Fund Council 4th Meeting (FC4)—Montpellier, France April 5-6, 2011 CRP 5 Full Proposal (Working Document - For Discussion Only) Document presented for Agenda Item 13: CRP 5 - Water, Land and Ecosystems Submitted by: IWMI Table of Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... v Gender and equity .................................................................................................................. viii Part 1 – CRP5 Main Proposal ..................................................................................................... 1 Part 2: Strategic Research Portfolio ......................................................................................... 30 A Quick View ......................................................................................................................... 30 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................... 34 Revitalizing irrigation in Asia and Africa .................................................................................. 34 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................... 48 Unlocking the potential of rainfed agriculture through integrated land and water management within social-ecological landscapes................................................................... 48 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................... 64 Pastoral systems ...................................................................................................................... 64 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................... 74 Groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods security ............................ 74 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................... 87 Resource recovery from solid and liquid waste streams for enhanced food security ............ 87 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................. 103 Improved management of water and land resources in major agricultural river basins ...... 103 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................. 116 Improved ecosystem services and resilience ........................................................................ 116 Strategic Research Portfolio: ................................................................................................. 136 Information systems for land, water and ecosystems .......................................................... 136 Part 3: Strategies, Management and Budget ........................................................................ 151 Mainstreaming gender and equity in CPR5 ........................................................................... 157 Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment ................................................................... 161 Marketing, communications and knowledge management .................................................. 164 Governance and management .............................................................................................. 166 Integration with other CRPs ................................................................................................... 171 Risk Management Strategy .................................................................................................... 175 BUDGET .................................................................................................................................. 176 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 176 Essential Budget Requirements .......................................................................................... 177 Budget assumptions ........................................................................................................... 178 Coordination and management ......................................................................................... 178 Gender and Equity .............................................................................................................. 179 Capacity Building ................................................................................................................ 179 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning ................................................................................. 179 Marketing, Communication and Knowledge Management ............................................... 180 i Regional growth for enhanced delivery ............................................................................. 181 Budget allocations .............................................................................................................. 183 Workplan ............................................................................................................................ 186 Annex 1 Recognizing regional priorities .................................................................... 189 Annex 2 Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas .................... 191 Annex 3 Ecosystems Lessons Learned ........................................................................ 201 Annex 4 List of Acronyms ............................................................................................. 205 Annex 5 Workshop Participants ................................................................................ 2097 Annex 6 Complimentaries between CRP 1.5 and CRP 5……………………………………..……..209 Annex 7 References ....................................................................................................... 186 Part 1 ................................................................................................................................... 186 Part 2 ................................................................................................................................... 187 ii Foreword Sustainable management of the natural resource base supporting agriculture is one of the three major strategic objectives of the CGIAR. Water, Land and Ecosystems combines the resources of fourteen CG partners and numerous external partners to provide an integrated approach to natural resources management (INRM) research and delivery of its outputs (14 CG Centers). We are united in the belief that overcoming natural resource management problems and adapting to climate change will only be achieved by understanding and managing the dynamics of water and nutrient flows across the whole landscape and through the complete hydrological cycle. Solutions to water access, land degradation, nutrient management and ecosystem services have to be developed with a view to what works for communities across landscapes, not just what works on the farm. Water, Land and Ecosystems focuses on three critical issues: water scarcity, land degradation and ecosystem services. It differs from crop based programs in that it takes a river basin and landscape view to provide solutions to widespread soil fertility decline, land degradation including erosion and salinization, and the critical phenomenon of water scarcity. Where other CGIAR Research Programs focus at field and farm level, Water, Land and Ecosystems (CRP5) will consider ways in which resources can be equitably accessed and shared and better managed and governed using evidence-based approaches that facilitate greater food production, improved livelihoods and sustainable delivery of ecosystem services including clean water and habitat. CRP5 will link strongly with CRP 1 (with respect to on-farm management of natural resources); CRP 2 (with respect to a range of macroeconomic policy, social protection, and other issues that are necessary for sustainable agricultural productivity enhancement for poverty reduction); CRP3 (on relationships between water productivity, water use and water access); CRP 6 (on the relationship between forest cover and water resources availability and quality); and CRP 7 (on how water availability and use will have to be adapted to climate change impacts). Partnerships will be enhanced by the continued development of strong research and research delivery partnerships such as those we enjoy with FAO and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Both have been invited to be members of the Steering Committee and FAO has already offered to form strong collaborative links with over $30M of ongoing projects. Similarly, we will be building on the numerous existing partnerships within Strategic Research Portfolios to ensure that program outputs are turned into impact via three different, but complementary pathways that focus on the NARES, policy reform and private sector links. iii The most significant challenge facing this program is that of helping farmers and governments deal with impending water scarcity. Dealing with a predicted 50% gap between water supply and demand in India by 2030, exemplifies this challenge. A second major challenge involves ‘insuring’ rainfed farmers in Africa and elsewhere against climate change and drought impacts, which will require combined work on soil fertility and soil water management and, potentially, supplementary irrigation. Coping with looming shortfalls in phosphatic fertilizers and learning how to manage wastes as a source of nutrients are also critical challenges for the program. Last, but not least, an ongoing challenge will be ensuring that we manage our agricultural landscapes and urban waste water discharges in such a way that we can maintain ecosystem services and minimize land and water degradation in ways that ensure equiable benefits for poor women and men. These challenges have been greeted enthusiastically by our centres and reiterated in discussion with partners and stakeholders at regional level and in electronic fora organized to formulate the Water, Land and Ecosystems program. They are immense challenges, but we believe that through our process of scaling up research outputs from research hubs, we can overcome them and contribute to a more sustainable planet, even in the face of increased food and water demand. Equally importantly, we contend that we can conservatively improve the livelihoods of 500 million poor women and men through the successful outcomes of this research program. Dr Colin Chartres (IWMI) Dr Alain Vidal (CPWF) Dr Mahmoud Solh (ICARDA) Dr Ruben Echeverria (CIAT) Dr Willie Dar (ICRISAT) Dr Emile Frison (Bioversity) Dr Dennis Garrity (ICRAF) Dr Carlos Seré (ILRI) Dr Papa Seck (Africa Rice) Dr Pamela Anderson (CIP) Dr Stephen Hall (WorldFish) Dr Peter Hartman (IITA) Dr Shanggen Fan (IFPRI) Dr Bob Zeigler (IRRI) iv Executive Summary Over the last 40 years, we have moved relatively quickly from a world of land, water and ecosystem abundance to one of increasing scarcity. With our increased knowledge has come a growing awareness in many quarters that planetary thresholds have been reached or breached for river, groundwater and soil resources in many parts of the world (Rockström et al., 2009). There is also a growing realization that we can no longer view water and land as either inexhaustible or ‘free’ inputs to a global food production system; we can no longer assume the environment will continue to provide the services that support agriculture; and we can no longer continue to pursue a vision of agricultural productivity based on yields at the expense of social equity or ecosystem resilience or sustainability, but must broaden the range of benefits to society as a whole. The problem The world needs dramatic advances in both poverty reduction and food production, but many of the practices we currently use to increase food production damage the resource base upon which agriculture depends and do little to alleviate poverty or address issues of gender and equity. Therefore, while we continue to work on the short-term gains, we need to be implementing holistic solutions based on principles of integrated natural resources management that ensure long-term growth and well being for people and the environment. CRP5 is designed to manage this balance as we shift from the former to the latter paradigm for agriculture, poverty alleviation and equity. Currently, there is a major gap in natural resource management research and development programs in many countries. Institutionally, resource sectors are separated and few pay much attention to issues of impending scarcity, degradation and management of the environment. Gender, age and caste/class inequities in natural resource management are widespread, and formal sectors often lack the capacity to bring local level knowledge and expertise into natural resource management solutions. Interdisciplinary research within an adaptive management framework is required to unravel these complexities and to develop a set of evidence-based solutions. Goal and outcomes The overall goal of CRP5 is to sustainably improve livelihoods, reduce poverty, redress gender inequities and ensure food security through research-based solutions to water scarcity, land degradation and ecosystems sustainability. CRP5 includes a theory of change and mechanisms for adaptive learning and indicators to ensure that research moves towards:  Improved natural resource governance (resource access, allocation, policies and regulation) to benefit all users and the environment. v  Natural resource governance and management systems that are equitable and inclusive of women and men (young and elderly) and offer more equitable distribution of benefits.  More efficient and ‘smart’ use of scarce resources including water, energy and nutrients via reuse and recycling.  Improving water and land productivity in rainfed, pastoral and irrigated agricultural systems.  Revitalizing irrigation systems through interventions in governance, infrastructure, capacity building and management.  Sustainable groundwater use via increased technical and social knowledge, better governance and management.  Decision making on natural resource management at all scales informed by evidence-based information products co-created with stakeholders.  An improved natural resource base for agriculture that can sustainably deliver vital ecosystem services via reversal of land and water degradation in selected environments. Delivering research results The core of the CRP5 research program is a set of eight problem sets, relevant in regions where there are high levels of poverty and degradation. Problem sets are treated as Strategic Research Portfolios (SRP), each of which integrates issues of governance, gender, socio-economics with soils, water and ecosystems. Based on extensive consultations, participating partners believe that solutions to these problem sets have the greatest potential for effecting change. CRP5 Strategic Research Portfolios deliver outputs that lead to solutions for: 1. revitalization of existing irrigation in Asia, and making better investments in new irrigation in Africa and Latin America (SRP Revitalizing Irrigation); 2. improving soil fertility and land and water management to unlock the potential of rainfed agriculture while reversing trends of ecosystem degradation (SRP Rainfed); 3. changing land and water management practices to better support pastoral livelihoods (SPRP Pastoral); 4. making groundwater use sustainable (SRP Groundwater); 5. enhancing food security and less environmental contamination by recovering nutrients and other resources from solid and liquid waste streams (SRP Resource Recovery & Reuse); 6. managing water and land resources in major agricultural river basins in ways that meet the needs of people and ecosystems (SRP Basins); 7. using soil, water and ecosystem information and knowledge systems to generate information for evidence-based policy recommendations and support implementation, out-scaling, control and evaluation (SRP Information); and vi 8. improving ecosystem services to increase resilience and provide male and female farmers, fishers and pastoralists with production systems that have increased adaptability to environmental change (SRP Ecosystems). Detailed outputs are listed for each Strategic Research Portfolio in the research program section of this proposal. Impact pathways are presented for each SRP that lead to program level outcomes. Where and how CRP5 works The map below, based on existing projects, shows where CRP5 will continue to work. These areas, characterized by high levels of poverty and resource degradation, offer the highest potential for gains in food production and poverty reduction. CRP5 delivers impact through its research at sites in regions. It delivers international public goods to help other regions deal with similar problems. In regions where we work, there are unique problem sets characterized by high degrees of poverty, scarcity and degradation. Because the character of the problem set varies from region to region, various combinations of Strategic Research Portfolios are tailored by region to meet these needs. Critical to CRP5 will be analyses that demonstrate how diverse land uses across landscapes and basins interact to impact on the natural resource base that sustains agriculture and ecosystems and how governance and management can improve sustainability and livelihoods. The conceptual framework, theory of change, impact pathways and management and monitoring mechanisms ensure that Strategic Research Portfolios within a region work collaboratively (not as silos) and that work across regions is integrated into global public goods. vii Gender and equity CRP5 commits financial and staff support to ensure that gender and equity issues are given the attention they warrant. Both agriculture and natural resource management are strongly shaped by the dynamics of power relations within communities. Communities themselves are heterogeneous and differentiated along the lines of gender, wealth, caste, class, ethnicity and age. Much of how resources are divided, shared and used between different groups is determined along these lines, making them fundamental variables in determining both poverty levels and potential poverty solutions. CRP5 will become an important source of scientific evidence for partners addressing these issues in the social and political arena. Management CRP5 has a simple, cost effective management mechanism that relies on the existing capacities of participating centers and institutes. It is designed to minimize transaction costs and maximize ownership, transparency and participation. The governance and management structure includes a Steering Committee, Management Committee and Science and Partnership Advisory Committee. CRP5 will have one lead center (IWMI) accountable to the Consortium Board. Governance, fiduciary oversight and financial management of the main performance contract for CRP5 will be the responsibility of the lead center (i.e. there will not be a separate board). The lead center will manage performance contracts with other centers and institutes responsible for leading Strategic Research Portfolios. Budget The five year budget request is $537 million. This is based on the value of the existing portfolio, plus increases to support enhanced delivery of outputs in the Strategic Research Portfololio, capacity building, gender research, and monitoring and evaluation. Enhancment delivery is detailed in the Budget section. Funding to support partnerships is projected to increase from a present level of 29% to 35%. FAO has offered to link with CRP with matching funds of $33 million over a three-year period. How CRP5 adds value Few research organizations can bring together the scale or scope of partnerships the CRP5 can leverage; few others aim to transfer lessons learned in one part of the world to another; and few are dedicated to the creation of global public goods. Whilst there are research groups and universities working in complementary areas to the CGIAR, these are usually project and location based. CRP5 complements the natural resource management work of national researchers by exchanging lessons learned and bringing in ideas from the global community. Through new and strengthened partnership networks, CRP5 will help strengthen links among and between universities, national research institutions, and global groups and meet viii some of the growing demands from the NGO community, the private sector and governments for credible scientific information and policy advice. This offers a significant opportunity for the CGIAR and partners, via the integration of its natural resources management work in CRP5, to take international leadership in efforts to balance agricultural productivity objectives with environmental sustainability. How this proposal was developed The proposal was shaped starting with the GCARD meeting in Montpellier resulting in an approved concept proposal. A series of workshops, electronic consultations, and nine regional consultations across Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and Africa were held to provide input. Overall, approximately 500 CG researchers, government officials and development and donor agency representatives were involved. The proposal was submitted in early September, reviewed and revised in consultation with acting leaders of Strategic Research Portfolios and other key actors. ix Part 1 – CRP5 Main Proposal Justification A fundamental dilemma of our time is that agriculture is both the main driver of water scarcity and land degradation and the main victim of the changes we have wrought on the landscape in pursuit of food, fiber and fuel production. These changes include widespread biodiversity loss, soil erosion, nutrient decline, salinization, and water quality deterioration. Furthermore, the environment’s ability to provide ecosystem services that support agriculture and communities has been seriously compromised. With a population approaching 7 billion, we must quickly learn to produce more food with less water and land while at the same time reversing the widespread degradation of the natural resource base that sustains agriculture and the livelihoods of millions of small farmers the world over. Failure to achieve this balance poses a threat to agricultural systems and billions of livelihoods of the poor and vulnerable women and children. It is possible to meet the food production needs of 8 to 10 billion people by 2050. However, unless we substantially change the way our water and land resources are managed, it is unlikely that we can do so in a way that reduces hunger and poverty and reverses trends of ecosystem degradation (CA, 2007). The global discussion tends to obscure the permanent and recurring food security and hunger hot spots where local production would be hard pressed to meet demand in the best of circumstances because of land degradation, water scarcity (Figure 1.1) and non- conducive policies and institutional frameworks. Sustainable agriculture means taking into account the ecosystem services provided by the environment and the potential of human- engineered agricultural systems to provide ecosystem services. Given the many drivers acting on agriculture in the context of a changing climate, achieving a balance between productivity and sustainability becomes more difficult with each passing year. How can environmental costs be minimized at the same time that food production is increased and livelihoods improved? In one sense, the answer is simple: crop and livestock production must increase without an increase in the negative environmental impacts associated with agriculture and aquaculture. This means large increases in the efficiency of nitrogen, phosphorus and water use, and integrated pest management that minimizes the need for toxic pesticides. This will require changes in management and governance that take into consideration a complex set of social, political and biophysical factors. Achieving this represents one of the greatest scientific challenges facing humankind. 1 Figure 1.1 Water scarcity in the world One-third of the world’s population has to deal with water scarcity. Physical Water Scarcity: Water resource development is approaching or has exceeded sustainable limits – 1.2 billion people. Economic Water Scarcity: Water access in spite of sufficient water availability due to financial or human capacity constraints – 1.6 billion people. Given present consumption trends and production practices, water requirements (ET) would need to double. Both the context and the nature of the problem are significantly different from the challenges the CG system and its partners faced half century ago. In the late 1960s, the world was facing the prospect of widespread famine in parts of the developing world. The solution was to increase yields through a combination of new cultivars, fertilizers and irrigation. These efforts spanned a period of roughly twenty years, cost billions of dollars and saved millions from starvation and abject poverty. That success had a number of factors in its favor. Those making the changes benefited directly. Farmers clearly saw the benefit of growing improved seed varieties that gave them higher yields and higher incomes. Feedback was direct and easy to measure and adoption increased quickly. Politicians could easily understand the issues, the benefits were equally clear and direct for them, and there was strong political support for policy changes that led to massive state endorsement, subsidies on fertilizers, and construction of large irrigation schemes. The technical and engineering solutions were at hand. Neither land nor water was seen as a significant constraint on agricultural production, the side effects of chemical pollution were not addressed, and fragmentation of the landscape had not yet reached a point where the provision of environmental services was a major concern. 