5.1. Soils and Plants Research
5.2. Hydrology and Water Use
5.3. Ecoregional Programmes
5.4. Socioeconomic, Policy and Public-Management Research
The Centres have a long record of soil research, in IITA, IRRI, CIAT and ICRISAT. IITA has made valuable contributions on the structural behaviour of West African soils. IRRI's work on the chemistry of anaerobic soils and the production of methane is internationally known, and IIMI has a programme on salinisation and waterlogging of irrigated soils in Pakistan. Apart from this, most soils work has been of a fairly traditional nature, and has basically supported agronomic nutritional and cultivation work. Recently ICRAF has brought in new studies on soil-plant relations and roots systems using innovative techniques, and the CIAT results on the deposition of soil carbon at depth by deep-rooted tropical grasses has gained much attention (Fischer et al., 1994). In total there is a fair amount of soil and water research in progress within the CGIAR system, of which much will be directed at focused on-site productivity questions, but some is certainly relevant to NRM in a more general sense.
A wide-ranging proposal for a Soil-Water-Nutrient-Management (SWNM) programme has been developed by a group of organisations both within and outside the CGIAR (DSE/IBSRAM, 1995). It has been commented upon by TAC, and is highly relevant to this study. In its latest form, it contains four Themes. The first Theme "Combating Nutrient Depletion" is generic and crosscutting - it is a necessary aspect of almost any soils or agronomy programme. Theme 2, "Optimising soil water use" fits naturally into a watershed water allocation and use project; as TAC commented, standing alone the proposal deals with processes that are largely well understood, but given a broader hydrological and water resource orientation it would be very appropriate. Theme 3 "Managing acid soils" is localised with regard to soil type, and would apply in some watersheds; it is however directed straight at a major aspect of the value of the soil resource, and involves the activity of soil organic matter. The 4th Theme on "Managing soil erosion" is seems to be focused on the on-field issues, whereas it would be better to see it as an aspect of watershed research, including off-site effects. All these themes will to a greater or lesser extent involve the study of soil organic matter.
In this study a set of specific research topics needing more attention in relation to NRM are identified (section 6.2), and it will be noted that these in fact agree with the Zschortau Plan in many respects. It is likely that any careful examination of the NRM needs in the CGIAR System at the present time will reach a similar agreement, because the needs are urgent and pressing.
In general the CGIAR Centres are not strong in landscape hydrology, and have little tradition of such studies, with the exception of IIMI and IRRI, which are both concerned with water management for greater efficiency of irrigation. In contrast, a considerable amount of research has been done on plant use of water and on-field water management. Thus ICARDA and ICRISAT are working on supplementary irrigation and water harvesting techniques. ICLARM has an Inland Aquatic Resource programme, which is intended to include studies on aquaculture in relation to other land uses. In some agricultural systems fishfarming in ponds can be seen as an integral part of the farming system. Both IFPRI and IIMI have interests in the management of, and the rights to, the water resource. Work by IIMI has for obvious reasons dealt mainly with irrigation sources, slow-flowing and canalised rivers, and the control of complex systems. IRRI's and WARDA's interests are similar, so there is a fair amount of work in and experience of this situation.
There are also relevant Systemwide CGIAR programmes that are just coming into being. IIMI has the responsibility for the Systemwide programme on Water Management Research. This is intended to deal broadly with water-use efficiency for production, environmental and conservation impacts, including climate change, and relevant policy and institutional questions. The Rice-Wheat programme on the Indo-Gangetic Plains is addressing apparent sustainability problems in this cropping system, and while not specifically targeted towards water, this is an irrigated farming system, so water supply, quality and use must be an issue. ICLARM's proposal for a Coastal Environment Initiative will demand study of the lower reaches of rivers, with a watershed approach. IFPRI's Initiative on Property Rights and Collective Action is addressing socioeconomic issues in natural resources. It seems that much of this work proceeds largely in isolation, and some mechanism seems necessary to review it in order to identify generalizations and principles that can be applied more widely.
The CGIAR Ecoregional concept has developed strongly, and any new Natural Resource programme must have a clearly defined relationship to it. Four characteristics have been defined as essential for the "ecoregional approach": research on the technical and human aspects of the sustainable improvement of productivity; dealing with a priority ecoregion; partnerships with NARS and other research agencies in the region; linkages with CGIAR global research activities (Report of the CGIAR Task Force on Ecoregional Approaches to Research, 1995). This paper places stress on the watershed as an organizing framework for research, but it is evident that the definition of a watershed as a unit of the landscape is not congruent with that for an ecoregion. The latter is for an "agroecological zone, regionally defined," i.e., that part of a particular agroecological zone which lies within a defined region, usually chosen to produce greater homogeneity in the final unit. This definition means that a large watershed might well contain parts of two or even more ecoregions, just as an ecoregion may contain many small watersheds. On the watershed concept, each of these ecoregions may then be emitting or receiving impacts from upstream or downstream ecoregions. This is evidently true of any of the major river basins.
Most of the research in an ecoregional programme will not be organised on a watershed basis, but this discussion suggests that ecoregional programmes should consider whether distant impacts of this type need to be included in their work. Where a watershed is smaller, and wholly within one ecoregion, then it is simply an excellent landscape unit for researching many of the processes occurring in the use of natural resources, either by using the watershed concept for interpreting results, or as the basis for an actual field experiment. As suggested earlier, it is likely that a watershed will contain soils and land forms which are replicated across the ecoregion.
