towards integrated natural resource management research tt · integrated pest management (ipm)...

Towards Integrated Natural Resource Management ResearchEVOLUTION OF NRM RESEARCH WITHIN THE CGIAR

here has been a continual evolution of NRM research concepts and activities within

the CGIAR since well before its organization as a System (TAC 2001). Through the

1960s, the International Centres focused almost exclusively on agricultural produc-

tivity and efficiency for their mandate crops. This included the effective use of

fertilizer and other nutrient sources, as well as pesticide use, often within an

integrated pest management (IPM) context. Emphasis was on genetic improvement that

focused on yield increase, pest and disease resistance, nutrient response and use efficiency,

and adaptability to growing environments and stress tolerance. Reduction of detrimental

environmental change was a stated objective of much of this work.

In the late 1960s research expanded to multiple cropping and the design of cropping systems

to maximize the use of resources in high productivity environments. This was broadened

through the Asian Cropping Systems Network of the 1970s, later becoming the Farming

Systems Network in the 1980s, which covered a wide range of cropping environments in Asia

through the establishment of more than 35 on-farm research sites distributed across many

Asian countries. During those years many of the concepts of on-farm, farmer-collaborative

research were developed. Most importantly, the research had a systems perspective, based on

the bio-geo-physical, political, social and economic constraints of farm families.The concepts

of “research and recommendation domains” were developed and quantified (Garrity et al.

1978). These domains provided an acceptable level of homogeneity within which farming

PA

RT

TW

O

tt

systems could be researched and extended withmodest local adjustments. The work focused onthe bio-geo-physical production environment,the farmer participatory interactions required,and the production economics of the resultantchanges. It also dealt with many other factors ina qualitative and often intuitive manner.

The concept of “sustainability” had beenevolving in the CGIAR during much of the1980s, and became officially recognized as a partof the CGIAR research portfolio following thepublication of: Sustainable AgriculturalProduction: Implications for International Agri-cultural Research (TAC 1988). Sustainability waspresented as a dynamic concept: “Sustainableagriculture would involve the successfulmanagement of resources for agriculture tosatisfy changing human needs whilemaintaining or enhancing the quality of theenvironment and conserving natural resources.”

In 1989 a “watershed” was reached at the CGIARMid-Term meeting in Canberra, when the needfor broader, more environmentally- and NRM-focused mandate and activities for the CGIARwere recognized. At this meeting the proposal toadd Centres dealing with forestry, agroforestry,water management, and fisheries was accepted.More recently IBSRAM and then TSBF havebeen incorporated, bringing additional NRMmanagement components and science to theCGIAR portfolio.

In 1990 the ecoregional approach to agriculturalresearch in the CGIAR was defined (TAC 1991),which led to programme organization for manyof the Centres. Several of the Systemwide

Programmes of today are based on that concept.The ecoregional approach was introduced as ameans of integrating resource management withproductivity concerns, the “twin pillars of theCGIAR”. It was a strategy designed to expandresource management research in the CGIAR.Three principles for the organization ofecoregional research were identified: a systemsapproach focusing on the technical and humandimensions of problems in the sustainableimprovement of productivity in landscape unitsin agroecosystems; multidisciplinary teams; andcooperation with NARS and other regional insti-tutions while fostering close linkages withglobal strategic commodity and subject matterresearch programmes.The former “research andrecommendation domains” of the farmingsystems approach were broadened to includemany factors such as commonality ofagroclimate, production system, resourceendowment and NRM problems. TheMashreq/Maghreb (M&M) project of Case Fiveis one example based on geographic/agro-ecosystem units. Others, such as the Rice-WheatConsortium of South Asia and the CatchmentApproach to Managing Soil Erosion in Asia(Case One) focus on problems within definedagroclimatic environments.

During the 1990s a growing scientific literaturewas evolving within the System as Centres cameto grips with the more comprehensive nature ofthe science of natural resources management.The study: Priorities and Strategies for Soil andWater Aspects of Natural Resources ManagementResearch in the CGIAR (TAC 1997) capturesmuch of this complexity, and lays out aconceptual approach relevant to the needs ofthe Centres and their partners. The reportconcluded that the CGIAR System could benefitfrom the introduction of a more consistent,systematic and environmentally-sensitiveframework for integrated natural resourcesmanagement research. Such a framework wouldinvolve four sets of interrelated linkages: (i)links between productivity-enhancing andresource-conserving research; (ii) spatial orlandscape level linkages; (iii) temporal linkages;

RESEARCH TOWARDS INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

4

Natural resources, asused here, refer to the geophysical resourcesof water, soil and its productive qualities,intermediate and long term carbon stocks,biodiversity of the managed landscapes, andthe stability and resilience of the ecosystemof which agriculture is a part.

