fara2014

Making Agricultural R4D Partnerships Work at Scale Side session at FARA Conference, Johannesburg, 26 November 2014

CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish In association with WLE and Humidtropics research programs

CGIAR research programs are nowadays expected to lead to demonstrable development as well as research outcomes, at scale. To achieve these, partnerships, with the usual and the ‘un-usual’ organizations are absolutely necessary.
 * Background**

At the 2012 GCARD conference, the CGIAR research program on Livestock and Fish research [|organized a pre-conference session] on ‘Mobilizing AR4D partnerships to improve access to critical animal-source foods’. Following a strengths-weaknesses exercise, participants zoomed in on concrete experiences to identify R4D partnership critical success factors: What is really needed to make partnerships between a research program and especially development actors really deliver?

The conversations led to a set of partnership principles or values that we (all the partners) should commit to follow [and which could provide a basis for self-evaluation, mutual accountability], including:
 * 1) __Work from a common domain of issues__: jointly mapped and understood system of interest
 * 2) __Clear roles__: who does what is defined and agreed
 * 3) __Work as a team__: purpose expressed as a shared vision of success, working together, “your success is my success”, invest in relationships, open communication, full transparency
 * 4) __Build culture__: changing institutional norms, attitudes and practices that better enable partnerships
 * 5) __Collective results__: Reward total system performance and share attribution, and secure such space with funders
 * 6) __Learn together__: Invest in joint learning
 * 7) __Regular partnership health checks__: joint evaluation of performance and satisfaction

Since late 2012, all CGIAR research programs have been working in partnerships, with different actors, using different and sometimes innovative mechanisms. Livestock and Fish for example works in several African countries focusing on **value chains** (Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt). In the past two years, it has worked closely with national researchers, it has also developed relationships with various development partners (NGOs, private sector, multilateral agencies, governments, academia ...) to enrich the research process and increase the scaling potential of interventions. Other CRPs and centres have also been pursuing this value chain approach (eg: ICRISAT in southern Africa, CIAT/Africa RISING in Ethiopia, IITA/Africa RISING in Tanzania, AAS/WorldFish in Zambia – there are many more).
 * FARA Johannesburg**

We are also involving more of our national agricultural research partners in these different forms of engagement.

Alongside this value chain focus, almost all the CRPs have taken some sort of **innovation systems** approach and perspective (with different names). The fundamental idea here is that development and innovation emerges from many different ‘knowledges’ brought together in useful ways. At the core of this approach is collaboration and partnership, aligned with communications, knowledge sharing, collective vision and action, and mobilization of capacities and expertise.

Some programs also encompass the notion of **landscapes** as the level at which results need to be achieved, and actors mobilized. The WLE research program for instance builds on previous CPWF work in river basins, aiming to produce outcomes that take account of up- and downstream actions.

We believe these three notions – value chain focus, innovation systems perspective, landscape scale – help shape and are shaped by partnerships. They force reflection and different forms of action by CGIAR __and__ national/regional research institutes.

Where before there was perhaps a natural cooperative affinity between agricultural researchers, national or international, one of today’s drivers is connecting and partnering with those ‘un-usual’ partners that we know less well and who we need to know much better.

The aims of this session are to:
 * 1) briefly revisit key partnership notions from GCARD 2012, the L&F session and beyond. Validate and expand or improve, as needed, the central notions.
 * 2) consider and critically assess CGIAR and partner experience around partnerships and 1) value chain development, 2) innovation systems, and 3) landscape
 * 3) draw out and synthesize key insights and actions to make agricultural R4D partnerships work

1115 Welcomes and introductions
 * Outline **

1125 R4D partnerships – emerging drivers and shapers (mini-cases)
 * Transforming value chains at scale (Stuart Worsley, ILRI/L&F) Presentation
 * Achieving impact at landscape scales (Tim Williams, IWMI/WLE) Presentation: [[file:3. FARA@15_WLE's Contribution to AR4D Partnerships Side Event_261114.pptx]] (soon replaced by official link)
 * Innovation platforms engaging local actors (Robin Buruchara, CIAT/HumidTropics) Presentation

