Report of the combined workshop of the Standing Panel on

Report of the combined workshop of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment and the 6th meeting of the CGIAR Task Force

on Integrated Natural Resources Management, held at IRRI headquarters, Los Baños, The Philippines

June 13-16th, 2005.

Combined workshop of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the CGIAR and the 6th meeting of the CGIAR Task Force on Integrated Natural Resources Management

2

Contents

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................3 Workshop opening ..........................................................................................................................................................3 Foreword by the ICARDA Director General and Chair of the INRM Task Force .........................................................3 Summary of the workshop activities ...............................................................................................................................4 The SPIA case studies .....................................................................................................................................................5 Examples of CGIAR efforts towards Integrated Natural Resources Management and the role of monitoring and evaluation..................................................................................................................................................................5 Lessons learned from the case studies.............................................................................................................................5 Challenges for the SPIA IA case studies.........................................................................................................................6 Conclusion of Impact Assessment Case Studies .............................................................................................................7 International Public Goods generated through INRM research......................................................................................7 The revised INRM guidelines for implementing INRM research...................................................................................9 Responding to the demand-side for INRM ...................................................................................................................11

ANNEX I: WORKSHOP PROGRAM .....................................................................................................13

ANNEX II: POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS SPIA/INRM COMBINED MEETING ..............................16 ANNEX III: POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS INRM TASK FORCE MEETING....................................69

ANNEX IV. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................101


3

INTRODUCTION

At the 5th meeting held at ICRAF in October 2003, the INRM Task Force decided that its next meeting should focus on International Public Good aspects of NRM research and on Impact Assessment (IA). During the inaugural meeting of the CGIAR Science Council held in ICARDA in May 2004 a suggestion was made that, as the interests of the INRM Task Force coincided with that of the SPIA, it would be appropriate and efficient to combine these meetings.

Consequently the main objective of the combined meeting was to learn from the experiences within and outside the CGIAR system and to examine and agree on strategies and methodologies for IA that takes into account the multi-faceted nature of NRM interventions and how to monitor and evaluate them both at the local level and at the overall project level.

Workshop opening The workshop was opened by the Acting DG of IRRI, Dr. William Pandolina on behalf of the DG, Dr. Robert Zeigler. Dr. Pandolina welcomed participants to the IRRI campus and emphasized that the mission of the CGIAR is to manage natural resources in order to maintain productivity while minimizing impact on the environment. IRRI maintains several long-term trials to study this in irrigated rice-based systems. Dr. Adel El-Beltagy, INRM Task Force Chair and DG of ICARDA then briefly introduced the work of the Task Force and outlined the expected outcomes of the meeting. Dr. Hans Gregersen from the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) explained the background, purpose and objectives of the SPIA study on NRM work within the CGIAR centres and welcomed the opportunity to combine the SPIA meeting with the 6th INRM workshop. He emphasized that SPIA is focusing on the impacts of NRM research in the CGIAR and not on how the centres are implementing this research.

Foreword by the ICARDA Director General and Chair of the INRM Task Force Distinguished guests, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

This is the 6th meeting of the INRM Task Force. The CGIAR has always been engaged in Natural Resource Management Research, but it came to the fore around 1998 with an increased emphasis on the protection and enhancement of our natural resources both to reduce the damaging effect of agriculture on the environment and to help realize the potential of the advances made in our germplasm improvement programs, especially for the rural poor, who some believe were excluded from the Green Revolution. INRM became to be known within the CGIAR as the second pillar to integrated genetic resource management in the efforts to support agricultural productivity.

This Task Force was established in 1998 and meetings have been held in − Bilderberg, The Netherlands, 1999 − Penang, Malaysia, 2000 − Cali, Colombia, 2001 − Aleppo, Syria, 2002 − Nairobi, Kenya 2003 − and now in Los Baños, Philippines, 2005-05-23


4

Each meeting has emphasized particular aspects of the development of a comprehensive, holistic approach to Natural Resources Management Research with the Aleppo meeting resulting in an operational framework consisting of a set of cornerstones that act as guidelines for those who design, implement, practice, monitor and evaluate projects on NRM.

During the evolution of NRM research within the CGIAR voices have been raised that question the role of the CGIAR in this type of research. Some have questioned the outputs and outcomes of NRM research claiming it has not had equivalent impact when compared with other areas of research especially improved germplasm. Few assessments of NRM research were available subsequent to this meeting. The CGIAR subsequently established the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) that works in cooperation with the Science Council to document the impacts of NRM research.

Last year, during the inaugural meeting of the new Science Council in Aleppo, the suggestion was put forward that, as both SPIA and the INRM Task Force were actively considering IA, that we should combine a meeting of the two to thoroughly examine the question of IA of NRM research. Indeed one of the recommendations of the 5th INRM workshop was to link SPIA and a sub-group of the INRM Task Force on IA. Hence we have come to the 6th meeting where we will

− examine IA and − later consider what are the international public goods of CGIAR NRM research and − how can we scale out the approach to and with our partners, predominantly the

NARS. We hope that by the end of the meeting we will have determined a clear pathway to

measure IA of NRM research with some examples and how these examples are in fact IPG. We also wish to put in place an agreed scaling out strategy for NRM research to be done in close collaboration with our partners.

I wish you all a successful workshop.

Summary of the workshop activities The first two days consisted of the presentation and discussion of the 7 case studies of SPIA plus two additional interventions from IRRI on its experiences with rice-based systems (see Annex I for the program). This was followed on Day 3 by joint SPIA-INRM Task Force sessions on case studies and methodological issues on IA and IPG aspects of NRM research.

Included were examples from some CGIAR centres of monitoring and evaluation as measures of IA that differ from ex post IA, and which considered the multi-faceted nature of INRM studies. A summary of lessons learned from the SPIA and other studies was presented by Professor D. Zilberman. This was followed by a presentation on the International Public Goods (IPG) nature of CGIAR projects delivered by Professor Richard Harwood. The workshop then used a case study from IPGRI on banana biodiversity as an example of how to build in IA and IPG into projects. Separate working groups were organized to deliberate on 1) IA and 2) IPG as a learning and exchange exercise.

On Day 4 the working group sessions were presented in plenary and discussed. This session was followed by the presentation of the draft revised guidelines for operationalizing INRM and a strategy for wider dissemination including the need for combined centre efforts on training and capacity building in order to achieve scaling out impacts.

Concrete outputs expected from this meeting will be publications on the SPIA case studies and recommendations on how to measure IA and the Guidelines for implementing the INRM approach.


5

At the closing ceremony Dr R. Wang of IRRI thanked participants for travelling great distances and for their efforts to reach the achieved outcomes. Dr. Hans Gregersen indicated that all participants had learned a great deal from the meeting and had benefited from the exchange of views and experiences. Dr. El-Beltagy extended a vote of thanks to all concerned IRRI staff for their superb logistical arrangements, especially S. Pandey, Lydia Damian and Deborah Templeton. Dr. Beltagy also thanked Dr. Dick Harwood for his efforts to further the cause of INRM within the CGIAR system and looked forward to his further interactions with the INRM group.

The SPIA case studies 1. Participatory technology development in cassava cropping systems in Asia – CIAT

2. Crop-livestock systems in Morocco and Tunisia – ICARDA

3. The sustainability of forest management: Assessing the impact of CIFOR’s criteria and indicators research – CIFOR

4. Fertilizer trees in Southern Africa – World Agroforestry Centre 5. Irrigation management transfer – IWMI

6. Zero tillage in India – CIMMYT

7. Development of integrated aquaculture/agriculture in Malawi – World Fish Centre IRRI case studies: 1. An assessment of the impact of IPM in southern Vietnam 2. Soil conservation in the Philippine uplands.

The presentations of these case studies are included as Annex II.

Examples of CGIAR efforts towards Integrated Natural Resources Management and the role of monitoring and evaluation

1. Putting INRM into agricultural support programs: Lessons in M&E from ICRISAT-Zimbabwe. S. Twomlow, ICRISAT.

2. Linking INRM cornerstones into an output, outcome and Impact Assessment framework. F. Place, World Agroforestry Centre

3. Evaluation for institutional learning and change. Boru Douthwaite, CIAT

4. Project example for IA/IPG development: Managing banana diversity to improve rural livelihoods in Uganda; a preliminary evaluation of natural resource management impacts. R. Markham, IPGRI

The presentations of these case studies are included as Annex III.

Lessons learned from the case studies It was clear from the presentations that NRM projects are diverse and IA approaches and issues are necessarily very variable, crossing time and spatial scales beyond the normal research project of 3-5 years duration. The interdependence of natural resources within natural management systems (where humans interplay with the natural resources) was recognised as complicating factors for IA.


6

Challenges for the SPIA IA case studies Recognising that the CGIAR addresses orphan crops and markets that are usually neglected by the private sector, that the research provides public goods (technical, institutional and policy options) and provides capacity that can achieve outputs via applied research and networks, there was a perception that the NRM case studies under-estimated some major features needed for sustainable system assessment.

These include the environmental impacts, the dynamics, distributional effect, and risk. Meanwhile, there was overemphasis of static agricultural issues. The main causes are methods and data limitations. Ensuring that the results are meaningful at a global scale through global networks (in and outside the CG) was thought to need further elaboration.

Eight lessons were drawn from a synthesis of the case studies by David Zilbermann. 1. The need to incorporate IA in on-going projects and assess impact throughout the lifetime

of the project. This requires developing methods for monitoring of outcomes and using the results for learning and long-term assessment. This lesson matches the learning cornerstones of the INRM approach and the need to conduct IA in two phases, the first being monitoring and evaluation by the participants in NRM projects and the second the ex post IA normally requested by donor agencies and others.. A suggestion was made here that the CG may consider introducing cost accounting-

attributing costs to projects for better project assessment, accountability and transparency. However it was noted that this may be costly. 2. IA for NRM should be a multi-stage process, in an integrated approach, starting with

clearer identification of the problem set and identification of the research network. Farmers should derive the hypotheses and an overall outcome should be agreed. Use of models was seen to be important. Adoption of the interventions should be documented recognizing partial adoption, adaptation and disadoption. Sources of heterogeneity among adopters need to be well understood, including spatial and time scale. Impact measures should include land use changes, outputs, input use, prices, environmental effects, health, poverty and changes in related markets. IA should include numbers (financial) and other measures such as bibliography, follow up on internet downloads, testimonials and a description of the technology history. For attribution purposes there is a need to analyse the research networks.

Economic measures can include consumer surpluses, producers surpluses, government surpluses, environmental benefits all disaggregated by location, time and categories such as farmers, input suppliers and finally the internal rates of return.

These aspects correspond to the NRM Learning Wheel cornerstones on ‘shared focus’, ‘organizational aspects’, ‘facilitation’ and ‘learning’. 1. IA cannot be avoided as CGIAR work is publicly funded and transparency is of

paramount importance to the donors. Donors consider the weight of impact evidence, which requires provision of a successful story with some quantitative and qualitative indicators of impact. Ex-post assessment and provision of future projections are recommended for assessing the impact of on-going projects.

2. NRM systems have diverse internal rates of return (IRR). It was suggested that this can be explained by the limited knowledge of the IRR although some quote very high values. Issues involved include whether or not there is a ‘uniform’ technology to follow and over what scale. But it is generally noted that IRR is highly variable and lower than that of crop breeding research.


7

3. To be credible the IA need good counterfactuals. Other points for further attention include establishing a treatment and control group, sample size, and extra modelling and econometric skills.

4. Research should be located research within a global network of science by presenting results and findings within the context of global knowledge. Consideration of the scaling out issue is essential for CGIAR activities. These should go beyond the CG system and be better integrated into the global scientific community. CG work could be criticized for being too introspective and the discoveries and research outcomes together with patterns of adoption need to be more widely disseminated and communicated to the general scientific community. This corresponds clearly with the INRM cornerstones on ‘scaling up’ and on ‘information’.

5. IA needs to be more effective as it is costly and should be tailored to multiple audiences with multiple outcome messages. It was recognised that IA is useful for donors but crucial for internal project management. Again this observation corresponds to the use of plurality of knowledge forms suggested in the INRM approach.

6. The CG needs further training and networking with new professionals on how to build assessment skills, to become more familiar with systems, to establish disciplinary and inter-disciplinary networks and have a cross-discipline dialogue. These correspond to the cornerstones on ‘partnerships’, ‘teamwork’, ‘facilitation’, ‘organizational’ and ‘information’.

Conclusion of Impact Assessment Case Studies The SPIA team met with the Center’s case study leaders and discussed the comments of peer reviewers and finalization of the studies. It was agreed that center studies be finalized no later than 15th September to be published in the form of refereed book on the basis that each center will have one chapter in the book. A synthesis of the main results will be presented by SPIA Chairman at the AGM meeting to be held in Marakesh, Morocco, December, 2005.

International Public Goods generated through INRM research

R. Harwood, F. Place, A. H. Kassam, H.M. Gregersen

The paper on IPG’s was presented by Dick Harwood who outlined the historical development on NRM work within the CGIAR and emphasized that INRM development requires wide-ranging research outputs, from basic to applied, coordinated across a multi-layered partnership of institutions. The production ecosystems studied cover broad geographical areas (not usually defined by national boundaries) with diversity and gradients in each of the resource domains and in their drivers and that the “embedding” of technologies for change and their extrapolation across those gradients requires scientific tools of several types. Further, development agencies dealing with INRM require a range of research outputs of both goods and services, many of which are most effectively generated at a regional (or broader) international level.

This means that the outputs from NRM research have IPG dimensions that include; • Research coordination services • Development and problem-specific application of a range of INRM tools


8

• Development of principles and procedures for INRM management (and the institutional structures needed)

• Development, embedding and extrapolation of technologies across production Ecosystems

Coordination services encompass regional research coordination that involves more than one country perhaps on an ecoregional basis, or on a river basin or as a cross-cutting topic. Tools include decision support such as GIS models, training tools and process models for key drivers in the resource domains such as econometrics, biogeophysics and demographics. Many NRM outputs can be considered as change elements (e.g., technologies, institutional and policy options) that need to be ‘embedded’ in the particular socio-ecological system under study. GIS and data sets, process models for key system drivers are tools that can be used to embed the intervention. These embedded change elements can be extrapolated across gradients of space and time for the purposes of scaling out and up, for impact analysis, both ex ante and ex post.

Based on the presentations of Dick Harwood and Frank Place we can summarize IPG outputs of INRM research as;

− INRM research tools and decision aids (GIS, ex ante models and tools to inform major investment decisions)

− Multi-country coordination services (methods and numbers of services) − INRM-focused institution building principles − Technologies and management practices that are production-ecosystem embedded and

verified across driver gradients. − Lessons learnt about how INRM processes and systems work for input into decision

making e.g. the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and follow up activities) − Methods used in the valuation of INRM technologies and related environmental

goods and services. The workshop used the example of a project from IPGRI on managing banana diversity to

improve rural livelihoods in Uganda as an exercise to design and develop IPG’s. The working group identified the following possible IPG’s from this project. 1. A strategy for optimizing in situ and ex situ genetic conservation

2. Conservation of the full range of banana genetic diversity in Uganda but in the context of the global genetic diversity of the species.

3. Established property rights and a framework of legal principles safeguarding them.

4. Ways of adding value to the different elements of banana genetic diversity e.g., green labeling, improvements in wine production, development of specific products for niche markets.

5. Map of the genetic attributes of banana varieties against their phenotypic traits.

6. Strengthened institutions at a range of scales (local-national-international) to maintain the diversity over the long term. This is termed as improvement in social capital.

7. Improvements in the INRM approach itself (shortcuts, cost effectiveness).

8. Valuation of the benefits of banana genetic conservation. A second working group used the IPGRI example to develop impact pathways. The

results of this exercise are presented below.


9

Outputs Indicators Means of

verification Established farmer groups Number Head count New management techniques Number Head count Farmers trained in production of new products (wine, handicraft)

Number Head count

Policy recommendations Number and degree of transferability

Head count, citations

Methodology developed Documentation of methods Documentation Experimentation, adaptation and adoption of:

New management techniques % of non-participating farmers who adopt new techniques

Head count

Production of new products (wine, handicraft)

% of non-participating farmers who adopt new techniques

Head count

Group formation Number of groups who formed independently

Head count

Intermediate outcomes Strengthened social capital Stories, stronger social networks Social mapping Maintained or increased diversity Changes in diversity Farm surveys, GPS

transect Greater diversity in farming system (vegetables/livestock)

Change in number & types of commodities grown

Observation, stories

Decreased soil erosion Changes in soil depth Surveys Increased soil fertility Change in productivity Observation, stories Increased banana yields % increase Surveys Increased input use Change in input use Surveys Decrease in banana prices Change in prices Surveys Increased sources of income Changes in sources of income Surveys Change in consumption patterns & levels Changes in consumption Surveys Final outcomes Improved nutrition Increased income Micro enterprise developed Improved or maintained biodiversity More sustainable farming systems

The revised INRM guidelines for implementing INRM research. Following the development of the 11 cornerstones for the implementation of INRM interventions at the 4th INRM workshop held in Aleppo 2002, a small sub-group of the Task Force prepared a guideline booklet that used the inputs from many scientists who participated in the INRM Task Force. A limited edition of the guideline was presented at the workshop. The main feature of the guideline is the explanation of the cornerstones of the Learning Wheel as shown below.


10

NRM Learning Wheel

Further details can be found in the guideline booklet and on the INRM website. Feedback from the participants, especially those that were new to the approach and

concepts indicate that a more detailed introduction is required that clearly shows the INRM research process and how this relates to other CGIAR research.

The guide could be linked to existing websites on INRM where the reader can obtain further details of the outputs of the INRM Task Force including a link to a website, possibly at FAO, where the publication from the CGIAR/Interim Science Council entitled ‘Research Towards Integrated Natural Resources Management: Examples of research problems, approaches and partnerships in action in the CGIAR’ edited by Harwood and Kassam could be accessed. Questions discussed on the guide included: • What are the weak points – can they be strengthened • How to balance the broad diffuse agenda with need to produce concrete outcomes

(discussed generally under IA)


11

• Can the process be evaluated vs. the tangible products (yes the process is one of the IPG’s from NRM research)

• Is it necessary to ‘bound’ the problem? (part of the shared problem identification is to identify a problem set)

• Does the complex approach put donors off? Do they prefer to fund 1-D approach and simplicity? (possibly but clear definition of the problem set should help)

• Do we need more multi-faceted Challenge Programs to mainstream INRM framework? (Probably not but there is a need to extend the approach into existing CP’s such as the Water for Food-CP for example)

• How do we package the research agenda to leverage funds for implementation (better links and specific agreements with donor agencies, UN conventions etc)

• What are the envisioned impacts and can we measure them (findings of SPIA/INRM workshop)

• There is a need to clearly demonstrate in the revised INRM guideline that the INRM approach “improves delivery and increased effectiveness of research” rather than focusing on processes and tools alone.

• It is important to link the INRM guideline to successful case examples (e.g., M&M project) to clearly demonstrate the operationalization of the INRM approach.

Responding to the demand-side for INRM Francis Turkelboom presented a case study on how ICARDA was responding to the demand for the INRM approach and discussed how a complex approach can be best introduced to partners via training courses and other means. Outscaling of ICARDA’s INRM activities includes publications, seminars during regional meetings with NARS, and introductions to INRM during in-house training courses on NRM-related themes. However, experiences indicate a need for more hands-on training in projects with partners where specific interventions such as soil, water and nutrient management technologies can be used to develop the approach and facilitate the introduction of the INRM concepts. Two training approaches were explored: • INRM training by workshop mode: ICARDA’s training has to date involved several

senior staff participating in training events on specific aspects of the INRM approach using the Learning Wheel approach to select topics, tools and methods. ICARDA has developed a suite of methods and tools that are divided into, i) diagnostic tools, ii) problem-solving tools and iii) process tools. Trainees select the tools appropriate for them and are trained in their use in specific projects. Group work with the tools is brought together under project planning exercises.

• A second approach was considered for the Challenge Program on Water for Food operating in the Karkheh River Basin in Iran. For this project, INRM was built into the project design phase. Around 50 inter-disciplinary staff from different institutions are involved, but depending on needs focussed persons are trained via hands-on training through the implementation of the project. ‘Reflection’ points in the learning cycle are used for collective learning. The latter allow for re-adjustments and further training when required.

Lessons learned from the approaches taken includes: • INRM capacity building can be time–demanding, as it addresses complex issues and it

requires reversals of paradigms and values.


12

• Participants need some basic INRM experiences for greater effectiveness. • The time frame for an INRM training workshop is usually at least one week. • Training should take place early in the project cycle. • In inter-disciplinary groups the novelty of the approach is more easily perceived. • Training requires the use of more examples from the CGIAR system and beyond. • Impact requires committed follow up by project managers (especially in early stages of

the project). • Expertise require practise: The more you apply INRM, the easier it become and the more

‘shortcuts’ you can make. • INRM practitioners improve their INRM skills by training others in INRM approaches

and tools. • There is a need for exchanges of experiences of INRM training strategies and tools

among practitioners. Discussion:

− An alternative approach for INRM training was proposed: Start from the ‘comfort zone’ by analysing an existing NRM situation/project. By probing and questioning its problems, one could develop an alternative INRM approach.

− There is a bias to addressing ‘problems’. Instead, we need a ‘positive deviance’ by focussing on what is working and on convincing results.

− We need to collect practical tools and community of practices. − INRMN capacity building needs an institutional approach and involvement of policy

makers. − We have to inform (and infiltrate!) the Science Council and the donor community via

successful INRM case studies and IPG’s coming out of INRM.


13

ANNEX I: WORKSHOP PROGRAM

Joint SPIA-INRM Task Force meeting June 13-16th, 2005 Combined Workshop of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the

CGIAR and the 6th meeting of the CGIAR Task Force on Integrated Natural Resource Management

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), at Los Banos, The Philippines

June 13 – 16, 2005

a). Day 1 Monday, June 13

Time Activity Session 1: Inaugural

08:00–08:30 Registration 08:30–08:40 Welcome to participants

Dr. William Pandolina, Deputy Director General IRRI 08:40–08:50 Opening remarks from INRM Task Force Chair and ICARDA DG,

Dr. A. El-Beltagy 08:50–09:00 Background to SPIA commissioned cases studies by SPIA Chair,

Professor Hans Gregersen chair 09:00–09:10 Introduction to the cases and the format of the session by

H. Waibel 09:10–09:45 Coffee break and photo-taking

Session 2: SPIA Case study presentation and discussion Chair: Hermann. Waibel

09:45–11:00 Participatory Technology Development in Cassava Cropping Systems in Asia Tim Dalton, University of Maine, USA

11:00–12:15 Crop Livestock Systems in Morocco and Tunisia K. Shideed, ICARDA

12:15–13:15 Lunch Break Session 2: SPIA Case study presentation and discussion (continued) Chair: Jim Ryan

13:15–14:30 The sustainability of forest management: Assessing the impact of CIFOR’s criteria and indicators research

P. Frost, CIFOR 14:30–15:00 Coffee Break

Session 2: SPIA Case study presentation and discussion (continued) Chair: Prabhu Pingali

15:00–16:15 Fertilizer Trees in Southern Africa Olu Ajayi, World Agroforestry Centre

16:15–17:00 Wrap up of Day 1 Professor David Zilberman, University of California, USA


14

b). Day 2 Tuesday, June 14 Time Activity Session 3: SPIA case study presentation, continued Chair: Tim Kelly

08:30–09:45 Irrigation Management Transfer in Sri Lanka Meredith Giordano, IWMI

09:45–11:00 Zero Tillage in India O. Erenstein, CIMMYT

11:00–11:30 Coffee Break Session 3: SPIA case study presentation, continued Chair: Hans Gregersen

11:30–12:45 Development of Integrated Aquaculture/Agriculture in Malawi Madan Day, WorldFish

12:15–14:15 Lunch break Session 3: SPIA case study presentation, continued Chair: Ren Wang

14:15–15:00 An assessment of the impact of IPM in Southern Vietnam M. Hossain, IRRI

15:00–15:30 Soil conservation in the Philippine uplands S. Pandey, IRRI

15:30–16:00 Coffee break 16:00–16:30 Wrap up Professor D, Zilberman, University of California, USA 17:00–17:30 Closing of SPIA component of the program

c). Day 3 Wednesday, June 15 Time Activity Session 4: Joint SPIA/INRM discussion Chair: Adel El–Beltagy

08:30–08:45 Session objectives, structure and procedure R. Thomas, ICARDA

08:45–09:45 INRM Examples of M&E from the CG centres-Case from Zimbabwe – Steve Twomlow – ICRISAT

09:45–10:15 Linkage of INRM milestones into a M&E framework Frank Place ICRAF

10:15–10:45 Evaluation for institutional earning and change Boru Douthwaite, CIAT

10:45–11:15 Coffee break 11:15–11:45 The Economics of NRM and Impact Assessment(presentation and

discussion) David Zilberman, University of California

11:45–12:15 International Public goods generated through INRM research – Richard Harwood, Michigan state University, USA

12:15–13:30 Lunch Session 4: IPG from INRM research

13:30–14:00 Introduction of the working group sessions R. Thomas, ICARDA

Maintaining genetic biodiversity of bananas in Uganda Richard Markham, IPGRI

14:00–17:00 Discussion/working groups on IA/IPG statements from INRM task Force


15

d). Day 4 Thursday, June 16 Time Activity Session 5: INRM Task Force deliberations Chair: A. El-Beltagy 08:30–9:30 Presentation of the working groups on IPG and Impact Assessment pathways revised

INRM guidelines – P. Frost, CIFOR, D. Templeton, IRRI

9:30–10:30 Presentation of the revised INRM guidelines and discussion on the guidelines P. Frost, CIFOR, R. Thomas, ICARDA

10:30–11:00 Coffee break 11:00–12:30 Discussion on demand side feedback, training modules,

F. Turkelboom, ICARDA General Discussion and Closing remarks

12:20–13:30 Lunch 13:30–17:00 Visit to IRRI research sites


16

ANNEX II: POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS SPIA/INRM COMBINED MEETING

Natural Resource Management

and the Role of the CGIAR

CGIARCGIAR

The Process to Date1999 Bilderberg, Netherlands

2000 Penang, Malaysia

2001 Cali, Colombia

2002 Aleppo, Syria

2003 Nairobi, Kenya2005 Manila, Philippines

CGIARCGIAR

INRM framework – principles and operational cornerstones

Campbell, Hagmann, Stroud, Thomas, Wollenberg……..

In pre

p.

CGIARCGIAR

CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment

(SPIA)in cooperatrion withthe Science Council

to document impacts of NRM research

CGIARCGIAR

At this 6th meeting we will examine:• The question of the impact assessment of

NRM research

• What are the international public goods of the CGIAR NRM?

• How can we scale out the approach to and with our partner, primarily NARS?

