7.1. NARS and Related Institutions at the National Level
7.2. International and Regional Centres
7.3. Donor Relations
7.1.1. Evolution
7.1.2. The Current Situation
7.1.3. Achievements
7.1.4. Assessment
7.1.5. Lessons for the CGIAR
Until its designation as a global agroforestry centre on entry to the CGIAR, ICRAF's experience with NARS was largely in Africa. Collaboration with African NARS was recommended by the 1984 review of ICRAF, and the Centre developed a framework to implement the recommendation in which the following points were seen as essential to implementation of this.
- The collaborative programmes should have an agroecological zone basis and cover a number of countries.- There was a need to assist each NARS in the development of an institutional niche for agroforestry research that would coordinate relations with external organizations providing technical and financial assistance.
- There was a need to strengthen national capacities for agroforestry research and development, and set up national capabilities for training.
The resulting regional entities were termed Agroforestry Research Networks or AFRENAs. The first two were set up in Southern and in Eastern Africa. Each adopted the same organization. National Steering Committees (NSC) were made up of representatives of all national institutions with an interest in agroforestry. The outposted staff of ICRAF were invited to attend the committees, which were responsible for decisions on research and capacity building in agroforestry in the country, including the content of the collaborative programmes with ICRAF. Several of the countries involved had some agroforestry research prior to their involvement in the AFRENAs and some national extension programmes were promoting agroforestry technologies. These earlier efforts were almost all project driven and ad hoc.
A Regional Steering Committee (RSC) for each AFRENA are made up of the Chairmen of each NSC and the ICRAF Regional Coordinator. The RSCs plan programmes to be relevant throughout the agroecological zone, and agree and allocate responsibilities for implementation by national institutions. Countries seek to implement those parts of the regional programme they feel most relevant to their own national situations.
The regional programmes are largely station-based applied research centred around the improvement of traditional agroforestry systems, some are from other regions, but may be appropriate to the problems of the region concerned. ICRAF staff also collaborate in-country programmes which involve both applied and adaptive research. Some country programme sites carry experiments complementary to the system improvements featured in the regional programmes.
The AFRENA programmes at both country and regional levels were identified by combined national and ICRAF teams using the macro and micro Diagnosis and Design methodologies developed by ICRAF in the early 1980s. Based on an understanding of the agroecological zone and the land-use systems operating in it, key constraints were identified: degraded soils; and shortages of animal feed, of building timber, and of firewood. Agroforestry research programmes were planned to contribute to their relief, and were agreed within the steering committees. These same committees identified the training needs for their countries, for both short courses and for university training for professionals.
ICRAF has expanded the AFRENA concept to West Africa, though with a different structure. Between 1986 and 1990 a total of four AFRENAs were set up. The high number of ICRAF staff, a notable feature of the original Southern and Eastern African AFRENAs, has not been repeated in West Africa.
Currently there are AFRENAs in countries within four major agroecological zones of Africa:
- Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe in the sub-humid tropics of the unimodal rainfall plateaux of Southern Africa;- Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda in the sub-humid tropics of the bimodal rainfall highlands of East and Central Africa;
- Cameroon in the humid lowlands of West Africa; and
- Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and Senegal in the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa.
ICRAF has 19 senior scientists working in these four AFRENAs, and the Programme of Work and Budget 1993 (pp. 69/70) shows they will absorb 58% of the Centre's 1993 core research funds and 100% of 1993 complementary research funds.
Since designation as the global centre for agroforestry research ICRAF has initiated expansion of its collaborative programmes to two further agroecological zones: Humid Tropical America with staff located in Brazil, Peru and Mexico, and Humid Tropical Southeast Asia with staff located in Indonesia. These programmes will not follow the original AFRENA model, as some will be closer to the ecoregional models under discussion in the CGIAR, involving collaboration with other IARCs as well as with NARS. It is intended that programming will continue to be based on the diagnosis of the biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics of the agroecological zones, the problems of existing land-use systems and the training needs of the countries in the zone.
