reaching end-users: facts for helping ciat move forward on strategic program development
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Louise Sperling and Mark Lundy for the CIAT KSW 2009TRANSCRIPT
REACHING END-USERS
Facts for helping CIAT move forward on strategic program development
Louise Sperling and Mark Lundywith inputs from:
Andy Farrow Bernard Vanlauwe Enid Katungi Reinhardt Howeler Jean Claude Rubyogo Helena Pachon Andy Jarvis Michael Peters Rod Lefroy
CGIAR VISIONRen Wang, CG Director
SCIENCE FOR IMPACT
CGIAR VISION: Ren Wang, Directorfunding allocations
Current Near Future (New CG)
CG: 9
Partners: 9
CG: 1
Part. 1
‘R’‘Delivery’
MEGAPROGRAMS
http://sites.google.com/a/cgxchange.org/alliance/mega-program-team-reports
REU program at CIAT: WHY?
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
Reaching Endusers is a CORE VALUE at CIAT
REU RESEARCH Advances
Example 1: Beans: moving of varieties- Africa
Example 2: Agro-enterprise: linking farmers to markets
Moving of bean varieties : Africa
Problem: varieties not getting out fast enough or widely enough
Conventional Model
Bean NARS led centralized seed systems
Parastatal seed producers/ suppliers
GO/NGOs (for development projects + as seed relief)
Farmer research groups/individual farmers
A few released popular varieties
On farm variety testing
Farmers Farmers Traders
Maize Sorghum Wheat Rice Common Bean
Angola 15 0 50 0 0
Lesotho 75 5 38 4 -
Malawi 10 5 19 4 0Mozambique 10 5 13 - -
Rwanda - - - - 1
Tanzania 14 9 15 0 0
Zambia 75 0 97 <1 <1
Zimbabwe 83 25 97 <1 <1
Use of certified seed in percent area sown in a selection of African countries (DANAGRO 1988, CIAT 2002, 2004, SSN 2005)
Research Dynamism. vs. Seed Supply
Country # var. released (96-04)
# var.supplied by formal seed channels
Seed coverage by formal seed supply (%)
DRC 18 4 <2
Ethiopia 23 3 0.8
Rwanda 20 5 2
Uganda 11 2 5
free evaluationResearch station
Farmer enterprises
Traders
local seed sales
Local R/D service provider
Seed company
wider market reach
access to technology
trainingfeedback
training / prom
otion feedback
training
Figure Modified from R. Kirkby (CIAT) 2003
Re-Conceptualization of seed production and supply chain• More partners (100s)• Clear complementary divisions of labor• New platform building (Rubyogo et al, forthcoming)
Research on Seed quality- what product was safe- met user needs?
KARILocal marketNon-trainedTrained farmers
seed
infe
ctio
n (%
)
group
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Otysula et al., 2004
STRONG RESEARCH ON MARKETING• Small packs
– 75g (‘cup of tea’)– 200g– 400g
• Multiple varieties
• In venues farmers’ frequent
• With Information-from trusted source
RETHINKING IMPACT PATHS
.
Years
6
2 10 14
10
20
Conventional
Wider Impact
Millions of Farmers
No. of partners in bean seed multiplication and delivery: PABRA/ECARBEN/SABRN
992,755
793,430
807,160
3,584,590
1,001,400
819,300
__________
7,998,635
Ethiopia
Malawi
S. Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
_____________
Total
Households reached 2003-2007
Rubyogo et al, 2009
#3 CIAT/partners have recognized track record in REU
NEW PUBLIC –PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP
• 28,000 packs sold (Sept 09- Jan 09)
maize beans cow peas
pigeon peas
sorghum
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LELDET LTD CROPS SOLD at Ol Kalou Field Day on 18th March 2009
SEEDS
WE
IGH
T(k
gs)
GENDER RESULTS Small packets sales Oct-Nov 08
N= 5404 customers
10 Ksh ( $ 0.12)Most popular size
female58%
male42%
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)
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?
Some participants in Central America
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.
Learning cyclesDevelopment of key questions
(what do we want to learn?)
Document external knowledge (literature)
Document field experience (local, national)
How can we use/improve ‘good practice’ (prototype 1.0 - toolkits of approaches, methods,
tools and policies)
Capacity development
Shared documentation, analysis, reflection and learning around the selected topic
Field application (context A)
Field application (context B)
Field application (context C)
Existing ‘good practice’(what is already known?)
