BookPDF Available

Strategic study of good practice in AR4D partnership.

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

􏰨􏰄The CGIAR is currently in a state of transition from its historical role in addressing defined agricultural technology problems, to engagement with strategic partnerships addressing systemic change challenges of the type defined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This review explores good practice in multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs). Its purpose is to assist the CGIAR in identifying effective practices and strategies in the rapidly evolving context of stakeholders and global development initiatives. Part of the context is that the CGIAR has recently linked its System-Level Outputs (SLOs) to the achievement of the SDGs. This has implicitly signalled the need to embed its work within the wider architecture of partnership, platforms and networks that will be required to tackle global scale challenges􏰤􏰥􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰉􏰋􏰌􏰌􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰍􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰈􏰏􏰒􏰘􏰊􏰈􏰃􏰓􏰌􏰊􏰗􏰃􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰐􏰊􏰌􏰒􏰉􏰍􏰕􏰃􏰌􏰊􏰕􏰂􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰍􏰖􏰖􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰖􏰂􏰴􏰈􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰍􏰎􏰌􏰒􏰉􏰋􏰕􏰐􏰋􏰌􏰍􏰕􏰃 􏰐􏰂􏰉􏰁􏰈􏰊􏰕􏰊􏰎􏰣􏰃 􏰑􏰌􏰊􏰔􏰕􏰂􏰗􏰏􏰙􏰃 􏰐􏰊􏰃 􏰂􏰈􏰎􏰍􏰎􏰂􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰜􏰒􏰐􏰁􏰃 􏰏􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰎􏰒􏰉􏰃 􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰏􏰃 􏰍􏰖􏰖􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃 􏰏􏰣􏰏􏰐􏰂􏰗􏰒􏰉􏰃 􏰉􏰁􏰍􏰈􏰎􏰂􏰃 􏰉􏰁􏰍􏰕􏰕􏰂􏰈􏰎􏰂􏰏􏰃 􏰊􏰓􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰐􏰣􏰑􏰂􏰃 􏰖􏰂􏰴􏰈􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰔􏰣􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰅􏰋􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰒􏰈􏰍􏰔􏰕􏰂􏰃 􏰧􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰊􏰑􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰨􏰊􏰍􏰕􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰅􏰧􏰨􏰏􏰪􏰝􏰃 􏰀􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰃 􏰌􏰂􏰯􏰒􏰂􏰜􏰃 􏰂􏰫􏰑􏰕􏰊􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰃 􏰎􏰊􏰊􏰖􏰃 􏰑􏰌􏰍􏰉􏰘􏰉􏰂􏰃 􏰒􏰈􏰃 􏰗􏰋􏰕􏰘􏰳􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰛􏰂􏰁􏰊􏰕􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰃 􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰲􏰅􏰆􏰏􏰪􏰝􏰃 􏰄􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰑􏰋􏰌􏰑􏰊􏰏􏰂􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰐􏰊􏰃􏰍􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰏􏰐􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰇􏰨􏰄􏰤􏰥􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰒􏰖􏰂􏰈􏰘􏰓􏰣􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰂􏱅􏰂􏰉􏰘􏰯􏰂􏰃􏰑􏰌􏰍􏰉􏰘􏰉􏰂􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰎􏰒􏰂􏰏􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰌􏰍􏰑􏰒􏰖􏰕􏰣􏰃 􏰂􏰯􏰊􏰕􏰯􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰐􏰂􏰫􏰐􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰛􏰂􏰁􏰊􏰕􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰎􏰕􏰊􏰔􏰍􏰕􏰃􏰖􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰊􏰑􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰒􏰘􏰍􏰘􏰯􏰂􏰏􏰝􏰃􏰆􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰐􏰂􏰫􏰐􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰍􏰐􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰇􏰨􏰄􏰤􏰥􏰃 􏰁􏰍􏰏􏰃 􏰌􏰂􏰉􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃 􏰕􏰒􏰈􏰛􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰅􏰣􏰏􏰐􏰂􏰗􏰳􏰱􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰃 􏰾􏰋􏰐􏰑􏰋􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰅􏰱􏰾􏰏􏰪􏰃 􏰐􏰊􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰍􏰉􏰁􏰒􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰊􏰓􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰅􏰧􏰨􏰏􏰝􏰃􏰀􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰁􏰍􏰏􏰃􏰒􏰗􏰑􏰕􏰒􏰉􏰒􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃􏰏􏰒􏰎􏰈􏰍􏰕􏰕􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰈􏰂􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰐􏰊􏰃􏰂􏰗􏰔􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃􏰜􏰊􏰌􏰛􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰐􏰁􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰃􏰍􏰌􏰉􏰁􏰒􏰳 