Research Into Use Enabling the poor to benefit from research
About the RIU The Research Into Use (RIU) programme is the first to be developed under the new research strategy of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). This strategy, known as the Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture (SRSA), emphasizes the need to improve the access of poor people to knowledge and technology, through both public- and private-sector institutions. It also formalizes DFID’s commitment to enhancing the resilience of farming households to external shocks such as drought or disease, which can plunge already vulnerable households into deeper poverty. RIU has the twin aims of maximizing the livelihood-improving potential of research in the natural resources sector and capturing lessons about best practice in achieving this for different social groups and in different environments. It builds on DFID’s previous Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS), which funded research on crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, post-harvest issues and natural resource management. It is recognized that much of this research has a great deal of unfulfilled potential to impact on poverty. RIU is an opportunity to realize that potential and to learn lessons that can be incorporated into future research for development. The target regions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The RIU is managed by Natural Resources International Ltd in the UK, in association with Nkoola Institutional Development Associates (NIDA) Ltd in Uganda, and Michael Flint (and the Performance Assessment Resource Centre), also in the UK. They propose to use an innovation systems approach to getting research into use. The RIU was commissioned in July 2006 as a 5-year programme and has a total budget of £37.5 million. For further information on RIU, go to www.researchintouse.com To learn more about DFID-funded research, see www.research4development.info
The RIU is funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of DFID. Material may be reproduced as long as full accreditation is given to the RIU. June 2007
Research Into Use Enabling the poor to benefit from research
Contents
iv Foreword 1 Setting the scene: Why ‘Research Into Use’? 11 Our plans take shape 17 Making it happen 26 Acronyms
Contents
iii
Foreword
Why, after nearly 40 years of donor-funded agricultural and natural resources research, have so few of the world’s developing countries eliminated poverty and hunger? Of course there are many reasons, but an underlying theme, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, is the lack of uptake and use of the products of research by the rural poor. In the 1980s it was frequently asserted that the causes of non-adoption lay in the technology itself – which was held to be unsuited to the needs of small-scale risk-averse producers. Sometimes this was true; sometimes it still is true, even after two decades of participatory research. But for the most part this explanation has been refuted: pilot studies carried out in hundreds, if not thousands, of locations across the developing world show that improved agricultural technology has enormous untapped potential to contribute to poverty reduction and equitable economic growth – and hence to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Instead, the barrier to widespread adoption lies in the difficulties of scaling up – that is, multiplying successes so that thousands of producers, rather than the lucky few, can benefit. Though money matters, these difficulties are not merely financial; they are also social, economic, political and administrative. It is increasingly recognized that getting the policy and institutional environment right is just as important as the technology mix itself in stimulating uptake and hence development. In other words, alongside the challenge of physical or ‘horizontal’ scaling up – the drive to extend technology to new areas – is that of so-called ‘vertical’ scaling up – the bid to win hearts and minds. The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has been a strong financier of natural resource research through the Renewable Natural Resource Research Strategy (RNRRS), which ran from 1995 to 2006. The aim of the Research Into Use (RIU) programme
iv
Research Into Use
is to take the outputs of past DFID-funded research and capitalize on the investment in that research by moving the results from the pilot phase into full-scale development. To achieve this, RIU adopts an innovation systems approach, seeking to unleash the productive and income-earning potential of the millions of poor people whose livelihoods depend on agriculture and natural resources. It is their demand for new technologies, inputs, infrastructure, policies, processes and institutions that is the single most important driver of equitable development in Asia and Africa. The fact that this demand is growing is the most encouraging indicator yet that the challenges posed by the MDGs will eventually be met. Our mission is thus not only to improve the flow of information from research suppliers to research users generally but also to strengthen the demand for innovation among poor users – and to build the capacity of all stakeholder groups to work together in improved, more productive relationships. The lessons learned through this approach should have considerable potential to benefit future research for development. In this publication we introduce RIU, explaining the rationale and concepts underlying the programme. We go on to describe the inception phase, which ran from July 2006 to June 2007 and revealed much useful information about where and how we should target our activities. Finally, we outline the implementation programme, which will run from July 2007 until June 2011. I hope you will find this launch brochure both interesting and thought-provoking. And, as a result, I hope you will support us in our efforts to improve the effectiveness of development aid and work towards the ultimate goal of eliminating poverty and hunger. Tim Donaldson Programme Director, Research Into Use programme June 2007
Foreword
v
vi
Foreword
Setting the scene: Why ‘Research Into Use’?
The Litunya family, who live on the Kenyan shore of Lake Victoria, are traditional subsistence farmers. Until a few years ago, with only a small plot of land to support a growing family, they seemed trapped in a downward spiral of declining yields and deepening poverty. Years of growing maize without inputs had reduced soil fertility; pest and weed infestation of the crop seemed to worsen each year; and forage for their cow was getting scarcer. Luckily for them, they became involved in an agricultural research project. The project introduced them to new crops and ideas they could adopt or adapt, helping them break out of the poverty trap. With their new-found knowledge they were able to increase their yields of maize, fodder and milk. Just a small increase made all the difference: having enough to eat and a small surplus to sell led to better nutrition and health for the whole family. They were also able to invest labour and other resources in making improvements to their farm and building a more promising long-term future. Families like the Litunyas illustrate the enormous potential of agricultural and natural resources research and development (R&D) to contribute to the fight against poverty and hunger in the developing world. The problem is that success stories like theirs are few and far between. Getting the results of research applied on a large enough scale to make a sizeable impact has, thus far, proved elusive. The Research Into Use (RIU) programme is designed to address the widespread concern that much agricultural research is not taken up by the rural poor, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. This is despite the growing body of evidence that technology and innovation are central to accelerating agricultural growth and alleviating poverty.