2 Figure 1.2 Ecosystem services • Stream flow in many rivers for aquatic ecosystem health has already been over appropriated Smakhtin et al., 2004]). • Worldwide economic valuation of the service provided by insect pollinators, mainly bees, estimated at USD 208 billion, or 9.5%t of the total value of the world’s agricultural food production (Aizen and Harder, 2009). • Flood attenuation value of the Muthurajawela marsh in Sri Lanka estimated to be USD 5.4 million per annum (Emerton, 2005). The Nile River has 14 Ramsar wetland sites of international importance supporting fisheries and agriculture. All 14 are threatened by these activities. things have changed A great many things have changed in the last few decades. Increased water scarcity and land degradation have brought us to the point where food and environmental security in many parts of the world are seriously threatened. The consequences of unsustainable agricultural practices on natural and managed ecosystems are now better understood. The world’s population has more than doubled, half the world’s population lives in cities, and the pressure for economic growth has led to growing competition between agricultural and nonagricultural use of resources. More users contest for the use of these resources, often through political channels, often through conflict. planetary thresholds With our increased knowledge has come a growing awareness in many quarters that thresholds have been reached or breached for river, groundwater and soil resources in many parts of the world (Rockström et al., 2009). There is also a growing realization that we can no longer view water and land as inexhaustible and ‘free’ inputs to a global food production system. We can no longer assume the environment will continue to provide the services that support agriculture. We cannot continue to pursue a vision of agricultural productivity based on yields at the expense of equity, resilience or sustainability, but must broaden the range of benefits to society as a whole. Poverty alleviation is not simply a 3 matter of increasing farm yields in isolation of socioeconomic and cultural issues such as land tenure, empowerment and access to resources. a world of growing scarcity In the last 30 or 40 years, we have moved relatively quickly from a world of land, water and ecosystem abundance to one of increasing scarcity. The absolute amount of freshwater and land available remains finite, but the number of people competing for the use of these resources continues to grow. Globally, agriculture currently uses 70% of the world’s developed freshwater, and in some developing countries up to 90%. Using our current methods of production and management practices and based on current consumption patterns, we would need roughly twice the amount of water we use now to produce enough food to feed a population of 9 billion by 2050. The need for water to support ecosystems plus the growing demands for water from industry and people in cities and towns will not allow for such profligate use. agriculture pushing the limits To meet rising food, fiber and fuel demands, many farming policies and management practices are pushing yet more limits. To overcome the constraints of rainfed agriculture and underperforming irrigation systems, groundwater is being mined at alarming rates with little thought to recharge. Up to half the world’s agricultural land is degraded to some degree (Box 1.1). The Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD) was the first attempt to estimate the extent of soil degradation globally (Oldeman, et al., 1991). Based on expert opinion, it remains the main source of degradation data, although new initiatives are on the way (Sanchez et al., 2009; Vlek, 2010) and are supported by this program. According to GLASOD, degradation of croplands is most extensive in Africa, affecting 65% of cropland areas, compared with 51% in Latin America and 38% in Asia (CA, 2007). Box 1.1 Land Degradation Types of degradation Loss of organic matter and physical degradation of soil that not only reduces nutrient availability but also has significant negative impacts on: infiltration and porosity that consequently impact local and regional water productivity; the resilience of agroecosystems; and global carbon cycles; 41% of SSA Land Mass is threatened by degradation (Vlek et al., 2008b). Nutrient depletion and chemical degradation of soil. Annually, 230 million tons are removed from agricultural soils, while fertilizer consumption is 130 million tons, augmented by 90 million tons from biological fixation. Soil erosion and sedimentation. Accelerated on-farm soil erosion leads to substantial yield losses and contributes to downstream sedimentation and the degradation of water bodies, a major cause of 4 investment failure in water and irrigation infrastructure. Across Asia, 7,500 million tons of sediments flow to the ocean (see Vlek, 2010). Water pollution. Secondary salinization and waterlogging in irrigated areas threaten productivity gains. Globally, agriculture is the main contributor to non-point-source water pollution while urbanization contributes increasingly large volumes of wastewater. Water quality problems can often be as severe as those of water availability, but have yet to receive as much attention. Global net outflows of dissolved inorganic nitrogen to the oceans have been estimated at 18,300 tons. addressing CG objectives Improved water and soil management is central to the three CGIAR strategic objectives, and is consistent with development priorities in most of the countries where the CGIAR works. Issues of water, land and ecosystems are recognized and aligned with NARES fora under the umbrella of GFAR and other bodies (see Annex 1). CRP5 addresses the Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty and achieving food and water security, the United Nations conventions on desertification and land degradation (UNCCD), biodiversity (UNCBD), climate change (UNFCCC), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, as well as the food security, environmental and development priorities of numerous intergovernmental organizations, international donors and development banks, and the business community. the problems are solvable In spite of the enormity of this challenge, there is optimism that these problems are solvable. Because of scarcity, degradation and fragmentation, there is growing political will to address the changes that must be made. Rural populations are, in general, far better informed and more politically active than they were in the 1970s, and politicians are more sensitive to their concerns. Farmers are resorting to self-organized informal economies and institutional arrangements of their own to cope with problems that many governments either do not recognize or cannot solve. necessity spurring innovation The necessity of increasing land and water productivity is spurring innovation in technology, institutional arrangements, management practices and policy formulation and the need for placing the custodians of our ecosystems, the farmers, pastoralists and fishers, at the center of new management strategies and building on new methods of collective action, property rights and issues of equity, including gender. The private sector is becoming a more active participant in development, bringing with it fresh perspectives, technical and management expertise and its own funding. Growing recognition of the value of environmental services is helping public and private entities become better stewards. The complex nature of the problems we must tackle is encouraging systems thinking and multidisciplinary collaboration 5 within and across public and private research and business communities. This growing awareness reinforces the need for representative participation from custodians of natural resource and users, particularly small-scale producers, many of them among the poorest. Advances in information and communication technology are providing us with new tools and methods for gathering, analyzing, sharing and exchanging data and information, and there is an opportunity for these tools to be used by small-scale producers to improve resource management. New theories and concepts are leading us to new ways of looking at the information we work with and to fresh insights. Statement of the problem We need short-term gains in poverty reduction and food production. However, we know that many of the practices we currently use to increase production also damage the resource base upon which food, fuel and fiber production depends. Therefore, while we must have the short-term gains, we need to be implementing holistic solutions based on principles of integrated natural resource management that ensure long-term growth and well-being for people and the environment. How do we manage this balance? The opportunity for CRP5 is to identify, manage and overcome the negative impacts of agriculture on the natural resource base, environment and ecosystems in such a way that instead of causing land and water degradation, agriculture is in harmony with the environment and actually delivers some of the ecosystem services that are required to sustain life and healthy livelihoods. Consequently, CRP5 research outputs support: • an environment and natural resource base that sustains agricultural production and livelihoods; • agricultural land use practices that sustain ecosystem services to support livelihoods; and  policy and management practices that promote inclusion and equity. Benefits of research-for-development Interdisciplinary research within an adaptive management framework is required to unravel this complexity and to develop a set of evidence-based solutions. While the problem is easily described, the factors behind successful natural resource management are not. Natural resource management responds to a rapidly changing set of drivers outside of the resource sectors including population, subsidies, trade, a changing climate and urbanization. There are counterintuitive cross-scale interactions that may bring about unintended consequences. Ecosystem services are difficult to value, and instruments are difficult to develop because these services are not yet seen as part of the market economy. Issues of ownership of land and water are complex and institutional arrangements are not always conducive to manage this complexity. 6 some examples The Indian experience shows that a single policy change based on science can make a large difference (Shah, 2009). The Jyotirgam scheme of segregating agricultural and domestic electricity supplies was implemented in the Indian state of Gujarat and affected some 720,000 tube wells irrigating about 2.5 million hectares through better-quality power supply. Spinoffs included uninterrupted domestic power supply for some 30 million rural women and schoolchildren, higher school enrollments among girls and improved nutrition. Under CRP5, what can newly aligned research on water, soils, land and ecosystems achieve? Past scoping studies show that the potential benefits are huge, but provide little guidance on how to reap the benefits. CRP5 can provide that guidance through its research for the development agenda. In India, a recent study showed that low-cost water technologies can play a key role in bridging the gap between supply and demand by 2030, leading to an aggregate agricultural income increase of $83 billion per year (McKinsey & Company, 2009). In South Africa, aggregate agricultural income could increase by $2 billion per year from operational savings and increased revenues—if the full potential of agricultural measures was applied to managing water resources. In India, millions of hectares have been rehabilitated through integrated watershed management practices, including rehabilitation of degraded lands plus soil and water conservation at a benefit/cost ratio of 2.0 (Joshi et al., 2005). Several Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)1 practices have been demonstrating substantial impact (Vanlauwe et al., 2010). For example, fertilizer micro-dosing (Tabo et al., 2006), sustainable cereal-grain legume rotations (Sanginga et al., 1997) and soil and water conservation in combination with ISFM in Sahelian drylands (Reij and Thiombiano, 2003) have been successful in increasing land productivity and water and nutrient use efficiency, often doubling and tripling yields. estimates of potential impact In the course of developing CRP5, estimates were made of the potential impacts that could be achieved in areas addressed by various research portfolios. A scoping study on agricultural water management showed that 500 million smallholders (135 million of whom are considered poor) in Sub-Saharan Africa and 14 states in India alone could benefit from improved small-scale water management practices (IWMI, FAO, SEI, IFPRI, 2008). Two hundred million people could benefit from better irrigation through more wealth and 1 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) is defined as “A set of soil fertility management practices that necessarily include the use of fertilizer, organic inputs, and improved germplasm combined with the knowledge on how to adapt these practices to local conditions, aiming at maximizing agronomic use efficiency of the applied nutrients and improving crop productivity. All inputs need to be managed following sound agronomic principles.” 7 providing work for the landless, and many more could benefit from lower food prices and a better environment. Nearly 200 million pastoralists would be less vulnerable to change with more secure land and water access. About 250 million people dependent on groundwater are highly vulnerable to overdraft, while millions more could benefit where groundwater potential is high. Between 20 and 50 million peri-urban farmers could benefit from recovering water and other resources from wastes, through safer and healthier practices as well as income gains. Moreover, safe wastewater practices could benefit up to a billion consumers. This is not unrealistic as changes in governance and policy at national or regional levels can have substantial impacts. The way in which research is done, what questions are posed and how they are framed makes a difference. Partnership experiences such as the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (www.iwmi.org/assessment) and the Challenge Program on Water and Food (www.waterforfood.org) involved a wide range of partners and delivered solid science and have been influential experiences that this program will build on. CRP5 Adds Value Currently, there is a major gap in natural resource management research and development programs in many countries. Institutionally, resource sectors are separated and few pay much attention to issues of impending scarcity, degradation and management of the environment. Gender, age and caste/class inequities in natural resource management are widespread, and formal sectors often lack the capacity to bring local-level knowledge and expertise into natural resource management solutions. Links among and between universities, national research institutions, and global groups are poorly coordinated, and there are strong demands from the NGO community, the private sector and governments for credible scientific information and policy advice. This offers a significant opportunity for the CGIAR and partners, via the integration of its natural resource management work in CRP5, to take international leadership in efforts to balance agricultural productivity objectives with environmental sustainability. Many alternative suppliers conduct NRM research (universities, foundations, international NGOs, multinational corporations, think tanks). Few can bring together the scale or scope of partnerships the CRP5 can leverage; few others aim to transfer lessons learned in one part of the world to another; and few are dedicated to the creation of global public goods. Whilst there are other groups and universities working in complementary areas, these are usually project- or location-based. CRP5 complements the natural resource management work of national researchers by exchanging lessons learned and bringing in ideas from the global community. The private sector is showing increasing concern about the environment 8 and is engaged in solving problems related to their particular industry, but generally do not offer international public goods. CRP5 offers the prospect of a strongly networked system of delivery via NARES, NGOs, government agencies and the private sector which few, if any, alternative suppliers can emulate. The CGIAR centers bring strength in physical and social sciences and agriculture on a scale necessary to address local, national, regional and global problems. To fulfill this promise, the CGIAR needs new partners and new forms of partner networks to promote uptake and to carry on development and capacity building. CRP5 role within the CGIAR The CGIAR recently identified four system level outcomes (SRF, 2011): 1. reducing rural poverty: Agricultural growth through improved productivity, markets and incomes has proved to be a particularly effective contributor to reducing poverty, especially in the initial stages of development; 2. improving food security: Access to affordable food is a problem for millions of poor in urban and rural communities and requires increasing global and regional supply of key staples and reducing potential price increases and price volatility; 3. improving nutrition and health: the diets of many poor people, particularly women and children, are insufficient in micronutrients affecting health and development; 4. sustainable management of natural resource: Agriculture depends on ecosystem resources which must be better managed to ensure both sustainable food production and provision of services to the poor, particularly in light of climate change. CRP5 focuses on the last of these outcomes but relates strongly to the first three. The CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) indicates that the CGIAR centers focused initially, and with considerable success, on the development of sustainable production systems, but that the development of an organizational framework to link this work to the provision of ecosystem services proved difficult. Consequently, natural resource management work tended to unintentionally reinforce sectoral boundaries in water, forestry, land and fisheries. The SRF identified three directions for potential natural resource management research: 1. integrated management of ecosystem services as a way to integrate horizontally and across natural resource; 2. production systems and their various trajectories for sustainable intensification; 3. climate change impacts on agriculture and the adaptive responses required, and conversely on the contributions that agriculture could make in mitigating climate change. 9 In the case of point three, the SRF argues that the predominant focus up to now has been on carbon mitigation and that more emphasis is required on water, soil and biodiversity at the basin and landscape level. The SRF further suggests that there are four potential areas where integration of natural resource management may be required: climate change, payment for ecosystem services, eco-efficient production systems, and the continued consolidation of a network of comparative or sentinel sites. CRP5 areas addresses these issues by integrating across natural resource sectors (land, water, biodiversity) with a stronger ecosystem service focus than has been attempted in the past; and by focusing on critical natural resource management issues within essential production systems (water scarcity and land degradation, loss of ecosystem services). As described in more detail later, the water, land and ecosystems focus complements and links strongly with commodity production systems and regional CRPs. CRP5 research will increase the focus on the required socioeconomic factors needed to remove social and gender inequities, and accelerate change as well as collect scientific evidence that links to work in CRP2 on agricultural policy development. CRP5 will collaborate closely with CRP7 where adaptation and mitigation are linked to natural resource management. The impact pathway for the CGIAR will be enhanced by CRP5’s engagement with global conventions. A conceptual framework Notes on terminology Regions: CRP 5 works in these regions: Latin America, East, West and Southern Africa, Middle East and North Africa, South, East and Southeast and Central Asia. Research sites and scales: Research takes place at specific geographic locations within regions called research sites. Research at a site may be addressing issues at one scale or more (farm, watershed, landscape, basin, country, region) and investigate implications across scales. For example: research on groundwater recharge at a site may be addressing local issues defined by the extent of the aquifer (a landscape) but have implications for the basin (upstream/downstream trade-offs), the country (food security), and the region (transboundary conflict resolution). Strategic Research Portfolios (SRP): Formerly referred to as Best Bests, a research portfolio is a way of managing a set of investments in research aimed at delivering solutions to a set of challenges related to irrigation, rainfed agriculture, pastoral systems, groundwater, resource recovery, river basin management, ecosystems, the social and cultural practices that lead to gender and other forms of inequity, 10 information, and governance. Portfolios are ‘strategic’ because the eight research domains are strategic choices identified by partners and stakeholders as offering the most promising pathways to the development goal. The development goals of CRP5 are to reduce poverty and hunger and ensure environmental sustainability, by promoting: • an environment and natural resource base that sustains agricultural production and livelihoods; and • agricultural land use practices that sustain ecosystem services to support livelihoods. The big question for the partners in CRP5 is how can we achieve these goals? On the one hand, there are drivers of change such as population growth, dietary change,2 competition for land and water from biofuel and fiber crops, urbanization and, in some areas, the already noticeable impacts of climate change. These drivers combined in 2007-2008 to create a food crisis. Similar crises are inevitable. Combination of these drivers and other policies lead to inequitable access, use and benefit-sharing from natural resource. These drivers have also led to serious land and water degradation marked by: • increasing water scarcity, • exhaustion of soil fertility, • serious erosion and sedimentation, • severe water pollution from sediment, agrochemicals and human and animal wastes, • severe loss of aquatic and above and below ground terrestrial biodiversity in managed and natural ecosystems, and • the collapse of ecosystems that provide services critical for all life. At the same time, there is encouraging evidence that solutions are being developed to tackle the adverse impacts of these drivers; solutions that can be successful—if conditions are right. This is a very big “if” as change requires a combination of political will, transparent systems of governance and technical, financial and managerial capacity to succeed. This is why CRP5 scientists (physical and social) must work closely with strategic partners to ensure policy, norms, and management change. As noted in CRP1, poor and vulnerable groups have little choice when it comes to practices that degrade land, water and ecosystems. As much, if not more, focus will be required on socioeconomic factors, including social support systems, than on technical “fixes.”A central feature of the solution will be to ensure that the exclusion of women and youth from decision-making processes in 2 Change to diets richer in animal products that require more land and water to produce than cereal and vegetable based diets. 11 agriculture and natural resource management and the benefits derived is addressed more directly. Figure 1.3 depicts the conceptual framework driving the program. In this framework, agricultural and livelihood systems function within ecosystems that are underpinned by the natural resource base including soils, water, biodiversity and people. Figure 1.3 A Conceptual Framework for CRP5 Management within agricultural systems has an impact, positive or negative, on ecosystems and the resource base. Currently, many agricultural practices lead to water scarcity, land degradation and loss of ecosystem services, resulting in negative impacts on productivity, resilience, equity, and food and livelihood security. These practices are driven by a myriad of factors within and outside the agricultural system including policies, information and knowledge asymmetries, and energy flows. Scarcity and degradation, and negative outcomes of poor agricultural management practices, are in themselves major drivers. Feedback loops exist whereby water scarcity, for example, triggers policy change and 12 infrastructure development, and reduced productivity alters farming practices. Often the feedback loops are negative, resulting in increased degradation and downward spirals. This conceptual framework provides a unifying context for the research portfolios described below, and is the basis for the program’s impact pathway described in later sections. Indicators developed in the inception phase will measure progress towards outcomes and impacts. The framework is scale-independent, but the nature of the interventions differs considerably between field, watershed and basins with larger scales requiring more focus on policy (see Figure 1.4). Given the emphasis on the commodity, field and farm levels in other CRPs, CRP5 will work more at the larger scale (watersheds, landscapes and basins) with an emphasis on those interventions that affect maintenance of environmental quality and the natural resource base. However, it will also frequently be the case that to understand what is happening at watershed and basin levels and to predict changes and interventions and thus to scale up results, an understanding of field- and farm-level processes will be required. Figure 1.4 The CRP5 working space across scales Determination of the research focus of CRP5 was guided by remarkable similarity between the issues raised by agricultural producers, partners, funders, CGIAR scientists and academics when it comes to defining the natural resource management issues that impact 13 agriculture and vice versa. These issues provided the basis for the Strategic Research Portfolios described later in this proposal. Therefore, within this conceptual framework, CRP5 proposes to focus its research efforts on the interface of people, science and policy to generate the knowledge and action needed to align incentives for better outcomes. It does this by addressing eight Strategic Research Portfolios deemed critical to meet development goals: 1. Irrigation - because it is the largest user of water, produces 30% of our food, is a key factor in poverty reduction and climate change adaptation, and yet is a major cause of water scarcity and ecosystem loss. What must we do to revitalize irrigation where it has been established and make better investments where it is yet to be established or expanded? 2. Groundwater - because there is significant overdraft in many food basket regions which is increasing the vulnerability of agricultural producers and threatening major food production systems; in other regions, there is huge potential to support more productive agriculture and reduce poverty through sustainable groundwater practices. How do we make groundwater use sustainable? 3. Rainfed agriculture - because in regions where agricultural practices degrade resources there is potential through integrated soil and water management to raise productivity and reverse trends of degradation. How can we improve soil fertility and land and water management to unlock the potential of rainfed agriculture while reversing trends of ecosystem degradation? 4. Integrated natural resource management of pastoral systems - rampant land degradation and loss of access to water and land resources is threatening the livelihoods of millions of pastoralists and leading to conflict. What changes in land and water management are needed to support pastoral livelihoods? 5. Resource recovery and reuse - because of the untapped potential for recovering essential nutrients (e.g., phosphorus) and to promote safer and healthier practices of reuse and to improve water, land and environmental quality. How can we enhance food security by recovering nutrient and other resources from solid and liquid waste streams? 6. River basin management - because policy must address issues of water and land access and availability at broader scales; and because better basin and landscape management reduces vulnerability to large-scale droughts, floods, and the negative side effects of competition over resources including loss of access. How do we manage water and land resources in major agricultural river basins in ways that meet the needs of people and ecosystems? 7. Ecosystems - because we need to promote ecosystem resilience in all the systems noted above and manage negative consequences of interaction with other ecosystems. How do we improve ecosystem services to improve resilience and provide farmers and pastoralists with production systems that have increased 14 adaptability to environmental change? How do we increase the value placed on ecosystem services? 8. Development of integrated natural resource management information systems – because, to influence policy and management decision making at farm level and at national level within the partner NARES and other natural resource management agencies, CRP5 must provide first-class information that decision makers (including small-scale producers, resource managers and policymakers) can and want to use. How do we design and use soil, water and ecosystem information and knowledge systems to generate information for evidence-based policy recommendations and for supporting implementation, out-scaling, control and evaluation? Cutting through and across these research areas are issues of:  gender and equity – because these are fundamental structuring principles of society and if our research does not take them into account we cannot hope to be engaged in outcomes, and  institutions and governance – essential for the integrated management of natural resource. These eight research portfolios tackle the most pressing issues raised by stakeholders in workshops in nine regions. They are globally important but the interplay between Strategic Research Portfolios varies considerably from region to region. These are the research areas that partners believe will offer immediate benefits and lead to medium- and long-term benefits that contribute to the four CGIAR system-level outcomes. A major consideration in the development of Strategic Research Portfolios is that supporters want to ensure that, by combining forces with internal and external partners, a more integrative approach is achieved. In summary, Strategic Research Portfolios fulfill the following criteria and will deliver against the system-level outcomes over and above current levels of activity: • capture the existing capacity and skills base and respective strengths of the CGIAR and partners; • focus on the water, soils, ecosystems, and governance issues identified by stakeholders; • deliver against the need to sustain both agricultural production systems and the natural resource base that supports agriculture and ecosystems; • focus on landscape, watershed and basin scales; • explore opportunities to integrate across disciplines to add value with respect to policy and management practices; • take local knowledge into account; from a gender perspective, local knowledge is especially important because men and women are typically custodians of different types of agricultural knowledge and expertise; • simultaneously address the objectives of access, productivity, quality, and ecosystem services; and 15  provide feasible impact pathways that alleviate rural poverty, increase food security, nutrition and health, and environmental sustainability. There are four major dimensions to this agriculture-natural resource management problem set. To solve resource management problems, governance arrangements have to simultaneously deal with this set of ‘complicit’ issues. Access Ultimately, scarcity is about access in the broadest sense of the term (including rights, technologies, and institutions). Even where land and water are plentiful, lack of access creates a scarcity situation. In physically scarce basins, the rural and urban poor are generally the first to suffer from a loss of access. People without ownership or recognized rights-of-use are less likely to invest in long-term improvements. Pastoralists, for example, need access rights to large swaths of land to better manage grazing over space and time. There are also opportunities to increase water access in economically scarce basins. This makes access (physical, social and economic) the key to improved stewardship of land, water and ecosystems, which is the basis of poverty alleviation and food and nutrition security. Land and water productivity The major response to drivers of change has been either extensification, i.e., using more water and land at the expense of habitat loss; or intensification. In most parts of the world, extensification is no longer a viable option. Intensification can only be a sustainable route out of poverty if we maintain the provisioning, supporting and regulating services of the underlying ecosystems. Soil health and water quality Water and soil quality have clear links with human, animal and ecosystem health. Focusing on intensification and productivity gains can lead to more water scarcity, pollution and soil degradation. At the same time, lack of intensification is damaging environments, for example, in many parts of Africa continuous cropping with low inputs is depleting soil organic matter and accelerating erosion and nutrient leaching. The challenge is to increase productivity while maintaining soil health and water quality. Ecosystem services and resilience The production of food, fiber and fuel is too often at the expense of the regulating and supporting services of the environment. Wetlands, for example, are routinely converted to farmland or settlements and only afterwards do people realize the value of lost services such as flood mitigation or water treatment. The biodiversity in agricultural systems provide ecosystem services that are undervalued such as increased pollination efficiency, and regulation of pests and diseases. The challenge is to ensure that continued agricultural intensification and productivity lead to increases that use ecosystems services more 16 effectively, more synergistically, as measured both by increased stability and reduced variability in the agricultural production systems of small-scale producers and improved ecosystems health. Goals, objectives and outcomes The goal of CRP5 is to sustainably improve livelihoods, reduce poverty, and ensure food security using research-based solutions to water scarcity, land degradation, and threats to ecosystem sustainability. CRP5 objectives Achieving the goal requires maintaining an environment and natural resource base that sustain agricultural production and livelihoods; and agricultural land use practices that sustain ecosystem services to support livelihoods. To achieve the necessary balance between agriculture and environment, we need solutions that lead to forms of governance and management practices that will simultaneously:  enhance and safeguard equitable land and water access for the poor to sustainably benefit from resource use;  deliver greater water and land productivity in rainfed and irrigated systems for crops, fisheries and aquaculture, livestock, and agroforestry to cope with water scarcity and land degradation;  improve land and soil health and water quality to reverse widespread degradation of agricultural production systems;  enhance ecosystem services and build resilience by improving the capacity of people to manage water and land to sustain ecosystem services within and beyond agro- ecosystems;  promote equitable agricultural policies and practices for women and men, and the rural poor and vulnerable groups; and  contribute to capacity building to address problems now and in the future. To achieve these objectives, CRP5 will develop options for policies, investments and appropriate governance arrangements; contribute to capacity building; emphasize the role of women and youth; and include a monitoring, evaluation and learning framework to adapt and improve as we move forward guided by the principles of integrated natural resource management (Sayer and Campbell, 2001). Ultimately, the program will promote transformational change by changing actions, behaviors, attitudes and beliefs reflected in practices and policies within communities of stakeholders including: farmers, fishers, pastoralists, researchers, public-sector officials in water and related sectors, politicians and the private sector. 