1. Executive Summary
A review of CIAT and CIP Ecoregional Programmes was conducted between the 3rd and the 7th of May, 1999. It was found that the ecoregional approach has been an adequate framework to address NRM problems related to the CGIAR's goals, at the scales from farm to region. There is, however, a need for further strengthening of concepts and practice of the ecoregional approach by:
· Identification of the specific research 'niches' on which the Centres should focus their work, based on their competitive advantages.· Delineation of problem-solving strategies, with less emphasis on the development of tools and methods as ends in themselves.
· Clarification of the role of the ecoregional approach within the various approaches to NRM research in the CGIAR.
· Improvement in the funding mechanisms and greater commitment to the ecoregional approach.
Evidence was found of strong links between NRM research and that related to the improvement of productivity. Similarly, there is evidence of inter-Centre collaboration, although it is still less than desirable. Participation of NARS in the ecoregional approach was very strong in both Centres. Opportunities for expansion of policy research were noted.
The enthusiasm and competence of CIAT and CIP researchers working in the ecoregional-approach programmes are remarkable and deserve strong support from the System.
2. Objectives and description of the Latin American Review
A Review Team comprised of Derek Byerlee, World Bank, Nicolas Mateo, consultant and Elias Fereres, TAC member, visited CIAT from 3-4 May, and CIP from 5-7 May with the objective of evaluating the ecoregional approach to research, instituted within the CGIAR in 1994. The team was guided by a desk study "Background Information on Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach" by Ekkehard Kürschner, selected documents provided by CIAT and CIP, and the Terms of Reference (see Annex 1). Discussions took place on the ecoregional approach with Centre Directors, project leaders, scientists and many partners, including Non-governmental Organizations, government research and development agencies, and local officials. Field visits were programmed by both Centres, but due to security problems, only that to the Cajamarca site of CIP was realized.
The team recognized at the outset that in the short time available, and given the complexity of the ecoregional approach and the number and diversity of current work with an ecoregional approach being carried out in CIAT and CIP, it was not possible to conduct an in-depth review of the activities of the Centres visited. In some cases these activities may not have been accurately captured. The following gives the team's overall impressions and discusses specific constraints and issues, most of which are common to both Centres.
3. TAC definition and rationale for the ecoregional approach
TAC defined the ecoregional approach as one that focuses on the sustainable improvement of productivity by conducting research combining the objectives of productivity enhancement with conservation of natural resources in an integrative way. Key characteristics of the ecoregional approach are an emphasis on partnerships among relevant actors to provide complementary skills, a focus on the 'right research' for the ecoregion, and the development and testing of new research paradigms (TAC 1993).
The rationale behind the formulation of the ecoregional approach concept was based primarily on the perceptions that:
· research on increasing productivity had to be combined with research on conservation of natural resources;· there are potential complementarities in Centres' work that could result in large payoffs from inter-Centre collaboration and from coordinating Centres-NARS interactions;
· advancements in the development of new technologies for natural-resource characterization could help in extrapolating research results beyond national boundaries, thus leading to the development of a new set of international public goods related to the management of natural resources.
4. Translating the ecoregional approach into practice
4.1 CIAT
When TAC endorsed the ecoregional approach there were already activities in CIAT that fitted the TAC requirements for an ecoregional approach. These included the ASB initiative and work on hillsides. In fact, about 40% of the research currently conducted at CIAT fits the ecoregional approach. Thus, CIAT saw the ecoregional programme as a means of: providing a mechanism for articulating all of their NRM projects, and providing support and initiatives to those projects; and enhancing the interface between R&D.
CIAT now implements the ecoregional approach through a combination of strategic research and R&D at benchmark sites for three ecoregions: hillsides (Colombia, Honduras and Nicaragua), savanna (Colombia) and forest margins (Peru). This work is supported by CIAT through a strong capacity in GIS and modelling, and through emphasizing participatory approaches to R&D design and implementation. Work on the hillsides is concentrated in a project, while work at the other sites is spread across projects. In addition, CIAT has a small ecoregional programme - funded by the System - that focuses on developing linkages and partnerships with users, and monitoring, evaluating and assessing the impact of the ecoregional approach.