Setting the scene
1
Renewable natural resources and global change The United Nations’ first Millennium Development Goal (MDG) – to halve hunger and poverty by 2015 – places renewed emphasis on agricultural and natural resources research after a period in which it was viewed unfavourably by investors. Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Past experience – principally the Green Revolution in the irrigated areas of South Asia – has established the vital role played by agricultural development in driving wider economic growth. Gains in the more problematic rainfed areas have been much slower, but recently there have been successes even here. Global figures suggest that good progress is being made on the first MDG, but this is because China is taking such huge strides. If China is excluded, the picture is much less satisfactory; many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are falling behind.
One of the most influential legacies of the RNRRS is the use of innovation system approaches in the development of new products, processes, markets, institutions and partnerships.
2
Research Into Use
The ‘traditional’ reasons for sub-Saharan Africa’s poor performance are legion. Besides having to contend with harsh environments, the region’s mainly smallscale farmers endure shortages of just about everything that makes agriculture work, including credit, inputs, transport and roads to market. Years of chronic underinvestment have led to weak and demoralized extension services – and, with few exceptions, the policy environment, both nationally and internationally, remains unhelpful. But to this list of long-standing woes, others must now be added. Global change is exposing already vulnerable rural people to new threats. Firstly, globalization of markets, while opening up new opportunities for developing countries, also allows cheap imports of staple foods, driving down local market prices. Secondly, an increasingly unpredictable climate makes reliance on traditional crops very risky. Farmers need access to improved germplasm and new
management practices to help them cope with shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. And thirdly, the growing global population is putting ever-increasing pressure on a finite natural resource base. The recent expansion of the biofuels sector is just one example of the mounting threats to the world’s remaining tropical forests, together with the biodiversity they contain. At the same time, the HIV/AIDS pandemic in parts of subSaharan Africa is decimating the adult labour force. Amidst the threats it’s important not to lose sight of the opportunities. Not only is overall demand for food growing; rising incomes and urbanization are altering the pattern of demand. Markets for livestock products, fruits and vegetables, convenience foods and organic and fair trade produce are predicted to expand rapidly over the next few decades. This will open up the potential for new jobs and businesses for producers, processors and traders. The challenge is to organize and empower poor people to take advantage of these opportunities.
Building on past investment The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) has been a strong financier of natural resources research through its Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS), which ran from 1995 to 2006. The focus of this approach was to improve the livelihoods of the poor through better management of natural resources. The ten research programmes launched under the RNRRS were designed to generate new knowledge and promote its uptake and application. They addressed the needs of people living in a range of agro-ecologies including arid and semi-arid areas, highlands and tropical moist forests; and those at the forest/farm, land/water and rural/ urban interfaces. The breadth of projects reflected the
Setting the scene
3
multiple routes by which research can have an impact on poverty.
The flow of knowledge between the key actors in an innovation system is critical in getting ‘research into use’.
The RNRRS saw significant evolution over its lifespan. This included a shift in focus from supplying research and producing scientific publications to emphasizing the impact of research on poverty. The focus also moved from outputs to outcomes and long-term impacts. At the same time, interdisciplinary research, the policy environment and the livelihoods of the poor began to receive greater attention. One of the most influential legacies of the RNRRS is the use of innovation systems approaches in the development of new products, processes, markets, institutions and partnerships. While many of the ideas behind innovations thinking have been implicit in DFID research for years, the Department’s most recent research strategy (Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture, or SRSA) explicitly adopts an innovation systems approach (see Box 1).
