2.1 The Ecoregional Programmes
2.2 Other Ecoregional Activities
This Chapter provides a brief overview of, and commentary on, the eight ecoregional programmes (see box), followed by information concerning other ecoregional research in the CGIAR. Those seeking additional details of the programmes are referred to Annexes III-V and to the list of contacts in Annex VIII.
|
List of Ecoregional Programmes i. Desert margins programme for sub-Saharan Africa (DMI). ii. Programme for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa (EPHTA). iii. Programme for the humid and sub-humid tropics of Asia (Ecor(I)Asia). iv. On-farm water husbandry programme for West Asia and North Africa (OFWH). v. Programme for rice/wheat based cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic plain (RWC). vi. Programme for enhancing agricultural research effectiveness in Tropical America (CIAT's). vii. Alternatives to slash and bum agriculture programme (ASB). viii Sustainable mountain agricultural development programme - now Global mountain programme (GMP). |
The Panel did not have the information needed to draw conclusions about progress in the research being conducted in the DMI, OFWH, ASB in South America and Ecor(I)Asia, apart from, publications from SysNet.
2.1.1.1 Desert Margins Initiative (DMI)
2.1.1.2 Programme for the Warm Humid and sub-Humid Tropics of sub-Saharan Africa (EPHTA)
2.1.1.3 Programme for the Humid and sub-Humid Tropics of Asia (Ecor(I)Asia)
2.1.1.4 On-farm Water Husbandry (OFWH) Programme for West Asia and North Africa
2.1.1.5 Rice-Wheat Consortium (RWC)
2.1.1.6 Programme for Enhancing Agricultural Research Effectiveness in Tropical America (CIAT's)
2.1.1.7 Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) Programme
2.1.1.8 Sustainable Mountain Agricultural Development Programme
In 1995, a two-and-a-half year planning process began for the DMI with a global workshop convened by ICRISAT. This was followed by sub-regional consultations in west, east and southern Africa. During 1998, the DMI became operational in six of the nine member countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Kenya, Botswana and South Africa), though research is still in the early stages of development. The objective of the DMI Programme is to promote innovative and action-oriented dryland management research to arrest land degradation. The DMI operates as a research consortium overseen by an elected Steering Committee chaired by ICRISAT. The research coordinator is based with ICRISAT in Niger. Several international centres, including ILRI, are involved in the DMI.
Much of the initial investment in the DMI has been directed not to a priority research problem but to the documentation of existing transferable technologies and to the characterization of benchmark sites. Despite the publicity and international recognition given to desertification, it seems to have been difficult to find a major new problem concerning NRM that could serve as a focus for implementing the ecoregional approach.
Perhaps the developmental problems of these marginal lands are too complex
for any approach focusing on NRM. Poverty reduction in marginal lands requires
that attention be given to a variety of sources of income going beyond agriculture
(TAC Secretariat, 1996).
EPHTA is made up of three research consortia: humid forests, moist savannas and inland valleys. Details are given in Annex IV.
Humid Forest and Moist Savanna Consortia IITA convened the initial task force for this part of EPHTA. Several planning meetings, workshops and conferences were held during 1995 and 1996, culminating in the launching of the programme in 1996/97. Although EPHTA is structured as two consortia, its work is conducted mainly within six benchmark areas. The humid forest benchmark area of southern Cameroon also serves as the forest margins benchmark site for ASB. EPHTA aims to increase productivity and food security through the use of sustainable production and postharvest systems, while minimizing natural-resource degradation. It operates under the regional umbrella of the Conference des Responsables de Recherche Agricole de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre (CORAF).
The humid forest consortium has been strongly influenced by its close ties with ASB. Most of the research being done by the two consortia appears to have evolved from preexisting NRM research by IITA and its NARS partners. Approximately half of the scientists in IITA's Resource and Crop Management Division work in the humid forest consortium. It is still early days for these consortia, but the practical application of existing information has been enhanced in the course of characterizing the benchmark areas. Commendable progress has been made at the humid forest benchmark area in developing research partnerships with national and CIRAD scientists, and a high degree of farmer participation has been achieved at the village level. New research includes studies of weed control. The chief deficiency of these two consortia appears to be that they have yet to explore the full scope of the ecoregional approach, especially the political, economic and institutional components of its human dimension.
Inland Valley Consortium (IVC) The term inland valleys refers to the upper reaches of river systems. With support from the Netherlands Directorate General for International Cooperation and the French Cooperation, IVC was launched in April 1994 for an initial period of five years, with WARDA as its host and convening Centre. The founding membership was made up of seven NARS and four international organizations. ILRI, FAO and three NARS joined at a later date. The second five-year phase was launched in April 1999; IWMI became an additional member and CORAF became co-chair of the Regional Steering Committee.
