Julian F. Gonsalves PhD.

1. Julian F. Gonsalves PhD. Social learning in the CGIAR: a stocktaking exercise

2. Scope • Innovative social learning related efforts in the CGIAR • Lessons we have learned along the way (the past should inform the future) • Ensure no duplication with other CCAFS studies on communications, social differentiation

3. Activity Duration • 25-day assignment • October/November 2012 • Commissioned by CCAF Theme 4

4. Process in a Nutshell • Review of secondary literature, websites and extensive personal correspondence • Center-specific review limited to website-research and survey respondent inputs • Compilation of Illustrative Cases (128) • Conduct of surveys ( one-to-one) and analysis - respondents (47) and personal correspondence (33)

5. Reform in CGIAR PART 1

10. Do we have a more conducive environment in the CGIAR for Social Learning Approaches? (What the survey respondents say)

11. More conducive climate for SL • Wider recognition of the relevance of social learning approaches • Acknowledgement of the need for engaging a wider range of stakeholders

12. Acknowledging diversity, complexity and multiple-scales • Awareness of the diversity and complexities of the challenges. These complex problems need knowledge intensive approaches, does not allow for a “one size fits all” approach not embedded in easy to disseminate and adopt technologies • We increasingly focus on more complex challenges characterized by multiple stakeholders with often divergent perspectives and competing goals (2.6)

13. Prevailing R & D gaps • Still a prevailing concern about integrating R&D: “Somewhere on the continuum between R and D lies the current reality” i.e. a Gap • How can we build processes that integrate both research and development from the outset, around common issue rather than holing one on the other opportunistically (Mark Lundy)

14. Improved work arrangements • Better collaboration across centers (via CRPs than in the past • More emphasis on a systems approach that includes interdisciplinary approaches • A move towards negotiating shared realities of problems and solutions • Research that ‘goes beyond’ biophysical and economic components

15. Improved collaboration, cooperation and communication “ We are seeing better collaboration and cooperation among centers than had been the norm over my long full time involvement with the CGIAR---so I’m cautiously optimistic about improved uptake of such approaches. I think the relevance certainly remains as high as ever”. - Carol J. Pierce Colfer(2.9)

16. A greater emphasis on outcomes, theories of change and impact pathways • A clear push for showing research outcomes • More recently a call for intermediate development outcomes • The focus on outcome makes participatory approaches more relevant

17. CRPs and donor emphasis on impact create “pressure” for partnerships • Hope to reach the billion left behind by the green revolution through “new approaches” • Will the pressures to bridge the R&D gaps remain?

18. Challenges remain • Limited communication between scientist and partners on the • Solutions sought in a “linear” manner • Cumbersome working modalities of CRPs • Difficult coordination of CRPs • Communication limited mainly to institutional focal points • How serious is the commitment to development outcomes (big change in mindset for some) • Recognition of SL/PM is limited within scientific research community (struggle for SL proponents to be recognized) • Mechanisms to link CRPs (focused on global public goods) to national partners are lacking

19. The Consortium is working on a new concept of management for results with concrete and measurable outcomes for the assessment of the CRP activities. Is there a risk of result orientation leading back to old productivity and breeding orientation of CG? • What do we do when we know that social learning and institutional work does not show “direct” impacts?

20. CGIAR scientists are now swamped with design and coordination of CRPs, and seem to be working pretty independently in this – making it, again, difficult "coordinating" among these differing, if all valuable, implementation methods (2.3)

21. Yet we are hopeful: • The goal is to work for a CGIAR better able to reach the billion left behind by the Green Revolution through the broader use of such approaches. (2.14)

22. Relevance of research will improved greatly if CRP and CG scientists spend quality time with the target groups, talk less, listen more and create enabling environment so that farmers can make self directed decision making. Before that they need to question themselves “whose lives we would like to change?” and once they are crystal clear on that success is not far behind. (1.9)

23. The Relevance of Social Learning to Deliver on CCAF’s Theme 4 Objectives PART 2

24. Social Learning: What definitions work for us?

25. Participatory forms of knowledge creation as social learning • Shared or dialogical approaches to knowledge production • Encouraging discussion amongst various voices within a community • Loops of action and reflection • Awareness and skills learned acted upon by multiple participants (CCAF IDS/IIED Study)

26. The IDS/IIED study states that “Social Learning approaches help facilitate knowledge sharing and joint learning experiences between stakeholders… through working together to better understand their situation, new shared ways of knowing are generated”.

27. Keen (2005) defines “Social Learning as the collective action and reflection that takes place amongst both individuals and groups when they work to improve the management of the inter relationships between social and ecological systems…”.

28. Kruijssen et al. (2009) discuss the importance of social learning for collective action in the context of smallholder market participation. • Dialogue and social learning foster collective cognition and social capital formation, both of which are necessary for effective joint action. •  Social learning and social capital formation are also key features of innovation processes.

29. A different terminology • Steve Waddel preferred not to use Social Learning when he described large-system change processes. “When formalised into new patterns of working together – often through the creation of new umbrella organisations with participants from diverse parts of society – these mutually beneficial outcomes represent societal learning”.