CGIARCGIAR

Thank you

CGIARCGIAR


17

Impact of Participatory Natural Impact of Participatory Natural Resource Management Resource Management

Research in CassavaResearch in Cassava--Based Based Cropping Systems in Vietnam Cropping Systems in Vietnam

and Thailandand Thailand

Nina K. LiljaNina K. Lilja--PRGAPRGANancy JohnsonNancy Johnson--CIATCIAT

Timothy J. DaltonTimothy J. Dalton--University of MaineUniversity of MaineReinhardt HowelerReinhardt Howeler--CIATCIAT

Peter CalkinsPeter Calkins--UniversitUniversitéé LavalLaval

Impact StatementsImpact Statements

Adoption of Adoption of ““embodiedembodied”” technologies technologies Soil Fertility Management StrategiesSoil Fertility Management StrategiesSoil ConservationSoil ConservationCassava cultivarsCassava cultivars

““DisembodiedDisembodied”” impact of participatory approachimpact of participatory approachManagerial capacity, human capital growthManagerial capacity, human capital growth

IntraIntra--village spillover effectvillage spillover effectInstitutional impacts on collaboratorsInstitutional impacts on collaborators

Cassava distribution in Asia. Each dot represents 10,000 ha of cassava

After 27 years of continuous

cropping…….. without fertilizers

in front, with fertilizers in the

back

In Thailand cassava is generally grown by small farmers on lighttextured soils with gentle slopes

In Vietnam cassava is often grown on rather steep slopes

Even on gentle slopes a lot of runoff water can accumulate in natural drainage ways………

…which can break the contour ridges and cause serious gully erosion


18

…or worse…

Nippon Foundation ProjectNippon Foundation Project

CIATCIAT--Asia implementedAsia implemented

Phase I 1994Phase I 1994--19981998

Phase II 1999Phase II 1999--20032003

Investment (nominal)Investment (nominal)Phase I: $1.65 million ($413,000 annually)Phase I: $1.65 million ($413,000 annually)

Phase II: $1.88 million ($378,000 annually)Phase II: $1.88 million ($378,000 annually)

$3.53 million total$3.53 million total

Objectives: To enhance the sustainability of cassava-basedcropping systems in Asia by the widespreadadoption of soil conserving practices.

Strategy: To involve farmers directly in the developmentand dissemination of location-specific, mostsuitable and most effective soil conservingpractices.

FarmFarm--level Productivity and level Productivity and SustainabilitySustainability

Target: To benefit at least 8000 farmers

Institutional ImpactInstitutional Impact

Support national institutions in conducting Support national institutions in conducting strategic and applied researchstrategic and applied researchStrengthen farmer participatory research Strengthen farmer participatory research capacity through trainingcapacity through trainingImprove institutional linkages and acceptance of Improve institutional linkages and acceptance of farmer participatory researchfarmer participatory research

PartnersPartnersNippon Foundation in Japan – funding agencyCIAT Cassava Program for Asia-project implementation

in collaboration with:1. Research and extension organizations in Thailand

-Department of Agriculture (DOA)-Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE)-Land Development Department (LDD)-Kasetsart University (KU)-The Thai Tapioca Development Institute(TTDI)

2. Research and extension organizations in Vietnam-Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry (TNUAF)-National Institute for Soils and Fertilizers (NISF)-Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI)-Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry (HUAF)-Institute of Agricultural Sciences of South Vietnam (IAS)-Tu Duc University of Agric. and Forestry (TDUAF)

3. Research and extension organizations in China -Chinese Academy for Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS)-Guangxi Subtropical Crops Research Institute (GSCRI)-Honghe Animal Husbandry Station of Yunnan

We set out demonstration plots and let farmers evaluate the We set out demonstration plots and let farmers evaluate the various options and select those that seem most promisingvarious options and select those that seem most promising

Farmers conduct FPR Farmers conduct FPR erosion control trials in erosion control trials in

their own fieldstheir own fields

Farmers can see in Farmers can see in their own FPR trials their own FPR trials

that some simple that some simple practices can practices can

markedly reduce markedly reduce runoff and erosionrunoff and erosion


19

Farmers, researchers and extension workers evaluate the treatments in all the FPR trials conducted in the village

Field day at time of harvestField day at time of harvest

After evaluating the trials in the field, farmers discuss the results together to select the best varieties and practices

Field day at time of harvestField day at time of harvest

h

hh

hhhhh

32 3130

3334

28

hhhh h

hhh hh

hhh

h

h

5

123 4

67

1011

12

13 1415

31

16h

hh

98

27h

32h

h28

h27

h

17h 18h19h20h21h

22h23

h24h

hh1 2h3h4h

5h6 h7h8h9

h10h11

h12h13 h

14h15 h16h17

h18h19h20

h21h22

h23h24h25h26

h27h28h29h30

h31

h32

h33

25h26

h15h16h17

h18h19h20

h21h22

h23h24

h29 h

30

1234

56

h

hh

h h

h

78

9

1011

hh

h

h h12h

13h14h

••

•

•

••

•

• •

•

2625 29

Figure 1. Location of FPR pilot sites in China, Thailand and Vietnam in the Nippon Foundation cassava project in 2003.

Number of FPR trials conducted in the 2d phase of the Nippon Foundation Project in China, Thailand and Vietnam.

Country Type of FPR trial 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total China Varieties 9 9 20 69 20 127 Erosion control 3 5 8 17 - 33 Fertilization - - - 4 - 4 Intercropping - - - 9 - 9 Pig feeding - - - 59 - 59 12 14 28 158 20 232 Thailand Varieties 11 16 16 19 25 87 Erosion control 14 10 6 - 11 41 Chemical fertilizers 16 6 23 17 17 79 Chem.+org fertilizers - - 10 11 11 32 Green manures - - 13 11 15 39 Weed control - - 17 5 10 32 Plant spacing - - 3 - 2 5 Intercropping - - 16 7 - 23 41 32 104 70 91 338 Vietnam Varieties 12 31 36 47 35 161 Erosion control 16 28 29 30 23 126 Fertilization 1 23 36 24 24 108 Intercropping - 14 32 31 26 103 Weed control - 3 - - 3 6 Plant spacing - 1 7 19 8 35 Leaf production - - 2 2 1 5 Pig feeding - - 11 16 13 40 29 100 153 169 133 584 Total 82 146 285 397 244 1,154

Seven years after planting contour hedgerows of vetiver grass, these had caused the formation of natural terraces which markedly reduced erosion

Impact Assessment ApproachImpact Assessment Approach

2003 Household2003 Household--level field studylevel field study800 households resulting in 767 usable surveys800 households resulting in 767 usable surveys8 villages per country: 4 project and non8 villages per country: 4 project and non--project project 417 observations in Thailand and 350 in Vietnam417 observations in Thailand and 350 in VietnamNonNon--proportional sampling of a known populationproportional sampling of a known population

Institutional Analysis with CollaboratorsInstitutional Analysis with CollaboratorsFive focus group discussions in 2004Five focus group discussions in 2004Research and extension groupsResearch and extension groups

ControlParticipants Spillover?


20

Econometric ModelingEconometric ModelingBinary Participation Treatment EffectBinary Participation Treatment Effect

Binary Conservation Adoption DecisionBinary Conservation Adoption DecisionBinary Soil Fertility Management AdoptionBinary Soil Fertility Management Adoption→→Series of FIML Bivariate Probit modelsSeries of FIML Bivariate Probit models

otherwisePifP

ZPPUPU

ii

iiiii

0,01

')0()1(*

*

>=

+===>= νδ

[ ].,|,),1,1,0,0(~,

'51'

δβνερρνε

δεβ

ii

ii

iii

iiki

CovwhereBVN

vZPkforXA

=

+=

=+= K

Productivity and Behavioral ChangesProductivity and Behavioral Changes

Continuous Behavioral and Productivity effectsContinuous Behavioral and Productivity effects→→Simultaneity with adoption decisionsSimultaneity with adoption decisions

WW includes predicted adoption/use decisionsincludes predicted adoption/use decisions2SLS2SLS

[ ] [ ])(

,,1|,,1|

iuiii

iiiiiiiiiij

i

ZPWPuEPWPCEδλρσαφ

δφαφδφ−++=

=++==

Regression VariablesRegression Variables

Binary Dependent VariablesBinary Dependent VariablesParticipationParticipationIntercroppingIntercroppingHedgerowsHedgerowsContour ridgingContour ridgingFarm yard manureFarm yard manureChemical fertilizerChemical fertilizer

Continuous (Behavior and Continuous (Behavior and Productivity Changes)Productivity Changes)

ΔΔCropped Area Cropped Area ΔΔCassava AreaCassava AreaΔΔYieldYield

ExplanatoryExplanatoryDemographic Demographic Wealth statusWealth statusAgricultural Opportunity CostsAgricultural Opportunity CostsCountryCountryCollaboratorsCollaboratorsLocation specific controlsLocation specific controlsVillage spilloverVillage spilloverTime since project initiationTime since project initiationPredicted adoption decisionsPredicted adoption decisionsImproved variety useImproved variety useParticipation Effect and Participation Effect and Treatment correction (Treatment correction (λλ))

Results: Results: ““To participate or not toTo participate or not to…”…”

Participation mattersParticipation mattersEmbodied impactEmbodied impact

Positive and significantly correlated in adoption Positive and significantly correlated in adoption regressionsregressions--in hedgerows, ridging and manure systemsin hedgerows, ridging and manure systems

Disembodied impactDisembodied impactPositive and significant impact in yield changePositive and significant impact in yield change

IntraIntra--village Spillover Effectsvillage Spillover Effects

Positive and significant in the adoption of:Positive and significant in the adoption of:HedgerowsHedgerowsContour ridgingContour ridgingFarmyard manureFarmyard manure

Positive and significant in yield change equationPositive and significant in yield change equation

Selection Equation: Who Participated?Selection Equation: Who Participated?

Adult family members (+)Adult family members (+)More More ““landedlanded”” (+)(+)Animal agriculture present (+)Animal agriculture present (+)Collaborating institutionsCollaborating institutions

Conservation AdoptionConservation Adoption

More More ““landedlanded”” (+)(+)Animal agriculture present (+)Animal agriculture present (+)Country differencesCountry differencesTime since project initiation (+)Time since project initiation (+)Proximity to starch factory (+HR/Proximity to starch factory (+HR/--IC,CR)IC,CR)Poverty, gender and adult # in only selectedPoverty, gender and adult # in only selected

Fertility Management Fertility Management

No consistent variablesNo consistent variablesDependent variable does not measure intensityDependent variable does not measure intensityNo check on beforeNo check on before--project level of usageproject level of usage


21

Land Allocation BehaviorLand Allocation Behavior

Cropped AreaCropped AreaTLU (+)TLU (+)Slope (+)Slope (+)Contour Ridging (Contour Ridging (--))

Male headed (Male headed (--))Initial land holdings (Initial land holdings (--))Vietnam (Vietnam (--))

Cassava AreaCassava AreaTLU (+)TLU (+)Slope (+)Slope (+)Contour Ridging (Contour Ridging (--))

Variety use (+)Variety use (+)

Yield ImpactYield Impact

Initial land holdings (Initial land holdings (--))Animal agriculture (Animal agriculture (--))Vietnam (+)Vietnam (+)Proximity to starch factory (+)Proximity to starch factory (+)Variety use (+)Variety use (+)Adoption of Hedgerows (+)Adoption of Hedgerows (+)Participation (+)Participation (+)Village Spillover (+)Village Spillover (+)

Greatest marginal impactsGreatest marginal impacts

33rdrd greatest marginal impactgreatest marginal impact

4th4th

5th5th

Summary of Econometric Summary of Econometric InvestigationsInvestigations

Participation was significantly related to Participation was significantly related to adoption of hedgerows, ridging and manureadoption of hedgerows, ridging and manureParticipation generated yield gains apart from Participation generated yield gains apart from conservation interventions (disembodied)conservation interventions (disembodied)IntraIntra--village spillovers were + and significantvillage spillovers were + and significantOnly contour ridging was related to yield gainsOnly contour ridging was related to yield gains

Evidence?Evidence?

Limited evidence of private incentive for Limited evidence of private incentive for adoption.adoption.Did the approach:Did the approach:

Illustrate the social costs of degradation?Illustrate the social costs of degradation?Demonstrate importance of longDemonstrate importance of long--run strategies to run strategies to preserve land productivity?preserve land productivity?Sensitize participants to the interest in internalizing Sensitize participants to the interest in internalizing costs?costs?

How to translate into an RORHow to translate into an ROR

We do know:We do know:the sampling frame for extrapolationthe sampling frame for extrapolationproject costsproject costsaverage yield benefitsaverage yield benefits

Yield BenefitsYield Benefits

Differentiated by impact:Differentiated by impact:ParticipationParticipationHedgerowsHedgerowsVariety useVariety use

BeneficiaryBeneficiary““AdoptersAdopters”” x Participation statusx Participation status

ROR calculationROR calculation

Aggregated benefits to the village levelAggregated benefits to the village levelValued incremental productivity at world priceValued incremental productivity at world priceAdoption trendsAdoption trends

Linear between 1998Linear between 1998--20042004 33% IRR33% IRRConstant between 2004Constant between 2004--20082008 37% IRR37% IRR

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Farm-level Cost (% of project)

RO

R

1998-2004 Benefits

1998-2008 Benefits


22

Institutional ImpactInstitutional Impact

Focus group discussions with 10 collaborating Focus group discussions with 10 collaborating institutionsinstitutions

Thailand: Researchers and ExtensionistsThailand: Researchers and ExtensionistsVietnam not differentiatedVietnam not differentiated

IdentifyIdentifyPositive impacts of FPRPositive impacts of FPR

Management, knowledge, understanding, motivation, efficiencyManagement, knowledge, understanding, motivation, efficiency

Constraints Constraints Budget, policy, management, economic and market conditionsBudget, policy, management, economic and market conditions

Figure 2. Contrasting patterns of perceived institutional benefits (A) Hanoi, Vietnam; (B) as seen by researchers, Bangkok, Thailand; (C) as seen by extension workers, Bangkok, Thailand; (D) Dong Nai, Vietnam; and (E) Thai Nguyen, Vietnam.

0.0%

20.0%40.0%

Work management

Knowledge

UnderstandingMotivation

Efficiency

(B)

0.0%20.0%

40.0%Work management

Knowledge


Efficiency

(A)

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%

Work management

Knowledge


Efficiency

(C)

0.0%

10.0%20.0%

30.0%

Motivation Understanding

KnowledgeEfficiency

Work management

(D)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%Work management

Knowledge


Efficiency

(E)

Figure 3: Contrasting patterns of perceived institutional constraints(A) Hanoi, Vietnam; (B) as seen by researchers, Bangkok, Thailand; (C) as seen by extension workers,

Bangkok, Thailand; (D) Dong Nai, Vietnam; and (E) Thai Nguyen, Vietnam.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

Policies

ManagementEconomics

Knowledge

(A)

0.0%

50.0%

Policies

ManagementEconomics

Knowledge

(E)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

Economics Management

PoliciesKnowledege

(C)

0.0%

50.0%

Policies

ManagementEconomics

Knowledge

(B)

Budget

Budget

Budget

Budget

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%Budget

Policies

ManagementEconomics

Knowledge

(D)

ConclusionsConclusions

This story is largely about the success of participatory This story is largely about the success of participatory research and extension.research and extension.Wide choice of researchWide choice of research--developed/adaptation (25 yrs).developed/adaptation (25 yrs).Successful in:Successful in:

Illustrating the social costs of soil lossIllustrating the social costs of soil lossBenefits of fertility managementBenefits of fertility managementInducing cropping system modification without $Inducing cropping system modification without $Building producer human capitalBuilding producer human capitalGenerating extraGenerating extra--project benefitsproject benefitsInstitutional benefitsInstitutional benefits

Further Steps, Questions and Further Steps, Questions and Discussion?Discussion?


23

Impact Assessment of Natural Resources Management

Technologies in Crop-Livestock Systems in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas: ICARDA Case Studies

SPIA/INRM Workshop on Impact Assessment of Natural Resource Management Research

in the CGIAR

June 13 – 16, 2005, IRRI

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

1995 2000 2010 2020

More Animals.. Less Feed Resource

Mill

ion

met

ric

tonn

es

Tropical Livestock Unit

Feed Deficit

(Nordbloom et al, 1996; Larbi et al. 2004)

NRM Technologies in CropNRM Technologies in Crop--Livestock Livestock Production Systems Promoted by ICARDAProduction Systems Promoted by ICARDA

Food security, poverty and natural resource degradation are common problems in CWANA region

Degradation of natural resources contributed to:– Food and feed insecurity– Dependent on costly concentrated feed

Barley/livestock farming system (Barley/Fallow) is typical in dry areas

Research at ICARDA and NARS has developed technologies that improve crop/livestock systems to:

– Enhance and stabilize production and quality of feed– Reduce pressure on the natural resources

Regional Project: Development of Integrated Crop/livestock Production Systems in the Low Rainfall Areas of the Mashreq and Maghreb Regions (M&M Project)

– M&M was implemented in two phases (1995-1998, 1998-2002)

– Introduced technologies: Alley Cropping of Cactus/barley (Tunisia) and Atriplex/barley (Morocco).

Expected Benefits of Introduced Technologies:Expected Benefits of Introduced Technologies:

••Increase barley productionIncrease barley production

••Increase biomass productionIncrease biomass production

••Reduce soil erosionReduce soil erosion

••Improve soil organic matterImprove soil organic matter

••Reduce feeding costsReduce feeding costs

••Reduce grazing pressureReduce grazing pressure

••Standing fodder to buffer seasonal fluctuationsStanding fodder to buffer seasonal fluctuations

••Protein supplement to low quality feedProtein supplement to low quality feed

••Source for fire woodSource for fire wood

••Emergency feed during drought seasons Emergency feed during drought seasons

Objectives of ICARDA Case StudiesObjectives of ICARDA Case Studies

Document and better understand the adoption of the NRM technologiesAssess the impacts associated with these NRM technologiesEvaluate the environmental effects of the alley cropping systemContribute to NARS capacity building in assessing the impact of NRM research

Main Approaches usedMain Approaches usedEconometric Approach:

– To study the adoption of the technology– To assess its impact on barley production, feed use and cost, and flock size.– To evaluate the effect of policy and other factors on the technology uptake

Probit, Logit, and Tobit Models are used to:– Model the adoption of the technology– Quantify the effects of related factors on the likelihoods of the technology

adoption

SCUAF model was used to simulate the effects on:– Barley production– Atriplex biomass production– Soil erosion– Organic matter

Results of SCUAF was combined with economic information to estimate IRR to the technology

Dynamic and recursive mathematical model (Tunisia)

Conceptual Framework for Assessing Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Impact of Alley Croppingthe Impact of Alley Cropping

Macro-level Analysis

SCUAF“Simulation Model”

• Research trials (--)• Soil Samples (04)

Crop and Atriplex productsSoil erosionOrganic matter

Cost and PricesAdoption indication

Econometric (Structural Analysis)

• B. Grain yield• B. Straw yield• Feeding cost• Flock size

Ex-Post Impact

Environmental ConsequencesSoil erosionOrganic matter

Farm Survey (2004)

Yiel

d

NPVIRR

Mixed (ex-post/ex-ante impact)

Calibration

Eros

ionYield

Calibration

Source: Adapted and modified after Trewin, 1997

Data Collection and SamplingData Collection and Sampling

Research trialsOn-farm demonstrationsResearch, extension, and dissemination costsHistorical weather informationSoil samples

Farm surveys– Adopters

Participants in demonstrationsNeighbors and/or field days attendeesNon-participants (reference farmers)

– Non adopters


24

Adoption of Atriplex according to Farm SizeAdoption of Atriplex according to Farm Size

30.57413.526100Total

76.9130013Large (>40 ha)

28.82825.3331Medium (20–40 ha)

13.73311.92356Small (<20 ha)

---ha------%------ha------%------%---

Av. Farm size

FarmsAv. Farm size

Farms

AdoptersNon-AdoptersTotalFarms

Farm Size

Technology Adoption According to Flock Size Technology Adoption According to Flock Size

1041710516851> 80

FlockSize

Farms

42

59

22

0

-head-

Total

51

58

23

0

-head-

FlockSize

100741926Total

252161440 – 80

4637179≤ 40

1200120

-%---%---head---%--

FarmsFlockSize

Farms

AdoptersNon-AdoptersFlock Size(head)

Adoption IndicatorsAdoption Indicators

Adoption Rate = 33%

Adoption Degree = 24%

Main factors explaining technology adoption:– Farm Size (+)– Policy Subsidy (+)– Flock Size (+)

Effect of Subsidy on Effect of Subsidy on AtriplexAtriplex PlantationPlantation

Regression estimates imply an increase in the Atriplex area by 79% due to subsidy

Impact of Impact of AtriplexAtriplex on Barley Productivityon Barley Productivity

30

97

17

198

0

50

100

150

200

250

Grain Yield Straw Yield

Total Impact (%) Net Impact (%)

30

97

17

198

0

50

100

150

200

250

Grain Yield Straw Yield

Total Impact (%) Net Impact (%)

Change in Flock Size (head)Change in Flock Size (head)-- 01/0401/04

Regression estimates imply that 25% increase in flock size (Ewes) is due to Atriplex Plantation

Impact of Atriplex plantation on the Impact of Atriplex plantation on the Consumption of Alternative Feed ResourcesConsumption of Alternative Feed Resources

-70

-42

-1

86

-23-36

3

64

-89 -90-100-80-60-40-20

020406080

100

Sugar BeetPulp

Wheat Bran Barley Grain Cereals Straw Oat Grain

%

Total Impact

Net Impact

Impact of Impact of AtriplexAtriplex on Feeding Coston Feeding Cost

52%

29%19%

100%

-31%-11%

-70%

-33%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small (<40 head) Medium (41-80head)

Large (> 80 head) All Groups

Farm (%) Reduction in feeding cost (%)


25

Soil Erosion under Different Systems in Soil Erosion under Different Systems in MoroccoMorocco

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year

Cum

ulat

ive

Soi

l Los

s (to

n/ha

)

Atriplex+Barley+Fallow

Atriplex+Continuous Barley

Continuous BarleyBarley-Fallow

Atriplex/barley alley cropping has the potential Atriplex/barley alley cropping has the potential to reduce cumulative soil loss from 38.33 t/ha to reduce cumulative soil loss from 38.33 t/ha under barley/fallow farming to 21.17 t/ha under barley/fallow farming to 21.17 t/ha

Soil Organic Carbon under Cropping Soil Organic Carbon under Cropping Systems in MoroccoSystems in Morocco

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year

Org

anic

Car

bon

(%)

Atriplex+Barley+Fallow

Atriplex+Continuous Barley

Continuous Barley

Calculation of IRRCalculation of IRR

1992-2015 period– 1992-1998 research period

1995- 1998 Adaptive research (M&M)Costs: scientists, technicians, capital, training, others, overhead (12%)

– 1999- 2015 Dissemination periodCosts: scientists, technicians, others, overhead (until 2005), subsidy (2001)

Benefits:– Barley grain yield increase– Barley straw yield increase– Atriplex biomass

Valuation of Valuation of AtriplexAtriplex Biomass Using Biomass Using Substitution Method Substitution Method

1. Determination of the appropriate substitute2. Calculation of the price of barley grain in the

project area3. Calculation of the substitution rate of Atriplex

with barley (= the ratio between the digestible DM of Atriplex and the digestible DM of the barley).

4. Calculation of the value of Atriplex based on the digestible DM (= substitution rate x barley grain price “marketed feed”). 0.70 DM

0.35 DM

2 DM

Barley grain

IRR of IRR of AtriplexAtriplex PlantationPlantation

24Valuation of Atriplex at straw price

27- 20Mismanagement (10-50% reduction in biomass production)

29Baseline

IRR (%)Scenario

ImplicationsImplications

Farmers tend to increase their flock size as a result of increasing feed security and stability, as a result of Atriplex plantation. Thus, increasing the physical capital, which contributes to improved rural livelihoods

Raising concerns on Atriplex wider adoption once external policy subsidy to farmers is removed

Non-adopters attributed non-adoption to land availability suggesting that farm size is a constrained factor for the adoption

Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Conceptual Framework for Assessing the Impact of Cactus Alley CroppingImpact of Cactus Alley Cropping

Macro-level Analysis

Bio-Economic model

• Research trials (--)• Soil Samples (04)

Land allocationFeed and livestockCash flow, income, etc.Equity indicators

Cost and PricesAdoption indication

Econometric (Structural Analysis)

• B. Grain yield• B. Straw yield• Feeding cost• Flock size• Efficiency• Social impact

Ex-Post Impact

Environmental ConsequencesSoil erosionOrganic matter

Farm Surveys (1999,2002, 2003,

2004)

NPVIRR

Calibration

Ero

sion

Yield

Calibration

Source: Adapted and modified after Trewin, 1997

Mixed (ex-post/ex-ante impact)


26

Community ModelingCommunity Modeling--TunisiaTunisia

Community model

Agropastor

Mixed farming system

Exchange of labor, landand feeds

Informal credit

Cropping and pastoralSystem

Livestock System

Market

Manure, labor

Intra-consumption (straw, grain, stubble, pasture

Sell of products Animal sell/purchase

Inputs’ supplyComplementation

Self-consumption

Institutions:Credit

SubsidiesRegulation

priceMarket

R&D: technology introduction

Farmlevel

Com

munity

levelN

ational level

Off farm

28.99%30.60%Total28.99%30.6 %Total

21.23%20.00%No shepherd--0.0 %Landless

22.62%25.83%< 1514.51%12.6 %[5-1[ ha

26.99%36.07%15-2523.54%34.5 %[10-5[ ha

35.31%38.18%25-5024.56%41.0 %[20-10[ ha

36.83%46.15%> 5043.20%61.3 %> 20 ha

Degreeof adoption

(%)

Rate ofAdoption

(%)

Flock Size(heads)

Degreeof adoption

(%)

Rate ofAdoption

(%)

Farm size(in ha)

Indicators according to flock sizeIndicators according to farm size

Adoption indicators according to the farm and flock size

Cactus Adoption According to Farming Systems

51.431835Total

2528(EA3) Mixed farming systems

5036(EI1) Pluri-actives

2015(EI2) Young farms

10055(EA1) Agro-pastor

71.4257(EA2) Agro-pastor with olive trees

5024(EI3) Diversified Agro-herder

Adoption (in %)Adoption (number)Farms’numberTypology

Cactus Cumulative Planted Area with OEP Cactus Cumulative Planted Area with OEP Support (ha)Support (ha)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Without OEP support(A0)

With pad distribution(A1)

With financial supportfor the implementation

(A2)

With OEP support +subsidies (A3)

Types of OEP Support

Are

as p

lant

ed fo

r eac

h O

EP

supp

ort

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cum

ulat

ive

plan

ted

area

Cactus Adoption under Different Scenarios Cactus Adoption under Different Scenarios (area planted in alley cropping)(area planted in alley cropping)

1514.2511.23510.750EI3

0.505.53.852.673.852.67EI2

3050

45.63029.17

10.21EI1

2211.43.343.343.340.29EA3

212.92.9312.930EA2

8516.516.5355.780EA1

Areawith spine

cactus

Area of cactus in alley croppin

g

Adoption level

with no restrict

ed subsidie

s

Adoption level with limited

OEP support

And yield increase

Adoption level with

limited OEP

support

Adoption level

without OEP

subsidies+ 30%

yield

Adoption level

without OEP

incentiveFarm type

Survey

S5

S4

S3S2

S1

Variation of Feed Consumption with Cactus Variation of Feed Consumption with Cactus per Small Ruminant Unit (%)per Small Ruminant Unit (%)

-8 0%

-70%

-6 0%

-50%

-4 0%

-3 0%

-2 0%

-10%

0%

10%

Barley Concent rat es Bran St raw Hay

Deviation of Feed Cost per Head with Cactus Deviation of Feed Cost per Head with Cactus Use in Animal DietUse in Animal Diet

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

> 50 25-50 15-25 < 15 Total

Flock size intervals

%

Trend of ewe stock between 1995 and 2002 for Trend of ewe stock between 1995 and 2002 for adopters and non adopters (heads)adopters and non adopters (heads)

-35.12%45467007Total

-40.69%14752487No cactus

-32.05%30714520Cactus

Total cactus area (with or without the alley cropping technology)

-35.12%45467007Total

-34.90%27494223Non adopters

-35.45%17972784Adopters

Cactus in alley cropping

Change (deviation)Ewe stock 2002Ewe stock 1995Cactus


27

Gaps for ewe stock with and without technology Gaps for ewe stock with and without technology and institutional action (%)and institutional action (%)

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

year

in %

EA1 (agro-pastors)

EA2 (agro-pastor w ith olive trees)

EA3 (mixed farming systems)

EI1 (pluri actives)

EI2 (young farms)

EI3 (diversified agro-herder)

Gaps for cash flow with and without technology Gaps for cash flow with and without technology and institutional actions (%)and institutional actions (%)

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

year

in %

EA1 (agro-pastors)



EI1 (pluri actives)

EI2 (young farms)

EI3 (diversif ied agro-herder)

Gaps for cereal areas with and without the Gaps for cereal areas with and without the technology and institutional actions (%)technology and institutional actions (%)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

year

in %

EA1 (agro-pastors)



EI1 (pluri actives)

EI2 (young farms)

EI3 (diversified agro-herder)

Poverty indicators and expenditure Poverty indicators and expenditure distributiondistribution

0.0430.2411.864.9420.512302002

0.1170.2454.2811.0120.002211999

Gini concentration index

Ginicoeffici

ent

Sen poverty indicator

(*100)

Poverty Gap(PG)

Head count (H)

(in %)Poverty

line

Soil nutrient changes between different treatmentsSoil nutrient changes between different treatments

0.480.230.080.07K2O Assim/1000

15261313P2O5 Assim ppm(Olsen)

0.11.10.40.2Carbon (%)

0.21.80.70.4Organic matter (%)

1161Calcaire actif

11122317Total calcaire %

C442C441C440C439Sample

Cactus with barley

Cactus without barley

BarleyNatural rangeland

Benefit Cost analysis for the projectBenefit Cost analysis for the project

106.527%292719.6351%1164H4b- Pasture 42 DT/ha

115.9624%244719.0349%1117H1b- Cereal benefit 16.5 DT/ha

Without OEP incentives

142.8613%8198.932%953H5- Pasture 25.2 DT/ha

143.0314%11099.132%983H4- Pasture 42 DT/ha

133.5617%19399.634%1068H3- Cereal benefit 96.16 DT/ha



With OEP incentives

Pay off period

Ratio B/C

IRRVAN(Thousand TD)

Pay off period

Ratio B/C

IRRVAN(Thousand

TD)

Without pad marketWith pad marketScenarios

ImplicationsImplications

Results confirm the role of this NR technology to limit de-stocking during drought years, and thus maintained the level of physical capital for rural households

Reduction of cereal cropping in marginal lands, due to the technology, contributes to NR conservation.