IVC seems to have been primarily a new venture, though it was influenced by
some preexisting research on inland-valley systems. Its major scientific achievement
has been in characterization of the inland-valley ecoregion and key research
sites. There are also examples of IVC National Coordinators providing influential
policy advice to national policy-makers in West Africa. WARDA's membership brought
with it excellent partnerships with countries in the region, and scientific
support in areas such as Geographical Information System (GIS). The major limitation
of the IVC as an ecoregional activity appears to be in its restricted coverage
of the social sciences, other than economics, and of strategic aspects of NRM
linked to productivity. These deficiencies are being addressed in the second
phase.
The establishment of Ecor(I)Asia was an outcome of the adoption of Systemwide programmes by the CGIAR. A two-year planning process in 1995-96 developed a research and development (R&D) framework and identified pilot-study regions. Agricultural diversification and soil erosion were identified as its two major research themes; the agricultural diversification theme is coordinated by IRRI. Its main objectives are to develop sustainable NRM practices and methodologies for ecoregional land-use planning. A pilot site to address the first objective was established in the Red River Basin (RRB) of Vietnam in 1997. The Ecoregional Working Group, which functions as the Steering Committee for Ecor(I)Asia, is comprised of representatives from the International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM), seven NARS, other Centres and Advanced Research Organizations.
The soil-erosion theme has been implemented by IBSRAM and the Philippine Council
for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD),
through the management of a soil erosion consortium, one of four regional consortia
established by the Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Systemwide (SWNM) Programme.
The major achievements of Ecor(I)Asia to date have been the outputs from SysNet
(three of its four pilot sites are in Ecor(I)Asia's ecoregion, the other is
in RWC's ecoregion), and the bringing together of a wide diversity of interests
in the RRB to conduct research using ecoregional principles. SysNet has already
published several reports and its Land Use Planning and Analysis System will
be introduced to the uplands of the RRB later this year. A highly participatory
approach is being adopted in the identification of land-use and NRM problems.
However, as the Panel was unable to obtain first-hand information from a visit,
it was unable to assess the progress of research by Ecor(I)Asia, other than
through the SysNet publications.
The OFWH was one of the four ecoregional programmes, along with DMI, Ecor(I)Asia
and EPHTA (but not IVC), that was developed after the CGIAR's decision to initiate
Systemwide Programmes in 1994. Following an initial planning workshop in 1995,
ICARDA developed a proposal for an ecoregional programme to improve the efficiency
of water use in agricultural production in dry areas, through optimal management
of rainfall, fresh water and non-conventional water resources. Some project
funds have been received during the past two years to carry out case studies
in Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, Jordan and Pakistan in the areas of supplementary irrigation
and water harvesting as well as remote sensing. This research is organized within
the Centre's regular project portfolio under its Natural Resource Management
Programme. Since this ecoregional programme was not selected for a site visit,
the Panel expects that more insight will be obtained on its progress and the
development of NRM research at ICARDA from the ongoing EPMR. ICARDA's mandate
region is the same as one of TAC's six priority ecoregions.
The RWC was initiated in 1989 by an agreement between IRRI, CIMMYT and the NARS of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. It was formally accepted as an ecoregional programme for its second phase (1994-1998). At the time of the Panel visit (see Annex III), funding was still being sought for a third phase. The objective of the RWC's research is to sustain the productivity of the rice-wheat rotation on the Indo-Gangetic Plain. RWC's focus is on the four themes of tillage and crop establishment, integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and system ecology/integrated pest management. Crop improvement, socioeconomics and policy analysis are treated as overarching issues. Information is exchanged with China, where the same production system is also very important. RWC policy is set by a Regional Steering Committee which has a majority of NARS leaders and is chaired in rotation by a representative of one of the four countries. China has associate membership of the RWC. There are technical coordinating committees at regional and national levels, and informal committees at the research sites. RWC's facilitation unit is currently hosted by CIMMYT.
The RWC's major initial achievement, predating its ecoregional designation,
was to alert participants to evidence of falling factor productivity. It has
maintained this focus on sustainable productivity, achieved very effective collaborative
research partnerships, and increased the participation of farmers and other
beneficiaries. A recent success is the transfer of tillage technology. However,
the full scope of the ecoregional approach still has to be exploited. This could
be done, for example, by strengthening policy research and broadening its approach
to include water and livestock research, and aspects of the social sciences
other than straight economics. Collaboration among CGIAR Centres has grown slowly.
