1.1 Introduction
1.2 Evolution of the Ecoregional Approach
1.3. The Review Process
This first Chapter gives a very brief background to the development of the ecoregional approach and the conduct of the Review. Chapter 2 summarizes the eight Systemwide Programmes with an ecoregional approach (henceforth referred to as ecoregional programmes) and outlines related CGIAR research. Chapter 3 presents the Panel's response to the terms of reference followed by its conclusions on some wider issues. The future of the ecoregional approach and of ecoregional programmes are dealt with in Chapter 4, but most of the chapter is a broader discussion of how one of the chief original aims of the ecoregional approach, strengthening NRM research in the CGIAR, might progress in future. Reports of field visits are given in Annexes III-V and contacts for additional information are given in Annex VIII.
The CGIAR faced a number of challenges during the 1980s. The Green Revolution was showing signs of having run its course and its limited impact on rainfed agriculture was becoming apparent, especially in Africa. There was growing concern, both inside and outside the System, about the long-term sustainability of agriculture. The concept of NARS being 'clients' of the CGIAR was out of date and it was accepted increasingly that they should be treated as full partners.
The CGIAR responded very positively to these challenges. TAC undertook a painstaking analysis of issues and options in consultation with stakeholders. As a result three changes came about: the System expanded to include ICLARM, ICRAF, IIMI and a new Centre which later became CIFOR; the ecoregional approach was adopted; and it was decided to seek collaboration and partnership with NARS.
The ecoregional approach was first presented to the Group in the report on "A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR" (TAC/CGIAR 1990). At International Centres' Week in 1990, the CGIAR endorsed the concept of ecoregional activities as a means of integrating resource management with productivity concerns, the "twin pillars of the CGIAR". The approach was subsequently elaborated upon in the paper "An Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR" (TAC/CGIAR 1991). In the summary of that paper a reference is made to "expanded research on resource management in the CGIAR" and "major threats to the sustainability of agriculture". In the text, three key principles for the organization of ecoregional research were identified: a systems approach, multidisciplinary teams and cooperation with other institutions.
TAC's writings on the ecoregional approach were reviewed by Gryseels and Kassam (IFPRI 1994). Their synthesis was that research may be characterized as ecoregional if it meets the following general criteria:
· conducts research on the technical and human dimensions of problems in the sustainable improvement of productivity;· addresses landscape units in the agroecosystem of a priority agroecological zone;
· has effective and clearly identifiable partnership linkages with NARS and other research agencies of the region, and shows the complementarity of functions across the partners; and
· fosters close linkages with global strategic commodity/subject matter research activities.
TAC recognized that there were inherent advantages in organizing research on physical and biological aspects of conserving and managing natural resources, including biodiversity, along agroecological zones. Altogether six ecoregions with a high priority for the System were listed.1
1 In sub-Saharan Africa for the semi-arid Tropics, and for the warm humid and sub-humid Tropics (including inland valleys); in West Asia-North Africa for the sub-Tropics with winter rainfall; in Asia for the warm arid and semi-arid Tropics and sub-Tropics, and for the warm sub-humid and humid Tropics, and in Latin America/Caribbean for the sub-humid and humid Tropics and sub-Tropics. In addition, one cross-ecoregional programme on alternatives for slash and bum was recommended. Because of the acute resource and poverty issues in mountainous regions, programmes there were justifiable if linked through an inter-regional mechanism.
There is now a significant amount of literature on the ecoregional approach. It consists of the reports of working groups (such as that of TAC and Centre Directors in 1992-93), conferences (organized by SPAAR and ISNAR, for example), CGIAR task forces (one specifically on ecoregional approaches), and additional strategic studies (TAC/CGIAR 1997a, note two such references in Annex IX). These deal mainly with explaining the concepts and the operational processes needed to put them into implementation. While Panel Members have read many of these documents, a complete review of the literature was beyond their scope. Some of the landmarks in the evolution of the ecoregional approach are listed in Annex VII.
Programme funding for Systemwide initiatives was first proposed to the CGIAR and endorsed at International Centres' Week in 1993. Subsequently, seven ecoregional programmes and a cross-ecoregional programme on alternatives to slash and bum agriculture were recommended for funding during 1994-1998. These eight programmes are the subject of this Review. About half of them were based on activities that already existed or were at an advanced stage of preparation before the CGIAR initiated the mechanism of Systemwide programmes.
A significant development in the framework for improving CGIAR-NARS linkages occurred in the course of 1995-1996 with the establishment of the Regional Fora of NARS and the Global Forum on Agricultural Research. Regional fora include the Asian-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI), the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) with mechanisms for sub-regions such as the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA), the Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA) and the Foro Regional de Investigacion y Desarollo Tecnologico Agropecuario (FORAGRO). Also, a greater recognition of the potential of regional mechanisms to facilitate and foster linkages with and among NARS developed within the donor community (EIARD 1996).