The profitability of the technology would be very sensitive to pad market opportunity.

Pad distribution may be more crucial than the compensations in the adoption process. But, without pad market, the subsidies may be important during investment periods.

Thank YouThank You


28

CIFOR Criteria & Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

Mike Spilsbury(presented by Peter Frost)

Overview

Background and Introduction to C&I & certification

• Assessing CIFOR C&I impact via certification– Standards comparison– Attribution via key informant interviews; – Changes in the forest stemming from certification

• General outcomes and uptake evidence for CIFOR C&I

• Lessons and ‘best practice’ for impact

CIFOR case study• Investigated outcomes along several

‘impact pathways’ Generated estimates of C&I project impact

• Identified lessons for enhancing impact

Generated IPGs – C&I research and toolbox helped operationalise SFM

High profile international project: many different examples of uptake, unique ‘regulatory’ impact pathway (certification)

Kinds of changeCumulative

Aggregation of multiple instances (e.g. adoption of an improved forest management technology)

SystemicInfluencing framework conditions for system functioning (e.g. policy and practices: application of standards; certification)

Background - CIFOR C&I researchResearch objective: Develop a methodology to evaluate and generate C&I for SFM based on iterative and comparative field evaluations of selected sets

Approach1994-1998: Collaborative field-based evaluation of C&I sets in Germany, Cameroon, Brazil, Indonesia, Cote d’ Ivoire, USA

Intended UsersCertification bodies, government, donors, forest managers, and scientists

Background - CIFOR C&I researchResearch products

• Generic set of C&I (for local C&I adaptation)

• A set of C&I Development manuals - THE CIFOR C&I ‘TOOLBOX’ - including guidelines for assessing human well-being in and around forests

• C&I for each test site and Community forest management C&I

• C&I development and adaptation software (CIMAT)

ResearchProcess& Outputs

Intermediaryusers ofresearch

PrincipalTargetusers

IntendedOutcomes

Intended Impacts

Generic C&I Template and LocalModifier Methodologies - Community

Forestry C&I

Decision SupportSystems (CIMAT /Pathfinder tool)

Development/ TechnicalAssistanceAgencies

Trainers andresearchers

Accreditation andCertification

Agencies e.g FSC,SmartWood,

Woodmark, SGS

Managers ofForests (Public andPrivate Enterprisesand Communities)

Policy Changese.g.new forestmanagementregulations

AccreditationStandards

Improvement ofCertification Standards

(scope, reliability,credibility)

Public benefits from Improved Management of ForestsNational Sub-national Forest Management Unit

TradeOrganisations

National Forestregulatory agenciesLand Use Planners

NationalPolicy

Processes

Use of C&I-basedManagement

Standards

Intergovernmental Processes.e.g IPF / UN

Forum onForests, CBD

'Certified' Forests andresultant changes inforest management

AcademicPublications

Global

National FSCWorking Groups onforest management

standards

Use of C&I in nationalreporting and

monitorng

Regional C&Ibased

Initiatives e.g.ATO / ITTO,

PEFC

Use of C&I in forestbased developmentassistance projects

The CIFOR C&I Toolbox

Use of C&Idevelopment and

selection tools

Field based testsof C&I

Forest Certification Systems• International/regional systems

- Forest Stewardship Council FSC- Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC)

• National systems– European schemes linked to PEFC– Canadian Standards Association– Sustainable Forestry Initiative / American

Tree Farm System– Developing countries: Brazil (CERFLOR),

Malaysia (MTCC)FSC is the dominant system and has global relevance – FSC is an accreditation agency


29

Accreditor

Forest Certifiers

Forest management

Markets

Accreditation body monitors and evaluates the work of certification bodies to

guarantee their independence and capacity to perform a transparent and technically

consistent evaluation based on appropriate

standards (C&I)

Chain of custody

The Elements of Forest Certification

C&I-based standardsEvaluate chain-of-

custody procedures

FSC Standard Principles and Criteria

FSC’s 10 Principles(Criteria not shown)

1. Compliance with Laws and FSC Principles2. Tenure and Use Rights and Responsibilities3. Indigenous People’s Rights4. Community Relations and Worker's Rights 5. Benefits from the Forest 6. Environmental Impact 7. Management Plan8. Monitoring and Assessment9. Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests HCVF

10. Plantations

Certified Product Label

Relevance of C&I Research

C&INational

Processes - forestlaws / regulations

InternationalProcessesIPF / IFF / UNFF

Certification – e.g.Forest Stewardship Council, PEFC

Regional ProcessesATO, Montreal,

ITTO, Tarapoto etc.

Forest Management

Practices

CIFOR research was not about de novo C&I but testing and modifying to achieve consistency and coherence

Aug

-94

CIFOR C&I Project Phases 1 & 2

Significance of CIFOR C&I influence / uptake in certification

• Global total of FSC-endorsed certified forest is increasing - currently over 47 million hectares.

• SGS Qualifor, Rainforest Alliance, Scientific Certification Systems and the Soil Association. are responsible for auditing over 96% of the world’s current FSC certified forest operations

• The area of forests certified in Asia, Africa and Latin America represents 18 % of the total certified area. Within this, the area of certified forests that occur within CIFOR ‘mandate countries’ exceeds 5.84 million hectares

If CIFOR work is used by certifiers, it affects forest management over large areas, even with larger ‘spillovers’ in rest of world

,

Total area5.85 million

hectares

FSC Certified Forest in CIFOR target countries by certification company

Soil Association

434,022 ha7%

SGS Qualifor,

1,912,534 ha 33%

Scientific Certification

Systems 470,982 ha

8%

Rainforest Alliance,

3,038,619 ha52%

Impact pathways via certificationCIFOR C& I research

and products

FSC - regulations forcertification

FSC Certifiers

Forests certified assustainably managed

Changes in forestmanagement

Mission relevantbenefits

CIFOR C& I researchand products

National FSCworking Groups

FSC National C&Istandard approved

National standardapplied by certifer




CIFOR C& I researchand products

Certifier genericstandards (C&I) oraudit procedures




Key informants, C&I language, Standards documentsPublic FSC certification records –Corrective Action requests

Evidence influence on Certifier Standards - comparison with CIFOR C&I

• C&I sets from certifiers compared with CIFOR C&I before & after the CIFOR research - most recent certifier standard sets – check they weren’t in the original standards

• Standard sets show many similarities with CIFOR C&I but evidence for direct transfer of indicators inconclusive


30

Evidence of CIFOR influence on FSC Certifier Generic Standards

• Rainforest Alliance – Smartwood (52% FSC) From the generic standards document “We have drawn on work by the Center for International Forestry (CIFOR)” (also in many national SmartWood standards documents)

• SGS Qualifor (33% FSC)Correspondence: “a CIFOR paper, has formed the basis for our stakeholder consultation programme {part of audit process}”: R. Nussbaum (SGS). Key informant interviews confirm CIFOR influence in standards development

• Soil Association Woodmark (7%)Collaborator in Phase 1 of the project; key informants acknowledge CIFOR research influenced ‘social C&I’ and catalysed revision of ‘biodiversity C&I’

• Scientific Certification Systems (8%)No documentary evidence of CIFOR influence on SCS standards (N. American focus and no linkage with CIFOR research process)

Influence on Certifier Standards – Documents and Key Informant interviews

CIFOR C&I research is formally acknowledged in published forest management standards of the certifier SmartWood

Staff involved with certifier standards preparation in the early years of forest certification used CIFOR research - for ‘social C&I’ research highlighting key areas for C&I improvement and (Smartwood, SGS and Soil Association)

NO acknowledged influence on the certifier SCS

Uptake in FSC National Standards Processes

FSC National Working Groups

Significance: – national forest stewardship standards (once approved by FSC) are used as the basic C&I sets for all future FSC certifications in that country

Uptake in FSC National Standards Processes

Evidence of CIFOR influence on FSC national standards in:Brazil, from the CIFOR C&I test, personnel involved used findings and engaged in standards development processNicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guyana and Guatemalathrough application of C&I selection methods developed by CIFOR and CATIEMore indirect and less attributable influence has resulted from the use of the CIFOR research outputs as a general information resource especially by national working groups in Chile and CameroonGenerally research uptake in FSC working groups has been patchyNational standards development processes have yet to be completed in many developing countries

Outcome

• CIFOR C&I Used by main FSC certification companies in shaping the standards now applied to over 42 million hectares globally

• These three companies together have certified 5.4 million hectares of forest in CIFOR’s target countries

General impact of certification from published studies

Certification often leads directly to improvements in operational management practices. Benefits vary significantly from one location to another. Trends:

– Greater access to premium timber markets– Improved worker conditions– Reduced social conflict– Securing land tenure and usufruct rights

(community forests)– Improved image locally and in markets– Environmental services secured or improved

Certification helped promote SFM through dialogue between the private sector, government bodies, NGO’s and civil society

Assessment of field-level changes in forest management

• Each criteria of the C&I based standard is evaluated by the certifiers - non-compliance with the standard results in the issuing of a Corrective Action Request (CAR)

• Corrective Action Requests are specified in publicly available Certification Assessment Reports. These reflect but UNDERESTIMATEchanges in field-level management

Steps in CertificationContact with Certifier

Scoping VisitConfidential report with recommendations

Preparation for full assessmentContract for Certification AssessmentConsultation before field assessment

Field Assessment (audit)Assessment Report

Consultation after field assessmentSpecialists’ peer review

Certification Decision

MonitoringFollow-up audit Verification - Major Corrective Action Requests met

Publicly available Certification Assessment reports specify how management must change for compliance

Provides a basis for before/ after reflexive comparison

UNDERESTIMATES field-level changes (does not capture improvements prior to field assessment)

Annual Field auditsTo remain certified - managers must respond to all Corrective Action Requests


31

Independent CAR classification categories

• None• Procedural• Social / Economic

• Weak• Substantive Indirect• Forest Ecology

• Strong• Substantive Direct

• Forest management

Results-based language

CAR link to field-level change

Theme of CAR

Number of public certification assessments examined

89 forests across 18 countries, covering 5.9 million ha

41 plantation sites (2.9 million ha)

36 natural forest sites (2.8 million ha)

7 semi-natural/mixed sites (0.2 million ha)

CARs categorised by theme and 'action orientation'

8545

18

94

71

63

169

119

286

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Forest Management Environmental Social and Economic

Theme

Num

ber

of C

ARs

ProceduralSubstantive IndirectSubstantive Direct

Use of Results-Based language in FSC Forest Certification CARs

106

50

104

160

105

149

79

80

112

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Forest Management Environmental Social and Economic

Type of Corrective Action Request

None

Weak

Strong

CARs Classified wrt 'on-the-ground' changes

0

0

3

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

2

0

3

4

2

2

7

10

4

2

4

0

2

1

12

1

4

3

6

5

4

3 6

5

3 4

3 4

2 8

1

1

4

4 4

2

2 5

3 0

3 0

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Chain of custody

Communicat io ns and Conf lict

Illegal Act ivit ies

Informat ion Provision

Internal management processissues

Laws and reg ulat ions

NTFP

Plantation M anagement

Prof itabili ty of operat ion

Social impact

Tenure

Training

Worker Safety

Worker welfare

Cultural sites

CAR

s ad

dres

sing

Soc

ial a

nd E

cono

mic

Issu

es

Number of CARs

Substantive Direct

Substantive Indirect

Procedural

Close link to C

IFOR

research

Summary of on-the-ground impacts

• Substantial areas of forests have been certified Certification has led to large improvements in SFM

• Issues closely associated with CIFOR research contributions to certification standards commonly feature in CARs (i.e. on the ground changes) including:

improvements to stakeholder consultation and conflict resolution processes,‘intergenerational access to resources’land tenure and rights of local and indigenouscommunities

• These research-related improvements to management practices occur in more than 3.2 million hectares of FSC certified forests in CIFOR target countries

Examples of uptake -International level uptake events

• The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) recommended CIFOR C&I project documents to its national C&I development working groups as useful conceptual tools.

• United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and its Predecessors adopted a resolution recommending that member states take into account CIFOR’s research results in developing national C&I

• Influence on the global policy agendaC&I research cited in key policy documents: - World Bank Forest Policy - GEF - Roundtable on Forest, - CBD’s SBSTTA report to COP5, - IPCC Special Report on Climate Change

A Regional Level uptake event• The African Timber Organization (ATO)

14 member countries, representing over 75% of the tropical natural forests of African. ATO promotes production and trade within an SFM framework.– ATO developed a set of C&I based directly

on the results of CIFOR research in Cameroon, Cote D’Ivoire, and Gabon

– formed the basis for an ATO policy directive on sustainable forest management and certification


32

National and local uptake events• South Africa: 2002 National SFM Principles Criteria &

Standards for South Africa. CIFOR’s involvement provided methodological guidance and speeded the consensus process – national legislation likely

• India: CIFOR C&I influenced formulation of forest management standards at national level through initiatives in the states of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh

• Brazil: CIFOR C&I research led to revision of the Brazilian Environmental Institute, IBAMA’s, guidelines in Para. IBAMA & EMBRAPA have continued to use CIFOR’s framework to develop their monitoring systems.

• Nicaragua: National FSC Standards Working Group evaluated indicators based on CATIE/CIFOR work

Uptake in development projects

• Vietnam: CIFOR methods for developing and selecting C&I with local community involvement have been used in an IDRC project in Vietnam

• Mexico: USFS implemented a C&I test in Ejido el Largo, Chihuahua, Mexico using CIFOR C&I indicator sets and CIFOR C&I selection methods – full acknowledgement of CIFOR influence

Uptake in development projects(further selected examples)

• Laos: 1999 the Lao government, with support from the WB Forest Management and Conservation Project (FOMACOP) developed national criteria for sustainable forest management drawing on CIFOR & ITTO work

• Thailand: 2000 Danish development project C&I at the local, or forest management unit, used the CIFOR tools and methods and community C&I for two sites in northern Thailand: Doi Inthanon National Park and Mae Moh teak plantation in Lampang

• China: 2002 The Yunnan Sustainable Forest Management Project adopted CIFOR community forest management C&I (RECOFT / Ford Foundation)

Spillover effects - an example

• The United States Forest Service tested the CIFOR Criteria and Indicators in the State of Idaho and developed a standard framework for monitoring the sustainability of the United States Federal Forests

• The framework drew extensively on CIFOR research and has been further applied in test areas that cover more than 7.5 million hectares of forest in the USA.

• The USFS initiative has also been influential in standards development for forest management Canada and Mexico.

Lessons learned about enhancing uptake and impact• Forge powerful or influential alliances / partnerships

for uptake and ‘promotion’ from the outset,• Ensure that the innovation has a volunteer 'champion'

throughout key ‘impact pathways’• Adopt a pluralistic attitude to the research process

and encourage multi-institutional ownership of insights and innovations

• Invest in ‘market research’ and learn from the audience through: advisory groups, planning workshops, partnerships and networks

• Build the intended audience into the research process and seek feedback at all stages

• Translate research into ‘operational’ language e.g.management suggestions, or policy decision options

• Embed research within influential ‘change processes’(e.g. policy change processes; development initiatives)

Lessons learned to enhance uptake and impact• Invest in outreach processes, making use of a combination of approaches to enhance uptake such as:

– Using ‘Launch events’ for key products and findings– Use mass media to reach large but important

constituencies– Develop good interpersonal channels of communication

with key influential individuals (or make use of partners that can do this)

– Use internet and email list servers as communication tools not as a dissemination strategy

– Send frequent reminders or conduct repeated demonstrations to intended users about the innovation

– Invest in interactive ‘educational’ meetings (e.g. ‘best practice’ discussion fora) that involve researchers and users / practitioners

Assessing impact is always a work in progress. Some impacts, or at least the recognition of them,

take time to emerge

Discussion time

Discussion time


33

Fertilizer Trees in Zambia: Their Development, Adoption and Impacts

Olu AJAYI, Frank PLACE, Freddie KWESIGA, ParamuMAFONGOYA and Steve FRANZEL

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) &Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)

Presented at the combined workshop of SPIA and INRM

IRRI, Phillipines, 13-16 June 2005

Challenges to poor farm families

Low soil fertility is a major cause of food insecurity in SSA: Depleted land low crop yields food shortages

High cost & low use of fertilizer (cost), role of private sector?

Continuous cropping without nutrient addition

Whither resource-poor farmers?

Fertilizer trees

Targeted use of plant species in order to achieve the aims of natural fallow within a short time or a smaller area.

N fixers (leguminous) fast growing

Fallowing period is reduced (2 –3 years)

Depleted soil is regenerated biochemically and physically

Sesbania sesban

Tephrosia candida

Field with fertilizer trees

Common field type

T. Candida at fallow termination

T. Candida litter


34

Methodology

Several studies to tell a single story

Detailed yield measurement in farmers’ field

Detailed labor measurement

Monitoring and adoption studies

Biophysical assessment and process research

• Enhanced social equity• Carbon sequestration• Suppression of noxious

weeds• Improved soil infiltration and

reduced runoff on the slopes

• Potential to reduce the effects of drought during crop season

• Enhanced biodiversity• Diversification of income

opportunities in the community

• Serves as wind break

• Crop yield increase• Price premium for farm production• Increase in maize stover (helps livestock)• Stakes for tobacco curing• Available fuel wood• Helps in fish farming (Gliricidia sepium)• Fodder for livestock• Cultivation of high value vegetables-garlic • Biopesticides (Tephrosia vogelii)• Suppresses the growth of noxious weeds• Improved soil infiltration and reduced runoff• Potential to mitigate the effects of drought spells during

maize season• Provision of shade against the sun• Diversification of production (e.g. mushrooms)• Additional income from sale of agroforestry tree seeds

Benefit

• Limit the possibility of free grazing during dry season

• Risk of uncontrolled fire outbreak

• Incidence of Mesoplatyspest (restricted to specific species only)

• Opportunity cost of land• Extra labor • Agroforestry seeds• Water for nursery• Pest (some fertilizer tree species only)• Working equipments• Field operations coincide with traditional cash crops• Risk of uncontrolled fire outbreak

Cost

PublicIndividual

Table : Benefits and costs associated with fertilizer tree fallows

Multi-stage stratification of farmers:Type of AF speciesYear of fallow establishmentGender of field managerNon AF fields (pair-wise comparison)

Weekly data monitoring/recallInputs- type of input, quantity, cost, etc Outputs- type of product, quantity, prices89 farmers

Yield monitoring data

Description of a typical fallow system

Production system Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Cont-Fertilizer Crop Crop Crop Crop CropCont+Fertilizer Crop Crop Crop Crop CropGliricidia Fallow Fallow Crop Crop CropSesbania Fallow Fallow Crop Crop CropTephrosia Fallow Fallow Crop Crop Crop

Maize yield (Kg/ha) for different maize production systems

Production system Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 TotalCont-Fertilizer 1116 657 697 764 400 3,634 Cont+Fertilizer 2577 2142 3319 2020 1998 12,056 Gliricidia 0 0 3378 3600 806 7,784 Sesbania 0 359 3645 2798 1990 8,792 Tephrosia 0 287 3634 1774 888 6,583

Maize yield (t/ha) obtained from various fallow species for nine seasons in Zambia

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Years/seasons

Gra

in y

ield

(t h

a

Gliricidia Leucaena M+F M-F Sesbania Natural fallow

= SED

Labor inputs (mandays) used per hectare for different maize production systems

Maize production system Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 TotalCont-Fertilizer 104 95 88 88 87 462Cont+Fertilizer 110 121 101 103 97 532Gliricidia 130 2 132 125 45* 434Sesbania 111 45 128 121 116 521Tephrosia 105 40 118 117 113 493

*Fields burnt by fire

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

October November Decem ber Jan Feb March April May June July August Septem ber

Period of the year (month)

% h

ouse

hold

faci

ng fo

od s

hort

age Zambia

Malawi

Peak hunger/ cropseason

Harvest/off-season

Trends in Maize Shortage (hunger period) in Malawi and Zambia

Adapted from Akinnifesi et al (2002)


35

Financial profitability of maize production systems per hectare over a five-year cycle (2002)

Enterprise/land use sub-system

Net present

Value (US$)

US$ per year

Continuous maize –Fertilizer

130 26 2.01

Continuous maize + Fertilizer

499 100 2.65

Gliricidia sepium fallow 269 54 2.91

Sesbania sesban fallow 309 62 3.13

Tephrosia vogellii fallow 233 47 2.77

Benefit-Cost Ratio

+ Government subsidy on fertilizer @ 50%

Financial profitability of maize production systems per hectare over a five-year cycle (2002)

Enterprise/land use sub-system

Net present

Value (US$)

US$ per year

Continuous maize –Fertilizer

130 26 2.01

Continuous maize + Fertilizer

379 76 1.77

Gliricidia sepium fallow 264 53 2.80

Sesbania sesban fallow 300 60 2.97

Tephrosia vogellii fallow 231 46 2.73

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Without fertilizer subsidy

Type of variable Type of maize production system

CT -fert

CT+fert

Gliricidia

Sesbania

Tephrosia

Discount rate -0.45 -0.56 -0.94 -0.90 -0.83

Cost of inorganic fertilizer

0 -0.30 0.0 0.0 0.0

Labor wage rate -0.79 -0.24 -0.36 -0.35 -0.45

Cost of AF seeds 0 0 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01

Maize seed cost -0.20 -0.07 -0.11 -0.10 -0.11

Fert. timeliness 0 -1.27 0 0 0

Market price of maize

1.99 1.61 1.49 1.46 1.54

Fuel-wood 0 0 0.03 0.04 0.03

Note: Negative sign indicates an inverse relationship and vice versa.

Elasticity of Discounted NPV of Maize Production Systems

Proportion (%) of total maize production cost by source of type of payment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cont-Fert Cont+Fert Gliricidia Sesbania Tephrosia

Type of maize production system

Obtained withinhousehold, non-cash

Sourced "externally",cash payment

% of total cost

On-station

Research

Adoption

On-Farm

Research

Scaling up/out

1989 Early 90s Mid 90s 1998 & later

Num

ber o

f far

mer

s in

volv

ed

Time

1st generation issues:

• Species Screening

• Management regimes

Suitability of technology in other sites

Farmers’modifications

2nd generation issues eg. pests

Farmer innovations & constraints

LabourGrazingFireImplementsLand/tree tenure

Targeting

Policy

Impact assessment

Trend of emphasis on fertilizer tree fallows research & devpt

##

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

LUSAKA

HARARE

CHIPATALILONGWE

ZOMBA

QUELIMANE

ZAMBIA

ZIMBABWE

MOZAMBIQUE

MAL

AWI

TABORA

SHINYANGA

MAPUTO

BEIRA

CHINGOZI

TANZANIA

WhereWhere we are we are scaling upscaling up

The Four-Pronged Scaling Up Concept for Southern Africa

Prong 1: direct training of farmer trainers

Prong 2: provision of training to partner staff (largely NGOs through ARDN)

Prong 3: facilitation of farmer-to-farmer exchange

Prong 4: support to existing national extension initiatives for natural resource management

Assess number of plantersAssess number of planters-- partners & self partners & self monitoringmonitoringFactors affecting adoption Factors affecting adoption –– numerous numerous quantitative & qualitative studiesquantitative & qualitative studiesAdoption intensity over time Spatial adoptionSpatial adoption

• Spatial mapping: Where are adopters of agro-forestry & other soil fertility management options located?

• Why do farmers in some geographical areas adopt more than fellow farmers in other locations even where household characteristics are similar ?

Methodology for adoption results


36

Figure 2: Number of farmers planting fertilizertrees in Eastern Zambia

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Fig : Number of farmers planting fertilizer tree fallows in

the five southern African countries

180,000

110,000

80,000

30,000

5 10200 1,000

3,500

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003

YEAR

Plan

ters

ZIAP Annual report 2003

Table 4: Logit Regression Results for Soil Fertility Replenishment Options in Eastern Zambia

77.2%76.2%76.2%% correctly predicted by model

40.6%55.4%54.5%% of users of technology

101101101Number of observations

-2.1430(.0027)

-3.6013(.0001)

-1.5272(.0546)

Camp 4 dummy

-2.4405(.0042)

-1.5226(.0612)

-.5546(.4820)

Camp 3 dummy

-3.8124(.0001)

-1.1187(.1179)

.2738(.6962)

Camp 2 dummy

-.7738(.3000)

-.2119(.7963)

1.3949(.1408)

Camp 1 dummy

N/AN/A3.3225(.0032)

Pilot project village

.1085(.4838)

.1694(.2758)

.1406(.2909)

Number of household members over 13 yrs

.1436(.0796)

.0416(.6208)

-.0935(.2261)

Farm size

-.3026(.6704)

-.6199(.3796)

.4101(.6133)

Female headed marr ied, single or widowed

-.7624(.3045)

.8409(.3265)

-.2437(.7235)

Male headed -- single or polygamous household

.0382(.9561)

-.2631(.7260)

.0068(.9920)

Secondary Education

.3626(.5755)

-.4903(.4552)

-.1989(.7623)

Completed primary education

.0101(.6611)

-.0262(.2659)

.0279(.2507)

Age

-.3417(.7592)

1.9773(.0844)

-1.3394(.2683)

Constant

Animal ManureChemical FertilizerContinued Use of Improved Fallows

Independent Variable

Dependent Variable

Factors affecting farmers’ decisions to plant improved fallows

Labor/ Oxen Village House-hold size

owner- exposure to

Study ship improved

fallows

Franzel et al. 1999

N N

Phiri et al. 1999

+ N +

Kuntashula et al. 1999

+ N N + N N +

Ajayi et al. 2001

N +,N N +

Peterson et al.