17 Strategic research portfolio outputs CRP5 will deliver information and knowledge, analysis and solution sets that: 1. revitalize existing irrigation in Asia, and make better investments in new irrigation in Africa and Latin America; SRP Irrigation 2. improve soil fertility and land and water management to unlock the potential of rainfed agriculture while reversing trends of ecosystem degradation; SRP Rainfed 3. change land and water management needed to support pastoral livelihoods; SRP Pastoral 4. make groundwater use sustainable; SRP Groundwater 5. enhance food security by recovering nutrients and other resources from solid and liquid waste streams; SRP Resource Recovery & Resuse 6. manage water and land resources in major agricultural river basins in ways that meet the needs of people and ecosystems; SRP Basins 7. use soil, water and ecosystem information and knowledge systems to generate information for evidence-based policy recommendations and support implementation, out-scaling, control and evaluation; and SRP Information 8. improve ecosystem services to improve resilience and provide farmers, fishers and pastoralists with production systems that have increased adaptability to environmental change. SRP Ecosystems Implicit in each output are issues of gender, equity, governance, and the management of soils, water and ecosystem services. Specific outputs are listed within Strategic Research Portfolios in the Research Program part of the proposal. Specific indicators will be developed during the inception phase. Region-level outputs Work on the ground will center in research sites which will often overlap with other CRPs to facilitate interaction and synergy (see section on links with other CRPs). Within each research site there will be interaction among and between Strategic Research Portfolios. For example, in a research site in Central Asia, irrigation may be a central focus, but there will also be groundwater issues, and water use will impact a range of ecosystem services at basin and landscape levels. Therefore, each region will require a set of research questions based on a specific theory of change that requires assessment, prioritization, and synthesis unique to that region and the natural resource challenges of its farming systems. These regional theories of change, region-level research questions and outputs will be developed during the startup year of the program. At the regional level, CRP5 delivers outputs that answer the following questions in the form of information and knowledge, analysis (modeling, scenarios, case studies, etc.) and recommended solutions for integrated natural resource management at different scales: 18  What are the highest priority solutions for improved integrated natural resource management?  What levers can be employed to instigate change, and how can change be monitored?  What are the social (gender, equity, economic) and ecological (upstream, downstream, ecosystem services) consequences of proposed interventions at different scales. Global-level outputs CRP5 will provide policy-level analysis, collaborating with CRP2 to answer the following questions:  What combination of global and local drivers combined with natural resource management practices will move communities towards improved outcomes in natural resource status and ecosystem health?  How will these changes impact agricultural production and people’s livelihoods over the next 50 years? The program will provide information and knowledge, analysis and solutions to cross-cutting issues common across Strategic Research Portfolios and regions:  What insights (new and old) into relationships between poverty, gender, youth and management of land, water and ecosystems can be translated into management changes that support disadvantaged groups, increase equity and alleviate poverty?  How can ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes be measured, valued and monitored to underpin decision making that aims at increasing the health of ecosystem services, increasing resilience, and sustainable intensification?  What processes for equitable governance (new and existing) from local, basin and landscape scale, including collective action, show the most promise for improving the management of land and water resources?  How can research better support change processes for natural resource management, and how can outcomes and impacts be better monitored and evaluated than in the past and with more focus on specific user needs? CRP5 will contribute to building a global information system that includes regional and sentinel site surveillance systems (as defined in SRP Information) consisting of a set of well-characterized long-term monitoring observatories as a resource for assessing ecosystem health and risks, intervention evaluation, model building and validation. This provides an opportunity to build more integrated information systems than has been achieved in the past. By building a strong Information Strategic Research Portfolio that integrates work from all the partners, CRP5 will be at the forefront of innovative knowledge exchange systems. There are also opportunities to build information flow synergies with other CRPs using information technology systems. At the same time, it is important to take into account that in many of the poorer countries in which we operate, even basic single issue information systems and 19 databases are unavailable. Consequently, considerable attention will also be required on compiling the individual information systems that will provide building blocks towards integrated natural resource management and environmental systems and providing feedback systems that get this information to farmers and resource managers for their use. CRP5 outcomes The research outputs described above, combined with uptake strategies along the impact pathway, will lead to a number of outcomes that will vary by region:  Improved natural resource governance (access, allocation, policies and regulation) to benefit all users and the environment.  Natural resource governance and management systems that are equitable and inclusive of women and men, including youth, and have more equitable distribution of benefits.  Better use of scarce resources including water (in physically and economically scarce regions) and nutrients (via reuse and recycling).  Improving water and land productivity in rainfed, pastoral and irrigated systems.  Revitalizing irrigation systems through interventions in governance, infrastructure, capacity building (of women and men) and management.  Sustainable groundwater use via increased knowledge, better governance and management.  Decision making on natural resource management at all scales informed by evidence-based information products tailored to, and by, specific end users. Ultimately, these outcomes will lead to an improved natural resource base for agriculture and its ability to deliver vital ecosystem services via reversal of land and water degradation in selected environments. 20 Impact pathways Theory of change The following process (Figure 1.5) was used to formulate Strategic Research Portfolio. Research problems come from theorizing about the changes we would like to see and defining the gaps in our knowledge. Research produces outputs. Theories of change contain specific hypotheses for change, i.e., what levers we think we can pull to make change happen. We combine outputs with levers of change to formulate uptake strategies that lead to outcomes and impact. In the process of conceptualizing theories of change and formulating uptake strategies, we consult with our partners and stakeholders and scan the wider environment to see what other influences may help or hinder our efforts. The monitoring, evaluation and learning process, which includes inputs from partners and stakeholders, provides the feedback we need for adaptive management, i.e., reformulating our theories of change, redefining knowledge gaps and formulating new research questions we test in the live world. Figure 1.5 Theory of Change Theories of change are central to how we plan to operationalize the conceptual framework of CRP5. A theory of change is a theory about how and why an initiative works (Weiss, 1995) 21 and about what levers we can pull to bring about the changes we believe will lead to sustainable agriculture, healthy environments and poverty alleviation. Each Strategic Research Portfolio has a unique theory of change, as does each project and program. Aligning theories at each level will contribute to greater impact on a wider scale. Regional uptake strategies will be developed using a similar process. Theories of change will be developed for individual SRPs in research sites and regions as part of project startup. Uptake strategies Uptake strategies specific to each output are required to move research to outcomes. An uptake strategy combines a set of levers to effect change. There is an existing set of levers we know and employ with some success (Table 1.1). Capacity building and policy change are two such examples. At the outset, Strategic Research Portfolio partners will decide on what combination of levers is a likely pathway to change, and then modify their impact pathways on the basis of feedback in a process of adaptive management and learning selection. Some of these levers are outlined below with example uptake strategies. Each Strategic Research Portfolio outlines a combination of levers specific to the problem set it addresses. As we learn, new levers and impact pathways will emerge. Monitoring and evaluation have a central role to play in this adaptive learning process. Table 1.1 Levers for change and related updated strategies Levers for change Uptake strategies Working with men and women in farming Include farmers in learning alliances; learn from famers; communities let farmers test, innovate, lead. Building capacity and leadership Design and conduct training and professional development programs that change people’s knowledge, attitudes and skills and lead to new behaviors; work with schools (teachers and students) and youth groups; focus on building leadership capacity among women. Changes in policy and incentive structures Sit at the table with policymakers; include them in the research from the earliest appropriate stage; make them partners in changing policy and incentive structures; include women at the table. Working with the private sector Provide scientific support for the development of investment packages that support sustainable, pro-poor agriculture. Developing market chains (link with CRP2) We have separated this from ‘working with the private sector’ because a number of International NGOs and CSOs are equally good at this. Consumer power In some countries, consumers can wield significant power through their purchase decisions and through demands for accountability from government, the private sector and primary producers. Working with strategic partners outside the Look outside for levers on relationships and policies like water, land and environment sectors the one between energy pricing and groundwater 22 pumping; use one to control and influence the other. Using new developments in social network Adjust the size and shape of networks, change the theory to map, measure and manage patterns of interaction within the network to stimulate partnership networks new ideas and learning; recognize that women and men have separate networks and ensure that both are included. More coordinated joint effort (interactions Set up management structures within the CRP to with donors, joint publications, ensure coordinated action; manage networks more conferences, capacity-building initiatives, effectively. etc.) Better use of the media, public relations Explore innovative ways of doing research and data and behavior change communication. collection. Use coordinated media campaigns for information dissemination, advocacy, focusing public opinion. Franchising data gathering and information Work with development partners on sustainable services. business models for gathering data on ecosystem health and providing information and advisory services. Global fora Position CRP5 as an agenda-setting body linked to international policy through supplying concrete examples to the global policy dialogue; publish, promote NRM; provide sound data on ecosystems problems, risks, and intervention opportunities. Program-level impact pathway The impact pathway (Figure 1.6) is derived from the conceptual framework (Figure 1.4) and the Theory of Change (Figure 1.5). Figure 1.6 is a generalized depiction of how we perceive pathways to impact. The process of achieving impact is nonlinear, dynamic and recursive and is driven by continuous engagement with the people, organizations and institutions that make decisions from farm to national and international scales (Douthwaite, 2002, 2003). We recognize that goals and impacts are influenced by many factors outside the program and we must be aware of these. These are the drivers of change (left-hand side) which will be the subject of ongoing study in the program through scenario and other analyses at the global scale and in the research sites. Drivers can also be levers of change, such as policy and investments. development outcomes (right-hand side) are improvements in natural resource management resulting in changes to access, better productivity, improved soil health and water quality, and better ecosystem resilience and equity in benefit sharing as indicated by CRP5 objective statements. The program is engaged in these outcomes, but there are many other strong influencing factors. CRP5, working with others can, in certain settings, have an influence on governance, management, policy and practices that lead to development outcomes. In addition, we generate knowledge and engage in capacity building to facilitate 23 change. The program outcomes influence change on drivers, and natural resource management practices themselves. At the center is the natural resource base – the basic building blocks of soil, water and biodiversity. People change and manage these resources to produce food, fiber, fuel, medicine and cultural artifacts in a range of different agricultural systems (irrigated, rainfed, pastoral). Resources and farming systems are situated within basins and landscapes, and interact with multiple natural and human-engineered ecosystems. CRP5 encompasses and works within and among these various components, and will generate a range of outputs through its Strategic Research Portfolios and several integrated outputs considering basins and landscapes, ecosystems, information systems, and means of recovering resources. Information generated through systems, analyses, prediction and scenarios are important for change. Figure 1.6 Impact Pathway for CRP5 We recognize that this is a complex and nonlinear process with hard-to-predict feedback loops here a change in one part of the pathway influences another dimension of the problem. Hence, monitoring, evaluation, feedback, and learning are critical to a better understanding of the details in the impact pathway. ME&L includes a set of indicators to be developed during the inception phase. 24 Operationalizing CRP5 CRP5 is operationalized through its Strategic Research Portfolios working together – along with partners outside CRP5 – to address well-defined problem sets in research sites. “Problem sets” occur when improvements in the management of land, water and ecosystems are defined to achieve developmental goals. The precise nature of problem sets is specific to research sites, – but cross-regional parallels and similarities are not uncommon. Strategic Research Portfolios develop solutions, i.e. ways to address problem sets. In doing so, they use interdisciplinary approaches. Sometimes a single Strategic Research Portfolio – together with partners – is sufficient to address a regional problem set. Often, however, research from several Strategic Research Portfolios and their partners, shaped into an integrated, coherent initiative is required. Because there are cross-regional parallels and similarities in problem sets, cross-regional comparisons are important. Strategic Research Portfolios carry out such comparisons and deliver research outputs that are widely applicable for many regions. These products include basic principles; concepts, procedures and methods; models, datasets and information; and prototype innovations. Strategic research portfolio integration: A key feature of CRP5 is a focus on integrating Strategic Research Portfolios within and across regions (Figure 1.7). In addressing a problem set in a particular region, relevant Strategic Research Portfolios will integrate their efforts: among themselves, with other CRPs and with other partners. Within that problem set for that region, relevant Strategic Research Portfolios will develop their respective theories of change and uptake strategies, and then integrate these across Strategic Research Portfolios and other partner scales. In the end, there will be one integrated theory of change and uptake strategy. Each Strategic Research Portfolio Manager will be able to develop and draw from a community of practice to learn and implement change. While each site and region will have its own challenges, there are numerous lessons that can be learned by comparing practices globally. Based on experience to date, each Strategic Research Program has a well-defined research agenda. While the factors that lead to success in an irrigation project in Zambia are much different than in Nepal, there are transferrable lessons to be gleaned by understanding how irrigation is managed in different contexts. In fact, there is a growing demand for comparative analysis and South-South learning exchanges, easily facilitated by the CRP5. A recent example is the case of a manual well- drilling technology developed in the Gangetic plains and brought to Ethiopia and now has applications elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. The research program part of the proposal (Part 2) outlines in detail integration within Strategic Research Portfolios. To ensure that each Strategic Research Portfolio does not become a silo, Strategic Research Portfolio Managers will be tasked with the following facilitation roles and requirements: 25  with Regional Leaders, other Strategic Research Portfolios, other CRPs and other partners, develop and implement coherent programs of research to address well- defined problem sets in specific regions;  facilitate the development of theories of change and related uptake strategies applicable to problem sets within regions;  ensure that there is sharing and exchange of information across regions;  communicate messages about the Strategic Research Portfolio and the CRP that are consistent and compatible with messages communicated by other Regional Leaders;  oversee information flows to and from the CRP Management Committee; and  identify and publish international public goods link up with other CRPs that have complementary activities. F igure 1.7 CRP5 Ongoing projects in regions Regional integration: In any geographic region, several Research Portfolios will interact among themselves and with other partners with the aim of leading to on-the-ground outcomes. Each region will have a unique NRM problem set to deal with. Problem set definition within regions requires an inception process featuring adequate stakeholder consultation. Below are a few examples for illustrative purposes. In Central Asia, the problem set might be said to comprise a heavy dependence on agriculture-based livelihoods, basin management of scarce water resources, irrigation, and resource recovery to deal with urban return flows, pastoral systems, and sustainability of ecosystem services supported by a strong information system. A major focus will be on existing irrigation and basin management and how to improve these while maintaining a 26 range of ecosystem services. In East Africa, the problem set might be portrayed as a mosaic of different landscape uses. Questions revolve around significant changes in landscapes, for example, more irrigation or intensified rainfed systems, and how they impact pastoral systems and other water users in a basin and ecosystem services. CRP5, often in conjunction with other CRPs, will help put these pieces together in an integrated manner. As shown in Figure 1.7, existing and programs are clustered in several geographic locations. Within each of these regions, several Strategic Research Portfolio research programs will be running. An important first step of CRP5 will be to start bringing together these various activities with a set of key activities to add value to what is happening already. A major task within regions is to identify areas where CRP5 research can help foster change and target SRP research to those areas. The overall approach then is to put together a coherent set of SRP projects within regions that address specific regional problems. A first activity is to identify with partners and stakeholders the set of issues that CRP5 can address. Then we develop regional theories of change and align activities on a regional basis. Within a region there may be several problem sets where CRP5 is engaged, with some involving a single Strategic Research Portfolio and others several Portfolios (Figure 1.8). Fortunately, we do not start from zero as most institutes already have ongoing activities, and others have more comprehensive geographic-based programs. For example, the basin development challenges of the CPWF will become part of this regional approach. There are also significant opportunities in working with the set of CRP1s to look at broader basin and landscape interactions. A key start up exercise will be to link existing projects and design new projects to add value in terms of outcomes and impact. Figure 1.8 Integration at Research Sites and Regions: At each research site, one or more SRPs interact. 27 To ensure things run smoothly in the region, we will ask one center to act as Regional Leader. Strong Regional Leadership is key to ensuring integration around coherent problem sets. Regional Leaders will be empowered to assess whether activities in the region meet the development goals and will convene periodic ‘think tank’ meetings to meet with policy advisors from key countries and influential members of civil society and investors. The terms of reference for a Regional Leader will include:  acting as focal point for regional partners and main spokesperson for the CRP5 in that region, promoting interaction among and between Strategic Research Portfolio Managers;  developing, monitoring and revising theories of change and uptake strategies;  ensuring that gender and equity issues are given appropriate attention;  promoting interaction with other CRPs working in the same region and at the same research sites;  troubleshooting, suggesting solutions for, and facilitating corrective action;  developing and maintaining relationships with partners, resource persons, experts;  ensuring that partner activities are supporting the respective CRPs;  communicating consistent messages about the CRP ; these should be consistent with messages communicated by Strategic Research Portfolio Managers;  ensuring information flows to and from the CRP Management Committee; and  ensuring that research outputs and international public goods are suitable for the region and are published. Program coherence means that individual projects have functional links, for example, the output of one project is an input into another project. This has to be planned, with all project leaders and other stakeholders helping. It is dangerous to under invest in this process. A first and important but complicated step will be to try and build a level of coherence amongst existing projects. Outlined below is a process to ensure this happens. This process is noted in the workplan under the heading “Develop Regional Program Plans.” 1. Based on existing experience, develop initial problem sets (regions, basins, sub- basins, ecosystems). 2. Design and implement a process of defining and prioritizing a more complete set of regional problem sets – including consultation workshops and synthesis of information. Some problem sets based on existing projects may be phased out within 12 to 18 months, while new problem sets will emerge. 