Engagement / Fish / Livestock

Feedback: Can the CGIAR add value to other actors?

We sought comments on the question: This approach assumes that CGIAR Centers can act as catalysts to attract new or align existing development investments (including by the private sector). It also assumes that different research partners will work together to support development partners as they implement major development interventions in the targeted meat, milk and fish value chains. Can CGIAR Centers offer sufficient added value for development donors and actors, including the private sector, to make this approach work? What we would need to do for this to happen in an effective, sustainable and equitable manner?

In the blog, no one questions this role for CGIAR Centers; 7 of 11 blog commentators think the Centers offer sufficient added value

  • CG offers rich base of scientists and technicians, and depends on their quality
  • Has the ‘clout’ to do serious research
  • Clearing house concept is good

However, one commentator in the survey was skeptical about the amount the CG Centers can actually add. Another noted that CG offers science, but few concrete animal technologies, which limits incentives for private sector collaboration. Another asks ‘what’s new’ about CG Centers working together.

Results from the survey:

N=57

Strongly agree: 33.3%     Agree:    57.9%                 Disagree: 1.8%    Strongly disagree: 1.8%        No opinion: 5.3%

Suggestions for strengthening its added value to development partners:

  • Identify right partners and arrangements
  • Rely on producer organizations in private sector and public-private partnerships in Latin America to lead development activities
  • Consider becoming observers or partners in existing projects before starting new ones
  • Highlight new experiences with scaling up by the private sector; e.g. Grameen Danone in Bangladesh
  • Need policy framework for centralized coordination of small core of partners
  • Need partners embedded in local communities
  • Farmer must be full partner
  • Address the entire value chain, otherwise may neglect key components
  • CG must first harmonize existing development investments and align with program
  • Have CG capacity to assess and actively manage partnerships with transparency
  • Conduct thorough needs assessment to design intervention appropriately
  • Communication and knowledge management strategy important to reach end-users; create forum of expertise; empower CG champions; play role as neutral catalyst
  • Requires commitment and proper coordination
  • Describe how the CG Centers will align the interests of development partners and create incentives for engagement
  • Risk of commercial sector defining narrow export value chains that limit ability to introduce alternative approaches, e.g., use of indigenous breeds
  • Highlight what is readily available ‘on the shelf’
  • Recognize need to balance power of commercial sector to influence policy environment; difficulty of achieving consensus among diverging stakeholders
  • Emphasize role as broker between public research and application
  • Clarify synergies with other Mega Programs
  • Impact will be faster if attention is paid to capacity building

One commentator in the survey notes that is a big change for the CG culture, but time-consuming for the scientists.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s