1999b

Keil 2001 +/- N N N + +Place et al. 2002

+ N N N N +

Wealth Age Gen-der Educa-tion

Farm size Uncul-tivated land

Use offertili-zer

Off-farm income

+

Factors affecting decision to continue to plant

Factors affecting decision to plant

+ +

Adoption of fertilizer tree fallows is not a simple direct relationship of technology & farmers’ characteristics only but, a matrix of several hierarchy of factors

Policy and institutional factorsPolicy and institutional factorsSpatial location factorsSpatial location factorsHousehold & individual factorsHousehold & individual factors

• Training and Awareness• Farmer groups • Wealth?• Gender• Size of land holding

Change in fallow size from 0.07 ha (1997) to 0.20 ha in 2004

Adoption of fertilizer tree fallows

Change in government fertilizer policy

Continuous devaluation of national currency (Kwacha)

Government network of depots-late fertilizer delivery

Collapse of agricultural finance banks (LIMA and Cooperative Banks)

New agroforestry-supporting institutions: ZIAP, TARGET, PLAN & KEPA

ICRAF Development Division- emphasize “D” in SA

Time lag of knowledge-intensive technology

Private sector participation: tobacco companies, seed entrepreneur

Broader reasons for increased planting of fertilizer trees beyond household factors

Total increase in net returns

Increase food consumption:Range between 57 -147 person days per household planting fertilizer tree fallows

Value of fertilizer equivalence of N fixation:

US$5.7 million per annum

Value of fertilizer tree fallows in terms of food security in Zambia

Net Private Benefits from Improved Fallows in Zambia - Estimate for Total Number of Users

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Years

Amou

nt i

Cost ranges from Us$200K to 500K per annum


37

Environmental impacts

Water retention Soil physical & chemical propertiesCarbon sequestrationFuel wood & miombo deforestation

Comparison of soil water content under Gliricidia/maize and sole maize during rainy season, 1999-00, Makoka, Malawi.

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

10 /16 /99 11/13 /99 12/ 11/ 99 1/ 8/00 2 /5/00 3/4 /00 4/ 1/00 4/ 29 /00 5/27/00 6 /24/00 7/22/ 00

Dates

Wat

er c

onte

nt (c

m3

cm-3

)

Glir icidia/maize 60-120 cm

Maize 60-120 cm

Maize 15-60 cm

The Gliricidia treatment stores more water than sole maize; ie. it increases water infiltration even in a drought season

Maize-Fert

Water stressed maize after 21 days of dry spell in January

G. Sepium plot

Maize + Fertilizer

Means in a column followed by the same letter or letters are not significantly different at P<0.05Source: Chirwa et al 2004

Effects of land use system on some soil physical properties after 8 years of fertilizer tree fallow-crop rotations in Zambia

3.10.27.936.00.5SED

71.53.1218.7187.94.0Mean

61.2a3.2b217.3b103.4c2.1cContinuous M-F

65.6b3.9a208.8c142.0bc3.1bContinuous M+F

65.7b2.9b209.5c247.9a5.3aNatural fallow

80.8a2.9b222.7b235.8a5.2aCajanus cajan

83.3a2.2c235.4a210.6ab4.4aSesbania sesban

Average water stable aggregates

>2.00mm(%)

Average penetrometer

resistance at 40 cm soil depth

(Mpa)

Average water stored in 70 cm root zone at 8 weeks after

planting (mm)

Average cumulative water

intake after 3 hours (mm)

Average infiltration rate

(mm min-1)Land-use system

Table: Effects of Land-use system on soil physical properties after 2 years of improved fallow system, Zambia

2.30.1

71.53.1

4.00.5

MeanS.E.D

2.861.22.1Maize without fertilizer2.665.63.1Maize with fertilizer2.266.75.3Natural fallow

2.02.0

80.883.3

5.24.4

Cajanus cajanSesbania sesban

penetrometerresistance (Mpa)

% water stable aggregates >2.00mm

infiltration rate

(mm min-1)

Land use system

Nutrient budgets for different options in two year non coppicingfallows (0-60cm)

-38-30-31-2-1-2-22-17-20Unfertilized maize

-65-52-56121214485470Fertilized maize

-20-25-203224391101947Sesbania

2793733821841744Cajanus

200219991998200219991998200219991998

PotassiumPhosphorus Nitrogen

Carbon sequestration

17.61.0 – 3.60.7 – 2.5Root C input

3.5 – 8.01.4 – 4.21.6 – 3.2Intake of C t/ha

32.6 – 73.93.0 – 8.91.9 – 7.0C fixation in biomass t/ha

Rotational woodlots

Coppicing Fallows

Non coppicing

fallows

Source of fuel-wood production per year in eastern Zambia Chipata North Chipata

SouthFuel from fallows for adopters (kg) 261 431Fuel from miombo for adopters (kg) 2919 2915

Fuel from miombo for non adopters (kg) 2943 3385


38

…farmer testimonial

“I feel I have left a permanent fertilizer bank for generations to come by planting Gliricidia fallows”- Mr. U. Nyirenda, Zambia farmer, 11 Feb. 2004.

Impacts of agroforestry on adopter households

in Zambia and Malawi

Note: multiple responses

% of respondents Impacts of agroforestry Zambia MalawiIncreased yield 55 59Soil becomes 'softer' & less weed 34 54Problem of fuelwood reduced 28 65Cash obtained from sale of AF seed 6 24Reduction in fertilizer expenses 5 9None yet, started recently 35 16

THANK YOU


39

Impact of IWMI’s Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) Research Program

Meredith Giordano, Madar Samad, Regassa Namara

SPIA/INRM WorkshopLos Banos, PhilippinesJune 13-16, 2005

Background

Recommendation from 1992 Earth Summit:– water management should be decentralized and farmers

and other stakeholders should play a more important role in the management of natural resources, including water

Assumed improved efficiency, productivity, accountability, cost-effectivenessLittle documentation on processes and impacts

Objectives of IWMI Research on IMT

Through diverse set of global, regional, national, and local projects, IWMI:– Reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized IMT experiences

and impacts

– Recommended policy and operational interventions

– Developed generic guidelines for IMT and the establishment of Water User Associations

Objectives of Impact Assessment

To measure, to the extent possible, the impacts of IWMI research on the overall IMT knowledge base and on IMT policy and operations in specific countries where IWMI played a direct role in shaping or implementing IMT reform.

Methodology (I)

Focused on intermediary impacts/outcomesDrew from IWMI’s Impact TypologyUtilized range of qualitative and quantitative techniques

Typology of IWMI Impacts

Raised awareness of new researchApplication of new knowledgeEmployment of improved tools, technologies, and techniquesEmployment of improved policies/institutionsEnhanced capacityStrengthened partnershipsImproved livelihoods (within project locality)

What’s behind the typology?

For each intermediary impact type:– Vehicles to achieve impact– Sample indicators of impact– Sample measurement tools

Improved management of water and land resources for food, livelihoods and nature

IWMI’s projects and programs

Raised Awareness

Use of Improved Tools/Tech

Use of Improved PoliciesImpact Pathways

StrengthenedPartnerships

Enhanced Capacity

DirectIndirect

Lessons learn

ed

Use of New Knowledge

Impact Typology Schematic


40

Methodology (II)

Focused on four intermediary impacts/outcomes:– Raised Awareness of New IMT Research– Employment of IWMI-recommended IMT Policies– Employment of IWMI-recommended IMT

Techniques/ Institutions– Enhanced Capacity

Tools: combination of bibliometric assessment, website analysis, interviews, published reports, and questionnaire surveys

Impact Type Target Audience

IWMI Vehicle to Achieve Impact

Measurement Tool to Assess Impact

Raised awareness of new IMT research

Academics

• IWMI IMT publications • IWMI presentations/ workshops on IMT

• Bibliometric assessment • Website downloads

Employment of improved IMT policies

Policy Makers

• IWMI IMT publications (indirect)

• IWMI action research projects (direct)

• Internal and external source documents

• Qualitative feedback • Demand for IWMI assistance on IMT from international organizations and national governments. • Feedback via structured

Survey Employment of improved IMT techniques/institutions

Canal Irrigators, Water User Associations, Local NRM Groups

• Pilot studies to establish Water User Associations • SCOR project

implementation • Development of IMT guidelines

• Adoption of IWMI recommendations through WUA pilot studies

• Adoption of SCOR interventions

• Feedback via structured survey

• Website downloads and other feedback on IMT/WUA guidelines

• Demand for IWMI assistanceEnhanced Capacity Stakeholders;

Marginalized Groups; MSc/PhD students

• Workshops/conferences • Student involvement and

publications • IWMI IMT publications an

tools related to gender andirrigation management

• Website downloads • Qualitative feedback

Raised Awareness

Since 1995 IWMI has produced over 240 outputs on IMT including 21 Research Reports, 21 Journal Articles, 5 books and 15 book chaptersWeb Analysis 2000-2004: ~27,300 downloads of IWMI RRs and WPsGoogle Scholar: 94 citations (57 non-IWMI)Feedback on WUA Guidelines/Central Asia

Influence of Policy Interventions

Irrigation Management Policy Support Activity (Sri Lanka):– Adoption of specific policy recommendations, including

restructuring of Mahaweli Authority and establishment of National Water Resources Council to formulate a comprehensive water policy

Nepal IMT Policy Support:– Many of IWMI’s recommendations have been

incorporated into Nepal’s new Irrigation Regulation 2056 (2000)

Influence of Operational Recommendations

WUA Pilot Projects in Pakistan (Sindh and Punjab)– Adoption of IWMI model in 3 canal systems– Progress underway to shift management responsibilities from

centralized provincial authorities to farmer organizations (e.g., 154 transfers completed in Sindh)

Shared Control of Natural Resources (Sri Lanka) – Sustainability of SCOR interventions negligible– Why? Implementation deficiencies and long-term goals of project

difficult to balance with short-term needs of farmers

Capacity Building

Professional Training: 7 Post Doctoral Scientists/Associate Experts authored/co-authored 52 publications

Summary of Findings

Application of a range of direct and indirect measurement techniques suggest an overall positive contribution from IWMI to IMT knowledge base and application

– Significant demand for IWMI IMT products– Positive contributions to IMT policy– Positive contributions to management transitions (in general)– Capacity built for young researchers– Continued demand for IWMI involvement in IMT programs

(Cambodia, Pakistan, India, Eastern Europe) and in research/advice related to gender and irrigation management

Key Lessons from the IMT study

Supports need for impact assessment planning

Supports importance of defining IWMI’s role along the research to development continuum

Range of approaches needed to assess impact


41

Critical Reviews

Lack of counterfactual informationLack of quantifiable, long-term impacts (e.g., production, water conservation, socio-economic benefits)

Why the non-conventional approach?

Test new methodologyAssessed a program comprised of many projectsLack of sufficient baseline data Time lag from research to adoptionResources

Key Lessons for Impact Assessment

Calculating Internal Rate of Return is importantHowever, there are trade offs and limitations

– Time and resources– Long time lag between project, assessment, and lessons learned

Focus on intermediary impacts is relatively inexpensive and provides information and lessons at an early stage to inform future directionBalance between the two is needed

Key Questions

What’s the trade off between econometric analysis for long-term impact analysis versus short-term outcome assessment?From both center and donor perspective, is it useful to have indicators of outcomes or better to wait until long-term impacts can be measured and attributed?What is an impact and at what stage do we measure it? (change in policy, change in management, change in productivity, change in price, change in income, change in livelihoods, ….)

Influence of Operational Recommendations

Application of IMT/WUA Guidelines (based on survey results):– Improved understanding of institutional reform and

farmer participation in irrigation management (66.7%)– Improved project design and management (50%)– Improved quality of work (50%)– Facilitated the establishment of effective WUAs (33.3%)– Enhanced the effectiveness of the project

implementation (33.3%)


42

Assessing the impact of Assessing the impact of NRM research:NRM research:The case of zero tillage in The case of zero tillage in IndiaIndia’’s rices rice--wheat systems wheat systems

Vijay Laxmi (IGIDR) , Olaf Erenstein (CIMMYT) & R.K. Gupta (RWC)

SPIA Case Study presentation, SPIASPIA Case Study presentation, SPIA--CGIAR TF INRM Workshop, CGIAR TF INRM Workshop, Los Los BanosBanos, Philippines, June 13, Philippines, June 13--16, 200516, 2005

Importance Importance Rice Wheat Systems (RWS)Rice Wheat Systems (RWS)

global food securityStaple grain supply ~ 8% world’s population

South Asiaproduce >30% rice & 42% wheat consumed cover 14 m ha cultivated land –primarily in India & Indo-Gangetic plains

Issues Issues RWS in IGP of IndiaRWS in IGP of India

Rice-wheat cropping system:Wheat - cold & dry weather (Nov to Mar)Rice - warm (semi-)humid season (Jun to Oct )

Slowdown in production growthLimited scope for area expansionStagnating or declining crop yields

Factors:Inappropriate land & input use

prevailing policy & crop systems constraints

Soil & water degradationBuilt up of pests and diseases.

ChallengesChallengesRWS in IGP of IndiaRWS in IGP of India

Produce more food with fewer resources while sustaining environmental qualityNew technologies that are both more productive & less resource degrading

R&D of resource conserving technologies ZT for wheat most advanced & successful to date

Objectives case studyObjectives case study

For the irrigated IGP of IndiaTo review and quantify impacts of ZT

biophysical & socio-economic

To assess impact of ZT research

Zero tillage in the Indian IGPZero tillage in the Indian IGP

Zero tillage technologyZero tillage technology

Direct sowing wheat into undisturbed soil & standing rice residuesTractor mountedMechanical seed & fertilizer drill Inverted-T openers (6 to 11)Made locally (US$ 400)

Constraints addressed by ZTConstraints addressed by ZT

Late planting of wheat reduces productivityPest & disease build up (Phalaris minor)Land degradation & declining water tablesCost competitiveness & trade liberalization


43

Issues with ZTIssues with ZT

Discontinuation by some farmersE.g. perceived need tillage, hardpan, weed control, …

Partial adoption (reduced tillage)Crop residue management

prevailing practices & drill operation

Drill access (timely, affordable) & operationApplied only to wheat – rice still traditional

Impacts of ZTImpacts of ZT

Farm Level impacts: Farm Level impacts: Crop establishmentCrop establishment

Reduction in tillage operation for wheat establishment

CT – 7 ZT –1Advancement of wheat planting time

Trans Gangetic Plains – 7-10 daysMiddle Gangetic plans - 8-25 days

Saving in tractor operation time 8-15 hrs / ha (80-88%)

Diesel saving in land preparation31.5 – 75 lits/ha (60-90%)

Farm level impacts:Farm level impacts:Water use Water use

Water saving 20-35 % or 10cm/ha (1 million lits/ha)Primarily first irrigation

Quick advancement of water CT – 13-17 hrs/ha, ZT – 8 –10 hrs/ha

Farmers’ perceive ZT as water savingCost savings in case of lift irrigation

Farm level impacts:Farm level impacts:weeds, pests & diseasesweeds, pests & diseases

Decrease in weed population – P. minorChange in weed spectrum - broad leaved

No harmful effect insects & diseases Increase in earthworms & predator diversityIncrease in rodent damage on few sitesLimited effect on production cost

Farm level impacts:Farm level impacts:YieldsYields

due to timely wheat sowing

30% late sowing1-1.5% loss yield potential per day

Increased input use efficiency (fertilizer)Reported yield increase

TGP & UGP 2–6%MGP 9-36 %

12%17%-26%MGP6%16%UGP

1-7%1-3%TGP

FarmerOn-Station

Farm level impacts:Farm level impacts:ProfitabilityProfitability

Increase in gross returnReduction in total costs – 6- 17% (tillage & irrigation)Increase in net return – 42- 81%

Environmental impactsEnvironmental impacts

Soil quality+ve effects on SOM, stability, moisture content, …Remain only seasonal gains due to traditional rice

Ground water conservationTGP: many areas face ground water depletion

Air qualityReduction in CO2 emission – 91 kg/ha/yr

Reduced diesel use

Reduction in particulates due to less residue burning


44

Social impactsSocial impactsBeneficial to both small & large farmers

Divisible due to service providerNet return gain of ZT over CT: 26% large farmers vs 28% small farmers

Larger potential gain less intensified agriculture Time & resources saved utilized for income generating activities by both men & womenPositive gender effect (less tension)Limited labor displacement (prevailing mechanization levels)

Complementary impactsComplementary impacts

ZT may facilitate new technology (new varieties)Potential increase in cropping intensity & diversityNew service industries – machine manufacturers, service hiringAerobic ZT rice – strengthen ZT wheat & diversification prospects

Adoption of ZTAdoption of ZT

Estimated ZT/RT area in the Estimated ZT/RT area in the IGP of India (2003IGP of India (2003--04)04)

Section of Indian IGP

States Area under Zero/Reduced Tillage

(‘000 Ha)Trans Gangetic Plains (TGP)

Punjab Haryana

215350

Upper Gangetic Plains (UGP)

Western UP & Uttaranchal

175

Middle Gangetic Plains (MGP)

Eastern UPBihar

6018

Lower Gangetic Plains (LGP)

West Bengal --

Total Area 818

Estimated diffusion of ZT/RT Estimated diffusion of ZT/RT in Indian IGPin Indian IGP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Area

('00

0 ha

, IG

P)

ZT drill production ZT drill production Haryana & Punjab, India

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Num

ber o

f new

ZT

drill

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tota

l num

ber o

f man

ufac

ture

rs

Derived from Parwez et al, 2004

Potential area of ZT/RT Potential area of ZT/RT adoption in Indian IGPadoption in Indian IGP

States Area under rice wheat rotation (1998-01) mha*

Potential adoption area (m ha)

High productivity areas 40% ceiling level

- Haryana 0.91 0.36

- Punjab 2.19 0.88

Low productivity areas 30% ceiling level

- UP 5.13 1.54

- Bihar 1.83 0.55

- West Bengal 0.33 0.1

Total Area 10.4 3.43

* Pal et al, 2003

Expected adoption pattern of Expected adoption pattern of ZT/RT in Indian IGPZT/RT in Indian IGP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Years

% o

f are

a


45

Policy context Policy context & role of RWC& role of RWC

Time lineTime line1988 - CIMMYT imported inverted T opener from New

Zealand1990 - prototype developed 1991 – GOI initiated collaborative prog. with private

sector for development & commercialization of ZT1994 – RWC joined hands with NARS

provided support to pursue research & adapt ZT technologyRWC acquired several ZT drills and donated to HAU

1997 – after further refinement, private manufacturers supplied over 150 ZT drill to SAU, ICAR at Haryana, Punjab, UP & Bihar

Combined effort of NARS, SAU, Private manufacturer and RWC

Role of RWCRole of RWCresearch for development network

structured not to conduct but to support ambitious research agendaplayed innovative role (information provider, capacity builder & technology clearing house)

key in achieving & building on initial gainsfostering prototype ZT equipment, farmer experimentation, information sharing

Attribution remains difficult - shared credit In its absence, widespread ZT adoption may have lagged by 5 to 10 years

Estimating rates of return Estimating rates of return on investmenton investment

MethodMethod

Ex ante rateEconomic surplus approach

closed economy framework linear supply & demand functions parallel research induced supply shift1994 base year - 25 year time span

Assumptions benefitsAssumptions benefits

Tangible farm level benefitsState wise data (UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana)

yield & farm harvest pricestriennium 1994-97 as base

Selected parameters for impact Selected parameters for impact calculationscalculations

Indicator Value

Elasticity of demand 0.22

Elasticity of supply 0.40

Social discount rate 2%

Ceiling level of ZT/RT adoption 33%

Probability of success 0.3

Yield advantage 6 – 10%

Change in per ha cost of cultivation 5 – 10%

Benefits:

- Zero till (ZT)- Reduced till (RT)

100% (27% ZT/RT area)50% (63% ZT/RT area)

Assumptions costsAssumptions costs

1994 base yearPositive spillovers of sunk costs not includedMain costs components

RWC NARES


46

RWC Cost componentRWC Cost component

Annual aggregate cost 1994-2003: US$13 k to 257 k pa2004-08: US$ 251 k pa2009-13: linear decline

Thematic breakdown (42.6% ZT related)Geographic breakdown (50% India related)

Seth et al 2003

NARES cost componentNARES cost componentIndian NARS have made significant investment in ZTAnnual aggregate cost research component

2000-03 estimate: US$ 270 k paAssume:

1994-99: linear increase from 02004-08: US$ 270 k pa2009-13: linear decline to 0

Extension component assumed same as NARS costs with 5 year lag

Conservative scenario: 100%Optimistic scenario: 50%

ZT impact scenariosZT impact scenarios

Conservative scenario

Optimistic scenario

Net present value (NPV, million Rs, 1994)

815 1,731

Benefit/Cost ratio 3.3 6.9

Internal rate of return (IRR)

31% 46%

Exchange rate Rs/US$: 1994: 31.4; 2005: 43.7

Sensitivity analysis to variations of Sensitivity analysis to variations of conservative ZT impact scenarioconservative ZT impact scenario

Discount rate

0-10%

Prob. of success

15 - 50%

Yield gain

0 - 3%

Cost reduction0 – 2.5%

RT con-tribution0 – 25%

NPV (Rs, million 1994)

1,139 -227

229 –1,597

(60) - 377 534 – 674 147 – 482

B/C ratio 3.6 – 2.4 1.6 – 5.5 0.8 – 2.1 2.5 – 2.9 1.4 – 2.4

IRR 31 – 31% 14 – 44% NA – 20% 24 – 28% 11 – 23%

ConclusionsConclusions

ConclusionsConclusionsRapid adoption of ZT/RT in wheat after rice

Yield gains (6-10% - particularly more timely planting)Cost savings (5-10% - particularly tillage)

Conservative ex-ante assessment of farm level gains: investment in ZT R&D highly beneficial (IRR 31%)

Sensitivity analysis highlights influential role of yield gain & contribution reduced tillagePositive spillovers of sunk ZT R&D costs RWC has played pivotal & innovative role

ConclusionsConclusionsEnvironmental impact

Primarily water savings, reduction C emission/pollutionScope for enhancement – crop residue management & aerobic rice

Social impactAppears relatively scale neutral & divisibleTime & resources saved enhance livelihoodsMainly spread in better endowed areas

Significant knowledge gaps exist Extent gains realized & scope of scaling up plot impactInformation on cost of ZT R&D & attributionEnvironmental & social impact

ChallengesChallenges

Realizing high potential economic, environmental & social gains ZT offers

ZT as RCT – From only savings in the pocket, to saving NRZT as stepping stone to conservation agriculture

Complementary resource conserving technologies – ZT no panaceaPolicy reform

to create enabling environment for sustainable agriculture


47

people science environment partners

Development and Dissemination of Integrated Aquaculture – Agriculture

Technologies in Malawi


Outline of this presentation

Description of the innovation and technologyMethodology and data usedResults

Characteristics of adopters (vs control farmers)Factors affecting adoptionImpact on productivity, profitability and incomeImpact on technical efficiencyImpact on food and nutritional securityImpact on institutionImpact on national fish productionImpact on household welfareImpact on sustainability

Conclusion


Motivation for the introduction of the IAA in Malawi

Though aquaculture/small scale fish farming started in Malawi in the 1940s, the yield was very low ( ~400 kg/ha/year in 1985).

Adoption of Aquaculture technology was very low ( 173 t from 170 ha in 1985).

Very high dis-adoption of aquaculture tech developed by external funded projects.

Per capita fish consumption was declining


Pond productivity over time in IAA(FSRP) Vs non-IAA (non-FSRP) fish ponds in Southern Malawi.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Pond

Pro

duct

ivity

(kg/

ha) Non-FSRP

FSRP


Integrated Resource Management Approach

NEW ENTRANTS

Bioeconomicprogramming models and multivariate analysis.

Steady state ecological models (ECOPATH) and dynamic simulation models.

Household and community issues in adoption, institutional and policy factors effecting adoption.

Participatory research withfarmer groups to constructfarm transects and resourcemaps describing their naturalresource systems.

Future farm bioresourceflow models guidesystem transformation

Time-series Analysis

Comparative Analysis

Performance indicators- diversity- efficiency- input-output balance- recycling- equity

FARMER PARTICIPATORY SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION MODELING


Brief description of research and major milestones

Research activities conducted during 1986 to 1994 can be grouped in 2 phases

Phase 1 (1986-1990)

On station studies

Develop a suite of technologies within an IAA system context

Phase 2 (1991-1994)

On farm testing

Development of FSRP approach to aquaculture technology development and dissemination

1987- 1995: MAGFAD Project

1995-2000: No major ICLARM /DOF project. Incorporation of FSRP approach into national Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy in Malawi

Since 2001: Major adoption of IAA approach by farmers


Impact Indicator for IAA Technology in Malawi

Increased productionIncreased income from aquacultureConsumer’s surplusProducer’s surplusIncreased export and decreased importation

Increased productionInput savingIncreased income from aquacultureProducers’welfare (surplus)Consumer’s welfare (surplus)

Resource productivityTotal fish productionProfitability of aquacultureInput savingIncome from aquacultureFarm income

Socio-economic

Efficiency

Region/ NationCommunityHousehold

INDICATORSTYPE OF IMPACT


Cont…

Food and fish consumption by income class, rural/ urban

Food consumption by household membersFish consumption by household membersBetter heath status of family members

Food and nutrition security

Employmentopportunity by gender group

Employment opportunity by gender group

Labor use by gender and age groups

Employment

Region/ NationCommunityHouseholdINDICATORSTYPE OF

IMPACT


48


Impact Indicator for IAA Technology in Malawi

INDICATORS

TYPE OF IMPACT

Household Community Region/Nation

Environmental (Sustainability)

• Soil quality • Nitrogen balance • Diversification of farm enterprise • Recycling and integration with other farm

enterprises • Sustainability of output • Resilience to drought

Institutional • Farmers’ skill

• Increased capacity of farmers’ organizations

• Strength of national institutions


IMPACT OF IAA: SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Farm Productivity

IAA Technology/Process

Efficiency of farmer

Human capital Social capital

Conventional Inputs

Labor Fertilizer Physical capital etc

Natural Resource Capital Soil Water Biodiversity

Higher income and higher

Better health


Assessment of IAA Technologies in Malawi

Methodology:“With and Without” and “Before and After”

ScenariosA two-stage framework

•Identification of factors affecting adoption of IAA•Effect of IAA adoption on efficiency, food security, employment, sustainability, etc.


Assessment of IAA Technologies

Data Sources:

Surveys of 180 IAA adopters and 180 non-IAA adopters (from 6 locations).Use of RESTORE Data regularly collected by WorldFish-Malawi.Use of household level data on “fish consumption and children health” collected under “famine mitigation” project.Other published/unpublished secondary data.


R&D ADOPTION IMPACT

Ex Ante impact assessment and priority setting

Monitoring and evaluation

Ex post impact assessment

Provide basis for setting priorities

among alternativeresearch options.