P A R T 2 | T O W A R D S I N T E G R A T E D N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S M A N A G E M E N T R E S E A R C H

5

and (iv) linkages between research and thediffusion/adoption of research results. In 2001,TAC summarized the evolution of the NRMconcepts and activities in the CGIAR, andproposed a framework for NRM programmedesign and evaluation (TAC 2001).

In 1997, just one decade after the Canberrameeting, the 1997 CGIAR System Reviewrecommended the following: “That the CGIARenhance its research methodology by adoptingan integrated natural resource managementapproach. Further, the organization of an Inter-national Network for Integrated NaturalResource Management will link productivityresearch with environmentally sound manage-ment of natural resources. The Network shouldbe based on, among other things:

• Centres that are equipped with the sciencesneeded to manage the viability and sustain-ability of ecosystems;

• A definition of the corresponding methodsat different spatial scales, particularly atlocal levels;

• Adoption of precision-farming techniquesin relation to tillage, irrigation, nutrientsupply and pest and post-harvestmanagement;

• Development of indicators for measuringsustainability;

• Development of sustainable systems formanagement of aquatic resources;

• Joint preparation of national agriculturalresearch strategies by respective NARS anda consortium of IARCs; and

• Development of more bottom-up, demand-driven projects.”

In their response the Centre Directors endorsedmost of the recommendations, but stronglydisagreed with the recommendation to form aseparate “International Network”.

In a further response, the Centre DirectorsCommittee (CDC) strengthened and redefinedits Committee on Sustainability and theEnvironment (CSE) as an NRM subcommittee.This later became the Subcommittee on INRM,which facilitated conceptual thinking on INRMthrough an inter-Centre Task Force. Inpartnership with the TAC, a series of annualmeetings of the INRM Task Force have broughttogether scientists and their partners fromacross the System to work out approaches andmethodologies for INRM work. Those meetingsare widely cited in INRM literature within theSystem, and include:

• INRM I, Bilderberg, Netherlands,September 1999

• INRM II, Penang, Malaysia, August 2000.“Integrated Natural Resources Managementin the CGIAR: Approaches and lessons”

• INRM III, Cali, Colombia, August 2001.“Integrated Management for SustainableAgriculture, Forestry and FisheriesWorkshop”

• INRM IV, Aleppo, Syria, September 2002.“Putting INRM into Action”

The Bilderberg meeting focused on strategicdirections for INRM work. The key decisionsincluded:

• That a single, separate INRM global centreis not appropriate, but NRM (INRM)research should be embedded in thesustainable production research of Centresand their partners.

• That a bottom-up approach involving stake-holders, including those who manage theresources, must be included in problemidentification, priority setting, and identifi-cation of research alternatives.

• That all INRM work should be problem-focused.

Productivity refers to theproduction of biological and economic goodsand ecosystem/ecological services per unitof resources used.


6

The Penang and Cali meetings focused onresearch approaches, on the scientific discipli-nary needs, and on ways to integrate the science.Research papers of both meetings were madeavailable shortly after the workshops as hardcopy and CD-ROM. They have been posted onthe INRM web site http://www.inrm.cgiar.org aspapers under “Workshop 2000, etc.”.

INRM IV-Aleppo focused on operational needs,culminating in the identification and descriptionof eleven “cornerstones” for INRM operations.For specific, up-to-date readings on theapproaches and the science, see Thomas (2002),Hageman et al. (2002), Douthwaite (2002) andSayer and Campbell (2003).

Several recurrent themes have emergedthrough the decades of CGIAR NRM research asrefined and articulated through workshops andpublications by the broadly-constituted“Community of Interest”, which comprisesCGIAR scientists and stakeholders. Thesethemes spell out operational patterns, anapproach to integrative scientific frameworks,and many of the required disciplines. Theyindicate the need for improved methodologies toevaluate impact assessment, and the lack ofmethods for evaluating the contributions ofNRM management to human well-being andpoverty alleviation. These NRM themes areevident in the case studies presented in Part III.

NRM programmes are implemented through awide range of institutional “bodies”, that includean array of Systemwide Programmes (SWPs) -some of which are ecoregional, and numerousmulti-Centre and multi-partner programmes,and more recently the Challenge Programmes(CPs). Programme structures are thus beingtailored to meet the needs of INRM.