CIAT began to implement elements of the ecoregional approach while TAC was still refining the concept (TAC/CGIAR 1992, p. 295). New priorities were set for the Centre's mandate region based on environmental criteria, socioeconomic information (including rural poverty) and environmental degradation. As the core of CIAT's future resource-management programme, three agroecological zones were identified: savannas, seasonally wet hillsides and forest margins. These priorities have guided the Centre's research ever since (Annex V). A Natural Resources Management Programme was created in 1991, but because of a funding crisis the intended scope of CIAT's NRM research had to be scaled down and the vision of transforming CIAT into an ecoregional research centre was not fully realized until about 1997. The ecoregional approach is now viewed as being at the core of the Centre's strategy. All CIAT's research projects, with the exception of crop improvement and associated genebank activities, have an ecoregional approach. There are very effective links between elements of NRM and productivity in CIAT's research on the savannas, and strategic research on soil organic matter within one of the SWNM Consortia. The human dimension features prominently in its work on hillside and forest margins, which are strong on social science research, particularly on participatory methods. Significant progress has also been made in GIS modelling, and in integrating the conservation of biodiversity into the Centre's work.
There is a perception, which needs to be corrected, that CIAT was 'punished'
by the donor community during its transformation into an institution using the
ecoregional approach. The Panel thinks that this is an oversimplification, and
that there were deficiencies in selling the 'vision', in priority-setting (trying
to do three agroecological zones at once), and in developing collaborative partnerships.
While it may have been hard to find national partners for NRM research in LAC,
except perhaps in Costa Rica and a few other LAC countries ("CGIAR Commitments
in Latin America and the Caribbean", SDR/TAC:IAR/98/18 Rev. 1, 1999), there
were other possibilities, including advanced research institutes in industrialized
countries.
The first planning meeting for the ASB was held in 1991 and it was launched in 1992. Phase I was implemented in 1994-1995, Phase II in 1996-1998 and Phase HI is set for 1999-2002. The objectives of ASB are to identify, evaluate, and where necessary modify and develop, land-use systems and technologies that lead to sustainable alternatives to slash-and-bum agriculture and to the reclamation of degraded lands. ASB is coordinated by ICRAF and is organized as a global consortium of nine Centres, 39 national institutes, 43 Non-governmental Organizations and 10 advanced research institutes. Research sites are located in eight countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The three regional benchmark sites in Brazil, Indonesia (Sumatra) and Cameroon each have a hierarchy of steering committees. ASB's global coordination office is at ICRAF's headquarters in Nairobi.
Slash and bum agriculture, ASB's problem domain, is one of the major causes of tropical deforestation. From its beginning, ASB has satisfied all the criteria of ecoregional research (Section 1.2.1) except for that on addressing a priority agroecological zone. However, as its regional research activities have much in common with programmes based on the warm humid and sub-humid agroecological zones, it was accepted on that basis. The Panel's assessment of ASB's achievements is based mainly on information available from the Sumatran site and from the visit to Africa (Annex IV). The ASB sites in South America were not reviewed by the Panel.
ASB has carried out innovative field research, linking NRM with productivity concerns, and combining human and technical dimensions in a holistic way. The policy options which have been formulated to remove constraints to the adoption of alternatives to slash and bum, have allowed the Government of Indonesia to implement new forms of management for community forests. Although work in Cameroon is not as advanced, CIFOR has carried out important research in the country with strong policy implications on the causes of forest-cover change in the humid forest zone.
ASB has defined how representative its research locations in the humid forests
of three continents are, and it has gone further than other programmes in scaling
up its findings to the global level. This has been done to illustrate the trade-offs
that exist between environmental parameters such as carbon sequestration (a
means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and conservation of biodiversity
on the one hand, and agricultural productivity indices such as profitability
on the other.
This programme, later renamed the Global Mountain Programme (GMP), was created in 1997 to provide a focal point in the CGIAR for research in support of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21. TAC originally suggested the programme because none of the mountain programmes were of sufficient priority to merit the support of the CGIAR. The GMP intends to exchange information and experiences between the major mountain systems in Africa, Asia (Hindu Kush and Himalayas) and Latin America (High Andes). Meetings have taken place, but so far the exchange of information has been limited. The two CGIAR components are the AHI and CONDESAN; the International Centre for Mountain Agriculture Development (ICIMOD) is the third member. CIP is the convening Centre for the GMP.
