ISPC 13

1. Science partnerships in
international development
today
WILLEM JANSSEN
LEAD AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST
July 7, 2016

2. Today’s story
– The state of science and technology in agriculture
– How agricultural science is changing
– Implications for reorganizing agricultural science:
progress and challenges
– The World Bank and agricultural science and
technology
– Some examples on partnership approaches
– Evaluating partnerships
– Some gentle conclusions

3. Spending trends: developing
countries catching up
China, India, and
Brazil accounted
for half of
combined spending
in developing
countries.
Source: ASTI

4. Trends: Private spending, especially
in food processing is up
Private spending
concentrated in
developed
countries, and
growing in Brazil,
India, China
Source: ASTI

5. Behind the trends: new sources of change in
agriculture, often from the private sector
– IT: data processing, data management
– IT: self driving cars, drones, tractors
– IT: market information, climate and
weather
– Science of genes: genome management,
genetic modification, breeding
– Nanotechnology and material sciences;
storage technologies, equipment
– …………
Presentation Title
National Livestock
Information System
• epidemiological
control
• food safety
standards

6. Behind the numbers: knowledge
use and generation is changing
– The knowledge society
– Digital media and the Web
– Search and consultation to generate
knowledge
– Big data
– Social media and virtual collaboration
– The interactive model: problem solving
while generating new knowledge
– The knowledge elite
– Paper to share knowledge
– Research as the key tool to generate
knowledge
– Experimentation
– Creating centers and critical mass
– The linear model: research> knowledge>
adaptation> use of innovations

7. New issues: Climate smart
agriculture
- The triple win!
- Systems oriented
research (socio-
economic and
biophysical)
- Natural resource
management
- Landscape
approaches
- Data management
and ICT

8. New issues: the sustainable
global food system
- Soil depletion
and pollution
- Scarcity and
waste
- Stunting and
obesity
- Food safety
- Regulatory
research
- Nudging
approaches
and consumer
science
- From more to
better

9. A lot of change, can we figure it
out?

10. From a cloakroom token to a
Toyota logo - 1
NARES

11. From a cloakroom token to a
Toyota logo - 2
NARES
IT start-ups and
companies
Gene science
mechanization

12. From a cloakroom token to a
Toyota logo-3
NARES
NGOs,
development
projects
Farmer
organizations
Private sector
IT start-ups and
companies
Gene science
mechanization

13. The solution: partnerships!!
– Horizontal: to increase
the scientific capacity to
be employed in the
scientific process
– Vertical: to apply science
in problem solving and in
pursuing sustainable
development
++
??

14. Characteristics of successful
vertical (technology) partnerships
– The initiative may come from the researcher or
from the problem solver
– The goals are clear, unambiguous and
measurable, the timeframe is set
– Both knowledge sets are respected and
appreciated
– Markets drive large part of the change pursued
– Both parties truly gain, financially or mandate-
wise
– The terms of engagement (including budget) are
clear, and enforceable
– The partnership may evolve, if this is clear and
agreed by both
– A drink helps!

15. The World Bank and agricultural
science and technology
World Bank supported public investments ($millions)
Under implementation In preparation
Agriculture 20,625 7,563
Agricultural
R&D
2,018 494
More than 30% of
projects support R&D
Less than 10% of
projects focus on Ag
R&D
Source: WBG, portfolio indicators

16. Future WB- CGIAR
collaboration (Africa)
Deepening collaboration, in particular with CGIAR research
programs on
– Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
and on
– Biofortified foods to improve nutrition and public health
– new partnership modalities
– Linking the CGIAR to Country Programs (e.g. Tanzania:
aligning the CGIAR research agenda with national
priorities)

17. Some (vertical) partnerships models
applied in WB supported projects

18. NAIP-India: Consortia as
the partnership model
• Led by public or private organizations
• Selected through competitive
processes
• a " helpdesk“ to assist in engagement
• Support to non-traditional partners
• Large proposals ($ 1-4m)
• Knowledge management!
• Start-up issues
• Satisfactory performance

19. The productive alliance model: four
building blocks (21 projects; $1b; LAC)
Organizing
farmers
Linking
them with a
market
Investing in
production and
marketing Technical
assistance

20. The productive alliance concept
Attacks several issues in an
integrated approach:
- Lack of negotiation power
- Lack of knowledge
- Lack of money
- Lack of market access
Benefits farmers that:
- Are willing and able to
organize themselves
- Can rely on their land for
their income
- Are sufficiently close to
the market
Powerful and imaginative, or complicated and costly?

