1. Panel and process
The Panel for the sub-Saharan African visits was comprised of Dr. Shellemiah Keya, Executive Secretary of TAC and Dr. Ted Henzell, Chairman of the Review of Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach. In Nairobi, the Panel was assisted by Dr. John Lynam, Senior Scientist, Agricultural Sciences, Rockefeller Foundation, Nairobi.
The visit took place from 5-12 May 1999. In Nairobi, discussions covered mainly the ASB Programme, focusing on its global structure and management, and the AHI, which is the major ecoregional activity conducted in eastern Africa. The opportunity was taken also for the Panel to be briefed on the valuable experience of the Systemwide Livestock Programme, which aims to implement its activities in collaboration with CGIAR Centre-led ecoregional consortia. The schedule of meetings in Nairobi is given under Point 4.
In Cameroon, comprehensive presentations and selected field inspections covered the earlier developments, current activities and future plans of the IVC, the rest of EPHTA and the ASB Programme in West Africa. Details of the schedule for the Panel's visit to Yaounde are listed under Point 5.
Thanks are due to a large number of people for the excellent arrangements made for this visit, but particularly to Ralph von Kaufmann of ILRI and Jimmy Kiio of ICRAF for the East Africa visit, and to Stephan Weise and Aboubakar Yacoubou of IITA, and Polly Ericksen of ASB/ICRAF, for the West Africa visit.
2. Response to Terms of Reference
2.1 Alternatives to Slash and Burn
The ASB Programme is a global consortium. Collaborative research involving over 30 international and national research organizations is implemented through three regional benchmark sites/areas which use the ecoregional approach to address the environmental impacts of slash and bum agricultural practices, to develop alternative technologies, and to provide policy options for removing constraints to adoption of alternatives. The ecoregional activities at the main continental sites in Brazil, Indonesia (Sumatra) and Cameroon each have a hierarchy of steering committees, but (in contrast to other ecoregional activities) there is also a global steering group. The part-time global coordinator of the ASB (Dr. Erick Fernandes who resigned during the Review) is located at Cornell University and the assistant, now interim coordinator (Dr. Polly Ericksen) is located at the ASB global coordination office at ICRAF's headquarters in Nairobi. At the global level, four specific functions have been performed: planning of research activities, standardization of methods across sites, fund raising and distribution, and trans-regional analysis of experiences and results.
In relation to the Terms of Reference of the Review, the following assessment is based on information gathered during visits to the global coordination office at Nairobi and the site at Yaounde, and on other information available to the Panel concerning the achievements of the consortium working in Indonesia. The Panel notes that a comparable level of detailed information was not available from the work at the Brazilian site. Also, the phase II final report from the Brazil visit was still in the process of being translated from Portuguese.
In Cameroon, five subjects have been researched since 1994: (i) nine land-use systems have been characterized in the slash and bum forest zone; (ii) carbon stocks, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity have been measured; (iii) the agronomic and soil sustainability of different systems has been estimated; (iv) cash and calorie returns have been calculated, and also their potential tradeoffs with environmental factors; and (v) future land-use trends have been predicted (cocoa and oil palm systems will probably increase). Current collaborative research includes both of these agroforestry systems. Since 1998, ICRAF has been giving more emphasis to tree-domestication research.
Against Terms of Reference 1, the ASB has made a major contribution to research in natural resources conservation and management, and in linking such research to that on production systems. The ASB's global findings on trade-offs between environmental parameters such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity on the one hand, and agricultural productivity indices such as profitability on the other, are of great value for the global debate on sustainability issues. The Indonesian consortium has made considerable progress also in linking research on agroforestry production to policy on forest management. The work in West Africa has the same objective but has not progressed so far. However, CIFOR has carried out important research in its study of the causes of forest-cover change in the humid forest zone of Cameroon, which has strong policy implications.
The ASB has carried out new natural resources conservation and management research, notably on biodiversity, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions, and new research on cropping and agroforestry systems. It has also produced publications on process (project management within consortia) and the problem of extrapolation from benchmark sites (modelling the global representativeness of the 108 locations at which research has been conducted in the western Amazon, Indonesia and Cameroon).
For Terms of Reference 2 (Value Added), the Indonesian consortium rates highly on the effectiveness of collaboration and partnerships amongst Centres (notably between CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI), between them and various Indonesian research and policy-making agencies, and with an impressive number of other bilaterally funded research partners. The policy research in Indonesia has been first rate, and its practical impact is reflected in recent ministerial decrees authorizing community management of significant areas of forest in Sumatra and Kalimantan. In addition, the ASB has helped to strengthen regional research capacity.
The success of the Asian ASB consortium seems to be attributable to several favourable factors - effective scientific leadership, a strong capacity for R&D in the region to which value could be added through coordinated effort, a recognized problem of real significance (deforestation) and dependable political support from the Government of Indonesia. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) report (see below under Evaluation) commented on "the excellent participation of local (Indonesian) institutions and scientists in the first phase of the ASB project". The relationship between ICRAF, IITA and IRAD at the southern Cameroon benchmark area has also been close.
However, the Panel was aware of some operational difficulties in allocating roles, responsibilities and funding among partners at both the Asian and African regional benchmark sites of ASB. It appears that such difficulties have sometimes been encountered both between Centres and between Centres and NARS. Governance of partnerships is obviously not a simple matter, and there are good opportunities to learn by sharing experiences.
Cost Effectiveness The start up and global coordinating functions of the ASB appear to have been relatively costly when they are considered in isolation, but these costs need to be set against the total resources devoted to pertinent R&D by the consortium's participants. Efficiency in the use of these financial resources should be improved by operating under the umbrella of the consortium. However, apparently the value of this total R&D effort has not yet been estimated with any accuracy (see below).
