Thanks Marianne for this brief report of a very nice event to "close" this IFAD Grant work and pass the bâton to WLE.
I see a huge potential for IFAD and its programming to benefit from a better understanding of and engagement with CGIAR research-for-development in general, since IFAD and CGIAR share a lot of their values and objectives, and IFAD, unlike other lending or granting development agencies, still has a broad set of in-house technical skills. But instead of an ad hoc mechanism where CGIAR researchers or programs are brought on board a bit like consultants, we could probably try to develop a mechanism where the CGIAR pool of expertise could be brought in more systematically, especially in countries where both institutions are focusing their efforts. I think this is what this IFAD grant has also tried to explore, but there is still a long way to go. But we can't say "no" to such an opportunity !
CPWF has in many instances and with many partners enabled a shift in mindsets and behaviours in the way R4D is considered and implemented. By supporting mainstreaming of CPWF innovations, IFAD also intended to make this happen in its development interventions, among others through its Country Portfolio Managers. The "old model" where countries were not ready to use loans to finance and develop R4D is actually out-of-date now in most countries (past in the 90's e.g. Pakistan and Tunisia were already dedicating 2% of their World Bank loans on irrigation and drainage projects to R4D).
Therefore a shift in mindsets and behaviours could be to have IFAD Country Portfolio Managers think more (if not always) of a R4D component in the country actions they formulate. This could be supported by mobilizing the pool of expertise provided by CGIAR, among others through secondments of CGIAR Programs' staff to IFAD (as presently CCAFS and A4NH do).
Thanks Marianne for this brief report of a very nice event to "close" this IFAD Grant work and pass the bâton to WLE.
I see a huge potential for IFAD and its programming to benefit from a better understanding of and engagement with CGIAR research-for-development in general, since IFAD and CGIAR share a lot of their values and objectives, and IFAD, unlike other lending or granting development agencies, still has a broad set of in-house technical skills. But instead of an ad hoc mechanism where CGIAR researchers or programs are brought on board a bit like consultants, we could probably try to develop a mechanism where the CGIAR pool of expertise could be brought in more systematically, especially in countries where both institutions are focusing their efforts. I think this is what this IFAD grant has also tried to explore, but there is still a long way to go. But we can't say "no" to such an opportunity !
CPWF has in many instances and with many partners enabled a shift in mindsets and behaviours in the way R4D is considered and implemented. By supporting mainstreaming of CPWF innovations, IFAD also intended to make this happen in its development interventions, among others through its Country Portfolio Managers. The "old model" where countries were not ready to use loans to finance and develop R4D is actually out-of-date now in most countries (past in the 90's e.g. Pakistan and Tunisia were already dedicating 2% of their World Bank loans on irrigation and drainage projects to R4D).
Therefore a shift in mindsets and behaviours could be to have IFAD Country Portfolio Managers think more (if not always) of a R4D component in the country actions they formulate. This could be supported by mobilizing the pool of expertise provided by CGIAR, among others through secondments of CGIAR Programs' staff to IFAD (as presently CCAFS and A4NH do).