As noted earlier, key objectives for ICRAF were to help establish a formal institutional niche for agroforestry research, to identify research programmes based on an understanding of farmers' real problems and to build national capacity to do research in agroforestry. Certainly the earlier established AFRENAs have realized these objectives to a significant degree through the steering committee mechanism. Sources contacted by the Panel in the course of the country visits, and the questionnaire completed by the NARS, acknowledge ICRAF's contribution to raising general agroforestry awareness among NGOs, extensionists and researchers. The Centre's efforts to bring national and regional institutions together to work for agroforestry are highly appreciated. Its efforts in building manpower capability through training and its contributions in helping national scientists prepare papers and publications are also appreciated. The fact that most governments in the earlier AFRENAs have designated an institutional niche for agroforestry research is an achievement of the steering committee strategy. Similarly, in the AFRENAs ICRAF successfully used information on land use systems from farmer surveys to identify researchable problems, and to shape applied research agendas both in the regions and, to a lesser degree, at headquarters.
In its MTP, ICRAF foresees the evolution of the AFRENAs into ecoregional mechanisms consistent with the Ecoregional initiative launched by the CGIAR in 1990. TAC defines an Ecoregion as "an agroecological zone regionally defined". This is based on the need to consider biophysical and socioeconomic parameters in natural resource management research, and the understanding that biophysical parameters are best stratified by agroecological zones, and socioeconomic parameters by national and regional economies. It is close to the AFRENA idea, but the added elements of the Ecoregional concept are:
- A strategic research programme in natural resource management.- Collaboration with other IARCs and regional organizations which complement ICRAF agroforestry expertise, bringing in research skills in the biophysical dimensions of the zone and in the important food crops of the region.
- A coordinated effort, region-wide and across all IARCs and NARS, in training and capacity building.
Successes in the AFRENAs. Section 7.1.3. recorded that the two older AFRENAs in general successfully achieved their declared objectives and in particular that good coordination was achieved between national and regional institutions in planning. The RSC did successfully identify common national priorities, reconcile them into a programme and organize their implementation through national institutions. As with other Centres, of which IBPGR and ICLARM are examples, ICRAF's dependence on national facilities and therefore national collaboration did encourage a partnership arrangement with national institutions. This was corroborated by national leaders during the Panel visits to the older AFRENAs, and by responses to the NARS survey mounted from the TAC Secretariat. In the older AFRENAs the NSC did designate a national institution as the niche for agroforestry research.
In the AFRENAs, ICRAF successfully used information from existing land use systems to identify researchable problems. ICRAF is also beginning to identify management characteristics to which new technologies have to conform to be relevant to the target land-use systems. For example, at Makoka in Malawi, working on the sesbania fallow, ICRAF staff understood that farmers in traditional systems, using handhoes for cultivation, face a labour bottleneck at the beginning of the rains. Such farmers would be unwilling to delay crop planting in order to establish sesbania at the optimal time during this peak period. Experiments have explored whether the sesbania fallows might be attractive to farmers with planting delayed, despite the impact on the growth rate and performance of the sesbania. A similar awareness of how farmer circumstances should shape the developing technology was observed by Panel members at Chipata in Zambia.
Past Experiences: Some Difficulties. It was clear to Panel members that in some countries there were problems in the steering committee process. Once a ministry has the designated role in agroforestry research, given the nature of line ministeries, the interaction in such committee's may begin to be characterized by competition and friction. Ministries not given the agroforestry research role, but with some of the necessary skills, sometimes expressed dissatisfaction with ICRAF collaboration.
Thus although it succeeded in defining an agroforestry research institutional niche, the NSC strategy has been less successful in promoting joint planning and shared implementation of agroforestry research initiatives within countries. Such interministerial coordination is notoriously difficult unless approached from the level of the ministry of planning or the president's office.
Even after an institutional niche has been identified for agroforestry research the NSCs continue to be useful. It remains a fact that some functions in agroforestry research programmes are appropriate for agriculture departments, others for forestry and yet others, such as a start to strategic research, for the university. Failure to accomodate these interests, and others such as NGOs active in agroforestry in the country, may result in duplication and, in the case of the NGOs, losing important field experience. This indicates a continuing role for the NSC. However ICRAF's involvement in the country and in the NSC should not be open ended. Only if national commitment emerges in (say) a three-year period should ICRAF persist with the NSC. One clear milestone of commitment is that national funding is made available to operate the NSC. If commitment emerges, ICRAF can cease to give its essential support to the committee and leave the national institutions dominant, but if commitment does not materialise ICRAF can withdraw.