Participation of Potential Beneficiaries Farmers and Indonesian Non-governmental Organizations participated strongly in the research carried out at the site in Sumatra. The recording and documentation of the farmers agroforestry system played an important role in convincing policy-makers to grant them rights to manage the land, and in removing the threat of it being logged. In general, the convening Centre ICRAF has a good record of involving stakeholders in its activities. Recently, it has sponsored training in participatory methodology in southern Africa.
The strong participatory emphasis of the ASB work in Cameroon is described later under the heading of EPHTA. Several documents, particularly that from the launching function held in Yaounde in May 1997, attest to the high priority given to the involvement of farmers. Non-governmental Organizations and community-based organizations.
Clarity of Communication The ASB has been exceptionally effective recently in communicating the importance of its research to policy makers engaged in the global environmental debate. The presentation to International Centres' Week 98 attracted wide interest, and there have been subsequent presentations to other influential stakeholders. However, the way in which the ASB consortium and the global coordination office add value to the whole R&D process has not been communicated as effectively. It takes much time and effort, and some financial leverage, to convince researchers and those in charge of agricultural R&D institutions (including bilateral donors), who have long been used to working in fragmented isolation, to change their mode of operation in pursuit of the broader goals of the ecoregional approach.
Continuity of Funding This lack of clarity on process is probably one reason why the continuity of funding for coordination has been a problem for the ASB at times. In contrast, the Panel was told that funding for research by participants under the umbrella of the consortia has been much more robust, especially in Asia. In contrast to the provision of only supplementary research funds by other ecoregional programmes, ASB has provided some core funding for research activities.
Accountability There is an issue of accountability in distinguishing between expenses incurred by ICRAF for the central operations of the three consortia and the global coordinating office, and those incurred by its involvement as a major participant in the Programme. It is also hard to discover from published accounts how much is being invested in ASB, in cash and in kind, by participants other than ICRAF. Estimates provided to the External Programme and Management Review of ICRAF in 1998 indicated that 14 - 18% of ASB funds were spent on the ASB coordination office over the three years 1996 to 1998. However, some bilaterally funded research was not included. These estimates suggest that the investment in R&D has been at least four to six times the transaction costs of global and regional coordination.
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation The multi-level steering committees of the ASB seem to have achieved high standards of planning and monitoring, and a positive external evaluation of phase I of ASB was conducted in 1997 by STAP, the advisory body to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). A comprehensive report has been compiled on phase II of the ASB. In all, ASB has been reviewed three times by the GEF, but two of the reviews were of limited scope.
2.2 African Highlands Initiative
The AHI, which was first proposed in 1992, is a consortium with collaborative research in five of the nine countries covered by ASARECA: Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Madagascar. The first phase (1995-97) consisted of a small number of technical research themes or NRM problem areas, but the second three-year phase has adopted a much broader approach. This is more in line with ecoregional thinking and follows an increased system approach organized around benchmark sites, although it is less strong in regional linkages. AHI research now addresses the problem of the decline in soil fertility in the intensively cultivated highlands of eastern Africa. The tropical highlands in East Africa are identified by elevations above 1500m and more than 1000 mm rainfall, and characterized by inherently fertile soils which host a wide range of cash and food crops, such as coffee, tea, bananas, maize, potatoes, beans, vegetables, multipurpose trees and livestock. The highlands occupy only 23% of the total land area in the nine eastern African countries in which they occur, but they are economically important and provide food and a home to half the population of these countries. Recently, water for domestic and agricultural use has become a limiting resource. Although there are few off-farm income opportunities, and access to input and output markets is poor, land tenure is relatively secure in the highlands.
At the regional policy level, the AHI consortium operates under the aegis of ASARECA. Below that, there is an established structure of a Regional Steering Commodity (currently chaired by Dr. R.M. Kiome of Kenya) and a Technical Steering Committee, with a coordinator for each of the eight benchmark locations. Research is currently conducted in a decentralized mode, in particular in Uganda and Tanzania, using what is termed as the Participatory Agro-ecosystems Management approach, but with cross-site linkages. This approach serves to connect adaptive research and extension, rather than to instil a more systems approach. The AHI is by far the most comprehensive of the networks, programmes and projects proposed to be carried out under ASARECA's long-term strategic plan.
Consortium funding is provided for a full time coordinator and the operation of her office in Uganda. Other centrally funded ecoregional activities include a research project on participatory methods. Following initial grant support along research themes through a regional fellowship scheme, support in phase II to national scientists focuses on method development, backstopping and facilitation of linkages. Financial assistance is also being provided to help set up electronic communications between the benchmark locations.
Against Terms of Reference 1, the Panel found that compared with the previous phase, phase II embodies the development of a stronger linkage of research on natural resources conservation and management with research on production systems. However, more time will be required to fully implement this integration at specific benchmark sites. The integration that already existed in phase I, which concentrated more on diagnosis, planning, regional synthesis and building strong partnerships, seems to have come mainly through agroforestry inputs from ICRAF, including the Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA). However, there was also an emphasis on integrated pest management during phase I of AHI. Integrated nutrient management and catchment management practices are both listed in the current agenda of the AHI. The Panel pointed out that care should be taken to ensure that the commonality between AFRENA and AHI projects in Kenya and Uganda does not interfere with AHI's development of broader aspects of the ecoregional approach.
The Director of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute credits the dissemination of ecoregional thinking for the improvement in the characterization of regions for predicting crop varietal performance in eastern Africa. He is in a good position to know as he chaired the CGIAR Task Force on Ecoregional Approaches to Research which reported to the Group at Mid-Term Meeting 95. Agroclimatic classifications of land in East Africa had been available for many years, but had proved to be of limited utility for purposes such as targeting new varieties from plant-breeding programmes. The 1998 publication of the book "Maize technology development and transfer: A GIS application for research planning in Kenya" by CAB International (UK), in association with CIMMYT and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, was quoted as a good example of how the new approach exploits the power of GIS.