28 3. For each regional problem set, develop a coherent program based on the theory of change logic and SRP logic presented here. Use SRPs to integrate across regions. Include an exit strategy for each research site. Set budget goals for regional programs and projects, consider existing or ongoing projects and design new ones, and calculate which budgets need to grow and which need to decline. Global and programmatic integration: Findings from CRP5 will have relevance to the global community, global fora and international conventions where synthesized results will be presented. To achieve programmatic integration the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture identified important integrating issues and gathered teams to develop new ways to integrate through innovative frameworks and scenarios, and interpret for policy the important knowledge emerging from research all over the world. We envision that CRP5 will tackle key cross-cutting issues. CRP5 will address these cross-cutting issues at a global and programmatic level by building on expertise and experience from regions and the global expert community. These cross-cutting and programmatic issues are to include:  gender and poverty;  governance and policy; and  Scenarios based on global development drivers. To further ensure global integration, CRP5 will establish a number of resource teams to deal with specific topics. One resource team will focus on Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L) and another on Gender and Equity. The ME&L team, for example, works with Strategic Research Portfolio Managers towards applying innovative methods to evaluate whether the program is moving toward its goal, or whether changes should be made. The Gender Resource team would work with the same SRP Managers and the ME&L team to provide advice and support to ensure we keep our promises on engendering our work. It may be necessary to second some center staff to work full time on these two teams during the inception phase. Ad hoc resource teams can be configured depending on the need or task at hand. 29 Part 2: Strategic Research Portfolio A Quick View SA: South Asia; MENA: Middle East & North Africa; CA: Central Asia; SEA: Southeast Asia; LA: Latin America; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Poverty Impact Issues Region Opportunities Research areas Potential beneficiaries implications pathways Low performance of SA Improved institutional - Institutional - 200 million - Lower food Political support for irrigation across MENA arrangements with more arrangements smallholder prices reform generated by Asia and high CA accountability to producers - Water savings producers, including - Income performance potential for SEA and broader society practices livestock keepers and - Landless assessment development of LA - Managing for fishers in irrigated income new irrigation in SSA multiple objectives areas - Better SSA - Other water users who environment benefit from improved irrigation management SA 500M smallholders could - Identifying socio- 500M smallholders in Food security - Removing impediments - High poverty with SEA benefit from water and land economic adoption SA and SSA to adoption low land and water SSA management practices in SSA drivers for out- Income - Supporting policies and productivity in LA and SA (IWMI, FAO, SEI, IFPRI scalable solutions institutions across areas of severe land 2008) - Working across scales degradation; scales and - Investment support economic water disciplines to scarcity in SSA and balance production - parts of SA; low and sustainability technology objectives adoption 30 Rainfed Irrigated Poverty Impact Issues Region Opportunities Research areas Potential beneficiaries implications pathways Supporting pastoral Pastoral - Enhancing productivity Livelihood and 180M pastoralists - Less - Empowering pastoral livelihoods in and agro- through reduced land ecosystem gains vulnerability communities with environmentally pastoral degradation from improved - Access to land knowledge about the vulnerable areas to systems in: - Improving access to water pastoral practices and water resource base reverse trends of - Africa and grazing resources and - Improved - Fostering policy level degradation and - South, supporting the development livestock, land discussions develop Central of compensation or rewards and water environmental and West for environmental services productivity service-based Asia opportunities - Mongolia - Over-exploitation of MENA Governance arrangements to - Groundwater 250 million (100 million - Reduced Policies outside of the groundwater in Selected reduce over-exploitation and governance in India) smallholder vulnerability to groundwater sector physically scarce areas of take advantage of - Artificial recharge producers and livestock GW overdraft have influence on the water basins Sub- opportunities to augment - Outscaling keepers depending on and variable use of groundwater - Capturing Saharan surface water supplies with groundwater use in groundwater rainfall opportunities for Africa and groundwater in areas of high areas where - Higher income more use in under- India, potential opportunities exist from more use developed rainfed Bangladesh, - Identification of areas to support Central Asia policy levers high-valued SE Asia outside the GW productivity sector 31 Groundwater Pastoral Poverty Impact Issues Region Opportunities Research areas Potential beneficiaries implications pathways - Water scarcity Amu and - Benefit sharing, governance Benefit sharing - 200 million - Benefit from - Research to inform - Land degradation Syr Daria and management water accounting smallholder producers more equitable investments in - Competition for Euphrates - Resolving issues of over- impact of climate with improved water allocations infrastructure and land and water and Tigris change on future security and millions - Additional allocation of water allocation in physically - Resource depletion Mekong water use of other non- benefits from - Highlight opportunities Nile scarce basins agricultural users other for benefit sharing Zambezi - Realizing benefits in - Reduced conflict over ecosystem - Stimulate evidence Volta economically water scarce resources services based dialogue Amazon; basins - Global benefits of - Less between stakeholders Selected biodiversity vulnerability to Andes and conservation and droughts Himalayan carbon sequestration basins, Limpopo Krishna Indo- Ganges - Increasing amounts SA - Recovery of nutrients, water, - Safe waste/water - 20-50 million (peri) - Health - Strong emphasis on of domestic and SEA organic matter and energy reuse for food urban smallholder benefits private sector, public- agro-industrial SSA from waste streams should production producers using positively private partnerships, waste streams with LA be a key component of NRM - Recovery of unsafe wastewater affecting business models and value for MENA to increase system resilience phosphorous and - 1 billion urban livelihoods capacity building agriculture against climate change, biogas consumers at risk, and - Production - Changing global containing water, water scarcity and fertilizer - Business models more than 200 million gains from discourse and energy and price inflation for small-, micro, (peri)urban farmers in more (reliable) guidelines with global nutrients - Many reuse options offer and macro- search of alternative nutrient and partners such as WHO, - Health and business opportunities enterprises fertilizer sources; water access FAO and SuSanA environmental facilitating out- and up- - Households suffering network concerns scaling poor sanitation services 32 Resource Recovery Basins Poverty Impact Issues Region Opportunities Research areas Potential beneficiaries implications pathways Loss of ecosystem Global Managing land, water, and Less vulnerability Small scale agricultural - Reduced - Identify opportunities supporting and biotic providers of ecosystem and more stability producers and the production loss where there are regulating services services for agriculture for for resource poor global environment -Improved incentives for globally multiple ecosystem services agriculturalists incomes production and -Stable ecosystem gains production gains - Work with corporate social responsibility programs - Identify and work with custodians of ecosystem services Data gaps and lack Global - New data portals Land and water Indirectly to all above Indirectly to all - Integration of CGIAR of availability of - New remotely sensed surveillance above land, water and information to information gathering ecosystem information support decisions techniques - Impact pathway through other 33 Information Ecosystems Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation Strategic Research Portfolio: Revitalizing irrigation in Asia and Africa “Irrigation makes you free; irrigation makes you rich.” From a document dated 1243, Catalonia, Spain. Vision of success There will be greater accountability among irrigation planners, managers and policy makers to ensure that existing and new surface irrigation investment and modernization supports poverty alleviation, food security, and environmental security goals, and improves the access of both women and men farmers to irrigation technologies and support services. Justification Irrigated agriculture covers 20% of cultivated land and produces 40% of the world’s food (FAO, 2006). Of over 300 million hectares of the world’s irrigated areas, nearly two thirds is served by surface irrigation from large reservoirs, river diversions or small irrigation tanks. Irrigating with groundwater has been growing in recent decades. However, surface irrigation systems based on surface storage and gravity flow by canals has been the dominant mode of irrigation agriculture for millennia and continues to be so today. Surface irrigation systems have an organizing logic of their own, as distinct from groundwater irrigation systems. Both involve sharing a common pool resource. However, groundwater irrigation is generally developed around private lines and surface irrigation systems involve complex organizational structures and processes and therefore present distinct management challenges. Surface Irrigation Systems – here we are concerned with systems that divert water from primarily from surface sources to serve a group of farmers, typically by gravity through a system of reservoirs, canals and drains. They may conjunctively use groundwater. The Strategic Research Portfolio looks across scale, from farm irrigation practices, to management of water delivery and drainage, to how irrigation relates to other uses of land and water in a basin. In the developing world, well-run irrigation systems have been a powerful force for poverty alleviation within and outside agriculture (Faures et al., 2007). Access to reliable irrigation stabilizes and improves crop yields by, makes multiple cropping possible, enables smallholders to take to high value crop, provides year-round agricultural work to the landless, and reduces climate shocks from rainfall variability. Irrigation systems produce and support strong forward and backward linkages and create income and employment in farm input supply, output processing and marketing businesses in rural areas. Availability of canal water close to settlements promotes multiple uses for livelihood enhancement. 34 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation Map 3.1: Irrigated areas as a share of cultivated area by country (Faures et al., 2007; FAO, 2006) Livelihood benefits of irrigation systems are by no means confined to command areas. Well- managed irrigation commands often act as magnets that attract poor people from neighboring dry areas in search of work. Studies in the Indian state of Gujarat showed that prosperous canal commands have uncharacteristically high head-count ratios of rural poor, most of whom were migrants who came from dry areas in search of food and work (Shah and Singh, 2004). By far the most profound livelihood impact of well-run irrigation systems is that they make cheap food widely available to rural and urban poor. Irrigation systems also produce negative externalities that need to be carefully managed. These include water logging and salinization. Both reduce land productivity or make it unusable. With growing use of chemicals in irrigated agriculture, downstream environmental impacts can be serious since canal releases tend to get recycled several times. In Egypt, studies show canal water getting recycled up to seven times before it reaches the estuary. In Pakistan, the Indus becomes a river of poison by the time it reaches Sind, thanks to heavy chemical and salt loads from recycled irrigation water. Canals are also the cause of higher incidence of water-borne diseases such as malaria that affect non- irrigators as much as irrigators. Some 160 million hectares of the world’s 200 million hectares of surface irrigation are located in low and middle income countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Asia experienced a major spurt in irrigation building during the 1960s and 70s; Africa is headed towards a similar spurt in the years to come. Yet, many surface systems in the developing world today are of colonial vintage and went through several rounds of rehabilitation. Half or more were designed to irrigate rice. The US Bureau of Reclamation manual design systems found in many parts of Southeast Asia are chaotic by nature. Most old systems 35 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation were designed primarily for irrigation when human populations were much smaller, farm land was abundant, people and the state depended on heavily on agriculture, and authoritarian states used force to create order and enforce rules in irrigation commands where farmers had no alternative to gravity flow irrigation. Under these conditions, irrigation systems were simpler to manage. Today, the nature and scale of demands being made on old and new surface systems are changing rapidly. With the specter of water scarcity and climate change looming large, these systems are expected not only to alleviate agrarian poverty and ensure food security but also counter droughts and stave off famines. Historically, surface irrigation was built to deliver higher land productivity. Today they are also expected to deliver higher water productivity. Many surface systems, especially small irrigation tanks and reservoirs, were once used exclusively for irrigation. These have now morphed into Multiple Use Systems (MUS) serving a range of needs for women and men stakeholders. Many irrigation reservoirs are now expected to meet booming domestic water demand from rapidly growing cities and towns. Cities and towns are emerging as reliable sources of large volumes of wastewater that support, often with minimal or no treatment, some 4.5 million hectares of peri-urban farmland with distinctly complex management challenges (Raschid-Sally, 2010). According to the FAO, of some 245 million hectares of irrigation in Asia, Africa and South America, 159 million hectares depend on surface water transported by gravity. These represent an accumulated irrigation capital of over a trillion US dollars in terms of replacement cost (Table 3.1). New surface irrigation is being planned on a large scale in Sub- Saharan Africa which, compared to Asia, has much smaller irrigated areas. Ethiopia’s government is considering investing billions of dollars to double its irrigated area in a decade. Ghana’s new irrigation policy announced the government’s intent to add half a million hectares of irrigation over five years. Even in Asia, with an age old irrigation tradition, new irrigation projects are on the drawing table. Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen fondly refers to his ‘irrigation government’, striving to revive the glory of the Angkor Empire of the past. China is already implementing large inter-basin water transfer projects to irrigate its dry north. And India and Pakistan continue to invest heavily in building new and modernizing old irrigation systems, with the former planning a mammoth plan to link Himalayan rivers with rivers in its dry west and south. 36 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation Table 2.1 Irrigation capital stock of the developing world Region Area served Area equipped Replacement Replacement by for surface cost of value of groundwater irrigation equipping a ha irrigation capital (million ha)* for irrigation (Billion USD) (USD) circa 2005 1 Northern Africa 2.1 4.3 9,000 39 2 Sub-Saharan Africa 0.4 6.8 9,000 61 3 Americas (without North 2.5 16.9 9,000 152 America but including Mexico) 4 Asia: Middle East 10.8 12.7 9,000 114 5 Asia: Central Asia 1.1 13.5 9,000 121 6 Asia: Southern and Eastern 68.6 104.9 6,000 629 Asia Total (low and middle income 85.5 159.1 1,116 countries) While these mega plans are being made, the trillion-dollar question facing surface irrigation in the developing world is whether it is delivering on its promises, not only in terms of the areas irrigated and value created, but also in terms of poverty reduction, improved food and environmental security for men and women farmers. By conservative estimation, if one million cubic meters of surface water were as productive as a cubic meter of tubewell water, these irrigation commands should generate output worth USD 300-400 billion per year and recover USD 9-20 billion/year (3-5% of output) as water fees. In reality, surface water yields only a fraction of this due to poor management. The big answer is that we do not know the full answer. What we do know, from countless evaluations and studies is that surface irrigation systems almost always irrigate smaller areas—and generate lower value of output/m3-- than they were designed to. This may well be because in their over-enthusiasm to pass the cost-benefit test imposed by funders, planners over-estimate the areas that these can irrigate and the water productivity they can generate. But that does not explain why in India and Pakistan—which between them have half of the world’s surface irrigation—accelerated irrigation investment programs have failed to check the decline in areas irrigated by surface systems, especially since 1990 (Shah, 2009). In rice irrigation systems of water-abundant Southeast Asia, this problem is likely less critical than in water-scarce South Asia where surface systems are designed to spread scarce water over large areas for extensive irrigation. Here, system management seems woefully incapable of preventing head-reach farmers from taking their fill depriving tail-end farmers of their water rights. As a result, surface irrigation commands begin to shrink over time, some times to a small fraction of their design potential (Shah, 2009). Today, effective management of irrigation systems has emerged as an even more daunting challenge because these are meant to do much more than just irrigate—e.g., control floods generate power, provide drinking water to cities and industries, support fishery, alleviate 37 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation poverty and improve food security, minimize collateral damage in environmental terms, and help adapt to climate change (Mukherji et al., 2010). This program is about making public irrigation systems capable of responding to these new demands. Problem statement Irrigation must perform better on several fronts (Figure 2.1). Irrigators must learn to produce more food with less water. As many irrigation systems are home to the rural poor, there is scope to improve access to water to serve a range of crop, livestock, fish and household uses. As irrigation use a major share of water and land resources, irrigators have to become a better neighbor and interact with other users of basin water resources including cities and the environment. Irrigation has to manage to reduce environmental damage of present practices and policies that result in a number of environmental externalities including salinization, reduction of stream flows and loss of habitat. In Sub- Saharan Africa, where irrigation development plans on large-scale are yet to roll out, the key problem is identifying the most appropriate irrigation development roadmap for that region, based on lessons derived from 200 years of global experience in irrigation building and management. Lessons learned This management challenge is made even more daunting by very limited empirical knowledge about which systems are performing well and which are not within a country or across countries; or indeed about what is the appropriate benchmark for performance in an irrigation system confronted with multiple objectives. We know that flood control, hydro- power generation, drinking water supply, reservoir fishery are all objectives that many modern irrigation systems are expected to serve, and all these in some way or the other are in conflict with the irrigation objective. Managers of trans-boundary irrigation systems face another genre of conflict. But even management of small irrigation tanks in Sri Lanka and reservoirs in West Africa involves negotiating among conflicting but legitimate objectives of irrigation, fishery, domestic uses and groundwater recharge. What we do know, however, is that irrigation systems differ in the value they create per unit of water consumed by evapotranspiration (see Figure 2.1) (Sakthivadivel et al., 1999). What we also have is some understanding of better performance in, e.g. arid Egypt where according to studies repeated recycling of Nile water releases raises system efficiencies to 80 percent or more (Keller and Keller, 1995). There is also evidence that Southeast Asia— especially Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand have interesting examples of management improvements in rice irrigation systems; and that China has experimented with alternative institutional arrangements for canal water distribution through Water User Associations (WUA) as well as through incentivized irrigation bureaucrats and contractors (Wang et al., 2010). Systems—such as Jiamakou—have chased performance targets over a long haul and some like Zhanghe in China have chased multiple targets. In rice irrigation systems, 38 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation interesting innovations for water saving are being experimented with in several countries (Barker et al., 2010). On community level surface systems—like irrigation tanks and small reservoirs—the picture is far more blurred with respect to management innovations as well as their impacts. In any case, in all these described above, the focus is on impact of system management on irrigation per se and not on the multiple conflicting objectives that their managers are often expected to meet. In South Asia, improving management as well as assessing performance has become challenging because of massive growth in informal irrigation from surface water structures. Equally confounding is a boom in groundwater irrigation within canal commands which makes recharge from leaky canals and surface irrigation critical for sustaining the groundwater economy and minimizing the danger of aquifer depletion. Informal irrigation is also booming in Sub-Saharan Africa from surface as well as groundwater (Brown and Nooter, 1992; Merry and Sally, 2008); and the relatively high capital costs of reservoir-and- canal systems in these regions raise interesting questions about alternative modes of irrigation development (Africa Investment Study) The point remains that there are hardly examples of surface irrigation systems in the developing world that exemplify how agile system management can successfully chase multiple moving targets over decades. Figure 2.1 The value of output produced per unit of water (ET) varies tremendously 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 * surface water and public wells ** private wells Performance assessment and benchmarking tools have been developed for improved irrigation system management (Bos et al., 2005, Bos et al., 1994, IWMI-IPTRID benchmarking system). Performance assessment tools looked at internal operation and 39 US dollar per m3 Chishtian sub-… Mahi-Kadana Nachchaduwa Muda Rajanganaya Nile Delta Kourani Baria II Sunsari Morang Gorgo West Gandak Marchwar Lift Saga Big Thompson Khageri Panchakanya Fryingpan Kankai Mogtedo Saldana Kourani Baria I Seyhan Coella RUT Torreon Salvatierra… Alto Rio Lerma * Cortazar… Salvatierra… Menemen Imperial ID Manisa Samaca Triffa… Alto Rio… Sarigol Panoche WD Adala Bhairawa… Alasehir Turgutlu Cortazar… Savili Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation maintenance of irrigation, and later issues of productivity, but have not adequately addressed competing concerns on land and water. Uptake has been slow, in large part because they are used to enforce accountability between irrigation managers, users and broader society. Until accountability can be established, it is unlikely that these tools will be taken up. During Colonial era, high water rates and betterment levies imposed by the state built pressure for performance both because irrigation managers wanted to expand areas from which taxes could be collected and farmers demanded service for which they paid nontrivial sums. Now, however, that canal irrigators pay highly subsidized irrigation charges, managers have little motivation to improve service and farmers have no moral basis to complain. Many analysts argued during the 1970’s that charging volumetric water fee would improve irrigation performance, but creating tamper-proof measurement infrastructure at outlet level has proven a major challenge (Carruthers and Stoner, 1981). Moreover, researchers have argued that to affect the behavior of farmers and irrigation managers, volumetric water rates would need to be levied at rates too high to be politically feasible (Perry, 2001). How best then to improve the performance of surface irrigation in present day context? The stock answer has been by organizing farmers for local water management. The idea that has ruled irrigation performance discourse for over three decades—which can be termed the PIM-IMT hypothesis-suggests that a partnership between irrigation agency and farmers organizations would reverse persistent decline in performance of surface irrigation. Then hope has been that Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the partners involved might over time lead to Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) in which farmer organizations take over complete responsibility for managing increasingly larger portions of the irrigation system below the headworks. There is hardly a country which has not tried PIM in some form or the other, nor can one find an irrigation funding contract from a donor that does not mandate PIM. Yet PIM/IMT have proved far from being a panacea for ailing irrigation systems of the developing world. Once considered a roaring success, Philippines’s PIM program has lost much of its sheen (Oorthuizen, 2003). PIM has produced sustainable revitalization in irrigation systems in a few countries, notably Turkey, Mexico and Columbia with medium-to-large sized land holdings (Kloezen et al., 1997; Ramirez and Vargas, 1999; Rap et al., 1999; Svendsen and Nott, 1997)) but has failed to make a mark in small-holder farming contexts of Asia and Sub- Saharan Africa (Shah et al., 2002). Here, sustained intervention by support units from NGOs has animated farmer organizations; but withdrawal of such support often heralds the collapse of PIM. Inability of PIM/IMT programs to produce quick and significant performance improvements has led analysts to progressively lower the bar; and in much recent discussion, PIM is considered successful even if it merely “reduces the financial burden on the government towards the O&M of the system” (Vermillion, 1996). 40 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation Why has it been so difficult to make PIM work on a large scale? The idea of PIM is based on the experience of centuries old traditional irrigation systems—such as tanks in southern India, the ahar-pyne systems of South Bihar, the hill irrigation systems in Nepal and Indian Himalaya’s, subaks in Bali, Indonesia. But replicating the institutional successes of self- governing indigenous irrigation communities to large, hierarchical, bureaucratically managed irrigation systems has proved a great leap of faith. As anthropologist Robert Hunt (1989,70) figured out 30 years ago, “Farmers are clearly capable of building, operating and maintaining complicated irrigation systems…*and+ if indigenous systems are so capable, then the farmers at the tail end of the large bureaucratic irrigation projects should also be capable of doing the same things. There are serious problems with this analogy however..” (italics added). The key problem has to do with the role of social capital, i.e., relationships of trust embedded in social networks. Vidal et al (2001) distinguish between bonding-type social capital that links people together with others like them, and bridging-type social capital that cuts across differences such as caste, class, religion, physical distance. Indigenous irrigation systems invariably grew out of or were built around bonding-type social capital which helped homogenous communities thrive on it. Successful PIM in modern irrigation systems requires building of bridging-type social capital so that WUAs at the tail-end can work with those at the head, and all WUAs together in turn can work with the Agency staff. This is a different ballgame altogether. Making PIM work is centrally about building bridging-type social capital; but we seldom see an understanding of or attempt to build bridging type social capital in an irrigation command. Potential impact areas Major target areas for research impact will be in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa but with an eye on countries like Mexico, Egypt and Morocco where relevant lessons in management reform are on offer. The issues are different in Asia and Africa. In Asia, where the bulk of the irrigation building has been completed, the central challenge is of improving its management so that they can perform to their best potential against the multiple objectives on which they are expected to deliver. In South Asia, for instance, the research will explore ways to break out of the stagnation in public irrigation. In Southeast Asia, where rice irrigation systems are better performing than elsewhere, the issue is how to reverse or cope with the water quality issues these are facing. In China, where surface water has been rapidly diverted from agriculture to industries, the challenge is how best to husband diminishing supplies in public systems with other water sources including groundwater. And in Central Asia, the key areas of impact will be in improving the performance of previously centrally managed, unified Soviet irrigation system which now lies fragmented across five bordering sovereign countries. 