Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Transcription

1 Consutative Group on Internationa Agricutura Research Maiing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C , U.S.A. Office Location: th Street. N.W. Teephone, (Area Code 202) Cabe Address-INTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 202) From: The Secretariat October 19, 1994 ICw/94/21 Internationa Centers' Week Washinaton D.C. October 24-28, 1994 Soi, Water and Nutrient Manasement The Xschortau Pan During the 1994 CGIAF! Mid-Term Meeting, IBSBAM presented a position paper on soi, water, and nutrient management reeearch. This was discussed under the agenda item on Foow-Up to Agenda 21. The attached Pan of Action is the outcome of a subsequent joint DSE/IBSBAM workshop on "Soi, Water, and Nutrient Management Research: Environmenta and Productivity dimensions" which was hed from September 1994 in Zschortau, Germany. This paper is being circuated for your information. It wi be taken up for discussion under Other Business.

2 THE ZSCHORTAU PLAN INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT FACILITY: AN INTEGRATED PROGRAMME FOR SOIL, WATER AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ZSCHORTAU, Federa Repubic of Germany September, 1994

3 I. INTRODUCTION AGENDA 21 of the UN Conference on Environmenta Deveopment, and the internationa conventions on biodiversity, desertification and cimate change, have focus& attention on the need for action to avoid f&her deterioration of the environment, and particuary on the probems of and degradation. The recent conference on popuation in Cairo has aso directed attention to the difficuties of feeding the burgeoning popuation whie protecting and enhancing the environment, and the vita natura resources upon which agricuture depends. Soi, water, and nutrient management is a particuar concern of the internationa agricutura research COXWity. Many donor agencies want research on soi, water, and nutrient management strengthened in concert with the AGENDA 21 Action Pan. The DSIYIBSRAM workshop on Soi, Water, and Nutrient Management Research: Environmenta and Productivity Dimensions was hed from September 1994 in Zschortau, F RG. A tota of 47 participants were drawn from: nationa agricutura research systems (Asia, Latin America, and Africa), and users and nongovernment organizations (Asia, and Latin America); advanced research organizations (Austraia, France, Germany, UK, and USA); internationa agricutura research centres (CIAT, IBSRAM, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IFDC, IITA, IMMI, TSBF); FAO; TAC Secretariat; and donor agencies (UNDP, ACIAR, BMZ, CID& French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, GTZ, NORAGRIC, ODA, SDC, USAID). Participants traveed from 22 different countries to attend the meeting. The meeting was designed to foow up on the IBSRAM position paper - Soi, Water, and Nutrient Management Research - A New Agenda. The.purpose of the meeting was to deveop an action pan that: - proposed research consortia on important themes; - reviewed and synthesised improved approaches for undertaking research on soi, water, and nutrient management; - deveoped a mechanism to organize it effectivey and efficienty and support and harmonise the work of the consortia; and ink many institutions in a common endeavour. The action pan was produced through a programme invoving two days of presentations foowed by three days of intensive working group discussions and report writing. The summary of the agreed action pan - the Zschortau Pan - was presented to Dr. Car-Dieter Spranger, Minister of BMZ, at the cosing session of the workshop. 2

4 I. ACTION PLAN Action to Deveop an Internationa Sustainabe Land Management Faciity and Programme The Zschortau Workshop has deveoped an action pan to estabish a harmonised programme of sustainabe and management, according to the concepts described in the attached papers. The foowing actions are proposed to impement the proposas made at the meeting: 1. A group of consortia, consisting of and users, nationa deveopment and extension services, nationa and internationa research organisations, and others, shoud be formed immediatey to make existing research resuts work for the and user, and to identify and conduct the new research that is needed. 2. Consortia on the foowing probems of high priority shoud be formed immediatey: bioogica management of soi productivity; environmenta management of acid sois; conservation and environmenta management of soping and steepands; sustainabe management of the desert margins of sub-saharan Africa. (And others as priorities are identified.) In addition the existing Aternatives to Sash and Bum, and Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems initiatives, shoud be invited to be incuded in the Programme. Panning meetings to deveop the detais of the activities of each of these consortia shoud be hed as soon as possibe. 3. The CGIAR shoud be approached to estabish the Faciity and Programme, as a new venture, in which CGIAR and noncgiar institutions, UN organisations, NABS, NGOs, farmers groups and others are inked in a common endeavour. It is suggested that the CGIAR considers this approach as a bueprint for other inter-centre programmes in which noncgiar organ&ions are invoved to a major extent. 4. Subject to agreement on estabishing the Faciity, IBSRAM shoud be asked to advance fbrther action on a contractua basis. 5. IBSIUM shoud convene a meeting of the Programme Committee appointed by the CGIAR to discuss coectivey with the conveners of the proposed consortia and other interested organisations as soon as possibe, and determine with them pans for estabishment and deveopment of the consortia. 6. IBSRAM, on behaf of the Programme Committee, shoud identify and appoint an Executive Secretary for the Programme. 3