However, it would not be correct to attribute all such changes to the CGIAR's advocacy of the ecoregional approach. In eastern Africa, as in other regions of interest to the CGIAR, thoughtful people in national R&D agencies had also become dissatisfied with the limitations of working in disciplinary isolation, with too heavy an emphasis on commodities.
Turning to the several points of Terms of Reference 2, the AHI is still at an early stage of development, but some useful conclusions can be drawn already. The effectiveness of collaboration and partnerships amongst international Centres seems to be quite high. Collaborative projects are being engaged in by three Centres and the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF); four other Centres are also involved through networks that operate in the highlands. Within the national programmes, partnerships between disciplinary and commodity specialists are at varying stages of development. In Kenya, and now in Tanzania, the trend towards an integrated approach at the district level has been helpful to the AHI. Only one of the five countries (Ethiopia) was reported to have a strong emphasis on a whole-system approach.
The perception that consortia such as the AHI were too strongly driven from the outset by Centres persists in some places. In the past, there have been some difficulties in reconciling the interests of Centres and NARS at the operational and technical levels of AHI. The Centres are in a difficult position as they are often under an obligation to those who fund them to meet demanding milestones. This makes it hard for national scientists to adjust to the pace of change and to achieve a sense of ownership of the new ways of doing things. Younger researchers commonly have less difficulty to adjust than middle-level managers. With the increasing responsibility of National Agricultural Research Organizations in the decision making of consortia, efforts are sometimes needed even to maintain a significant level of Centre commitment clearly, sensitivity is needed on both sides of the partnership.
Operational research funds come primarily from international sources. Despite reductions in support for agricultural research in ASARECA countries, both from international donors and national governments, it appears that there is still sufficient R&D capacity to add significant value through coordination by the AHI consortium. Nevertheless, the limited financial resources become a problem when there is a need to recruit expertise to fill gaps or to build new fields of research, for instance in the hitherto neglected areas of natural resource conservation and management, and in the social sciences, including policy research. Only the strongest national systems, such as the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, have been able to recruit to fill such gaps. A consortium such as AHI should provide operational support to the NARS to allow NARS partners an equal footing with Centres in developing a true partnership.
Cost Effectiveness A considerable investment in time and resources has been required to get the AHI to its present promising position. It is very clear that the process of institutional change required to achieve the objectives of the ecoregional approach does not occur quickly or easily. The managers of the AHI generally accept that the job is far too big for a part-time regional coordinator, which is what the consortium had during its first phase. While great progress has been made in developing participation and partnerships, much coordination remains to be done in the future to realize the vision of sustainable land-use practices for the highlands.
Concern has been expressed about the cost of coordination in phase 11 of the AHI. The ecoregional approach being adopted by the consortium (its guiding principles are exactly in line with ecoregional principles) is bound to require more costly coordination than any of the other more traditional commodity and technical networks planned to operate under ASARECA. However, it would be helpful to separate transaction costs more transparently from research expenditures (see under accountability), to document the quantity of R&D resources that could function more effectively as a consequence of the coordination, and to communicate more effectively the processes involved in fostering the changes required to implement the ecoregional approach.
The coordination mechanisms in Africa, i.e. ASARECA, the Conseil Quest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF) and the Southern African Centre for Co-operation in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training (SACCAR), have emerged in recent years as the recognized regional policy bodies for organizing agricultural research. In East Africa, ASARECA seems now well established. Nevertheless, the Panel was surprised at the large number of steering committees and similar mechanisms that have been set up to oversee networks in eastern Africa. There could be scope for rationalization of structures, even if it is desirable to retain separate technical committees. The CGIAR's objective, as reported in 1994, was to use the ecoregional mechanism to provide a single point of contact between Centres, donor agencies and heavily pressured national systems. However, the CGIAR should recognize the change in the external policy environment which now provides the key entry points for regional collaboration of Centres with NARS. If anything, the pressures may even have increased since 1994 as donors have become more project-oriented and interventionist.
Participation of Potential Beneficiaries The Participatory Agro-ecosystems Management approach is a recent innovation, but participatory rural appraisal featured strongly in the diagnostic fieldwork recently completed by the consortium. Training in the methodology of-participatory research is currently underway and it is clear that the participation of potential beneficiaries is one of the chief priorities of the second phase.
Clarity of Communication While ICRAF has been highly supportive of the AHI, there is some concern that in its published reports it is too difficult to distinguish between what the regional coordinating unit has achieved, what national participants have achieved through collaborative research, and what ICRAF has contributed to the Programme. Virtually the same observation was made in the report prepared for ASARECA by Drs K.T. MacKay and F.N. Gichuki in May 1996.
As already proposed under ASB, much greater clarity is required as to what the coordination function actually involves in practice and why it is so important. This information is needed to help convince ASARECA and the donor community that the central operations of the consortium are a good investment.
Continuity of Funding Current negotiations will determine whether or not the central functions of the AHI consortium have continuity of funding. There is concern also as to whether government funding of national research systems has stabilized and whether bilateral donors will continue to divert their funds away from agriculture. Despite all these uncertainties, the Panel members were assured that sufficient resources would be available in the foreseeable future to achieve the main objectives of the AHI. Efficient cooperation is even more important in the face of scarce resources for research.
Accountability Transparency in accounting would increase significantly if mechanisms were developed to distinguish between expenditure on regional coordination (the direct transaction costs of a regional consortium), expenditure on ecoregional studies (research on the ecoregional approach itself) and expenditure on conventional agricultural research by participating organizations. In Africa, there are usually strong pressures for international donors to cover operating costs for national scientists engaged in collaborative projects. Transparency in accounting also requires more systematic reporting mechanisms. For instance, AHI does not appear in ICRAF's Annual Report.
