Presented by Douglas J Merrey at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9 – 10 July 2013

1. Douglas J Merrey
Consultant-science coordinator, NBDC
Is Research for Development (R4D) a Good
Investment? Reflections on Lessons from
NBDC
Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop – 2013
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
9 – 10 July 2013

2. R4D has a huge potential but this has yet to
be fully realized
Four recommendations:
1. Effective partnerships – empowered
demand-side institutions;
2. Strong linkages to existing development
investment programs;
3. Long-term commitment by funding
agencies as well as scientists; and
4. Foundation in excellent science
Key Message

3. ∗ Methods, sources
∗ Natural resources management research in CGIAR
& CPWF
∗ A little history—roots of R4D
∗ Lessons emerging from Institutional History of
NBDC
∗ Recommendations
OVERVIEW

4. ∗ Author’s experience with applied research & action
research at IWMI from 1980s
∗ Lessons from CPWF (associated from its inception)
∗ Lessons from NBDC reflected in interviews, review of
documents for NBDC “Institutional History”
Institutional History (IH) is a team effort but views in
this paper are my own responsibility
METHODS, SOURCES

5. ∗ Dilemma: development funding for research
∗ Financers expect measurable concrete development
outcomes (confirmed June meetings donors & CGIAR)
∗ Demonstrating clear outcomes, direct benefits easy for
commodities, impossible for NR research
∗ Agricultural, aquatic, forest ecosystems are extremely
complex as are human behaviors – difficult to attribute
changes directly to research outputs
∗ Solution has been various models of “applied research”,
“action research”, “integrated natural resources
management [INRM] research”
∗  “Integrated Agricultural Research for Development” –
IARD, or in CPWF-speak, R4D
∗ Paradigm for new CGIAR Water Land & Ecosystems (WLE)
Program [and others]
NRM RESEARCH IN CGIAR

6. ROOTS OF R4D-1
∗ Anthropology: “applied
research” in the service of
colonialism—seen as top-
down, dis-empowering
∗ “Participatory action research”
(PAR) from sociology as
solution
∗ Adopted by IWMI & others
1980s
∗ Research is collaborative with
communities

7. ∗ IARD OR R4D also has roots in ecology and innovation
systems theory
∗ Places PAR within a firm agro-ecology systems and/or
institutional framework.
∗ Broad ecosystems perspective escapes the confines
of social science
∗ Now an integrating inter-disciplinary paradigm for doing
research
∗ Pioneered by SSA Challenge Program, and some
projects in phase 1 of CPWF
ROOTS OF R4D-2

8. ∗ NBDC like other BDCs is based on R4D
∗ Elements include: explicit “theory of change”,
Innovation Platforms, consultations with stakeholders
at multiple levels, innovative workshop activities,
emphasis on communication
1. IH interviews  divergent view of R4D
∗ CPWF management: full participation all stakeholders,
integrates notions of power, relations among people,
institutions, partners, & how those dynamics evolve;
research expected to be relevant by transforming its
focus to contributing to real development outcomes*
* Disclosure: reflects author’s view as well.
4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC
EXPERIENCE

9. ∗ NBDC researchers: Many hold much narrower views 
research that somehow will in future be relevant for
development; some mentioned elements such as ‘research
into action’
∗ Concern by some that R4D dilutes rigors of “science” or is
not “real” science
∗ Split between social scientists & others
∗ Incomplete buy-in by researchers
2. Over-ambitious--raised high expectations
∗ +/- 3-4 years, limited budgets, yet expect to develop
partnerships, test innovations, & achieve measurable
outcomes & changes in policy, etc.
∗ Interviews reflect disappointment, obscuring the real
achievements of NBDC
4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC
EXPERIENCE

10. 3. Consultative but not sufficiently “demand-driven”
∗ Not well-integrate with existing SLM investment program
(ESIF)
∗ Driven by international researchers who seek partnerships,
collaboration, & consult stakeholders
∗ “Consumers” may have preferred more “traditional” research
∗ Importance of balancing consumer interests and researchers’
proposed “innovations”
∗ Way forward: empower clients to identify and implement
possible innovations, researchers acting as consultants,
coaches, and process documenters—as in IPs locally
∗ Gap may be policy makers not adequately involved in
selecting & testing innovations
∗ IWMI past experience mixed by positive in doing this in Sri
Lanka, Pakistan
4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC
EXPERIENCE

11. ∗ Client-driven research with new roles for researchers
challenges deeply held notions researchers hold of their
role
∗ Playing activist role, embedded in system not consistent
with traditional view of scientist as outside the system,
measuring change & processes
4. Large number & diversity of partners is an innovation
∗ Diversity potential source of innovation, uptake
∗ Needs careful management to maximize benefits & minimize
transaction costs; create space for partners to participate
fully (empowerment)
∗ Used Platforms (IPs, national), steering committee, etc.
4 LESSONS EMERGING FROM NBDC
EXPERIENCE

12. R4D has a huge potential but this has yet to be fully
realized
Four recommendations:
1. Effective partnerships including empowered demand-
side institutions
∗“Effective”- 2 dimensions
 Strong commitment from the demand side
institutions
 Commitment must include empowerment vis-à-
vis the researchers.
∗Partners must have a strong voice from the
earliest stages in designing research programs
1. Needs time, effort for dialogue
RECOMMENDATIONS

13. RECOMMENDATIONS
2. Strong linkages to existing
development investment
programs
∗ Ideally implementation &
research programs
developed together though
often not possible
∗ Research needs to address
priority issues for higher
likelihood of impacts
∗ Potential to “leverage”
resources – synergies
research & implementation

14. 3. Long-term commitment of adequate resources by
funding agencies as well as scientists
∗ Critical for successful R4D in complex human
ecosystems
∗ “Long term” = decade plus
∗ Rare but there are a few examples
∗ CPWF originally 15 years [3 phases] but phase 2 only
partly built on phase 1, and has been cut short
∗ CPWF limited budget fragments senior scientists’
allocation of time
∗ Concentration and full engagement of scientists over
sufficient time is critical
RECOMMENDATIONS

15. RECOMMENDATIONS
4. Foundation in excellent
science
∗ CPWF and NBDC
scientists emphasis this
∗ Necessary though not
‘sufficient’
∗ Science Workshop will
show our science
achievements
∗ Need to publish

16. ∗ NBDC has been important learning experience
∗ Produced impressive outputs
∗ Emerging evidence of outcomes-impacts
∗ Significant contribution to knowledge on what is
needed to
“improve the resilience of rural livelihoods in the
Ethiopian highlands through a landscape approach to
rainwater management”
∗ I hope future programs will build on this knowledge &
lessons to achieve the Development Challenge
CONCLUSION

17. THANK YOU