Today nearly 50 individuals deeply involved in agricultural research for development initiatives – from Africa, Asia, North America, Europe, and Latin America – arrived in Nairobi to participate in a two day discussion on Inclusive Agricultural Partnerships for Development.
The participants represent academia, research centers, development NGOs, small farmers, and private business. They are drawn together by the growing priority to utilize partnerships to deliver breakthrough research innovations that translate into high impact development outcomes.
Agricultural Research for Development (R4D) Partnerships promise to perform by connecting those with good ideas, with those with specific needs and knowledge on the ground, with those that can apply innovations, with those that can bring them to scale. They promise, in theory, to be accountable to farmers, countries, and other beneficiaries: much more accountable than alternative approaches to agricultural development.
Evidence on partnership performance is mixed. As money flows to them, there’s a window of opportunity to get them right. The workshop will try to build a common view among participants for the expectations we should have for the way Agricultural R4D Partnerships should perform.
This is the first of what we plan will be several posts sharing major ideas, findings, and agreements from the Workshop. Stay tuned! – Steve Rochlin, AccountAbility
I’m still en route home from the workshop on Inclusive Partnerships for Agriculture for Development. My head is still spinning from the two days. Adequately summing up the depth, passion, insights, complexities and paradoxes raised by the participants will take some doing. But it will be a joy. Here’s one brief observation to start.
The most powerful and passionate discussion rests along the view of what partnerships should achieve. In my own interpretation, some see partnerships as a tool to level agricultural investment and planning – putting more decision-making power in the hands of farmers, local NGOs, communities, and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS). The assumption is that this would change the priority of investments away from new discoveries, to partnerships that seek to fully achieve innovations for development. This means putting equal weight on efforts to adopt new discoveries with efforts to ensure new discoveries connect with or even create market opportunities. This in turn means puting the power of farmer voice at the core of driving research.
This in my view caused a mix of excitement and cohesion among many in the group, while causing some discomfort among others. A collection of voices made the point that research focused on delivering new discoveries is vital. It is not easy, and partnerships should increase the probability that new discoveries will emerge. There was no dispute that innovation for development is valuable. Participants tentatively debated whether agricultural research systems should focus primarily on (what I’m calling) discovery-based partnerships vs. (again, my term, for better or worse), innovation for development partnerships. We didn’t reach consensus on this. But I’d say that the conversation helped create a lot of clarity and build new bridges of understanding among the diverse voices in the room.
There are pages, and pages, more to share. The next step for us is to distill the most salient points and implications into a readable summary. A challenge, but keep watching this space.
-- Steve Rochlin, AccountAbility
Learn more about the workshop hosted by the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) and the Institutional Learning and Change Initiative (ILAC), and facilitated by AccountAbility here: http://www.cgiar-ilac.org/workshop/wip
