International Public Goods Through Integrated Natural Resources Management Research in Cgiar Partnerships

Abstract

The CGIAR System conducts research to produce international public goods (IPG) that are of wide applicability, creating a scientific base which speeds and broadens local adaptive development. Integrated natural resources management (INRM) research is sometimes seen to be very location specific and consequently does not lend itself readily to the production of IPGs. In this paper we analyse ways in which strategic approaches to INRM research can have broad international applicability and serve as useful foundations for the development of locally adapted technologies. The paper describes the evolution of the IPG concept within the CGIAR and elaborates on five major types of IPGs that have been generated from a varied set of recent INRM research efforts. CGIAR networks have both strengths and weaknesses in INRM research and application, with enormous differences in relative research and development capacities, responsibilities and data access of its partners, making programme process evolution critical to acceptance and participation. Many of the lessons learnt regarding challenges and corresponding IPG research approaches are relevant to designing and managing future multi-scale, multi-locational, coordinated INRM programmes involving broad-based partnerships to address complex environmental and livelihood problems for development. P U R P O S E O F T H E PA P E RThis analysis focuses on the generation of international public goods (IPG) through agricultural research in the International Centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and in their partnerships. It focuses on the international nature and applicability of research towards effective management of agricultural systems and of the natural, economic and human capital bases upon which they depend and influence. It has long been known that traditional, discipline-focused natural resources management research, as well as that on agricultural systems that have high interaction with local environments, is often very location-specific. Modern methods and tools, implemented through partnerships of institutions, can apply data bases and models for extrapolation across ecosystems and ecozones, which facilitate local adaptive development by groups with location and region-specific research and development responsibility. This is being shown to extend CGIAR research to have

The “efficient boundaries” of international agricultural research: A conceptual framework with empirical illustrations

“…There are situations where NARES may lack sufficient capacity to promote certain techniques. Until this capacity is developed, IARCs may have a comparative advantage in carrying out promotion activities, as has been seen in many natural resource management research projects (Harwood et al, 2006). The case study showed that competition between the international centers and the national system can also result in constraints.…”

Making the Water–Soil–Waste Nexus Work: Framing the Boundaries of Resource Flows

“…With its background in farming systems research, INRM seeks to build the capacity of farmers and other natural resources managers [40], while placing the farmer at the household or field level at the center of activities [41,42]. This is as strength in the approach, that when systems analysis is being conducted the farm level provides a tangible and practical boundary definition.…”

“…In further descriptions of the approach the focus remains on the multitude of scales with the ecosystems as boundary of influence [39]. Hence ecosystems, or agroecosystems of varying sizes from plot level to ecozone or social units from the village to national level that cross scales and boundaries are discussed [42].…”

Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious

“…Many developing countries where agriculture is relatively commercialised have seen increasing private sector investment in agricultural research (Naseem et al, 2010). This has forced the public sector -including the CGIAR -to re-frame its role in terms of the provision of 'public goods' (Anderson, 1998;Gardner and Lesser, 2003;Harwood et al, 2006;Lele and Gerrard, 2003). This evolving context also resulted in new emphasis on the creation of partnerships, alliances and 'learning platforms': the CGIAR Challenge Programmes, for example, clearly reflected these shifting institutional, funding and political landscapes, as does the increasing prominence of the language of 'publicprivate partnerships' in relation to international agricultural research Agriculture (Giller et al, 2011;Giller et al, 2009;Jenrich, 2011;Marongwe et al, 2011;Nkala et al, 2011;Owenya et al, 2011;Silici et al, 2011).…”