Survival through innovation Innovations in the RNR sector have been happening for millennia, through the actions of rural communities themselves. But the quickening pace of global change means that the rural poor in developing countries must now adapt rapidly to survive. Innovation – the identification and application of new ideas, opportunities, technologies and partnerships – is the key to building better livelihoods. Innovation that is owned and managed by poor people is often about local creative imitation and adaptation, rather than the development of something radically new. It is usually achieved through many incremental improvements (e.g. in production technologies, processing and institutions) rather than through a few sweeping changes. Such innovation can be triggered by the market, policy
4
Research Into Use
Box 1
What is an innovation systems approach? RIU’s approach is to shift the focus of attention away from the generation of new knowledge to the ways in which that knowledge can be put to productive use through innovation. By innovation we mean the use, adoption, uptake or commercialization of existing knowledge. Successful innovation requires not just appropriate research outputs but also a supportive policy and institutional environment, credit and technical support, healthy markets and functioning infrastructure. It is also likely to involve a far wider range of key actors – not just researchers and farmers but also policy makers, parliamentarians, privatesector companies, entrepreneurs and journalists, among many others. The innovation system is the set of factors – social, political, organizational, institutional, legal and so on – that contains these actors and shapes their behaviour. The flow of knowledge between the key actors in an innovation system is critical in getting ‘research into use’. The innovation systems approach or process is becoming the dominant paradigm in stimulating technological growth for most member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and has recently been adopted by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). In the renewable natural resources (RNR) sector, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has also developed an innovation policy and an entrepreneurial approach to service delivery. The approach moves away from the traditional linear R&D model, in which research is completed and the results are then passed on to end users through some form of extension service. Instead, users and suppliers of knowledge interact from the outset to ensure that innovation takes place. The emphasis is on nurturing the demand for knowledge and technologies not just among primary producers but among a range of actors, including equipment manufacturers and suppliers, product and service retailers, traders and processors, financial institutions, private companies and entrepreneurs, government policy bodies and non-government organizations (NGOs). It is not until all the relevant actors come together in a coherent group or ‘platform’ centred on a new enterprise that innovation can take place. The innovation systems approach thus highlights the importance of networks, coalitions and partnerships and the need for effective communication channels among the organizations and individuals that make up the system. Networks can be formal or informal, and both are important. Informal links are vital, as they help foster trust, thereby lowering the transaction costs of interactions.
changes or research. Or it may arise spontaneously, out of the aspirations of poor people to change their lives for the better. Typically, a mixture of both these ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors is at work. Traditional public-sector agricultural and natural resources research and extension institutions are necessary to support rural innovation. But on their own they are not enough. A much greater emphasis on the links between actors and processes is needed if rural innovation is to have large-scale impact. The purpose of the innovation systems approach is to provide a resource-rich environment in which the rural poor can identify problems, design solutions, learn new skills, form networks and share their experiences with others (see Box 2). This includes paying attention to the social factors that affect whether or not people can innovate (e.g. education, gender and wealth). Building a successful approach to innovation depends on access to strong knowledge and information systems. Traditional agricultural knowledge transfer is mostly oral, occurring through personal contact within the local community. Although powerful and persuasive, it is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve widespread impact or to deal with new problems and opportunities – for example, the spread of a new crop or livestock disease, or the development of demand for a new product. Today’s farmers need access to up-to-date information via the Internet and other modern information and communications technologies (ICTs). The problem here is that the most needy, in addition to the most deeply rural, have little or no access to ICTs. Nor do they have a culture of using them, either as a source of knowledge or as a means of sharing information. They need support in developing their knowledge at every stage of the innovation process – in accessing information, in learning new practices, and
Setting the scene
5
in building links with other actors in the production– marketing chain. This last need includes exposure to the experiences others have had in adopting a new technology or launching a new enterprise.
Scaling up: Addressing the challenge Developing and testing promising new research outputs in one location with a small, well-defined group of users is a difficult enough challenge. Having them adopted by a much larger user group, whether in the same environment or a different one (horizontal scaling up), or complementing technological change with the necessary changes in institutions and policies (vertical scaling up), raises a whole new set of issues. Yet if the MDG of halving hunger and poverty is to be achieved, this is a challenge that must be addressed. Apart from relatively simple options, such as highyielding crop varieties suitable for uniform growing conditions, rural innovations (whether technologies, policies, institutions or processes) can seldom be applied directly to a new area. They must be adapted and refined, typically through repeated learning cycles carried out by individuals and groups in each different location. Even when farmers have access to new ideas and understand the opportunities for applying them, they still have to decide whether or not to adopt, and they may need convincing that a new idea is a potential winner for them. For example, someone considering growing a new high-yielding variety of plantain or banana for the first time needs to know that its cooking characteristics are suitable for traditional dishes. If not, nobody will buy the harvest. The next step, comprising experimentation or adaptation of the new idea, is also fraught with danger. Without timely solutions to the practical difficulties encountered, potential adopters can easily become discouraged and give up.
Box 2
Prosperity through innovation: Bolivia’s Innova Project In 2001, agricultural research in Bolivia was at a low ebb. Farmers were increasingly sceptical and researchers disillusioned. The country’s policy makers had begun a radical shake-up of the national system by closing the public-sector research institute on the grounds that it was not producing anything useful. The Innova Project, funded by DFID and implemented by the International Potato Center (CIP) and national partners, set out to change these negative perceptions and establish a culture of success by introducing a new R&D approach based on support for innovation. The main tasks were to check out the technology already developed, match this supply to demand, and sort out what was applicable where. The problems facing Bolivian farmers were similar to those of resource-poor smallholders in other developing countries: impoverished soils, poor access to markets, lack of knowledge about new technologies and market opportunities, and an unsupportive policy and institutional environment. Besides confirming the value of existing technologies that had arisen out of earlier RNRRS work, such as animal-drawn tillage implements, new forage crops and integrated pest and disease management, Innova research enabled traditional landraces of potato to make a comeback. In what became known as the ‘participatory market chain’ approach, researchers formed working groups consisting of representatives from farming communities, processing companies and other stakeholders, who worked together to identify and implement new business ventures. The approach was applied to two processed potato products – tunta (a traditional means of preparing a local variety with a unique taste) and coloured potato crisps. Both products should appeal strongly to consumers in the rapidly growing global market for gourmet, fair-trade and organically produced foods. The project’s success hinges on the way it has organized small-scale producers and linked them to new and expanding markets. The farmers have become more aware of market demands and have learned how to meet stringent quality and environmental standards. The Innova model’s combination of strong market orientation and a focus on promoting new technology makes it particularly suited to the diverse farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. See www.innovabolivia.org for further information.