5 6.1 The Executive Secretary shoud identify accommodation for the Secretariat, on the basis of discussions with the Programme Committee. 6.2 The Executive Secretary shoud promote the deveopment of the consortia, and of the staff and other faciities needed for the Secretariat to support the activities of the consortia. 6.3 The Executive Secretary shoud make appropriate arrangements for tinding the support to the consortia, and the continued work of the Secretariat. 7. The cost of initiating consortia is estimated to be US$0.6m and further activities might require US$ 1 to 2m for each consortium. The budget required to fimd the Faciity is forecast to grow from US$O.47m in year I, to US$O.74 in year III. The funds, additiona to those that can be suppied by the CG, shoud be sought now,

6 III. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Need for a New Initiative The goba community has defined a set of chaenges in AGENDA 21, incuding the two conventions on deserttication and biodiversity and the recent Cairo conference on popuation and deveopment. These chaenges point to the need for continuing increases in agricutura production to feed the burgeoning word popuation whist sustaining the natura resource base. The probems are most acute in the ess-deveoped countries where popuation increase is often most rapid, per capita food production is faing, and natura resource degradation is acceerating. The research community must meet these chaenges with a new agenda which integrates the continuing need for increased productivity with a sustainabe means of and management. An essentia component of such a strategy is the deveopment of improved methods for the management of soi, water, and nutrients. As emphasized in the IBSRAM position paper on soi, water, and nutrient management (Greenand et a., 1994) soi degradation processes, such as erosion, acidification, deforestation, and sainisation, are widespread in tropica regions. Soi and nutrient oss are aso responsibe for downstream sitation and deteriorating water quaity probems; in sum, these degradative processes have contributed to the downward. spira of the poverty trap. High quaity, strategic and appied soi, water, and nutrient management research is conducted by NARES throughout the tropica regions and is aso part of the agenda of many internationa research organizations. There remains, however, a ack of coordination between their activities, resuting in overap, inefficienty used resources and imited impact on the end-users. This action pan cas for integration of activities of the research community and for the deveopment of a new paradigm for research on sustainabe and management that meets the twin needs of increased productivity and resource conservation. Greenand, D.J., Bowen, G., Eswaran, H., Rhoades, R., and Vae-ntin, C Soi, Water, and Nutrient Management Research-A New Agenda. IBSRAM. Bangkok, 72~. 5

7 2. Programme Goa The Programme aims to reduce rura poverty by sustainaby increasing productivity whie conserving and enhancing and and water resources through a coordinated, internationa coaition of users, poicy-makers, and scientists. The initiative wi contribute to the achievement of this goa by generating sustainabe anduse systems and technoogies. 3. Research Approach Land and water degradation is essentiay driven by socioeconomic forces and underinformed government poicies. A new research approach must be designed and impemented which finds soutions to both socioeconomic and technica probems in an integrated and hoistic manner. This must invove a participatory research process which begins and ends with and and water users (pastoraists, farmers, horticuturists, and foresters). Hence, researchers must rethink and reorientate conventiona approaches by: - buiding research on oca users knowedge and probem definition; - systematicay targeting research on sites which are representative of widespread SWNM probems; - focussing activity where there is a promise of a reativey high pay-off for investment in terms of enhanced productivity and environmenta sustainabiity; - inking strategic research more effectivey to adaptive research to monitor and improve the resource base ; - forming effective research aiances with government and nongovernment organizations at both the oca and internationa eve. Research on specific themes, seected using the above criteria, is best conducted by consortia comprising nationa and internationa research organizations, NGOs, and farmers groups which span the research and deveopment process. Comparative research advantages at each eve are enhanced; the main focus is mutua probem soving invoving continuous contact with the end-user. This approach is cost effective as it reduces dupication and produces synergy by drawing on the comparative strengths of the different members. It is cemented by the concept of shared ownership, methods and resuts. 6