􏰐􏰂􏰉􏰐􏰋􏰌􏰂􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰙􏰃􏰑􏰕􏰍􏰷􏰊􏰌􏰗􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰈􏰂􏰐􏰜􏰊􏰌􏰛􏰏􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰍􏰐􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰕􏰕􏰃􏰔􏰂􏰃􏰌􏰂􏰚􏰋􏰒􏰌􏰂􏰀􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰇􏰨􏰄􏰤􏰥􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰉􏰋􏰌􏰌􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰍􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰈􏰏􏰒􏰘􏰊􏰈􏰃􏰓􏰌􏰊􏰗􏰃􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰐􏰊􏰌􏰒􏰉􏰍􏰕􏰃􏰌􏰊􏰕􏰂􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰍􏰖􏰖􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰖􏰂􏰴􏰈􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰍􏰎􏰌􏰒􏰉􏰋􏰕􏰐􏰋􏰌􏰍􏰕􏰃 􏰐􏰂􏰉􏰁􏰈􏰊􏰕􏰊􏰎􏰣􏰃 􏰑􏰌􏰊􏰔􏰕􏰂􏰗􏰏􏰙􏰃 􏰐􏰊􏰃 􏰂􏰈􏰎􏰍􏰎􏰂􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰜􏰒􏰐􏰁􏰃 􏰏􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰎􏰒􏰉􏰃 􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰏􏰃 􏰍􏰖􏰖􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃 􏰏􏰣􏰏􏰐􏰂􏰗􏰒􏰉􏰃 􏰉􏰁􏰍􏰈􏰎􏰂􏰃 􏰉􏰁􏰍􏰕􏰕􏰂􏰈􏰎􏰂􏰏􏰃 􏰊􏰓􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰐􏰣􏰑􏰂􏰃 􏰖􏰂􏰴􏰈􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰔􏰣􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰅􏰋􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰒􏰈􏰍􏰔􏰕􏰂􏰃 􏰧􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰊􏰑􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰨􏰊􏰍􏰕􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰅􏰧􏰨􏰏􏰪􏰝􏰃 􏰀􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰃 􏰌􏰂􏰯􏰒􏰂􏰜􏰃 􏰂􏰫􏰑􏰕􏰊􏰌􏰂􏰏􏰃 􏰎􏰊􏰊􏰖􏰃 􏰑􏰌􏰍􏰉􏰘􏰉􏰂􏰃 􏰒􏰈􏰃 􏰗􏰋􏰕􏰘􏰳􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰛􏰂􏰁􏰊􏰕􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰃 􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰲􏰅􏰆􏰏􏰪􏰝􏰃 􏰄􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰑􏰋􏰌􏰑􏰊􏰏􏰂􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰐􏰊􏰃􏰍􏰏􏰏􏰒􏰏􏰐􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰇􏰨􏰄􏰤􏰥􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰒􏰖􏰂􏰈􏰘􏰓􏰣􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰂􏱅􏰂􏰉􏰘􏰯􏰂􏰃􏰑􏰌􏰍􏰉􏰘􏰉􏰂􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰌􏰍􏰐􏰂􏰎􏰒􏰂􏰏􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰌􏰍􏰑􏰒􏰖􏰕􏰣􏰃 􏰂􏰯􏰊􏰕􏰯􏰒􏰈􏰎􏰃􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰐􏰂􏰫􏰐􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰏􏰐􏰍􏰛􏰂􏰁􏰊􏰕􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰎􏰕􏰊􏰔􏰍􏰕􏰃􏰖􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰊􏰑􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃􏰒􏰈􏰒􏰘􏰍􏰘􏰯􏰂􏰏􏰝􏰃􏰆􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰐􏰂􏰫􏰐􏰃􏰒􏰏􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰍􏰐􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰇􏰨􏰄􏰤􏰥􏰃 􏰁􏰍􏰏􏰃 􏰌􏰂􏰉􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃 􏰕􏰒􏰈􏰛􏰂􏰖􏰃 􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰅􏰣􏰏􏰐􏰂􏰗􏰳􏰱􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰕􏰃 􏰾􏰋􏰐􏰑􏰋􏰐􏰏􏰃 􏰩􏰅􏰱􏰾􏰏􏰪􏰃 􏰐􏰊􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃 􏰍􏰉􏰁􏰒􏰂􏰯􏰂􏰗􏰂􏰈􏰐􏰃 􏰊􏰓􏰃 􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰅􏰧􏰨􏰏􏰝􏰃􏰀􏰁􏰒􏰏􏰃􏰁􏰍􏰏􏰃􏰒􏰗􏰑􏰕􏰒􏰉􏰒􏰐􏰕􏰣􏰃􏰏􏰒􏰎􏰈􏰍􏰕􏰕􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰈􏰂􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰐􏰊􏰃􏰂􏰗􏰔􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰒􏰐􏰏􏰃􏰜􏰊􏰌􏰛􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰐􏰁􏰒􏰈􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰂􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰖􏰂􏰌􏰃􏰍􏰌􏰉􏰁􏰒􏰳 􏰐􏰂􏰉􏰐􏰋􏰌􏰂􏰃􏰊􏰓􏰃􏰑􏰍􏰌􏰐􏰈􏰂􏰌􏰏􏰁􏰒􏰑􏰙􏰃􏰑􏰕􏰍􏰷􏰊􏰌􏰗􏰏􏰃􏰍􏰈􏰖􏰃􏰈􏰂􏰐􏰜􏰊􏰌􏰛􏰏􏰃􏰐􏰁􏰍􏰐􏰃􏰜􏰒􏰕􏰕􏰃􏰔􏰂􏰃􏰌􏰂􏰚􏰋􏰒􏰌􏰂􏰖􏰃􏰐􏰊􏰃􏰐􏰍􏰉􏰛􏰕􏰂􏰃􏰎􏰕􏰊􏰔􏰍􏰕􏰃􏰏􏰉􏰍􏰕􏰂􏰃 􏰁
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... Perspectives of partnership between public research and the private sector framed by innovation systems thinking are now commonplace in international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR (Leeuwis et al. 2014: Dorai andDijkman 2016) and multi-lateral development agencies (World Bank 2012). This is part of a more general trend in international development assistance now enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals of increasing reliance on the private sector and market as a way of delivering benefits to poor people (Stott 2019). ...