6
Research Into Use
Even when a technology is successful and many farmers are able to produce a surplus, problems of poor market access, inadequate post-harvest processing and unfavourable terms of trade can all too easily lead to a price collapse. Policy makers also need to consider wider economic, social and environmental issues (see Box 3). There are no simple answers to the challenges of scaling up. But careful analysis of location-specific constraints and introduction of a more holistic and demand-driven approach to R&D are good places to start. A key concept is that of the ‘innovation platform’ – a coalition of individuals and institutions with a common interest in innovating and its associated benefits. In addition, development projects and programmes need to speed up the learning process by linking innovators with each other and with past experiences. This implies a strong commitment to helping communities find, store, generate and share information and knowledge. ICTs are important here – not just the Internet but other resources such as mobile phones and radio and satellite broadcasting.
Development projects and programmes need to speed up the learning process by linking innovators with each other and with past experiences.
The RIU programme is born The concept of getting ‘research into use’ bridges the gap between the R and the D in natural resources Research & Development. The scaling-up challenge has been much discussed for more than a decade, yet few programmes have been established specifically to address it. Hence the decision to launch the RIU. The RIU specifically supports the aims of DFID’s 2005 Agriculture Policy Paper and 2006 Third White Paper, which outline the UK Government’s policies for eliminating poverty and hunger worldwide. These Papers reaffirm DFID’s commitment to agricultural development, to increasing the resilience of farming
Setting the scene
7
Box 3
Scaling up: The wider implications When an attempt is made to scale up an innovation, many new factors start to influence both the process of dissemination and its outcomes. Changes in process may involve ‘letting go’ of key operations such as seed multiplication or training, which may risk a dilution or weakening of technologies or practices considered essential to success. Knowledge that, during the pilot phase, could be instilled personally, on a one-to-one basis or in small groups, must now be spread through larger workshops or through manuals and access to websites. Changes in outcomes are highly scale-dependent. For example, if a single farmer invests in planting a new tree species, the outcome should be an increase in farm income, but not much else will change. If 100 farmers invest, the landscape round the village will look a little different and local marketing and processing operations may start to develop. And if 100,000 farmers invest, the price of timber should start to go down and there may be a discernible effect on the local or regional ecology.
families (like the Litunyas) to external shocks such as drought or crop disease, and to improving access for the rural poor to sources of new knowledge and technology. The new programme is expected to contribute to DFID’s overall objective for research, namely to promote the production and uptake of technologies that reduce poverty and contribute to achieving the MDGs. But it will do so in new ways: by supporting innovation rather than conducting conventional research, by encouraging existing national and regional efforts rather than starting its own standalone projects, by focusing on the full range of research outputs (policies and processes as well as technologies), and by emphasizing communication and information as the essential lubricants of innovation and development.
8
Research Into Use
Purpose, geographic focus and themes The RIU programme has a twofold purpose: to maximize the poverty-reducing impact of previous research on natural resources and, in so doing, to increase understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of research outputs can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth. It will devote its efforts to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia – the two regions of the developing world with the highest levels of poverty and hunger. In developing and applying its user-oriented, innovation systems approach, the programme weaves together five thematic strands: 1. Innovation platforms, to stimulate the uptake of technologies, policies and processes among poor research users and to create new opportunities for scaling up and out among research and service providers. 2. Policies and partnerships, to link innovation evidence to the policy environment and to encourage the harmonization of national, regional and global research-into-use initiatives. 3. Communication and information markets, to facilitate innovation through stakeholder learning and information management and to strengthen national and regional markets for information products and services. 4. Capacity strengthening, to improve stakeholder participation and ownership, to build the ability to turn information into innovation, and to ensure the sustainability of innovation beyond the RIU programme. 5. Monitoring and learning, to assess what has been achieved and to ensure lessons on innovation are shared widely with stakeholders.
Setting the scene
9
Our plans take shape
The RIU began with a year-long inception phase. This was a crucial planning stage, during which we looked at past research outputs that might be scaled up, the countries where we might work, how the programme would fit with other initiatives, and what supporting activities would be needed to increase the chances of success. We also took steps to flesh out our key thematic strands, to establish appropriate management and governance structures and mechanisms, and, last but not least, to forge links with some of our key future partners.
Past research outputs
The programme will eventually work in 10 to 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
Ten years of RNRRS research have produced a wealth of outputs: technologies, processes and policies designed to enable poor people to better manage their natural resources. We screened all 1600 RNRRS projects and built a short-list of 278 research outputs or clusters of outputs relevant to livestock, aquaculture, fisheries, postharvest operations, crop protection, crop post-harvest operations, forestry, food microbiology, soil fertility, land use management and water resource management (Box 4 shows just a few examples). This exercise itself produced an immensely valuable information resource – a collection of RNRRS outputs, together with stakeholders’ views on impacts to date, remaining potential and obstacles to realizing this potential. This information is available on CD-ROM and is already in demand both internally within DFID and by partners.