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation The presentation to the Panel indicated a highly professional standard of planning in the AHI. Future provision has been made for regular monitoring and reporting, internal evaluations and an external evaluation to take place in 2001, and for setting a baseline in 1999 to measure future impact. The external evaluation of the first phase of the AHI has already been mentioned.
Finally, it is worth noting that the AHI has had some success in facilitating technology transfer among the participants. The technology for growing climbing beans (from CIAT) on stakes (from ICRAF) has been communicated to farmers using innovative methods, including drama, with the major involvement of national scientists in Uganda and Tanzania.
2.3 African Highlands Initiative as Part of the Global Mountain Programme
The Panel was told that linking the AHI to ICIMOD had been of little value because the natural environments and types of land use differ so completely between the predominantly agricultural highlands of eastern Africa and the high mountains in Asia, where forestry is the only form of 'agriculture'. Even the African highlands and the Andes do not have much in common. It appears that the substantial experience of ICIMOD in highlands R&D, which covers land-use planning in a broad sense, including income generation, organization and management, as well as policy issues, would justify a more positive attitude in this arena. The Panel sees a particular value in the exchange of information and experiences in the application of methodologies.
2.4 Implementation of the Systemwide Livestock Programme within Ecoregional Activities
Most of the effort of the ecoregional initiatives during their first three or four years has been devoted to establishing new modes of operation with national systems and to developing participatory approaches. It has taken some time to develop a whole systems approach linking natural resource conservation and management and production research. This has made it difficult for livestock researchers to use ecoregional initiatives (at least those begun by the CGIAR) as a framework for their activities. In particular, the slow development of ecoregional initiatives in semi-arid and dry areas has been a major source of frustration for the Systemwide Livestock Programme as livestock play a major role in dry environments.
Livestock are also part of important interactions in crop production systems. Changes in production practices, for instance the intensification of cropping, have major implications on animal-feed supply. Conversely, livestock (especially ruminants) can play a vital role in plant nutrient cycles and maintenance of soil fertility. Without such recycling, animal wastes may cause environmental pollution.
The senior management of ILRI advised that they had been most successful in establishing collaboration with CONDESAN, and with the ecoregional activities of ICRAF and IITA in Africa. In the past, there have been strong links with ICRISAT in West Africa.
2.5 Inland Valley Consortium (IVC)
The Panel was presented with extremely informative material on the whole range of ecoregional activities in West Africa. This report focuses mainly on two consortia under EPHTA, the IVC and that for Humid Forests (see 2.6). The term inland valleys in the title of IVC refers to the upper reaches of river systems. IVC's research is concerned with the bottom land of inland valleys which may be submerged for part of the year, the hydromorphic fringe and the dry uplands that lie higher up the slope.
IVC was launched in April 1994 for an initial period of five years with support from WARDA's core resources, the Netherlands Directorate General for International Cooperation and the French Cooperation. WARDA is its host and convening Centre. The founding members of the consortium were seven NARS members of CORAF (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Sierra Leone), two international organizations (WARDA and IITA) and the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), France, and the Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands. IVC was subsequently joined by the NARS of Guinea, Cameroon and Togo, and ILRI and FAO. WARDA's membership of IVC brought excellent links with countries in the region as well as its scientific strength in inland-valley research and experience in GIS.
In April 1999 the second phase was launched, which goes up to 2004, with CORAF and IWMI as additional consortium members. The research agenda for the second phase aims to strengthen NRM and social science research. It is organized under four themes: characterization of inland-valley land-use dynamics; development and evaluation of technologies for improved production systems and NRM; socioeconomics and policy aspects of improvements in inland-valley land-use systems; and technology dissemination processes and impact pathways for inland-valley development. Work is being carried out at 15 sites and five benchmark sites will be used for more strategic studies from 1999 onwards. The long-term donor support for IVC is very encouraging.
The IVC is truly a consortium under whose umbrella research and research-related activities are being carried out by national partners (including NARS, extension agencies, universities, NGOs, farmers) in ten member countries, in collaboration with international institutions. A Consortium Management Committee has replaced the steering committee and is elected every two years at a consortium workshop. It is chaired by a National Coordinator and co-chaired by CORAF. The IVC Regional Coordinating Unit, based at WARDA, includes a senior agronomist as coordinator and a natural resource management scientist (formerly an agroecologist). National Coordination Units have also been formed which play a vital role in the success of the consortium.
The Panel's impression is that those involved in the IVC appear to be very well aware of the essential elements of the ecoregional approach. The IVC has made very good progress in evolving from an emphasis on regional characterization and production to one that is truly ecoregional in its concern for issues of natural resource conservation and management, and policy. The seasonal reliability of the water supply in the inland valleys is of immediate concern. Water quality (pollution) is not yet a major problem but could become one. Health hazards related to water are now of far more importance and are issues to which WARDA can contribute in view of its collaboration, since 1995, in a Human Health Consortium together with the World Health Organization. Good hydrological data are available for the main river basins in West Africa, but there have been fewer studies of small catchments.
Policy makers in the region are perhaps not as sensitive to issues of natural resource conservation and management as are the scientists involved in the IVC, and policy and public management research has not been developed in many of the countries. In its second phase, the IVC will address these issues through the development of decision-support systems aimed specifically at assisting policy makers. Already, there are examples of IVC National Coordinators providing influential policy advice to national policy makers in West Africa.
The IVC has accumulated much valuable experience in relation to the Review's Terms of Reference 2, some examples of which are given below.
Collaborations and Partnerships The IVC has benefited from WARDA's excellent links with countries in the region, and from its research and expertise. Altogether 10 countries are now members of the IVC as well as an impressive list of international institutions.
