Activating institutional innovations for hunger and poverty reduction : potential of applied international agricultural research

摘要

The CGIAR system has made several attempts to improve its organizational structure, the latest being a reform process initiated in 2009. A key issue that has been debated over the years is how the CGIAR centres are best placed within the range of institutions involved in agricultural research and development. The CGIAR still faces the unresolved dilemma between a focus on upstream research that produces international public goods versus downstream activities that ensure impact. Therefore, there is a need to review the CGIARs position on this important question, and to obtain the views of centre scientists and other actors on this question. It is equally important to develop objective approaches to assess the comparative advantage of the CGIAR within the spectrum from upstream research on IPGs to downstream technology dissemination, taking context-specific factors, such as national capacities into account. Case studies are suitable to better understand what works in diverse circumstances and the conditions that have, so far, driven centres to engage in downstream activities.To fill these knowledge gaps, this study used a comparative qualitative case study approach focusing on the legume breeding program of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The studies were conducted in India, Malawi and Ethiopia, a set of countries that makes it possible to study variation in the capacity of national systems. Data was gathered using a combination of methods including a participatory mapping technique called Net-map, expert opinion interviews and a review of relevant documents. Respondents were purposively selected and included ICRISAT scientists, national partners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), seed corporations, male and female farmers and other stakeholders involved in the research and promotion of improved groundnut and chickpea varieties. The narrative policy analysis confirms that there are contrasting views on whether the CGIAR should primarily focus on the production of IPGs, or also conduct more uptake-oriented activities. The dominant story is that the IPG concept is ideal for framing CGIAR research in a niche that would not be served by the private sector or national systems. The counterstory is that the CGIAR can only achieve impact if attention is paid to both research and development-oriented activities. In view of these contrasting views, which cannot easily reconciled, there is a need to develop objective and practical criteria for assessing the comparative advantage of the CGIAR, taking context-specific factors into account. Using the case studies to illustrate the transactions involved in the development and uptake of technologies, propositions are derived regarding the attributes of transactions for which international agricultural research centres (IARCs) have a comparative advantage over national systems. The analysis indicates that basic and strategic research transactions, such as molecular breeding, have high economies of scale and spillover potential and should ideally be carried out by IARCs. On the other hand, adaptive research, promotion and seed multiplication transactions have low economies of scale and spillover potential and should therefore be ideally assigned to national systems. Besides these two attributes, which are also highlighted in the literature on international public goods, the analysis revealed that transaction intensity and the scope for elite capture and corruption also influence the comparative advantage of the CGIAR centres.Applying this normative framework to the case studies, the influence of contextual factors, especially capacity of national systems, emerges as critical factor. Even though the legume varieties developed by ICRISAT fitted agro-ecological conditions in the target countries, the adoption of these varieties was hampered by institutional constraints. All legumes varieties included in the case studies remained “on the shelf” after their release until ICRISAT got itself involved in seed production and promotion. Capacity building in national systems should be an important role of the CGIAR to ensure that improved varieties are sustainably adopted on a large scale. However, organizations that fund development were found to have a tendency to avoid the difficult and long-term task of capacity strengthening of national systems, and instead use the centres to fill the capacity gaps, which induced the centers to engage in downstream activities. Decision-making and resource allocation for research under the CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) should therefore take into account the issue of NARES capacity. The centers should constantly assess capacities of national systems to carry out activities that will enable impact in their target locations, and for their mandate crops. Finally, the centres should also manage learning from their involvement in research, as well as complementary activities.