Country assessments The RIU’s foci are sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, the two regions of the developing world where poverty levels are highest. The programme will eventually work in 10 to 15 countries in these regions. Strategic country plans are being developed to guide RIU activities.
Our plans take shape
11
During the inception phase, initial assessments for developing the strategic plans were carried out for the first six countries: Bangladesh, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. The assessments describe the broad context in which the RIU will work, from environmental conditions to the policy and institutional setting. They go on to identify the best opportunities for the RIU within this context, looking also at potential partners and existing country and regional initiatives. Summaries of two of these assessments are given in Boxes 5 and 6.
Thematic strategies
Box 4
Examples of research outputs from the Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) ß Improved maize seed systems to meet farmers’ needs in the southern highlands of Tanzania and similar high-potential areas ß Enhanced rural livelihoods through improved rice quality and post-harvest handling in Ghana ß Dry-season crops to replace rice fallows in Nepal ß Better options for integrated floodplain management in Bangladesh ß Identification of risk factors for tuberculosis and brucellosis and dissemination of messages to at-risk populations ß Conserved forage in the form of bagged silage to maintain livestock productivity through the dry season in sub-Saharan Africa ß How to assess and manage a fishery: a collection of tools for developing fish-stock assessment and management plans.
12
Research Into Use
Partnerships and advocacy: For the RIU programme to be successful within its allotted time span of 5 years, it must work effectively with national, regional and international partners and promote the key lessons from the RIU to those who make and implement propoor policies. National partners are being identified during country assessments. During the inception phase, links were developed with key regional partners. In subSaharan Africa, these included NEPAD’s Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), whose objectives are similar to the RIU’s, and the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) programme, managed by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). Links were also explored with regional economic communities and sub-regional research organizations as well as other regional support initiatives. Corresponding partnerships in South Asia are less well developed, but initial discussions began with relevant regional research organizations, such as the Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). During the early implementation phase we will work to develop these nascent partnerships as well as partnerships with
Box 5
Bangladesh country assessment Context Uniquely for a country with a vulnerable ecology, Bangladesh has established a record of sustained economic growth (6% annually over the past decade) and is on track to meet most of the MDG targets. Over 70 million of its people are classified as poor, with 20% of the population in the poorest category. Threequarters of the country’s population and 85% of the poor live and earn their living in the rural areas. The vast majority of the rural poor are simultaneously engaged in crop production, fishing, aquaculture, horticulture and livestock production. The agricultural and RNR sector is gradually evolving from subsistence production towards market-oriented production. Climate change poses significant risks for Bangladesh, which is likely to face increased flooding in addition to rising temperatures and more frequent and severe storms. If these risks materialize, they will have damaging consequences for food security and poverty alleviation. The RIU will need to factor these risks into the selection of RNRRS outputs for scaling up.
major NGOs and foundations in the agricultural sector, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Communications: The RIU aims to support the uptake of technologies by strengthening demand for them among the poor. This will be done by improving poor people’s access to information and building their capacity to turn this information into innovation. During the inception phase we paved the way for these core activities by developing a communications strategy to support the interactions and partnerships on which the programme hinges. The strategy aims for a ‘real world’ approach – addressing the practical needs of partners, alliances and networks within the innovation system. Encouraging potential users to seek knowledge is at the heart of the strategy, which affords high priority to the role of ‘infomediaries’. Capacity strengthening: During the inception phase, an RIU capacity-strengthening team was charged with assessing capacity needs for the implementation phase
RIU opportunities Priority opportunities for RIU engagement were immediately identified in connection with rice-based cropping systems, floodplain systems and aquaculture. The assessment team were excited by the sheer number of potential RIU entry points and the dynamic entrepreneurial ethos of the country. The challenge for the RIU in this setting is not necessarily to stimulate entrepreneurship per se but to learn lessons as to how research can benefit the poorer members of the population who rely on RNR. To meet this challenge the management team propose to operate a competitive scheme to select the best opportunities for learning about outscaling methods that contribute to poverty reduction.
Our plans take shape
13
and identifying partners for capacity strengthening in the major RIU regions. A strategy was developed to guide activities during implementation. Impact evaluation and learning: These elements are seen as central to the RIU and the major contributor to the programme’s efforts to increase understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of research outputs can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth. Learning activities will be internal and integrated within all RIU initiatives. But because of the relatively short time-scale involved (2007–11), the primary focus will be on process, outputs and outcomes (use). The impact evaluation component will provide the major part of the evidence needed for external learning. It will address specific evaluation questions, and will be based on consistent, comparable and rigorous studies in RIU focus countries. The aim will be to produce and maintain an evolving research-into-use ‘evidence output’ based on RIU and other evaluations.
