While the differences are in some cases quite distinct, there also are a lot of perceptions that are held in common; and the current interest in the broad topic of collaborative relationships is driven to a great extent by the common perceptions concerning the benefits and costs that each partner derives or bears from the various relationships that exist, and the contributions that each brings to the relationship. Based on the review of documentation and discussions with a wide variety of people, the common perceptions appear to be as follows:
In terms of benefits gained, there is a widespread perception that the NARS gain significantly from:
various types of training and capacity strengthening activities,
access to improved methodologies;
improved access or initial access to germplasm;
being able to use the results of CGIAR work, and particularly those results that derive from CGIAR research that is coordinated with their own work and is in line with their objectives and priorities, and
the contacts established through collaboration and partnering with the CGIAR centers, e.g., through regional and subregional groupings that result from CGIAR-NARS initiatives,
relationships that may lead to greater support and funding for national programs
supervision of graduate students and provision of external examiners in local graduate programs
enhancement of professional organizations;
On the other hand, the perception is that the Centers and the System benefit from:
improved access to one of their main target groups, poor farmers ("NARS know what is in the farmers' best interest");
access to experimental and testing sites;
insights provided on local conditions and technologies from indigenous knowledge that may be transferred more easily through the NARS;
local research that complements the more strategic, IPG types of research undertaken by the Centers; and
insights on local priorities for CGIAR work in different parts of the world; insights in setting CGIAR priorities in a changing world.
helping to set relevant research agendas.
On the cost side of the picture, there is a widespread perception that NARS incur costs associated with:
significant transactions costs in terms of resources diverted to IARCs as part of partnership requirements that they sometimes find difficult to bear and comply with;
in certain cases, reduction in morale having to work along side researchers and others that are paid many times what they are paid and that have other forms of incentives in place;
in some cases reduced local funding because higher authorities (finance ministries, etc.) think that the centers and other donors will step in and fund when partnerships with CG centers are involved;
sometimes competition from IARCs for scarce resources;
Centers also are acknowledged to bear various perceived costs including:
high opportunity costs, in some cases, due to diversion of Center researchers' time and energy away from more IPG related research to more local and specific research and diffusion tasks that are required within the context of the relationships entered into;
higher risk when inadequate mechanisms exist to ensure accountability to the System and donors for joint activities funded through centers;
conflicts between CGIAR goals and priorities and those of local NARS, which may create awkward relationships and possible conflicts among partners as well as discontent on the part of the donors;
As mentioned above, and as would be expected, within both the Centers and the NARS there are some widely differing perceptions of benefits and costs. The actual operational realities of the type of relationship or collaborative mechanisms developed will determine the actual extent and incidence of costs and benefits; and thus also influence heavily the nature of the opportunities to increase effectiveness and efficiency of such relationships. Thus, generalities are difficult to formulate. A collaborative modality that works in one situation may be a failure in another. The strategic questions for TAC and the System relate to the extent to which the above perceptions bear out in practice and how they influence the formation and operation of the various types of relationships that exist in practice. These are questions that only can be answered with considerable empirical, comparative analysis of actual relationships.
