7.1. Introduction
7.2. Background
7.3. An Overview of CGIAR Experience in the Initiation and Implementation of Systemwide Programmes and the Ecoregional Approach
7.4. A Classification of the CGIAR's Systemwide Activities
7.5. Evaluation and Future of Systemwide Activities
An important innovation in the CGIAR medium-term resource allocation process for 1994-1998 was the recommendation that funds be provided for Systemwide programmes that transcend the interests of individual centres. This Chapter outlines the progress that has been made since 1994 in developing this new approach to the implementation of CGIAR priorities.
TAC's 1992 proposals for strategies and structure were first discussed by the Group at MTM92. In line with the recommendations presented in the expansion report 1, TAC proposed that, in future, the CGIAR System should undertake two separate but related research activities:
· global - concentrating on strategic research on an agreed selection of commodities and subjects, and· ecoregional - covering strategic and applied research on natural resource conservation and management, production systems and location-specific aspects of commodity improvement.
1 TAC/CGIAR, 1990. A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
While it was felt at MTM92 that the Group had a long way to go before reaching finality on some of the issues, "the ecoregional concept was overwhelmingly endorsed, with both TAC and CGIAR Centres being encouraged to move from concepts to operations". 2
2 Extract from Summary of Proceedings and Decisions, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1992, Istanbul, Turkey.
TAC's recommendations for medium-term resource allocations for 1994-1998 and its revision of Chapter 13 of the 1992 priorities and strategies document were presented to the Group at ICW93. In the letter accompanying the documents, it was brought to the attention of the CGIAR Chair that two recommendations on funding in the CGIAR for the period 1994-1998 were proposed: centre-specific funding and programme funding for CGIAR Systemwide initiatives. It was believed that the innovative but experimental nature of programme funding would provide an attractive mechanism to promote partnership among centres, national programmes and other actors in the global agricultural research system. At this time, however, before adding to the existing set of initiatives and programmes, it is believed necessary to take stock of Systemwide activities (SWAs). The Committee's position in this regard is outlined in the final section of this Chapter.
The justification for programme funding of Systemwide initiatives was further elaborated in the 1994 document on medium-term resource allocation. 3 Under the heading "Systemwide Considerations", TAC recognized the difficulty of centres developing MTP proposals on concerns of importance at the System level which went beyond the centres' own interests. There were also differences in the centres' perceptions of the relative priority of inter-centre undertakings as a part of their normal activities.
3 TAC/CGIAR, 1994. CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98. Analysis and Recommendations. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
TAC recommended funding, by 1998, of seven ecoregional programmes and a cross-ecoregional programme on alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture. In addition, TAC proposed inter-centre programmes on conservation of genetic resources; on livestock (to facilitate the establishment of research programmes of both a global and ecoregional nature, and specifically to develop, with plant-oriented centres, integrated programmes on livestock feed and production systems); and on water management research (to study the efficiency with which increasingly scarce irrigation water is used for crop production and resource degradation issues such as salinization and waterlogging). The total allocation recommended was US$ 10 million out of US$ 270 million, or 3.7% of CGIAR's core budget.
For each of the proposed programmes, TAC identified a convening centre which would have an initiating and facilitating role but which would not necessarily be the research leader. Essential features of these initiatives are partnership and collaboration.
TAC's recommendation of programme funding for Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives was endorsed by the Group at ICW93, and TAC's analysis of, and recommendations on, the first set of proposals it received was presented to ICW94 (Review of Proposals for Systemwide and Ecoregional Initiatives - AGR/TAC:IAR/94/1). In that paper, TAC envisaged that Systemwide initiatives would have the following characteristics.
· They would involve conscious effort to globalize methodologies used in local studies to insure comparability of results across ecoregions, and of specific themes or problems within given ecosystems.· They would involve locally relevant and responsive research within ecoregions, but with a global perspective in terms of comparability of results and approaches to research, in order to: a) take advantage of economies of scale in research; b) maximize use of spillovers; c) reduce the transaction costs of research; and d) facilitate effective advances in knowledge.
