Fund Council. April 5-6, "CRP Integrated Agricultural Production Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable in Dry Areas Rationale"

Transcription

1 Fund Council 4 th Meeting (FC4) Montpellier, France April 5-6, 2011 "CRP Integrated Agricultural Production Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable in Dry Areas Rationale" (Presentation by Mahmoud Solh) Document presented for Agenda Item 8: CRP Integrated Agricultural Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable in Dry Areas Submitted by: ICARDA

2 CRP1.1: Integrated Agricultural Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable in Dry Areas Rationale Dry areas = water scarcity, limited and vulnerable natural resources, climatic variability, and a diverse and complex mix of pastoral, agro-pastoral, mixed rainfed and irrigated production systems requiring an integrated agro-ecosystems approach to research for development

3 Objectives & Target Impacts Two main target systems: o most vulnerable systems o systems with the greatest potential for impact Objectives: Sustainable productivity growth and intensified production systems at the farm and landscape levels More resilient dryland d agro-ecosystems that t can cope with climate variation and change Less vulnerable and improved rural livelihoods Agricultural innovations systems that improve the impact of research and development investments Target impacts address SRF System Level Outcomes (SLOs) Higher and more stable incomes; improved security of rural assets Improved crop and livestock productivity; reduced variability in dryland systems productivity Improved nutrition, especially amongst women and children Reduced environmental degradation, and improved and maintained productive quality of environmental resources. Picture: Impact Pathway as a spiral model of learning, growing.

4 Strategic Research Themes (SRT) 1. Approaches and models for strengthening innovation systems, building stakeholder innovation capacity, and linking knowledge to policy action 2. Reducing vulnerability and managing g risk = most vulnerable systems 3. Sustainable intensification for more productive, profitable and diversified dryland agriculture with well-established linkages to markets = high potential systems 4. Impact assessment and cross-regional synthesis to provide evidence to promote investment in dry areas What s New Integrated approach at landscape, system and community levels Scale: global, integrating regional programs of CG Centers and other CRPs & partners Benchmark areas and pilot locations linked to other CRPs Research on effective partnership strategies, linking research to development

5 Cross-cutting Themes: Gender Aim: Women participate i t fully in innovation processes, resulting in development and adoption of interventions that promote equitable benefits Objective: to better understand gender differences in access to resources and markets, and the suitability, adoption and impact of innovations, to ensure that women contribute to and benefit fully from research outputs. Approach: Mainstreaming of gender research, development of standardized indicators, methodology development, capacity strengthening, impact indicators and complementary strategies to improve gender-related outcomes Proposed activities include: o Inclusion of women in participatory research in target communities and areas. o Determination of gender differences in access to and control over resources that influence the uptake of technological and institutional innovations. o Study of gender roles and participation in value chains. o Examination of the role of local informal institutions along the value chain in providing services, loans, and information to women o Development of gender-disaggregated M&E indicators.

6 Capacity Strengthening Cross-cutting Themes Not only technical capacity, but building capacity to partner with others along the entire impact pathway Capacity strengthening in participatory and community- based approaches, and gender analysis Co-develop research and capacity strengthening programs with farming communities and local, regional and international partners Climate Change SRT2 specifically addresses how to adapt agricultural production to climatic variability. Other SRTs contribute to improved targeting of technologies and innovation systems. Opportunities: Local agrobiodiversity, which is adapted to harsh conditions, may provide options to improve adaptation to and mitigation of the effects of climate change. Indigenous knowledge and risk management methods will be evaluated and integrated with S&T innovations. The vast rangeland areas could potentially contribute to climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. Links to CRP7 (Annex 2 of proposal)

7 Partnerships and relations with other CRPs Principle: CRP1.1 1 will use flexible, inclusive i partnership arrangements to provide the expertise needed at each stage of the impact pathway. Partners: 9 CG Centers (ICARDA, ICRISAT, Bioversity, CIAT, CIP, ICRAF, ILRI, IWMI, WorldFish) Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program National agricultural research institutions & regional fora Community organizations and rural institutions Advanced research institutes in the North and the South Private sector Development agencies Priority 1 Priority 2 non-cgiar, non-crp R&D actors CGIAR and other CRP partners CRP s development partners Clearly identify responsibilities, accountabilities for outcomes (GCARD) Achieve (development) outcomes All research partners: CRP1.1, CG and non-cg Achieve (research) outcomes Devolve some research activities to NARS and move upstream (GCARD) Value chains are beyond the CGIAR s mandate (GCARD) Extension needs to be revived; identify research or TT bottlenecks to poverty alleviation (GCARD) In target region: poverty reduction impact through one CRP In target region: poverty reduction impact through several/all CRP s In target region: vertical upscaling = moving up to higher decision-making levels Outside target region: poverty reduction impact = outscaling (horizontal upscaling) Multi-stakeholder Inception Workshops will agree on: Each partner s role within the R4D pathway from identification of research needs to technology design, development, validation, implementation, testing and adoption Links to national development strategies t through h national policy & decision-makers i Monitoring and evaluation process: measurable indicators and milestones Collaboration with other CRPs: CRP1.1 1 will utilize outputs from other CRPs within its integrated regional benchmark areas, and will benefit from information, knowledge and tools developed by other CRPs CRP1.1 will provide other CRPs with feedback on their outputs performance in integrated research areas