Center Priority Setting

Provide feedback to researchers regardingtheir clientele’s need,

and thus improvethe design of

research

Demonstrate the value or research

otherwise ofresearch

RESTOTE

- SPIA project on impact assessment of IAA

Type and Stages

Main Objective

Potential high impact research identified

and prioritized


Data:

6

12

45

3

150150

23

8

36

28

48

7

IAA

300Grand total

6037Mangochi

5244Thyolo

459Mulanje

6032Mwanza

5911Zomba East

2417Zomba West

TotalNon-IAA

District

1

2

3

4

5

6

Malawi Vulnerability Map


Household size, Structure and Farming Characteristics

IAA Non-IAA Respondents

Adult Males 1.1 1.0 0.14Adult Females 1.3 1.2 0.324Male Children 1.3 1.4 0.339Female Children 1.4 1.1 .042**Males Farming 1.1 1.0 .045**Females Farming 1.3 1.2 0.448Male ChildrenFarming

0.6 0.5 0.378

Female Children Farming

0.5 0.4 0.288

Household Member Category

Number of Household P-value


Land type

0

10

20

30

40

Homestead Lowland Upland Dimba

Land Type

Per

cent

hou

seho

ld

IAA Non-IAA


49


Principal Source of Water

Number of enterprises

% Number of enterprises

%

Rainfall 376 75 301 78Water course 44 9 30 8Well 29 6 14 4Others 53 10 42 11Total 502 100 387 100

Principal Source of Water

IAA Respondents Non-IAA Respondents


Estimation of Adoption Function

A Two-stage approach:

Stage 1: All samples (adopter, non-adopter and dis-adopter ); Adoption (0, 1 variable) is a function of agro-ecological and environmental factors (dambo area/total farm area, access to water in potential NRT), farm environment (no of ag enterprises, soil quality) and socio-economic factors (education, farm size, land ownership, extension, access to credit, training, availability of credit, etc)

Stage 2: adopter only; level of integration (ratio, defined earlier) is a function of farm environment (no of ag enterprises, soil quality) and socio-economic factors (education, farm size, land ownership, extension, access to credit, training, availability of credit, etc).


Significant ‘independent’ variables affecting adoption

Extension (+)

Training in IAA (+)

No of farm enterprises (+)

Farm size (Positively effecting level of integration)


Determinants of IAA adoption

s.e. s.e. s.e.Intercept -3.08 *** 0.78 2.66 *** 0.74 -0.19 0.75Age 0.05 * 0.03 0.07 ** 0.03 0.00 0.01AgexAge 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.00Education -0.04 0.06 -0.06 0.06 0.14 * 0.08Gender 0.03 0.31 0.23 0.30 -0.87 * 0.53No. of persons in HH trained in IAA 0.34 ** 0.16 0.46 *** 0.16 -0.03 0.16Extension dummy 0.61 *** 0.19 0.62 *** 0.18 -0.17 0.28Access to credit dummy 0.17 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.01 0.27Number of enterprises 0.31 *** 0.07Land area 0.09 0.07 0.15 ** 0.07 0.02 *** 0.01Person-land ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01Presence of dambo area 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.21 0.19 0.32Dummy for access to irrigation -0.23 0.19 0.10 0.18 0.58 ** 0.25

DV: Model 1: 1 if IAA; 0 otherwise Model 2: 1 if high integration; 0 otherwise* Significant at a = 0.10** Significant at a = 0.05*** Significant at a = 0.01

Stage 1: Adoption model Stage 2: DV: Level of integration

estimatesModel 1 Model 2

estimates estimates


Direct effect of IAA adoption: Land-use pattern

LANDTYPE CROPNAME Non IAA IAA

Homestead Maize 0.49 0.35Vegetables 0.20 0.60Other crops 0.62 0.29

Lowland Maize 0.71 0.86Vegetables 1.00 0.92

Upland Maize 0.52 1.20Vegetables 0.20 0.56Other crops 0.60 0.44

Dimba (Wetland) Maize 0.27 0.38Vegetables 0.70 0.70

Area in ha


Impact of IAA:

163 %Increase in per capita fish consumption

27 %Increase/decrease in labor cost

23 %Increase in per capita protein expenditure

35 %Increase/decrease in external input cost

32 %Increase/decrease in internal input cost

76 %Increase in farm profitability


Productivity and Profitability (MK/ha)

ChangesNon-IAA IAA (%) Low High

Gross income 9,898 17,435 76.14 10,767 21,942 Total cost 5,470 7,133 30.41 5,729 7,931 Seed 1,104 1,459 32.20 1,148 1,663 Fertilizer 1,733 2,346 35.39 1,927 2,351 manure 239 331 38.56 197 542 Labor 2,394 2,996 25.17 2,457 3,374 Net income 4,428 10,302 132.64 5,037 14,012

TFP 1.20 1.33 10.48 1.18 1.52 Farm area (ha) 1.49 1.98 1.63 2.25

By household type By level of integration


Technical Efficiency:

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

0-1

0

11-

20

21-

30

31-

40

41-

50

51-

60

61-

70

71-

80

81-

90

91-1

00

Technical Efficiency (%)

Non-IAA (Avg=40) IAA(Avg=61) All Samples (Avg = 50)


50


Comparison of Income by source

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MK

Farm income Non-farmincome

Off-farmincome

Remittances

IAA Non-IAA


Comparison on sources of income

81%

10%6% 3%

Farm income Non-farm income

Off-farm income Remittances

2%11%

66%

21%

Farm income Non-farm incomeOff-farm income Remittances

IAA Non-IAA


Farm income function (DV: Ln farm income)

s.e s.e s.e s.eIntercept 8.9 *** 0.11 8.75 *** 0.1 8.53 *** 0.15 8.58 *** 0.16Level of integration (n flows/n enterprises) 0.53 *** 0.12IAA practice dummy (IAA = 1) 0.58 *** 0.1Probability of IAA adoption 1.17 *** 0.25 0.91 *** 0.27Ln farm size (ha) -0.65 *** 0.07 -0.71 *** 0.06 -0.77 *** 0.08 -0.75 *** 0.07Irrigation dummy (access to = 1) 0.32 *** 0.11 0.32 *** 0.1 0.33 *** 0.11 0.35 *** 0.1Credit dummy (access to = 1) 0.23 0.16 0.2 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.14Education of household head (y) -0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03

F-value 19.62 *** 38.8 *** 20.84 *** 23.05 ***R2 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.27

Note:*** Significant at a = 0.01

Prob(IAA adoption) of model 3 = probability that was estimated using model 1 of Table IV.4.Prob(IAA adoption) of model 4 = probability that was estimated using model 2 of Table IV.4.

estimates estimates estimates estimatesModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4


Monthly income and Protein consumption

Non-IAA IAA

Monthly income (Kwacha/capita) 2,100.65 2,646.49 Monthly protien expenditure 389.64 479.14

Share of different protein item to total protein expenditure (%) Beans 0.25 0.23 Meat 0.16 0.19 Dried fish 0.35 0.28 Fresh fish 0.09 0.18 Chicken 0.16 0.12

Montly protein consumption (kg/capita) Beans 0.74 0.86 Meat 0.37 0.63 Dried fish 0.63 0.59 Fresh fish 0.36 0.96 Chicken 0.34 0.33

By household type


Frequency of consumption over the last month

0

1

2

3

4

5

Bean Meat Dried Fish Fresh Fish ChickenType of Food

Freq

. (pe

r m

onth

)



Determinants of food security

s.e.Intercept 5.3492 *** 0.30Dummy for IAA (1 = IAA) 0.6045 *** 0.20Household head's education 0.1403 ** 0.07Farm size (ha) 0.0568 0.05household size -0.1037 ** 0.05

1.7211 0.07Scale 1.82 0.07

Log likelihood function -596.4904373

DV: number of months before maize supply will last.* Significant at α = 0.10** Significant at α = 0.05*** Significant at α = 0.01

coeff. estimate


Impact on Nutrition of Children under 5 Yrs of AgeMethodology:

With and without approach (IAA adopters and non-adopters)

Comparison of Anthropometric measures

Z-score for weight for height (WHZ)

Z-scores for height for age (HAZ)

Z-scores for weight for age (WAZ)

Descriptive analysis (t test)

Econometric analysis

Results:

No clear pattern


Trend in Fish production from culture in Malawi.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Prod

uctio

n (m

t)

Dissemination phase

Growth rate = 22%

Basic research and on-farm trial

Growth rate = 2.4%

MAGFAD period


51


Impact on Poverty , household welfare

Methodology:

Economic surplus method

Three stages approach (similar to Dey 2000, AEM)

Simple fish sector model in Malawi (application of a variant ofAsiaFish model, Dey et al 2005)

Ex ante impact indicators (based on adopter and non-adopter survey)

Estimation of benefit to producers and consumers

Results:

Large benefit to consumers


Background analysis

Identification of shock variables

Basic model

Over all impact

Distribution of impact (welfare analysis)

Analysis of Technologies

Policy analysis

Technological indexes

Other shocks Quantifiable Policy variables

Fish sector Model

Aggregate impact on• Fish Prices• Fish production by species group• Fish consumption by species type• Export/Import

Impact on consumers

Impact on producers

Impact on labor

• Macro policies• Sectoral policies• Institution• Support services

Effect of Technological and Policy Changes: General Framework


Economic Surplus Analysis

Value (US%000) %

Producer surplus 1087 31Consumer surplus 2396 69

Net present value of benefits 3482

Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 1.56

IRR 15%


Impact on Sustainability

Data: Long term RESTORE monitoring; special on-station train

Key results:

Better resilience against drought (an av IAA farmer gets 18% higher per ha farm income than a non-IAA farmer)

Better maize yield (IAA farmers: 4-6 ton/ha, best progressive non-IAA farmer gets up to 3 ton/ha)

Less N Loss (IAA-With pond sediments: 5 mg of N per m2 per day; non-IAA: 10 mg of N per m2 per day)

Better N Use efficiency (N yield per kg of N applied): IAA farmers: 0.4-0.6; non-IAA farmers: 0.2-.03


Soil Fertility

Infertile Maintained Highly Fertile Infertile Maintained Highly Fertile





Title please


52



Institutional Impact

Use of IAA approach by DOF (Malawi) and NGO (World vision success stories)

Use of IAA for HIV/AIDS affected and infected households

Empowerment of women, child headed households

Spillover effect to other countries (Zambia and Mozambique)


Conclusions

Development and Dissemination of IAA approach in Malawi have

Increased farm productivityIncreased farm incomeIncreased farm efficiencyIncreased fish productionImproved environmentImproved farm sustainabilityInstitutionalized NRM approach Strengthened local institutionsIncreased food and fish consumptionImproved child health (no, we could not prove this hypothesis)Improved welfare of both producers and consumption


Limitation of the study

Environmental benefits are not fully analyzed

Findings on the nutritional impact are not conclusive. Did not have data on various important variables (e.g. basis health status of sample respondents).


Thank you and

would appreciate your comments


Topography

Number of Parcels

% Number of Parcels

%

Flat 145 27 84 21Gentle Slopes

308 57 247 62

Others 85 16 68 17Total 538 100 399 100

Topography IAA Respondents Non-IAA respondents


53

David ZilbermanDavid ZilbermanUniversity of California BerkeleyUniversity of California Berkeley

Assessment of the NRMAssessment of the NRMimpact assessments studies IIimpact assessments studies II

Outline I(Outline I(TuesdayTuesday))

• World fish• IWMI• Cimmyt

• Fish- food with growing in importance– Fish and Health– Improved ability to store

Declining stocks

• Aquaculture– A way to relief pressures on fisheries– We are in a same situations as when

humans domesticated cowsNeeded to be done in an

environmental friendly mannerStudy demonstrates its promise

World fishWorld fish--opening new optionsopening new options

Nature of innovation & technologyAdapting technology to local conditions-Participatory evolving

Can be viewed within household production farming

Technology allows to enhance health& improvesfood quality

Generate income,

take advantage of family members

Its value dependant on location,

Sequencing the analysisSequencing the analysis• 3 papers in one-may benefit from change in

structure First conceptual foundationAdoption patternImpacts

income diethealth

Finally welfare effects and IRRExtrapolation to other areas

Results conforms the literatureResults conforms the literature• Location matters- based on relative advantage• Integration matters- increasing return to scope-

large farmers benefits• Extension complements human capital

– Education does not matter– Older larger families adopt-

• Importance of consumer surplus

Results contribute to literatureResults contribute to literature• Identify IAA as risk management strategy-

– Enhancing nutritional stature ( not fully documented)– Responsiveness to draught

• Links IAA to improved soil quality• Complementarity of aquaculture with

vegetable(water harvesting) • Gender,Aids,and spillover effects documented• Missing environmental effects

• Policy research- a social experimentation• Policy paradigms are global public good

(public bad-communism ?)• Prevailing theories emerge through intellectual

discourse (RIO)• They need implementation and adaptation• That was the IWMI does

IWMIIWMI--making policy reform making policy reform Possible & EasierPossible & Easier


54

Idealized theory of reformIdealized theory of reform

time

$

Gain from reform

Reform is infrequentOccur at crisis situationMay requires high cost ( which IRRI can reduce) May failRequires awareness good design & implementation

Benefit Cost analysis and Benefit Cost analysis and quality of ideasquality of ideas

• IWMI expense C1• Local agencies cost C2• Benefit B• BCR=(B/(C1+C2)• Is the following correct? IWMI helps to implement

ideas– If idea is good (B large and positive) IRR is high IWMI smells like a rose– If idea is bad ( B negative) IRR is negative IWMI does not smell good

Correct?What about spillovers and learning

Good policy research is always Good policy research is always valuablevaluable

• If the policy is good-that great• If it is not working-analyze what went

wrong – It is the concept or implementation – How to modify projects if it continues

The CG & global public good The CG & global public good (GPG) vision &reality(GPG) vision &reality

• There is need to support and enhance research on issues

• Little synergy between the applied emphasis of the CG and GPG-abstract, non specific

• There is scale effect and competition in generation of basic knowledge in life sciences-realm of prestigious universities– Number 2 does not gain much– Number 22 even less

IWMIIWMI’’ss NicheNiche• IWMI is not likely to be competing with the

ECONOMIST and major university on Concepts of privatization and decentralization. Instread

• Develop mechanisms to tailor concepts to specific needs

• Introduce mechanisms to induce adoption of reform ( increase awareness)

• Develop implementation mechanisms – Nuts and bolts of reform

FindingsFindings• Indications that as you go down the line the

impacts of IWMI is increasing• There is problem of attribution-

– Other agencies push similar ideas part of CV• What about capacity to adjust and modify

strategies?• Downloads are not enough- need quantify

impacts to recognize if the medicine works• Impacts of policy are important to the world-

they asses the basic paradigm • Impacts are crucial for adaptation

&modifications

Downloads ,citations& surveysDownloads ,citations& surveys• How do you interpret citations-are 93

googles too much or too little?• Follow the downloads-ask then how did they

use it.• “Student evaluations” are not only for

professors- they apply to other educators• Analyze responses of users-to identify

weaknesses and strengths- responses of small number that know you well matter

As long as there is no selection biasAsk to client impacts and it will come

LessonLesson• Build to assess impacts as you go• Study impacts on human capital• Monitor citations and seek feedback• Develop an historical perspective• Recall the strategic alternatives to establish the

counterfactuals– why did they decided to reform when they did– What were the alternative

• May need to study in depth case studies • Needs to study quantitative impacts to assess the

effectiveness of IWMI and the paradigm •


55

CimmytCimmyt ZeroZero•No tillage is big news in develop countries•This case of ZT and RT in India is not identical (wheat after rice)• but related -The big hits are global There are few good ideas. There are gains from technology transfer and adaptationMy guess -this technology has not reached its peak

Cimmyt Zero Tillage:Our great hit

Impact assessment based on Impact assessment based on micro production consideration micro production consideration

• Conceptual understanding of impacts on– water use efficiency– Pest damage– Labor and machine time– Soil– Complementary crops

• Leads to hypothesis about impacts– Yield– Profitability– EnvironmentalDistributions-quality of life

• What about impacts on pricesConsumer surplus, Producers surplus

Role of private sectorRole of private sector• Need to understand the public/private

relationship in ushering the technology• May be useful to study innovation history • How do extension and private marketing

effort coincide

Uniform technologies has high IRRUniform technologies has high IRR• Adoption is now at the take off stage• With S shape diffusion curve we have ways to

go• Great success with familiar features

– Initial definition of agronomical parameters– Embodied mechanical innovations that require

little local adaptations– Promotion and extension is done largely by

private sectors ( dealers and their sales force-was their cost considered?)

CoutnerfactualsCoutnerfactuals and the futureand the future• Attribution is a problem- there is much surplus to

share -what about environmental impacts• It probably would have been introduced without the

consortium-so there is a gain of time and more intensive patterns of adoption

• One of the few successes that pays for other NRM activities-(I believe the optimistic scenario)

• Study – Impacts on various dimension of Heterogeniety (space,

farming systems)– synergy with varietals differences is needed – Impacts on distribution, farming system and the environment

• The concept will be exploited in other countries

CG and generation of CG and generation of specialized applied knowledge specialized applied knowledge

• Global public goods are part of global competition for ideas

• There are not many effective great global ideas and research products– The challenge is local adaptation and product

development – There is a parallel to industrial R&D- small amount

of basic research ( at universities et) is followed by development and commercialization efforts

The GPG niches of the CGThe GPG niches of the CG• The CG should not specialize in general

technologies with GPG properties ( basic genetics)

• It should emphasize local adaptations• But when it comes to location specific biological

And agro-ecological knowledge that has global dimension- there is large potential for GPG

•

Outline II (Monday)Outline II (Monday)• CIFORE• CIAT• ICRAF• ICARDA?• Recurring themes• What are NRM R&D projects?• What are the unique features of NRM projects and how to address them?• The Dynamic processes affecting the benefits and costs of R&D projects• On the Art of R&D Project Evaluation• Conclusion


56

• Important methodological and factual contribution to understand the role of NRM project as generating global public goods

• Provides foundation to understand the role of CIFOR in the global network of institutions establishing and providing certification

• Provides evidence on the reliance on CIFOR finding in various contexts

CIFORCIFOR-- Congratulation- great achievement-document can be a book by itself

Economics and certificationEconomics and certification• Consumers care about forest and land use

management- willingness to pay for sustainable practices.

• The goods “preservation of valuable forest and ecosystem” are a public goods reflecting – Non use benefits– Bequest benefits

• There is asymmetric information between forester and public – difficult to observe outcome– Need to monitor actions

CIFOR and Certification CIFOR and Certification • Certifiers may address several market niches• They need a theory base for their activities use

general body of knowledge relevant sciences• Their capacity is limited- they are service provider• CIFOR provides intellectual research support to

augment their activities• CIFOR contributions are

– the value of the gains from the extra knowledge in certification activities

– Cost saving to certifiers as they need to reduce their research effort

The Benefits of CIFOR actionsThe Benefits of CIFOR actionsB = B 1 ` + B 2

B 1 − g a i n f r o m k n o w l e g eB 2 - c o s t s a v i n g B 1 = Δ A b + A Δ b w h e r e A − i n i t i a l a c r e a g e ,b − i n i t i a l b e n e f i t s p e r a c r eΔ A - i n c r e a s e i n a c r e a g eΔ b − i n c r e a s e i n b e n e f i t s p e r a c r e

B 2 = − Δ C∑ i

C i − e x p e n d i t u r e o f t h e i t h c e r t i f i e r w i t h o u t C I F O R

The quantification challengeThe quantification challenge• The above formula is static- to make it operational we

need a dynamic model with adoption &learning• The benefits from certification are not easy to

compute– The certificators are heterogeneous – Attribution to CIFOR is not easily quantifiable

• Need alternatives– Measures of adoption of certification ( which was provided)– Measures of benefits per acre and cost saving ( lacking)– Rely on testimonial & bibliographical measures for attribution

(done)• Refer to the CG study on benefits of economics and

policy research

The private side of certification The private side of certification • Who is gaining from the certifications?• How does it serves the poor?• How better is CIFOR than private

certificators?• At least raise the questions.••

• Management includes transfer of knowledge and adaptation of technology to potential users (extension/marketing)

• CIAT project modifies & adapts known methods to needs of Cassava using Participatory Research

• Relates to the literature on adoption as imitation

CIATCIAT-- how to improve extensionhow to improve extension

Thresholds of adoptionThresholds of adoption• Information is necessary for adoption• But it requires self interest• That is part of threshold model emphasizing• Adoption has elements of heterogeneity (threshold

model) &Self interest (Profitability, risk, adoption cost, shadow price of time)

-which is ignored ( Especially problematic in case of discrete choice)-which reduces the interpretability of the econometric specification

Adoption also has extensive and intensive margin effects-which is considered-needed to be related to literature


57

Economics of Economics of impacts impacts

P

Q

Demand

MC0

MC1

MC0+MEC0

MC1+MEC1

MC0-Initial supply MEC0-Initial marginal environmental costs

MC1 supply after innovation

AB

C

P0

P1

F

O0 Q1

G

H

Interpreting the messInterpreting the mess• The project increased supply- both by

– Increasing yields– Increasing area of production

• Potential impacts– Price effects– Output effects– Environmental effects

NB=CS+CS+EB−COST

CS Consumer surplus

PS Producer surplus

EB environmental benefit

Cost of extension program- not basic research

ImpactsImpacts• IRR need to incorporate impacts on consumer

and the environment- What are the E gains?• Do we have a lower bound of IRR?• What are the transaction cost of adoption

reduced by this approach? • Can we model them?• Can we measure them?

Issues Issues • The counterfactual

– How will extension be done without this approach?• The design of technology packages- combinig private

and public goods– Will the same new technology package will include the

same technology?• How will this extension technique be disseminated?

will it be used by public sector? Private sector?• What about environmental impactsDifferences between countries

– Institutions, attitudes, markets– Policies

• Promising study, needs refinement and refine interpretation

The Participatory ApproachThe Participatory ApproachWhat is new - do not we know about t

demonstration and on farm demonstration?Why do people participate? What was their hopes

and costs? How to they perceive extension? What are the reasons for active learning?How to incorporate new information technology?Need understanding of the participants and

their behavior

ICRAFICRAF--Fertilizer treesFertilizer trees• Quantify the relation between the value of the

technology and the costs of transportation and fertilizers

• What are the costs and structure of extension and how do they affect adoption?

• What is the overall calculus of benefits and costs and how will you asses it?

How do you asses adoption?How do you asses adoption?• Roles of input and output prices?what happened if

there will be roads?• Impacts of Land and capital availability-

complimentary inputs (other fertilizers)• Labor & effort considerations/mechanization• Varietals choices and adoption• Role of private sector (Nurseries) in providing

genetic materials? • Dynamics and risk considerations- simulations with

variations in weather and pricing.• How does this technology fit within a long term

framework of poverty alleviation?• You appreciate econometrics when it is not used

The economic The economic modelmodel

A

B

Before After

C with CO2 pay

B withoutD+Margin Envir Benefits

C


58

Explicit Calculus of impactsExplicit Calculus of impacts• Need to consider increase in supply• Price effect ( Depending on prices of environmental

services)• Consumer benefits• Farmers benefits• Environmental impacts-reduced deforestation? Soil

carbon sequestration? Other?• Need to subtract diffusion extension , research and

adoption costs• Sensitivity analysis - will this adoption pattern survive

in a well functioning Zambia?

• Important and understudied systems• Issues:

– Modeling the relationships between crop productivity and livestock

The relationships between home grown and purchased inputs

– Health effects of the technology– Environmental effects

• In addition- study impacts when subsidy exists• Question: reason for subsidies

ICARDAICARDA--adoption in livestock systemadoption in livestock system

two approaches to quantify two approaches to quantify Impacts of NRMImpacts of NRM

• Economists tend to rely exceedingly on econometrics than programming

• Morocco - relies on econometrics but with as small sample-

• Tunisia relies on programming -because of community choices -what are the merits of this technique

Tunisia Tunisia • Programming makes better modeling and

interpretation• Reasons for classifications of farms -and

some hypothesis about their effects• What are the counterfactual?what will happen

without the technology?• Innovative assumption about pad market-how

it will be affected by energy prices? How IRR will be affected by energy prices?

• Poverty effects are important

Common themes for ICARDACommon themes for ICARDA• Size matters• Multiple measures of size• TO what extent the Subsidy it the cause of adoption?

– Perhaps it will reduce the costs of risk in the short run and will lead to investment in fixed capital valuable in the long run( which implies risk aversion)

– Subsidy and credit? Tenure?– Does the subsidy provides risk premium?peace premium?– What the role of community?

• Not full quantification of environmental benefits• Impacts on health and risk• How do simulations fit reality?How do you justify

extrapolations?what about heterogeneity?

• Needs models

• Welfare economics frameworks are neglected- can provide guide to what was done and what is missing

• Studies Underemphasize– NRM and the environment– NRM and Poverty– Risk

• Before you do impacts study adoption– Not always we understand the motivations of the adopters– What affect their profitability? The role of risk? Information?– Heterogeneity and its implications

• Ex ante vs ex post IRR

Cross cutting issuesCross cutting issues

Major problemsMajor problems• Impacts of alternative policies• Counterfactuals• Cost of research& extension consider the

marginal costs• Dynamics-NRM is about stocks• Pricing of environmental amenities• Qualitative vs quantitative outcome• You are a victim of your data.

Practical issues of presentationPractical issues of presentation• What is novel in your approach?• How do you relate to literature?• Do you have a model? Sketch it.• Present minimum detail of technology- supplement

paper with a working paper -where the details of the technology and problems are considered.

• What do you miss• Always underestimate IRR• Future research?


59

What are NRM R&D projects?What are NRM R&D projects?• Projects that aim to improve the productivity of natural

resources in agricultural (water, soil)• Projects that aim to improve the farming of animals

&natural resource systems (fish forest)• Projects that aim to reduce agricultural pollution and

increase human and environmental health.• Projects that aim to provide environmental

amenities.(soil carbon,biodiversity)• Projects that aim to improve natural resources

management-leading efficiency and environmental quality gains

Selective breeding and gene plasma project and can benefit natural resources when demand is inelastic-biotech may help NR too-both not considered here

Strong management&policy componentsStrong management&policy components• The management component is there for a reason• New types of cultivation-

– aqua culture– Forest resource management – Land use

• Policy formation– Water policy– Natural resources property rights

• Management activities and product design not taken by private sector

Overall assessmentOverall assessment• We have a diverse sets of studies that

capture diversity of NRM and of methodologies to study them.


60

Impact Assessment for INRM: Some thoughts

Boru DouthwaiteTechnology Policy Analyst

CIAT

A Paradigm for INRM (and therefore its IA)

Innovation Systems (Douthwaite, Ekboir, Twomlow, Keatinge, 2003)

Agricultural research organizations operate within complex, adaptive systemsInnovation is a socio-technical processInnovations emerge at the interfaces of knowledge production, dissemination & economic activityInnovations (impacts) emerge out of networks, NOT from pipelines

IRR is the gold standard for IA

• “Needed for making resource allocation decisions”

• But, only valid (Ekboir, 2003) when:– Direct causal link between research and impact– This relationship dominates – Assumptions 1 and 2 valid for whole period– Chance does not play a factor– Inputs and impacts can be measured

• Seldom valid, only valid for minor changes along stable technology paradigms


• “Needed to communicate impact of NRM research to donors”

• But:– “Many people have very little respect and have

doubts about IIR”– “Donors want a good story, about one page

long”


• Can be a limiting lens– Adoption (1,0)– No role for adaptation, i.e., no role for

stakeholder innovation

Use of multiple methods

• Need guidelines for good practice IA for INRM? Including when and how to do economic IA?