8 4. Projects Proposed to Meet the Programme Goa Six thrusts have been seected which address major thematic opportunities in soi, water, and nutrient management research and which target agroecoogica zones of critica importance. Two have aready been initiated, namey the internationa initiatives on Aternatives to Sash and Bum and on Sustaining Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems. Four new consortia are proposed: Bioogica Management of Soi Productivity Environmenta Management of Acid Sois Conservation and Environmenta Management of Soping and Steepands Sustainabe Management of the Desert Margins of Sub-Saharan Africa Outine proposas for the four new consortia are attached as Annex 1. Later initiatives might target the foowing: Ameioration and/or Prevention of Sainity and Sodicity Probems of Irrigated sois Maintenance of the Production Potentia of Sois in Mediterranean-type Ecosystems 5. Harmonisation of Activities To deiver the resuts of research to the and user, it is essentia that proper inkages occur not ony between research, extension, and deveopment organisations but aso between these and the and user. The consortium approach shoud ensure that those directy invoved wi share these inkages. Many other nationa and internationa organisations shoud benefit from the work conducted by the consortia. The activities of the different consortia aso need to be harmonised to form a coherent approach with the aim of ensuring that the whoe has a greater impact than the sum of the parts. To do this, a sma secretariat is proposed, serving a Programme Committee which has overa responsibiity for harmonisation between consortia. The faciity wi aso provide a range of technica support services reating to aspects common to a consortia which might incude: - access to data bases, particuary in grey iterature areas; - information on research in progress and resuts achieved in the fieds covered by the consortia; - pubication and discussion of resuts; 7

9 methodoogica guideines; training. 6. Outputs, Uptake, and Impact... The experimenta resuts obtained, the demonstrations staged for users, and the information deivered to extensionists are quantifiabe outputs from the project. A measure of success of the project is the extent of uptake of the outputs by the end-users, e.g., trees panted, fieds restored, terraces buit, new varieties adopted. The impact is best assessed by a wide range of indicators such as actua sustainabe yied, biodiversity increased, rura incomes enhanced, soi and water quaity improved, etc. 7. Indicative Budget The indicative budget has two major components:--first, funds which pass to the consortia for panning, research work, and management costs; second, funds which are required for harmonisation between consortia and for technica support. These figures are incuded as an approximate guide to anticipated costs. Commitments wi depend on the rate of deveopment of consortia activities and decisions of the Programme Committee regarding the demand for common support faciities.

10 Tabe 1. Indicative budget for research and operations. US% K --- -_--_-_ Yr 1 Yr2 Yr3 Consortia research* Panning Consortium activities we Consortia management Subtota 600 m 9400 * Tota cost for four cmsortia. It is agreed that this wi require co-funding. Support faciity Executive secretary Programme officer Information officer Training officer Office staff Accommodation Meetings, trave etc. Services Subtota _ I GRAND TOTAL 1,070 6,660 10,140

11 Annex I Projects proposed to meet the programme goa Six thrusts have been seected which address major thematic opportunities in soi, water, and nutrient management research and which target agroecoogica zones of critica importance. Two have aready been initiated, namey the internationa initiatives on Aternatives to Sash and Bum and on Intensive Rice-Wheat Production systems. Four new opportunities are proposed on: Bioogica Management of Soi Productivity - Goa- Food security and farm income increased and and degradation reduced in the moist savanna zones of Africa. Overa obiectives: To improve productivity by increasing nutrient-use efficiency and soi organic-. matter status by the integrated use of organic and inorganic inputs. Geographica focus: Primariy the moist savanna zones of West, East, and southern Africa on nonacid sois, with additiona activities in other projects. Convening organisations: TSBF, IFDC, KARI, and IAR Environmenta Management of Acid Sois Goa- - Environmenta protection achieved and food production increased in acid soi savannas. Overa obiective: To deveop environmentay sound technoogies for agricutura production on acid soi savannas which increase food production whie sequestering carbon in soi beow the pough ayer. 10

