1. Finding the CGIAR’s role in the 21st century: developing new models of partnerships and science Javier M. Ekboir Institutional Learning and Change Initiative (ILAC) coordinator

2. Content of the presentation Why are several stakeholders disappointed with the CGIAR? A brief comment on the dynamics of agriculture What characterizes the CGIAR? What type of organization is the CGIAR? How can effective change be implemented in the CGIAR?

3. Why are several stakeholders disappointed with the CGIAR?

4. They perceive that in the last two decades the CGIAR has not made an important contribution to poverty alleviation

5. The CGIAR contribution Outside South Asia, no country has notably reduced poverty through increases in the production of staples But they have increased food security Led by the private sector, many high value markets emerged The CGIAR had little participation in these processes

6. Weakening of agricultural research and extension in developing countries Most developing countries reduced their investments in agricultural research The CGIAR lost its main partners and has struggled to define new models of partnerships The CGIAR has failed to define a new vision for international agricultural research that takes into account the new dynamics of poverty and agriculture

7. A brief comment on the dynamics of agriculture and poverty

8. Three important trends in agriculture in developing countries Emergence of high value agricultural markets Differentiation of farmers Migration and remittances

9. The emergence of high value (HV) agricultural markets Trade in agricultural products is expanding Urbanization and the “supermarket revolution”

10. How do small farmers participate in HV agricultural markets? HV export markets are mostly supplied by large farmers HV domestic markets are mostly supplied by larger, better endowed small farmers Few small farmers can sell in these markets Many small farmers participate as laborers

11. Migration and remittances Easier travel and improved financial services mean that people from rural areas can work in distant locations and send remittances back home In 2006, 150 million international migrants sent home US$300 billion The average remittance in LA was 300 US$/month

12. Migration and remittances (2) Only a small proportion goes to productive activities, including agriculture But these families are still interested in the production of staples

13. In short The rural socioeconomic environment has changed since the Green Revolution The Green Revolution research model has to be replaced by a new one that takes into account the greater differentiation of rural areas And new social needs

14. What has characterized the CGIAR through its life? It has changed continuously It has engaged in different types of partnerships It has tried different research models But it has not learned from these experiences! It lacked leadership

15. How has the CGIAR changed? The CGIAR started with two very focused breeding programs Other areas were later created to address agronomic problems (e.g. agronomy and entomology) New centers were created in the 1970s to address regional problems and research on new crops and new activities Economists were hired to study patterns of adoption

16. Changes in the 1990s and 2000s The expansion of HV markets and the lack of a second Green Revolution highlighted the shortcomings of the traditional model of research in the CGIAR The NAROs were severely weakened The CGIAR lost its main traditional partners and it could not define a new model of research

17. How has the CGIAR changed?

18. Changes at the bottom The initial partnerships included several actors interacting in international breeding networks The new partnerships included other actors, new areas of research and new disciplines And new science models (non-experimental research, on-farm research)

19. Change induced from the top Donors and other stakeholders started to ask for compelling evidence that the CGIAR was needed Many resources were invested in impact assessment Donors insisted on more focused activities Funding took different modalities Short term, well defined projects replaced long term financing

20. In short, the changes included the system’s mandate, areas of expertise, research models,governanceand financing

21. What was the nature of change in the CGIAR? Most changes did not result from a deliberate plan that responded to the evolution of the agricultural sector and the dynamics of poverty Most reforms did not result from the analysis of previous experiences The changes were not given time to mature

22. The CGIAR could not learn The system did not have a mechanism to learn from the different types of projects And to recognize them as different research models The innovative partnerships never became the dominant model of operation

23. What type of organization is the CGIAR?

24. The CGIAR has loose governance distributed decision making which means no leadership strong capabilities to explore new types of projects weak learning mechanisms

25. How can effective organizational change be steered in such an organization?

26. Building the Consortium’s leadership It will have to be respected for its capacity to inspire its ability to lobby for the centers and to convey to the centers the needs of the donors its work with the Fund Council and the centers to harmonize responses to new needs and opportunities Donors will have to make sure they work together to strengthen the Consortium

27. Creating a shared vision of the type of changes needed in the CGIAR, including understanding the new dynamics of poverty and science defining the role of science and the CGIAR in poverty alleviation identifying the system’s core capacities and strategic assets identifying new capabilities that need to be built and setting up strategies to do it

28. Creating an effective management system to foster change Encourage the trial of new research and partnership models With new funding mechanisms and incentives that foster organizational change IA and evaluation approaches that tolerate calculated risk taking Using adaptive management approaches

29. Creating a centralized structure for learning attached to the Consortium office that would Support learning by the Consortium and the centers Provide information to support funding decisions Explore new partnership and research models Investigate new incentives for the centers and researchers Support organizational change in the centers

30. Thanks