Of the five Ecoregional Programmes already in being, four have a very strong orientation towards land degradation and the use of natural resources; in the Lowland Rainfed Rice consortium led by IRRI the natural resources aspect is present, but less prominent. All are targeting the overriding problems of nutrient deficiencies, shortage of water, or soil physical damage. However, there is as yet less emphasis on water as a resource other than for agriculture, or on the on-site/off-site impacts comparison. A further proposal for an ecoregional Initiative for the West Asia/North Africa region has been submitted by ICARDA, mainly aimed at increasing water-use efficiency, which is somewhat similar to the existing Desert Margins Initiative put forward by ICRISAT.
The relevance of NRM to land use as a general topic is discussed above. The only ecoregional programme that includes a mention of land use (systems) in its objectives is the Alternatives to Slash and Burn programme. This is, of course, logical, as the whole thrust is towards changing farming systems. On the other hand, CIAT has developed as part of its core programme a growing capability in land use study, including GIS and the technology for using remotely sensed imagery for land characterisation. It is assumed that this will be used in the Hillsides Ecoregional programme, as well as in others.
Notwithstanding the work of IFPRI and other Centres noted in the introduction to section 4.5, only a modest portion of the research presently undertaken within CGIAR Centres addresses the kinds of management and institutional issues discussed above. As noted above, the wide-ranging Centre work on socioeconomics, policy and public-management research is considerable, and is the subject of the companion Strategic Review. What follows are a few remarks pertaining to CGIAR research specifically related to soil and water. This has focused on:
· Improving nutrient-related fertility enhancement practices;
· Improving soil moisture-related fertility enhancement practices;
· Reducing vulnerability on agricultural lands; and
· Improving on-site aspects of irrigated resource systems.
The subjects discussed concerning the Three Questions in section 4.5 are related very much to the last-mentioned focus of research, on irrigation water management. The SCOR project grew out of efforts to improve management of irrigation water as a scarce natural resource, and the lessons to be drawn from the other two cases are consonant with what has been learned from work in the irrigation sector.
As noted in discussion of the Rajasthan case, a good part of the soil conservation and watershed rehabilitation strategy involved soil-moisture retention measures, including surface management and water harvesting, as well as measures to reduce the vulnerability of agricultural lands through vegetative coverage, channelling of runoff, contour bunding and terracing, etc. The Sri Lanka and Haiti cases also implemented such interventions. While there may be somewhat different incentives at work for watershed management and soil conservation, as distinguished from the agricultural practices that have been the traditional focus of CGIAR research, it does appear that substantially similar public-management issues arise for state, community or NGO institutions, and thus the scope for potential Centre research is wide.
A common problem when trying to improve NRM regimes is the fact that naturally-occurring resource units or systems, such as watersheds, rarely correspond to political or administrative boundaries. This has been a particular problem for improving irrigation management when, for example, such boundaries put head-enders under one political jurisdiction and tail-enders under another. The same situation is common for watersheds, with upstream portions in one region or district (or in several) and downstream areas lie in a different one (two, or three, or more).
It is quite clear that improving planning and implementation of natural resource use requires having resource users within a common political or administrative unit, so that decisions can be made with the knowledge and consent of all concerned. (If there are dissenters, at least they have had their say and have been part of the process producing management decisions.)
Some of the hardest things to change in the world are existing boundaries, as there are surprisingly many (and powerful) vested interests in the status quo. Yet one obstacle to more rational and consensual improvements in the policies and practices governing resource use is the patchwork quilt of politico-administrative jurisdictions that seldom match "the lay of the land." Without any illusions that research will produce a new willingness to alter boundaries, this is a worthy subject for many researchers, even though it is outside the traditional domain of the CGIAR System itself, to bring together knowledge: (a) on the obstacles and irrationalities arising from present mismatches between natural and man-made boundaries, and (b) on the consequences of any efforts to improve NRM by adjusting boundaries. To maintain its strong traditions of independence from political sensitivities in its partner countries, it is appropriate for the System to continue to rely on others to "make the running" in these fields that, nevertheless, remain vital to achievement of many agreed and high-priority resource-management research themes.
Resource tenure is another subject of major significance for NRM. This includes "tree tenure" (Fortmann 1988) along with land tenure. It is generally agreed that security of control over natural resources, whether land (soil) or forest (trees), is a major influence on whether people will manage these in ways that conserve productivity over time, rather than extract value from them quickly. This has been used to argue for private ownership and for secure formal-legal titles.
In fact, there is no consistent evidence on this, as common-property ownership has under a variety of circumstances (but not all) produced resource-conserving stewardship. And sometimes, formal title provides no real assurance, if the government is disorganised or predatory, while common-law, de facto title fully supported by community knowledge and sanctions may be quite secure as has been documented in recent World Bank research studies in Africa (Crosson and Anderson (1995) provide a synthesis).
The body of research that has put "common property resources" on the policy agenda has been a good example of useful social science research. Distinguishing this from private and public (state) ownership, and contrasting it with open-access situations, has clarified the range of tenure options. Such typological analysis needs to be elaborated with regard to specific resources since, especially in "traditional" systems, great complexity can attend people's access to and responsibility for natural resources.