Box 6
Rwanda country assessment Context Rwanda is a country with accountable, goal-oriented leadership, driven by a desire to overcome the failures of the past, and with a sound understanding of what can be accomplished. There is much activity and a sense that positive things are happening. Even so, the people remain very poor. The genocide destroyed not only individuals and families, but nearly all of Rwanda’s organizations. This means that the ‘supply side’ of the agricultural knowledge system is very limited (though improving) and that links between sources of new knowledge and actual and potential users of that knowledge are mostly very weak. This leads to a concern that, even if demand for new agricultural knowledge were stimulated, supply would be inadequate. Many organizations, such as the extension services and the recently reformed structures at district level, are new and not yet adequately staffed. Donor agencies are very active in Rwanda. RIU opportunities A different approach will be used from that proposed for Bangladesh. An RIU programme in Rwanda can be expected to produce a fully functioning network of key actors in the Rwandan agricultural innovation system, with up to six innovation platforms operating in a decentralized manner, principally at the district and subdistrict levels. The programme will assist the key actors in developing activities relevant for particular regions and particular household types. It can be expected to generate understanding of how the use of scientific and technical knowledge can be increased under the specific circumstances of Rwanda. And it is likely to lead to increases in wealth and a reduction in poverty. This model of operation is being considered for other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, it could be appropriate for zonal innovation platforms in Tanzania in collaboration with the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP), and for a national platform linked to the Malawi Agricultural Sector Investment Programme. Elections have delayed plans for Nigeria and Sierra Leone, but similar models for RIU operations in those countries are being considered.
14
Research Into Use
Assessing the different impacts of research outputs on different groups will be a key objective. The evaluationsharing component will identify key producers of evidence and involve them in evaluation design, analysis and communication of findings. Selected partners will share the evaluation effort, as well as disseminate the findings more widely.
Programme management From the outset, the aim has been to keep RIU management structures as simple and light as possible. Oversight of the programme as a whole is provided by a Programme Advisory Board (PAB). Professor Richard Mkandawire, Agricultural Adviser to NEPAD, is the Chair. Other members are: Dr Baba Dioum Coordinator General Conference of West and Central African Ministers of Agriculture Senegal Dr Monty Jones Executive Secretary Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Ghana Mr David Howlett Team Leader, Growth and Livelihoods Central Research Department Department for International Development UK
Mr Tim Donaldson Director, Research Into Use programme Natural Resources International Ltd UK Ms Christine Wheeler RIU Secretary to the Programme Advisory Board Natural Resources International Ltd UK Ms Gisèle d’Almeida President Interface (Réseau des professionnelles de l’agroalimentaire en Afrique) Senegal Dr R Bhavani Co-ordinator MSSRF Vidarbha Programme MS Swaminathan Research Foundation India Dr Lindiwe Sibanda Chief Executive Officer Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network South Africa Dr Quazi Shahabuddin Director General Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies Bangladesh The first meeting of the full PAB was held in Accra, Ghana, 13–14 March 2007.
Our plans take shape
15
Making it happen
With the inception phase now complete, the RIU programme is moving confidently ahead to its core tasks: to stimulate the uptake of natural resources research results through country-level innovation platforms, and to learn about the conditions that allow innovation and adoption to thrive or atrophy. Promising or proven research outputs from both DFID and nonDFID projects will be included in the scope of the RIU’s work over the 4-year implementation period, which will be devoted to the aim of maximizing the impact of past investments in research. Within RIU activities, there will be room for research, notably on the innovation process itself and through impact evaluations. How does innovation work and how does it contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction? Which ingredients determine success in scaling up the application of earlier outputs such as technologies and/or polices? How do farmers, policy makers and other users of research interact with the processors and packagers of technical information, so-called ‘infomediaries’? This research on how to get ‘research into use’ will allow us to learn from our experiences as the programme unfolds between 2007 and 2011. It will also enable us to contribute to the international dialogue on the role of social and technical innovations in improving livelihoods and reducing poverty. The RIU is also broadening the playing field – expanding the number and variety of institutions and individuals involved in R&D, in contrast to the relatively narrow band of scientific disciplines and stakeholder groups that originally participated in research. With the new focus on harnessing research outputs, there will be a greater role for social sciences such as economics, communications, rural sociology, political economy and marketing. This expansion is vital if we are to shift the emphasis from the supply side of the innovation
Making it happen
17
equation to the demand side. On the supply side is the substantial inventory of practical research products being ‘pushed’ toward potential users and intermediaries. The demand side comprises the varied needs of those potential users who, when informed and empowered, can exert a ‘pull’ on the current inventory and on research to expand that inventory. How are we going to direct these shifts in orientation? How are we going to scale up the RNRRS and other research outputs that our partner countries select for targeting? Our implementation plan is organized around our three intended outputs: 1. Use of past research results increased 2. Research-into-use evidence generated 3. Research-into-use principles and lessons generated and shared. The first output aims to increase substantially the number of natural resource-dependent poor people using the research results promoted by the RIU. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of the programme’s overall implementation budget over 4 years is expected to be devoted to the following three sets of activities under output 1: • Improving access to RNRRS and other research outputs • Enhancing demand for RNRRS and other research outputs • Fostering the development of enterprises that use RNRRS and other research outputs. Our aim is to empower users of research in order to achieve grass-roots uptake of research products in all categories of participating countries – that is, among economically strong, moderate and weak performers. This is the heart of the RIU’s work.
18
Research Into Use
Our aim to is empower users of research in order to achieve grass-roots uptake of research products in all categories of participating countries – that is, among economically strong, moderate and weak performers.