• See monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment as part of the same thing– Kuby’s impact model

• A missing component? – Social network analysis

Kuby’s impact model

Improved livelihoodsamongst farmers in Africa

Ultimate outcome

Eventual wideradoption

Community enjoys generallivelihood improvements


Changes inknowledgeand attitudes

Adopting farmersenjoy higher and morestable incomes

DirectBenefit


Stakeholderslearn ofproject

SCALINGUP

Adoption oftechnologies andchanges in practice

SCALINGOUT

Adoption inother villages

Farmers modify andinnovate

Changes in farmers’attitudes andperception

Improved knowledgeof farmers

On-farm validation andadaptation of ‘best bet’options

Immediate researchoutputs

Iterationsof learningcycle

Example of an Impact Pathway


61


Ultimate outcome






DirectBenefit



SCALINGUP


SCALINGOUT









Ultimate outcome






DirectBenefit



SCALINGUP


SCALINGOUT








Social Network Analysis

• Innovation arises out of networks• Effective networks share common set of

characteristics– Birds of a feather flock together– Diversity – links between clusters– Several paths between any two nodes– Average path length is short

Scattered Clusters

Hub and Spoke Network

Multi-Hub Network

Core/Periphery Network

World Accord

UofG

IIRR

IDRC PRR

Kellogg

SERTEDESO

PROSLANTECARIAS

FUPNAPIB

Zamorano

IDHERFEPROH

IPCA

IPRA-CIAT

Organization Power metric

IPCA 0.835 PRR 0.388

IPRA-CIAT 0.381 Zamorano 0.294 FEPROH 0.233

IDHER 0.233 UofG 0.233

Clustering coefficient

0.23

Average path length

2.20

(i) 1996

CARIAS

PROSLANTE

IDRC

World Accord

SERTEDESO

EDISA

ANAFAE

UofG

CIADRO

UDC-Canada

MSU-CRSP

PRGA

FUNDESO

IHDER

ASOCIAL-V

ASOCIALAGO

ASOCIAGUARE

ASOCIAL-Yorito

ASOHCIAL

FEPROH

Kellogg

IPRA-CIATPRR

Zamorano

IPCA

Organization Power metric

IPCA 0.570 Zamorano 0.515 ASOHCIAL 0.413 ASOCIAL-V 0.353 PRR 0.299 ASOCIAL-Yorito 0.275 IPRA-CIAT 0.274

Clustering coefficient

0.51

Average path length

2.32

(ii) 2003


62

NRM Research at IRRINRM Research at IRRI

Impact of IPM in Southern Vietnam

Resource Allocation by CGIAR Undertaking

(% of expenditure)

3139Sustainable production

109Improving policies

2117Enhancing NARs

100100Total

128Germplasm collection

2627Germplasm improvement

20041999Undertaking

Source: IRRI Medium Term Plan

Scientific Capacity(No. of Ph.D level researchers)

13912Soil and Water Sciences91113Entomology and Pathology2610Agricultural Engineering

142216Physiology and Agronomy

115

14

2310

201994

1221International Programs

1416Administrative and support services

95117Total

1214Social Sciences

1915Plant Breeding and Genetics20041984Discipline

Source: IRRI Annual Reports and Program Reports

Major NRM projects implementedDeployment of soil erosion control technologies for uplandReversing the trend of productivity decline in intensive rice systemsMethane emission from rice paddies and mitigation optionsDevelopment and deployment of site specific nutrient management technologiesDeployment of resource conserving technologies for rice-wheat systems (zero-tillage, raised bed system)

Source: IRRI MTPs

Major NRM projects implementedRain water harvesting for life saving irrigation and crop diversificationWater management for optimizing productivity of coastal wetlandsWet and dry irrigation system for water saving in rice cultivationOn-farm conservation of rice bio-diversityPest management through mixed-planting of cropsDevelopment and communication of Integrated Pest Management

Source: IRRI MTPs

Limited impact assessment activities for NRM research

Impact of pesticide use on human health and environmentAssessing the effect of intensive use of agro-chemicals on water qualityFactors affecting adoption of soil erosion control technologiesAssessing the impact of IPM training and communication

IRRI’s IPM activitiesInvestmentOne entomologist and one communication specialist over 15 yearsActivities

KAP studies on pest managementCommunication on IPM mostly focused on Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and ChinaCoordination of a network of IPM specialists in Asia as part of IRRC

RecognitionInternational Green Apple Environment Award from the House of Parliament, LondonCharles A. Black Award from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, USA

International Rice Research Institute

Assessment of the Impact of Integrated Pest Management

in Southern Vietnam

Mahabub Hossain1

Florencia G. Palis2

Truong Ngoc Chi3

1 Head of Social Sciences Division2 Associate Scientist, Social Sciences Division, IRRI3 Sociologist, Cuo Luong Rice Research Institute


63


Increased intensity of rice cropping in Mekong River Delta

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

000

Ha

Croppedarea

Cultivatedarea

01234567

89

10

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

ton

Yield/season

Yield/year

Trend in rice area Trend in rice yield


Premise:Premise:Leaf-feeding insects at early stage of the plant growth are targets of many insecticides applicationsPlants can compensate for early injuries, therefore no need for spraying to save yields

Message:Message:Do not spray for leaf feeding insects for the first 40 days after sowing in direct seeded rice or for first 30 days after transplantingIntroduced in Vietnam in 1994 using mass media campaign (poster, pamphlet and radio drama)By 1998, the message was spread to over 200,000 farmers in the Mekong Delta

No Early Spray (NES)


Farmer Field School (FFS) Initiated by FAO in Vietnam in 1992A non-formal education approach to extension of IPMA class of 25-30 participants, half a day weekly meeting for 12 weeksFollows an agro-ecosystem perspective that includes an agronomic, ecological, and physiological understandingParticipants are thought four key principles

Grow a healthy crop using resistant varieties and efficient management practicesConserve natural enemies and parasitesMonitor the field regularly on pest-predator balanceApply pesticide judiciously

By 1999, over 400,000 farmers received the training International Rice Research Institute

Objective

Assess the impact of NES and FFS ona) Knowledge of pest management

b) Pest management behavior:number of spraying and use of

insecticides


Methodology:Before-after and with-without comparison

Repeat survey of a village in 1997 and 2005

Benchmark survey in 1997:Trained (38)Non-trained (61)

Repeat survey in 2005:Earlier trained (27)Intermediate trained (11)Non-trained (33)

Some households migrated out or became non-farm households


Methodology: With-without comparison

303030Ben Tre303030Bac Lieu

609090Total sample

-3030Long AnNo trainingNESFFS

ProvinceVillage (Commune)

No. of sample households


Location of Sample Sites

Ben Tre

Long An

Bac Lieu


METHODOLOGY

Methods - both quantitative and qualitative

Surveysknowledgeinput-output

Focus group discussions

Key informant interviews


64


19Some insects kill other insects by eating them

Pest –predator relationship

22Insecticides are dangerous to people

Safe use of pesticides

14Whiteheads at ripening stage are caused by brown planthopper (BPH)

Insect-plant interaction

Total no. of

questionsSample questionKnowledge

domain

Measurement of Knowledge score


Impact on Knowledge:Repeat Survey

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1997 2005 1997 2005 1997 2005

Trai

ned

Non-

trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non

-trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non

-trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non

-trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non-

trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non-

trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non-

trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non

-trai

ned

Trai

ned

Non

-trai

ned

Pest–predator relationship

Safe use of pesticides

Insect-plant interaction

Knowledge score


Impact on Knowledge:With-without comparison

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

Pest–predatorrelationship

Safe use of pesticides Insect-plantinteraction

FFS

NES

Con

trol

FFS

NE

S

Con

trol

FFS

NE

S

Con

trol

Knowledge score


Determinants of Knowledge:Cross-section 2004

1.240.169Landholding-0.56-0.0008Farm experience6.470.366Intercept

5.050.186*FFS dummy4.350.022*Education

2.520.093*NES dummy0.23

11.58

Regression coefficient ‘t’-valueVariable

R2

F-value


Determinants of Knowledge:Repeat survey 2005

0.750.0241Landholding-0.43-0.0007Farm experience3.890.279Intercept

4.710.230*Trained before 19973.190.0229*Education

5.340.303*Trained after 19970.57

16.37

Regression coefficient ‘t’-valueVariable

R2

F-value


EFFECT on PESTICIDE USE


Number of spraysCross-section 2004

5.15.96.1Total applications

ControlNES exposedFFS trainedType of pesticide

2.42.32.4Insecticides

22.32.5Fungicides0.81.31.2Herbicides


Imported Pesticides(Finished product, Quantity in kg, li)

Source: Plant protection Department in the South; around 70% of the total imported volume in South Vietnam.

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

Others(Molluscicides, etc)

In thousands


65


0

90000

180000

270000

360000

450000

2001 2002 2003 2004 (Jan-Sept)

Insecticides

Herbicides

Fungicides

Volume of sales (kg,li) in one pesticide shop in Long Ann Province


Farmers’ pest management practice: Repeat Survey

2.13.41.82.3No. of insecticide sprays

12.3424.967.6214.61Insecticide cost (US$/ha)

2005199720051997

Non-trainedTrainedPest management practice


Farmers’ pest management practiceWith-without comparison

12.2012.6812.54Cost/ha (US$/ha)

Not trainedNESFFSFarmers’ practice

2.62.32.4No of insecticide sprays

21.8024.3816.51Price (US$/kg)

0.560.520.76Insecticide amount (kg/ai/ha)


Determinants of the intensity of spray:Cross-section survey

0.28311.15-0.2612NES dummy0.96260.00-0.0112FES dummy

0.5930.280.050Landholding0.0693.31*0.614Education

0.11222.520.0079Pest infestation

0.0185.570.990Intercept

-342.07Log-likelihood

ProbabilityChi-squareCoefficientFactor

0.00767.16**0.0060Fertilizer use

0.1921.700.012Farm experience


Determinants of intensity of spray:Repeat survey 2005

0.6650.19-0.182Trained after 1997

0.04510.570.282Trained before 1997

0.3620.83-0.216Landholding0.0057.86-0.015Education

0.000123.673.59Intercept

-109Log-likelihood

ProbabilityChi-squareCoefficientFactor

0.7000.15-0.0019Fertilizer use

0.0832.99-0.021Farm experience


Key Findings

Positive effect on knowledge of pest management

The positive effect is more pronounced for FFS (intensive training) than for NES (simple message)

The effect on pesticide use is not clearReduction in insecticide use over time

No significant difference between trained and untrained farmers from cross-section data

Is the spill over effect on control underestimates the benefit from ‘with’-’without’ comparison?


Impressions from Qualitative Survey

Farmers still concerned about pest infestation and yield loss from pests

Insignificant economic benefits a constraint to practicing IPM knowledge

Conflicting messages received from pesticide companies


Key Questions‘With’-’without’ comparison from cross-section studies: Is it an appropriate methodology for impact assessment?

Is it worthwhile to take the extra steps to estimate the rate of return on investment?

The investment cost can be estimated, but

The economic benefit is a small component of total benefits

Substantial benefits are on account of improvement in human health and environment which are difficult and costly to estimate

How to attribute the effect of investments on FFS training


66


THANK YOU


67

ContourContour--hedgerows in the Philippine uplands: hedgerows in the Philippine uplands: A case study of adoption A case study of adoption

and likely impactand likely impact

Sushil PandeyLucy Lapar

Hermann Waibel

ObjectivesObjectives

Assess farmersAssess farmers’’ perceptions regarding the perceptions regarding the impact of CH,impact of CH,Diagnose factors explaining the differences Diagnose factors explaining the differences in adoption of CH across farms,in adoption of CH across farms,Assess the likely economic returns to Assess the likely economic returns to adoption,adoption, andandIdentify improvements in technology that Identify improvements in technology that are likely to raise returns to adoptionare likely to raise returns to adoption

Conceptual FrameworkConceptual Framework

H H

L L-M

H

L

L H

Population Pressure

Market Access

Induced demand for soil conservationaccording to production system

Farmer PerceptionsFarmer Perceptions

Major benefitsMajor benefits: :

Reduction in soil erosion Reduction in soil erosion Less gully formationLess gully formationImprovements in yieldImprovements in yieldHedgerow speciesHedgerow species--specific benefits specific benefits (such as provision of fodder)(such as provision of fodder)

Farmer PerceptionsFarmer Perceptions

Major costs: Major costs:

High cost of labor for establishment High cost of labor for establishment and maintenanceand maintenanceLoss of landLoss of land

Determinants of adoptionDeterminants of adoption

Education (+)Education (+)Tenure (+)Tenure (+)Membership in Membership in laborlabor--exchange network of farmers (+)exchange network of farmers (+)Slope (+)Slope (+)Market access (+)Market access (+)


68

Returns to adoptionReturns to adoption

Intervention Erosion

Erosion Productivity

Cost of adoptionCost of adoption

Cost of establishing CHCost of establishing CH

Annual cost of maintenanceAnnual cost of maintenance

Loss of land areaLoss of land area

% in

crea

se in

bre

ak-e

ven

yiel

d of

cor

n

Yield of corn (kg/ha) without contour hedgerows

Percentage increase in yield of corn needed to break-even investment in contour hedgerows at different discount rates and cropping intensity

160

1600

80

120

40

20

60

100

140

800400 1200200 600 1000 1400

Discount rate = 0.40Discount rate = 0.20

Which cost component is more important in Which cost component is more important in determining returns?determining returns?

Loss of areaLoss of area

Cost of establishmentCost of establishment

Cost of maintenanceCost of maintenance

Percentage increase in yield of corn needed to break-even investment in contour hedgerows

for different % reduction in cost

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

20 40 60 80 10010 30 50 70 90

% in

crea

se in

bre

ak-e

ven

yiel

d of

cor

n

% reduction in cost of hedgerow

Loss of areaEstablishment CostMaintenance Cost

What next steps?What next steps?

Quantification of onQuantification of on--site effects taking into site effects taking into account different dimensions of benefitsaccount different dimensions of benefits

Detailed analysis of farmer perceptionsDetailed analysis of farmer perceptionsQuantitative models (modeling but the issue of Quantitative models (modeling but the issue of validation a critical one) validation a critical one)

On site benefits may be low in poorer On site benefits may be low in poorer environments, so quantification of offenvironments, so quantification of off--site site benefits critical. Scale issue? Attribution?benefits critical. Scale issue? Attribution?


69

ANNEX III: POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS INRM TASK FORCE MEETING

Lessons in M& Efrom ICRISAT-Zimbabwe

PUTTING INRM INTO AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT

PROGRAMS

GERMPLASM FOCUS

1980 – 2002 SMIP

USAID

BMZ

CIDA

NARES

Universities

FAO

Private sector

CIMMYT

What inputs most enhance household food security?

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

kg h

a-1

Traditionalvariety

Improved variety Improved variety& management

Relative importance of alternative cereal grains in smallholder

production in Zimbabwe, 1990s

0102030405060708090

100% of area

NR INR II

NR IIINR IV

NR V

MaizeSorghumPearl Millet

Zimbabwe maize yields, 1980-2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

t ha-

1

“Securing the future for Africa’s children”

“Crop productivity growth in southern Africa has been the lowest of any region in the world despite 20

years of research funding”

ICRISAT’s NRM Research in Southern Africa 2000 onwards

Research thrustsFertility and water management technologiesParticipatory research and extension methodsAnalytical tools (soil-crop models, bio-economic models,

GIS) Linkages to input/output marketsCrop-Livestock interactions

Research approachParticipatory on-farm experimentationPartnerships (NARS, NGO’s, Univ’s , CG, private sector )Risk analysis (climatic, economic, spatial)


70

The Problem• Low and declining soil

fertility – N & P

• Low payoffs to investments in R & D, extension and marketing

• Declining yields, per capita food production, farm incomes, and food security

• Extensification of crop and livestock

Mismanagement of natural resources is the ‘Achilles heel’

of long-term sustainable development

(Ian Johnson, Chair CGIAR, 2000)

Extensification of farming in fragile ecosystemsExtensification of farming in fragile ecosystems

• Extreme example– Why haven’t farmers adopted my technique?

• Farming Systems Research– What kind of technologies/interventions do

farmers need?

• Participatory Research– What do farmers want?

Rethinking the questions in NRM

Household considerations

0

10

20

30

40

50

Crops

Fruits

and Veg

Lives

tock

Loca

l wag

es

Remitta

nce

Other

% o

f hou

seho

ld in

com

e TsholothoChibi – source IESZimuto

Gaps for INRM research

• Contributions NR make to livelihoods and poverty alleviation• Contribution to overall economy• Various technical NRM areas – IPM/IDM, INM, Crop-

Livestock, water quality and quantity, cognizance of multiple demands, social and economic demands, less obvious forms degradation and impact

• Integration and systems management at farm and landscape level poorly understood – iterative learning

• Social and institutional dimensions of INRM• How to change policy and institutional environment

Participatory Research + Modeling

Extension Workshops Zim/Malw

AREX

Crop Modeling Unit

On-farm Trials

Key results: N technology

• Response to low rates of N are measurable on-farm

• As little as 30 kg AN (10kg N /)ha can give maximal crop yield in dry regions (graph – 9 sites in NRIV&V)

• and,• 15-20 kg/ha can double

crop yield in most years (simulation analysis)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 30 60 90 120

kg Amm onium Nitrate Fertilzer per ha

grai

n yi

eld,

kg

per h

a

Source: SDRAMP


71

Typical N response curve - SAT

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 N rate (kg /ha)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg/

ha)

Re-interpreting soil fertility recommendations

Research recommendations

commercialisation and investment

growth

Farmer’s current use and capacity

• FPR and Simulation encourage co-learning

• Farmer’s Questions• Should I concentrate or spread the

available manure ?• Which soil type should I

concentrate my manure on?• Should I use N fertiliser in

combination with manure or use it separately?

• What if change my maize variety?• What if I change my planting date?

Using simulation models with farmers?

Linking Logics Workshops

Key results: manure technology

• Low rates of N in combination with manure increases crop yields, even in dry seasons

• Improved manure management (covers, pitting) improves nutrient cycling and increases crop yields

• Banding improves crop response to manure, substitute for Starter P

Average Tsholotsho Maize Grain Yield 2001/2002

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Manure only Manure+NTreatment

Yie

ld (k

g/ha

)

3000kg/ha manure 6000 kg/ha manure

Over time farmers got ambitious

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Control Manure only Manure+LowN

High D, highN

High D, Low N Low D, low N

Treatment

Yie

ld (k

g/ha

)

3000kg/ha manure 6000kg/ha manure

How much nutrient can the farmer afford and where and how should he/she apply it?

How much nutrient a farmer should put on his/her soil given the desired output?

Area devoted to Crops and Rangeland

Crop Fields

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1984 1992 2002

Clayfields Sandfields

Rangeland

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0

1984 1992 2002.0

Are

a (k

m^2

)

Unknow n Good Rl Poor Rl

Partners: AREX, NUST, ARC,CBOs

Care needed so we do not get lost in complexity

Care needed so we do not get lost in simplicity

Pound et al., 2003

Campbell & Sayer,2003

Barret et al., 2003


72

This is great....seeing research turning into practice

Paul Mapfumo Uni Zimbabwe

Steve, great!! – John Dorman USAID

With your kind of work, perhaps I will believe there is a role for technologies!! – Bruce Campbell CIFOR

A beer bottle cap holds enough AN for three plants

Creative and adaptive

Balancing hard and soft

sciences

Multiple scales ofanalysis and intervention

Becoming focused systems

thinkers

Approaching systems from an organizational

and institutionalperspective

Towards actionresearch

Evaluatingimpact

Managingknowledge

Burying theR&D continuum

Realigning scientific culture

andorganization Leadership

and facilitation

Adapting and learning

What type ofscience to do where

Socialorganization

of science

Conceptual cornerstones of

INRM

Conceptual cornerstones of

INRM

Effective Evaluation in INRM

• Stakeholder participation at stages of project• Systems approach that supports 3 INRM pillars• Timing of evaluation• Iterative approach

formative rather than summative evaluation

Beneficiaries of Impacts

• Who will use outputs? • Who will benefit?• Where?• When?• How many? • How will the information get to them?

Stakeholder Attributes and Evaluation

• Power• Legitimacy• Urgency

Varies with Salience of Stakeholder

Evaluator must understand audience of evaluation as this

Influences questions asked and Indicators used

What type ofscience to do where

Socialorganization

of science

Adapting and learning

Scaling up and

adding value


73

25 kg of fertilizer was distributed to 170,000 farmers with a pamphlet onhow best to apply this

In 2003/04

This was linked with1200 demonstration trials run by farmers

Alternative methods for scaling up and out

Partners: AREX, CARE, COSV, World Vision, FAO,DFID, EU and Echo

Monitoring seed relief

Post Plant

Post harvest

Promotion and support of Good Agricultural Practice

Low input N

Response Trials

Variety evaluations

Technical Support

AREX

NGOs – 3 models

Grow-outs: Which is the real Macia?

Problems

1. Mis-labeled seed2. Mixed seed (early & late)3. Poorly adapted seed

• Sorghum forage crop • Delayed flowering of cowpea seed

4. Sampling/Checks are costly

5. Companies are difficult to prove guilty

If If ---- we are distributing the best varietywe are distributing the best variety

Draft Seed Protocol

1. Choose genetically pure varieties or registered varieties

2. Accurate and traceable labeling: variety name, lot #, germination %, hybrid/OPV status, certification standard

3. Common packaging size and format: 1kg, 2kg, 5kg, 10 kg

4. Add flyer with basic planting information

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

maize(n=259)

millet (n=85) sorghum(n=184)

maize(n=181)

millet (n=87) sorghum(n=66)

Matobo Hwange

grai

n yi

eld

kg h

a-1

No N1 bag AN

Contribution of small doses of fertilizer to grain yields in Matobo & Hwange, 2004

44%

29%56%

25%22%

34%

Partners: AREX, COSV, World Vision, ECHO, DFID

Mberengwa: Virtually all farmers gained from the micro-dosing with AN in 2003/04

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

kg h

a-1

Marita ShumbaStabile ShavaEmelia RungweTamai R ungeveEmma MakandiseC hipo HoveTendai G apikaKurengwa FusiraC hahwina MavesereSanie MakandiseEunet ShumbaR inga ZhouJohn Dube JosephineChipo MangwendeN or mias ShumbaLande ZhouDavid H ove

0 30 kg AN


74

Without fertiliserWith fertilisation

30 to 50% yield increased across 170,000 households that received AN from DFID in 2003

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000Z$/ha

MatoboHwange

Mberengwa

BikitaZaka

Gokwe

Net return to micro-dosing maize crops with AN, 2004

18,000 tonnes increased production

Local Market USD 2,000,000

Or

WFP USD 4,000,000

Low doses - promote poverty!

Maize grain production - Masvingo

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Cum

ulat

ive

yiel

d (k

g/ha

)

Current_practice10kgN/ha50kgN/ha0N_100% residues

And contributes to soil degradation!

Soil carbon dynamics

24000

25000

26000

27000

28000

29000

30000

31000

32000

33000

34000

1962

1965196

8197

119

741977

1980

1983

198619

891992

1995

1998

soil

orga

nic

carb

on (k

gC/h

a, 0

-15c

m)

Current_practice10kgN/ha100kgN/ha0N_100% residues10N_100%residues50N_100%residues

Total DM Requirement of AllLivestock for the dry period

DM Requirement0 - 343720343721 - 690395690396 - 12060551206056 - 25239492523950 - 5628195

Proportional Contribution of Stover to Dry Season Livestock DM Intake

Proportion1 - 67 - 1415 - 2526 - 4647 - 76

DM Intake requirements and the potential dry season contribution of Stover in the communal areas of Zimbabwe

Proportional Contribution of Stover to Dry Season Livestock DM Intake

Proportion1 - 67 - 1415 - 2526 - 4647 - 76

Proportion1 - 66 - 1414 - 2525 - 4646 - 7676 - 150

The contribution of Micro-Dosing to Stover Production in Zimbabwe

Contribution of Micro-dosing to Livestock

Production

Low-input is only one step toward building more sustainable

cropping systems

• But an easy first step • to achieving significant gains in

household food security

Changes in Relief• DFID developed a 3 to 5 year program of

protracted relief for Zimbabwe 2004-2007+– Seeds – consolidate message– Fertilizer – consolidate message– Improved crop husbandry practices

• ECHO increased project cycle from 6 to 10 months to capture impacts

• EU in process of developing program of protracted relief due to start 2005-2006

Program 2004-2005A. 250,000+ farmers receive 25 kg bags of AN with advice

on how best to apply (15-30 districts) –130,000 actually did

B. Farmer learning plots: 0 vs 25 kg AN/acre demonstrations with more detailed monitoring of impacts (+/- 50 farmers per district)

C. Pilot program on small packs of fertilizer – precursor to voucher schemes in 2005-2006

D. Revision of Brochures/Guides

E. Introduce conservation agriculture

F. Continued support on Seed Relief

G. Development of protocols and guides for NGO/AREX and farmers


75

6 Trade stores

• Hwange

• Matobo

• Tsholotsho

40 % bought by farmers because of positive experiences with microdosing in 2003/2004

Lady in Tsholotsho –

• I only harvested maize where I top dressed

• Wish I could have afforded more

The Funding

ICRISAT Core, DFID, Rockefeller, IDRC, GEF, BMZ, ACIAR, EU, Echo, FAO, USAID, PRGA, OSWU-SWMN, WOTRO

THE NETWORK Team

AREX -NARES

CIMMYT

CIAT-TSBF

IFAD-SDARMP

Universities

NGO’s - 22 at last count

Private Sector

Seed Companies

Fertilizer Companies

Farmers and Farmer Field Schools

Team ICRISAT• Steve Twomlow – Soil Science/FPR• David Rohrbach – Economist• Joe Rusike – Production Economist• John Dimes – System

Modeler/Agronomist• Andre van Rooyen – Ecologist/GIS• Lewis Hove – Systems Diversification• Kizito Mazvimavi – Economist• Sabine Homan – Systems

Diversification• 9 National Scientific Officers


76

Linking INRM Cornerstones into an Output, Outcome, and Impact

Assessment Framework

Frank Place

Meine van Noordwijk

World Agroforestry Centre

Outline

INRM challenges and IPGs

Framework for assessment in INRM

Challenges in assessment

Domain of similarity

Specification at ‘lower’ scales

Gender, Wealth, Age, Location, Livelihood

strategy, Resource base

Interactions with ‘higher’ scales

Policy, Governance, External stakeholders,

Longer term effects

Help actors find ‘solutions’ to

their problems

Identify problem across scales, shared understanding

Challenges For Impact Assessment in INRM Research and Development

Multiple systems, scales, problems , opportunities…

Multiple stakeholders with different perceptions, objectives, etc

Multiple interventions at different scales – some are intangible, some are generated by other interventions

Adaptive management and changing targets

Social and human capacity for this is important

Complex situations, producing somewhat new and unique cases

These challenges are, however, common across locations and therefore create the potential for International Public Goods

International Public Goods from Outcome and Impact Assessment in INRM

1. Methods and tools that can be used by INRM and other researchers and managers in other sites.

INRM approaches, landscape level indicators,

2. Lessons learnt about how INRM processes and systems work for input into decision-making

e.g. millennium ecosystem assessment

3. Inputs into ex ante models and tools that can inform major investment decisions.

e.g. EIA, re-assessment of major reforestation project in Panama

OutputsInformationOptions (TIP)MethodsGermplasm…..