8 M&E framework, performance indicators M&E system: To be developed and agreed upon with all partners = a key task at Regional Inception Workshops. Approach: Impact pathways will be analyzed to ensure that annual plans include intermediate measurable indicators of progress and milestones along the R&D continuum. M&E will include evaluation of economic, environmental and social indicators Performance indicators: o agricultural productivity; production system stability o rural livelihoods: income, nutrition, welfare o bio-geophysical indicators: biodiversity, soil and water parameters o number/gender of users of products o participants in capacity strengthening o policy advisories and policy-makers reached, etc. The development of International Public Goods at various scales will be an important performance indicator; Participatory approach: M&E and performance assessment will use a participatory approach

9 Governance and management Organization of CRP1.1 Consortium Board Performance Contract CRP Lead Center: ICARDA Lead Center: ICARDA Steering Committee: CGIAR Center DGs; CRP Leader, NARS leaders, ARI leaders, development partners Research Management Committee: CRP Leader (chair), Regional and Learning Site Coordinators Interdisciplinary Research Teams Independent Science Advisers Regional Stakeholder Advisory Committees Coordinator Region 1 Team 1 CG Centers ARIs NARS Steering Committee Research Management Committee Coordinator Region 2 Team 2 CG Centers ARIs NARS Coordinator Region 3 Team 3 CG Centers ARIs NARS Coordinator Region x Team x CG Centers ARIs NARS Leade ership & Ex xecution

10 Budget breakdown: Year 1 Object of expenditure USD '000 Personnel costs 12,786 Source US$ '000 CGIAR Fund (Window 1 & 2) 17,009 Current Restricted Donor Projects 17,296 Current Restricted Donor projects "cofinanced by unrestricted funding" 1,991 Travel 2,058 Operating expenses 8,316 Training/Workshops 1,446 Partners/Collaborators/Consultancies 4,537 Capital and other equipment 1,496 Contingency 562 Total direct costs 31,202 Other Income 1, Institutional overhead 6,226 Total funding 37,428 % budget allocation by region and research theme Strategic Research Themes Region SRT1 SRT2 SRT3 SRT4 Total West & Central Africa East & South Africa West Asia & North Africa South Asia Central Asia Latin America Total I i i l h d Total Program Costs 37,428

11 Potential risks and mitigation 1. Integrated systems research complexity: Due to the numerous interfaces between different system components, CRP1.1 is more complex and demanding, and therefore inherently more risky and difficult. The program will build on successful experiences in fostering integration, applying lessons learnt, to minimize these risks. 2. New partnership modes: Agro-ecosystem research requires new ways of working with partners all along the research and development continuum. The risk is that the learning process may take longer than expected, delaying the achievement of sizeable impacts. The program aims to mitigate this risk, first by strengthening capacity in working with different partners, and second by developing joint research on modes of partnerships along the impact pathway. This may entail involving new partners with the necessary skills to build that capacity. 3. Lack of political commitment and will to invest in the development of dry areas: Depends critically on mobilizing the involvement of policy-makers, and assured funding of the development activities (outside the funding for CRP1.1) 1) for scaling up and out research results and achieving impact. To reduce this risk, the program will involve policy makers and development agencies from the outset, and direct its research to providing the evidence that will promote greater investment in dry areas for economic growth

12 THANK YOU

13 Partnerships along the impact pathway Up to here, CRP will feature contractor and/or equal partner relationships Broken down per Strategic Research Theme Often a post-crp stage Research Design Stage Research Activities Stage Outputs Stage Outcomes Stage Impact Stage Mix of partners, engaged at different CRP stages Research Partners (upstream) Development Partners (downstream) Research Production Regional Org A, Farmers Group Y ARI, CG Centre, Regional Org, NARS X, Y Z Farmers Group Y, Z, A Farmers Group Y, Z, A, B At this stage, CRP may become a service provider to a Partner, who leads up-scaling Market Policy Producers Association X Ministry X, Int Org Y Initial CRP partners may bring in new partners Ministry X, Int Org Y Social, Political Change CSO, NGO X NGO X, Y NGO X, Y, Z Other Most (all?) partners need to be involved here