· They would be multisectoral and multidisciplinary in nature and scope, recognizing the different sectors and disciplines across the System. Thus a Systemwide livestock initiative should be explicitly linked to ecoregional activities, to activities of crop centres, and to various policy issues researched by centres such as IFPRI, e.g. in the area of common property resource management.
· They would consist of collaborative efforts involving two or more centres, and other parties as appropriate, that would address issues of high priority to the CGIAR System.
TAC also considered the use of the seed money recommended for initiatives and advised that it could be applied in three ways:
· to develop proposals;
· to help cover transaction costs of implementing approved proposals; and
· to fill gaps identified in either the ecoregional paradigm being implemented or in the collaborative mechanism used for its implementation.
TAC noted that a major outstanding issue that had not been resolved at the time was that of accountability.
There have been some differences in deciding which costs of SWAs should be recommended for separate funding and which should be met from centre budgets. In some cases, separate funding has been recommended in order to facilitate the design phase; in other cases, funding has also included seed money for new research and research-related functions, such as the setting up of databases.
In order to clarify its decision-making processes, TAC, at its 69th meeting, adopted interim guidelines for the funding of Systemwide initiatives (SWIs) and Systemwide programmes (SWPs). It was also decided that further work on funding guidelines needed to be done, premised on an assessment of experiences and the conduct of SWAs up to that point. TAC's proposed approach to this larger task is outlined in Section 7.5. The guidelines adopted for funding are given below.
1) SWIs - a column in the matrix of the agreed research agenda for research programme design costs.2) SWPs - specific funding for two main purposes.
a) To provide an incentive for the convening centre to facilitate cooperative research amongst CGIAR Centres and with research organizations outside the System. The test is that it should be more effective and efficient to conduct such research cooperatively rather than manage it separately within the individual entities. The extra transaction costs of organizing and managing cooperation should not be borne by the convening centre at the expense of its centre-managed work. Accordingly, an identified amount, to cover the continuing transaction costs of such centres, should be added to their budgets for the duration of the SWPs. The costs of the research itself should be met by the participatory centres and organizations as they are in the best position to assess the relative priority of such expenditure.b) To fund research and research-related activities under specific circumstances. Three categories can be defined so far.
Research that is a priority for the System as a whole beyond its priority for individual centres, such as the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme which was set up in response to the challenges posed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21.
A research or research-related function which can be performed more cost-effectively by collective action rather than each centre working on its own, for example the Systemwide Information Network on Genetic Resources (SINGER) which serves 15 of the CGIAR Centres.
Where an incentive is needed to expedite change in the nature or direction of centre-managed research.
The terms used above and in the next section were taken directly from the TAC documents that are quoted as references. However, the terminology has evolved considerably over time. At TAC 66 in March 1995, a note was prepared to help clarify use of the terms "Systemwide", "initiative" and "programme". This note (TAC Note on Systemwide and Ecoregional Concepts, Report of the 66th Meeting of TAC, June 1995) drew heavily on, but did not follow in all respects, the conclusions from the meeting on The Management of Systemwide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives convened in December 1994 by Centre Directors.
"Systemwide" was defined as referring to inter-centre research or research-related activities on a regional or global basis, or some combination thereof. It was recognized that such activities would generally involve organizations outside the CGIAR, for example, partnerships with NARS for the implementation of the ecoregional approach. "Initiative" was defined as the start-up or design phase of an activity, and "programme" as work that was under way.
Although the question was not addressed by TAC previously, SWAs, initiatives or programmes, seem to differ from ongoing inter-centre collaborations in three main aspects:
· the entering into, by centres, of formal commitments for SWAs, in contrast to the more flexible collaborative arrangements made by individual scientists and programme leaders;· the separate accountability to the Group required of SWAs; and
· the practice that has been adopted of showing the costs of SWAs in the CGIAR's annual financing plan, whereas those of regular inter-centre collaboration are usually not identified separately.
Costs for SWAs have been accounted for in varying ways. In some cases, funding has been recommended only for facilitation of the start-up phase; in other cases, it has also included seed money for new research and research-related activities, such as the setting up of databases. Guidelines need to be based on an assessment of experiences with SWAs to date, to clearly define the conditions for special support of research and related activities in the future. TAC's proposed approach to this larger task is outlined in the penultimate section of this Chapter. In the interim, since TAC envisages that for the moment it will recommend for future approval only new initiatives for which there are strong arguments, this issue may be dealt with on a case by case basis.