INRM research withinCGIAR productivity systemsCGIAR Centres have greatest comparativeadvantage in the productivity systems where theyhave the scientific capacity and improved crop,tree, animal and fish technologies. Nearly all oftheir INRM work is confined to these systems,

consistent with the first strategic principle of theBilderberg consensus.They function within thosesystems both as providers of science andtechnology, and in many cases as facilitators oreven convenors of the research integrationprocess. In 1998 the Centres invested an averageof 21% of the System’s resources in “protectingthe environment”. The range varied from 48% byIWMI – a “natural resource-focused” Centre toless than 5%. IFPRI, ISNAR and IPGRI allallocated only small percentages of theirresources to environmental protection, thoughIPGRI directed much of its resources to biodiver-sity. It is striking that only 10 of some 300 projectsin the entire System have assigned 50% or moreof their budgets to “protecting the environment”.IRRI’s project on methane emissions from ricepaddies is the only project with 100% resource-allocation to environmental protection, butflooded rice paddies constitute the core of IRRI’smandate. Water use efficiency projects typicallyassign high percentages of their budgets to envi-ronmental protection. Thus nine of IWMI’sprojects correspond to 50-75%, and the “watermanagement options to protect aquaticecosystems” project is classified as 90% environ-mental. Most productivity-focused projectsallocate around 20-25% of their resources to envi-ronmental aspects.

This clearly illustrates that environmentalresearch has become an essential part of projectshaving germplasm improvement or productivity-enhancement as a primary goal. Nevertheless,there is an obvious need to demonstrate thepositive impact of these projects on importantenvironmental parameters. The introduction ofenvironmental research in productivity-focusedprojects is reflected in the management logframethat is used by all Centres. Output 3 highlightsthat part of the investment focused onsustainable productivity and natural resourcemanagement outputs.

Cornerstones for operationalizing INRMAt INRM IV in Aleppo, the key operationalelements or cornerstones of ongoing and


7

emerging programmes identified by stakehold-ers and practitioners were:

Partnerships must be built on mutual trust,respect and ownership. The partners mustcombine science with good husbandry of,and responsibility for, the resource base,combined with appropriate incentives.

Participatory action and a research/learningapproach in an iterative fashion.

There must be consensus on the problemsto be addressed, and the desired researchand development aims.

Effective project management, includingthe facilitation and coordination of inter-active partner processes.

Clear institutional roles and commitmentsat each level.

Cross-disciplinary, adaptive learningprocesses for researchers and developmentworkers to provide a continuum of researchand development.

Continuing, easy access to cutting edgescience and local knowledge to ensure theirassimilation into sustainable systems.

Information synthesis and communicationstrategies, often built on GIS technologiesmust be in place.

Local social and political organizationalstructures must exist to facilitate NRMimplementation.

NRM management solutions should haverealistic short and medium term gains tomake them economically realistic andattractive. Increases in productive efficiencyare nearly always required.

Clear practical strategies for scaling up andextending NRM processes must bedeveloped.

Several of the cornerstone operations arecritical to the integration (“I”) concept of INRMresearch and development. We will expandbriefly on just two of these:

Partnerships are a fundamental requirementfor effective INRM problem solving and foreventual improvement of NRM. Vertical scalingrefers to partnership linkages from the farm andfamily up through the community and higherlevels of institutional infrastructure to permitthe participation of key stakeholders at allappropriate levels.

Figure 1 shows vertical scaling from farmers andfarmer groups as the key stakeholders formingthe base, with vertical linkages (integration) tothe appropriate higher institutional levelsrequired to solve the specific production/NRMproblem. The Community-based Organizations(CBOs) and Non-governmental Organizations(NGOs) are grassroots-based, and play animportant role in facilitating these stakeholderlinkages. Horizontal scaling (scaling out) refersto “outreach” to stakeholders in othercommunities as technologies are tested andadapted across wider areas. Thisfarmer/community-based model with verticallinkages is seen in various forms in every one ofthe seven case studies in Part III, and in all ofthe Centres’ NRM projects.

Ultimately, vertical scaling reaches a global level.The Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB)Systemwide Programme of the CGIAR dealsexplicitly with the vertical integration of ASB in allits complexity, to achieve global levels of coordina-tion of scientific research (Swift and Bandy 1995).Amore common example of global integration forNRM might be the establishment of internationalstandards of production that include environmen-tal management as a requirement.

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

International public goods (IPGs) are research outputs and services in

the public domain which have applicability over large geographical areas, usually across national

boundaries. They have greatest application, with modification, within regions, but can in some

cases have global applicability.