4.2 CIP
CIP's early involvement with CONDESAN, of which it is a founding member, facilitated the strengthening of the ecoregional approach into its research portfolio. CONDESAN has established benchmark sites in all of the Andean countries and CIP provides strategic research support to this work. The GMP, which links work on high mountains in the Andes, Himalayas and East Africa especially through the exchange of information, is another initiative convened by CIP that shares the ecoregional approach. While not all of CIP's ecoregional work is done by CONDESAN and not all CONDESAN's work is CIP's, it appears that the ecoregional approach has served as a useful exploratory approach that takes CIP beyond its research capabilities into development activities, which in turn feedback into CIP's research. It is, therefore, of interest to CIP to maintain its links with CONDESAN as an example of the research developmental work continuum at the ecosystem level, as there are few examples of such work within the System.
5. Overall Impressions
It was recognized at the outset that it is too early to evaluate the ecoregional approach to research as this needs more time to achieve important objectives beyond ecosystem characterization and problem identification. However, it was felt appropriate to provide comments relative to the conceptual approach, independently of the specific CIAT and CIP programmes.
The ecoregional approach is conceptually an appropriate framework to tackle problems associated with the sustainable intensification of productivity at the various scales: plot, farm, watershed and ecoregion. It is also the team's belief that it is appropriate for Centres to conduct research in an ecoregion with an ecoregional approach. This should provide some comparative advantages in the development of international public goods related to NRM. However, it is important to emphasize that the-Centres must find a niche within the R&D continuum of the ecoregional approach, probably upstream in the strategic research areas, with very selective incursions into adaptive research and development work.
One of the perceived advantages is that the work is conducted in the fragile environments of poor areas where sustainable increases in productivity are uncertain but urgently needed. Some of these environments, notably in Central America, are becoming more vulnerable to natural disasters presumably due to lack of adequate policies and poor NRM. There is significant potential for decreasing the vulnerability of many areas if the responses to changes in management and land use could be anticipated via integrative modelling.
Centres also have the capacity to integrate a wide range of disciplines to organize the research needed for solving problems of an interdisciplinary nature. In both CIAT and CIP the ecoregional approach has served to focus the NRM work and has contributed to a shift in priorities and to the design of strategic research. It has also led to new lines of research such as product transformation for providing added value for rural growth and poverty alleviation. The Centres are also in a good position to extrapolate research results at the ecoregional level to similar ecoregions around the world.
The team was also very positive about the diversity and the number of partners in the ecoregional programmes examined. However, it is important that the Centres select and prioritize their activities so that while acting as a catalyst, they can foster cooperative work without becoming too involved in it. Otherwise, they run the risk of spreading themselves too thin given the present level of activities, limited budgets and the large number of cooperators.
Despite these potential advantages, significant problems can be seen in translating the concept into practice, particularly at scales above farm level. Integrating the many diverse disciplines that affect the linkages between natural resources and productivity, into a problem-solving approach at the watershed/regional levels and beyond, is a formidable task that has yet to be accomplished in the programmes reviewed (and possibly anywhere). A major limitation to conducting long-term strategic research with an ecoregional approach of such a nature - the role that we would recommend primarily to the CIP and CIAT - is the nature of programme funding. Both Centres had expectations of attracting donor support for the ecoregional approach that have not materialized. Despite the initial good response, since 1996 donors seem to have lost interest in the ecoregional approach.
It was observed that research is often of an opportunistic nature, primarily donor-driven and often with an emphasis on short-term payoffs. Both characteristics cause ecoregional-approach research to deviate from planned objectives and to loose focus in the long run. If the ecoregional approach deserves a place in the System, there should be renewed efforts by TAC and the CGIAR to make a formal funding commitment to it.
We also still see the need for strengthening the conceptual framework of the ecoregional approach, including delineating appropriate activities to facilitate the identification of technology requirements. In our opinion, both the CIAT and CIP ecoregional programmes require more conceptualization and a focus on a small number of key priority problems within the target ecoregions, and less emphasis on the development of tools and methods as ends in themselves. As with any research, that to improve productivity and resource conservation at the ecoregional level has to focus on solving problems. Progress in linking problems to actual strategies and policies directed at the sustainable improvement of productivity also appears to have been limited.
While we could not judge critically the balance between biophysical and socioeconomic research, as we saw evidence of contributions from both sides, there appears to be a deficit in activities on policy research which we consider critical, as policy and institutional factors tend to dominate when moving from farm to watershed and beyond.