The terminology from TAC 66 is adopted in the later sections of this Chapter for discussing the future management of Systemwide programmes and the ecoregional approach. However, ambiguity remains in relation to the boundaries of SWPs. At one extreme, only the facilitation and any new research components are included. At the other extreme, all research related to the SWA, both inside and outside the System, is included. It is, therefore, important when discussing SWPs to specify, in each case, whether the SWP refers only to facilitation and new research, all related CGIAR work, or all related work inside and outside the CGIAR.
The meeting convened by Centre Directors in December 1994 favoured setting the boundaries of SWPs as narrowly as is consistent with achieving the agreed objectives. "Only those activities which contribute to the collective effort (i.e. which provide 'value added') and/or which themselves benefit from association, should be included within a given initiative."
As there was some inconsistency in deciding which SWA costs should be recommended for separate funding and which should be met from centre budgets, TAC identified four purposes for such specific allocations at its 69th meeting.
1) To assist with the design costs of new SWPs. The recommended financial allocations to the design costs of SWIs should continue to be shown as a separate column of the agreed agenda.2) To help defray the organizing costs of convening centres in carrying out SWPs.
3) To meet the cost of technical infrastructure that is provided more cost-effectively by Systemwide action rather than by each centre making its own separate arrangements. Usually there will also be an element of combining expertise around the use of the shared service or physical facility. A case in point is the Systemwide Information Network on Genetic Resources (SINGER) which serves 15 of the CGIAR Centres.
4) To provide short-term initial support while introducing new areas of research and research approaches to the System. Convincing reasons need to be given as to why such costs should not be met by centres as they reprioritize their research activities. Normally, research carried out in SWPs will be funded through centre budgets.
Brief reports on the progress of SWPs should be provided by the convening centres in their annual Programme and Budget proposals. This has been done already in some cases, for example, the SWP on Genetic Resources and the Global Livestock Programme. Where the organizing costs of a convening centre have been incorporated into its recommended budget, those costs should be identified as a line item for the life of the SWP.
The adoption of an agreed agenda for the System's research has been one of the most important changes that has occurred since TAC proposed programme funding in 1993. The 1997 CGIAR Research Agenda 4 provided for ten SWPs: genetic resources, livestock, rice/wheat, tropical Latin American ecoregion, alternatives to slash-and-burn, mountain agriculture, on-farm water husbandry in West Asia and North Africa, soil water and nutrient management, the warm humid and sub-humid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa, and the humid and sub-humid tropics of Asia. In addition, funds were endorsed for the design phases of a global water management programme; an inter-centre initiative on coastal zone management; an ecoregional initiative on desert margins; initiatives on research indicators and property rights/collective action; an initiative on integrated pest management; and on participatory research and gender analysis.
4 TAC/CGIAR, 1996. The 1997 CGIAR Research Agenda. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
Of the seven ecoregional programmes proposed by TAC at ICW93, by 1997, only one, the desert margin initiative, was still in the design phase. Of the other SWPs proposed by TAC in 1993, the cross-ecoregional programme on alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture (ASB) was under way, as also were the inter-centre programme on genetic resources and the global livestock programme. However, the proposed global water management programme was still at the design stage, as already noted.
Further initiatives had been added: a cross-ecoregional SWP for sustainable mountain agricultural development (SMAD) incorporating the east and central African highlands initiative and the Andean programme; an inter-centre initiative on coastal environments; and initiatives on research indicators, property rights and collective action, IPM, soil, water and nutrient management (SWNM), and on participatory research and gender analysis. The latter, as well as the initiative on property rights and collective action, have since reached programme status.
The SWNM was the outcome of a succession of well-documented deliberations beginning with IBSRAM's Position Paper on Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Research - a New Agenda, and advancing through the Zschortau Plan and the Feldafing Consultation. Checking the list of eight topics proposed at MTM94 by the CGIAR Task Force, as a follow-up to UNCED/Agenda 21, six had been addressed specifically by SWPs and initiatives, the seventh, a global long-term forestry research network, was considered to be a central part of CIFOR's core programme, and the eighth, global digital data sets for use in GIS bad not yet been covered, though there was some use of GIS by ecoregional programmes, such as the one in Latin America.