OutcomesBuilt capacity (in structure, function)Use of options, methods, infoLearning and better decisions

ImpactsProductivityPoverty / equityEnvironment

Researchers make some decision about priorities related to problems, opportunities, value added

Inputs from previous research and stakeholders

Decide on level, theme, location, clientele, partners…… for research

In this context, refinement of problems, opportunities, value added is done

Schematic of Impact Pathway

Input Acti-vity

Out-put

Frame

Out-come

Im-pact

Input Acti-vity

Out-put

Frame

Out-come

Im-pact

ISSUE(n)Input Acti-

vity

Out-put

Uptake

Uptake

Out-come

Im-pact

ISSUE(n)Input Acti-

vity

Out-put

Uptake

Uptake

Out-come

Im-pact

Frame

Input Acti-vity

Out-put

ISSUE(0)

Out-come

Frame

Im-pact

Uptake

Frame

Input Acti-vity

Out-put

ISSUE(0)

Out-come

Frame

Im-pact

Uptake

The project – impact cycle as multiple loops in an active learning spiral

‘Outcomes’ in the form of improved capacity are critical for long term management of ecosystems

The previous diagram helps to reinforce the fact that our ex ante impact pathways, while essential, almost always represent a set of hypotheses

They are based on assumptions about how things work

It is an empirical issue as to whether the assumptions hold at all and more importantly whether the planned impact pathway is the most effective and efficient

Improving the impact pathway is critical for achieving impact and integrated assessment of outputs, outcomes, and impacts is a necessary ingredient


77

Identification of Impacts to Assess

For ‘localized’ INRM projects managed by local actors, these are determined by local processes of identification

For INRM projects involving the CGIAR, in addition to the local priority setting component, we must pay attention to IPGs, e.g.

tackling new methodological challenges

measuring processes of global significance

Outcomes and Output Identification

The ‘success factors’ provide the broad structure in which a INRM output and outcome assessment can be developed.

I say ‘broad’ structure because:

Few INRM projects will have interventions that correspond to each of the 11 success factors

For each success factor, there remains significant work to be done to identify specific outcomes and indicators.

But the cornerstones can serve as a guideline for formulating an assessment plan

O perat io nalis ingIN R M

O perationa lisingIN R M

C le ar p a rtn ersh ips an d c o llab o ra tiv e arra n gem en ts

b u ilt o n trus t, o wne rsh ip an d jo in t c om m itm e nt to

v ision an d im p a cts

C lea r p artn e rs h ip s a nd c olla b orativ e a rran g em e n ts

b uilt o n tru st, own e rs h ip a n d joint co m m itm en t to

v is io n a nd im p ac ts

Effec tiv e cro ss -d is c ip lin a ry le arn in g

tea m s o f R &D a ge n ts

E ffe ctiv e c ro s s-disc ip lina ry lea rning

te am s o f R& D ag e nts

En ab lin g g ov e rn an ce an d p olic y th at p rov ide

in c en tiv e s , c ap ac ities an d res o urce s to k ey

s tak e ho ld ers

E na b ling go ve rna nc e a nd p o lic y th a t p ro v id e

in ce n tiv e s, ca pa citie s a nd re so u rc es to ke y

s ta k eho ld e rs

Lo c al o rga niz ation al c a pac ity fo r c o lle ctiv e

ac tio n a nd se lf-g ov e rn an ce

L o ca l o rg an iza tio na l ca p ac ity fo r c o llec tiv e

a c tion an d s elf-go v erna nc e

En ha n ce d c re ativ ity an d lea rn ing th rou gh ex po s ure,

e xp e rim e nta tio n a nd iterativ e refle c tio n on

s u cc es s es a n d failu re s

E nh a nc ed c rea tiv ity a n d le arn in g thro ug h e xp os u re ,

e xp erim en tation a n d ite ra tiv e re flec tio n o n

s uc ce s se s a nd fa ilure s

Ac c es s to in fo rm a tio n o n

tec h nica l, ins titu tio na l, m ark et a n d p olic y o ption s

A cc e ss to info rm ation on

te ch n ic al, in stitution a l, m a rk e t a nd p o lic y op tio ns

Effec tiv e re s ea rc h de s ig n an d p roc es s to in teg ra te re s ea rch an d

d ev e lo pm en t o b je c tiv es

E ffe ctiv e res e arch d es ign a n d p ro ce ss to inte grate re se arc h a nd

d ev elo pm e n t ob jec tiv e s

Sh ared pro blem an d o pp ortun ity

fo cu s am on g p artn e rs

S ha re d p ro b le m a nd op po rtu nity

fo c us am on g p a rtn ers

E ffe ctiv e fac ilita tion , c oo rd in a tion an d

ne go tia tio n a t d ifferen t le v els

Effec tiv e fa c ilita tio n , c o ordina tio n a nd

n eg o tiation at d iffe re nt lev e ls

Exp lic it s c aling up / o ut stra teg y b uild in g on

s uc c es se s a nd strateg ic en try p o in ts

E xp lic it s ca lin g u p / o u t s tra te g y bu ild ing o n

su c ce ss es an d s tra te g ic e ntry po ints

In te re s t a nd en erg y cre ated in th e s ho rt- term to e ns ure co m m itm e nt to th e lo ng er term g oa ls an d p roc es se s

a m o ng pa rtne rs

In tere st an d e ne rg y c re a te d in the sh o rt-te rm to e n su re c om m itm en t to the lo n ge r te rm go a ls a n d pro ce ss es

am on g p artn e rs

INRM Factors (cornerstones) for Successful Interventions to Address NRM Problems

Campbell et al.

Effective research design

Effective cross-disciplinary teams

Scaling up/out strategy

Partnerships built on trust

Effective facilitation, coordination

Local organizational capacity

Enabling governance

Access to information

Interest and awareness

Shared problem

Enhanced creativity & learning

Research Outputs

Capacity Outcomes

Performance Outcomes

Enhanced Creativity and Learning – The Farmer Level

What types of creativity and learning are important?

1. Identification of ‘problems’ -- contrasting actual performance of the system with the objectives

Research Target: Increase awareness and develop a shared perception of ‘problems’

2. Awareness and knowledge about ‘utility’ of interventions –adjusting own experiences to new information

Research Target: Modify the perceptions on ‘expected utility’ especially where locally ‘new’ options are involved, where little learning from experience has yet taken place

3. Adding to the pool of options through ‘innovation’

Research Target: : Enhance the access to knowledge and experience of options that exist elsewhere but not yet locally, or true de novo generation of new technology

4. Modifying the way management decisions are made and fine tuning the implementation of activities

Research Target: Enhance the managerial skills of the farmer to make better allocations of her/his scarce resources

5. Gaining more control over the ‘influences outside of managers control’

Research Target: Mechanisms of ‘empowerment’ where human interactions are concerned and ‘domestication’ where biological and ecological sources of variation are involved.

6. Understand the complex system for what it is and adjust objectives to what is ‘realistic’

Research Target: Provide knowledge about realistic levels of system performance under different scenarios

Some Challenges

•There are agreed upon indicators & methods for ‘impact’ assessment, but much less agreement on the assessment of outcomes

This is critical for INRM research -- how can we create a forum for exchange of ideas on this within (ILAC) and outside the CGIAR (Ecoagriculture Partners)

•Testing for attribution links between outputs-outcomes, outcomes-impacts, or outputs-impacts remains difficult?

This is particularly the case when impacts or outcomes are not on farms and numbers of observations are low – need to use more qualitative research methods


78

Some Challenges

•Identification of controls or counterfactuals is another challenge, especially at the outcome level.

Perfect controls are almost impossible to find many types of INRM research – what alternatives are credible?

•How do we ‘anchor’ assessment -- to a problem (or set) or an intervention (or a set) or both?

Both have advantages and disadvantages – anchoring on problems seems most appropriate for INRM

Some Challenges

•Finally, how can we better ensure that outcome and impact assessment research does produce IPGs?

INRM approaches, methods, and tools – develop a strategy for dissemination to NARs and other users.

Empirical Lessons – What are the next priority areas? E.g., MEA calls for more work on knowledge of land degradation and processes, emphasizing drylands

Models for ex ante impact assessment – Seek clients for this and understand their needs. E.g. MEA calls for “modeling of complex dynamics” and there are many major sustainable land management initiatives underway to link to


79

Evaluation for Institutional Evaluation for Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC)Learning and Change (ILAC)

A CGIAR initiative A CGIAR initiative & it& it’’s implications for INRMs implications for INRM

Doug Horton, Jamie WattsDoug Horton, Jamie Wattsand Boru Douthwaiteand Boru Douthwaite

June 15, 2005June 15, 2005

“To be serious about poverty, the agricultural research and development community has to be serious about institutional learning and change.”

Robert Chambers

“Changes in the CGIAR should be home-grown and evolutionary.”

Ian Johnson

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

Albert Einstein

ILAC TeamILAC TeamJamie Watts (IPGRI project leader)

Doug Horton (project coordinator)

Robert Chambers (IDS-Sussex)

Boru Douthwaite (CIAT)

Andy Hall (UNU-INTECH)

Charles Staver (INIBAP)

Peter Matlon (RF), Theo van de Sande (DGIS), Stephan Krall (GTZ) & Shantanu Mathur (IFAD)

1. Why are We Concerned with 1. Why are We Concerned with ILAC?ILAC?

Accelerating change on many fronts

Limited progress in poverty reduction & sustainable resource management

Limitations of “lone ranger,” “pipeline” & “TOT” approaches

Adapt or die

Average lifespan of the largest industrial firms is just 40 years (Senge, 1990)Organizations can be poor learners

What is ILAC?What is ILAC?

ILAC emerged from concerns that CGIAR centers were not:

Sufficiently engaged with the “real world”Learning enough from their evaluationsUsing lessons to improve their work

ILAC has academic roots in :Utilization-focused evaluation, Science & policy studiesManagement scienceOrganizational developmentAction research

How can we define ILAC?How can we define ILAC?A process of reflection, reframing and using lessons learned during R&D processes that changes:

Professional behaviors of those involved in the agricultural innovation

Institutions (habits & norms) that guide behavior

Performance of R&D organizations

Another Perspective on ILACAnother Perspective on ILACAn emerging menu of interventions that promote new behaviors and relationships, through:

Critical reflection & self-awarenessAnalysis of both successes & failures Using lessons to work more effectivelyChanging rules, norms & conventions that guide behaviorDeveloping an environment that supports learning and change

Examples of ILAC in ActionExamples of ILAC in ActionAn integrated action research / action learning program (Papa Andina Network, CIP)

Learning from innovation histories (ICRISAT, CIAT)

Building learning into external reviews (IPGRI, ICRAF)

Building KS into internal reviews / meetings (CIAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, ILRI)

Combining participant and expert reviews (WASNAR)

“Horizontal evaluation” (CIP)


80

Eight ILAC Briefs:Eight ILAC Briefs:1. Institutional Learning & Change: A CGIAR

initiative2. Innovation systems3. Learning-oriented evaluation4. Collaborative agreements: A “how to” guide5. Preparation and use of innovation histories6. Participatory strategic planning: An

example from CIMMYT7. Towards integrated monitoring and

evaluation systems8. Learning alliances

Our Vision: Our Vision:

ILAC will be a catalyst for changing the way we conduct agricultural research to improve its contribution to development

ILAC and Innovation SystemsILAC and Innovation Systems

In the Innovation Systems Framework:

Agricultural research organizations operate within complex, adaptive systemsInnovation is a socio-technical processInnovations emerge at the interfaces of knowledge production, dissemination & economic activityInnovation emerges out of networks, NOT from pipelines

Key Role of EvaluationKey Role of Evaluation

Evaluation, broadly defined, can serve as a tool for learning from past successes & failures in order to improve future actions

To serve this purpose, evaluation must be “Utilization-Focused” & involve key potential users of the evaluation results

Evaluation & Organizational Evaluation & Organizational Learning: Principles & PitfallsLearning: Principles & Pitfalls

We learn most from our “errors,” but seldom admit them

We learn most “in the field,” but seldom go there.

Most organizations have serious “learning disabilities.”

The higher you go the less you can “afford” to learn.

Staff turnover and “knowledge loss”

Evaluations are seldom utilization-focused & seldom support organizational learning & change

Organizational learning is a complex & delicate social process that needs to be managed.

Example: Constructing and Example: Constructing and Learning from Innovation Learning from Innovation

HistoriesHistoriesWhat is an Innovation History?• Innovation is the process of people putting

new technologies and ideas to practical use

• An Innovation History is the story of an innovation process, told in the order events happened

Why construct Innovation Why construct Innovation Histories?Histories?

There is much we can learn from IHsbecause:

To enable innovation we must first understand how it happensAccounts of how innovation happens are rarely written downTraditional reporting is often blind to personalities, roles, actors, luck, etc.

• Introduction, Methods, Discussion, Conclusions – does not describe process

IHs can complement adoption studies and impact assessment

Timeline of the Innovation Timeline of the Innovation History ApproachHistory Approach

1996 to 1999 PhD thesis constructing innovation histories of postharvestinnovations in the Philippines and Vietnam

2002 Book published based on innovation histories

2002-2004 Book subsequently becomes required or recommended reading on 7 graduate and post graduate degree courses

2003 Effort to develop Innovation Histories as a participatory learning approach begins.

2004 ILAC Brief published


81

PABRA Innovation HistoriesPABRA Innovation Histories

Four bean adoption histories:Climbing beans in RwandaCAL 96 in UgandaRoot rot resistant varieties in Western KenyaKenya bean varieties

Co-construction began in a 3-day workshopExample: Climbing Beans in Rwanda

TIMELINE

ACTOR NETWORK MATRICES

GoR/SDC

CIAT/Col.CIAT/Rda.

ISAR

Farmers

CIAT/Col.

DonorsVCR

SSSDev. Projects

CIAT/Rda.

ISAR

Farmers

Period 1980 – 1985 Period 1986 – 1990

Rwandan Donors

VCR

SSSDev. Projects

CIAT/Rda.

Rwandan Farmers

PABRA

ISAR

EAT

OMMN

Kenya-Farmers

Ugandan Farmerss

CAL96-Donors

Seed Project

Ugandan CBOs

Farmers Seed GpsNARO

Uganda-NGOs

CIAT

CIDA

SDC

Processors

USAID

RF

MOA

KEPHIS

TradersConsumers

ASARECAAHI

ECABREN

Kenyan CBOs

Kenya-NGOs

UNIV's

Seed Cos

KARI

Kenyan-Farmers

Map of the experimental stage of each history

Kenya varieties – Red

Cyan – Rwanda

CAL 96 – Green

Root Rot - Blue

Next Steps for PABRA Next Steps for PABRA Innovation HistoriesInnovation Histories

Individual teams write their innovation historiesWorkshop to share and reflect on findingsPlanning / change based on learningPublication of individual innovation histories, methodology and synthesis paper (the IPGs)

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions

Should INRM and ILAC be more closely linked?How can we do it?


82

David ZilbermanDavid ZilbermanUniversity of California BerkeleyUniversity of California Berkeley

Assessment of the NRMAssessment of the NRMimpact assessments studies IIIimpact assessments studies III

Outline IIIOutline III((WednesdayWednesday))• Diversity of NRS• Reasons for public Research & NRM• Lessons• Interdisciplinary Dialogue

NRM Projects are diverse NRM Projects are diverse --IICover a wide range of issue• Replacing harvesting of NR with farming

– Aquaculture– Agroforestry

• Sustainable development of NR– Forestry– Soils– Water– Livestock

• Build up of human capital• Impact assessments approaches and issues vary

across problems

NRM are diverseNRM are diverse--IIII• Dimension of problems

– Farm level– Region– National– Global

• Much Interdependence of resources and systems-multiple disciplines interact– CIAT ( learning & soils)– CIMMYT ( mechanical and soils)– WF

Challenges

• Under-emphasis of major features needed for sustainable system assessment– Environmental impacts– Dynamics– Risk– Distributional effect (overemphasis of static agricultural issues)

• Causes – Methods– Data

• Filling this gap is a research challenge-Knowledge isa public good to be pursued by a global network in and outside the CG

Reasons for public researchReasons for public research• Under investment by private sector as they consider

only Producer surplus (not producer surplus)• Orphan crops• Orphan drugs• Poor consumers

• Missing markets– public good ( knowledge) – Externalities( pollution-negative, networks-positive)

• Economics of scale (share resources)– Large fixed cost and investment and low variable

costs make case for large units– Shared medical facilities– Case for monopolies

How Does NRM fit?How Does NRM fit?• They address orphan markets • Provide public goods(policy research, research on

NR especially in tropics)• Provide capacity that can provide targeted outputs-

apply new knowledge to specific problems– Emphasis on applied research /extension– Value to large network ( network externalities) and

continuous learning-especially in policy ,management and outreach methods

– Even when the application is specific it is useful to draw generalizable knowledge

Lessons


83

Lesson 1: incorporate Lesson 1: incorporate assessment to ongoing RDEassessment to ongoing RDE

• Assess impact as you go– Develop methods for monitoring of outcomes– Use results for learning and long term assessment

• The CG may consider introducing cost accounting-attributing costs to projects use for– Project assessment – Accountability & transparency

• Will be costly but – can rely on contribution of software proivders– Will upgrade IT

Lessons 2: Lessons 2: Integrated approach to Integrated approach to impact assessment:impact assessment:A multistage processA multistage process

•

First First --Background workBackground work• Presentation of the problem• Identification of research network and role

of CG• Model-

– farmer choice to derive hypothesis– overall outcomes to derive measures of

outcome– Optimize modeling effort-as base for action,

not new theory

Then document adoptionThen document adoption• Measures of adoption are diverse• Recognize

– partial adoption– Adaptation and disadoption

• Provide– spatial– time,– scale – other sources of heterogeneity among adopters

Present ImpactsPresent Impactsmeasuresmeasures

• land use changes• Outputs• Input use• prices• Environment• Health• Poverty• Related markets

Build a diverse set of measuresBuild a diverse set of measures• Bibliographic

– Citations– Downloads

• Seek feedback Follow the downloads• Nothing works like testimonials• Write technology history• Analyze research network- use it for

attribution?

Construct economic measures Construct economic measures of performanceof performance

• Consumers’ surplus • Producers’ surplus• Government surplus• Environmental benefits ( monitized)• Disaggregate these measures by

locationTimeCategories ( farmers , input manufacturer, output

seller)IRR

Lesson 3: you can not avoid Lesson 3: you can not avoid assessmentassessment

• If you spend others’ people money you need to show results

• They consider weight of evidence- need a story with some numbers ( and pictures)

• IRR is like democracy- far from perfect but good considering the alternatives(especially if a funder considers allocation among diverse causes)

• When assessing ongoing project- assess it ex-post and provide future projections


84

Lesson 4:NRS have diverse IRRLesson 4:NRS have diverse IRR• We have limited knowledge • IRR of some NRM projects is high very

high– Relatively uniform technology( strategy)– Large scale

• Probably high variability of IRR• Lower IRR than crop breeding?

• Build a believable counterfactuals• When possible- establish treatment

and control group• Sample sizes are critical • Extra modeling and econometric

skills go a long way

Lesson 5:think about statisticsLesson 5:think about statistics

Lesson 6:Locate research within Lesson 6:Locate research within a global network of sciencea global network of science

• The CG is part of scientific community• Results and findings

– Discoveries and research outcomes– Patterns of adoption ,technology impacts

should be presented within the context of global knowledge

Lesson 7:Effective assessment Lesson 7:Effective assessment efforteffort

• Impact assessment is an economic activityAdjust effort to the reward• Multiple audiences deserve multiple

outcome• It is useful for donors but crucial for

internal management

Lesson 8: Build skills &networks Lesson 8: Build skills &networks • CG should have orientation training to new

professionals to:– build assessment skills– familiarity with system– Establish disciplinary and interdisciplinary networks– Have cross disciplinary dialogue

• Orientation effort will require refining evaluation and assessment procedures

• Can be used as part of other CG inner communication efforts

Adoption:theory &estimationAdoption:theory &estimation

TheoryTheoryAdoption is a multidimensional process

– Continuous learning(neighbors, sellers, media)– Assessment ( based on self interest&constraints)– Consideration of risk ( does it fits my needs?, what

happen when it fails?) – Timing matters( Start slowly and intensify, delay till

you know better)– Feedback within community

The Marketing discipline studies The Marketing discipline studies how to affect adoptionhow to affect adoption

• A bad product can be introduced but will not last

• Recognize heterogeneity-target the likely adopters

• Change emphasis over time – Build awareness– Demonstrate performance– Address concerns– Help to overcome constraints (credit)– Establish mechanisms to reduce risk


85

Empirical adoption researchEmpirical adoption research• Econometrics-Depends on the data and limitation of

statistics– Empirical models are crude

• Tries to estimate key parameters and predict• Interviews with panels of potential adopters

– Can address issues of product design and attitude -but there are gaps between words and deeds

• Empirical approaches evolve with technological capabilities -especially IT


86

International Public Goods (IPG) Generated Through INRM

ResearchR.R. Harwood

F. PlaceA.H. Kassam

H. M. Gregersen

IRRI, June 13-16, 2005

Evolution of the IPG concept within the CGIAR-changes in Center foci

• The period of widely-tested germplasm, with generic commodity production packages, and empirically-tested farming systems (through 1980s)

• Addition of climatic zone-focused Centers (ICRISAT, CIAT, IITA, ICARDA)

• Initial attempts to define recommendation domains for farming systems (Garrity et al. 1978, 1981)

• 1990-Addition of NR Centers in forestry, agroforestry, fisheries and water management

• Formalization of the ecoregional approach-1991

An ecoregional approach

• Formally defined and instituted in 1991 (TAC), and ecoregional programs begun in the 1990s

• Dimensions included bio-geo-physical, economic and increasingly socio/political elements, leading to the INRM focus in the late 90s

IPG definition (TAC 1997)

“Centres’ products should be international public goods”

INRM development requires wide-ranging research outputs, from basic to applied, coordinated across a multi-layered partnership of institutions

Production ecosystems cover broad geographical areas (not usually defined by national boundaries) with diversity and gradients in each of the resource domains and in their drivers

The “embedding” of technologies for change and their extrapolation across those gradients requires scientific tools of several types

Development agencies dealing with INRM require a range of research outputs of both goods and services, many of which are most effectively generated at a regional (or broader) international level

Therefore: “output” types with an IPG dimension include:

• Research coordination services• Development and problem-specific

application of a range of INRM tools• Development of principles and procedures

for INRM management (and the institutional structures needed)

• Development, embedding and extrapolation of technologies across production Ecosystems

Decision support tools as IPG

• GIS models to serve as “platforms” (CIP intermountain program)

• Ecosystem, ecoregional, river basin-specific data sets specific to needs of collaborators (IITA/ICRAF for the SSA CP)

• INRM research training tools (CIAT) • Process models for key drivers (in each of the

resource domains, such as econometric, bio-geophysical, demographic)


87

Development of change elements and their Ecosystem integration

• Identification or creation of solitary factors• Integration/embedding of change factors

– ecologically (bio-geophysical)– Ecologically---including

social/political/economic as well as bgp

Embedding tools:

• GIS models and data sets (for key drivers)• Process models for key drivers in each

domain• The use of tools to identify calibration and

verification conditions and locations

An embedded change element

• Can be extrapolated across gradients of space and time for:– Scaling– Impact analysis, both ex-ante and ex-post– Element often can be transformed from

situation-specific to IPG (having broad user-friendly utility for development groups)

– Modest investment in scaling should increase IRR to the research

Coordination services as an IPG

• Regional INRM research coordination and facilitation services that involve more than one country– Ecoregional– River basin– Cross-cutting topical

Requirements of a coordinator (for optimal effectiveness)

• The institution must have a clear and recognized presence within the Ecoregion

• Must have demonstrated INRM scientific capacity to be a full partner

• Best if apolitical in status• Must provide coordination which enhances

the INRM collaborative process across a wide stakeholder range

• Should have resources to commit

Institutional-level IPG

• Development at both field and landscape levels of management and institution-building principles and methods that have applicability in more than one country– Guidelines for vertical integration and the

parameters most appropriately managed at each level

– Management tools at each level

Summary ofIPG outputs from INRM research • INRM research tools and decision aids• Multi-country coordination services• INRM-focused-Institution-building

principles• Technologies and management practices

that are production-Ecosystem-embedded, and verified across driver gradients

Lessons learnt

• That INRM- specific IPG must be carefully selected and designed toward specific ends

• Stakeholders should be involved from outset, involved as appropriate in the research process, and anticipating the outputs in their own program design

• INRM tools should be designed for use at the lowest appropriate institutional level


88

Empirical vs. inductive-deductive iterative processes

• For the development of technologies• For their purposeful production Ecosystem

embedding

IPG definition

• The broad definition is fine. INRM research does not really mandate more narrow delineation of boundaries

• It would be of significant advantage to continue to refine the examples of IPG types that it delivers

Final take home message

• INRM research should add integration/embedding richness at every opportunity for enhanced IRR


89

INRM workshop – Los Baños – June 2005

Managing banana diversity to improve rural livelihoods in Uganda:a preliminary evaluation of natural resource management impacts

D. Karamura, E. Karamura and R. Markham

funded by IDRC


Outline

• Why banana? Why diversity?• Threats to banana diversity • Approaches

Participatory rural appraisalsTraining and demonstration/Exchange visitsStrengthening socio-economic networks along the resource-production-consumption pipeline

• Impacts assessed and still to be assessed


Why banana?

• Annual per capitaconsumption of up to 600 kg – highest in the world

• About 20 million tonnes are produced and consumed in the region annually

• Occupies 30-40 % of land under crops

• Banana is a major staple but is also sold in local markets for cash income

• An important import-substitution food crop


Why banana diversity?• Eastern Africa is considered

a secondary centre of banana diversity

• 80-120 clones (=cultivars) grown on-farm

• The Great Lakes region supports the greatest diversity

‘Hotspots’ of diversity (Shannon Index)


Banana-based cropping systems in Uganda


Banana-based cropping systems• Backyard garden, peri-

urban and rural subsistence systems

• 0.5-2.0 ha plots• Cultivar mixtures: farmers

grow as many as 20-30 cultivars in one plot

• Consumed as dessert, roasted or cooked green

• Many traditional uses add value to the crop

Project sites in Uganda and Tanzania


Threats to banana diversity

Black sigatokaXanthomonas Wilt

Banana weevil attack Nematode attack

a) Biotic threats


Threats to banana diversityb) Socio-economic threats

• Lack of markets• Post-harvest losses

along production-consumption chains

• Weak infrastructure along the chains

• Weak supporting policies


90


Approaches and methods

• Participatory rural appraisals and diagnostic surveys to identify priorities

• Training and demonstrations of options by NGOs, extension and research organizations

• Exchange visits by farmers and farmer organizations, between benchmark sites, to share existing skills

• Strengthening socio-economic networks along the resource-production-consumption pipeline to bring in a diversity of players


Where are we?

• Phase 1 of project completeeffects on genetic resources documentedsome adoption of new ‘technologies’ documentedbetter understanding of social and biophysical system available

• Phase 2 of project under waybroader agenda in diversification of uses and organizing actors in a ‘national banana sector’heightened awareness of importance of NRM interactions – ‘incautious intensification’seeking more effective monitoring and evaluation approacheshow can we best monitor NRM impacts?


