4.1. Criteria for Assessing the Relative Importance of the Substance of Proposals for INRM Research in the CGIAR System
4.2. Operational Factors to Consider in Assessing the Relative Merits of Alternative Approaches
4.3. Alternative Structures
There are two stages in making choices among proposed INRM initiatives for inclusion in the CGIAR portfolio. The first involves an assessment of the relative importance and relevance of themes or topics for inclusion. The second involves choice of the mode of operation or organization for the work involved in addressing chosen themes. Each of these is outlined below.
The following criteria are proposed to guide the allocation of scarce resources in this potentially vast field of research. They are not absolute and will not apply equally to all research proposals, but they should be taken into account in deciding relative priorities:
The research should contribute to poverty alleviation and environmental protection and/or enhancement. Preference should be given to soil and water management problems or opportunities that are likely to have a significant impact on poverty alleviation. One way is through increased food and water security, especially for very poor people. Research results that lead to lower prices or more stable food outputs can contribute to this goal. So can results that lead to increased off-farm employment, e.g., in various postharvest production and marketing activities or in various natural resources related activities.
Similarly, research results that lead to a stable or improved environment and natural resources base can contribute both directly and indirectly to poverty alleviation over the longer term. For example, there is no doubt that improvements in management of irrigated crops, such as the improvements that played such an important part in the green revolution, are of high priority.
High priority also should be accorded to preventing those forms of degradation which are likely to be most costly or difficult to repair, since ultimately such degradation has an impact on food production, water availability and quality, and thus poverty alleviation. It may be beyond the resources of poor farmers to overcome some forms of degradation, such as loss of topsoil from sloping lands or waterlogging and salinization of irrigated lands, whereas it may be feasible, though not necessarily easy, for them to remedy soil nutrient deficiencies or to regain vegetative cover on overgrazed land.
Alternatives need to be considered in the context of overall contributions to poverty alleviation in combination with environmental improvement. For example, can scarce research and development funds be better invested in intensification of more favoured areas rather than in seeking sustainable development options for marginal areas - the savannas of South America rather than the hillsides or forest margins; the subhumid and humid lands of West Africa rather than the desert margins? What are the trade-offs in terms of total number of poor people affected, impacts on the environment, and so forth? Each instance will, of course, be different in terms of the trade-offs involved.
The Research should be results-oriented, demand-driven, and utilization focused. A realistic assessment of the likelihood that research results will be adopted in practice (i.e., that the research is demand-driven) is proposed as one of the most important criteria for enhanced CGIAR support of SW/NRM research. TAC's review of successes and failures in improving NRM has led to the conclusion that nontechnical factors are often the primary constraint. This strongly suggests that the CGIAR should concentrate its effort in regions where there is good evidence that the importance of improving NRM is accepted and that there is a political and community will to do something about it. Biophysical and technical research alone has very little leverage if the human factors are not propitious.
This is not to say that research on trends in the condition of natural resources cannot help to change public opinion, and that research on socioeconomics, public policy and public institutions cannot help to identify constraints to effective community action. Further, the link between NRM and production-oriented researchers is particularly important, because of the need to modify production practices in the interest of greater sustainability, but also at an acceptable cost. Incentives are often required to help landholders over the initial costs of changing to more sustainable practices.
The research should make optimum use of existing information and contribute to filling knowledge gaps. The integrated approach to NRM which we strongly advocate, requires access to a wide range of expertise in both the natural and social sciences. It seems from the record of successes and failures to date that good access to existing knowledge is more important than current research results, though that may not be true in all cases.
While continuing to research the control of those forms of soil and water degradation that are known with certainty to be damaging (water erosion on sloping lands, salinization and waterlogging of irrigated lands), an effective proportion of research resources should be assigned to answering the question: is there a growing threat to world food security in the early twenty-first century? The reasons why food production has not been affected more severely by obvious forms of soil and water degradation in the past should be analysed (or is the economic evidence flawed and the impacts of new technology and inputs would really have been much larger, if it were not for existing degradation, as some have suggested).
Recommendation 1: The CGIAR System should develop improved mechanism(s) by which Centres, collectively, can be involved with other partners in generating and interpreting improved scientific evidence on the extent and magnitude of agriculture, forestry and fisheries on the degradation or enhancement of natural resources and the impacts of such degradation or enhancement on agriculture, forestry and fisheries production and food security.
The suggestion made earlier in this paper, that a higher priority be given to research on longer term, less obvious forms of degradation is also relevant to gaining a better understanding of the future threat. This point has been made by a number of experts in the field. A specific example illustrating the general problem of lack of adequate information on degradation and the state of the environment comes from a recent paper by Gill (1995): 20
20 Gerard J. Gill (1995). Major natural resource management concerns in South Asia. IFPRI: Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 8.