Finally, as noted above, there are opportunities for improving and streamlining ecoregional programmes in the CGIAR, and for clarifying the role of facilitation units with donors, partners and at System level in order to provide a consistent and clear message on the ecoregional approach. There are a number of different initiatives at the System level which need clarification and consolidation, such as the differences between global, ecoregional and Systemwide programmes in the ecoregional approach of NRM, and the existence of a soil-water-nutrient Systemwide Programme, as well as an ecoregional programme on soil and water conservation.
To sum up, we generally endorse the concept of an ecoregional approach in the Centres provided that it is adequately integrated in the overall NRM research programmes of the CGIAR and can be effectively translated into practice. The CGIAR might consider enhancing such work if the problems and limitations observed could be overcome.
6. Issues and constraints
6.1 Science issues
6.1.1 NRM and productivity research links
There was considerable evidence in both CIAT and CIP of strong links between NRM research and research on productivity enhancement, especially that on germplasm improvement. In CIAT, several products of the rice, cassava, bean and the pasture research programmes have been used in the ecoregional sites. Likewise, germplasm and integrated pest management research in CIP, as well as ILRI research on livestock production, have been important inputs at CIP benchmark sites. Evidence of feedback from NRM research to germplasm research is weaker, in part because the ecoregional sites represent only a small part of the mandate of Centre's germplasm improvement programmes. However, there has been considerable spillover of GIS work to the germplasm and integrated pest management programmes in both Centres. Ecoregional perspectives are also being gradually accepted in the commodity-research programmes.
The team noted that although the ecoregional programmes are realizing important synergies between NRM and productivity-enhancing research, this should not be the primary rationale for the ecoregional approach to research as conceived by TAC. The ultimate research goal on an ecoregional approach is to reduce poverty and increase opportunities for sustainable development in communities. Therefore, the role of the CGIAR should be to use strategic research outputs and its convening power as a catalyst to help achieve the goals set by all the partners in the ecoregion.
6.1.2 The balance of science and technology versus tools and methods
The primary product of Centres should be international public goods. In the case of ecoregional research, these public goods include new knowledge and technologies for NRM, improved germplasm, and methods and decision tools for more effective and efficient solution of ecoregional problems with wide applicability across national boundaries within a given or comparable ecoregion.
Both Centres visited by the Review Team seem to focus in their ecoregional programmes on methods and tools with wide potential for application. This is reflected in the considerable effort in modelling and GIS in both Centres. There appears to be less emphasis on strategic research on NRM technologies and this work is often fragmented. Even at the benchmark sites, little has been done to develop comprehensive sets of technologies at the watershed level, within a problem focus, in order to test the applicability of the tools and methods. A notable exception appears to be the savanna ecoregional programme at CIAT.
The team feels that more emphasis is needed on problem-solving research within the benchmark sites to develop appropriate technologies and demonstrate impacts, and based on this experience to develop tools and methods that can be applied to other sites in a cost-effective manner. The initiation of work on defining minimum data sets by CIP represents a commendable step in this direction.
6.1.3 Benchmark sites and extrapolation
Each Centre has selected benchmark sites for implementing the ecoregional approach. These sites typically comprise watersheds of 10-20 000 ha. Clearly for purpose of replicability and extrapolation it is critical that these sites be representative of a larger ecoregion in terms of agroecology, socioeconomic circumstances, infrastructure and institutions. While considerable work has been done in characterizing ecoregions, the team was not provided with good evidence that sites were representative of important ecoregions in terms of population, poverty and natural-resource degradation.
Likewise, neither did the team perceive strong evidence that the Centres had developed concepts and methods for extrapolation from the benchmark sites. While GIS clearly provides powerful tools for extrapolation, much more work is needed on the conceptual definition of appropriate scales for NRM work of different types: strategic, applied and adaptive, including socioeconomic research. A related issue in extrapolation is the development of tools and methods that can be applied within the resources and skills of national systems. There is presently a danger that the heavy investment of resources in a relatively small benchmark site will lead to results that cannot be replicated due to the high resource intensity of the investment. Work on minimum data sets and proposed work by both CIP and CIAT on ex ante cost-benefit analysis at the watershed level should help clarify this issue.