41 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation In Sub-Saharan Africa, where the ‘irrigation game’ is yet to begin in a true sense, especially for small holder women and men farmers, the potentially vast impact area is of not making the mistakes that Asia did. The region is bracing to do much of its irrigation building in the decades to come; and it is looking up to Asia to derive useful lessons on how best to go about doing it. CRP 5 will contribute significantly to this enterprise. Theory of change With the persistent failure of PIM/IMT to revitalize public and community irrigation systems, the irrigation debate is back to the square one: what would it take to get large and small surface irrigation systems to operate to their full potential for performance in terms of reliability, equity, productivity and sustainability? The answer, we suggest, lies in improving the management of the main system above the outlets by a combination of instruments including capacity building, organizational renewal, redesigned incentive structures and robust performance management systems. PIM/IMT will remain pipedreams as long as main system managers fail to deliver reliable water supplies in predictable schedules at the outlets; conversely, men and women farmers and their WUAs will begin actively participating in local water management if, and as soon as, the main system begins to function to as they are supposed to (Aw and Diemer, 2005). Until then, farmers will keep taking the blame for the failure and inefficiencies of system managers. The grand change hypothesis then is that in improving the working of the of main system lies the secret to improving the performance of irrigation systems in terms of areas served, water and land productivity, livelihoods and food security for women and men farmers, and internalizing eco-system services and disservices generated by surface irrigation. Doing this requires focusing on management of main systems by irrigation agencies and fostering greater accountability and performance orientation among agency managers. Research questions Several questions have been explored by social researchers in recent years. What is the appropriate institutional set-up for managing irrigation schemes, including large-scale schemes as well as small-scale schemes such as tanks? What is the potential of WAUs? How to make WAUs inclusive in terms of gender and marginalized groups? How can Informal and Formal water management institutions be integrated for increased productivity in irrigation schemes? What are the mechanisms for making irrigation multiple uses so as to address rural poverty for both poor women and men? What are the market linkages to maximize irrigation productivity? How to overcome the governance challenges involved in the construction of irrigation infrastructure and the management of irrigation schemes, such as procurement problems, political interference and leakage of funds? How can the public sector agencies in charge of irrigation management be reformed to increase their effectiveness and accountability? These all remain important and will inform CRP5 research. However, irrigation systems have come such a long way from their original conception that it is important for CRP5 to go back to the basics. The central research questions CRP5 will address are these: 42 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation 1. The first question relating to performance assessment of irrigation systems comes in two distinct parts; first, given the multiple objectives for which public and community surface systems are managed, how best to conceptualize and benchmark their performance?; second, given that different systems are managed for different sets of objectives, how best to establish standardized performance benchmarks for meaningful comparative hydro-institutional analysis; 2. What technical, managerial, institutional and incentive conditions among these explain performance differentials in terms of standardized benchmarks? Based on those results, what are options to improve performance, or to help in the institutional and technical design of new irrigation? 3. What replicable lessons can be drawn from comparative analysis of a clutch of systems across countries for building a toolbox for improving the design and management of surface irrigation systems? 4. What are the most effective ways of building bridging-type social capital in the irrigation organization to promote sustainable partnership among WUAs and with Agency staff? 5. What lessons do 200 years of global experience with building and managing surface irrigation for food security and poverty alleviation offer to Sub-Saharan Africa where massive new irrigation investments are likely in the years to come? Our opening hypothesis is that, once standardized performance benchmarks are determined, a rigorous method of comparative analysis will find performance differentials among systems explained by differences at three levels: a. The quality of main system management and its determinants (accountability of and economic incentives facing agency staff, policy makers, politicians; management capacity; systems and processes); b. The nature and quality of institutional structures for water distribution below the outlet (quality of WUA; unbundling and privatization; rigor of warabandi, etc), redesigning their incentive structures and the buildup of bridging-type social capital among them; and c. Quality of irrigation extension and technical support system for maximizing water productivity (AWADI, SRI in rice irrigation; conjunctive use of surface, ground, waste and rainwater, GM technologies; etc). The three are not mutually exclusive. Where the main system is well managed, institutional arrangements for water distribution below the outlet too are generally good. Equally, good WUAs often include strong extension support. However, analytically, it is useful to focus the comparative analysis at these three levels. Research methodology The research will have two strands. 43 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation FAO’s MASSCOTE and Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP) which have already been used on some 70 systems will be the basis for evolving a rigorous methodology of comparative hydro-institutional analysis of irrigation performance and will be the hallmark of this Strategic Research Portfolio. A working assumption is that management systems, processes and ethos are likely to vary more across countries (e.g. India and China) than across systems within a country (say Krishna and Cauvery in South India). This makes it imperative that we identify and work with large and small surface systems in a dozen countries from Asia and Africa. The methodology will entail seven sequential steps as follows: Use a CRP protocol to generate the material appropriate to confront national and regional policy makers, administrators, and irrigation funders. This would also be the stage when work should begin to develop performance rating systems for public irrigation systems in countries interested in participating in such a performance management program. A second strand running in parallel with the performance studies will cover issues of improving water productivity, managing for multiple uses and multiple ecosystem services, and the combined physical and institutional design of irrigation. This will include cross scale analysis to see how water productivity enhancing practices on farm can be supported by the system, implications for real water savings, and impact on ecosystems. Results from the performance assessment and in-depth studies will shed light on modernization efforts plus design of new irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Research locations: IWMI, ICARDA and FAO expect to build a strong research partnership; all have long standing presence in countries with large surface irrigation areas like India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, South Africa which can serve as learning laboratories. IWMI has also presence and partnerships in Ethiopia, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Laos and Cambodia—countries that are now planning to build new irrigation in a big way. ICARDA and partners in CWANA focus on field and farm irrigation systems for improving their performance and water productivity. Important will be the linkage with MP1 dealing with production systems. Research partnerships: In these as well as other major surface irrigation countries, such as China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, as well as some countries in CWANA such as Egypt, Syria and Morocco, new partnerships with young irrigation managers and researchers will be built. IWMI, ICARDA and FAO are already working to build a network of researchers and practitioners that will come in handy for this purpose. ICARDA has a network of partners in Egypt with its satellite sites in Iraq, Sudan and Central Asian Countries. The design of this research makes its success contingent upon vibrant partnerships with local researchers and irrigation managers, a strong accent on training and capacity building and frequent consultations among the partners for progressively evolving the research program as also for maximizing ownership and internalization of research process as well as outputs. 44 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation Research outputs Research outputs will include four clusters of products: [a] standardized irrigation management performance benchmarking methodology, building on FAO’s MASSCOTE, and the supporting Management Information System (MIS) needed to undertake comparative performance analysis across systems of a “given class” as well as monitoring the performance of a system over time; *b+ a set of system management case studies complete with ‘performance improvement plans’ for 12-15 large surface systems across a dozen countries, identifying socio- economic, institutional, managerial and policy variables that stimulate or undermine system performance; there will similarly be 6-8 case studies of clusters of small surface structures (tanks in South India, small reservoirs in Ghana, Kareizes in Baluchistan); [c] A toolkit of options for improving the management of surface irrigation systems against multiple objectives their managers are required to achieve. Included in these are options that would realize real water savings and increase the productivity of water in terms of value produced per unit of water consumed in irrigation; ways to support multiple uses of water including those valued by women, provide better and equitable service to farmers; ways to enhance ecosystem services of irrigation, and minimize environmental externalities; and different management models that move beyond the concept of PIM; [d] a clutch of capacity building products for building bridging social capital among farmer groups and leaders, irrigation managers, policy makers, political leaders and funding agency personnel on improving the performance of irrigation systems. [e] an irrigation investment strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa based on an assessment of global irrigation experience and analyses of SSA’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Outputs after three years: Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions. A suite of practices to improve water productivity at different scales. This includes:  to strengthen WUAs in Central Asia,  techniques to improve on-farm water productivity in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrigistan, 45 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation  on farm practices to increase the productivity of water (water use efficiency) identified for potato based systems in the Andes,  Potential of deficit irrigation and advanced irrigation under limited water supply for olives,  integrating aquaculture and fisheries into production practices in Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique,  Crop water productivity analysis in the Asheiman and Golinga irrigation projects in Ghana. Performance indicators, benchmarking and performance assessment techniques developed and applied.  Indicators for evaluating participatory management developed and applied in SE Asia.  Performance of irrigation systems assessed in Niger and Burkina Faso with recommendations on improvement.  Assessment of economic benefits and constraints for rice production in inland valleys of Ghana. Guidelines for selecting sites for lowland rice production in inland valleys of West Africa. Tools for integrative analysis using GIS and Bayesian network modeling to support informed decision-making on promoting and scaling out target technologies for pond aquaculture. Outcomes and impact The desired outcome is a more accountable irrigation management to farmers and other MUS stakeholders. If the overarching change hypothesis is that irrigation performance can significantly improve by fostering greater accountability and performance orientation among agency managers, its impact hypothesis is that accountability and performance orientation can be enhanced by making available in the public domain real time information about performance gaps in a decision-friendly manner. The effect can be further heightened by instituting a performance rating system across systems and system components. The research will establish pathways and methodologies to do this; it will not only identify performance shortfalls but also suggest, through comparative analysis, ways to overcome shortfalls. A key component will be aggressive dissemination of research results and irrigation management tool kit with policy makers and political leaders in participating countries as well as among multilateral irrigation funders. Even if the program excels in all these objectives, there is no way of being certain that public irrigation systems will achieve their planning and design objectives, since these are often inflated to unrealistic levels to justify project investments. However, we expect to see: 46 Strategic Research Portfolio: Irrigation 24 months: [a] a Community of Practice in operation spanning 40 irrigation systems in Asia and Africa; [b] performance benchmarks established in all 40 participating systems in terms of water productivity, gender and social equity, poverty reduction, environmental impacts and economic sustainability; 45 months: Improved CRP5-based irrigation management protocol in use in at least 20 irrigation systems across Asia and Africa; the protocol will have three components: [a] a superior methodology for WUA organization based on credible service quality contracts; [b] new approaches to improving main system management; [c] improved performance management of whole systems based on real-time feedback loops; and [d] an irrigation development strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa. 65 months: [a] verifiable evidence of significant and sustainable performance improvements in at least 10 irrigation systems; [b] a critical assessment of the improved CRP5 based irrigation management protocol by the COP and reformulation based on comparison of protocol impact with benchmark; 72 months: a validated CRP5-based irrigation management protocol ready for adaptation in improving irrigation system performance throughout the developing world. Partners International Organizations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); SIC-ICWC, PROCISUR. NARES Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Egypt; National Water Research Center (NWRC), Egypt; Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran; SENNIRI, Uzbekistan; Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Libya; Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil; INTA, Argentina, Chili and Uruguay; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), China. Farmers, Water User Associations and WUA Support Organizations: Development Support Center in India; Universities American University of Beirut; University of California, Davis, USA; University of Florida, USA; Utah State University, USA; Texas A&M University, USA; University of Illinois, USA. 47 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed Strategic Research Portfolio: Unlocking the potential of rainfed agriculture through integrated land and water management within social-ecological landscapes Vision Investments and community partnerships in sustainable soil, land and water practices will improve the livelihoods and food security of 3.4 million women, men and children from 480,000 smallholder households in agricultural production landscapes across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA), South, East and Southeast Asia and Latin America. Investments in physical, social and human capital will increase crop yields by 20% to 50% over broad areas. Yields will double or triple in selected areas through adoption of enhanced rainwater and natural resource management practices while reducing or reversing land degradation. Issues of crop productivity, water scarcity and land degradation will be addressed simultaneously within a combined socio-economic and biophysical framework. Public and private investors are convinced that the greatest potential for increased agricultural production, reversal of land and water degradation and poverty alleviation lie in under-performing rainfed agricultural areas in dry and semi-arid regions. Research provides evidence and insights for addressing barriers to the adoption of recommended investment packages, while assisting communities and Governments to provide supportive policy and institutional capacities to encourage investment. All stakeholders are engaged from the start in the participatory process of research planning, implementation and evaluation. Problem statement There are over 155 million farming households in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, CWANA and Latin America that lack affordable soil and water management technologies, appropriate extension information, and access to markets. At the same time they have to cope with degraded lands. Populations in these areas need responses that can intensify production whilst maintaining or improving ecosystem functionality (Bossio et al., 2007; World Development Report, 2008). The basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas are well known (Annex1). A sociopolitical and economic, not a technical problem People make decisions about water and land use based on sociopolitical and economic contexts, as well as the physical characteristics of land. Land tenure, markets and commodity prices, and gender relations all affect decision-making. In addition, political environments may be so repressive as to undermine the readiness of land users to develop and implement innovative land and water management practices. High and growing population densities can have serious impacts on water and land. This is particularly evident where populations spill over into previously uncultivated marginal dry lands (as has been happening rapidly in parts of East Africa) and where poor farmers are 48 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed pushed further uphill onto ever steeper slopes (as is the case in parts of Asia and Central America). In both cases this land is especially vulnerable to degradation. Agricultural technologies have to be adapted to highly variable local biophysical and socio cultural conditions as both are influencing farmers’ decision making. Getting information to farmers is difficult and costly because there are large numbers of small households widely dispersed over sometimes difficult terrain, and quality of extension services is less than desirable (Renkow, and Byerlee, 2010). Penetration of mass media to the far reaches of the countryside is often poor, but new ICT technologies are opening up opportunities. Rainfed areas often have poor infrastructure and weak market links because investments usually go to cash crop or irrigated areas. This includes local institutions which often have limited capacity for providing services like health and agricultural extension. Fragile local institutions for integrated natural resources management and political contexts that inhibit collective action make consolidated and integrated watershed management difficult to achieve. Often, existing local institutions are disrupted during development efforts rather than strengthened, and are not replaced by effective bodies. Integration the aim Our aim in this Strategic Research Portfolio is a) to bridge the silos of soil versus water management, b) understand the dynamics of the landscape, and c) focus on the socio- economic and institutional factors supporting or constraining soil and water management decision making. Only an integrated approach will give us the required perspective to support appropriate decision making across scales. In CRP5, the traditional household or farm focus is broadened, as ultimately communities are responsible for managing landscapes. Thus, CRP5 provides the cross-scale perspective with a significant emphasis on landscapes to balance productivity gains with social and ecological objectives. The goal is to increase productivity of rainfed systems via improved natural resources management by 15-20% on average in 10-15 years. This is realistically achievable because productivity is generally low to begin with, and in many locations it has been demonstrated that yields can double or triple as long as farmers adopt recommended practices. Thus, we need to invest in soil health through proven ‘packages’ or soil fertility inputs, and in an environment supporting technology adoption at the catchment, basin and landscape scale where rainfall can best be diverted, stored and managed over wide areas, and where soil erosion and nutrient loss can be most effectively managed under consideration of interlinked on- and off-site effects. Justification The Comprehensive Assessment (2007) showed that investments in rainfed agriculture have large payoffs in yield improvement and poverty alleviation through income generation and environmental sustainability. The greatest potential to increase land and water productivity 49 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed lies in areas of low productive agriculture, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, CWANA, and South Asia (Molden et al., 2007). The potential for growth is illustrated in average cereal grain yields: 7 to 10 metric tons in America and Europe, 3 in South Asia, 2 in CWANA and 1 in SSA. Eighty percent of the world’s croplands are rainfed and produce 60-70% of the world’s food (Rockstrom 2007). Half of this is produced in mixed crop-livestock systems (Herero 2010). Many of these rainfed landscapes are healthy and productive, demonstrating that rainfed systems can support high yields, a range of livelihood options and healthy ecosystems. Well functioning rainfed systems provide models and benchmarks for those that function less well. Low producing rainfed areas, in contrast, are characterized by high degrees of poverty and malnutrition, land degradation and poor access to water combined with low land, water and labor productivity, poor human nutrition and health (Rockstrom et al., 2007, Bossio et al., 2007, Wani et al., 2009), loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity. In many cases, water resources no longer meet household food needs or provide any basis for improvement in standards of living. Yields in poorly performing rainfed systems are generally less than half that in irrigated systems. Research has demonstrated that when the water is available, and soil fertility supported, there is scope to double or often quadruple yields through improved agronomic practices (Rockstrom, 2009; Wani et al., 2008), at the same time maintaining ecosystems and improving land quality (Bossio et al., 2007). But gains in production in rainfed areas have, in the past, come mainly from expansion. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, cultivated area doubled since 1960 (reference), but yield per unit remained much the same. In Latin America, there has been an area expansion of 40% in the last 25 years. There are biophysical and socio-economic limits to extensification as well as consequences, not the least of which is fragmentation of natural ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2008) pointed to agricultural expansion as the biggest driver of ecosystem change. A large part of the solution lies in moving from expansion to intensification of agriculture, but only if intensification is managed for sustainability. Long term experiments have shown e.g. productivity of 5.1 tons/ha in community management plans against 1.1 tons/ha in farmer-managed plots (Wani et al., 2008). However, intensification also faces significant socio-economic constraints if market, institutional or policy incentives for adoption are missing, or cultural factors like gender roles in decision making or inheritance patterns constrain adoption. Failure to adopt new 50 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed policies and practices can usually be traced to one or more root causes, which can be analyzed for strategic policy advice and interventions. Lessons learned A key lesson is that the success of an innovation is strongly determined by forces affecting farmers’ recognition of their benefits that in turn direct the scaling of wider adoption (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009). Many past initiatives aimed at smallholder land management were designed to identify what kinds of interventions offered the greatest potential under certain biophysical conditions, while de facto adoption in farm communities remained limited. Also, the shift in the nineties to more on-farm research did not result in the envisaged breakthrough. Only if adoption barriers can be removed or enhanced through targeted off-farm interventions, on-farm soil-fertility and water-productivity boosting interventions will research be able to contribute to increased food security and poverty alleviation. With probably the majority of rainfed farmers being women, one important key to more successful research lies in gender analysis of differences in access to production factors (land, labor, capital, markets, extension). Promising interventions for combination (soil- water) are: a) Soil fertility based interventions  Promoting fertilizer micro-dosing in conjunction with water harvesting adopted in some parts of SSA but ready for much wider application (Tabo et al., 2006).  Better integrating soil fertility and water management in agro-pastoral systems in drylands (Reij and Thiombiano, 2003).  Promoting soybean-maize systems offering land managers combined benefits through crop rotation and market entry (Sanginga et al., 1997).  Developing conservation agriculture practices suited to smallholder needs and capacities (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003).  Refining agroforestry-based soil management in hillside maize-legume agriculture in Central American hillsides (Ayarza and Wélchez, 2004; Castro et al., 2009; CIAT, 2009).  Conjunctive use of rain and irrigation water (so called green and blue water sources) in supplemental irrigation especially with deficit irrigation and improved nutrients and cultivars (Oweis and Hachum 2006) However, conservation measures especially tend to reduce short-term profits, as they require extra labor, land or capital. Thus technology uptake is often discouraging from the conservation point of view, while farmers have to find a compromise between their different objectives, possibilities and constraints. 51 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed b) Water-productivity based interventions  Supplemental irrigation of rainfed wheat and other grain crops in West Asia and North Africa has shown great success in doubling or tripling yields by applying 100-300 mm of water to alleviate soil water stress during dry spells (Oweis and Hachum 2006).  Supplemental irrigation enabled farmers in Syria, Tunisia and Morocco to use responsive wheat varieties and more inputs to achieve yields of 5-6 tons/ha for rainfed wheat (Ben Mechlia, 2003 and ICARDA 2007).  Combining farm water harvesting with supplemental irrigation not only increased water and land productivity but also reduced erosion, allowed the use of more inputs, especially fertilizers, and improved the environment. These and other opportunities have to be analyzed across scales, which starts with household decision making and gender roles, making the analysis also relevant to the Production System CRP’s (CRP1.1, 1.2), while the added value under CRP5 derives from their application at watershed and landscape scales looking at community-based planning and decision making, policy incentives, overall sustainability and ecosystem services implications. A watershed approach, linking people and practices in a landscape, has delivered important benefits and measurable impacts, and needs to be implemented on a large scale. Watershed development is not just a means to increase productivity or to conserve soil and water, but an opportunity for fully integrated and sustained development of human and natural resources. Impact in watershed development comes through long-term commitment from partners and arises out of institutional enforcement, policy change and investment flows. Incentives for change at watershed scale include traditional policy and land reform instruments, market-based incentives but also benefit sharing mechanisms and payments for environmental services (Wunder, 2005, Wani et al., 2008). A landscape is however most of all a web of individuals and institutions. No project aiming to improve landscape management can succeed unless it forges robust institutional arrangements for the members of the landscape community to undertake cooperative action. Fragile institutions are the bane of any integrated watershed development program. Hence, in making integrated landscape management work, it is first required to organize landscape communities into vibrant and sustainable institutions. A number of interventions in benchmark watersheds in India, China, Thailand, Vietnam and Syria have shown how it is possible to ensure tangible economic benefits to small and marginal farmers, who are mostly women, through enhanced rainwater use efficiency and targeted income generating activities (Wani, 2008, Somme et al., 2004). 52 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed There are other opportunities where innovation has potential to upgrade watersheds or landscapes but requires further research to understand how to balance or support production, landscape integrity, ecosystem functions and institutional capacities. For example, improved access to water poses huge opportunities for intensification, including moving to higher valued crops. Sustainability, equity and maintaining ecological functions and services become strong concerns in this development. The advantages of these integrated NRM approaches will become even more apparent if combined with plant and animal breeding efforts undertaken under other CRPs. Technology often ‘sparks’ best results from combining improved crop varieties and better field and water management practices. Substantial returns for modest inputs within current farm enterprises offer more short-term gains over restructured and externally-driven farming approaches. No single soil or water technology or practice is able to make a difference unless introduced as part of an integrated package including inputs and other practices and knowledge. Other lessons are:  Emergent technologies perform best where farmers have access to farm inputs, credit, storage facilities, and fair markets. Opportunities for value added processing require longer-term and more focused attention.  Smallholders are by necessity cautious and even the most promising innovations will not be adopted without strengthening farm liaison skills among public and private sector extension systems, development agencies, commercial input suppliers and produce buyers.  