8

FIGURE 1 Concepts of vertical and horizontal scaling

The cross-disciplinary, adaptive learningprocess is the second integrative “tool” forcombining farmer- and community-basedknowledge and various scientific disciplines.The iterative learning process for combininglocal knowledge with scientific approaches andunderstanding is fundamental to thedevelopment and testing of appropriate NRMtechnologies across the landscape, and iscentral to all effective INRM projects. Sayer

and Campbell (2003) discuss this at length, andcapture the essence in Figure 2. The learning(research) process embodies several of the cornerstones of effective INRM operation,viz. the participation of key stakeholders with relevant practical, indigenous andscientific knowledge, mutual trust, continualaccess to new sources of information, and theeffective management and sharing ofinformation.

Source: Douthwaite and Schulz (2001)

International Organizations and Institutions

National Government Organizations and Institutions

Local Government Organizations and Institutions

SCA

LIN

G U

P

Others?

Farmers andFarmers’ Groups

Credit & Input suppliers

Key stakeholders

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention

NGOs /CBOs Private Sector

SCALING OUT

Scales

INTERNATIONAL

NATIONAL

DISTRICT

COMMUNITY

More key-stakeholders inmore communities

More key-stakeholders inmore communities


9

Source: Sayer and Campbell (2003)

FIGURE 2 The learning cycle in INRM, where stakeholders undergo reflection-implementation-evaluation. Some of the possible key activities at each of these stages are indicated

• Monitor interventions• Monitor processes (inc.

Stakeholder interactions)• Extract and build on positive experiences

and analyse reasons for failure• Share results of monitoring

EVALUATION PHASE

UPDATING

• Implementation• Create enabling conditions for scaling up

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

• Stakeholder/institutionalanalysis, decision-makingrationales, interests, mental models

• Historical trend analysis• Resource assessment, inc.

participatory mapping• Analysis of external

influences• Exploratory visioning,

needs and problemanalysis

• Identification of scale ofanalysis and possibleinterventions

FACILITATE PLATFORMBUILDING• Development of visions• Identification of shared

problems, needs and goals(Including capacity buildingfor disadvantaged groupswhere necessary)

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH• Review of shared problems • Re-negotiate and re-plan

collective action

NEGOTIATION ON INTERESTS ANDCOLLECTIVE ACTION• Land-use negotiation• Negotiating the institutional framework• Exposure to options - identify best bets• Identification of research needs• Identification of disciplinary foci• Linking responsibilities and tasks to local

organizations• Identification of pre-conditions for scaling

up• Development of performance indicators

SYSTEM FORMALIZATION• Identifying key components• Identifying scales & boundaries• Develop throw-away models• Scenario analysis & identify leverage

points

EXPLORATORY PHASE

REFLECTIVE PHASE


10

Interaction of resources –the boundaries for INRMAt its first scientific workshop, INRM II inPenang, the working group articulated INRM asfollows (Task Force on INRM 2000):

“Integrated natural resources managementoffers a way of doing development-orientedresearch that aims to simultaneously reducepoverty, increase food security and achieve envi-ronmental protection. These three key factorsthat influence human well-being are inextrica-bly linked with the health of the ecosystems inwhich people live and work. INRM reflects thesebroad interactions. It focuses on ecosystemsrather than commodities; on underlyingprocesses (both biophysical and socioeconomic)rather than simple relationships; and onmanaging the effects of interactions betweenvarious elements of an ecosystem.”

The scope of the scientific disciplines requiredfor INRM was seen to be best appreciated inbroad terms, and through an approach that linkstogether the various resources (capital assets)

that stakeholders live within and manage(Chambers and Conway 1992; Carney 1998;Scoones 1998; Bebbington 1999). The five typesof capital assets are presented in Figure 3. It isstakeholders’ collective capital assets that willdetermine their well-being.

Social capital is assumed here to include institu-tional infrastructure. These assets are definedwithin the context of farmer livelihoods, andthus give appropriate farmer- and community-based perspectives to the NRM issue. Itobviously extends, for many resource elements,to stakeholders at all levels of verticalintegration.

The potential benefits of these assets have beenfurther elaborated by Campbell et al. (2001), andare presented in a modified form in Table 1.

These capitals define the boundaries of thescientific disciplines involved in INRM. It can beargued that all INRM occurs within thecontextual setting defined by these boundaries,but the need to consciously change any elementthrough research depends on the problem beingaddressed and the priority setting of the stake-

FIGURE 3 The five capital assets

Source: modified from Bebbington (1999); and Carney (1998).