12 GeomaDhica focus: Primariy the acid soi savannas of Latin America with additiona activities in Asia and Af?ica. Convenina oraanisations: CIAT and Eh4BRAPA Conservation and Environmenta Management of Soping and Steepands L Goa. Land degradation and downstream effects from soi erosion reduced and productivity sustainaby enhanced on soping and steepands. Overa obiective: To deveop, evauate, and vaidate fanner-acceptabe conservation technoogies which increase the productivity and maintain the productive potentia of farming systems on soping and steepands, thus providing a basis for technoogy transfer. Geoaraphica focus: Primariy Asia with additiona activities in the Andean Region and Centra America, and in East Africa. Convening oraanisations: IBSRAM andpcarrd Sustainabe Management of the Desert Margins of Sub-Saharan Africa Goa: Land degradation and desertification arrested and improved soi, water, and nutrient managementechnoogies adapted in the sub-saharan tropics. Overa obiective: To contribute to the. adoption of poicies which promote the impementation of integrated soi, water, and nutrient management practices which prevent and degradation and increase agricutura productivity. Geomaphica focus: The desert margins of West, East, and southern Africa. 11

13 Convening organisations: ICRISAT and Niger NARES To effectivey impement the work required for each thrust, consortia incuding nationa and internationa organisations wi be estabished which buid on and integrate existing networks and projects in each region. 12

14 STRENGTEENING CONSORTIA: ORGANISATION AND BUILDING LINKAGES BETWEEN CONSORTIA. Eric T. Craswe, ACIAR, Canberra. My starting point for these comments is that most consortia on soi water and nutrient management (SWNM) have the foowing characteristics. 1. m is to improve the economic we being of deveoping country farmers and their famiies whie maintaining or improving the resource base and the quaity of the environment. 2. Focus on a high priority SWNM probem on an ecoregiona or goba scae. 3. Particination incudes : Nationa Agricutura Research and Extension Systems (NARES) that, in ine with their own program priorities, are activey invoved in appied and adaptive research on the focus probem. Internationa Agricuture Research Centres (IARCs) that incude the focus probem in their mandate and are active in appied and strategic research. Advanced Research Organisations (AROs) that are activey invoved in strategic research on the probem. 4. Financia SUDDO~~ comes from reguar on-going core funding sources for the NARES, IARC s and AROs. donor agencies that support the research of the participants and the cataysis and co-ordination of the research through the consortium mechanism. 5. A research paradigm based on an inter-discipinary approach and on farmer participation as major guiding principes. Strong inputs from the socia sciences, incuding farming systems and economic poicy experts are required. 6. Outnuts of the consortia incude: impacts on farmer practices that conserve natura resources and protect the environment improved and appropriate technoogies for SWNM Paper presented at the DSE-IBSRAM Workshop on Soi Water and Nutrient Management Research: Environmenta and Productivity Dimensions, hed in Zschortau, Germany on September

15 L improved methods for conducting research on SWNM probems new knowedge of the state of the resource base and constraints to sustainabe agricuture improved capacity of NARES to undertake effective SWNM research. Greenand et a (1994) envisage seven SWNM consortia but more are currenty on the drawing boards and additiona consortia wi doubtess emerge from this meeting. The creation of so many consortia over a reativey short period creates an idea opportunity to organ&e and co-ordinate this goba effort in ways that maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the consortia and the impacts of the investments of human and financia resources. This paper considers first the advantages and disadvantages of harmonising between the consortia, then considers mechanisms for organising the harmonisation. Harmon&ion between Consortia The dictionary definition of the term harmonisation impies bringing into agreement. In the current fbnding cimate for internationa agricutura research, I beieve that just agreement between the consortia wi not be enough. Added vaue or svnerrzv shoud be a nrereauisite of anv harmonisation mechanism. If a mechanism cannot add vaue it shoud not be estabished. Arguments for and against harmonisation can be considered under the foowing headings. 1. Probem Focus - The foci of the consortia currenty under deveopment in the CGIAR were defined in the context of the TAC ecoregiona mode for research on natura resources and of the report of the task force on the foow up to Agenda 21, and a number of activities are in progress in the non-associated centres. TAC medium term pan for the CGIAR system incuded 7 ecoregiona and one cross-ecoregiona program the CGIAR Task Force on Agenda 21 Foow-Up aso recommended topics as the focus for the CGIAR response - the SWNM paper proposes 7 high priority research areas IBSRAM currenty manages 5 soi management networks IFDC and TSBF co-ordinate networks on fertiisers and soi fertiity In the most recent deveopment, TAC reviewed 17 ecoregiona and system-wide research programs, and recommended 14 for funding from the CGIAR in This proiferation of SWNM networks and consortia activities inside the CGIAR is wecome for the extra resources brought to bear on important probems. However, the uncoordinated approach to probem definition in the many consortia mentioned above has ed them to cover topics and geographic areas that ceary overap on the one hand, and may ead to the negect of other important topics on the other. The Agenda 21 Task Force of the CGIAR recommended GIS as a means of better defining the scope of the IARC programs but currenty no one institution has responsibiity for keeping track of the scope of the various consortia under deveopment. The advantages of harmonisation between consortia in overcoming these probems by woud be to

