for impact, not just for
agro enterprise
And field level impacts in more 30+ countries
29. SUMMARY :Types of REU Impacts
• New organizational models developed for science for impact
• Policy Changes (public, NGO, donor and private)
• Re-focus on ---Types of end users redefined
• Scaling up processes refined (across countries, across
regions,-- global changes)
• (and yes. massive results on the ground: # people
reached, $$$ income, distribution of benefits– toward
poor, marginalized, women
QUESTION: Is this just ‘DELIVERY”
31. SELECT REU IMPACTS
Program Technology Where When REU target reached
Cassava Improved varieties 11 countries (1994-2007) 2.8 million famers
Asia and agronomic SE Asia ($ 916 million increased income /yr)
practices (incl China)
Forages Forage options in Laos, Viet 2002 - 2008 40,000 farmers
Asia crop livestock Nam, South
systems East Asia
Forages Brachiaria accessions LAC, 2001 - 2008 100,000 to 150,000 ha
(mainly including hybrids Thailand
LAC)
Forages Knowledge systems Global Launched 120,000 to 150,000 hits per year
SoFT 2005
Seed Seed Aid Briefs Global 2006-present 60,0000 downloads
Systems in
stress
Agro-enter Territorial approach Global 2002-2008 30 country programs of CRS trained
LAC to rural enterprise in agro enterprise development;
development (empowered)
32. REU- CIAT : Money currently involved
Program Theme-Issue Where When Total Funds $ Funds/Year $
Beans (TLII) Drought-tolerant Bean Kenya and Ethiopia 2008-2010 1.4 million 460,000
seed systems
Beans Seed Systems- strategy Malawi 2007-2010 400,000 100,000
Mozambique
S. Tanzania
Forages Several projects combine Nicaragua, 2007 -2011 500,000 200.000
with REU Colombia, Congo,
Laos, Viet Nam
Asia Farming systems- Agri-bus Cambodia, Vietnam, 2008-2012 1.5 million 375,000
Laos
ISFM-TSBF CIALCA Central Africa 2007-2011 3.1 million 740,000
Agro –enter. New business models for Kenya, Ethiopia, 2008-2011 5.3 million 1,325,000
New Biz Model sustainable trading Ghana and Ivory
relationships Coast
Decision and Climate Change and Nicaragua 2009-2014 200,000 40,000
Policy Analysis Coffee in Central America Guatemala
SSA-CP IAR4D Kivu area, (DRC) 2007-2010 750,000 250,000
PABRA- REU Cross programs Pan-Africa 2009-2011 1 million 250,000
thrust
Nippon Found. Improved var + agronomic Laos, Cambodia, 2009-2013 2.3 million 450,000
Cassava practices Myanmar, Vietnam
Total (partial) 16.5 million 4.2 million
33. Money leveraged
Theme Where When Funds Funds Comments
directly Leveraged
available $US
$US
Rural Agro- Honduras 2002-2007 490,000 1.4 million > 50 million $US
enterprise Guatemala brought in via new
development El Salvador projects
in Central Nicaragua
America
Livestock Laos 2008-2015 0 19.8 million CIAT designed the
Development loan and grant
(Tropical project
Forages)
Forages in Colombia 2006-2010 100,000 200, 000 Exponential uptake
systems in
Cauca and
Valle
35. ‘Powerful Pea’
Shift from vet fix to
forage solution across
Mekong Delta
Private
companies, e,g
Costco, pro-poor
supply chains…. Cassava
approach
change towards
FPR across 11
countries in Asia
Biorfortification as Change UN
routine trait in NARS guidelines- seed aid
(e.g. Cuba + Panama)
36. REU funds (projects next 1-2 years)
Program Theme-Issue Where When Funds requested
$US
Forages Forage network with CATIE Central America and the c. 2010 1 million
INIA Caribbean
Agro-enterprise, forages Dairy chain development Nicaragua, Colombia, c. 2010 2.5 million
Costa Rica
Beans Wider impact seed chains Uganda, DRC, Burundi 2009-10 750,000 (?)
Decision and Policy Support Site specific agriculture SSA 2010-2015 c. 2 million
(SSAFE)
TSBF Biological nitrogen fixation- SSA 2010-2014 c. 6 million
legumes
Agro-enterprise Linking farmers to markets Laos 2009-2013 2.3 million
AgroSalud Biofortified rice and beans Cuba 2010-2012 250,000
Nicaragua
Coffee Under Pressure (CUP) Climate change adaptation + Central America and 2009-2013 200,000
pro-poor business models
Building Sustainable Trading Pro-poor business models and 2009-2012 750,000
Relationships
Designing inclusive + effective Pro-poor public sector supply Honduras, Nicaragua, 2009-2012 850,000
public sector supply chain policies chain support policies Colombia, Peru, Ecuador
Building NGO and farmer capacity Farmer and NGO capacity ,,,,,, 2009-2011 300,000
to partner effectively with buyers development
Total (partial) 16.9 million
38. PROPOSED STEPS FOR MOVING FORWARD
CIAT team:
1. Review what is our ‘reaching end-user mandate’ (what is ‘in’ what is ‘out’)
2. Synthesize some of the ‘startling’ High profile lessons (maybe edited
volume)
3. Synthesize STRATEGIC VISION, STRATEGIC PATHS
4. Map: intra-center (+ partner) opportunities for impact, on-the ground
synergies
5. Fund raise- specifically Strategic ‘REU’
39. CHECKLIST for REU Program Development
Question No Yes
1. Does CIAT adhere to the goal of ‘Science for impact’ √
2. Does CIAT currently engage in REU activity √
3. Will CIAT intensify REU activity in the future √
√
4. Does REU demand strategic work in areas of :
• Organization al models
• Client-oriented policy
• Methods development
• Shared agenda setting
Notes de l'éditeur
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.
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..
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
--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
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….
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
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).
Many of you know the context seed delivery
Counteracted stereotypes of much of the seed industry .
Private sector aid farmers- not interested– BUT- aiming 72,000 next season)Beans– rising up towards maize levels– in te
Demand driven moving to scale.
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.
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.
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 direct partners116 indirect partners36k families
Co –agenda setting- for research and for impactIf we leverage properly- real bang for the buck