The role of National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES) is a very important issue for this consortium. National institutions vary widely in capacity and as they are independent agents and often strong rivals, there are challenges in facilitating collaboration and partnerships within and between them. Complex problems arise if the priorities of the NARES do not coincide with the additional work considered to be a priority by the consortium. If NARES are unable to adjust quickly enough, this can be misinterpreted as lack of support for the consortium.
Another major issue in the early days of the IVC was the standardization of methods for multi-scale characterization. The international research institutions took strong positions and the NARES felt that the value of their local experience was being undervalued. Eventually a better sense of ownership was achieved by sharing experiences. The Panel was informed that it had been a continuous effort during the first five years of the IVC to develop and maintain a high level of partnership and collaboration. An issue which may require attention is that of IVC's future relationship with WARDA's programmes. This is being addressed in phase two by a closer integration of the IVC research agenda with that of WARDA.
Cost Effectiveness The IVC seems to have had less of a problem in justifying its coordination costs than other ecoregional initiatives. For IVC's partners it was apparently clear from the beginning that coordinating the numerous efforts that already existed was a priority. One of the first tasks carried out by the Regional Coordination Unit at WARDA was to encourage capitalization of existing results through state of the art papers, and national and regional workshops, etc. WARDA's regional task forces comprised of national collaborators, and the setting up of IVC National Coordination Units may have played an important role in increasing awareness of the importance of coordination in such an approach.
Participation of Potential Beneficiaries The main involvement with farmers, village organizations and Non-governmental organizations has been at the level of the National Coordinating Units. These have helped to identify constraints and to promote adaptation and adoption of new technologies. The establishment of a close link between IVC and WARDA's System's Development and Technology Transfer Programme will further strengthen participatory approaches to technology development, evaluation and adoption.
Clarity of Communication The IVC seems to have been able to communicate the nature of its activities and their importance for development rather more effectively than some of the other ecoregional consortia. Reasons for this may include the active role that French and Dutch institutions have played throughout the time of the IVC and the publication of its work in a separate Annual Report.
Continuity of Funding So far, funding of the consortium's central operations has not been a special problem. However, while funding for coordination and field work has been available from the beginning, funding for training, the early development of benchmark sites and strategic research has been a problem. During the first year of the IVC a part-time scientific and administrative liaison officer was appointed in Wageningen to maintain contact with research institutes outside the region and with donor organizations. This may have been a critical factor in raising support for the IVC. Research institutions at Wageningen and CIRAD have made special efforts to encourage the Dutch and French governments to continue funding. The fact that the two scientists at the Regional Coordination Unit at WARDA were from these donor countries facilitated contacts and continuity of funding.
Accountability The consortium has produced detailed financial accounts annually for presentation and discussion with all partners. These are internal records, attached to the minutes of meetings with partners, which are available to donors on request. As with other ecoregional activities, the value of in-kind resources contributed by participants has not been well recorded.
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Initially, and in contrast to the situation with most other ecoregional consortia, provision was made for the IVC to be reviewed every three years. The review in 1996 proposed the establishment of a scientific advisory group to advise the consortium more regularly than an external review. Other recommendations concerned scientific discussions, standards of publications and rationalization of study sites. Meanwhile, the evaluation of IVC has become part of the regular WARDA review and planning process. The Panel appreciates that IVC will now benefit from the forthcoming Centre Commissioned External Review and the External Programme and Management Review. WARDA has decided to provide scientific oversight through its Programme Management Committee and the biannual Meeting of National Experts which brings together all NARS Directors.
2.6 Ecoregional Programme for the Humid and Sub-Humid Tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa (EPHTA)
Although the IVC began separately, it is now part of EPHTA. The rest of EPHTA is formally structured into two regional consortia, one for humid forests and one for the moist savannas, though in practice the work seems to be organized primarily within a set of six benchmark areas. These are representative areas which are well characterized and large enough to capture important variability and gradients, both biophysical and socioeconomic. The concept of benchmark areas presumes that an understanding of driving influences on resource-use patterns (such as population, urban proximity and market access, presence of institutions, resource access) is essential for developing resource-management technologies that fit the strategies of farmers. They are a spatial representation of resource-use dynamics. Pilot sites are an important element in the concept to complement the broad benchmark areas. They are chosen to cover specific farmer circumstances and responses, and provide focal points for adaptive research and technology transfer.
EPHTA has adopted a zonation defined according to the length of the growing period, but depicts the location of the six existing benchmark areas on a map using names of vegetation zones: humid forest, derived savanna and Guinea savanna (southern and northern). However, the Panel noted that the vegetation actually seen on the ground now may differ significantly from the original. It also noted that the humid forest and savanna zones overlap with the zone used by IVC to define its research domain.
IITA convened the task force that developed the humid forest and moist savanna consortia. Several planning meetings, workshops and conferences were held during 1995 and 1996, culminating in the launching of the two consortia in 1996/97. EPHTA operates under the regional umbrella of CORAF. EPHTA's Programme Management Committee is co-chaired by IITA's Director General and CORAF's Executive Secretary. It has representatives from member countries and research institutions. Scientific oversight is provided by an annual planning workshop. There are coordinating committees for benchmark areas and pilot sites.
Since 1995, a number of scientific conferences and launching ceremonies, with associated technical workshops, have been conducted under the aegis of EPHTA. Both the methodologies of the ecoregional approach and advanced research topics (integrated weed management) have been covered.
One of the perhaps unforeseen spillovers from the intensive effort devoted to characterizing the benchmark areas and to the preparation of technical papers for launch ceremonies is that a great deal of existing scientific information was re-assessed, and opportunities for new applications through pilot demonstrations were discovered. This process could have significant benefits in terms of local rural development. In any event, the consolidated information placed on record is likely to be of lasting value.