16 reduce overaps and gaps in research. Disadvantages woud be any reduction in competition between Centres and programs for donor support and donor aversion to centraised contro on their freedom to support particuar programs. 2. Particination - The uncoordinated proiferation of consortia wi pace demands on NAPES that the weaker systems, particuary in A&a and the Pacific, find difficut to hande. The ecoregiona approach to research was originay advocated by TAC as a means of coordinating the approach of IARCs to the NAPES. Currenty however there is no mechanism for co-ordinating the ecoregiona and cross ecoregiona programs to achieve this. For their part, some of the IARCs are finding that the demands of buiding consortia are diverting by research staff from their reguar research programs and activities. Many IARCs do not have the necessary discipinary expertise to undertake research on a of the priority natura resources issues. Such IARCs convening consortia must utiise the coaborative advantage gained through strategic aiances with other IARCs, incuding the non associated Centres such as IBSRAM and IFDC, which speciaise in soi and nutrient issues. On the other hand, invoving too many institutions may diute the effort, so participation of IARCs and AROs in consortia shoud be based on the comnarative advantage of the institution and the specia competence that each can bring to the common goa. The advantages of harmonisation between consortia woud be to reduce pressures on NAPES by decreased competition between IARCs seeking their invovement in consortia, to reduce the need for IARC scientists to spend time re-inventing modes for the effective operation of consortia, and to maximise the use and effectiveness of the speciaised soi, water and nutrient management institutions. 3. Financia Support - the resource endowment of NARES varies consideraby across the different regions. Some NAPES receive strong support from their own government for domestic research but are unabe to participate in internationa programs without a cataytic input of funds. Some NAREZS have access to oan fimds from deveopment banks that the Word Bank, for one, has recenty expanded dramaticay but these funds cannot normay be used to fimd the trave and co-ordination costs of participation by NARES in consortia. The IARCs aso need extra funds for participation in Consortia. Harmonisation of funding between consortia woud ead to a more equitabe and better coordinated distribution of funds. Directed funding is the most effective way of ensuring that harmonisation between consortia occurs. Some individua consortia have donor support groups that can be effective means of information exchange and donor co-ordination. An umbrea donor support group, perhaps in the form of a committee of the CGIAR, woud provide a means of harmonisation of funding between consortia. 4. Paradiam - IARCs and NAPES admit that they are feeing their way in deaing with the evoving paradigm for SWNM research. In the past, research by soi scientists and other natura resource scientists has produced arge voumes of pubications and reports but few of the resuts have been put into practice. On the other hand farmer participatory research, athough widey recommended, does not have a proven track record of impact on farmers. If the many IARCs and NARJZS invoved in SWNM consortia independenty deveop their own paradigm, they may end up in the same bind aeys and against the same brick was. The advantages of harmonisation are that experiences woud be shared more effectivey and feed

17 into an enhanced research paradigm. The disadvantage is that too much harmonisation might stymie innovation and reduce opportunities for serendipity. 5. Strategic Research The highest risk of overap in research by the different consortia ies at the strategic end of the spectrum where IARCs and AROs have their comparative advantage. Some key strategic research areas in which overap coud occur are: Land resources and and use Methodoogy for geographic information systems and remote sensing; Agro ecoogica characterisation; e Evauation of and use potentia; Land use management. Soi Fertiitv and Management Physics of soi crusting; Chemistry of soi acidity; s Bioogica nitrogen fixation; Soi and Water Conservation Dynamics of nutrients in variabe charge sois; Methods for studying nutrient cycing; Modeing of nutrient fows in soi-crop systems; Microbioogy of the rhizosphere incuding V.A. mycorrhiza; Chemistry of phosphate fertiizer reactions in soi. Catchment hydroogy modes of upands in reation to vegetation; Modehng of soi erosion processes; Modeing the reationship between soi. oss and productivity decine. Methods for measuring ong-term sustainabiity. Referring to the experience of ACIAR, I woud ike to point out that our biatera research projects have addressed a number of these topics, and ie other donors we woud ike to see the resuts utiised widey to maximise the spiover effects of our investments in the NARES

