Q&A with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's David Bergvinson

This post was originally published on the CGIAR website on June 26, 2013.

CGIAR Research Program leaders, along with donors and external stakeholders are currently meeting to listen, engage, learn and progress on how to achieve the outcomes of reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving nutrition and health and the sustainable management of natural resources. 

We caught up with David Bergvinson, Deputy Director, Global Development Program of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to ask him some questions.  BMGF is a member of the CGIAR Fund Council.

Working together to improve crop yields. Photo Credit: Gates Foundation on Flickr

There has been talk at this meeting of trust, between donors and CGIAR. How can that trust be generated and maintained?

Trust is built up over time, and for donors, that trust is reflected in investment into core CGIAR funding. But the reciprocal side of that trust equation is the accountability of CGIAR to donors, and that is what the whole focus of these [Intermediate Development Outcomes] IDOs is, to – in very credible and strategic ways – communicate the impact that CGIAR is having on reducing poverty, increasing nutrition and enabling sustainable food security in the developing world. Right now, we don’t have a lot of visibility for those impacts. We see stories here and there, but the problem is stitching it all together.

Food and agriculture will feature quite strongly in the next MDGs, and CGIAR needs to be proactive in aligning to those goals. CGIAR has its own language and acronyms, and in order to bring about system change you really have to communicate with a broader community and align with a broader policy and system change mandate, which the MDGs are trying to achieve. The IDOs that are coming out of this exercise should serve at least three purposes. One, some harmonization across the CGIAR Research Programs [CRPs], so that we can actually measure the performance of the CRPs relative to each other. Two, giving visibility to how system changes are actually unfolding and the role CGIAR is playing in that process. Three, using metrics as a way to communicate the importance of research for development with a broader public.

There has been some criticism that metrics and indicators have not been developed.

To which I agree. They have not. The Strategic Results Framework has four SLOs, none of which have indicators. It’s a 108 page document, but it doesn’t have tangible measurements which we can use to track the progress that CGIAR is making. For many of the goals or outcomes laid out in the CRPs, it is very hard to quantify the impact, so again there is a lack of indicators. And those that are quantitative don’t have a benchmark. For example: improving productivity in farmers’ fields by X% by 2020. So I think putting a sharper point on the actual goals is needed, with credible scientific proof and measurement. That is really important, taking it down from what is really an abstract level and translating it into something that is credible to demonstrate IDOs have been achieved.

What about the argument that, particularly in the agriculture sector, it takes so long to see results?

Yes, agriculture does take time. I think that’s where science comes in, to compress the time it takes to develop a product, with inputs from farmers and development partners and then accelerate the validation, distribution and sustained adoption of CGIAR outputs through strategic partnerships.

In terms of progress, how do you think CGIAR is doing at the moment?

I think it’s variable, just like with any diverse organization. As a whole, I think it’s moving in a good direction, towards integration of CGIAR Centers, but more important, engaging with partners outside the system. Local partners understand better the context in which these products and services are being adopted, and are key agents of delivery, often because they have the trust of the people you are trying to reach.

How important is open access to you as a donor?

Open access is very important. If we are going to realize success for sustainable agriculture and food security, we need to leverage all the resources we have at hand, especially the data assets of CGIAR.  Unfortunately, we haven’t really realized the full potential of these data assets, because institutional incentives haven’t been there for scientists to release that information in a timely and discoverable manner. So this has actually slowed down the pace of development. The G8 and others are calling for open data for agriculture, where data is made available in a more discoverable format, and a much more timely manner than it currently is.

CGIAR is moving towards that now, isn't it, as a goal?

Yes. I think it’s something that the Consortium Office should take on, having a coordinated policy on open data.

Some of the greatest successes have been achieved by donors, CGIAR and national programs scientists coming together to inform policy makers on creating an enabling environment for innovation and agricultural development.

The CGIAR Consortium has prepared a policy document that is now up for approval...

Yes, that’s a case in point. It’s been more than a year in the making and it still isn’t out. You need an agile organization that is going to be much more dynamic and iterative in the way it looks at agricultural development. As scientists, we strive for perfection. But it comes at a cost. It delays and dampens a dynamic innovation cycle. In development, we talk about developing location-specific interventions for a wide range of end users. We need to be much more agile, dynamic and participatory in the way we do research, to see higher rates of adoption. So yes, I’m glad that the policy is coming forward. I haven’t seen it yet myself. But I guess that also points to how that policy was developed. It should have been engaging key stakeholders, like donors and development partners outside CGIAR.  This is something CGIAR can continue to work on—how we do research, how we support policy work, to achieve higher rates of adoption of improved agriculture technologies by small holder farmers.

You have talked about the importance of mentoring. Could you elaborate?

I think one of the key outcomes of CGIAR is building up the next generation of agricultural research scientists. An important element of that is not just the in-class training, but also the in-field mentoring. And it’s not just about science. It’s also about the soft skills – how you do agricultural research for development, engaging end users so that you are actually producing products and services that meet the needs of farmers in the developing world. It’s building the trust of the community to work towards a larger goal. Mentoring is an important ingredient of that, because you build a network of partners to take on these big challenges. Some of the greatest successes have been achieved by donors, CGIAR and national programs scientists coming together to inform policy makers on creating an enabling environment for innovation and agricultural development.

There has been much talk of gender at this meeting. Are there any other areas where you would like to see more attention focused?

I think gender and diversity are both important. We don’t hear much about the diversity side of the equation. It is not just women who can be marginalized, but anyone in society, because of language or location. I think it’s important that this is the way we do business, not standing it up alone, but integrating gender and diversity into how we carry our research. In so doing, we position research to be more successful in meeting the needs of society.

What is your take home message from this meeting?

CGIAR has been a very important partner for research for development. In certain areas the returns on investment have been very high. I think we need to look at some of the areas where that hasn’t been the case and ask why. And I think in this process of looking at IDOs we should be thinking about areas that have been more difficult to measure impact, and to develop metrics that give visibility to impacts in the future. One of the more challenging areas has been agronomy, given it is knowledge-intensive and location-specific. I think CGIAR needs to be thinking much more strategically about how it’s going to grapple with that complexity and not just deliver research projects, but actually working closely with strategic partners to implement the recommendations from those research products, and test them, in an agile way, to ultimately achieve adoption and impact at scale.

I think the IDOs will be very helpful. I think we could still do a better job of understanding the needs of smallholder farmers and ensuring that the products and services generated by CGIAR address those needs based on close collaboration with partners who are well positioned to reach farmers. We should also think about IDOs that are actually measuring the value of those partnerships that will ultimately deliver these products and services, whether it’s a seed or an agronomic intervention or a policy change. The IDOs that will enable us to drive towards implementation and adoption of technology. I think the IDOs right now are still too general to measure the contribution towards system change and agricultural development. And as far as possible, IDOs should cut across several CRPs, so that we can benchmark how different CRPs are doing relative to each other and drive more innovation and cross-learning across the CRP portfolio.

———————————————–

See CGIAR Research Program Engagement with Donors and External Stakeholders for more resources relating to the setting of targets and gauging impacts across the CGIAR Research Program portfolio. #LELP2013 #Ag4Dev (Listening Engaging Learning Progressing – LELP2013)