6.1.4 Policy research
The team concluded that policy research in the ecoregional programmes reviewed is weak and needs strengthening. Ecoregional research must be designed within the context of macro-economic and trade policies that will have profound effects on the production opportunities in the ecoregions. Likewise, the design of interventions in the ecoregions must be set in the wider context of public investment decisions for the selected ecoregions. For example, work is needed to clarify the role of public investments in technology, institutions, infrastructure, education in promoting rural economic growth, and poverty alleviation in the selected ecoregions. Other priority areas for policy research include efficient functioning of rural financial markets, market development and price policy. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which has considerable expertise in this type of policy research, is notably absent from the ecoregional work in Latin America.
6.1.5 Socioeconomics and gender
The team did not see enough evidence that socioeconomic and gender issues receive sufficient attention in the ecoregional work. This is reflected in the following observations.
· Lack of presentations on economic analysis of alternative NRM interventions (CIAT has economists as integral members of their ecoregional teams but none were available during the team visits).· Absence from the ecoregional teams of sociologists and/or anthropologists with expertise to address issues in land tenure, social stratification etc. (during the team's visit).
· Little apparent emphasis in the choice of some sites and interventions on poverty alleviation, and within sites on identifying clearly who are the poor.
· Little emphasis was given to gender issues in the materials provided to the Review Team on designing and implementing interventions.
On the positive side CIP, and especially CIAT, have developed strong participatory approaches to ecoregional research, including an emphasis on community organization. The strong emphasis in the CIAT ecoregional sites on local farmer research committees to carry out adaptive research and diffuse results is a model for participatory ecoregional research.
6.1.6 The balance of strategic research, applied research and development
A holistic approach to ecoregional research requires a judicious balance of strategic and applied research and technology transfer, and developmental activities, with strong linkages along this continuum. The Centres clearly have a comparative advantage at the strategic end of this continuum and have sought to develop partnerships to provide expertise in the applied and developmental aspects. However, in part due to funding priorities, it has often been easier to fund applied R&D activities with near-term payoffs than strategic research.
Both CIP and CIAT are involved in development activities although it is sometimes unclear if the focus is on development per se or on research on processes to formulate tools and methods for developmental activities. CIP undertakes a significant part of its ecoregional work through CONDESAN, a regional consortium of public and private organizations, organized on CIP's initiative, which retains its secretariat at CIP headquarters. This has led to important issues of ownership between the role of CIP as a participant or partner in CONDESAN, and CIP as a coordinator and financier of CONDESAN activities. The team feels that the role of CIP in strategic research could be better served by devolving progressively the management of CONDESAN to the member organizations and separating its coordination, physically and administratively, from CIP.
6.1.7 Synthesis, dissemination and lessons learned
In the team's view, given the experience of both CIP, CIAT and some ecoregional sites in applying an ecoregional approach, there is now much to be gained from a synthesis of experiences to date and a distillation of lessons learned.
6.2 Partnerships
6.2.1 NARS partnerships
The team was generally impressed with the wide range of national partners participating in the ecoregional benchmark sites, and to a lesser extent, in the strategic research. These national partners, including the INIAs, universities, government developmental agencies, NGOs and on occasion, private firms, have provided complementary skills, especially in applied R&D activities. In at least one case, the high number of local partners may have resulted in 'overkill', as the numerous institutions involved exceeded the capacity of local community organizations and farmers to effectively absorb them.
Although it is clear that NARS actively participate and benefit from the collaboration, the team was not able to evaluate the extent of NARS ownership of the ecoregional programmes -an issue which will affect their long-term sustainability.
6.2.2 Inter-Centre collaboration
Although the Review Team found evidence of constructive inter-Centre collaboration, this is still less than could be desired. Centres noted the considerable transaction costs of collaboration and difficulties in funding. In addition, funding mechanisms and incentives currently encourage competition rather than collaboration. Given the current funding climate, there may also be problems in providing due recognition of the inputs of individual Centres and national partners. However, the team concluded that inter-Centre collaboration cannot be forced but must result from clear complementarity of interests. Some observations follow.
Good theoretical examples of collaboration include that of ICRAF, CIFOR and CIAT in the forest-margin ecoregional site where each of the Centres has a complementary role in the continuum from forest to permanent agriculture. In practice, however, coordination and competition was reported to be clearly below individual Centre expectations. Other Centres that could provide potentially valuable inputs to this ecoregional research are IFPRI, IPGRI and CIMMYT. Although it is our understanding that these Centres do have activities in Latin America, their role in the ecoregional programmes is either missing or was not highlighted to the Review Team.