The second intended RIU output, research-into-use evidence, will help answer the broad questions of whether and how the use of specific research outputs reduces poverty. The results of this and the third output, the sharing of RIU principles and lessons, will inform evaluation stakeholders and decision makers and serve as an aid to improving or designing future RNR innovation systems.
Output 1. Use of past research results increased Innovative modes of implementation will be used to explore the complex issues involved in getting research into use. One of the central mechanisms for promoting widescale use of earlier research outputs will be national innovation coalitions. These will empower potential users to articulate their demand for innovation. Within the RIU, this will involve working with existing agencies to facilitate their formation into coalitions through which the demand can be channelled. A national coalition will be composed of organizations already involved in RNR innovation, with one member taking on the coordination task. The RIU will support a number of functions or themes, especially capacity strengthening and communication. Through a memorandum of agreement with the RIU, prospective members of the coalition will commit to poverty alleviation, gender mainstreaming and tackling the problems of social exclusion. In the first year of implementation, the RIU will organize workshops to validate the coalition approach. We will also obtain agreement on sectoral and subsectoral output clusters within the coalition and on
Making it happen
19
coalition planning and management, so that in-country groups can begin the actual innovation work to translate research into use. As we go to press with this report (June 2007), there are unique policy windows in four of the current RIU focal countries – Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Sierra Leone. The RIU has received invitations from development partners or national or state governments in these countries to engage in dialogue and is already recognized as a source of innovative ideas for getting research into use. Scoping work continues in Nigeria and a second country in Southern Africa. In Asia, coalition opportunities need further investigation. Partnerships may take shape differently there insofar as the RIU may work with a single or principal national partner, that is, an organization that is already implementing projects with a strong emphasis on innovation and which has strong links with local communities. The advantages of this partnership approach in selected RIU countries also need further investigation. To explore mechanisms and policy instruments that might improve poor people’s access to research information, we propose using a competitive grant scheme called the RIU Innovation Challenge Fund. This differs from the coalition approach in that the funding mechanism focuses on capacity rather than need. Selection criteria are being developed that will allow us to zero in on the best opportunities that will benefit large numbers of poor people. The fund will also help ensure the dissemination of a wider mix of research outputs from our large inventory, the so-called RNRRS legacy, and enable us to address opportunities in the diverse political and economic environments of Asia in the first instance (see Box 7).
20
Research Into Use
Box 7
The RIU Innovation Challenge Fund The fund aims to stimulate uptake of RNRRS and other research outputs, initially in six of the Asian countries included in DFID’s Public Service Agreement with the UK Treasury. These are Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam. Organizations in these countries will be invited to submit proposals for adapting and using RNRRS and other research results. We will encourage these organizations to set up coalitions or other partnerships with enduser groups and with intermediaries such as farmer organizations, extension agents, NGO networks and policy makers. The emphasis will be on action research, or learning by doing. Northern partners will also have contributions to make, primarily through mentoring and technical backstopping of grantees. The call for Innovation Challenge proposals specifies that the project document should lay out an innovative communications strategy. This parallels the strong emphasis given to communication within the corecountry innovation platforms. The RIU expects to support about ten projects under the Innovation Challenge Fund in Asia, during the programme’s 4-year implementation phase. Projects will be selected mainly on the basis of their potential for promoting pro-poor use of research outputs. The current plan is for the scheme to be rolled out to other regions in year 2.
Public–private partnerships offer another organizational option for enhancing the uptake of research information, namely through the stimulation of entrepreneurship. With this type of platform, the private sector, via the RIU, would provide prospective entrepreneurs with venture capital for innovation. The proposed RIU Innovation for Development (I4D) Fund will operate like a private equity fund. Through its investments, it will aim to build up a portfolio of private-sector partnerships in the agricultural sector of the developing world. Unlike normal private equity set-ups, I4D will not aim to profit from its investments but rather to see innovations adopted. Success will therefore be judged in terms of rates of adoption (or other appropriate indicators) rather than return on investment capital. This mode of operation will initially be piloted in East Africa and scaled out to other regions as the programme progresses, using lessons from the initial work.