The following comments concerning the Terms of Reference apply particularly to the southern Cameroon benchmark site at Yaounde, which the Panel visited. This benchmark area of 15,000 square kilometres also serves as the forest margins benchmark for ASB.
The briefings that the Panel received at Yaounde indicated that current research activities at the Degraded Forest benchmark area include the gathering of baseline information with strong farmer participation. Altogether five universities are involved. At the Northern Guinea Savanna benchmark area the emphasis is on crop/livestock integration and crop rotations. The human element, notably surveys of population density and marketing infrastructure at the village level, has received special attention.
In the humid forest zone and moist savanna, addressing the dynamics of land use change as a result of increasing human settlement constitute a cross-cutting research. In Northern Guinea Savanna, EPHTA has tested the pressure response hypothesis. Considerable progress has been made in building ownership of the consortium by involving the partners in identifying the constraints, decision-making and participatory research. Participants met during the visit confirmed that the ecoregional approach was beneficial and gave an example where the benchmark area in Guinea has been used as a model to launch the FAO Special Programme on Food Security.
Review Terms of Reference 1
The NRM research that the Panel saw and learned about at village sites focuses on the development of sustainable production systems for small landholders. There are no marked soil and water degradation problems related to the intensity of resource use found in the forest margins or forest pockets, but there are indications of problems associated with agricultural intensification in degraded forests where land use is more intensive. Only about 4% of the land around Yaounde is still covered by primary forest.
In this area, NRM problems are expected to result from over-reliance on fertilizers to maintain soil fertility in the face of accelerated nutrient removal in high-production areas and the decline of soil organic matter under more regular cultivation. Soil degradation is an important issue, particularly on bare sloping land. IITA scientists appreciate the concepts of watershed and landscape management, but lack capacity in strategic research. There is little use of herbicides and the emergence of more intractable weed communities is a real concern for farmers. In more intensively managed urban and peri-urban lowland systems, there are also expected to be serious human health problems associated with water-borne diseases and contamination of food crops. The success, in ecoregional terms, of future work in this humid forest benchmark area will be measured by how well these foreseeable threats to sustainability can be mitigated.
NRM and productivity research appear to have been linked effectively at a practical level by the humid forest consortium, especially in the areas of plant protection and testing of improved varieties. There was evidence also that research in IITA's Crop Improvement Division had gained from the ecoregional approach.
Review Terms of Reference 2
Collaborations and Partnerships It was apparent throughout the three days of presentations and inspections at Yaounde that commendable progress has been made in developing partnerships with the national systems of the region. A total of seven countries are members of the Humid Forest Consortium and nine are members of the Moist Savannah Consortium. IITA and IRAD have achieved a strong partnership in Cameroon. Discussions with the leaders of IRAD revealed very constructive support for the continuation of the consortium partnerships, qualified only by the desire to continue to intensify its involvement in consortium management (including dealing with problems of continuity of donor support).
While at Yaounde the Panel also heard presentations that indicated very effective collaboration between ILRI and IITA in the northern Guinea savanna benchmark area. (ILRI is also an active participant in the IVC). Another important factor that has been achieved at the southern Cameroon benchmark area, and which was very definitely part of TAC's initial thinking on the ecoregional approach, has been the inclusion of non-mandate crops which are important in the regional production systems, i.e. oil palm and cocoa. Expertise in these tree crops is provided by CIRAD and national scientists. Networks for maize, and roots and tubers, also represent successful partnerships under the umbrella of CORAF and IITA.
In relation to capacity building by EPHTA, the NARS are beginning to acquire the expertise needed for tackling NRM problems important in poverty alleviation.
Cost Effectiveness As with other ecoregional consortia, it is very difficult to judge the cost effectiveness of EPHTA's mode of implementation for two main reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to assess how much value has been added by the work of the coordinators at the level of EPHTA as a whole, or at benchmark areas or pilot sites. This is because its effects have been realized through the evolution of existing research programmes in collaborating organizations, rather than through new programmes or projects. On top of that, there are difficulties in accounting for in-kind costs and of separating transaction from conventional research costs. IRAD scientists told the Panel that up to 70% of the costs of their involvement in joint projects in Cameroon were borne by in-kind contributions of the national institution.
Participation of Potential Beneficiaries The research in progress at the southern Cameroon benchmark gives high priority to the involvement of farmers. It was very instructive to see at first hand what is actually required to involve farmers in research at the village level. Because of its complexity, this process places great demands on the skills of field researchers, and even more on the professionalism of the coordinators who have to bridge the differences of scale back up to the creation of international public goods at the level of the CGIAR. It is a pity that more decision makers in the CGIAR do not have an opportunity to see what the participatory approach means in the real world.
The Panel was able to meet representatives of farmers' organizations, Non-governmental Organizations and the national extension service. The decentralization reforms of the Government of Cameroon in the early 1990s are said to have created a favourable environment for community-based action in the country. The practical problems in achieving this are illustrated by the fact that farmer representatives from different parts of the benchmark area hardly know each other. In these circumstances, Centres are likely to have to play an early catalytic role in areas in which they have no competitive advantage at all in the longer term.
Clarity of Communication The progress of EPHTA and its components has been documented very thoroughly indeed. What is lacking is any record of the experiences of the coordinators, especially in regard to the leadership and human relations aspects of their roles. It is probably very hard for any donor representative to understand how critically important these aspects are for the achievement of partnerships and participation of beneficiaries. This maybe why the current negotiations with the European Union have proved so cumbersome, and why the proposal has had to be broken up into modules that could be funded independently. The work of a consortium needs a balanced investment to realize its full benefit.
Continuity of Funding IITA has contributed considerably to meeting the costs of the consortia. In fact, the research plans of EPHTA have largely been implemented through IITA's core activities, at a cost to the Centre of about US$ 5 million per year. For instance, about half of the work of IITA's Resource and Crop Management Division is located within the southern Cameroon benchmark area. In fact, much of EPHTA's research seems to have evolved from the Centre's earlier NRM activities. It appears to have been very difficult to obtain any 'new' funds for EPHTA, beyond the extremely valuable support received from Denmark, the Netherlands and France.