Adoption at local levels is best coordinated by farmer groups and is strongest among members who learn-by-doing on their own farms. Failure to conduct farm liaison in a flexible and participatory manner can undermine a much needed but poorly presented innovation. Potential impact areas Overall, 480,000 households will directly participate in the project; 120,000 in SSA, 120,000 in CWANA, 200,000 in South Asia and 40,000 in Latin America, corresponding to about 2.4 million persons in total. Theory of change The first lever of change is based on a better integration of the common biophysical research areas (e.g. soil and water), and strong emphasis on socio-economic and policy- institutional factors limiting change across scales. By integrating research across disciplines and a clear focus on factors constraining or supporting farmers and community decision making, research can significantly add value to proven approaches. 53 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed If adoption barriers can be addressed, a subsequent lever for change will be through increased public and private investment in integrated land and water management, supported by institutional capacity building and policy reform. Investments in improving water availability in rainfed systems are a key entry point to reverse the spiral of degradation and to trigger the use of other inputs and responsive crops leading to further improved productivity. Research questions Research on rainfed areas needs to address five levels: [a] What technological and resource management options make sense for the livelihood priorities of women and men in landscape communities, and what is needed to facilitate their adoption? [b] How can these priorities be brought to the center stage of local institutional arrangements for conservation and improvement in landscape productivity? [c] How to design effective community cum landscape interventions to implement technical and management solutions through local institutions of women and men producers? [d] What kind of scientific, economic, administrative and management support system might be needed to roll out large-scale, time-bound landscape and livelihood improvement programs at national or regional scale? [e] What are the threats and opportunities to such programs in view of externalities and global and national discourses and drivers? Key research questions span these scales in the research-to-development continuum: 1. Where are the strategic opportunities to invest in integrated soil and water management, and what are critical short and long term constraints? Where can more productive use of soil and water resources be achieved? What are the major soil and water constraints and land degradation hotspots? What are the socio- economic and political factors that represent opportunities or constraints? How will climate change and other change drivers influence these opportunities and constraints? What are the benefits and tradeoffs of improved soil and water management in terms of productivity gains and ecosystem services? 2. What effective incentives and/or investment models are there to stimulate uptake of improved soil and water management practices for improved livelihoods of the rural poor at household and community level in the very wide range of contexts in which we work? Which practices are appropriate for a given context? What are the major factors behind adoption or non-adoption of soil and water practices in rainfed areas? What is the role of women in these models? What are the strategies to stimulate adoption, including a 54 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed mix of policy reform, institutional change, incentive structure for farmers, capacity building, extension services, public-private sector partnerships, markets, technologies, and adaptive management capacities? Can benefit-sharing mechanisms or payment for environmental services (PES) provide incentives to adopt conservation measures? 3. What are the consequences of large scale uptake? If practices are adopted, what are the impacts on livelihoods and poverty, water and land resources, biodiversity and other ecosystem services? How are benefits and costs distributed among households, women and men, communities, and broader societal interests? How can these be measured and monitored in a cost-effective way? What are carbon gains of the proposed interventions and their consequences for climate change? In mixed, multifunctional landscapes, how do we measure, assess and improve resilience, water productivity, and impacts on livelihoods? What will be the downstream impact on upstream water harvesting? How will drivers like urbanization, population growth, changing diets and climate change affect the community and landscape plans we are making now? 4. What future scenarios should we be considering now? Given the limited stocks or high prices of N, P, and K, how can we design food production systems that reduce dependence? How can phosphorous be replenished? Are there more opportunities for developing organic and bio-fertilizers, and what is the potential of biological nitrogen fixation and biochar? How can more carbon be sequestered in soils and what is the nitrogen cost for that carbon? What is the current and potential scale of salinity and soil acidification, and what can be done to mitigate the problem? Implementation plan The first step in implementing this SRP is working within the CG system to integrate the work in progress and bridge the gap between the soil and water communities of practice. At the most basic level, this entails planning work at the same sites, looking for synergies between ongoing projects, and planning new projects that fully integrate socio-economics with soil and water interventions across scales. While the problem of integrated soil fertility and water management is generally formulated as one of increasing access to affordable technology (e.g. fertilizers, water technology), there are a host of internal and external non-technical factors that need to be understood and addressed. Because agricultural interventions need to be customized to local conditions, it will be necessary to identify those factors in the local context. Stakeholders are engaged from the start in the participatory process of research planning, 55 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed implementation and evaluation, making it a demand driven process. With a clear policy message on how to move forward, public and private sector investors can be approached. The following framework (Figure 2.2) provides a structured approach that can be applied to any scale:  Resource and livelihood situation (exogenous and endogenous). These factors can be identified by undertaking a cluster analysis of the state of the resources (land, vegetation, soil and water) and social and economic setting (e.g., poverty incidence, on- and off-farm income sources, landholding size, nutritional indicators, gendered organization of farming and decision-making, land tenure systems, etc.) at household scale in each study site.  Backward links in the full range of technology options. These can be illustrated by examining the factors and conditions that determine their adoption: who has access to them (e.g. by gender, farming system, income level), their cost, institutional constraints and opportunities (e.g. credit, extension, input markets, infrastructure planning processes and management institutions, maintenance and operation, broader policy environment).  Forward links. These can be illustrated by assessing the local and regional agricultural marketing systems and price structures, access to these systems is obtained, and the role of gender in agricultural marketing. This analysis will assess the markets themselves, access and distance to markets, communication, cold- chains, and the broader policy environment in which the markets operate.  Externalities. These can be determined by evaluating the positive and negative impacts of technologies at the watershed and landscape level and the environmental, social and institutional sustainability issues in the context of climate change and the adaptive management capabilities of supporting institutions. Applying this framework allows us to anticipate and plan for the direct and indirect impacts (e.g., livelihood, resource, institutional) of proposed interventions and approaches. It also allows us to model and assess opportunities to effect positive livelihood and environmental change. The framework provides guidance for: Where to invest (site selection criteria for investors)? Who will benefit? What types of interventions work best in different settings and what are the related constraints and/or negative externalities? How to intervene (e.g., the pros and cons of different intervention approaches including financing, stakeholder participation, outscaling, policies and support 56 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed services, and the scale of intervention to maximize the poverty alleviating benefits, overcome potential constraints, and minimize negative externalities? Who are the actors and what support is needed from local and national governments and NGOs? What is the short-term and long-term role of private investors in reducing agrarian poverty through these soil and water approaches? Figure 2.2: Framework for improved livelihoods and food security in and beyond rainfed systems Bi ophysical conditions Improved Economics Policies & livelihoods institutions & food security Research outputs This SRP delivers the following outputs:  Better understanding of the drivers and constraints for out- and upscaling the adoption of research-based interventions among women, men and youth, at household and community level in rainfed areas.  Tools to understand the impact of implementation of these solutions under various drivers of change, landscapes and community settings.  New options for technology dissemination, incentive systems (e.g. PES, carbon credits) as well as interventions to improve soil health for greater water and land productivity and ecosystem services identified, tested, refined and packaged.  Analytic tools, models, and interpretive frameworks developed and employed across contrasting agro-ecosystems and at various scales, generating strategies for adapting to evolving demands and a changing resource base. This SRP links with the SRP on Information Systems, which will help with site characterization, spatial targeting of interventions, and modeling and monitoring frameworks for assessing intervention impacts. 57 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed  New insights developed and communicated through research into soil health and water quality, including phosphorous replenishment, organic fertilizers, carbon sequestration in soils, and solutions for salinity and alkalinity. Over the next 3 years, the following research outputs will be delivered (examples): Outputs delivered during the first three years are based partly on existing projects aligned with this SRP. During the inception phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this SRP and formulate more specific cross- cutting outputs in line with those described above. Analytic tools and frameworks  Framework for socio-economic and institutional analysis in study sites considering possible incentives and barriers to technology adoption and scalability, including gender roles and access to production factors.  Water Productivity (WP) framework adapted for crop-livestock systems that can be applied at farm, system or landscape scale for any chosen region of study  for understanding current arrangements for managing watershed development activity and groundwater in rainfed areas of Andhra Pradesh exploring new institutional economics and management/ organizational design frameworks  to assess opportunities and constraints of agricultural water management interventions and monitor and evaluate level impacts of agricultural water management interventions and approaches at the farm, community and watershed levels  low cost analytical methods and interpretation tools for diagnosing soil and plant micronutrient deficiency syndromes. Procedures for targeting and extrapolation domain analysis  GIS, spatial analysis and modeling tools used for extrapolation of improved crop water productivity technologies from plot and field level to the watershed level developed and tested in target countries (extrapolation domains).  Targeting tool for gender outscaling of agricultural water management interventions for rainfed smallholder farming systems applied in SSA and India.  Web-based decision-support system to identify potential agricultural land and water management interventions for smallholder farming systems developed and applied in West Africa. 58 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed Technologies and practices  Multiple use technologies: options supporting agriculture and drinking water and other uses for crop livestock systems, globally and specifically in Southern Africa.  Water management options that increase water productivity, optimize water use and are economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound identified for the Middle East.  Enhanced water and land efficiency through in-situ conservation, rainwater harvesting, supplementary irrigation, micro enterprises and capacity building of NARES in Rajastan, India.  New cost-effective technologies and methodologies to improve system-productivity, such as water harvesting and supplemental irrigation packages, improved crop varieties and alternative land-management practices (Ethiopia).  Technologies that improve water conservation and increase crop production and yield stability evaluated and adapted in Mozambique.  Innovative and cost-effective technologies and methodologies for efficient monitoring and sustainable use of available water and land resources for crop- livestock improvement and sustainable land management in Pakistan.  Combining new science and technology for monitoring land health with Community Environmental Credits in Kenya and other locations in East and Southern Africa. Insights  Implementation and documentation of 9 model watershed projects in different states of India for better implementation of watershed development.  Improved data on the prevalence and spatial distribution of micronutrient syndromes in Sub-Saharan Africa; and matched guidelines on management strategies.  State of the art report on myth and reality of gender and rainfed farming. Analytic support and advice  Suitable evaluation tools; maps and tables illustrating and summarizing the different levels of suitability of each promising smallholder land intervention in different locations in Mali and Nigeria including environmental impact assessment of interventions; estimation of consumer and producer benefits under different market and adoption scenarios; and an assessment of overall economic benefits of adoption.  Context specific guidance on agricultural water interventions in challenging contexts in countries of Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nepal, Sri Lanka. 59 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed  Technical backstopping for the design and implementation of AGRA multi-country projects on Integrated Soil Fertility Management.  Support to informed investment decision making and portfolio management of IFAD partners and operations on AWM issues. Recommendations  Governance recommendations for improving crop-livestock water productivity in Ethiopia and Zambia.  Harnessing the findings of related work and experience in Australia to inform institutional design and policy formulation for Andra Pradesh watersheds.  Operational guidelines to direct, implement and subsequently assess investments in small-scale agricultural water management interventions.  Inventory credit strategies developed for fertilizer micro-dosing.  Identification of a range of conservation agriculture tillage and soil fertility management options for Zimbabwe.  Evaluation and scaling up new chemical and biological commercial products for improving crop yields in SSA.  Governance structures and M&E frameworks are collaboratively developed for improved rainwater management in the upper Nile of Ethiopia.  Guidance on linking Technical Options, Policy and Market Access for improved land productivity in Sudan and Nigeria.  A collective program for addressing bottlenecks, resulting in unlocking and increasing efficiency of financial and non-financial resources, to create an enabling environment for mainstreaming and financing effective nationally-driven Sustainable Land Management (SLM) strategies (Terrafrica program of FAO). Capacity building, learning alliances  Learning alliances for rainwater management in Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire.  Strengthened analytical capacity of African researchers in technology dissemination for improved soil health (AfNet) in Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, and Nigeria.  Participatory process at the watershed level in which multiple stakeholders (local farmers and decision makers, researchers, and national policy makers) will engage in Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire.  Networks for improved policy attention and implementation of agricultural water management strengthened and active in East and Southern Africa (IMAWESA). 60 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed Research outcomes  Sizeable investments in sustainable land and water practices that improve land and water productivity and improve resilience of rainfed systems.  Application of technologies, tools, policies, strategies, and incentives that increase land and water productivity, secures access to natural resources, improves agro- ecosystem resilience and ecosystem services and reduces or reverses land degradation.  Increases in soil health, less land degradation, and greater water access for poor people.  More efficient options of water allocation and management used in target areas and communities.  Use of tools developed by the program applied in a number of sites and contexts to develop sustainable land and water management programs.  Strategies adapted to site-specific conditions to support large-scale extension of proven soil and water management practices that increase environmental sustainability and advance the efficiency and profitability of fertilizer, allowing for output markets to drive further investment of land, labor, and cash.  Advanced technologies and data resources for policy-making in the hands of specialists within countries. Impact  Improved livelihoods and food security through increased adoption of integrated water and nutrient management options.  Reduced soil and land degradation across scales. Impact pathway To achieve impact we have to address the bottlenecks of the past as well as the emerging opportunities. This requires a much stronger emphasis on institutional collaboration, multi- disciplinary research, farmer participation and multi-stakeholder learning alliances. This does not only concern NARES or ARIs but at least equally the CGIAR. Stakeholder platforms are crucial to foster strategic links of national institutions across scales to move from households to communities and landscapes. A key component for larger scale impact is to address institutional constraints as well as opportunities provided by the private sector, international NGOs and changes in ICT. There are multiple options for innovative North- South and South-South partnerships. Links to other CRPs CRP1.1: Interactions between water and land management at the field/farm levels while adding value under CRP5 from research application at watershed and landscape scales 61 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed looking at community-based planning and decision making, policy incentives, overall sustainability and ecosystem services implications. CRP 2: The clear focus of CRP2 on institutional, policy and gender issues will provide guidance to the work of CRP5, while feeding back data and case studies. CRP 7. Impacts of CC on water availability for crops. Strategies of water management to mitigate the impacts of drought and CC on agriculture. Links will also be sought with those CRPs working on crop varieties better adapted to variations in natural resource conditions. A combination of improved NRM and matching crop varieties will have a high potential for yield increases. Partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. International Organizations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Sweden; Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESEN); Macaulay Land Use Research Institute; International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Netherlands; International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), Alabama, USA; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) NARES Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India; General Commission for Scientific Agricultural research (GCSAR), Syria; Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Morocco; Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran; SENNIRI, Uzbekistan; Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Libya; Ethiopia Institute of Agriculture Research (EIAR), Ethiopia; Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI), Ethiopia; Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil; NARES of Mali, Niger, Malawi, Kenya, Zimbabwe; Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kenya; Institut des Sciences Agronomique du Rwanda (Rwanda Agricultural Research Institute) (ISAR); National Center of Applied Research and Rural Development (FOFIFA), Madagascar; UCB, DR Congo; ISAR, UNR, Rwanda; KARI, KEFRI, UoN, JKUAT, Kenya; NMK, Kenya; MSU, Zimbabwe; INRAN, Niger; INERA, Burkina Faso; SRI, CRI, UL, Ghana; IER, Mali; INTA, Nicaragua; DICTA, Honduras; KFRI (Kerala Forest Research Insitute), India NGOs Catholic Relief Services (CRS); WorldVision; World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); Conservation International; Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation, India; Watershed Organization Trust, India ; SevaMandir, India; SM Sehgal Foundation, India; Aga Khan Foundation 62 Strategic Research Portfolio: Rainfed Universities University of Florida, USA; Utah State University, USA; Texas A&M University, USA; University of Illinois, USA; University of Delaware, USA; University of California, Davis, USA; Cornell University, USA; Columbia University - Earth Institute, USA; State Agricultural Universities, India; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), China; Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences (GAAS), China; American University of Beirut; University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna; Moi University, Kenyatta University, Kenya; Catholic University of Leuven, University of Ghent, Belgium; University of Bayreuth, Hohenheim University (Germany); SLU, Sweden; ITC, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands; Mekerere University, Uganda; University of Nairobi, Kenya; Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania; Swedish Agricultural University, Sweden; Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Tanzania; Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), India; University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore, India; Universitas Lampung, Indonesia; Institute de Ecologia (IoE), Mexico; University of Free State, SA State & Quasi-State Bodies State Governments of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh; Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India; Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) and Bureau of Soil and Water Management (BSWM), Philippines; Department of Agricultural Research Services-Malawi, DARS-Malawi Regional Programmes/Initiatives Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA); The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD); Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA); Sasakawa Global 2000; Soil Fertility Consortium for Southern Africa (SOFECSA); African Highlands Initiative 63 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Vision Improved resource management in pastoral lands supports the livelihoods of 15 million African pastoralists. Policy reform, institutional support and increased investment in dry rangelands create an enabling environment which allows for scaling up of pastoral land management innovations such as rangeland restoration, water harvesting, water point rehabilitation and planning, land use plans that maintain mobility and access to dry season grazing areas and resolution of conflicts over competing land uses. Payment for ecosystem services schemes are guaranteed, owing to sustainable land and water management in pastoral dryland systems. This vision is rooted in both local community empowerment as well as higher level of involvement of civil society in equitable and sustainable governance of rangeland resources. Female pastoralists are more fully engaged and recognized in land and water allocation and use decisions. In the short term we envision improved techniques for assessment of water, land and forage resources and pastoral settlements; experience is developed in participatory land use planning and management in pastoral lands; and cases of better pastoral land management and restoration are documented in selected benchmark sites across Africa and Asia, including evaluation of environmental and socio-economic benefits. Justification Livestock production is one of the most important agricultural subsectors worldwide. It is practiced on rangeland and mixed crop-livestock systems that cover about 60% of the land area of developing countries with an estimated 1.2 billion cattle, sheep and goats. Animals are heavily dependent on water for feed production using an estimated 500 billion cubic meters a year. Drinking water is less than 2%, the rest is required for feed production. Inappropriate grazing and watering practices contribute to widespread degradation of land and water resources, particularly around watering sites. Despite efforts to develop water and livestock in developing countries, sustainability and gender-equitable returns on investments have been low. Poverty is widespread in African and Asian pastoral lands. Between 25-55% of the estimated 50 million pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa live below the poverty line (Rass, 2006). Options for reducing poverty through enhanced productivity, reduced risk and alternative livelihoods are increasingly constrained by anthropogenic resource limitations. Key resource constraints include loss of pastoral mobility and availability as well as degradation of water and land resources. This Strategic Research Objective aims to support efforts aimed at altering socially determined resource constraints, promote benefits from environmental services, and pilot scalable management strategies for land and water. 64 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems There are two competing views regarding the causes for the loss of grazing resources in drylands. The older endogenic feedback theory posits that overstocking, overgrazing and rangeland degradation reduce livestock production. Behnke et al., (1993) challenged this view, arguing that unpredictable rainfall and primary production prevents endogenic feedback to livestock production, as livestock populations rarely reach equilibrium with the resource base. Marginalization of pastoral communities, loss of access to rangeland resources and reduced mobility are considered the primary factors constraining the support of livestock to pastoral livelihoods. These two views lead to contrasting approaches to pastoral livelihoods. The endogenic feedback hypothesis promotes rangeland management and restoration, while the Behnke school of thought focuses on preservation of communal land ownership and mobility, and preventing loss of access to resources (Davies, 2008). Both theories agree on the importance of resource management for sustaining and improving pastoral livelihoods. As most pastoral land is communally owned, natural resource management schemes need to be negotiated and agreed upon with pastoral communities and based on their knowledge and adaptive capacity. Possibilities are also constrained by current land use policies, marginalization of pastoral communities, and increasing incidents of civil conflict. This Strategic Research Objective will provide information that can be used to advocate for wider, more inclusive benefits under alternative policy and land use scenarios, contributing to improved governance of rangeland resources at local, national and regional levels. This Strategic Research Portfolio will also explore a number of technical resource rehabilitation interventions. For example, improved use of rainwater is a concern, as rainwater loss through runoff not only deprives vegetation of essential moisture but also degrades rangelands though soil erosion and loss of nutrients. Technical interventions to capture runoff water through water harvesting and other means provide a way of increasing vegetation production, halt degradation and eventually support the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands. In addition to improved land use and resource rehabilitation for livestock production, drylands are thought to offer possibilities for environmental provisioning services, such as carbon sequestration and various water related benefits and revenue generated from biodiversity conservation. Thus far, such potential has been poorly assessed and tradeoffs with traditional income from livestock production is an area that remains to be explored, as do mechanisms which ensure that all types of pastoralists benefit from such payments. 