Policy implications / briefs
Empirical evidence for theory
development
Improved practice (prototype 2.0)
Contributions to large-scale,
systemic change
Reach and Influence in Central America (2003-2007)
Innovation system for rural enterprise
development in Central America
Direct learning alliance partners (25 organizations)
Indirect learning alliance partners
(~116 organizations)
Partner beneficiaries
(~35,786 families)
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
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
Reach and influence globally
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008
Central America: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador
East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi and Eritrea
Andes: Colombia, Ecuador,Bolivia
Peru
West Africa: Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Gambia, DR Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
Senegal, Benin
S.E. Asia: Philippines, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Cambodia
S. Asia: India, Afghanistan
2001
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
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”
Some Overview Tables
REU at CIAT
SELECT REU IMPACTS
Program Technology Where When REU target reached
Cassava Asia
Improved varieties and agronomic practices
11 countries SE Asia(incl China)
(1994-2007) 2.8 million famers($ 916 million increased income /yr)
Forages Asia
Forage options in crop livestock systems
Laos, Viet Nam, South East Asia
2002 - 2008 40,000 farmers
Forages (mainly LAC)
Brachiaria accessions including hybrids
LAC, Thailand
2001 - 2008 100,000 to 150,000 ha
Forages Knowledge systems SoFT
Global Launched 2005
120,000 to 150,000 hits per year
Seed Systems in stress
Seed Aid Briefs Global 2006-present 60,0000 downloads
Agro-enter LAC
Territorial approach to rural enterprise development
Global 2002-2008 30 country programs of CRS trained in agro enterprise development; (empowered)
REU- CIAT : Money currently involved
Program Theme-Issue Where When Total Funds $ Funds/Year $Beans (TLII) Drought-tolerant Bean
seed systemsKenya and Ethiopia 2008-2010 1.4 million 460,000
Beans Seed Systems- strategy MalawiMozambiqueS. Tanzania
2007-2010 400,000 100,000
Forages Several projects combine with REU
Nicaragua, Colombia, Congo, Laos, Viet Nam
2007 -2011 500,000 200.000
Asia Farming systems- Agri-bus Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos
2008-2012 1.5 million 375,000
ISFM-TSBF CIALCA Central Africa 2007-2011 3.1 million 740,000 Agro –enter. New Biz Model
New business models for sustainable trading relationships
Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana and Ivory Coast
2008-2011 5.3 million 1,325,000
Decision and Policy Analysis
Climate Change and Coffee in Central America
Nicaragua Guatemala
2009-2014 200,000 40,000
SSA-CP IAR4D Kivu area, (DRC) 2007-2010 750,000 250,000PABRA- REU thrust
Cross programs Pan-Africa 2009-2011 1 million 250,000
Nippon Found. Cassava
Improved var + agronomic practices
Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam
2009-2013 2.3 million 450,000
Total (partial) 16.5 million 4.2 million
Money leveraged
Theme Where When Funds directly available $US
Funds Leveraged $US
Comments
Rural Agro-enterprise development in Central America
Honduras Guatemala El Salvador Nicaragua
2002-2007
490,000
1.4 million
> 50 million $US brought in via new projects
Livestock Development (Tropical Forages)
Laos
2008-2015
0
19.8 million
CIAT designed the loan and grant project
Forages in systems in Cauca and Valle
Colombia 2006-2010 100,000
200, 000 Exponential uptake
Pea and the elephant
‘Powerful Pea’
Change UN guidelines- seed aid
Biorfortification as routine trait in NARS (e.g. Cuba + Panama)
Private companies, e,g Costco, pro-poor supply chains….
Shift from vet fix to forage solution across Mekong Delta
Cassava approach change towards FPR across 11 countries in Asia
REU funds (projects next 1-2 years)Program Theme-Issue Where When Funds requested
$US
Forages Forage network with CATIEINIA
Central America and the Caribbean
c. 2010 1 million
Agro-enterprise, forages Dairy chain development Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica
c. 2010 2.5 million
Beans Wider impact seed chains Uganda, DRC, Burundi 2009-10 750,000 (?)
Decision and Policy Support Site specific agriculture (SSAFE)
SSA 2010-2015 c. 2 million
TSBF Biological nitrogen fixation- legumes
SSA 2010-2014 c. 6 million
Agro-enterprise Linking farmers to markets Laos 2009-2013 2.3 millionAgroSalud Biofortified rice and beans Cuba
Nicaragua2010-2012 250,000
Coffee Under Pressure (CUP) Climate change adaptation + pro-poor business models
Central America and 2009-2013 200,000
Building Sustainable Trading Relationships
Pro-poor business models and 2009-2012 750,000
Designing inclusive + effective public sector supply chain policies
Pro-poor public sector supply chain support policies
Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador
2009-2012 850,000
Building NGO and farmer capacity to partner effectively with buyers
Farmer and NGO capacity development
, , , , , , 2009-2011 300,000
Total (partial) 16.9 million
Coordinate vs. Conflict
RWANDA
Bean Seed Supply Systems
HP+CIALCAPABRA
PROPOSED STEPS FOR MOVING FORWARDCIAT 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’
CHECKLIST for REU Program Development
Question
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
No Yes
√
√
√
√