Accountability Judging by the budgets shown to the Panel, the EPHTA consortia share with others the difficulty of estimating total costs and separating transactions costs from those of research, i.e. research on the ecoregional process itself (e.g. characterization of benchmark areas) and more conventional agricultural research. This makes it even more difficult than it would otherwise be to assess whether the value added by EPHTA has outweighed its additional transaction and management costs.
The Panel can only offer the opinion that the progress which has been made in developing partnerships and participatory approaches in West Africa, which are a significant departure from traditional methods, would not have been possible without an investment of this order of magnitude.
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation EPHTA has been planned within a logical framework that specifies processes for monitoring and reporting against verifiable indicators.
3 The ASB Programme in Asia and African ecoregional activities: examples of the ecoregional approach in practice
The above activities seem to have one thing in common: they appear to consist predominantly of consortia facilitating collaborative research. They are not research programmes in the sense in which that word is used in formulating the CGIAR research agenda (even if they are called programmes). When the ecoregional approach was adopted, TAC and CGIAR Members apparently expected to see the creation of major new research programmes, or at least substantial new projects. However, with a couple of notable exceptions, this has not happened. Most of the research carried out under the umbrella of these ecoregional initiatives is really part of the continuing research programmes of the international and national participants in the consortia. To varying degrees, the objectives have been modified to accord with the ecoregional approach.
One of the notable exceptions is research on the characterization of benchmark sites and ecoregions, and on methodologies of various kinds. Some, but not all, of this research has been supported by the Ecoregional Fund to Support Methodological Initiatives.
Another important exception is the additional research conducted on natural resource conservation and management, and agroforestry under the ASB. Valuable new work has been carried out on carbon sequestration, on fluxes of greenhouse gases and on above and below ground biodiversity with funding from the Global Environment Facility. There are some other good examples, for instance the water research done with the involvement of CIRAD in the IVC, but in general, the idea that the ecoregional approach would facilitate a major strengthening of natural resource conservation and management research in the CGIAR has yet to be realized in the ecoregional entities covered by this visit. There may be very good reasons, e g, a lack of money to appoint new staff, but this does not seem to be the whole explanation.
A common feature of EPHTA/IVC, AHI and ASB is the focus on benchmark sites, the only major difference being in the number. The humid forest benchmark area in Cameroon, which the Panel visited, is the main focus for the work of the ecoregional consortium for the humid forests of sub-Saharan Africa and for ASB in West Africa. The arrangement is not dissimilar to that at the ASB site in Sumatra, which provides a major focus for research with links to related activities elsewhere in southeast Asia.
The effective functioning of the facilitation units of ecoregional consortia has proved essential in achieving positive outcomes. These units, normally comprising one, or a few, staff members, play a multiplicity of linking roles such as NRM research with that of other programmes in the Centres, and the Centres' work with that of partners in the consortia. They often provide training in the elements of the ecoregional approach and on standardization of methods. In addition, they perform a number of managerial functions as well as organizing information flows in various directions (including Email and Web sites), preparing proposals for donor consideration and distributing funds to encourage collaborative research. Some of the basic staff requirements are an understanding of, and sensitivity to, R&D issues, capacity to work with many people and managerial experience.
A very pertinent question is the extent to which the full scope of the ecoregional approach (holistic, integrating resource management with productivity concerns, combining technical and human dimensions) has been explored in the African ecoregional programmes. The AHI and IVC seem to have begun from a relative narrow base of biophysical research and to have broadened their agendas to become more ecoregional with time. ASB has influenced the humid forest consortium, which from the beginning has satisfied all the criteria of the ecoregional approach, except for its choice of agroecological zone. The moist savanna consortium seems to be the one where there is the most scope for broadening the research agenda in line with ecoregional concepts.
The better-watered tropical savannas of Africa have the potential to "feed Africa" (comment to Panel members from a senior representative of a conservation agency). The problem of declining soil fertility under savanna cropping systems in West Africa was well documented before the advent of the ecoregional approach. Excellent research has been done on fertilizer responses and technologies for restoring soil organic matter. The reasons why there has been so little impact so far may reside more in the human element of the holistic ecoregional approach, and particularly in its political, economic and institutional dimensions, than in its technical element.
The Panel unfortunately did not include a social scientist, but it is very likely that the criticisms of the weakness of policy and institutional research in the ecoregional programmes of LAC (Annex V) would apply equally to those in sub-Saharan Africa.
4 Schedule of Discussions in Nairobi
6 May 1999
Discussions at ICRAF on ecoregional research, in particular on AHI and ASB
Meeting of the Panel at ICRAF with ICRAF Senior Management
Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General, ICRAF
Dr. Ann-Marie Izac, Director of Research
Dr. Glenn Denning, Director of Development
Erick Fernandez, ASB
Presentation and discussion on AHI
Ann Stroud, Coordinator
John Lynam, Rockefeller Foundation and member of AHI Steering Committee
Dr. Kwesi Atta-Krah.
Lunch meeting hosted by Pedro Sanchez, Director General ICRAF
Discussions/presentations on the ASB programme and its global coordination:
Polly Ericksen, Programme Coordinator at ICRAF
Concluding discussion with staff concerned and wrap-up meeting with ICRAF management
7 May 1999
Interactions and consultations with Kenyan NARS
Director of KARI, Dr. Cyrus Ndiritu who participated in the CGIAR Task Force on Ecoregional Approach and outgoing Chair of ASARECAKenyan scientists (Dr. Kiome)
Hank Fitzhugh, the ILRI Director General, on the Centre's involvement in various ecoregional initiatives, more specifically on the Systemwide Livestock Programme convened by ILRI, by Jimmy Smith, the SLP Coordinator and Ralph von Kaufmann.
