Theory of Change Change of Theory?!

Documented experiences on Humidtropics on how progress and/or deviations were made from the original ToC + Lessons for R4D actors involved in system research.

Piet van Asten IITA p.vanasten@cgiar.orgMarc Schut WUR/IITA m.schut@cgiar.orgBoru Douthwaite Consultant bdouthwaite@gmail.comSandra Bos Consultant sandra-bos@live.nlJoanna Scales Consultant joannascales2@hotmail.co.ukIngrid Oborn ICRAF i.oborn@cgiar.orgCees Leeuwis WUR cees.leeuwis@wur.nlKwesi Atta-Krah IITA k.atta-krah@cgiar.org

• Background research• Research Approach• Storyline 1 – Original ToC• Storyline 2 – Espoused ToC• Storyline 3 – ToC in Use• Reflection on implementation of ToC• Lessons from comparing the ToCs• Recommendations

Content

• The Theory of Change (ToC) of Humidtropics offered an alternative to ‘classical’ more ‘linear’ CGIAR research approaches -> from R4D to RinD

• Demand-driven & holistic: wicked development problems require context-specific innovation and action by interdependent stakeholders

• Being closed as Systems CRP after ‘only’ 4 years of implementation -> move to an Agri-Food Systems (AFS) approach: what did we learn?

– SWOT and causality of the ToC model underpinning livelihood systems research

– Recommendations for AFS CRPs to effectively implement systems approaches

Background & Objectives

Humidtropics ToC is evaluated by using Argyris and Schön’s theories in action (Argyris & Schön, 1974): Mental models that influence the way in which people plan, implement, and review program activities.

Three story lines identified for Humidtropics:

1. Original ToC: based on document review of original proposal (Humidtropics, 2012)

2. Espoused ToC: An agreed understanding by program level stakeholders of how the original ToC was meant to be implemented, through key informant interviews.

3. ToC in Use: The way in which the ToC was translated and implemented by field level stakeholders. Compare 3 case studies, using elements of ‘Most Significant Change’ Methodology (Davies & Dart, 2005).

Research approach

• Enhancing capacity to innovate at farm, institutional, and landscape level

• IP and R4D Platforms help to identify and prioritize site specific opportunities

• Site constraints become entry points for integrated system research

• SRTs will guide the systems research process to achieve the desired situation

• Open interpretation and little guidance to streamline change processes

• Geels multi-level model of socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2004) was introduced merely as a potential idea under SRT3

• First three years were planned to establish the learning and institutional infrastructure necessary to carry out research.

Original ToC

• Open agenda, Integrated system research, Institutional innovation• Geels multi-level model more prominent place to explain the change process

Espoused ToC

Yellow boxes refer to assumptions, white boxes are expected outcomes.

Developed through the study of three ‘successful’ innovation platforms

• Leadership by local government

• Research agenda: broad focus on vegetables and livestock

• Not build on existing programs or partnerships

• Outcomes: MoU signed between IP farmers and Vegetable seed company; Vegetable delivery service by Youth group; IP ideas integrated into national policy.

ToC in use

UgandaMukono-Wakiso IP

• Leadership in hands of World Vegetable Center

• Research agenda: focus on commercial vegetable production and value chain constraints

• Build on government structure (cooperative model)

• Outcomes: Established cooperative for vegetable farmers; IP farmers are VietGAP certified; Contract for daily delivery to school.

VietnamVegetable IP

• Leadership in hands of CIAT

• Research agenda: on cocoa and cross cutting themes including gender and human rights

• Build on CIAT’s existing work with Learning Alliances

• Outcomes: Farmer decision making tool; Huge steps made around gender equality and rights.

NicaraguaCocoa alliance

Progress made1. Functional platforms are established in the action sites2. The program managed to realize local level partnerships3. Experimentation on IP level takes place4. A better understanding on Humidtropics’ ToC after 4 years’ of learning

Reflection on implementationby program level stakeholders

Challenges1. Limited understanding of ToC by some CGIAR program partners

2. Much focus was establishing IPs, but little attention to research

3. Poor timing and limited implementation of SRT approach

4. No proper M&E system in place to capture progress on ToC

5. Frustration around budget allocations by CGIAR researchers

6. ToC was not clear and practical from the beginning

7. Scaling principles were not incorporated from the start

Reflection on implementationby platform stakeholders

Progress made1. Establishment of new partnerships and the program’s structure to facilitate

consolidation of partnerships were highly appreciated; 2. IP stakeholders became aware of the relevance of a livelihood approach and

learned how to better address farmers needs;3. Access to markets created stronger engagement and excitement among all

stakeholders: it is key to the sustainability of the IP; 4. Market access provides the proof of benefits for farmers to actually incorporate

new practices promoted by scientists.

Challenges / recommendations1. Lack of money invested in action areas to engage CGIAR centers in IPs

2. Bring stakeholder groups on board in a stepwise approach

3. Limited budget for meetings/logistics

• ToC in Use is consistent with the Espoused ToC relating to IPs

• Initial stages of IP focuses on building partnerships

• A need for applied research only comes later in the IP process

• Open agenda is good to start, but quick focus on value chain opportunity needed to sustain momentum

Lessons from comparing the espoused ToC and ToC in use

1. The ToC supported new innovations and partnerships

2. Systems thinking resonates with farmers, policy actors and other IP stakeholders that work across disciplines and scales.

3. CGIAR disciplinary scientists showed limited involvement:a) Lack of financial incentives to engage in Humidtropics ToCb) Stakeholders’ priorities did not align well with scientists’ personal &

institutional mandates and preferencesc) Scientists’ investments in building partnerships, trust and agenda-

setting were perceived to not generate ‘quick’ returnsd) Most scientists prefer ’controlled’ studying of single factors across many

sites, whereas stakeholders require solutions that need integration of many factors in a single site.

Conclusions

RecommendationThe integrated systems and ‘open agenda’ approach responds to the needs of key stakeholders (farmers, policy makers), but creates few research incentives for CGIAR scientists. The CRP-II programs may need to invest in crossing this divide if they wish to accelerate scaling and achieve ‘site integration’

Change of theory?!

Y = G ☓ E ☓ MYield = Germplasm x Environment x Management

Y : success of HumidtropicsG : strenght of the Theory of Change -> still looking pretty robustE : institutional environnment -> poor institutional support in CGIARM : management capacity -> variable human resource capacity

Big thanks to:Humidtropics management, Flagship leaders, Cluster leaders,

Action site coordinators, Field site coordinators, Partners, and so many others.....

Thank you for listening!