1215 Making R4D partnerships work at scale – critical success factors and lessons (groupwork)

1255 Conclusions, synthesis, actions

1310 Close


 * Notes of the session**


 * Partnership do’s and don’ts**
 * Understanding VC/System + context
 * The partnership should be issue-specific
 * Involve 'relevant' partners
 * Non-static leadership
 * Incentives - via value adding
 * Recognising and building on opportunities
 * Facilitating players towards things that enthuse them, around low hanging fruits
 * Identify a common agenda (s) – people have room to do their thing
 * Ensure partners can see progress – a series of demonstrable quick wins
 * Focus on transparency and trust (use good facilitation for this)
 * Be clear in assigning roles + responsibilities that fit with partner strengths
 * Partnerships should include for research AND development (HP)
 * Ensure that the IP is context specific formed around an issue of concern/interest to all stakeholders;
 * Ensure that diverse actors with a stake in the issue are involved. Different actors may be brought into the platform at different stages of its development;
 * Ensure the knowledge of all is recognised and shared
 * The IP should add value for all involved providing an incentive for their engagement
 * Recognise and build on opportunities as they emerge
 * Recognise and make possible that leadership changes over time given the context.
 * Ensure involvement of government/public sector
 * Do be aware of power dynamics and its potential pitfalls
 * Do be clear about your objectives
 * Do have an inclusive vision that all partners can align with
 * Do value local partners and local knowledge
 * Do: Trust is critical – but is complex to manage and takes time to build.
 * Do: change the notion of transaction costs (for trust / partnerships) into “investment”
 * Do: Ensure fairness and strive for equity in the processes
 * Do: allow time for partnerships to develop
 * Don’t lose focus
 * Don’t: Expect partnerships to work according to the schedule of external project deadline
 * Don’t make the incentive financial
 * Don’t over design processes
 * Don’t: form a partnership without a common purpose (JS)
 * Don’t come with ready-made solutions or attempt to push one specific technology;
 * Do not allow state actors to dominate the platform;
 * Do not allow individuals to usurp the platform for their political aims;
 * Perceived financial gain should not be the reason for coming together;


 * How to develop and nurture relationships that impact Ag systems – at scale, over time?**
 * Assure relevance at different scales (partnerships)
 * Try and connect these better
 * Build capacity of allies and players
 * Win-Win - ‘no one participates if they can’t get anything’
 * Assure / nurture adequate representation of local players at higher levels
 * We need to research how functional alliances form, grow + deliver
 * Working from grass roots participation. Can give rise to cultural change (stay in line with the crowd)
 * Need a realistic understanding of what can be achieved - need realistic timeframes and also to remain flexible
 * Need a systemic approach - demonstrate impact at scale
 * Political implications, potential exclusion issues
 * Hard to answer this question generically. Have to figure out for each specific case what are your critical success factor. Intrinsic knowledge is contextual…
 * Even best rice varieties took 10+ years to scale – need to be in for the long haul…
 * Any given case has dozens of moving part and issues that can go wrong… Need to narrow down to the TOP 3-5 issues that affect the matter (and you can influence) and deal with those.
 * All partners must see the benefit of interaction thus creating ownership and commitment
 * Analysis of the value chain/system should enable partners to understand how they are interdependently linked;
 * The analysis should also enable partners to better understand the livelihood strategies of each and the constraints they face (example the role of middlemen and traders and their transaction costs);
 * Roles and responsibilities of each should be clearly defined and decision making be transparent;
 * It is imperative to build trust among partners which can only happen over time and with respect for each and everyone’s role in the VC/system.

- Partnerships are necessary to ahieve outcomes and they should be brokered on firm terms around the value of partners themselves - In one of the slides of Robin it shows that if you bring people from different backgrounds etc. you will not get them to agree at once. You have different nodes and small subsets will come together initially, and others later, and eventually you can link together all the nodes – it’s not all at once. - Strong convergence that you have different partners who come together and generate some isolated success stories. Now we’re looking at different partners from different backgrounds, to achieve transformation for greater impact. It’s complex and requires time, good gov’t support and it’s about building trust which can take a long time. The expectation of impact on scale in a project of 3-5 years is questionable.
 * __Conclusions__**

See.