Beyond the national level the success of ICRAF's Regional Steering Committee strategy in designing a programme which is then nationally implemented has been noted. Although the SALWA network is strongly collaborative, the Panel did note that the intercountry networking in some AFRENAs appears weak. ICRAF itself, for example in southern Africa, appeared to be driving the regional programmes with a limited networking effort.
ICRAF Expansion and the AFRENA Concept. The original AFRENAs were conceived with high numbers of ICRAF staff to give momentum to the promotion of agroforestry with national governments. This density of staffing could not be repeated as ICRAF took on an increasing number of subregional programmes. Even in the West African AFRENAs, its second wave of expansion, ICRAF adopted a new format with lower staffing densities.
Further, even though the original AFRENAs had high numbers of ICRAF staff, their limited disciplinary scope and their location at different in-country sites across the region, did not permit a balanced research process. Both the complaints of ICRAF scientists concerning the lack of peers in complementary disciplines, particularly social sciences, and the weakness of the on-farm research effort is evidence of this.
ICRAF has used farm-based information to set agendas but has been much less successful in using it to target improved technologies to appropriate production systems. The evidence is that the micro D&D and the on farm experimentation was limited in scope and weak in concept and implementation. In some cases "technology push" was observed, rather than on-farm work planned as an appropriate response to identified client needs. Both ICRAF and national researchers put their credibility at stake when moving technologies on to farms, every care must be used to keep the quality of the research process high and ensure scientists' credibility is increased by the farmers' enthusiasm for the results.
Again, although ICRAF has begun to use farmer based information to shape its applied and strategic research agendas, it is from a very limited number of locations. There is a danger that ICRAF's strategic research agenda is dominated by the problems of a few Southern and Eastern African production systems. With its global responsibilities ICRAF will need to seek a wider inventory of researchable issues at this strategic level.
As described in section 7.1.3. ICRAF has adopted the Ecoregion as the future approach for some of its collaborative outreach programs. It has taken the leadership of an ecoregional initiative in the East and Central African Highlands as well as leadership in the "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" initiative that will follow the ecoregional format. The Panel endorses ICRAF's plans to adopt the Ecoregional approach, within the context of the CGIAR strategy. ICRAF sees itself in both leadership and partnership roles in different regions. The Panel has a concern whether new donor funds will be readily available for the long term research demanded by the natural resource management dimension of the ecoregional format.
Devolution from the AFRENAs. Some of the AFRENAs will be widened to an ecoregional format. However not all outreach from ICRAF will be embraced by ecoregional initiatives. The Center's past experience offers guidance both in the design of the ecoregional format, and also in the design of stand alone future regional programmes for ICRAF.
A common complaint from ICRAF's AFRENA staff was the lack of scientific interaction. This, and the problem of being heavily committed in a country that may lose interest or cannot raise political enthusiasm, argues for the flexibility of a central regional base with a critical mass of scientific skills which support both regional and country projects. It has clear advantages, it allows a wider coverage of countries, a more objective identification of opportunities from a range of countries, and the flexibility to withdraw if the national programme fails to show potential. It fosters a regional perspective and reduces the risk of technology push in agroforestry programmes. It also allows NARS to grow and prevents domination and possible frustation of NARS' personnel in ICRAF operated sites.
The Panel has touched on the issue of leaving the regional collaborative network intact as ICRAF winds down its role and responsibilities in any group of countries. The cost effectiveness of countries sharing a regional programme will be particularly attractive to donors. To complement devolution ICRAF should make strong efforts to link donor support to regionally organized national agroforestry research programmes. With the AFRENA experience behind it ICRAF has a foundation of knowledge and information, as well as influence with the main agroforestry donors that can be a valuable resource for NARS whose interest and commitment is clear.
