In clarifying the context of partnering and other forms of collaboration between the CGIAR and LDC NARS, it is useful to go back to a basic statement in the "CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies" endorsed by the Group in 1987:
As national systems increasingly assume the lead role in the generating of technology, the CG System's role with respect to them is evolving towards that of a service function. This evolving role is in line with the basic concept of the System, and is consistent with its goal. (p. 36)
This message still is relevant today, as confirmed by the 1991 and 1996 P&S documents, by the 1998 System Review, and in the recently adopted CGIAR Logframe. Yet, in moving towards organizations in the LDC NARS taking increasing responsibility for leadership and the centers acting more in a "service" role, it clearly should be kept in mind that ultimately the success of the CGIAR System in the future will depend on: (1) the relevance and quality of its scientific achievements, and (2) how effective the System and its partners are in having these accomplishments serve the less developed country (LDC) NARS and ultimately the poor of those countries. Partnerships and other forms of collaborative relationship are key mechanisms that help both in production and in dissemination to reach these ends. But collaborative relationships are not ends in themselves; and the focus should be on the quality of the relationships, not on the quantity of them. The number of collaborative activities in which a center engages should never become a measure of success in and of itself. The costs of such relationships should be given equal consideration to the benefits; and here we are referring to costs both for the centers and for the NARS.
Types of Collaborative Relationship Between the CGIAR Centers and NARS
Many types of collaborative relationships (at the center, program, or individual scientist levels) exist between CGIAR centers and NARS. They include:
research partnerships, consortia and networks of various kinds, involving participatory approaches; scientist exchanges, etc.
Their appropriateness depends on the objectives being pursued by the centers and by the NARS involved, as indicated in the example in figure 1, which considers two objectives that are fundamental to the CGIAR (see recent Logframe paper) and arranges the above linkage modalities by the objectives. The two extremes are the objectives of getting productive and useful research done and helping to build up capacity of LDC NARS.
It is emphasized that:
Putting aside the option of collaborating purely for political purposes, the reason why a center, program or scientist in the NARS or the CGIAR System decides to partner with others is the belief that such arrangements can help it achieve its objectives more effectively and/or efficiently. Thus, collaborative relationships are entered into when there are:
(a) mutual or complementary interests among the potential collaborators; and(b) complementary resources, skills, and facilities among the potential collaborators.
Complementary Interests. The complementary interests can range across the board (and note we use the term complementary and not similar). For example, in an outsourcing relationship, the CGIAR center has an interest in paying to get something done in the most efficient way possible, the other collaborating entity has a complementary interest in being paid to do it and can do it for lower cost. On the other hand, in a full partnering with a NARS in a research project, it may be that the center and NARS have the same research problem interests and each, in turn, is interested in making use of the other's particular skills, facilities, or other resources in accomplishing its research objectives. Partnering is one logical way to achieve this aim more effectively and/or efficiently. In other cases, the center has an objective to help weaker NARS strengthen themselves, including through upgrading of skills. The national institutions involved also have an interest in upgrading their research staffs, e.g., in particular research skills and approaches. Thus, the mutual interest exists that leads to establishment of collaborative training arrangements. The variations on these complementarities in interests are many.Complementary Resources. There also is a range of complementarities that are important when considering the resources of collaborating institutions, for example, related to their particular (1) mix of skills and financial resources available, (2) access to research sites or facilities, and (3) knowledge of local and broader national or global contexts, conditions, and other research results. Taking advantage of complementarities in resources is one objective of collaborative arrangements.
A key point to note here is that collaborative relationships between Centers and NARS are established, from the CGIAR perspective, in the context of the Systems 350 projects. Most of these projects contain multiple objectives and involve multiple relationships with NARS. Thus, one should expect that most projects have an element of information networking; that most involve some training; and that a majority involve various forms of catalytic assistance and mentoring of junior scientists. Combinations of collaborative mechanisms is the rule rather than the exception in CGIAR projects.
Figure 1. Types of Collaborative Relationships in Relation to Objectives Pursued
|
OBJECTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH CENTER ACTIVITIES |
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS TO FIT OBJECTIVES |
|
Pure research objective - getting the centers research done in the most cost-effective way |
> Outsourcing to NARS organizations and individuals |
|
|
> Visiting senior scientists (secondments) and exchange of scientists |
|
- |
> Research partnerships and networks of various kinds |
|
|
> Mentoring young scientists |
|
NARS Capacity strengthening objective combined with center research objective |
> Graduate study support in connection with center research projects; fellowships |
|
|
> Information networks |
|
- |
> Non-training related capacity strengthening (various NARS strengthening activities). |
|
|
> Catalytic assistance (getting SROs etc., organized;) |
|
|
> service functions (visas, organizing meetings, germplasm testing, cleanup, etc.) for NARS |
|
Pure NARS strengthening objective |
> training activities |
While the types of relationship entered into are quite well known and documented, the extent, costs and benefits of CGIAR activity in the various types is not so well known, or at least not documented in a readily available fashion. Thus, TAC and the System need better information on management models used, types of NARS involved, staff time and financial resources allocated to the various types of relationship, magnitude of activity in different centers, and benefits and impacts. How can centers and the System best match types of linkage or interaction with the broader conditions (needs, interests, abilities and capacities) of the NARS and the countries in which they work? Which types of partnership are most effective in which context? What are the benefits as well as the costs involved in each type of relationship? We come back to this important need for information in the final section of the paper.