NATURAL CAPITAL• Soil fertility• Water resources• Forest resources• Grazing resources• Land quantity and quality

FINANCIAL CAPITAL•Credit•Savings•Remittances

SOCIAL CAPITAL• Adherence to rules• Relationships of trust • Mutuality of interest• Leadership• Kin and ethnic networks• Social organizations

PHYSICAL CAPITAL • Household assets• Agricultural implements• Infrastructure

HUMAN CAPITAL • Knowledge• Skills• Health• Labour availability


11

holders. The capital assets themselves do notprovide a framework for determining thescientific approaches, which nearly always mustbe multidisciplinary and applied across thecapital assets.

Scientific framework for INRMOne of the outcomes of the Penang and Calimeetings was a suggested generic framework forintegrating science, summarized by Thomas(2002) (Figure 4). The framework focuses onhuman well-being in the many dimensionsaffected by the management of naturalresources. This is meant to include botheconomic production as well as environmentalservices. Research is brought to bear on

production and ecosystem functions as well ason the processes and institutions through whichthey are managed.

The INRM research process:

Focuses on key causal elements (reducing complexity)

Integrates levels of analyses

Merges disciplinary perspectives

Makes use of a wide range of technologies

Guides research on component technologies

Generates policy, technological and institutionalalternatives

Focuses on improving the adaptive capacity of stake-holders to increase resilience of the agroecosystem(ecological, social, economic)

Moves from training to social learning

CAPITAL ASSET POTENTIAL BENEFITS EXAMPLES

Natural capital Options for future use are maintained Processes that maintain biodiversity are conserved

Yield and quality of natural resource Ecosystem function is maintained or improvedgoods and services is maintained or improved

Financial capital Financial capital is circulated within Service and commodity outlets expand the system in the local and district centres

Financial capital grows and is equitably Residents have a reasonable share distributed in the economic benefits

Physical capital Physical capital is maintained or Housing status is maintained improved over time or improved

Human capital Ability to provide value-added is Greater array of value-added products areimproved over time produced locally

Improved and equitable distribution Level of skills with respect to running of human capital committees and organizations is improved

Social capital* Maintenance of systems of social Economic and other shocks are buffered reciprocity by systems of social reciprocity

Maintenance of a set of dynamic rules Local rules are effective in controllingand norms access to resources

* We include organizational capital within this, though it could be argued that it forms a separate capital asset (e.g., see Bossel 1998). This covers by-laws at a districtlevel and cultural norms and local rules at the community level.

TABLE 1 Suggested potential benefits for each of the capital assets (modified from Campbell et al. 2001)


12

Focuses on knowledge management (how doesknowledge flow, how to connect to people indifferent ways)

Focuses on increasing awareness of the environmen-tal cost of bad NRM

It should be noted that the Penang genericmodel stresses human well-being at the centre,and places emphasis on the ecosystem andproduction system functions at the same level.Most, if not all of the biophysical NRM researchis captured in these latter two functions. Themodel gives passing reference to the human andinstitutional interactions, and the integrationneeded to accomplish both research and NRMby stakeholders. Human and institutionalinteraction was certainly recognized by thePenang group, and more recent models includethese factors.

Project models are based on the same genericformat, but are modified to include the priorityareas of impact. It is important for the reader tocarefully note these models, as they give aninsight into the universe that stakeholders seeas their area of concern and influence.They mayshow only biophysical processes, or may includeboth biological processes and their managementfactors at different stakeholder levels, as in theforest management model for the Mzola StateForest (Figure 5). This model was produced at atwo-week workshop and subsequently refinedusing a semi-quantitative model (Campbell et al.2000).

This model gives prominence to the productionand ecosystem functions, naming several, suchas carbon sequestration, biomass accumulation,tree growth and grass growth that can be

FIGURE 4 Model of the INRM research process

1. Participatory Problem analysis

2. INRM Research on alternatives

3b. Human well being

Risk management Participation

4. Trade-offs and options

Analyses of trade-offs Identification of range of options

3a.Production Functions

Quantity/quality offood & fibre G x Ematching efficiency

3c. EcosystemFunctions

Nutrient cycling C sequestration Biodiversity Water balance

5. Outcomes

Extrapolation Dissemination Policy implementation

6. Feedback

Source: Thomas (2002)


13

quantified by reasonably accurate and welldeveloped models. Commercial outputs andtheir values are indicated. Interaction with thepopulation, land use and agricultural sectors areindicated in generic terms. Other models (suchas that of Figure 3 in Case Five, the M&Mpartnership) may focus exclusively on thehuman and institutional (vertical) integration.