The logic of regional research coordination in countries with low human and financial resources is for them to share costs and have a wider programme from available funds. This can only be realized if the experiences in programme operation and the research results are shared as well as the programme planning. Synergies across the region require effective networking which, in mm, needs funds for national managers and researchers to move around the research sites in the region. Given the variety of initiatives (eg SACCAR, SPAAR, and the World Bank) to bring more of the research effort in Africa to a regional level, ICRAF should ensure that national managers feel ownership of the programmes implemented in other countries, as well as their own, to sustain regional collaboration.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ICRAF develop as soon as possible a joint strategy with the NARS for devolution of ICRAF's country level agroforestry research to the appropriate NARS, while maintaining a strong support role through regionally based teams and headquarters staff.
Farmer-based information as a basis for research programming and technology targeting cannot be made an operational reality by a single centre on a global scale. ICRAF experience can help to build NARS and CGIAR System capacity to achieve it collaboratively. The Panel has noted that ICRAF, in its MTP, has indicated its intention to shift to an ecoregional mode of operation. In this mode collaboration with the other IARCs, and with regional organizations, will create a better resourced group for the collection of information on production systems, for networking and for an integrated training programme, for example in diagnostic work and on-farm research methods.
The other side of the coin is the organization of agroforestry research within national research systems. Initially, when agroforestry was unknown, a special promotional effort by ICRAF was justified. Yet agroforestry still often remains as a special project whether inside or outside the government establishment, with its own adaptive research and even extension mechanism.
Agroforestry technologies, like others should be seen in the context of a viable R&D process for the country. Such a process should allow client needs to identify which agroforestry technologies are appropriate where and reduce technology push. It should also help to set the AF agenda at the applied and strategic research levels. Such a process is best organized using a "technology neutral" cadre in adaptive research whose primary task is to understand local farming systems and the types of technologies which meet their needs. Such a cadre draws technologies from whichever commodity and factor research thrusts best exploit local opportunities. Agroforestry would, in this national scenario, be a commodity or factor thrust working at the system improvement level, similar to ICRAF's Programme 4; receiving input on their agenda from the adaptive research cadre, and feeding back improved technologies to it for shaping to the circumstances of the production systems for which ex ante analysis identifies them as appropriate.
The choice of a research and technology development paradigm for NARS has important implications for the CGIAR, for inter-centre collaboration, and for the appropriate interface between IARCs and NARS. The CGIAR System should share a vision of an appropriate paradigm, which, though its organization and institutional niche will vary with the nature of the country (small, large, varied etc.), will be consistent in its principles and in the research process to be followed.
Other international centres occupy central and strategic parts of ICRAF's plans for the future; and, in fact, ICRAF spends a considerable effort on the development of institutional linkages.
Even before its entry into the CGIAR, ICRAF collaborated with several IARCs, particularly those operating in Africa. Since entry into the CGIAR System, collaboration has widened, particularly as a result of the direct relevance of ICRAF's mission to work on natural resource management, a major element in the ecoregional approach launched by the CGIAR.
The MTP lists an extensive set of collaborators at the regional and international levels. At the regional levels these are mostly within Africa but include CIAT, CATIE and PROCITROPICOS in Latin America and APAN and F/FRED in Asia. International collaborators include ten of the other seventeen IARCs and a number of advanced institutes, many of which are universities, in both developed and developing countries. The recent nature of both the CGIAR ecoregional initiative, and of ICRAF's expansion plans beyond Africa, means that many of these arrangements are in their formative stages, particularly in Latin America and Asia.
ICRAF's intention to initiate collaborative activities in the CGIAR System is strong. It is well shown by the progress made under ICRAF's leadership of an ecoregional initiative in the highlands of East and Central Africa. CIAT, the originator of the eastern African highlands initiative, has accepted the logic of it being led by a centre headquartered in the region and is supporting the leadership by ICRAF. On the other hand, in Latin America CIAT is the accepted leader of the collaborative activities involving ICRAF, PROCITROPICOS, CATIE, IFPRI and CIAT at the international and regional levels, and EMBRAPA and other NARS in Brazil and Peru. ICRAF will be placing two scientists in Porto Velho, one in Manaus, and two in Peru, within this collaborative effort. ICRAF is considering the placement of its regional coordinator for Latin America; CIAT has indicated that it would be willing to accept the scientist at its headquarters.