65 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Lessons learned Pastoral systems have long occupied the margins of mainstream agricultural research. This Strategic Research Portfolio will work to close a knowledge gap while collecting and analyzing evidence regarding what works and what does not in terms of enhancing pastoral livelihoods through better land and water management. Below we summarize what is currently known about pastoral rangeland management, rangeland degradation, and identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for better land and water management in dryland pastoral systems. Pastoral grazing activities are a significant driver of rangeland status and dynamics in African drylands (Turner, 2002; Serneels et al., 2001). However, pastoral systems are highly dynamic and undergoing rapid change in response to much more than only climate variability and resource scarcity (Campbell et al., 2006; Hobbs et al., 2008; WISP, 2008). Pastoralists are diversifying into non-livestock related activities to secure their household incomes (Little et al., 2008). The long-term viability of these alternative activities is debated in light of the heightened impacts of climatic variability, mismanagement of land and water, increasing fragmentation of rangelands, and low investment in pastoral areas (Hobbs et al., 2008; Devereux and Scoones,,2006; Birch and Grahn, 2007). Within the CGIAR agricultural research community, we do not have a broad-based understanding of the extent of resource access loss and resource degradation in dryland areas, or the ability of dry rangelands to support traditional pastoralism and new livelihood activities (Sanford and Scoones, 2006). Over-generalized debates about ‘optimal stocking rates’ are meaningless, as are generic recommendations for isolated interventions. Opportunities for greater social benefits are also highly context specific and are a function of variability in herd size, environment, market access, range degradation, attitudes towards risk, property rights regimes, and ability to move to different grazing areas (Baker and Hoffman, 2006; Campbell et al., 2006; Sanford and Scoones, 2006; Butt et al., 2009). Pastoralism is a complex socio-ecological system (Cioffi-Revilla, 2009), with feed backs and tipping points and possible livelihood enhancing solutions need to be explored while reviewing options and interventions in view of this complexity. Mobility has been and still is critical to the maintenance of pastoral livelihoods (Niamir- Fuller 1998; Butt et al., 2009). Flexible tenure systems and user rights have until recently allowed herders to access pastures when conditions dictate, especially critical dry season/drought reserve zones like river valleys and highlands. Access to these areas is increasingly threatened by changing land uses, especially irrigated and rainfed farming and protected conservation areas (Angassa and Oba, 2008; Lamprey and Reid, 2004). Increasing conflicts between herders also threaten access to critical in dryland areas (Haro et al., 2003). Resolution of these competing claims requires careful planning and policy negotiation at 66 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems local, national and regional levels, as interventions at any given level are constrained by activities at higher and lower hierarchical levels (Lamprey and Reid, 2004). Restoration of degraded rangelands and sustainable improvement of their productivity will not succeed without community involvement (WISP 2008; Mortimore 2009), as pastoral systems are dynamic and locally specific. Often, local communities know their needs best (Desta and Coppock, 2004) as herders have a deep understanding of and knowledge about the rangeland systems they have used for generations (Oba and Kaitira, 2004). Participatory land use planning with herders is therefore a viable, promising and thus far little explored approach to rangeland restoration and management (Reid, 2000; Reid et al., 2009). Potential impact areas The research aims to support planning and implementation of interventions and livelihood diversification strategies and enhance policy and institutional change in rangeland systems under pastoral use in Sub Saharan Africa. Theory of change Positive change in pastoral livelihoods is achievable if we can simultaneously address policy and institutional constraints at various level of governance, from the community to regional and supra national bodies. National policies for dryland development typically favor settlement and conversion to crop- based agriculture. This usually results in conflict with pastoral land users and further aggravates the scarcity of resources, limits possibilities for pastoralists to develop their mobile production systems, and complicates efforts to reap the benefits from environmental service provisioning. It can also favor wealthier pastoralists. Previous attempts to improve pastoral livelihoods through better resource management were based on research and techniques initiated by outsiders. This Strategic Research Portfolio is based on the conviction that participatory action research empowers pastoral communities to analyze the problems they face, identify possible technical and institutional solutions and decide how to improve their livelihoods while better managing the resource base on which they rely. This will include both men and women, recognizing their different but equally important and complementary roles in resource and livelihood decisions. The most important lever for change will be empowering pastoralists to negotiate institutional arrangements with relevant authorities. For this they will need two types of knowledge: knowledge of the facts about their resource base, including their economic and social value, and knowledge of the discourse of negotiation at multiple levels. 67 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Research questions What can be done to maintain, restore or expand access to rangeland resources, and where and how would this affect livestock productivity and pastoral livelihoods?  How do we map and assess rangeland land resource condition and degradation?  Where and to what extent do endogenic and exogenic loss of resources and resource access reduce livestock productivity in pastoral lands?  What interventions are available to restore degraded range vegetation and access and diversify into the delivery of environmental service provisioning?  How would these interventions affect livestock productivity, risk in pastoral production systems and overall pastoral livelihoods, including the roles of men and women?  What are the costs and benefits of such interventions at community as well as landscape levels and what institutional and policy arrangements would be needed to resolve the costs? What arrangements are needed to address water related constraints and negotiate and formalize sustained flows and access to water resources?  Where and to what extent does reduced soil water infiltration limit vegetation production, what opportunities exist to enhance livestock production and environmental service provisioning through techniques that enhance green water use in rangelands?  Where and to what extent does reduced water discharge into drylands occur and what can be done to secure sustainable water flows while, at the same time, addressing upstream-downstream water management to support livestock production and livelihoods, including equity?  Where and to what extent does reduced access to water resources occur, what are the social and ecological impacts, what opportunities exist to increase livestock production and support livelihoods through improved water resource access?  What arrangements need to be made to enhance soil-land water management, negotiate and formalize sustainable water flows and negotiate access to water resources? What opportunities exist to improve resource use and mobility and what arrangements need to be made to negotiate and formalize this?  Where and to what extent is mobility constrained by loss of resources or resource access and what are the livelihood implications?  What interventions are available to sustain and enhance mobility and how would these interventions affect livestock productivity and overall pastoral livelihoods?  What is the feasibility of and what are the cost benefits of these interventions?  What institutional and policy arrangements need to be made? 68 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Implementation plan This Strategic Research Portfolio aims to address some of the shortcomings of previous research as reviewed in the lessons learned section, while combining community action research approaches with systems analysis that considers the complexity of pastoral socio ecological systems. Planning and managing rangeland resource use must first consider where people reside and where water points are located, as the intensity of use changes with distance from settlements and water points. This Strategic Research Portfolio will develop techniques to map pastoral settlements, resources and movements, combining local knowledge with spatial information obtained from remote sensing and other GIS techniques at scales relevant for community use up to national level policy and decision making. Inputs from the Strategic Research Portfolio on Information Systems will be useful here. The spatial information and maps produced by local people in collaboration with researchers will be used to initiate shared planning of resource use. This will involve a review of the current status of the resource base, both forage and water resources, and identifying constraints in availability and accessibility of these resources in space and time. This information will then be used to develop scenarios. Participatory decision making will then be used to decide on the best land use option, and land use plans and management strategies will be developed accordingly. The Strategic Research Portfolio will also develop techniques to enable stakeholders to analyze policy and institutional constraints to desirable change, considering differences by gender and wealth. Income from ecosystem provisioning is seen as a way to diversify livelihoods in pastoral lands. Such initiatives need careful spatial planning and one must seek support from higher levels of government to ensure that the multiple users of communal lands all agree on a change in land use and commit to the new management strategies. This pastoral Strategic Research Portfolio will support the mapping and planning of the use of ecosystem services, as well as their restoration or enhancement. At the same time, this Strategic Research Portfolio will also explore the potential of existing and indentified promising interventions in view of the complexities of pastoral socio ecological systems3, while developing models to simulate system behavior and assess the potential of single and multiple interventions in this simulation environment. 3 A NERC-DFID ESPA (environmental services for poverty alleviation) grant recently awarded to Prof. Homewood of University College London and ILRI, which will look into tipping points in pastoral lands, will spearhead activities in this field. 69 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems Research outputs In six years:  Policy relevant insights into the feasibility of using payments for wildlife conservation and other land tenure innovations to maintain or revert rangeland systems to an open state with mobile livestock and wildlife from a closed impoverished state.  Innovative participatory mapping and assessment techniques of rangeland resource condition and use.  Participatory land use planning techniques that enhance sustainable use of resources for men, women, wealthy and poorer pastoralists.  Assessment of costs, benefits and institutional and policy challenges of livelihood enhancing interventions available to restore degraded range vegetation and access and diversify into the delivery of environmental service provisioning.  Assessment of where and to what extent reduced soil-water exchange limits vegetation production, and what opportunities exist to enhance livestock production and environmental service provisioning through techniques that enhance green water use in rangelands.  Identification of areas where reduced water discharge into drylands occurs; social and ecological impacts identified; recommendations for institutional arrangements needed to negotiate flows and access.  Assessment of where and to what extent limited access to water and forage resources constrains pastoral livelihoods and identification of the institutional arrangements needed to negotiate access.  Assessment of the costs incurred to pastoralists of loss of access to forage and water resources and the cost benefits of and policy and institutional constraints to interventions that sustain pastoral mobility. In the next three years: Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions.  Provision of empirical evidence on the amount of carbon stored in African rangelands and options to increase sequestration under alternative land management.  Mapping land use change and fencing and its impact in Kitengela Kenya and communicating this to decision makers to keep areas open for livestock migration.  Valuation of biodiversity and related ecosystem services in East African arid lands to provide investment opportunities and enabling policy environments to support 70 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems pastoralists to benefit from these opportunities in Kenya, South Ethiopia and Northern Tanzania.  Valuation of altered river discharge on the delivery of ecosystem services in downstream arid land environments in Kenya. Research outcomes Better ‘all-win’ and ‘no-regrets’ interventions through increased capacity among pastoral communities and institutions to identify resource degradation and scarcity, envision alternative futures and plan resource use and advocacy for policy and institutional change accordingly. Using the tools and information produced by the research, communities make plans for greater sustainability and benefits from land and water resources. These plans are endorsed by community leaders and community members are committed to carrying out the plans. Pastoralists negotiating for institutional change and plans adopted by decision makers in target countries. Negotiations result in better agreements. Policy reform implemented by decision makers in target countries, in particular, institutional structures that support mobility and sustainable rangeland management. Impact pathway In the above we have stressed that solutions in pastoral systems will not work unless implemented and supported by the larger community to which the pastoral land users belongs. At the same time we have argued that pastoral socio ecological systems have complexities that need to be considered while exploring solutions that will work. Successful implementation of solutions that work thus require on the one hand systems analysis to gain greater generic understanding of the dynamics of these systems and on the other hand intensive stakeholder engagement and capacity building to analyze resource constraint problems and identify and implement solutions in specific cases. The concepts and methods developed in this bet will be developed together with pastoral groups in a number of benchmark study areas. To achieve impact beyond these benchmark sites, we will carefully review the potential for wider dissemination through strategic links with partners supporting the implementation of development programs and supporting policy and institutional change. Where appropriate (for example in environmental service provisioning) cooperation will be sought with private sector partners. We will explore strategic alliances, such as with IUCN-WISP, World Resources Institute (WRI) with whom we implement in 2011 a project valuing ecosystem services in drylands, and various UN organizations and conventions (UNEP, FAO, UNCCCD) to ensure the international outreach of the project outputs and facilitate the distribution of best practices among 71 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems NGO’s, government and donors. This Strategic Research Portfolio will thus offer a gateway to disseminate the outputs of this research beyond the benchmark areas towards the wider global network of pastoral communities. One of our main functions will be helping pastoral community representatives ‘get a seat at the table’ so they can enter into a dialogue with decision makers. Here we can leverage our strategic partnerships and act as a broker. In addition to providing the right information, we can help manage the discourse. Links to others CRPs This Strategic Research Portfolio will be closely linked to the dryland vulnerability work in CRP 1.1 for poverty reduction and productivity improvements. The Strategic Research Portfolio will actively interact with MP5’s the Strategic Research Portfolio on information systems for land water and ecosystems. The work on market policies and institutional change in CRP 2 will also be relevant to this Strategic Research Portfolio. Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. International Organizations World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism under International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-WISP); Livestock Emergency Units, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; Drylands Programme, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Animal Production Researching Department (UNEP-DIPA); The International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC Enschede), Netherlands; African Ecosystem Research Network (CAS-UNEP); World Resources Institute (WRI), USA Universities & Academia University of Zimbabwe; University of Colorado, USA; Wageningen University, Netherlands; Texas A&M University, USA; Emory University, Atlanta, USA; Mason University, Virginia, USA; McGill University, Canada; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; University College London, UK; University of Twente, Netherlands; University of Nairobi, Kenya NARES African Centre for Technology (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya; CSIR South Africa; General Commission for Scientific Agricultural research (GCSAR), Syria; ARD, Tunisia NGOs Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (VSF); World Vision, USA; Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), USA; Oxfam, UK; SOS Sahel; African Conservation Centre (ACC) Government and semi-government bodies 72 Strategic Research Portfolio: Pastoral systems National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE), Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan; Ministries of Livestock; Departments involved in rural planning and emergency response International conventions UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 73 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods security Vision of success Successful implementation of this Strategic Research Portfolio will reduce the number of areas and people that currently face unsustainable use of groundwater and its related consequences (some 200 million people mostly located in northwest India, Pakistan and north China) by 50%; while at the same time, it will give increased gender equity for opportunities and access to another 250 million4 people living in Sub-Saharan Africa and other regions where groundwater potential is vastly under-used to make more intensive, but more sustainable use of groundwater to emerge from poverty and expand their livelihood choices. Problem statement Of the range of issues that confront water management in the developing world, intensive use of groundwater and its positive and negative externalities ranks high on the research and policy agenda (Kinzelbach et al., 2003; CA, 2007; World Bank, 2006 and 2010). It is well known that assured access to groundwater across South Asia can provide the water needed to produce more and higher valued crops, important for food security and income gains (Repetto, 1994; Moench & Burke, 2002). Moreover, groundwater in these rural settings serves a range of uses including drinking water and washing, providing opportunities for better health. Those who use groundwater, particularly small and marginal farmers, are most vulnerable to losing access due to increasing competition over scarce resources. Costs of drilling and pumping will become prohibitive if water levels continue to decline. Issues of seawater intrusion in areas and the general deterioration of water quality from salts and other constituents can be the downside of poor groundwater management. Good groundwater governance can help reduce these vulnerabilities. Unsustainable management of groundwater affects developing countries due to the complex and intractable nature of the problem. There are also important implications for poverty. When left unmanaged, groundwater can negatively affect the livelihood and food security of those dependent upon it because overexploitation leads to cycles of boom and bust (Moench, 2003; Janakarajan & Moench, 2006; Giordano, 2009). Most of those affected 4 This assumes that 50% of rural population in Bangladesh and eastern India (eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Orissa); 30% of rural population in Nepal and seven countries of Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam); 20% of rural population in 33 Sub-Saharan African countries and 10% of rural population in four Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistani and Uzbekistan). The combined rural population of these regions and countries is 850 million (World Development Report, 2009). 74 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater live within the densely populated and agriculturally productive plains of South Asia and North China. Equally important, albeit less understood, is the problem of “under-development” of groundwater resources and the opportunities for productivity gains and poverty alleviation lost thereof. There are two dimensions of the “under-development” issue. First, there are vast areas such as in eastern India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Southeast Asia and Central Asia where there is high groundwater potential and high recharge potential. Here groundwater can be geared towards poverty alleviation without significantly stressing the resource base or creating excessive environmental impacts. However, the current policy environment and investment regimes do not support such use (Mukherji et al., 2009, Shah, 2009a). Second, there are locations mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa where very little is known about the resource and as a result, uncertainties and misconceptions emerge about the development potential (Carter & Howsam, 1994). But there is emerging evidence that farmers are increasingly resorting to groundwater for irrigating high value crops (Regassa, 2010). Here, there is much optimism among the policy and developmental professionals that groundwater can play an important role in enhancing productivity and alleviate poverty (Postel et al., 2001). Climate change adds a third dimension to this problem by affecting both the supply of groundwater – through changes in rainfall and recharge regimes and demand for groundwater – through changes in the crop water requirement and greater dependence on groundwater during years of drought (Shah, 2009b). Groundwater supplies are less prone to drought than surface water and thus could provide a more reliable source of agricultural water. Most surface water bodies, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and estuaries, hydraulically interact with groundwater to varying degrees. Rivers and wetlands are intrinsically connected to groundwater, and thus excessive groundwater use impacts on these groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Justification Groundwater constitutes by far the major share of the world’s freshwater resources (Gleick, 1996) and has been an important source of drinking water serving over 2 billion people worldwide. But over the last 40 years or so, it has also emerged as a main source of irrigation. Globally, almost 40% (114 M ha) of all irrigated lands are serviced by 545 km3 of groundwater every year. Of this, India and China alone account for half of all groundwater- based irrigation (Siebert et al., 2010). In India, 60% of the 60 million ha of net irrigated area is served by groundwater, whilst for north China the corresponding figure is 70%. Thus the last 40 years have heralded the emergence of an agricultural groundwater revolution, dubbed a “silent revolution” by Llamas & Martinez-Santos (2006). This is 75 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater because inherent advantages that groundwater offers to farmers and which other sources of irrigation water find hard to match – advantages stemming from reliability, flexibility and independence. Cheaper pumping technologies since 1960s have significantly contributed to this boom. It is now well documented that groundwater irrigation created more wealth than any source of irrigation in South Asia and north China (Dains & Pawar, 1987; Deb Roy & Shah, 2003; Zhang et al., 2009). There is also emerging evidence that groundwater irrigation is booming in deltaic and other parts of Southeast Asia (Johnston et al., 2010) and there is increasing use of groundwater for both pastoral and crop enterprises in SSA (Giordano, 2006; Regassa, 2010). Despite all the productivity and livelihood benefits of groundwater irrigation, this runaway growth in northwestern and southern parts of India and north China presents a frightening prospect because it will magnify many-fold the negative externalities of groundwater over- development viz., the rising cost of chasing a perennially declining water table, lost wetlands and biodiversity, reduced base flows to rivers, and water quality degradation. Runaway growth without any kind of governance will eventually weaken this vibrant economy. Two types of approaches have been considered for managing the negative externalities of groundwater use in such areas of intensive use. One is supply oriented technical approaches that enable effective use of recharge and retention. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) has been an important technical supply augmentation strategy used increasingly in India and elsewhere (Dillon, 2005; Sakthivadivel, 2007; Shah, 2008). Alternatively, direct demand management measures such as irrigation efficiency improvements, and restrictions on cropping patterns are also employed (Zhang et al., 2003). Underuse is an interesting contrast to overuse in much of eastern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, parts of Southeast Asia and pockets of Central Asia. In such cases, highest rates of poverty coincide with regions where there is high groundwater potential and high recharge capacity, but due to a number of policy and institutional barriers, groundwater is not used intensively and therefore its potential for poverty alleviation is not realized. A stark example is the case of eastern India. Eastern India supports one of the most productive alluvial aquifers in the world, but lack of rural electrification and high diesel prices coupled with poor food procurement policies and rural infrastructure hinders groundwater development (Mukherji, 2007). The second type of “under-development” problem is faced by much of SSA where not much is known about the groundwater resources. Yet, there is emerging evidence that farmers and pastoralists rely on groundwater for their livelihoods, often to a great extent as in the case of Nigerian fadimas. Given that most groundwater is often used to supplement surface water supplies, conjunctive use is becoming increasingly important and common, although much of this is unplanned. Considerable benefits in irrigation efficiency and water productivity arise where 76 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater groundwater is used to strategically supplement surface water. By using aquifers as both short and long term storage, conjunctive use strategies will become essential in the face of droughts and floods. With increasing climate variability, the role and dependence of groundwater will develop to become one of the primary mechanisms for coping with water scarcity, drought and rainfall variability. Groundwater quality hazards such as fluoride and arsenic that may be naturally occurring and heterogeneously distributed within aquifers is another challenge. It is also important that any major increase in groundwater development for agriculture takes into account the threat posed by diffuse groundwater pollution to aquifers from fertilizer and pesticide inputs. A distinguishable form of groundwater overuse is that of groundwater ‘mining’, or irreversible depletion of non-renewable (fossil) or poorly renewed groundwater. This is mainly limited to North Africa and the Middle East and sometimes occurs in a strategic manner (Abderrahman, 2003), but more often it happens in an unplanned manner. Access to groundwater is often highly inequitable and women’s needs for domestic water receive less attention (Upadhyay, 2004). Further, gender selective migration in Asia and Africa often leave women and youth to manage farming. In Gujarat, the gender impact of migration on groundwater irrigation has been documented by Prakash (2006). Since women are usually also responsible for family health, both in terms of prevention of diseases and as caregivers, this creates additional burdens for them. For example when water is diverted for irrigation it can sometimes cutoff a convenient source of domestic water, with implications for the workloads of women and girls. Lessons learned Five types of approaches combining demand and supply strategies have been tried for managing the externalities of groundwater use (COMMAN, 2005). These are:  Direct approaches, e.g. groundwater laws, administrative and legal bans or limits on groundwater extraction in over-developed zones, restrictions on cropping patterns, efficient on farm irrigation technologies etc.  