Output 2. Research-into-use evidence generated The RIU programme’s heavy emphasis on impact evaluation and learning has two origins. The first is the need to know more about why natural resources research has not been used, why it is not more useful, and how a focus on use can speed up adoption and spread the benefits for the poor. The second is the limited available evidence of the impact on poverty of past RNR research programmes. The RIU needs to find out more about the uptake of research results to date in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and elsewhere, and why some innovation and upscaling efforts succeed while others fail. We believe this work is critical not only to the success of RIU’s
Making it happen
21
work with individual innovation platforms in the participating countries, but also for good policy making and implementation by governments, donors and international organizations. The RIU is keenly aware that the direct poverty-related impact of its efforts to boost pro-poor use of research results will, at the programme’s end in 2011, still be quite limited. Given the long time-to-impact typical of most natural resources innovations, much of our learning from evidence of impact will need to be based on innovation outside, and prior to, the creation of the RIU. Where possible, though, evidence will be sourced from the RNRRS legacy. Monitoring and learning will take place across all RIU initiatives. Within output 1, much of this is expected to be participatory monitoring and evaluation. The impact evaluation activity will provide the major part of the evidence needed for external learning, will address specific evaluation questions, and will result in consistent, comparable and rigorous studies. Researchinto-use literature, evaluation and experience already exist in abundance. The following characteristics of the RIU’s planned evaluation work demonstrate our commitment to adding value: • Long time-frames • Broad analysis in order to differentiate impacts by groups or factors (e.g. gender or income) • Rigorous evaluation designs • Multiple-country context • Theory- or model-based • Not limited to programme or project settings and time-scales. The RIU’s evaluation work will be carried out by independent experts. Quality control will be provided by the programme and by an expert panel. Final authorship of
22
Research Into Use
the evaluation studies, however, will rest with the commissioned experts. Evaluation-sharing activities will identify and engage with influential evaluation stakeholders at national, regional and international levels. This engagement will help guide the impact evaluation agenda and process and clarify our understanding of the innovation environment and key levers of change so that findings can be fed into policy making. This work will need to be co-ordinated with, but distinguished from, the more direct work on advocacy, awareness raising, partnerships and communication.
Output 3. Research-into-use principles and lessons generated and shared Advocacy is necessary to increase the sharing and use of research results from the RIU. The importance of advocacy was recognized by DFID’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Gordon Conway, in an interview with The Guardian in October 2005: “The future wellbeing of mankind requires, as Conway sees it, effective co-operation between three very big players: government, private foundations, and NGOs. He also believes strongly in the need for science to have a voice in policy-making in developing countries, something else he believes requires cooperation, a point he made to the House of Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology earlier this year.� Moving research into use is all about changing attitudes and behaviour, not only those of potential technical innovators such as farmers, but also those of policy makers and other influential people. These may be government officials, donor representatives, leaders in the farming community, academics or development
Making it happen
23
Innovation and scaling up the use of research products demand top-notch communication among stakeholders.
specialists. Advocating the use of past research results, along with sharing lessons learned, are essential to RIU’s success, since they are key means of creating a policy environment conducive to pro-poor innovation. An immediate central task will be to set up an ‘international learning alliance’ with other key actors interested in pro-poor innovation – organizations such as IFAD, Oxfam, PROLINNOVA, DONATA, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Yara Foundation and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Advocacy activities will be closely coordinated with our evaluation-sharing work in output 2. Innovation and scaling up the use of research products demand top-notch communication among stakeholders. But conventional approaches to communication, knowledge management and learning within structured organizations and well-defined audiences are of limited value here. Rather, communication has to support alliances and networks within a dynamic and sometimes chaotic innovation system. These relationships may be temporary or permanent. They may be between partners of widely differing sizes, capacities and levels of competence. They may be geographically dispersed. And poor communications infrastructure may keep them isolated. In supporting such innovation platforms and the Innovation Challenge competitive grant scheme, the RIU will work with its in-country partners to identify local communication gaps and opportunities, such as the use of ICTs, and drama and other cultural events. It is essential to determine whether the use of such communication tools to promote and disseminate research outputs closes or widens the gap between rich and poor. Mapping exercises will allow the innovation platforms to determine which segments of the community have
24
Research Into Use
a voice, which trusted institutions can articulate local people’s needs, and whether other groups or individuals – perhaps shopkeepers – could serve as conduits of technical and other information. Our intention is to determine how well poor farmers communicate with these ‘infomediaries’ and to test the potential of communication tools for strengthening the voices of the vulnerable during innovation.
Environmental assessment The RIU is committed to providing environmentally sustainable solutions to the millions of poor families in Africa and Asia whose livelihoods depend on RNR. Our approach to environmental issues, including climate change, is in keeping with the principles of sustainable development, the MDGs and DFID’s Research Funding Framework for 2005–2007. It is not simply a matter of ‘doing no harm’. Ours is a proactive stance – one that calls for systematic evaluation and reduction of environmental risk, reversal of environmental degradation and pollution, and alleviation of the effects of climate change on livelihoods. The RIU will ensure that DFID’s environmental guidelines are fully incorporated into both our programme management and our implementation activities at country and regional levels.
Making it happen
25
Acronyms
26
Research Into Use
ACIAR
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research APAARI Asia–Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme, Tanzania CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme, NEPAD CIP International Potato Center (Centro Internacional de la Papa) DFID Department for International Development, UK DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity, FARA I4D Innovation for Development Fund, RIU ICTs information and communications technologies IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development MDG Millennium Development Goal of the United Nations NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO non-government organization NIDA Nkoola Institutional Development Association OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAB Programme Advisory Board, RIU PARC Performance Assessment Resource Centre PROLINNOVA Promoting Local Innovation in EcologicallyOriented Agriculture and Natural Resource Management R&D research and development RNR renewable natural resources RNRRS Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy, DFID RIU Research Into Use programme, funded by DFID SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SRSA Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture, DFID
Credits: Photos: Stevie Mann Writing, editing, design and layout: Green Ink Ltd (www.greenink.co.uk)
www.researchintouse.com NR International, Park House, Bradbourne Lane, Aylesford, Kent ME20 6SN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1732 878686 • Fax: +44 (0)1732 220497 • www.nrinternational.co.uk