CCAFS-ILRI Workshop on Communications and Social Learning in Climate Change

8-10 May 2012
ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa

Working group: Supporting endogenous social learning



This group was represented by: Alison Shaw and Blane Harvey.


(During the 'foundational' workshop of May 2012, five priority change areas were identified, which later formed a major part of the CCSL agenda - as mentioned in a synthesis paper published after the workshop. This page relates the unpolished discussion notes from the working group that defined the agenda for this change area, for the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security [CCAFS] and more broadly for the CCSL group. Each of these five change areas remains an important aspect of the CCSL strategy).

See the working group presentations:

Presentation


1. Opportunity Assessment
  • Scan of regions
  • Selection criteria
    • Region/scale
    • Relevance/reputation
    • Capacity
    • Affinity with CCAFS

2. Learning and Evaluative Framework

3. Joint Needs Assessment
  • Local innovation support funds
  • Research support - cc and food security
  • Repackaging
  • Capacity building
  • Documenting support
  • Social differentiation support

4. Analysis & Outcomes
  • Documentation - throughout process
    • Iterative interpretation as part of meaning-making
  • Individual & comparative analyses
    • Effectiveness matrix/impact of social learning
    • What makes it effective/impactful?
    • When/how?
    • What is scalable and when?What is contextual?
  • Re-evaluation: 2+ years
    • Analyze and evaluate long-term social learning impacts
    • Re-evaluate user needs
    • Return to process as needed

5. Linking across scales
  • Networks
  • Governance
  • Peer learning

6. Influencing & Strategic Catalyzing
  • Internal/external stakeholders
  • Timing of strategic interventions/levers for change

7. Ongoing Outreach & Support Functions

Time:
  • Pilot: 2+ years
  • Reevaluation: 3 months at year 4

Budget: $300K+

Social Differentiation:
  • Throughout process
  • Entry points: 1b/c, 2, 3, 4/b, 5, 6, 7

Previous notes (from plenary presentation)
Discussion on a presentation about 3 pilot projects/initiatives set up which will provide documentation etc
  • Need to identify key areas between CCAFS and the 3 cases;
  • Supporting documentation through 3 pilot projects, analysis of individual projects to identify key social learning indicators, what is scalable, what impacts do these projects have;
  • Go back to the analysis after the 2 years to measure impact;
  • Goal of using analysis : linking partners;

Feedback from the group

  • CCAFS and partners look for opportunities internally and externally. Where are the opportunities , should not only coming from CCAFS;
  • Working on 3 projects over 2 yrs period would help engage partners and conclude + analysis + maintaining relationship w partners and reevaluating needs, if needs changed going back to the process again;
  • Budget for 3 pilot project 300 000$;
  • Social differentiation would be included all the way in the process.
  • Q : What exactly is endogenous social learning ?
    • A : ex : nomadic pastoralists, where do they find knowledge, water holes for women, informal information going around, about markets etc, this knowledge diffuses fast

  • Q :How is this taking place ? What are the factors that allow it to take place ?
    • A: Spaces used are already there, not imposed (this is part of the selection criteria)

  • Q : Monitoring ? How is it included ?
    • A : in a dialogue with partners, the stakeholders in this case. Previously it was an evaluative framework, now partners should determine what indicators should be used.

  • Q : what communities are you going for ?
    • A : Knowledge centers, generated through local intiatives, not really communities per se. Selection criteria would cross different scales.

  • Q : How would we go about mapping ?
  • Q : Identify the case studies is a big undertaking, how can it be done ?
  • Q : Evaluation, who is benefitting ?
    • A : The ‘scan’ we propose hopes to identify those spaces. Comment : Innovations need to come through more.

  • Q : Mainstream through the CG ? or differently ?
    • A : partners were not emphasized enough

  • Q : Who is CCAFS really ? should we change it to ‘CCAFS network’ ?
    • The ultimate ambition is dual learning. CCAFS is not the only actor of change, it has to provide a live example of social learning;

  • In terms of community of practice, bucket means nothing, basket is better, it maintains the idea of miscellaneous;
  • How is the basket going to be dynamic ?
    • We focus on the basket first, CRP next;

  • The community of practice becomes an enabling environment. Communication has to be part of the framework design . « a growing dynamic basket », constantly filling. « the wizard of CCAFS »