The holistic community model of Case Five(Figure 1) is a most interesting case, showing theentire system of integration, combining all fiveresource endowments, the processes for theirrelationships, and most importantly, the specificareas of priority and opportunity for impact asselected by stakeholders. Note that the projectplans impact on social and political institutions,on production outputs and efficiency, and on the

natural resource base (particularly on reducingor reversing soil degradation). This model,together with its institutional integration modelmentioned above, captures the holistic nature ofan INRM project. Equally importantly, it pointsto areas of interaction that are contextual ascompared to those that will be directly impacted.Part of that impact will be by means ofstakeholder participation and growth. Otherimpacts will come from the application ofscience through participatory research andaccess to new technologies.

Successful INRM projects obviously requiremany elements and a succession of events ifthey are to have widespread impact. Stakeholderinvolvement in identifying, and developing asense of ownership for, a holistic model to bring

FIGURE 5 An overview of an integrated model of a land use and forestry systemfor the Mzola State Forest and surrounding communal areas

Source: Campbell et al. (2000)

Carbon sequestrationConstruction wood

Biomass

Fire

ECOLOGICALSECTORS

RainfallGrass

growth

Tree sizeclass growth

Crops Livestock

AGRICULTURAL SECTORS

Net Present Values

POPULATION AND LAND-USE SECTORS

Thatching grass

Forestry Commission: Grazing and timber

WOODLANDUSE SECTOR

Wild foods

Firewood


14

stakeholder perspective seems to be importantat an early stage. It is highly significant that theoverview model of the Mzola State Forest was“built at a two week workshop (of stakeholders)and subsequently refined”. This greatlyincreased the likelihood that stakeholderswould ensure the inclusion of all key factors andtheir relationships in the project model.

The reader will find in the INRM approach,principles and elements of farming systemsresearch (FSR), ecosystems science, geographi-cal information systems management (GIS),learning processes and the concepts oflivelihoods. Many evolving areas of science arebeing monitored and applied to INRM work byCentre programmes. We present two examples:

Dealing with complexity: We have seen how, inpractical terms in a project, stakeholdersrecognize complexity and then make consciousdecisions as to what is important and where theopportunity for impact is, given their particularenvironment, problems and needs. Every case inPart III follows that process. At the same time,tools for data management and analysis arebecoming more practical and available. Many ofthe relevant variables are now being assembledin GIS-based models that combine variablesacross resource types, as is illustrated in theLake Victoria Basin project of Case Three, theAndean Livelihoods project of Case Six and theWatershed project of Case Seven. Such data sets,at the very least, provide tools for better prioritydecision-making by stakeholders.

Several INRM scientists are working on modelsto quantify complex interactions and toincorporate methods for combining “hard” and“soft” science. This is particularly important indealing with indicators of production and of

NRM impact (Douthwaite et al. 2002). Campbellet al. (2001), have suggested an approach basedon criteria and indicators (C & I) for quantifyingimpact. They present examples using simpleadditive indices, and suggest the use of derivedvariables from principal component analysis.Other examples are the use of visual indicatorsof change, two dimensional plots derived fromPCA-type analyses, radar diagrams andcombining indicators across scales usingcanonical correlation. Much of this will have tobe done through an analysis of relationships to,and impacts on, the multiple dimensions ofpoverty. This will be mentioned again in Part IV.

Production and ecosystem resilience: Foodsecurity and human well-being are inextricablylinked to the ability of the production systemand the ecosystem, of which it is a part (at a locallevel), to withstand or recover from shock ordisturbance. Members of the ResilienceNetwork (http://www.resalliance.org) have par-ticipated in the Penang and Cali workshops tobring understanding and application of theconcept of resilience to CGIAR INRM work.Carpenter et al. (2001) define resilience in termsof the following three properties:

The amount of change the system canundergo (and implicitly, therefore, theamount of extrinsic force the system cansustain) and still remain within the samedomain of attraction (i.e., retain the samecontrols on structure and function).

The degree to which the system is capableof self-organization (versus the lack oforganization, or organization forced byexternal factors).

The degree to which the system can buildcapacity and adapt.

3

2

1

The key to successful INRM research is to focus on the critical factors and their interac-tions within each capital asset that are limiting sustainable productivity. Collaborative workamong stakeholders, development workers and scientists must identify and focus on the smaller,and hopefully manageable, set of variables that must be tackled to accomplish the project’s goals.The cases in Part III clearly identify the focal points within the more complex sets of variables.