To sum up, an unfortunate combination of bad science, misleading statistics, and, to be frank, environmental scaremongering has led to serious mistakes in "knowledge" as incorporated in technology, human resources (foresters), institutions (government and donor agencies), and policies. The most fundamental issue in natural resources management in South Asia must be to achieve a major breakthrough in the understanding of the state of the environment, of the processes that are changing it, and of the underlying causes. (p. 12)
While Gill was referring specifically to misconceptions about land degradation in Nepal, the experience is clearly of wider relevance in NRM.
A number of authoritative sources, including the IBSRAM position paper and several consultancies carried out in support of this study conclude that there is a lot of existing scientific information that could be adapted for the practical improvement of NRM. Some of it comes from strategic soils research for improving agricultural and forestry production, but in other cases there has been a long history of work in support of better NRM, for example on options for maintaining soil fertility with growing population in areas traditionally under shifting cultivation. This appears to be true also for maintenance of soil productivity in the highlands of East Africa. It is very important for the CGIAR to promote research on constraints to the better use of this existing knowledge, and to make sure that scientific wheels are not reinvented.
Based on the conclusions above (which take into account lessons from successes and failures) and on an assessment of the most recent SWNM proposal, which takes on board many of the recommended areas of focus listed above, TAC makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 2: TAC recommends that intensified and expanded collaborative mechanisms and activities be developed among Centres, and between Centres and their non-CGIAR partners, to help focus increased research and institution strengthening on issues related to adoption, adaptation, and utilization of existing NRM technologies and knowledge that so far have remained unused.
The fundamental knowledge creation, diffusion, adoption and assumptions on which CGIAR Centres currently are working need to be reassessed in the NRM area through a sound research programme that will involve biophysical as well as social scientists. Such a collaborative activity should be a coordinated effort involving both NARS partners and Centres. Activities should focus on the incentives and other policy tools needed to get effective, widespread adoption of appropriate NRM knowledge and technologies.
Biophysical scientists often expect too much of policy research. Policy research alone may be able to do relatively little to remove constraints to application of existing technology, especially political ones. In any case, their existence may be obvious from general socioeconomic understanding, without the need for new research. Also, people sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the capacity of new areas of science, such as biotechnology, to overcome barriers to development.
Although there is a great deal of existing information that can directly be put to the test in practice, there also are many key knowledge gaps that need to be filled by research. Priority should be given to addressing these deficiencies in the knowledge base. Some of the priorities have been identified by the present synthesis review. First, there is a need for rigorous investigation, rather than just anecdotal reports, of failed attempts to improve NRM, as has apparently occurred with soil conservation programmes in SSA, SE Asia and elsewhere. In other intriguing cases, such as soil fertility maintenance with intensification of cropping in areas of shifting cultivation, it is not clear that adoption has ever been seriously pursued.
Second, insufficient attention is being given to water research. Irrigation played a major part in the success of the green revolution, but the System gives little attention to making more efficient use of irrigation water for crop growth (there is already growing competition for water from nonagricultural users) and to preventing further degradation of irrigation land through waterlogging, salinity and alkalinity. Also, there are difficulties with establishing property rights in water which adds to the challenge of improving water management.
Third, a number of important soil and water linkages (section 3.1) appear to have received inadequate attention in production-enhancing research. They include the spatial or landscape linkages, for example the linkage between upstream agricultural and forestry production practices and downstream water supplies, especially for urban communities, and temporal linkages. More attention needs to be given to understanding the processes causing longer-term, less obvious forms of soil and water degradation.
Finally, it will be necessary to allocate some resources to monitoring trends in the condition of soil and water resources in order to define needs and to assess potential improvements from research more precisely. Establishing baselines now will be essential for the future evaluation of the impact of the CGIAR's investment in INRM research. Thus, research contributing towards defining optimum means to develop monitoring and evaluation systems also contributes indirectly towards the overall goals. A further benefit from this type of research will be increased knowledge that will help us distinguish between natural causes of degradation and human causes of degradation, e.g., as in the case of erosion and siltation problems downstream from younger mountain ranges such as the Himalayas.
The lack of criteria for distinguishing between traditional kinds of soil and water research that have been carried out in the System and the kinds that should be strengthened in the interests of broader soil and water sustainability and environmental improvement probably has been a contributing reason why the System has broadened its approach to NRM research more slowly than some stakeholders, including particularly donor constituencies, would have liked. Consideration of the factors listed above should help the System to distinguish more clearly between business as usual and the new, broader INRM research agenda.
