including high-yielding rice and wheat varieties, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation, has proven to be a powerful instrument of the Green Revolution in fighting
hunger in that part of the world. CGIAR currently comprises 15 international
agricultural research centers that collectively aim to increase agricultural productivity, reduce poverty and enhance environmental sustainability. Renkow and
Byerlee (2010) and Raitzer and Kelly (2008) reviewed evidence of impact across
the centers and concluded that there have been strong positive impacts of CGIAR
research relative to investment. Another way to describe CGIAR’s success is to
show a world without it (Evenson and Gollin 2003): focusing on the impact of crop
improvement research from 1965 to 1998 provided counterfactual scenarios of the
global food system: developing countries would produce 7–8 % less food; their
cultivated area would be 11–13 million hectares greater at the expense of primary
forests and other fragile environments; and 13–15 million more children would be
malnourished.
However, agricultural R4D has not realized its full potential: the world food
system continues to face challenges of persistent food insecurity and rural poverty
in many parts of the developing world. The adoption of improved agricultural
technologies and practices by farmers has often been less than expected, when
considering their demonstrated benefits, primarily due to a supply-led approach to
their development and dissemination, with limited attention paid to context specificity, to farmer’s priorities beyond increased agricultural productivity, and to the
socio-economic, political and institutional contexts within which smallholder
farmers operate. Many studies have shown that ‘scientifically proven’ technologies
alone are not the only key to get to impact. If a technology gets adopted or adapted,
it is often not so much because of its quality and suitability but because of good
social management and implementation processes (Hartmann and Linn 2008;
Pachico and Fujisaka 2004). New challenges like population growth and climate
change are adding complexity to the mission of CGIAR and other R4D
organizations.
Within this context, this chapter aims to describe the journey towards a new R4D
approach based on theory of change (TOC) and impact pathway thinking for
program implementation, monitoring, learning and evaluation (MEL). It illustrates
lessons of broad applicability regarding results-based management (RBM) and
adaptive management approach to tackling complex development challenges
through R4D. The key messages are summarized in Box 4.1. The chapter starts
by describing a case study within CGIAR, where TOC combined with IPs and
learning-based approaches were employed to build an outcome-focused RBM
approach to R4D. It then analyses the main findings, focusing on program design
and systems for planning and reporting, as well as a MEL framework within an
impact pathways approach. The chapter concludes with lessons for required institutional change as well as for MEL practitioners, researchers and policy makers.
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
55
hunger in that part of the world. CGIAR currently comprises 15 international
agricultural research centers that collectively aim to increase agricultural productivity, reduce poverty and enhance environmental sustainability. Renkow and
Byerlee (2010) and Raitzer and Kelly (2008) reviewed evidence of impact across
the centers and concluded that there have been strong positive impacts of CGIAR
research relative to investment. Another way to describe CGIAR’s success is to
show a world without it (Evenson and Gollin 2003): focusing on the impact of crop
improvement research from 1965 to 1998 provided counterfactual scenarios of the
global food system: developing countries would produce 7–8 % less food; their
cultivated area would be 11–13 million hectares greater at the expense of primary
forests and other fragile environments; and 13–15 million more children would be
malnourished.
However, agricultural R4D has not realized its full potential: the world food
system continues to face challenges of persistent food insecurity and rural poverty
in many parts of the developing world. The adoption of improved agricultural
technologies and practices by farmers has often been less than expected, when
considering their demonstrated benefits, primarily due to a supply-led approach to
their development and dissemination, with limited attention paid to context specificity, to farmer’s priorities beyond increased agricultural productivity, and to the
socio-economic, political and institutional contexts within which smallholder
farmers operate. Many studies have shown that ‘scientifically proven’ technologies
alone are not the only key to get to impact. If a technology gets adopted or adapted,
it is often not so much because of its quality and suitability but because of good
social management and implementation processes (Hartmann and Linn 2008;
Pachico and Fujisaka 2004). New challenges like population growth and climate
change are adding complexity to the mission of CGIAR and other R4D
organizations.
Within this context, this chapter aims to describe the journey towards a new R4D
approach based on theory of change (TOC) and impact pathway thinking for
program implementation, monitoring, learning and evaluation (MEL). It illustrates
lessons of broad applicability regarding results-based management (RBM) and
adaptive management approach to tackling complex development challenges
through R4D. The key messages are summarized in Box 4.1. The chapter starts
by describing a case study within CGIAR, where TOC combined with IPs and
learning-based approaches were employed to build an outcome-focused RBM
approach to R4D. It then analyses the main findings, focusing on program design
and systems for planning and reporting, as well as a MEL framework within an
impact pathways approach. The chapter concludes with lessons for required institutional change as well as for MEL practitioners, researchers and policy makers.
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
55