Outputs

• Strengthened social capital around the farmers• New management technologies adopted• Broadened (banana-based) diversity at farm level• New products and diversified income sources• Improved nutrition• (Banana diversity

conserved or even increased)


Strengthened social capital around the farmers• Five farmers’ associations formed in benchmark

sites in Uganda and Tanzania by 2002• The associations trained in group and financial

management skills• Farmers trained in value addition and marketing

skills (exchange visits and demonstrations)• Linkages with NGOs, extension service, research

organizations, bureau of standards…


New management technologies adopted• Pest/disease management to reduce

vulnerability while increasing yield• Plant density management to increase plant

vigour and yield• Soil fertility/water management

contour planting, compost, mulching…

• Banana fruit quality control


New management practices adopted(estimated % farmers practicing)

0

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

2000

15Banana fruit quality control5

45Agro-foresty/fruit trees4

52Soil fertility/water management3

61Plant density2

70Pest/disease management1

2005Practice


Broadened banana-based diversity at farm level Fruits and vegetables• Improve household nutrition and broaden base

of household income generationamaranths, cabbage, carrots, spinach, climbing beans, green pepper …avocado, passion fruit, oranges, pineapples, papaya, guava …

• Agro-forestry to increase soil fertility and provide farm timber

Calliandra, Sesbania, Ficus


New products and diversified income sources

• Based on the realization that increased utilization is a strong incentive for sustainable conservation of diversity

• Association members were trained through exchange visits/demonstrations and attachments

• Market linkages were developed for processed products (ongoing)

• Quality control (packaging, labelling, product quality analysis) remain daunting problems


91


New products and diversified income sources(estimated % farmers practicing)

2

0

7

0.1

6

0

2000

Training provided10Handicraft6

Training provided4Solar dried figs5

Traditional5Banana juice4

Traditional0.1Banana gin3

Traditional4Banana beer2

Training provided10Banana wine1

Comments2005Product


Improving nutrition in an intensified agricultural system

• Child malnutrition levels in the district are the highest in Uganda

• Protein, vitamin and mineral deficiencies• High population densities encourage

intensification approaches, such as mixed cropping and zero grazing

• Agro-forestry (mainly fruit trees), vegetable growing and zero grazing livestock are adopted to complement the largely carbohydrate diet


Improving nutrition in an intensified agricultural system

Bananas …with vegetables

…with zero-grazing goats


vegetables

fruit trees

mulching – organic matter management


Still to be addressed• How have diversified sources of income

affected rural livelihoods (health, nutrition, education, gender empowerment, etc)?

• How should we assess impacts on the other components of the natural resource base (soil fertility, erosion, water, …)?

• What about sustainability? Is a special effort needed to ensure that the gains are sustained?Do we need to monitor that process?


Still to be addressed• Would it be more interesting to look at the

learning and innovation process?

We would be grateful for your advice!


92

Problems:Pest & diseaseLoss of biodiversityWeak infrastructureSoil fertility declineYield declineMarkets links unclearFruit quality controlCrop-livestock integration

Outcome:Improved livelihoods of bananafarmers, better NRM and increased biodiversity

1. Impact assessment pathway?2. International Public Goods?


Ultimate outcome






DirectBenefit



SCALINGUP


SCALINGOUT








Example of an Impact Pathway


93

International Public Goods:IPGRI/INIBAP Case Study

DIVERSITY LIVELIHOODS

Key QuestionWhat is the optimum level and kinds of diversity to

retain to improve livelihoods through increasing financial, natural, physical, social and human capital assets?

Two objectives

LIVELIHOODSDIVERSITY

If we are to conserve banana genetic diversity overall, we will need to conserve ex situ whatever cannot be conserved in situ on farms. Given the cost and complexity of the first option, how best can we maximise the second?

What options are there to expand the relevance of the different banana genotypes to farmers’ livelihoods, and for new options to be added to their livelihood strategies? What kinds of incentives might encourage farmers to conserve banana genetic diversity?

DiversityDiversityHow is this diversity expressed?How is this diversity expressed?

various uses by people;various uses by people;different agronomic features (but not different agronomic features (but not generally recognised by people)generally recognised by people)across landscapes in relation to across landscapes in relation to environment (including deliberate or environment (including deliberate or unconscious selection by people);unconscious selection by people);

What components of this diversity do What components of this diversity do local people recognise and value?local people recognise and value?

LivelihoodsLivelihoods

What contributions do bananas make What contributions do bananas make to peopleto people’’s livelihoods, and how does s livelihoods, and how does that vary geographically, socially and that vary geographically, socially and culturally?culturally?What values do people currently get What values do people currently get from bananas in different from bananas in different circumstances?circumstances?What are the longerWhat are the longer--term dynamics term dynamics of banana farming (expanding? of banana farming (expanding? contracting? stable? where? why?)contracting? stable? where? why?)

Key issues for consideration Key issues for consideration in different INRM domainsin different INRM domains

e.g.e.g.-- economics of economics of

production: production: returns to returns to land, labour land, labour and capitaland capital

-- economics of economics of marketingmarketing

-- etc...etc...

e.g.e.g.-- equityequity-- (gender)(gender)-- farmersfarmers’’

organisationsorganisations-- changes in changes in

traditional traditional practicepractice

-- preferences, preferences, priorities and priorities and visions for the visions for the futurefuture

e.g. e.g. -- soil fertilitysoil fertility-- erosionerosion-- soil OMsoil OM-- (water)(water)

EconomicEconomicSocialSocialEnvironmentEnvironment

International Public Goods International Public Goods -- 11

A strategy for optimising A strategy for optimising in situin situ and and ex situex situ genetic conservationgenetic conservation

[What are the values of the different [What are the values of the different varieties to people? How can these be varieties to people? How can these be generated, recognised and maintained? generated, recognised and maintained? What provisions need to be made to allow What provisions need to be made to allow for variations in outcome depending on for variations in outcome depending on local and regional conditions and factors?]local and regional conditions and factors?]


Conservation of the full range of Conservation of the full range of banana genetic diversity in Uganda banana genetic diversity in Uganda (set in the context of the global (set in the context of the global genetic diversity of the species)genetic diversity of the species)[This would be the aggregate effect of the [This would be the aggregate effect of the success of the success of the in situin situ and and exex situ situ conservation efforts]conservation efforts]


Established property rights and a Established property rights and a framework of legal principles framework of legal principles safeguarding themsafeguarding them[explore and promote options for a more [explore and promote options for a more equitable legal framework that recognises equitable legal framework that recognises (and rewards) local people(and rewards) local people’’s knowledge and s knowledge and practices, as recommended by the practices, as recommended by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (FAO) and Article 8j of the Resources (FAO) and Article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity]Convention on Biological Diversity]


94


Ways of adding value to the different Ways of adding value to the different elements of banana genetic diversity elements of banana genetic diversity [[‘‘greengreen’’ labelling; development of specific labelling; development of specific products for speciality markets; improvements products for speciality markets; improvements in wine production, with possible in wine production, with possible differentiation by cultivar; improved postdifferentiation by cultivar; improved post--harvest technologies to reduce losses]harvest technologies to reduce losses]


Map genetic attributes of banana Map genetic attributes of banana varieties against their phenotypic traits varieties against their phenotypic traits [e.g. pest/disease resistance; fruit, [e.g. pest/disease resistance; fruit, fibre and leaf quality; productivity; fibre and leaf quality; productivity; plant x environment interactions]plant x environment interactions]


Strengthened institutions at a range Strengthened institutions at a range of scales (localof scales (local--nationalnational--international) international) to maintain this diversity in the long to maintain this diversity in the long termterm[build on existing institutions, especially [build on existing institutions, especially local ones; resolve issues of how these can local ones; resolve issues of how these can be further developed, where they should be be further developed, where they should be situated initially, and how they can be situated initially, and how they can be responsive to change, i.e. dynamic responsive to change, i.e. dynamic arrangements introduced by adaptive, arrangements introduced by adaptive, learning, organisations]learning, organisations]


Improvements to the INRM Approach Improvements to the INRM Approach itselfitself

[developed though ongoing reflection, [developed though ongoing reflection, learning and adaptation among the various learning and adaptation among the various communities of practice involved in the communities of practice involved in the project]project]

?????


95

GOAL: IMPROVE THE LIVELIHOODS OF BANANA GROWING FAMILIES

Outputs Indicators Means of Verification

Established farmer groups Number Head count

New management techniques Number Head count

Farmers trained in production of new products (wine, handicraft)

Number Head count

Policy recommendations Number and degree of transferability Head count, citations

Methodology developed Documentation of methods Documentation

Experimentation, Adaptation and Adoption of

New management techniques Percentage of non-participating farmers who adopted new techniques

Head count

Production of new products (wine, handicraft)

Percentage of non-participating farmers who adopted new techniques

Head count

Group formation Number of groups who formed independently

Head count

Intermediate Outcomes

Strengthened social capital Stories, stronger social networks Social mapping

Maintained or increased diversity Change in diversity Farm surveys; GPS transect walks

Greater diversity in farming system (vegetables and livestock)

Change in number and types of commodities grown

Observation, stories

Decreased soil erosion ???

Increased soil fertility Change in productivity Observation, stories

Increased banana yield Percentage increase Surveys

Increase input use Change in input use Surveys

Decrease in banana prices Change in banana prices Surveys

Increased sources of income Changes in sources of income Surveys

Change in consumption patterns and levels

Changes in consumption Surveys

Final Outcomes

Improved nutrition

Increased income

Micro enterprised developed

Improved or maintained biodiversity

More sustainable farming systems


96

Navigating amidst complexity: A Guide to Managing R&D

Interventions for Improving Livelihoods and the Environment

Navigating amidst complexity: A Guide to Managing R&D

Interventions for Improving Livelihoods and the Environment

INRM Task Force (Bruce Campbell, Jürgen Hagmann, Ann Stroud, Richard Thomas, Eva Wollenberg)

OutlineOutline

1. Where are we coming from?

2. The theoretical foundations -what is different?

3. The operational framework –cornerstones and guidelines

4. Conclusions

1. Where are we coming from?

2. The theoretical foundations -what is different?

3. The operational framework –cornerstones and guidelines

4. Conclusions

1. Where are we coming from?1. Where are we coming from?

Bilderberg1999

Penang2000

Cali2001

Aleppo 2002

...Towards INRM...

Theoretical foundation

Conceptual framework

Implementation in practice‘Experience’

Operational framework

Towards mainstreaming INRM in the institutions

Integrated Natural Resource ManagementIntegrated Natural Resource Management

Participatory rural appraisalParticipatory rural appraisalFarming systems researchFarming systems research

Participatory technology developmentParticipatory technology development

Community-based natural resource managementCommunity-based natural resource management

Integrated conservation and developmentIntegrated conservation and development

LandcareLandcare

Eco-agricultureEco-agricultureEcosystem approachEcosystem approach

Integrated catchment managementIntegrated catchment management

Integrated coastal zone managementIntegrated coastal zone management

Where are we coming from?Where are we coming from?

Getting into the system

Getting into the system

Learning and adaptingLearning and adapting

Buryingthe research-developmentcontinuum

Buryingthe research-developmentcontinuum

Changing incentive systems

Changing incentive systems

Leadershipand facilitation

Leadershipand facilitation

Culture and organizationof science

Culture and organizationof science

Approach systems from an organizational and

institutional perspective

Approach systems from an organizational and

institutional perspectiveWhat typeof science

to do where

What typeof science

to do where

Multiple scalesof analysis

and intervention

Multiple scalesof analysis

and intervention

IntegrationIntegration

2. Theoretical Foundations

Focusing onadaptive capacity

Focusing onadaptive capacity

3. Operational framework3. Operational framework

Shared problem and opportunity focus among partners

Clear partnerships and collaborative arrangements built on trust, ownership and joint commitment to vision

and impacts

Local organizational capacity for collective

action and self-governance

Shared creativity and learning through exposure,

experimentation and iterative reflection on successes and

failures

Interest and energy created in short-term to get commitment

to longer term goals and processes among partners

Explicit scaling up / out strategy building on successes and

strategic entry points

Effective research design and process to integrate

research and development objectives

Effective cross-disciplinary learning

teams of R&D agents

Effective facilitation, coordination and negotiation

at different levels

Enabling governance and policy that provide incentives, capacities and resources to key

stakeholders

Access to information on technical, institutional,

market and policy options

OperationalizingINRM


Shared problem and opportunity focus among partners

Clear partnerships and collaborative arrangements built on trust, ownership and joint commitment to vision

and impacts

Local organizational capacity for collective

action and self-governance

Shared creativity and learning through exposure,

experimentation and iterative reflection on successes and

failures

Interest and energy created in short-term to get commitment

to longer term goals and processes among partners

Explicit scaling up / out strategy building on successes and

strategic entry points

Effective research design and process to integrate

research and development objectives

Effective cross-disciplinary learning

teams of R&D agents

Access to information on technical, institutional,

market and policy options



Enabling governance and policy that provide incentives, capacities and resources to key

stakeholders

Effective facilitation, coordination and negotiation

at different levels

Enabling governance and policy

Shared problem and opportunity

focus

Clear partnerships and

collaborative arrangements

Local organisational

capacity

Action research

Interest and energy created in the short-term

Explicit scaling up/

out strategy

Effective research design

and process

Effective cross-

disciplinary teams

Effective facilitation,

coordination and negotiation

Access to information


97

Example cornerstoneExample cornerstone

• Why is this cornerstone important?

• How to achieve quality?

• Why is this cornerstone important?

• How to achieve quality?

Clear partnerships and collaborative arrangements built on trust,

ownership and joint commitment to vision and impacts

Clear partnerships and collaborative arrangements built on trust,

ownership and joint commitment to vision and impacts

What are we aiming to achieve?What are we aiming to achieve?

• Coordination driven by a shared problem and desired impact that supersedes any single group’s aims and capacities

• Power differences among partners are handled to accommodate weaker partners and enable them to act with confidence and develop their capacities

• Partnerships based on complementary roles and responsibilities

• Partners openly negotiate their interests to develop a shared vision and goals

• Assess need for partnership, then identify and assess potential partners

• Maximize synergies and complementarities with clear roles and balanced competencies

• Establish shared ownership and identify common values and principles

• Establish and maintain conditions and processes for decision-making and reaching agreements that are fair and equitable, and for monitoring the partnership

• Assess need for partnership, then identify and assess potential partners

• Maximize synergies and complementarities with clear roles and balanced competencies

• Establish shared ownership and identify common values and principles

• Establish and maintain conditions and processes for decision-making and reaching agreements that are fair and equitable, and for monitoring the partnership

Elements of “partnerships’ cornerstoneElements of “partnerships’ cornerstone1. …….2. …….3. ……. 4. Establish ways to deal with unequal partners and

power relationships as well as ways to negotiate and/or deal with differences. Have mechanisms to uncover differences so they do not fester

5………

Strategies

4. Conclusions4. Conclusions• 11 operational cornerstones:– As a frame to design new

programmes– As a frame to monitor &

evaluate on-going programmes in a strategic way

– As a knowledge management tool

– As a tool to create a common understanding and vision

• A way to remind us of what we need to consider

• Complex – yes, but need to focus on the weak cornerstones

• 11 operational cornerstones:– As a frame to design new

programmes– As a frame to monitor &

evaluate on-going programmes in a strategic way

– As a knowledge management tool

– As a tool to create a common understanding and vision

• A way to remind us of what we need to consider

• Complex – yes, but need to focus on the weak cornerstones


98

Questions on the guidelineQuestions on the guideline

What are the weak points What are the weak points –– can they be can they be strengthenedstrengthenedHow to balance the broad diffuse agenda with How to balance the broad diffuse agenda with need to produce concrete outcomesneed to produce concrete outcomesCan the process be evaluated vs. the tangible Can the process be evaluated vs. the tangible productsproductsIs it necessary to Is it necessary to ‘‘boundbound’’ the problem?the problem?Does the complex approach put donors off? Do Does the complex approach put donors off? Do they prefer to fund 1they prefer to fund 1--D approach and simplicity?D approach and simplicity?

How to move forwardHow to move forward

Do we need more multiDo we need more multi--facetedfacetedChallenge Programs to mainstream INRM Challenge Programs to mainstream INRM framework?framework?How do we package the research agenda How do we package the research agenda to leverage funds for implementationto leverage funds for implementationWhat are the envisioned impacts and can What are the envisioned impacts and can we measure them (findings of SPIA?)we measure them (findings of SPIA?)

1. ParticipatoryProblem analysis

2. INRM Research on alternatives

3a. Production functions

Quantity/qualityof food & fibreG x E matching efficiency

3b. Human well being

Risk managementParticipation

3c. EcosystemFunctions

Nutrient cyclingC sequestrationBiodiversityWater balance

4. Tradeoffs and options

Analyses of trade offsIdentification of range of options

5. Outcomes

ExtrapolationDisseminationPolicy implementation

Model of INRMResearch Process

6. Feedback

SocialEconomic No credit access

PoliticalSubsidies No insurances

SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORSSOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS

Figure 1. An overview of the biophysical constraints and interreFigure 1 . An overview of the biophysical constraints and interrelations with production systems and households and communitieslations with production systems and households and communities

Land :•Terrain, geology•Vegetation•Hydrology

Land use :•Farming

systems

Soil degradation

Climate :• Low, erratic rainfall • Drought• High evapotranspiration• Short growing period

Soil Productivity

(low)

Soil/plant water

availability(Shortage,

erratic)•Run off•Evaporation•Low storage

Erosion

NATURAL RESOURCESNATURAL RESOURCES

• Local Knowledge (+)• Technology few alternatives• Labor• High risk• Low investment • Low infrastructure• Community cohesion

highly variable

HOUSEHOLD/COMMUNITYHOUSEHOLD/COMMUNITYCropland :•Barley +++,Grain, low yield, low diversification

Rangeland : •Overgrazing•High degradation•Low productivity

Small ruminants•High numbers•Low productivity•Feed shortages and•supply from market

Aridity

PRODUCTION SYSTEMSPRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Markets(No regulation)

Low potential base

High pr

essu

re

Low inputs

Auto consumption Output

M&M intervention:•Higher integration of crops and livestock• Forage legumes; new barley varieties

• Increased dry matter• Alternative feed resources(feed block, shrubs, cactus)

• Better management of small ruminants

M&M intervention:Conservation techniques : • Rotations, water harvesting, shrubs,

cactus, alley cropping

M&M intervention:•Strengthening institutions•Community modeling•Community empowerment

Flexibility

Sust

aina

bilit

y

V iabilit y

Future of the Task ForceFuture of the Task Force

Does it have a future or has it fulfilled its Does it have a future or has it fulfilled its objectives?objectives?Is it worth organizing future meetings and Is it worth organizing future meetings and if so on what specific topics that should if so on what specific topics that should result in outputs from the group?result in outputs from the group?


99

OUTSCALING INRM

ICARDA EXPERIENCES so far…

1. ICARDA INRM EXPERIENCESKhanasser valley integrated research site

1. ICARDA INRM EXPERIENCES

Khanasser valley integrated research site:Features: Recurring drought, crop-livestock integration, different degradation processes, relative poverty.

Proximity to ICARDA HQ (1.5 hour).

Hands-on experimenting with INRM approaches.

Testing and developing of INRM tools.

M&M project

Yemen Terrace project

……

2. OUTSCALING OF INRM

INRM publications.INRM seminars during ICARDA regional planning meetings.Introduction of INRM during in-house training courses.Need for more hands-on capacity building for INRM:

3. APPROACH A: INRM TRAINING

Focus: Mountain and conservation tillage projects at Morocco.Time: 3 days training.Who: 5 ICARDA trainers & 25 project staff. Format:

General INRM framework & principles.Explaining 3 clusters of INRM tools (diagnostic, problem-solving, process).Trainees pick up tool(s) which are useful for them, but for which they need more capacity.Group work: Split up in selected tool groups + concrete planning in project context + trainers can explain more.Outcome presented at plenary.

Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM) toolbox :

Diagnostic tools Tools for problem-solving and

capitalizing on opportunities

Process tools

1. Integrated research site. 2. Multi-level analytical

framework. 3. Livelihood, gender and

community analysis. 4. Analysis of policy,

institutional and market environment.

5. Analysis of natural resources status and dynamics.

6. Holistic system analysis.

7. Multi-level framework for interventions.

8. ‘Plausible options’ or ‘best bets’.

9. Decision and negotiation support tools.

10. Scaling-out and scaling-up.

11. Participatory action research (PAR).

12. Envisioning. 13. Multi-stakeholder

cooperation. 14. Cross-disciplinary approach. 15. Capacity building of different

stakeholders. 16. Effective communication,

coordination and facilitation strategy.

17. Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment.

18. Managing knowledge.

Feedback to approach A:Eye-opener for INRM complexity & diversity of tools.Most people enjoyed to discuss strategic project issues in multi-disciplinary teams. To be effective, participants need some basic INRM experiences.Training considered too short by some.

Need for more examples.For impact, needs follow-up from project manager & trainers (e.g. specific tool training).INRM training considered too late, as projects had already started –should have taken place at project initiation.Useful learning experience for INRM practitioners to synthesize and explain their INRM experiences.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

no partly m ostly yes

Stage of objective fulfillment

No.

Par

ticip

ants

Mainstream

Capacity s trengthening

Change in research


100

4. APPROACH B:GRADUAL INRM INCLUSION IN PROJECT

Project: Challenge Program Project, Iran.Who: About 50 interdisciplinary project staff of different institutions.INRM built in during project design.When required: Hands-on training & group training. ‘Reflection points’ in project cycle.

Experiences with Approach B

Less explicit and gradual INRM application.‘Novelty of project approach’ is perceived. Focussed to persons who require certain skills.Risks for ‘disciplinary stubbornness’.Still in progress….

ANNEX IV. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NO Invited By Title First Name Last Name Position Organization Address Country Email

1 INRM Dr. Richard Roland Harwood C.S. Mott Chair

Interim Science Council – STAC/CGIAR / Michigan State University, Crop & Soil Science Dept.

5997 Wynn Jones RD Port Orchard, Washington

USA 98366 [email protected]

2 INRM Mr. Thomas Michael Mbeyela Principal Field Officer Ministry of Water And Livestock Development, National A. I. Center

P.O. Box 557 USA River Tanzania [email protected]

3 INRM Dr. Steve John Twomlow Global Theme Leader (Water, Soil and Agrobiodiversity Management for Agro-ecosystem Health)

ICRISAT, Matopos Research Station P.O. Box 776, Bulawayo Zimbabwe [email protected]

4 INRM Dr. Adel El-Beltagy Director General ICARDA P.O. Box 5466 Aleppo Syria [email protected]

5 INRM Dr. Alex Reuben Saka Assistant Director of Agriculture Research Services

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation & Food Security

P.O. Box 30779 Lilongwe3 Malawi [email protected]

6 INRM Dr. Suhas Wani Principal Scietist (Watershed) and Regional Theme Coordinator (Asia), GT Agroecosystem

ICRISAT P.O. Patacheru, 502 324 Andhra, Pradesh India [email protected]

7 INRM Dr. Frank Place Economist and Leader, Land and People Theme ICRAF P.O. Box 30677 00100

Nairobi Kenya [email protected]

8 INRM Dr. Ren Wang Deputy DG, Research IRRI P.O Box: 7777 Makati City Metro Manila Philippines [email protected]

9 INRM Dr. Richard James Thomas Director NRMP ICARDA P.O. Box 5464 Aleppo Syria [email protected]

10 INRM Dr. Francis Turkelboom Soil Conservation/Land Management Specialist ICARDA P.O. Box 5466

Aleppo Syria [email protected]

11 INRM Dr. J. Ladha IRRI Representative IRRI-Delhi IRRI, 1st Floor CG Block, NASC Complex Dev Prakash, Sastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 110012

India [email protected]

12 INRM Dr. Roberto La Rovere Impact Specialist CIMMYT Impact Targeting & Assessment Program, CIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 6-641 06600 Mexico, D.F.

Mexico [email protected]

13 INRM Dr. Olaf Erenstein Agricultural Economist CIMMYT CG Centre Block, National Agricultural Sciences Center Complex DP, Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 1110012

India [email protected]

14 SPIA Prof. David Zilberman Professor and Chair Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics University of California at Berkeley USA [email protected]

15 SPIA Dr. Kamel Shideed Research Program Director, Poverty-Livelihood Analysis and Impact Assessment

ICARDA P.O. Box 5466 Aleppo Syria [email protected]

16 SPIA Dr. Madan Dey Portfolio Director The WorldFish Center GPO Box 500 10670 Penang Malaysia [email protected]

17 SPIA Dr. Meredith Giordano Research Director International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

PO Box 2075 Colombo Sri Lanka [email protected]

18 SPIA Dr. Mywish Maredia Professor Michigan State University 321 Agricultural Hall, East Lansing MI 48824-1039 USA [email protected]

19 SPIA Dr. Prabhu Pingali Director ESA FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100, Rome Italy [email protected]


102

NO Invited By Title First Name Last Name Position Organization Address Country Email

20 SPIA Dr. Timothy Kelley SPIA Secretary FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100, Rome Italy [email protected]

21 SPIA Dr. Timothy Dalton Assistant Professor Dept. of Resource Economics and Policy

5782 Winslow Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5782 [email protected]

22 SPIA Dr. Ruben Echeverria Executive Director Science Council FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100, Rome Italy [email protected]

23 SPIA Mr. Jim Ryan Economic Division Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Austrailian National University 18 Nungara Place Aranda ACT 2614 Australia [email protected]

24 SPIA Dr. Hans Gregersen Chair, Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, Science Council SPIA P.O. Box 498, Solvang, CA 93464 USA [email protected]

25 INRM Dr. Vijay Laxmi Pandey Professor Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research

Gen. Vaidya Marg. Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400065 India [email protected]

26 INRM Dr. Rolando Labios Chief Agriculturist Bureau of Agricultural Resources (BAR)

Elliptical Rd. cor. Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Philippines [email protected]

27 SPIA Dr. Hermann Waibel Universitaet Hannover Institut fuel Gartenbarroekonomie, Harrenhaeuser Str.2, D-30419 Hannover Germany [email protected]

28 INRM Dr. Richard Markham Director IPGRI Commodities for Livelihoods Programme, c/o INIBAP, Parc Scientifique Agroplis II, 34397 Montpeller - Cedex 5

France [email protected]

29 SPIA Dr, Peter Frost Senior Associate, Forests and Livelihoods Programme CIFOR

Center for International Forestry Research, Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bobor Barat 16680

Indonesia [email protected]

30 INRM Dr. William D. Dar Director General ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324 India [email protected]

31 INRM Dr. Jemimah Njuki Social Scientist KARI National Agricultural Research Laboratories, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 759-00606, Nairobi

Kenya [email protected]

32 INRM Mr. Boru Douthwaite Technology Policy Analyst CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali Colombia [email protected]

33 INRM Dr. Paul Kiepe Acting Assistant Director for Research and Leader ADRAO/WARDA Rice Policy and Development Program, Africa Rice

Center, 01 B.P. 2031, Cotonou Benin [email protected]

34 SPIA Dr. Robert R. Dobias Director ADB

Agriculture, Natural Resources and Social Sectors Division, Regional and Sustainable Development Dept., 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 0401 Metro Manila

Philippines [email protected]

35 SPIA Dr. Tumurdavaa Bayarsaihan Sr. Agriculture Specialist ADB

Agriculture, Natural Resources and Social Sectors Division, Regional and Sustainable Development Dept., 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 0401 Metro Manila

Philippines [email protected]

36 INRM Dr. Abedelali Laamari Agricultural Economist INRA Settat. Morroco Morocco

37 SPIA Dr. Alvin John DeBoer ADB

Agriculture, Natural Resources and Social Sectors Division, Regional and Sustainable Development Dept. 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 0401 Metro Manila

Philippines

38 SPIA Dr. Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues Embrapa Environment CP 069, Jaguariuna, SP, Brazi l, CEP 13820-000 Brazil