Several internationally-led activities have perspectives and methodological approaches worded similarly to the ecoregional approach of the CGIAR. These include aspects of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; the Global Terrestrial Observing System, which is located at FAO; and the Man and Biosphere Programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. However, none of these programmes seems to have attempted as holistic a coverage of the sustainable improvement of productivity or to have as strong a research orientation as the CGIAR's ecoregional approach. The opportunity was taken during the Review to ask about models of successful implementation of the ecoregional approach in agricultural/NRM research in industrialized countries. Very few examples came to light.
Few donors seem to have modified their funding procedures to support ecoregional research. The Netherlands, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (these two established the Ecoregional Trust Fund - ISNAR (1996)), the International Development Research Centre, Canada and the International Fund for Agricultural Development are among the major donors supporting ecoregional programmes. Others, such as the Department for International Development, United Kingdom, have taken a different approach and explicitly incorporated a natural-resource research strategy into their overall programme portfolio. The European Union (EC) supports research in NRM at various Centres and has promoted regional cooperation in Africa.
The complete Terms of Reference for the Review are given in Annex II and relevant sections are repeated in Chapter 3. The commissioning of this Review was foreshadowed in the report "CGIAR Priorities and Strategies for Resource Allocation During 1998-2000" (TAC/CGIAR 1997b). It highlighted the need to monitor the progress of the ecoregional programmes and to document the lessons emerging from that experience, in order for the System to have early warning of opportunities to improve the approach.
The process adopted in the Review was firstly, for the TAC Secretariat to carry out a desk study, secondly, for Panel members to visit selected programme activities and thirdly, for some Panel members to meet at ISNAR to draft the report. The writing was completed by the use of Email and the penultimate version was circulated widely for comment.
Before and during the Review, a number of people, in addition to those listed in the Annexes, were consulted in view of their knowledge of the ecoregional approach and of ecoregional initiatives/programmes. They included present and former Centre Directors General, Deputy Directors General and Directors of Research, members of current and recent External Programme and Management Reviews, senior managers of aid agencies and scientists in advanced research organizations. Some members of the Panel had access to the unreleased report by Dr. M.P. Collinson "A Study of Progress in the Ecoregional Initiatives: Emerging Issues and Future Directions". The help of all these people is gratefully acknowledged.
The preparatory desk study (TAC Secretariat 1999) was carried out from September 1998 to February 1999 to gather relevant information and to provide an initial analysis of the state of each of the Systemwide Programmes with an ecoregional approach. A formal survey was conducted to ascertain stakeholders' opinions as to how well the Programmes had performed in conducting research on the technical and human dimensions of problems in sustainably improving agricultural productivity in ecoregions. Stakeholders were also asked for suggestions as to how the efficiency and effectiveness of the ecoregional approach could be improved. To facilitate the exchange of information with stakeholders during the Review, WebPages were posted at the TAC Web Site. Judging by the number of hits recorded, this innovation was well received.
The main conclusions of the desk study are listed in Annex VI. They were fully taken into account in conducting the main phase of the Review. In fact, the desk study identified nearly all the major issues that emerged later. Data from the survey have been quoted in pertinent sections of this report.
The Panel did not visit all the ecoregional programmes. Those selected for the field visits were the longer-established ones, because they were expected to have gathered sufficient experience to allow the major issues in implementing the ecoregional approach to be identified. It was also decided that each major region should be represented.
· For Asia, the Rice-Wheat Consortium was visited in India by a panel comprising Drs. G. T. Castillo, S. S. Johl and T. Henzell (see Annex III);· For sub-Saharan Africa emphasis was placed on the humid forest site at Yaoundé, Cameroon (EPHTA, including IVC, and ASB). Briefings on the general operations of ASB and on AHI, as well as on other ecoregional activities of ICRAF and the ILRI were received during the visit to Nairobi. The panel was comprised of Dr. T. Henzell and Dr. S.O. Keya; Dr. J. Lynam assisted the panel in Nairobi (see Annex IV). A social scientist was engaged to join the panel but had to withdraw at a late stage.
· For Latin America the Latin American Ecoregional Programme, hosted by the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), CONDESAN and the Centre Internacional de la Papa (CIP), was selected. The Review Panel was comprised of Dr. D. Byerlee and Dr. N. Mateo, together with Dr. E. Fereres of TAC (see Annex V).
Site visits were conducted between 19 April and 12 May 1999, and a group consisting of the Panel Chairman and Secretary, plus Drs Byerlee, Mateo and Kuerschner, convened to draft the report at ISNAR, The Hague, from 4 to 11 June 1999. A draft was circulated for comments on 21st July 1999 and the report was completed during August.