Although no systematic evaluation has been done, the establishment of SWAs seems to impose heavy transaction costs on centres. Moreover, review processes to subject SWAs to the same rigorous scrutiny that is applied to centre-based activities still have to be implemented. Some of the initial enthusiasm for SWAs seems to have been motivated by an expectation of additional funding from new sources, but it is not clear that this has materialized in practice.
Further details on the status of the Systemwide programmes can be found in TAC's paper on the 1997 research agenda and in the 1998-2000 Centre MTPs.
The expenditures budgeted for programmes and programme design in 1997 can be compared with those recommended by TAC in 1993. For the comparable categories, expenditure in 1997 is planned to be US$ 13.9 million, which is more than 4.4% of the CGIAR total estimated expenditure. This is a slight increase on the 3.7% proposed in 1993, and is entirely for programme-design costs. The three SWPs proposed in 1993 - genetic resources, livestock and water management - were projected to cost US$ 6 million in 1998 (in 1992 dollars). In the agreed research agenda for 1997, genetic resources has been allocated US$ 1.6 million, livestock US$ 4 million (although funding has unfortunately fallen well short of that target), water management (still in the design phase) US$ 0.5 million, and on-farm water husbandry US$ 0.6 million.
The concept that SWAs are concerned primarily with the implementation of change in the CGIAR in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations, implies that once the set goals, such as the introduction of new methodologies or research approaches have been met, there will be no need for some SWAs to continue. Therefore, there will be no further need for Systemwide support as the SWAs will be an integral part of the mainstream work of the centres. However, in cases where SWPs were set up to implement the ecoregional approach, there is likely to be an ongoing need to recognise the additional costs to centres of bearing a Systemwide organizing and representational role.
The SWAs included in, and prior to, the 1997 Research Agenda can be classified into two broad categories:
· those undertaken to implement the ecoregional approach; and· those undertaken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of more specific aspects of the System's work.
|
A CGIAR research activity may be characterized as ecoregional if it meets the following general criteria: (i) conducts research on the technical and human dimensions of problems in the sustainable improvement of productivity: (ii) addresses landscape units in the agroecosystem of a priority agroecoregional zone; (iii) has effective and clearly identifiable partnership linkages with national research systems and other research agencies of the region, and shows the complementarity of function, across the partners; (iv) fosters close linkages with global strategic commodity/subject matter research activities. |
None of those in the first group (Table 7.1) appear to address comprehensively, all of the wide-ranging objectives described for the ecoregional approach (see box). Some of the SWAs in Table 7.1 are quite selective; for instance the rice/wheat SWP addresses one farming system only, albeit a very important one, in the warm semi-arid tropics and subtropics of Asia. Likewise, the alternatives to slash-and-burn SWP is limited to the farming practices of (formerly) forested areas in the warm humid and sub-humid tropics of the world. Nevertheless, they all deal with the implementation of some part of the ecoregional approach. The initiative on coastal environments identifies a different type of agroecological zone to those described in TAC 1994, one that is relevant to fisheries research, as well as to studies of other downstream effects of agriculture and forestry.
What distinguishes the second group (Table 7.2) is that they are much more targeted than the first and all are actually or potentially global. Their primary purpose is to fill gaps in the System's work, or to improve its technical quality and cost-effectiveness, or both. The livestock SWP is somewhat different in that it arose out of a restructuring of livestock research in the System.
Further examination of plans for the second group reveals that, with the possible exception of the genetic resources SWP, they will be implemented predominantly in a regional context. This raises the question, which TAC intends to pursue, as to whether sufficient emphasis is being placed on the CGIAR's global role in this type of SWA, that is, on strategic research to develop new generic understanding and methodologies that can be used beyond the region.
The common feature of the diverse SWAs in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 is that they all appear to deal with expediting change in the System to help optimize the use of its resources. Thus, the SWAs in Table 7.1, which have an ecoregional approach, represent a very different mode of operation for the CGIAR, as do the SWAs in Table 7.2 which aim to strengthen research on important global issues such as genetic resources and natural resource management, and in key areas such as integrated pest management, property rights and collective action.