... Yet despite decades of advocacy for public-private sector partnerships for agricultural innovation, clear patterns of good practice have yet to emerge (Dorai and Dijkman 2016). Early research on the topic by Hall (2006) and Spielman (2005) pointed to 'cultural fit' and misaligned incentives as key challenges. ...
... Early research on the topic by Hall (2006) and Spielman (2005) pointed to 'cultural fit' and misaligned incentives as key challenges. Others pointed to the mixed results that were being achieved (Hall, Dijkman, and Sulaiman 2010;Hartwich and Tola 2007;Dorai and Dijkman 2016). What appears to be missing is an account of the nature and dynamics of these partnerships as they play out in real-time. ...
Article
Research institute-private sector partnerships are promoted as a mechanism to increase the scale and sustainability of research impact, especially where government extension services are constrained. Such partnerships are often framed as simple transactional or contractual arrangements. This paper traces the evolution of a multilateral partnership between a public university, agri-input supplier, finance provider and local government in North and East Lombok. The partnership aimed to increase household incomes by introducing new practices for maize and pulse production, but in order to do so, had to enable farmers to access affordable credit and inputs in a timely manner. Analysis of the partnership over three years highlights its dynamic nature and the importance of a consistent champion who aligns the competing institutional incentives and aspirations of actors. It also highlights how partners bear different types and degrees of risk across different stages of the partnership. The findings affirm the potential for research-private sector partnerships to contribute to agricultural innovation but highlight a more complex and messy process than is acknowledged in the literature. A more realistic understanding of partnership and innovation processes needs to inform how schemes and innovation support mechanisms are designed if they are to deliver on the promise of scale and sustainability.
... The focus in previous studies on this topic has been on obstacles to this greater inclusion; these were found to relate to institutional barriers, and prevailing power dynamics Schut et al. 2016). However, there is a notable knowledge gap regarding operational strategies for overcoming these inclusion barriers when implementing IPs (Dorai, Hall, and Dijkman 2016). This gap led to reconsideration of how IPs might better be designed and implemented to strengthen farmer-centric innovation processes locally (Swaans et al. 2014), while also pursuing enabling institutional changes at higher level to widen windows of opportunities for farmers (Hounkonnou et al. 2018), which, in turn, has led to an emerging emphasis on multi-level engagement (Davies et al. 2018). ...
Article
• Stakeholders thought the IPs effective but their outcomes and impacts were modest. • Increased social capital was the prime mediator of change. • Producer technical knowledge and capacity for collective action were enhanced. • Producer-centric approaches and delayed market engagement limited IP impact. • R&D actors with orchestration capability are critical for transformative change.
GFAR: Rome. CGIAR Independent Science & Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat c/o FAO
  • Mannet
MANNET (2013). Report of the GFAR Governance Review. January 28, 2013. GFAR: Rome. CGIAR Independent Science & Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat c/o FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy t: +39 06 570 52103 http://ispc.cgiar.org
Agricultural Innovation Systems
  • World Bank
World Bank (2011). Agricultural Innovation Systems. An Investment Sourcebook.