15

They discuss slow and fast variables, describinga system’s ability to change gradually, the abilityof a system to self-organize, and its adaptivecapacity due to the existence of mechanisms forevolution of novelty or learning. Resilience, anddealing with complexity, are two of severalrapidly evolving fields of science that areenabling and informing INRM.

INRM research reportingwithin the CGIARThe logframe reporting system (TAC 1999) is anoutput-based tracking system. It is used by allCentres for their project planning and reporting,including their INRM projects. The logframedeals with problem-based objectives, developedthrough participatory team processes, withassumptions about external environments andfactors. Targets are set by defining indicators andmilestones. The logframe defines purpose, inter-mediate goals and goals.The INRM approach hasbeen established following this same logic, whichbecomes evident in the examples cited above, andthroughout the cases in Part III. Participantresearch activities lead directly to intermediategoals in best-bet technologies and managementpractices at benchmark sites. The goal statementof the CGIAR becomes: Poverty is eliminated, theenvironment is protected, and sustainable foodsecurity is achieved. Of the five output indicators,Output three states: “Management practices andresearch methodologies for sustainableproduction systems and for natural resource con-servation are accessible to NARS and otherpartners”. The logframe discussions leading to itsadoption occurred in 1997-1999 at the time, priorto, and during the System Review, when the

debate over separating or embedding NRM workin production system activities was taking place.The embedding of NRM outputs withinproduction systems was strategically logical atthe time, and has proven, for most terrestrialsystems, to be highly effective. The amounts andpatterns of such activities were summarizedabove.

Impact assessment of INRM researchIdentification and development of indicators earlyin the research process is critical to ex-ante andex-post assessment of progress and potential forimpact (Douthwaite et al. 2002; Campbell et al.2001). Ideally, indicators should serve asestimators of processes that can be modelled topredict changes over time across environmentalgradients for the anticipated management andtechnology options. The models for soil loss,sediment loading, and reservoir siltation inSoutheast Asia that were developed in Case Onein Part III are a good example. Benchmark sitesare used for the initial development and extrapo-lation of the models across gradients of change foralternative management options. These permitboth ex-ante and ex-post assessments atreasonable cost. Indicators of output and ofimpact are spelled out in the logframe used by allCentres. The relative weights of individualindicators will change with each project. Linkagesbetween the various dimensions of poverty andthe indicators of productivity and naturalresource conservation will ultimately be needed.The rapid evolution of impact assessmentmethods for INRM will be summarized in aseparate document under preparation by the iSC.

The CGIAR is organized to provide five categories of logframe output: (1) germplasmcollection, characterization and conservation; (2) germplasm improve-ment; (3) sustainableproduction systems through integrated natural resources management; (4) socioeconomics andpolicy; and (5) enhancing institutions. Output (3) states: “Management practices and researchmethodologies for sustainable production systems and for natural resources conservation and use areaccessible to NARS and other partners”.


16

What is not coveredThe direct role of the CGIAR and the area of itsexpertise are focused on the biology and biogeo-chemistry of production systems, and oneconomic and social dimensions of theirmanagement in multipurpose landscapes wherefood and fiber production is a key feature. Tech-nologies and their management are selected toapply to and to benefit target audiences. Centreprograms in INRM research are integrated intothe development spectrum, but the CGIAR doesnot claim expertise in many of the criticaldimensions of development or of povertyalleviation. Issues such as democratization,overall governance, equity, benefit flow, themultiple dimensions of poverty, total resourceflows and public knowledge systems are dealtwith and changed primarily through theexpertise of partners

The CasesThe reader is encouraged to look for each of theINRM principles discussed above in each of theCases in Part III. How were partnershipsassembled, how are vertical and horizontallinkages established and how do they functionto integrate both institutions and sources ofknowledge and science? How is the humanecosystem universe envisaged? What problemswere identified? How were priorities set? Whatpromising solutions have been found, and howwill their impact be measured? Have the stake-holders limited their partnerships to thesmallest reasonable size to achieve their goals,and have they established clear priorities forproblem solving and research? It has been

found that the following factors contribute tosuccess in participatory natural resourcesmanagement projects (Flora 2001):

Diverse perspectives

Systemic learning

Context specificity

Group inquiry

Facilitating external agents

Sustained learning and action

Mutual identification of problems and multiple outcomes

Monitoring

Evaluation

Participatory contract.