The scope of proposals for Systemwide programme funding has broadened considerably since TAC presented its recommendations at ICW93. The initial list focused on the implementation of CGIAR priorities (goal oriented), whereas a number of subsequent proposals have been directed at improving methodologies or disciplinary expertise (means oriented). There has been a continuing strong emphasis on working more closely with NARS, but a number of SWAs, particularly those on soil, water and nutrient management, and integrated pest management, involve the strengthening of linkages with international centres that are not affiliated with the Group and with research institutes in industrialised nations. It may be that SWPs will provide, in future, a major vehicle by which the System can tap into the latest advances in science which are taking place in advanced research institutes.
TAC advocates that the CGIAR should take a pragmatic approach to these possibilities. The primary test for a SWP must be that it improves the work of the System. The aim is to provide centres with an incentive to undertake activities which are a priority for the System as a whole but which would not normally be undertaken, or would not be undertaken sufficiently, in the absence of such an incentive. Many cooperative activities will be sufficiently attractive to encourage centres to fund them from their own resources without the need for Systemwide status.
Several categories have already been identified in which inter-centre research cooperation, including cooperation with research agencies outside the CGIAR, is likely to add significant value to the System's work. These include research activities which:
· combine the expertise of different centres or agencies on a long-term basis for the solution of major problems;· avoid the need to duplicate expertise that already exists elsewhere; and
· concentrate expertise around the use of expensive and technically demanding facilities.
The Centre Directors meeting in December 1994 identified two other important collective purposes:
· to provide activities of common interest to a number of centres, thereby increasing the impact of the CGIAR; and· to ensure consistency among the policies and strategies of the various centres in order to avoid problems that can arise when different centres work together.
Centres responded enthusiastically and creatively to the introduction of SWAs. There is no doubt that they have increased the responsiveness of the System. TAC believes that it is now timely to take stock of existing SWAs before adding many more to those listed in Tables 7.1 and 7.2.
Different forms of evaluation for the two groups of SWAs during the period 1998-2000 are proposed. In the case of implementing the ecoregional approach, there is an urgent need to monitor the progress of the ten SWAs listed in Table 7.1 and to document the lessons emerging from that experience in order for the System to have early warning of opportunities for improvement in the approach. The difficult history of efforts to organize large multidisciplinary, multi-institutional agricultural research programmes, for example in farming systems research, which is simpler than the ecoregional approach, indicates a need for a realistic and cautious attitude by the Group. A specific output of such a review would be the development of guidelines to specify the criteria for recommending support to the initiative and programme phases of such activities.
To oversee the evaluation and documentation of SWAs implementing the ecoregional approach, TAC will set up an appropriate Committee on the Implementation of the Ecoregional Approach. It will draw on, through the personal capacity of its membership, the special expertise of TAC, CGIAR Centres, NARS, and members of the Group. The committee will begin work before the end of 1997.
The committee will build on the foundation provided by the CGIAR Task Forces on Ecoregional Approaches to Research (noting that true partnership between the CGIAR and NARS goes far beyond the ecoregional approach) and on Sustainable Agriculture. The report of the consultancy currently commissioned by the Centre Directors to document and analyze experiences with the development and implementation of ecoregional SWPs will be a very valuable input for that Committee. Other relevant experience should be taken into account, such as that from fanning systems research and from a number of industrialized countries that have set up multi-institutional centres for research.
Before the end of this planning period, a good deal of experience will have been gained of the design phase (SWIs) of regional and cross-regional activities using the ecoregional approach, and for at least some programmes there should be clear indications of whether or not the approach is achieving its objectives in practice. One of the specific charges of TAC's committee will be to report to the Group before the end of the 1998-2000 period on its interim assessment of the value of the ecoregional approach.
A different approach is proposed for the management of the second group of SWAs (Table 7.2) during the period 1998-2000 as, because of their wide diversity, they each require separate treatment. TAC's recommendation is that they be reviewed as part of the System's normal review process. Each External Programme and Management Review (EPMR), and associated internally commissioned review, should examine the centre's convening role, if it has one, and the components of its SWAs. In addition, it will be desirable to carry out regular, well-focused stripe reviews or strategic studies of research areas covered by SWPs. In some cases, the CGIAR may need to join with outside agencies in an even more comprehensive evaluation. TAC intends to start with a review of the work in germplasm conservation focused on the SGRP.