18 5 and Austraian AROs that we have supported. Reinventing the whee on every continent in every anguage on goba issues such as acid soi management shoud be avoided through effective dissemination of research resuts. Strategic research on the topics isted above is needed to underpin severa of the consortia under deveopment. A particuary important area with widespread reevance for harmonisation is the deveopment of internationay accepted methods to assess the sustainabiity of and management practices such as the Framework for the Evauation of Sustainabe Land Management deveoped by IBSRAM and FAO. The advantages of harmonisation between consortia in strategic research are that overap woud be reduced, methodoogy standardised, and resources assigned more effectivey to negected areas. Mechanisms for Harmonisation Since the SWNM consortia are argey within the CGIAR system, modes for co-ordination currenty used in the CGIAR are probaby most reevant. 1. The CGIAR has recenty estabished standing committees that are responsibe, amongst other things, for reviewing the Group s mechanisms for decision making on financia and program issues. In the current re-structuring of the CGIAR systems for financia and program management, improved mechanisms for decision making on SWNM consortia may emerge. 2. x is responsibe for advising CGIAR about programs and budgets. With the introduction of system-wide and ecoregiona programs in the CGIAR, TAC has had to take responsibiity for reviewing and approving specific consortia programs submitted by the CGIAR Centres. TAC is currenty undertaking a strategic review of research on soi, water and nutrient management. 3. The Committee of Centre Directors has responded to cas for better co-ordination of IARC programs by designating particuar Centres as ead Centre for a specific program areas. CIAT may be designated as ead Centre for SWNM research. This approach is ceary a usefu approach for the Centres within the CGIAR but excudes Centres outside the CGIAR such as the reevant non-associated Centres, IBSRAM, IFDC and TSBF which speciaise in SWNM. 4. The Genetic Resources Initiative in the CGIAR has a number of features that may be reevant to the harmonisation of consortia on soi, water and nutrient management. The integrated CGIAR system-wide program on genetic resources is ed by the Internationa Pant Genetics Resources Institute which works with an Inter centre Working Group on Genetic Resources that provides advice on poicy, strategy and management of genetic resources. The arguments advanced by TAC for the system-wide initiative are that the CGIAR is a eading actor on genetic resource conservation with a broad scae of activities, has wide knowedge of ways in which resources are characterised, evauated and utiised and needed a centra oversight of the coective responsibiity to safeguard the System s genetic resources commitment and to be abe to speak for the whoe system.. Simiar arguments coud be advocated for a system-wide approach to SWNM research with the important distinction that soi and water resources are dispersed and are not coected in gene banks. The key activities

19 6 of the Initiative incude a genetic resources information network, a pubic awareness program and the management of a fimd for coaboration of genetic resources activities. 5. The Integrated Pest Management Faciity is a new creation of an interagency task force invoving FAO, the Word Bank UNDP and UNEP. The key activities of the IPM Faciity are; catayse and faciitate consutations and coaboration amongst nationa and internationa agencies invoved in IPM identify, assembe and faciitate the preparation of a portfoio of IPM projects for investment by nationa, biatera and mutiatera funding agencies faciitate a sma set of piot projects to provide a foundation for arger IPM projects document, anayse and evauate IPM projects to provide best practices, poicy and management options advise and assist nationa programs on request to design, impement and evauate IPM projects - identify specific scientific, technica, socia and poitica constraints to IPM impementation and propose soutions to those constraints The IPM faciity wi have a Scientific and Poicy Advisory Pane to oversee the program and advise the cosponsors and wi draw on existing networks of individuas and agencies activey invoved in IPM programs. Concusions There are compeing arguments for harmonising between SWNM consortia. In the current cimate of reduced funding for internationa agricutura research, efficiencies must be activey sought. However the bureaucratic overburden must be minimised. My own assessment is that SWNM consortia woud benefit greaty from a sma faciitation unit that draws on the principes underpinning the genetic resources and IPM programs discussed above. In the case of SWNM, internationa co-ordination woud especiay benefit from the impementation of a system based on the concept of natura resource management domains to provide a framework for transferring resuts across the gobe. References Greenand, D.J., Bowen, G., Eswaran, H., Rhoades, R., and C. Vaentin Soi Water and Nutrient Management Research - A New Agenda. IBSRAM Position Paper, Internationa Board for Soi Research and Management, Bangkok, Thaiand.