21. Crowdsourcing through competitions and
challenges:
corporations and governments opening up to ideas and insights
from networks and communities

22. Innovation challenges that have been
“crowdsourced” or “hackathoned”
– What will it take to end poverty?
– Apps for Development
– Apps for climate change issues
– IT for agricultural extension

23. Agricultural Pull programs: AgResults
– Prizes to reward technological breakthroughs
– Grain storage technology
– Afla Safe maize
– Legume seed supply
– Brucellosis vaccin
– “Pulling” in the private sector
– Very early days, just starting
– Getting the design parameters right!
– How to anticipate innovation pathway?

24. Evaluating or assessing impact
of research partnerships -1
– Impact assessment has been a contentious subject…….
– Attribution….. Enabling investments….. Length of impact……Counterfactuals……
Parallel initiatives….. Interdependencies…… Rates of Return
– Partnerships require further analysis of contributions, or not?
– Partnerships reflect the complex and interdependent structure of the
innovation system and the sector as a whole
– Learning: Understanding the downstream side of the CGIAR’s work: what
works, what does not work; what is the CGIAR’s comparative advantage; how
can it position itself?

25. Evaluating or assessing impact
of research partnerships - 2
Best practice has four elements:
– Theory of Change (Kusek and Rist, 2004): (i) inputs, (ii) activities, (iii) outputs,
(iv) outcomes and (v) impacts
– An effective M&E system and follow up during implementation
– Baseline and End line
– Control group and target group
Some evaluators propose randomized control trials
Does the CGIAR have the skill sets to define and apply best practice? How good are
its theories of change?

26. Evaluating or assessing impact
of research partnerships - 3
Problems specific to
technological change:
– Boundaries: timeframes
are often long and impact
areas are hard to define
– Control groups lose out, or
step out
– Costs of impact
assessment can run up
enormously
So there is a need for some
“second best strategies”
– Inventories of the use of
CGIAR outputs (evidence!)
– Qualities of networks
– Satisfaction among partners
– Case studies to document
and to learn
– Partnerships at country level
to do impact analysis

27. Conclusions: for the WB science is a
tool and the CGIAR a valued partner
– “ A renewed urgency, and international and national commitment, is
needed to sustain climate-smart agricultural research to deliver needed
science based solutions”. (Shaping a Climate-Smart Global Food System, WBG 2015)
– Incorporate technical assistance in productive alliance and other market
based approaches (Linking farmers to markets through Productive Alliances: an assessment of the
World Bank experience in Latin America)
– “Increase research and development of more nutrient-rich crops” (Shaping the
Global Food system to Deliver Improved Nutrition and Health, WBG 2016)
– Strengthen partnerships with the CGIAR and other knowledge providers
(Shaping a Climate-Smart Global Food System, WBG 2015)

28. Conclusions: the CGIAR and science
partnerships
– Partnerships respond to:
– the need to increase and broaden scientific capacities, also
because of new sources of change
– From real to virtual centers of excellence
– the need to hook up with the development of the sector”
ensure the application of science in problem solving and
sustainable progress
– The future agenda requires systemic approaches, at the
least in the initial analysis, requiring further partnerships
– Partnerships have become much easier to run then in the
past: communication costs are down, contracting is
easier, there is more knowledge to go around

29. Some gentle ideas
- Strengthen engagement with systems approaches and social sciences
- Information technology……
- Explore vertical partnerships, e.g., with Africa’s sub-regional organizations
- Ensure that CGIAR centers partner at the invitation of others
- Invest in the science of delivery: comprehensive risk assessments;
selective impact analysis; pilot projects; importance of enabling
environment; feasibility of impact pathways
- Invest in better understanding some prevalent partnerships: community
driven development; innovation platforms, consortia.
- Enabling CGIAR members to partner purposefully for development impact

30. Thank you!