African Highlands Initiative (AHI) AHI was proposed by NARS and Centres in 1992 in response to the need for new R&D approaches in Africa. Phase I ran from 1995 to 1997, followed by Phase II from 1998 to 2000. AHI's objective is to improve the nutritional security and income of the agricultural communities who inhabit the productive, but fragile, ecosystem of the densely populated and intensively cultivated highlands of East and Central Africa. At present, AHI operates as a consortium of five countries (for details, see Annex IV), nine CGIAR Centres, six universities, seven NGOs, four regional commodity networks, three regional and global research institutions and five district-level groups. While ICRAF provides technical support, ASARECA sets the regional and policy guidance for this ecoregional programme. The Regional Coordination Office, initially based at ICRAF, has recently been relocated to Kampala, Uganda.
Whereas Phase I was narrowly based on two research themes - integrated pest management, and tree and soil fertility - Phase II introduces new elements featuring livestock, water, biodiversity, greater sensitivity to clients' needs, the importance of linking NRM with improving productivity, the role of dissemination in development, as well as sociocultural and policy issues. It now accords much more closely with the criteria for ecoregional research, but still has a long way to go in exploiting the holistic potential of the ecoregional approach and in defining a major unifying problem or opportunity for NRM research.
Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Region (CONDESAN)
The origins of CONDESAN go back to 1992 when CIP, with support from IDRC, organized and promoted this initiative with partners from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The research agenda is at present composed of five themes: tools and methods for soil and water management; agrobiodiversity in Andean root, tuber and pasture species; improved farming systems for the Andes; policy research, including trade-off between productivity, profitability and environmental impact; and human-resources development and communications (InfoAndina). CONDESAN has its own Board of Directors and its coordinating unit is based at CIP.
CONDESAN's achievements have not only been in characterization of mountain ecosystems, but also in its research on Andean biodiversity and the utilisation of mesas de concertación (where political, research and other partners define R&D activities to be conducted at the watershed level). Its research generally meets the ecoregional criteria, but in common with most of the ecoregional programmes it has not fully used the considerable powers of the ecoregional approach. There is a deficit of policy research which tends to become more important when scaling-up from farm to watershed levels and beyond, and only limited strategic research on NRM technologies (Annex V). CONDESAN probably has a more diverse group of partners than any other consortium. This brings benefits in terms of complementarity of resources and expertise, but can create management and administrative difficulties.
2.1.2.1 Organization
2.1.2.2 Choice of regions
2.1.2.3 Relation to other Systemwide Programmes
Of the eight ecoregional programmes, four are organized as research consortia with the strong involvement of NARS and other non-CGIAR agencies (ASB, EPHTA including IVC, RWC and the two CGIAR components of the GMP). In two other programmes which are at an earlier stage of development (Ecor(I)Asia and DMI), the chief activities to date are also conducted in a research network or consortium. The major distinguishing feature of collaborative research networks or consortia is that research is jointly planned and executed (Plucknett et al. 1990). CIAT's ecoregional programme is different as it has incorporated the ecoregional approach into the mainstream of its research agenda. The OFWH Programme of ICARDA also operates within the Centre's programme and project structure.
The distinguishing feature of all the consortia listed above is the presence of a central facilitating or coordinating unit; the four main functions of these units are:
· co-ordinating research and research-related activities by exchanging technical information and setting priorities for future research;· providing training in elements of the ecoregional approach and standardization of methods;
· conducting research projects on the ecoregional approach, including characterization of ecoregions, working in consortia and participatory methods;
· providing supplementary funding (core funding in the case of ASB) to encourage collaborative research and related activities by the participating institutions.
The most successful ecoregional programmes are those which have a clear focus
on a major problem, strong leadership capable of articulating a vision of how
a problem should be addressed and able to effectively facilitate collaboration
at the research level.
The ecoregions listed as being of highest priority in 1992/93 (Chapter 1) were chosen by TAC using an analytical framework containing the following criteria: number of poor; increasing pressure of population; continuing dependence on agriculture; economic importance; rate of resource degradation; strength of national programmes; importance of particular commodities; and comparative advantage of the CGIAR. Cool tropical highlands had a lower priority index, but were included on other grounds.
However, in practice most ecoregional programmes have defined their problem/research
domains by production systems (rice/wheat); vegetation zones (savannas of South
America); topography (hillsides of Colombia and Central America); geographical
position (inland valleys, desert margins); or even by the process of preparing
forested land for cropping (slash and bum). While they have moved in the well-established
direction of defining a problem that can act as a unifying theme for researchers
and be attractive to funding organizations, they have also been very strongly
influenced in most cases by the nature of the pre-existing Centre research from
which they evolved. For this reason, it could be argued that TAC's original
concept of ecoregions has never been given a fair trial. Moreover, some of the
problems and regions of the existing ecoregional programmes appear to be quite
narrow in terms of the CGIAR's goals of poverty alleviation and food security.
