WLE Legacy Series

The growing relevance of research on gender and social inclusion in agricultural research for development calls for systemic, transformative change processes. Transformative gender ambitions can stand at odds with personal biases and experiences that shape diverse understandings of gender, institutional values, structures and cultures that tend to reward technological quick-fix solutions, and other practical challenges to ‘doing’ gender on the ground. Very little is known about these challenges. How are these challenges navigated by (relatively small) teams of gender researchers, who are often caught between the demand for tangible fast gains on gender, and the intractable challenges of deep-rooted and complex, intersectional gender inequalities? This was the focus of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) End of Program Reflection and Evaluation (EoPRE) to assess how gender and inclusion research is pursued, and the key barriers to knowing and doing gender in eight research projects. Adopting a reflexive, self-analytical feminist approach to evaluation, this EoPRE facilitated eight project teams, diverse and with an uneven focus on gender, to connect the dots between the processes of knowing and doing gender research. A key finding of this evaluation is that the need for change is foremost internal. We need to begin by fixing our personal biases and assumptions, and fixing institutional cultures, values and structures instead of just trying to fix things out there, including fixing poor and marginalized women. A key recommendation is to seek more regular and open conversations across researcher disciplines and hierarchies, and between CGIAR and external partners and stakeholders, including feminist grassroots actors and networks – on what works well (and does not) and why. This would allow us to grasp why we start with different meanings and conceptualizations of gender; how agile we are (or not) in adapting to changes on the ground; and how, through a culture of reflection and learning, we might shift pathways to more transformative change processes in a fast evolving and increasingly unequal world.

This paper explores outcome indicators and process principles to evaluate landscape resilience in agro-ecosystems, drawing on outcome indicator case studies of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). Four questions are addressed: (1) which outcome indicators and process principles feature most prominently in the seminal literature on resilient agro-ecological landscapes? (2) to what extent are these principles represented in CGIAR Outcome Impact Case Reports (OICRs) and selected peer-reviewed studies? (3) how does the use of process principles in the case studies compare to their occurrence in the theoretical literature? and (4) which process principles co-occur with related outcome indicators in the OICRs? The findings enable researchers and practitioners to be more specific about the outcomes and processes that drive resilience in agro-ecosystems, thereby informing adaptive program management. Seven novel research themes are proposed.

With adverse impacts of climate change growing in number and intensity, there is an urgent need to reduce emissions from food systems to net zero. This can only be achieved if rural areas in low- and middle-income countries gain access to clean energy. A review of the research and capacity building contributions of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) over the last 10 years suggests important contributions in the areas of energy policy and energy investment planning, cost and feasibility frameworks, and business models for clean energy technology uptake. WLE has also conducted successful pilot projects on solar irrigation to provide an evidence base for scaling up innovative energy initiatives. Finally, the program also considered non-agricultural uses of energy where relevant to food systems, and implemented capacity building activities. Going forward, CGIAR has a key role to play in providing information, supporting access and piloting innovative, scalable clean energy interventions to support the achievement of multiple impacts for the poorest and most food-insecure women and men farmers and entrepreneurs.

At the end of 2021, CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) will be replaced by Initiatives housed within One CGIAR. This new modality is intended to achieve higher levels of impact at a faster rate and at reduced cost compared to the CRPs. As One CGIAR begins, there is a unique opportunity to reflect on what has worked in different contexts. In this paper, we provide findings that relate to One CGIAR’s overarching view of how it will achieve positive and measurable impacts, and for agricultural research for development (AR4D) more generally. Specifically, we draw from three related CRP evaluations to identify how different types of AR4D approaches have contributed to successful outcomes. In the final section of the paper, we present our conclusions and provide a list of recommendations for the science and technology policy of One CGIAR and possibly other integrated research for development programs.

This paper argues for more creativity and flexibility in agricultural research for development (AR4D) scaling and impact evaluation in complex contexts. While acknowledging the importance of setting reasonable end-of-project targets and outcomes, we argue that the achievement of outcomes and impacts, particularly in complex contexts, requires adaptive management and acknowledgment that significant positive outcomes and impacts may occur after the project funding cycle is complete. The paper presents a practitioner-developed approach to scaling AR4D innovations called Impact Tracking (IT). We illustrate IT in practice by presenting three case studies from Ethiopia in which IT proved crucial to achieving impact. The paper concludes by drawing lessons from the case studies and discussing what implications IT may have for development practitioners.