ICRAF and CIFOR relations are a special case. Because forestry-agroforestry is a continuum of activities involving trees in land use, it is difficult to reach agreement on the subject boundaries between ICRAF and CIFOR responsibilities. A basic problem is that there are no widely accepted, mutually exclusive definitions of forestry and agroforestry. Rather, both institutions are dealing with a set of issues involving trees in various forms and combinations of land uses. ICRAF and CIFOR each have a definition of its territory. In these definitions, there are substantial areas of complementarity, and some areas of overlap. The two Centres are dealing with these areas through overlapping board memberships, where the Chair of one Board sits ex officio on the other Board. ICRAF has decided to place its Asian Regional Coordinator at the CIFOR headquarters in Bogor and other opportunities for promoting close interaction and healthy dialogue will present themselves as CIFOR evolves.
ICRAF and CIFOR both support the concept of an integrated approach to forestry and agroforestry within the CGIAR (MTP, p. 7). Thus, there is agreement that this is an efficient and effective approach to dealing with trees-in-land-use issues. The real questions that need to be addressed are institutional in nature and focus on division of main responsibilities, and on the potential for cooperation, collaboration, and healthy competition in overlapping areas. These issues are discussed in the following section.
ICRAF's objectives, strategy, mode of operation, and research needs are such that significant international cooperation and collaboration are essential. In a broader context, as the CGIAR System as a whole increases its involvement in natural resources management research, increased collaboration becomes essential for all the centres in the system, since it seems unlikely that the CGIAR as a whole can afford a proliferation of independent sites for research on natural resource management in any region. First, there is the duplication of funding requirements; second, there is the problem of lack of focus and resulting confusion among NARS partners; third, it goes against the need for synergy between collaboratively operated experimental sites worldwide.
ICRAF and Ecoregional Initiatives with other IARCs. The Panel commends ICRAF for its initiative and leadership in developing the Highlands Initiative in Eastern and Central Africa together with its partners in the consortium of international and national institutions.
ICRAF (and its international partners) still need to devote a great deal of effort to ensuring smooth relations in the new types of ecoregional initiatives being undertaken. For example, during the Panel's visit to Latin America, there was some confusion as to who would be leading the activities associated with the "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" consortium. Lines of communication and responsibility (including financial responsibilities) need to be much more clearly defined and agreed upon. Part of the problem is that there are several different programmes aiming at the same objective, for example, CIAT's "forest margins" initiative, ICRAF's core program in Latin America, and the "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" programme. However, this common focus also is part of the strength of the overall initiative, e.g., in Rondonia, there is concentrated effort on one common set of objectives that fit within both CIAT and ICRAF's core programmes and the basic programme of the broader "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" programme.
ICRAF and CIFOR. The case of ICRAF's relationship with CIFOR is a special one, involving two general questions:
- What is the appropriate balance between ICRAF and CIFOR in terms of trees-in-land-use research activities? What is an appropriate division of responsibilities?- What are the opportunities and mechanisms for collaboration and for healthy competition in carrying out research and related activities in overlapping areas of responsibility?
Balance between ICRAF and CIFOR. It is natural that ICRAF and CIFOR should differ in their views concerning which part of the forestry-agriculture continuum "belongs" to each of them, respectively. There is no "right" answer to the debate, since any division would be arbitrary. This is illustrated by a statement in the ICRAF MTP (p. 7) saying that CIFOR will work on the improvement of timber species for smallholders. However, CIFOR probably will give very low or no priority to improvement of single purpose timber species. Most smallholders grow multi-purpose trees for fuel, shade, fruits and other outputs before they are harvested for poles or timber. Thus, CIFOR will have to work with multi-purpose tree species. Other potential overlapping topics that CIFOR is considering include reclamation of degraded lands, management of multiple use savanna woodlands, forest and land use policy, multipurpose forest management for non-timber and non-market forest products, and forest fallows.