Two key questions need to be answered when reviewing SWAs from either group.
· Has the value added by making the activity Systemwide, rather than leaving it as a series of centre-based components, outweighed the additional transaction and management costs?· Has the SWA reached the point where its separate existence is no longer warranted? It may have done its job and no further special action is needed, or it may be possible to provide the collective action still needed through a centre. Alternatively, the SWA may have failed, or be very likely to fail, and should be abandoned or substantially restructured.
The reviews of SWAs should also give particular attention to the effectiveness of their operational modes. In the Study of Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR, TAC has proposed seven criteria for evaluating the operating modes used in SWAs. These should be tested in practice.
TAC is aware that other modes of cross-institutional programme funding are in use in a number of member countries, and that many of them pay a much larger proportion of research costs than the CGIAR has to date, with its essentially minimalist approach to Systemwide programme funding. During the 1998-2000 period, TAC intends to examine these other models of programme funding, including competitive granting schemes, to assess their relevance to the CGIAR.
TAC recommends that, in the absence of strong new arguments, no new SWAs for the implementation of the ecoregional approach be added until (a) the experience to date has been gathered, assessed and documented properly, and (b) the TAC committee has been able to present to the Group its interim assessment of the value of the ecoregional approach. While the existing initiatives/programmes (Table 7.1) are not comprehensive, they cover sufficient objectives of the approach to allow a full interim evaluation.
The situation with the second group of SWAs is different. The Group may wish to strengthen additional specific areas of work in 1998-2000, in order to remain flexible and responsive in the pursuit of its goals. However, because experience indicates that the initiation and implementation of SWAs adds significantly to the managerial workload of centres and their partners, TAC counsels against adding many more SWAs of any kind during the 1998-2000 period. It would be better to proceed slowly until the implementation of the ecoregional approach is under control and some of the SWAs in the second group have achieved their main purposes.
Also, this would allow the System time to undertake a further priority-setting exercise for future SWAs. Many of the recent proposals for new initiatives have been generated from within the centres. This valuable bottom-up influence needs to be balanced by a CGIAR-wide perspective. The Group, with the advice of TAC, needs to re-examine the agreed research agenda, and recent developments in agricultural, forestry, and fisheries research outside the System, to see which areas require special Systemwide action to raise them to the highest possible level of performance.
To the extent that SWAs are concerned with the management of change in the CGIAR, then the special mechanisms that have been set up to expedite change do not need to continue indefinitely, as once a change has been effected, it will become part of the mainstream operations of the System. This is reflected in TAC's proposals for the future management of SWAs.
Table 7.1: A List of Systemwide Initiatives and Programmes Undertaken by the CGIAR to Implement the Ecoregional Approach
|
Regional Initiatives for: | |
|
|
|
|
· |
Sustainable natural resources management options to arrest land degradation in the desert margins of sub-Saharan Africa |
|
· |
Coastal environments |
|
|
|
|
Regional Programmes for: | |
|
|
|
|
· |
The warm humid and sub-humid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa |
|
· |
The humid and sub-humid tropics of Asia |
|
· |
On-farm water husbandry in West Africa and North Asia |
|
· |
Sustainable rice/wheat based cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plain |
|
· |
Enhancing agricultural research effectiveness in Tropical America |
|
|
|
|
Cross-Regional Programmes for: | |
|
|
|
|
· |
Alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture |
|
· |
Sustainable mountain agricultural development |
Table 7.2: A List of Systemwide Initiatives and Programmes Undertaken by the CGIAR to Strengthen Specific Areas of CGIAR Research
|
Initiatives in: | |
|
|
|
|
· |
Water management |
|
· |
Agricultural research indicators |
|
· |
Soil, water and nutrient management |
|
· |
Integrated pest management |
|
|
|
|
Programmes in: | |
|
|
|
|
· |
Genetic resources |
|
· |
Livestock research |
|
· |
Property rights and collective action |
|
· |
Participatory research and gender analysis |