How have these been incorporated?The cases illustrate different positions within theresearch-development spectrum. Some, such asCase One, are more narrowly focused on thedevelopment and calibration of specific tech-nologies and tools. Others have greater breadthin the spectrum. All have stakeholder guidanceand participation, and all have partnerships withgroups responsible for developmental change.The Cases illustrate the roles of Centres as bothconvenors and facilitators of process and asproviders of science and technology.

The order of Case presentation has been pur-posefully set. Case One shows the scientificdetail that goes into the research for every Case.It has a narrow focus within a holisticframework, designed to develop quantitativetools to assess the impact of production systems’management on soil loss that can be used withinthe context of NRM programmes across Southand Southeast Asia. Case Two describes toolsdeveloped through stakeholder interaction to beadapted and applied within the context ofdiverse ecosystem environments. Each of theother Cases becomes more highly integrated indealing with both the diversity of institutionsand the array of variables brought into theresearch project.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Sustainability involves thesuccessful management of resources foragriculture to satisfy changing human needswhile maintaining or enhancing the quality ofthe environment and conserving naturalresources. (TAC 1988).


17

ReferencesBebbington, A.(1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasantviability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27: 2021-2044.

Bossel, H. (1998). Earth at a crossroads: Paths to a sustainable future. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Campbell, B. M., Constanza, R. and vanden Belt, M. (2000). Land use options in drytropical woodland ecosystems in Zimbabwe: Introduction, overview and synthesis.Ecological Economics 33: 341-352.

Campbell, B., Sayer, J. A., Frost, P., Vermeulen, S., Ruiz Perez, M., Cunningham, A. andPrabhu, R. (2001). Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. ConservationEcology 5(2):22. URL: http://www/consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22.

Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. What contribution can we make?Department for International Development, London.

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. and Abel, N. (2001) From metaphor tomeasurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4: 765-781.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts forthe 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Douthwaite, B. and Schulz, S. (2001). Spanning the attribution gap: the use of programmetheory to link project outcomes to ultimate goals in INRM and IPM. INRM Workshop,August 28-31, Cali, Colombia.

Douthwaite, B. (2002). Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding andFostering Technological Change. Zed Books, London.

Douthwaite, B., Delve, R., Ekboir, J. and Twomlow, S. (2002). Contending with complexity:The role of evaluation in successful INRM. Paper prepared on behalf of the INRM-Impact Community of Practice for presentation at the INRM Workshop, 16-19September, Aleppo.

Flora, C. (Ed) (2001). Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities. CRCPress, Boca Raton.

Garrity, D.P., Zandstra, H.G. and Harwood, R.R. (1978). A classification of Philippineupland rice growing environments for use in cropping systems research. PhilippinesJournal of Crop Science 3(1): 25-37.

Hageman, J., Chuma, E., Murwira, K., Connolly, M. and Ficarelli, P. (2002). Success factorsin integrated natural resource management R&D: lessons from practice. ConservationEcology 5(2):29-53. URL: http://www.consecol.org/ vol5/iss2/art29.

Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. (2003). The Science of Sustainable Development: Locallivelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Scoones, I. (1998), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDSWorking Paper 72. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.


18

Swift, M.J. and Bandy, D.E. (1995). Project Management by Consortium: The Consortium onAlternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture. ICRAF, 1995.

TAC (1988). Sustainable Agricultural Production: Implications for International Agricultur-al Research. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.

TAC (1991). The Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR. (AGR/TAC:IAR/91/8b).TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.

TAC (1997). Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of National ResourcesManagmeent Research in the CGIAR. (AGR/TAC:IAR/96/2.1). TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.

TAC (1999). Manual on logframes within the CGIAR System. (SDR/TAC:IAR/99/13). TACSecretariat, FAO, Rome.

TAC (2001). NRM Research in the CGIAR: A Framework for design and evaluation.(SDR/TAC:IAR/01/24 Rev.1). TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.

Task Force on INRM (2000). Integrated Natural Resources Management Research in theCGIAR: A brief report on the INRM Workshop held in Penang, Malaysia, 21-25 August.

Thomas, R. (2002). Revisiting the conceptual framework for INRM developed in Penang andCali. In Turkelboom, F., LaRovere, R., Hageman, J., El-Khatib, R. and Jazeh, K. (eds) 2003.Putting INRM into Action. 4th INRM Workshop held at ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, September16-19, 2002. URL: http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/INRM/INRM4_Site.

towards integrated natural resource management research tt · integrated pest management (ipm)...

Documents