8 May 1999
Internal discussions of the Panel and drafting of trip report
9 May 1999
Transfer from Nairobi to Yaounde
5 Schedule of Presentations and Field Inspections at Yaounde
10 May 1990
General briefing for the Panel at the site and discussions on EPHTA:
Emmanuel Atayi - Development of EPHTA: goal, outputs and structure
Dr. J.-Y. Jamin, coordinator - IVC, Development of IVC
IVC - Key site approach and experience of IVC
IITA - Resource use paradigm and benchmark area concept
IRAD - Development of the Forest Margins benchmark area
NRCRI - Development of the Degraded Forest benchmark area
IAR - Development of the Northern Guinea Savannah benchmark area
Discussions with farmers during field visit to a research village
11 May 1999
Discussions on the Role of Convening Institutes in EPHTA:
J.-Y. Jamin - WARDA and the IVC
Emmanuel Atayi - EPHTA programme coordination and benchmark area development
Humid Forest Consortium Team IITA - The HF Ecoregional Centre in southern Cameroon
Resource Management Programme IITA Ibadan - Northern Guinea Savannah benchmark area
Inter-Institutional Collaboration and Farmer Participation in EPHTA:
IVC - Collaborative efforts within IVCNARES, NGOs, and farmers groups in the Forest Margin benchmark area (IRAD/HFC-IITA)
NARES in the Northern Guinea Savannah benchmark area (IAR/RCMD-IITA Ibadan)
Inter-Centre collaboration in Northern Nigeria (IITA-ILRI)
Group discussion with local EPHTA partners: IRAD, FORCE, CFPC, SAILD, PNVA, Dschang, CIRAD, ICRAF, CIFOR
12 May 1999
Discussions with the DG, Dr. Jacob Ayuk-Takem and the DDG, Dr. Ng of IRAD, Cameroon
Presentation and discussion with ASB Programme (IRAD and HFC-IITA)
Wrap-up meeting with scientists present on EPHTA, IVC and ASB
TAC REVIEW OF ECOREGIONAL PROGRAMMES - LIST OF INDIVIDUALS/PARTICIPANTS MET BY THE PANEL DURING DISCUSSIONS
(IITA Humid Forest Centre, Yaoundé 10-12 May 1999)
|
Name |
Position |
Institution |
|
Centres | ||
|
1. Osseynou Ndoye |
CIFOR Representative |
CIFOR Cameroon, c/o IITA Yaoundé |
|
2. Zac Tchoundjeu |
ICRAF Project Leader, Cameroon |
ICRAF, BP 2067 Yaoundé |
|
3. Emmanuel Atayi |
EPHTA |
IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria |
|
4. Ousmane Coulibaly |
Agricultural Economist |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
5. James Gockowski |
Agricultural Economist |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
6. Stefan Hauser |
Soil Physicist |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
7. Lydie-Stella Koutika |
Soil Scientist-Post Doc |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
8. Guy Blaise Nkamleu |
Agricultural Economist |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
9. Christian Nolte |
Soil Scientist |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
10. Shirley Tarawali |
Agronomist |
IITA/ILRI Ibadan, Nigeria |
|
11. M. Tindo |
Entomologist - Post Doc |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé, IRAD, Yaoundé, Cameroon |
|
12. S. Weise |
Team Leader, HFC-IITA |
Humid Forest Centre, IITA Yaoundé |
|
13. J.Y. Jamin |
IVC Regional Coordinator |
IVC-RCU, WARDA, Bouaké, Cote d'Ivoire |
|
| ||
|
NARS | ||
|
14. Jean-Georges Etele |
Directeur Adjoint des Programmes |
FORCE, Yaoundé |
|
15. Jean Mbarga |
Responsible des Programmes, FORCE |
FORCE, Yaoundé |
|
16. A.M. Emechebe |
Plant Pathologist, Northern Guinea Savanna Benchmark |
IAR, Amadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria |
|
17. L. Thiombiano |
NCU/IVC Coordinator, Burkina Faso |
INERA, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso |
|
18 Regina Aroga |
Cereals Entomologist |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
28. Luc-André Bayomok |
Agroforester, ASB/IRAD Researcher |
IRAD Nkoemvone, Ebolowa |
|
19. Luc Dibog |
ASB/IRAD Researcher |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
29. Jacob Ngeve |
Humid Forest Margins Benchmark Area Coordinator |
IRAD Yaoundé, Cameroon |
|
30. Jean-Claude Ngongang Nono |
IVC/UNC Rapporteur |
IRAD Barombi-Kang, Kumba |
|
21. Laurent Nounamo |
ASB/IRAD Researcher |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
31. Tarcisius Nyobe |
ASB/IRAD Researcher |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
32. Pierre-Roger Tondje |
Cocoa Pathologist |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
33. Jean Tonye |
Head, Farming Systems Division, IRAD |
IRAD, Yaoundé, Cameroon |
|
34. Nyemb Tschomb |
Cocoa Pathology |
IRAD Nkolbisson, Yaoundé |
|
35. Christopher Ngong |
Research-Extension Liaison Officer |
National Agricultural Extension Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Yaoundé |
|
36. J.E.G. Ikeorgu |
Degraded Forest Benchmark Area Coordinator |
NRCRI, Umudike, Nigeria |
|
37. Jean Nyemba |
Lecturer in Ag. Extension |
University of Dschang, Dschang |
|
Others | ||
|
38. Jean-Louis Reboul |
Représentant Régional |
CIRAD, Cameroun |
|
39. Eliane Sentenac |
Adviser, CFPC |
Coopération Suisse, Yaoundé |