It should be pointed out that the focus of many international discussions of SW/NRM research has been predominantly on downside risk, that is on degradation of soil and water resources below some natural level. Some analyses of population growth and future food needs, including the Inter-Centre Review of Rice, have concluded that it would be risky to rely entirely on plant varietal improvement for future increases in food production and that it will be necessary to narrow the yield gap as well. Improved NRM (enhanced soil fertility, more efficient water use, and better control of pests, diseases and weeds) is likely to be a key to narrowing the gap between actual (on-farm) and potential yields. The results of good research aimed at understanding the fundamental processes of soil and water degradation also are likely to meet the needs of sustainable intensification of agriculture.
The research should build on the CGIAR's international advantages. Section 2.3 provides a detailed discussion of the nature of the international advantages that should be associated with CGIAR research. Existence of these advantages would be a firm requirement for CGIAR involvement in INRM research. It is noted that in many cases, research themes that on the surface appear to be mainly local in nature can have an international dimension, e.g., through the development of widely applicable methodologies, or the development of new insights or new understanding through high quality comparative research.
There must be potential efficiency gains from sharing the costs across countries and the results (in so far as they can be predicted) should be widely applicable (section 2.3). There is a special need for international agencies engaged in INRM research to focus on the search for generic understanding and to reduce the location specificity of results from this type of work.
Once a research area or topic has satisfied the basic requirements of having potential to contribute to CGIAR goals and having an advantage for CGIAR involvement, then the next step in the process is to assess alternative modes of implementation. The CGIAR is not the only international agency engaged in INRM research and to warrant continued donor support it has to provide a superior service, including cost-effectiveness (see below).
The previous discussion has identified a number of factors or criteria that need to be considered in choosing among the options for implementation of an expanded programme of research in the CGIAR related to INRM. Some of them relate to new directions in which the CGIAR is moving - towards greater openness, involvement of others, transparency, and accountability for impacts. Others relate to the aim of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the ways in which the CGIAR does business. Below, some of the main factors or criteria to be considered are briefly described. The following section then provides TAC's assessment of the different options, considering the various factors or criteria.
While it is not possible to quantify all of these criteria or factors, an overall qualitative assessment of different options can provide a critically needed perspective on the relative advantages and disadvantages of different options.
TAC considered four structural options for implementing INRM (S&W) research in the CGIAR System: Centres, regional partnerships, Systemwide coordinating committees, and professional networks.
· Centres - The need for very close links between productivity-enhancing and SW/NRM research makes it desirable to work through the existing Centres, rather than through centres dealing specifically with SW/NRM research. At the same time, the location specificity of much SW/NRM research and the need for links to adoption make it essential to develop strong regional and national partnerships (next point).· Regional Partnerships - In this study, we have concluded that socioeconomic and institutional factors are often the primary, immediate constraints to better NRM. If correct, this indicates that regional political and community participation is essential and that CGIAR research should be closely integrated with national research. This is one of the major objectives of the ecoregional approach.
· Systemwide Coordinating Committees - These would work entirely through existing structures and would have very limited influence unless they also controlled funds. TAC has argued elsewhere that it is inefficient to set up another layer of management in the CGIAR.
· Professional Networks - There are a number of well-tried models, such as the international scientific unions, for communication amongst professional people working on NRM problems. The IARCs have long been involved with networks that include NARS scientists, but there is the opportunity to improve communication with others working on NRM, especially from advanced institutions and NGOs.
TAC's view is that the first priority should be to establish partnerships between the main groups of natural and social scientists working for INRM at the regional level. There is a lot to be learned about how to facilitate the development of such partnerships (consortia) and how to operate them effectively without the transaction costs being too heavy. Then the research consortia need to maintain good communication with the people working to improve NRM in practice. This is for two main reasons - to make sure that good use is made of existing information, and to receive early notice of problems requiring further research.
The 1990 Expansion Report floated the possibility of establishing a global council to link ecoregional mechanisms. TAC does not favour any form of coordinating committee that adds a layer of management to those already existing in the Centres, NARS, and advanced research institutes. However, there need to be effective mechanisms for evaluating proposals for partnerships in INRM research and for funding those that are approved. This is part of the current move in the System for a part of the donor funding to be allocated to programmes rather than directly to Centres.
There is some uncertainty about the present effectiveness of professional scientific networks in subject matter areas that are important in the CGIAR's SW/NRM research, especially for communication with leading scientists in advanced research institutes in developed countries. The inclusion of communication networks (consortia) in the SWNM Initiative should help to strengthen such links.