30. “Societal learning is a process of changing patterns of interactions within and between adverse organisations and social units to enhance society’s capacity to innovate. Large scale problems – such as poverty and environmental degradation – require substantial societal learning in order for lasting change to occur”. Steve Waddel (http://www.pegasuscom.com/bigsyschange.html)

31. A social learning definition that relates to CGIAR work? • Social learning is defined as the process through which groups of people learn, by jointly defining problems, searching for and implementing solutions, and assessing the value of solutions for specific problems (Koelen and Das, 2002). • Social learning brings about a shift from ‘‘multiple cognition” to ‘‘collective cognition”. Individuals involved in social learning processes begin with quite different perceptions of their current situation and the potential for change; as they interact, they develop common, shared perspectives, insights and values.  Source: Personal exchanges ( Andre Devaux, Nov 9th 2012)

32. What do the survey respondents tell us about the relevance of Social Learning for work in CCAFS climate change adaptation research • Climate change is one among many problems faced by the poor smallholder farming communities. Participatory research involves analyzing existing problems and looking for solutions together with a range of stakeholders. (1.7) Addressing climate change, whether mitigation or adaptation, is going to require changes in people’s behaviour. Suggesting or mandating change from on high has long proven fraught with difficulties and fatal errors. The human variability (along with the environmental variability) globally means we simply cannot decide what the answer is and apply across the board. That doesn’t work. We really need to be tailoring both mitigation and adaptation efforts to local contexts, and that will necessitate the help of local people – a shared learning approach that analyzes, plans, mitigates/adapts, monitors what happens, and improves on initial results, in an iterative manner.  - Carol Colfer

33. Lets be reminded • The research community is recognizing the need to go beyond technological fixes...Governance is an overarching factor. Non-technological factors have remained "invisible for too long”. (Wale Adekunle) http://www.slideshare.net/gcard/p31-adekunle-ssa-cp-pls-and-innovation-platforms

34. Source: Wale Adekunle. Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms. Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program. GCARD 2. October 28-November 1, 2012. Uruguay.

35. Source: Wale Adekunle. Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms. Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program. GCARD 2. October 28-November 1, 2012. Uruguay.

36. Source: Wale Adekunle. Working with National Innovation Pilot Learning Sites and Inter-regional Innovation Platforms. Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program. GCARD 2. October 28-November 1, 2012. Uruguay.

37. "There are many implementing groups, facilitators, and communities of practice experts as there are methods" • Even if in isolated pockets - not coordinated or mainstreamed into programs – there is rich array of field tested social learning related approaches within the CG system • We need to recognize that the diversity as it meets different needs of researchers. Researchers might become engaged in social learning for different reasons. We need to grant that this accounts for the range of approaches.

38. INDIVIDUAL FARMER LEVEL: Farmer engagement in diagnosis (PRA typed) or in evaluating technologies, to more complex participatory breeding programs   • COMMUNITY LEVEL: Community-based biodiversity management, adaptive co -management, co-management, etc. • MULTISCALE LEVEL: Innovation platforms, learning alliances, multistakeholder platforms, etc.

39. At whatever scale we work a learning framework should apply... should be relevant...

40. Need for learning framework Source: For a full discussion refer to “Integrating research, development and learning to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor in LAC” by Mark Lundy

41. At the heart of it is the development of methods, tools and approaches that facilitate learning and skills development. Then comes knowledge management (“improvement of information backbone”) . Elements of process: • Begin at the beginning • Measure what matters consistently • Invest in relationships • Cultivate an organisational-support network

42. Innovation development should include methodological development • Regional innovation platforms should be promoted and eventually facilitated by CG center to play useful roles in fostering R&D methods and strengthening national innovation capacities for promoting pro-poor innovation processes. (2.13)

43. Methodological diversity • What the stocktaking exercise came up with

44. Check out the cases recommended by respondents in this survey

45. Participatory Market Chain Analysis/Value Participatory Communications (ICT, participatory video, etc.) Participatory Plant Breeding, and Participatory Varietal Selection, Community Biodiversity Management Decision-based approaches eg. Adaptation Pathways-WorldFish Multi stakeholder dialogue platforms Social Learning for Climate Change Research Innovation Platforms Farmer Field Schools/ CIALS Impact Pathway Approaches, Horizontal Evaluation Adaptive Collaborative Management, CBM, and Co-Management and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms Gender analysis/ Gender differentiation Learning Alliances BUILDING ON CG EXPERIENCES TO SHAPE SL APPROACHES FOR CCAFS CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH J.F. Gonsalves 2012

46. Recognize that communities and individuals are already adapting and coping with climate variability and associated change • Recognize that scientists will use different entry points for bringing in SL perspective • Participatory assessments have to be deepened (e.g. superficial vulnerability assessments won’t help) to understand how communities cope with adversity

47. We should celebrate this diversity in social learning related approaches in the CGIAR

48. What about the question of different scales (local national?)

49. “Addressing climate change, whether mitigation or adaptation, is going to require changes in people’s behaviour. We really need to be tailoring both mitigation and adaptation efforts to local contexts, …with the help of local people – a shared learning approach that analyzes, plans, mitigates/ adapts, monitors what happens, and improves on initial results”. - Carol J. Pierce Colfer

50. Relevance of local scale engagement in climate change work We have to deal with location specificities: • Agro-ecological, climatic, culture, etc. • Climate change scenarios must get close to reality and on the other challenge in bringing locally derived solutions to scale