In developing a balance between ICRAF and CIFOR, the following points need to be kept in mind:
- The CGIAR System has decided that there will be separate forestry and agroforestry centres. Both must be healthy. That means that each must have in its mandate and programme enough of the issues along the forestry/agroforestry continuum that are considered important and fundable to the donors. Thus, each must be involved in elements along the continuum of value to "poor people". Few of those fit into the industrial forestry category; most involve the areas mentioned above, e.g., non-timber, non-market outputs from secondary forests or reclamation of degraded lands.- Too rapid and too extensive expansion of either ICRAF or CIFOR will not be healthy for either organization or for the broader goals of the CGIAR. Breadth of activity at the expense of depth in areas that clearly are important is not in the interests of the system.
- Whatever distribution is settled on, it should not lead to further confusion in the commonly held views on forestry and agroforestry. The CGIAR System must not add to the confusion, as this could result in reduction of support because of conflicting messages being given to potential funding sources at the political level.
Opportunities for collaboration and healthy competition. It is important to note that there is no argument over the allocation of most parts of the forestry-agroforestry continuum to one or the other Centre. The "ownership" of tree-related activities in the middle of the forestry-agroforestry continuum cannot be fully resolved, so it is essential that there is collaboration and healthy competition in these areas. Possible arrangements that might be considered include the following:
- Through ecoregional mechanisms, ICRAF and CIFOR can develop complementary activities in a given region, just as ICRAF presently has done with centres such as CIAT, ILCA, ICRISAT, and others. The "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" initiative is an example of where CIFOR could provide a complementary input to that of ICRAF, CIAT and others. ICRAF, as coordinator of the consortium, has already invited CIFOR to join the steering committee.- In other cases, ICRAF and CIFOR could work on the same research topics, but in different regions. Thus, for activities that cannot be assigned exclusively to one Centre:
(i) ICRAF could have primary responsibility in Africa, with CIFOR acting in a complementary role;(ii) ICRAF and CIFOR could agree on their respective responsibilities in Latin America, working with CIAT, CATIE, national partners and others;
(iii) CIFOR could have primary responsibilities in Asia for such areas of research with ICRAF acting in a complementary role.
At the same time, ICRAF would take the global lead in developing and disseminating needed agroforestry research methodology, documentation, and in developing training materials and activities in that area. CIFOR would take on the same role for those activities that clearly fall within the scope of forestry. Both would collaborate in activities falling towards the middle of the continuum, e.g., in the areas of MPTs, land use policy, and reclamation of alang-alang grasslands, with ICRAF focusing more on Africa and CIFOR focusing more on Asia.
It might be noted that the form of collaboration suggested above would (i) be in keeping with the philosophy of an ecoregional approach; and (ii) meet the strong desire in partner countries to have a collaborative, regional focus in agroforestry and forestry; and (iii) help to avoid unnecessary duplication and conflict, and confusion in partner countries and in funding agencies concerning the urgent tasks ahead.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ICRAF's Board propose to CIFOR's Board a joint approach to seek complementarity. This would identify areas of work in the forestry-agroforestry continuum which are the sole interest of one or the other Centre, and also areas in which a joint interest is acknowledged. The latter should be dealt with by an ecoregional mechanism or by considering the programme and regional balance between institutions (as described in 7.2.2.).
The 1989 review panel covered ICRAF's relations with its donors, including its Donor Support Group, in some detail. Since that review ICRAF has become a member of the CGIAR and the Donor Support Group has been disbanded.
ICRAF has joined the CGIAR at a time when Group funding is in decline in real terms. Nevertheless the relative buoyancy of ICRAF funding demonstrates the continuing donor perception that agroforestry will make important contributions to the improved management of natural resources.
Eight new donors contributed core funding to ICRAF since 1989: in 1990 Australia, Belgium and Japan; in 1991 Germany and Sweden; and in 1992 UNDP, Italy and Spain. In its draft MTP ICRAF anticipates three further new donors to core in 1993. ICRAF's perceived relevance to the growing threat of land degradation and environmental damage is continuing to widen donor support. In the context of declining aid funding this augurs well for ICRAF's future.