Why they need to operate as Systemwide entities at all could be questioned.
Chapter 7 of the document "CGIAR Priorities and Strategies for Resource Allocation During 1998-2000" (TAC/CGIAR 1997b) lists eight Systemwide Programmes in addition to those with an ecoregional approach. These are for:
· water management;
· agricultural research indicators;
· soil, water and nutrient management;
· integrated pest management;
· genetic resources;
· livestock research;
· property rights and collective action; and
· participatory research and gender analysis.
In general, these Systemwide Programmes were devised for a different purpose to that of the ecoregional programmes; they were undertaken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of more specific aspects of research and research-related activities at the System level. Nevertheless, members of this group share many objectives with the ecoregional programmes.
Soil, water and nutrient management is a good example of a programme that has a high level of coincidence, as its subject is intrinsic to the NRM strengthening focus of the ecoregional approach. The same is true of the programmes on property rights and collective action, integrated pest management and particularly the in situ conservation of genetic resources, which cannot be separated from the ecoregional approach. ILRI, as a matter of policy, implements the Systemwide on Livestock Research Programme through existing ecoregional programmes. At the other end of the spectrum, the programme on agricultural research indicators is probably only marginally related to ecoregional activities through the evidence it provides of partner capacities.
An efficient use of scarce resources requires that maximum synergy be extracted from the common interests of the two kinds of Systemwide Programmes. Links appear to be excellent in a number of cases, for instance between the soil, water and nutrient management programme and CIAT's savanna research. ILRI's livestock programme cooperates very effectively with those of AHI, CIAT, CONDESAN and EPHTA, but not yet with RWC. Non-ecoregional programmes are being reviewed individually and that of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme has already been completed. It is highly desirable that future reviews should examine the effectiveness of the interaction of these two kinds of programmes. One indicator would be the extent to which field research sites are shared.
Recommendation 1: That future reviews of the non-ecoregional Systemwide Programmes examine the extent of their interaction with pertinent Ecoregional Systemwide Programmes.
One of the ways in which the CGIAR responded to the challenges of the 1980s (Section 1.2.1) was to expand to include three Centres with natural-resource mandates (CIFOR, ICRAF and ICLARM) and a fourth (IWMI) dealing with the very important natural resource of water. This part of the Report examines in a very preliminary way the role of the three 'natural-resource' Centres in implementing the ecoregional approach.
These Centres seem to embody ecoregional principles more completely than most other CGIAR Centres. CIFOR deals holistically with one of the world's most extensive natural resources, tropical forests, which are also a major source of environmental services, particularly water resources. Several features of CIFOR's research are central to the ecoregional approach, notably the linking of its strong NRM research to that on forest production systems and the combination of the technical and human dimensions of problems. Emphasis is placed on policy and public management issues in relation to the future of tropical forests and social sciences, not just economics, play an important role in the Centre's work. The Centre is strong in innovative strategic research, for instance, in the conservation of biodiversity, for which tropical forests are of global importance. Since its foundation, CIFOR has worked in close partnership with national forestry agencies rather than setting up traditional regional laboratories.
All ICRAF's research is ecoregional in nature and much of it is conducted within ecoregional programmes. Research into productivity of trees on farms is always linked to NRM because of the role that trees play in stabilizing hillsides, in nutrient recycling and in catchment hydrology. In addition, ICRAF's policy is to link agroforestry research closely to that on crop and livestock production through such mechanisms as the use of foliage for soil improvement and stock feed. In collaboration with IFPRI, ICRAF has incorporated economic and social-science research to augment the human dimension of its work. Approximately 60% of the Centre's international professional research staff are outposted in regional programmes involving NARS.
While ICLARM's work on the enhancement of fish stocks and aquaculture is analogous to the commodity-improvement programmes of Centres that have been part of the CGIAR for much longer - ICLARM joined the CGIAR in 1992 - this Centre takes an NRM-based approach to all its research, particularly that which addresses coastal-zone management and coral-reef degradation. The idea of an ecoregional programme on coastal-zone management was mooted because of the link to work on terrestrial sources of water pollution. However, this research is being managed within the Centre's agenda.
In addition to the work of the above-named Centres and the ecoregional programmes, the influence of ecoregional thinking can be detected in NRM research elsewhere in the CGIAR, even if the other dimensions of the approach are missing or weakly developed. Several Centres, including ICARDA, ICRISAT and IITA, have a mandate to address issues of sustainable production in a particular ecoregion. It was not possible for the Review Panel to assess and report on other research being carried out within the CGIAR which reflects ecoregional thinking.