There are many other international organizations, apart from Centres, with capacities in strategic research (e.g., CIRAD). Some of these are already partners in some sites, therefore, inter-Centre collaboration should not be seen as an end in itself. In reality, the final responsibility for collaboration rests with donors who must encourage and fund collaborative projects when there are clear advantages in doing so. We believe that the ecoregional approach provides excellent opportunities for complementary inter-Centre cooperation.
6.3 Management
6.3.1 Funding
The lack of long-term stable funding for strategic ecoregional research is probably the single most important constraint on the effectiveness of the ecoregional approach in the programmes reviewed. In general. Centres were disappointed with the response from donors for ecoregional work, both through donor-funded special projects and through TAC-approved core budgets. The result is that Centres have had to be opportunistic in seeking funds, and the resulting research programmes tend to be donor-driven, disintegrated and focused on a strategic problem.
It seems that the first priority in consolidating ecoregional programmes should be to ensure long-term funding mechanisms. If the required CGIAR commitment is not attainable, then the CGIAR should reassess its future involvement in ecoregional research. However, this is a less desirable alternative that could lead to higher transaction costs and fragmentation. One possibility would be for individual Centres to actively seek support for the ecoregional programmes from non-traditional donors, such as the private sector, foundations, regional and municipal governments, and the Global Environment Facility.
6.3.2 Costs of ecoregional research
The team was not provided with a comprehensive overview of the total funding and its origin - including human and financial resources - invested in specific ecoregional and benchmark sites. It also appears that CIP and CIAT could not provide good estimates of the resources invested by partners in the ecoregional programmes. Without such estimates it is difficult to comment on the cost-effectiveness of the research programmes or the success of ecoregional programmes in attracting additional resources. For purposes of transparency and accountability. Centres should be required to provide full costs of resources committed, including those of their partners.
6.3.3 Monitoring and evaluation
The Centres have recently moved toward a logframe approach to monitoring and evaluation for the ecoregional programmes. This will lead to a better definition of the objectives of the ecoregional programmes and to an assessment of impacts against objectives. To date, there has been little work on either ex ante or ex post assessment of impact in terms of biophysical and economic indicators. Both CIAT and CIP have initiated conceptual work on impact assessment and this should be a high priority for the future.
7 Itinerary
2 May
Review Team arrives CIAT.
3 May
Presentations and discussions in CIAT with CIAT directors and scientists.
4 May
Presentations and discussions with partner NGOs from Colombia and CIAT scientists (in place of cancelled field visit).
5 May
Travel Cali to Lima and review of CONDESAN activities in Colombia (missed connection in Bogota resulted in unexpected layover).
6 May
Travel to CIP field site at Cajamarca. Presentations and discussions with partner NGOs and local officials. Visit to farmers' fields.
7 May
Continued field visit. Return to Lima. Presentations and discussions with CIP scientists and directors.
8 May
Report writing and departure.
8 Key contacts
8.1 CIAT
Dr. Alejandro Imbach
Dr. G. Scobie
Dr. D. Pachico
Dr. R. Thomas
Dr. E. Barrios
Dr. R. Knapp,
Ing. Magnolia Hurtado (CIPASLA)
Ing. B. Muñoz (CORFOCIAL)
Dr. N. Beaulieu
Dr. G. Hyman
Dr. P. Kerridge
Dr. F. Holman
Dr. C. Wheatley
Dr. C. Ostertag,
Dr. M. Winograd
Dr. Ruben Darío Estrada.
8.2 CIP
Dr. Joshua Posner
Dr. H. Zandstra
Dr. Jose Valle-Riestra
Dr. W. Collins
Dr. R. Quiroz
Dr. M. Tapia
Dr. W. Bowen
Dr. Pablo Gutierrez (ASPADERUC)
Ing. Manuel Vazquez Salazar, Alcalde de la Encañada
Señora Rosa Abanto (farmer. La Encañada)
Ing. Juan Moncada (PRONAMACHS);
Ing. Julio Gamarra (INIA)
Dr. L. Sarmiento (U. de Cajamarca)
Dr. M. Holle (CONDESAN)
Dr. A.M. Ponce (Infoandina)
Dr. C.L. Velarde (CONDESAN-ILRI)