Indirect approaches, e.g. agricultural subsidies, energy pricing (electricity pricing, diesel subsidy), food procurement policies, rural employment policies, agricultural trade and tariff policies etc.  Technical approaches including supply augmentation (e.g. water harvesting/aquifer recharge) and demand management involving community participation.  Adaptive approaches at the farmer level in response to changes in the local or wider political economy. 77 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater  Awareness and education-based approaches that highlight groundwater’s importance at the grassroots level and provide the basis for local decisions, such as cropping patterns. IWMI, along with its CG and other partners have been at the forefront of research aimed at understanding what works and does not work in the field of groundwater governance (Shah, 2009a, Mukherji et al., 2009; Giordano and Villholth, 2007; Llamas and Custodio, 2003). The three major countries of South Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have tried some or all of these approaches to manage the externalities of groundwater use. In India, almost all state governments have promulgated groundwater laws. Similarly, Pakistan and more recently, some Indian states have undertaken major reforms in the electricity sector which have had far reaching impacts on the groundwater sector (Shah and Verma, 2008; Mukherji et al., 2009). Bangladesh, after the recent food shock, has decided to aim for food self sufficiency and extraordinary measures such as dedicated power supplies for agriculture have been taken to ensure that farmers’ access to groundwater supplies are improved. A number of community-based participatory approaches such as FAO and local NGO initiated community management of groundwater are been carried out in southern India and have been studied rigorously by IWMI and its partners (Rama Mohan, 2009; FAO, 2008; Gardena et al., 2009). Meanwhile, wider changes in the political economy are also affecting the way groundwater users respond to groundwater stress. These have been referred to as adaptive strategies and more and more communities dependent on groundwater are adapting in a myriad different ways such as through changes in cropping patterns and long- term livelihood activities (Moench, 2007). From these experiences, we know things that work, things that do not work and several things that may work under one set of conditions and not another. We know, for example, that all encompassing groundwater laws, when formulated in a void, do not work; but when they address a well defined objective, such as postponing the sowing date of paddy through regulation as in the Indian Punjab, it works when the state has the will and the power of to enforce such laws (Sharma and Amble, 2009). Direct regulations, such as bans on groundwater pumping or enforcing a quota on pumping do not work in most cases. Notable exceptions include command and control types of groundwater governance structures prevalent in Israel and Oman (Zero, 2009). In contrast, indirect regulation through energy policies works in South Asia. For example, we know that rationing electricity supply helps in reducing groundwater over-draft; while subsidized electricity (or diesel) without rationing, encourages farmers to use groundwater more intensively, not only on their own fields, but also to sell water to their neighbors (Shah, 1993, Mukherji, 2004). We also know that, in the absence of market distortion in the 78 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater form of subsidies and taxes on both inputs and farm outputs, intensive groundwater development would have been a self terminating problem because farmers would abandon pumping as soon as marginal costs of pumping exceeded marginal benefits. But, we also know that groundwater sustainability issues are not simply a problem related to the physical resource and economics, it is a political problem requiring well thought out political solutions (Dubach, 2007). We know that farmers resist any attempts to curtail their access to groundwater, especially so in South Asia, where they form formidable lobby groups, but at the same time, we know that they are enthusiastic about supply augmentation strategies and are willing to come together for collective action involving managed aquifer recharge (MAR). We know that MAR works, but do not how much and where. But we do know that supply augmentation strategies are more politically acceptable than demand management ones. We also know that farmers respond to scarcity, be it physical scarcity of groundwater in areas of overdraft or economic scarcity of groundwater in regions of under development. In regions of physical scarcity of water, but without serious output price distortions (as in Gujarat, but not Punjab), farmers shift to crops that give them higher returns per drop of water; while in regions of abundant groundwater, but poor infrastructure, farmers tend to increase cropping intensity by growing two to three cereal crops in a year (as in eastern India). We also know that, action in the field of groundwater management takes place on the farmers’ field, far and away removed from the formal groundwater governance structures erected by the state. Where farmers are given the chance to understand the nature and constraints of aquifer systems through the support of NGOs and the state, they can come together to make sensible planning decisions that best utilize the available resource within its limits, as evidenced in Andhra Pradesh through the APFAMGS initiative (World Bank, 2010). Similarly, we do know that good quality groundwater data is conspicuous by its absence, though some countries like China do have a system of sound groundwater data collection. Lack of data hampers both research and sound policy formulation based on research. These are all lessons that can be applied to other parts of the world. However, what we know less about is the potential impact of climate change on groundwater. We understand the physical processes that relate climate to groundwater availability and use reasonably well (Callow and MacDonald, 2009), but have little knowledge on the magnitude of the impacts. We also have much less clarity on the long term impacts of policies aimed at both restricting and encouraging groundwater use, especially as it affects the poorer and more marginal sections of the rural population. We do 79 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater not yet know enough about the potential role that formal groundwater agencies in the countries faced with dire groundwater problems can play in the future. We do know that formal governance structures need to change, but we do not yet know the main ingredients of such a change. Across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), small-scale groundwater irrigation, which offers a more food-secure alternative to subsistence farming, is greatly underutilized, whilst per-capita groundwater availability is many times higher than India or China where irrigation is more widely practiced (Giordano, 2006). Very little is currently known about the physical extent, accessibility and development potential of the aquifers, but interest and knowledge is emerging (Ngami, 2009; Regassa, 2010). The low aquifer yields across many hard rock regions, combined with the high cost of drilling, equipping and servicing wells and high incidences of well failure, give a misleading impression that groundwater potential is low. However, across the continent, 75% of the population relies on the provision of rural and urban drinking supplies, as well as for livestock watering. Successful examples of agricultural groundwater development, often using rudimentary abstraction technologies include the White Volta Basin in northern Ghana of the Fadiman systems along the inland valley areas of Nigeria, offering hope for greater expansion if technical, technological and policy related barriers are overcome. Another positive sign is the lower cost (traditional) drilling alternatives that have recently emerged from Ethiopia and Ghana, but little is known about them and whether they have widespread applications. Strategies and technologies for overcoming the economic water scarcity evident over much of SSA and generally promoting groundwater irrigation in a sustainable manner are urgently needed. Overall, we understand that one-sided solutions will not work; that groundwater buffers need to be considered and managed at a sufficiently large scale (van Steenbergen and Tuinhof, 2010) and solutions have to be technically sound and politically acceptable. 80 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater Potential target areas Map 3.2: Areas of intensive groundwater use (circled) together with long-term average groundwater recharge (millimeters per year) (Döll and Flörke, 2005) There are two distinguishable target areas. 1. Areas facing problems of intensive groundwater development: northwestern and southern India, Pakistan, and north China 2. Areas of under utilization: large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern India, Nepal and Bangladesh, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. Theory of change The overarching theory of change is that the conventional text book solutions such as groundwater laws, quotas and permits do not work as well as does the less traditional second-best indirect solutions. These indirect policy levers often lie outside the groundwater sector and include energy, trade, food policies and access to financial credit among others. Identifying the one or more best levers, unraveling their inter-linkages and offering practical action plans that are not only technically feasible, but also politically acceptable will be one of the main pathways of change. This change theory is also valid in areas of underutilization, where growth in groundwater use can be stimulated by practices and policies outside the groundwater arena. In these a thorough analysis of constraints and opportunities to more groundwater use is a prerequisite to knowing which levers to pull. For example, there may be technical opportunities to pump more water, but micro-finance, high drilling costs, high tariffs on imported pumpsets, or just lack of pumps on the shelf may be the major constraint to uptake. 81 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater The second lever of change is greater political acceptance of supply augmentation strategies for managing groundwater. The changing discourse offers opportunities for direct intervention within the groundwater sector for augmenting supply, examples being managed aquifer recharge schemes and community management of such recharge. Providing scientific evidence on what works where and how with regards to these supply augmentation strategies and a best practice toolkit for groundwater managers and policy makers will provide the second window of opportunity for change. The pathway for this change would be greater understanding of groundwater and hydrologic balance, and the multiple uses that groundwater resources must serve, that will in turn open the door for dialogue and interventions on demand management strategies. The third lever of change stems from the fact that most groundwater management agencies tend to have a narrow focusing on hydrogeology and engineering, when current groundwater realities entails and that there is a large scope for bridging the gap with governance issues. It is possible to reorient groundwater agencies to focus more on management, and in areas of underutilization to consider tapping the opportunities of more groundwater use, while at the same time developing strategies for sustainable use. Research questions Based on our theory of change and the main research issues as documented in the previous sections, we propose three main research questions and several research sub-questions: 1. What kind of indirect policy levers outside the groundwater sector can be used to minimize negative externalities of groundwater use in problem areas, while at the same can induce more intensive groundwater use in regions where it is currently underused? a. What role can electricity reforms (such as metering, decoupling of agricultural and domestic supplies, and innovative approaches such as pre-paid vouchers) play in controlling areas of intensive groundwater development and encouraging groundwater use elsewhere? b. What role can food policy, agricultural trade, financial credit and tariff policies play in both controlling as well as offering incentives for agricultural groundwater use? c. What is the relative importance of the various drivers (technical knowledge, institutional arrangements, level of development etc) to viably intensify groundwater use in underdeveloped or water abundant regions at the local and regional scale? d. What are the institutional and policy changes necessary to enable more intensive groundwater development to flourish sustainably? 82 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater e. How can we measure heterogeneity of impacts on poor men and women (who loses and who gains) in regions of “over-use” and in regions of “underdevelopment? 2. What kind of direct demand and supply management strategies within the groundwater sector can be used to minimize negative externalities of groundwater use in problem areas, while at the same can intensify groundwater use, sans the problems, in regions of “under-developed” groundwater use? a. How much recharge enhancement (MAR) would be required to stabilize groundwater levels in areas of intensive groundwater use (such as northwestern India) and how can this be achieved? b. What are the socio-economic impacts (tradeoffs) on downstream surface water and groundwater resources and users, especially the poor and small farmers? c. What role can larger and more pro-active user engagement in groundwater management play and how to promote this effectively at scale? d. How can the formal groundwater agencies be encouraged to act as a catalyst for change and play a more effective role in groundwater management? 3. From the context of climate variability and climate change (CC), how can the role of, and benefits from, groundwater (and conjunctive use in general) be maximized? a. To what extent will agricultural groundwater development be enhanced as a response strategy to CC and how will it impact the poor and the vulnerable? b. As a result of such development, what level of CC-induced stress will be placed upon groundwater systems? c. How can groundwater and surface water in small or large irrigation areas be put to best use in a way that recognizes and accounts for the connectivity and interdependencies between these two sources? Implementation plan Research will be conducted in a selected number of countries and regions (as noted above) that represent different poverty levels, agro-ecological regions, hydro-geological conditions, and levels of groundwater development. By conducting studies across a wide geographic range (an extrapolation domain) there are opportunities for scientists and decisions makers from relevant CG centers to participate, and partnerships with relevant international research institutes and academic institutions to emerge. For best possible impact, we will work closely with our partners throughout and embark on a journey of mutual capacity building and creation of knowledge and impact. 83 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater Research outputs This Strategic Research Portfolio will deliver science based policy, investment and management options that include levers outside of the groundwater and water resource sector. These will include analyses of groundwater systems and how they would be relied upon and affected by climate change and training modules for formal groundwater management agencies covering an array of social and technical issues beyond monitoring the resource base. Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions. Outputs delivered in 3 years Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions. Development of strategies and investment plans  Strategies to reduce India’s energy footprint, including opportunities to scale up micro-irrigation.  Development of national groundwater use investment strategies based on analysis of groundwater development interventions Mali, Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania.  Assessment of impact of potential groundwater development in Fergana Valley on downstream uses in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.  Global “Framework of Action” (FA), consisting of a menu of country specific policy, institutional and investment options, that are representative of international best practices. (FAO project)  Crafting institutions for enhanced use of groundwater, including groundwater markets in Bihar India. Development of tools and methods  Development of community tools to assess the carrying capacity of alluvial aquifers setting ecological threshold levels for sustainable use for cultivation; assessing the hydrological characteristics of inland wetland ecosystems and the environmental and social impacts on the utilization options of wetlands in groundwater areas. These are based from field experiences in the White Volta area of Burkina Faso and Ghana. 84 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater Research outcomes Research outputs are essential to the change toward greater management of the groundwater resource that will lead to:  Greater and more equitable access to adequate quantities of good quality groundwater for agricultural water supplies and resultant poverty alleviation  Stabilization or reduction in levels of intensive groundwater development through a combination of supply-enhancement and demand-reduction technical- and policy related innovations  Expanded provision of cheap, accessible, low-cost water supplies in regions of the world where groundwater is underutilized to boost food production and alleviate poverty  Expand opportunities for conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in a planned manner that boosts agricultural productivity and minimizes inefficient use Impact pathway Based on our theory of change and anticipated outputs, there would be two major impact pathways (Figure 2.3). One would be through the creation of knowledge products of high scientific value with clear messages that will help pull the two most important levers required for desired change in groundwater management – namely the indirect lever of policies outside the groundwater sector and direct lever of program implementation within sector. The second will be through changes in the discourse surrounding the formal groundwater management agencies from their current mode of resource monitoring to a mode of natural resource management. The prime target audience will be key policy makers in the sector so that they can institute the required changes that would be needed to meeting our overarching goals of better groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods security. Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. CGIAR Institutions International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka; International Crop Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, India; International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA 85 Strategic Research Portfolio: Groundwater NARES & ARIs Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), N Delhi, India; National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Hyderabad, India; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing, China; Relevant NARES and ARIs in other countries; Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and dry lands (ACSAD) Statal & Para-Statal Bodies Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), India; Department of Groundwater Resources, Bangkok, Thailand; Ministry of Water Resources (Ethiopia); Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Universities & Academia Technical University of Berlin, Germany; Utah State University, Utah, USA; University of Melbourne, Australia; Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain; Delhi School of Economics, India; Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India; IHE Delft, Netherlands; Wageningen University, Netherlands; International Association of Hydrologists; Other relevant local universities NGOs and Community-based Groups Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN), N Delhi, India; Samaj Pragati Sahyog (SPS), India; Centre for World Solidarity; All India Krishak Sangh, India; All Bengal Electricity Consumers Association, Kolkata, India; Aga Khan Foundation; Farmers/producers through their representative organizations/federations (e.g. local groundwater committees), Additional References Upadhyay, B. 2004. Gender roles and multiple uses of water in North Gujarat. Working Paper 70. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Figure 2.3 Impact pathways for Sustainable use of groundwater 86 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource recovery from solid and liquid waste streams for enhanced food security Vision of success Recovering water and nutrients from ‘wasted’ resources is a high priority objective where resources for agricultural production are already limited or increasingly limited by progressing climate changes, diminishing global phosphorus reserves and increasing fertilizer prices. The need for reusing nutrients from urban waste is important where global drivers create a strong geographical disconnect between areas of food production and food consumption and break nutrient loops. Urbanization is also affecting water cycle and allocation by increasing fresh water demand while returning highly polluted water with an often overlooked value.. The overarching objective of this Strategic Research Portfolio (SRP) is to increase the scale and viability of the safe and productive reuse of water, nutrients, organic matter and energy from domestic and agro-industrial waste streams for food security and livelihoods. The vision is that national policies will support closed loop concepts to reduce the ecological footprint especially of highly populated areas while leading the agricultural sector to higher system resilience to climate change, water scarcity, and changing energy/fertilizer prices. Why is resource recovery a Strategic Research Portfolio? From the perspective of food security and poverty reduction, domestic and agro-industrial waste products offer an endless stream of highly valuable resources for agricultural production that are more reliable and easily available in many regions than other water and nutrient sources. From the perspective of waste management, ‘reuse’ offers public and private entrepreneurs viable business development options for cost leverage, recovery or even profit, i.e. the key for going to scale. From the environmental perspective, the productive reuse of waste resources can be considered a crucial and lasting ecosystem service preceding and complementing technical treatment options and preventing pollution. From the system perspective, recycling is a central component of natural resources management, and most critical for all non- or slowly-renewable resources. This concerns in particular the looming phosphorous crisis. In the rural-urban context, resource recovery is facing a range of challenges: social, logistical, technical and most of all political and economic. Efforts to address these challenges will have to link research and the private sector, policy makers and markets – links that are currently weak or absent. These links will build on current research by CGIAR centers and partners, such as safe wastewater irrigation and organic fertilizer management. It will also link research with entrepreneurs and other new partners (e.g. municipal authorities) to analyze options for public-private partnerships, increase the business 87 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse character of the operations and the application potential across scales, especially in the rural-urban corridor. The research will require a multi-disciplinary approach bridging public and private entities supported by social scientists, soil scientists, agronomists, sanitation engineers, public health experts, politicians and business development economists working in the agriculture-food-sanitation interface. Potential beneficiaries and importance of gender Beneficiaries are at both ends of the waste chain: There are between 20-50 million (peri)urban smallholder producers, more than half of them women, using polluted water sources for irrigation, and up to 670 million urban consumers of wastewater irrigated produce. WHO (2006) estimated that at least 10% of the world’s population consumes food produced by wastewater irrigation. There are also more than 200 million (peri)urban farmers and traders, in many regions predominately women, who would benefit from alternative low-cost fertilizer resources (UNDP, 1996). Moving towards more cost-recovery in the sanitation sector would provide incentives for better service delivery for the benefit of waste generating households, otherwise exposed to pollution from uncollected or untreated waste. Women and children are among the most exposed household members suffering from poor sanitation. They are also key actors in urban and peri-urban agriculture that is often the first place where waste resources are used. While reuse can provide them a range of particular livelihood and nutritional benefits and advantages they are also most at risk (Hope et al. 2009; Ensink et al., 2002, Buechler, 2004). Therefore it goes without saying that all reuse strategies should be gender sensitive and social marketing of safety measures should have a strong gender component. Justification Urbanization and the growing demand from urban areas for food and water is changing traditional resource allocations, material flows and nutrient loops in significant ways. The weakest players in this context are the sanitation services in most developing countries that can barely cope with the solid and liquid waste generated. Meanwhile, soils in production areas are mined of their nutrients, and fresh water competition is on the increase. To reduce nutrient and water shortages, resource recovery is a key component of natural resources management. The waste streams with the highest potential for agricultural production at one or more scales are:  Domestic wastewater as sources of water and nutrients  The biodegradable fraction of agro-industrial and market waste  Fecal sludge and excreta (urine and feces) as sources of nutrients, especially phosphorous and nitrogen, but also other essential macro- and micro-nutrients, as well as organic matter and bio-energy 88 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse  Drainage water from irrigation projects and other marginal-quality water with reuse potential Aside nutrient, water and organic matter recovery, which are established components in NRM, another component on the research agenda is energy recovery (biogas, biofuel). While biogas or biofuel are not an area where the CGIAR has a particular advantage, both can provide from the business model perspective the needed leverage to make resource recovery viable. This is a good example where strategic partnerships are needed to think out of the box to progress on integrated natural resources management. While resource recovery from waste streams appears to be a win-win for public-private goods and services around waste management and agriculture, success stories in low income countries of planned waste collection, treatment and reuse are usually of small scale, seldom viable, and rarely survive their pilot stage. A typical example is composting. Market analysis and business planning represent the fundamental gap in applying common business and management strategies which is due in large part to the fact that the sanitation sector is traditionally a fully subsidized public service domain, even though this is unsustainable and frequently results in poor service leading to environmental and health problems (Evans and Drechsel, 2010; Koné, 2010; Murray and Drechsel, 2010; Rouse et al., 2008). A paradigm shift towards cost recovery is currently supported by many donors pushing for private sector participation. This development facilitates a second paradigm shift from treatment for disposal to treatment for reuse as the latter offers options for cost recovery (Huibers et al., 2010; Murray and Buckley, 2010). There are increasingly innovative models emerging in the reuse market addressing agricultural and household needs ranging from biogas production to aquaculture, urine markets, compost blending and sludge fertilization (Koné, 2010; Evans and Drechsel, 2010; Adamtey et al., 2008; Cofie and Murray, 2010). The paradigm shift requires social science research in local waste and safety perceptions, attitudes and conventional as well as social marketing options. With its focus on out- and up-scaling, the SRP is targeting concepts and models at the community level or above, less individual reuse at the household or farm scale. In many situations, reuse is already occurring, but in the informal sector, and with high health risks. Two scenarios are common:  Planned reuse especially where resources are in short supply. An example is wastewater irrigation in Tunisia or Jordan, or municipal waste composting in Bangladesh. In these cases, the waste resource is usually sufficiently treated allowing safe reuse.  Unplanned reuse, dominates in most low-income countries, where treatment plants have low coverage or existing sanitation facilities promote the disposal of waste 89 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse resources in the environment. In this case, farmers might use the resource consciously (raw wastewater; manure from poultry farms) or unconsciously (polluted stream water), with all related health risks (Qadir et al., 2007; Jiménez et al., 2010). As the livelihoods of many farmers depend on waste(water) resources, care has to be applied in our efforts to move from unplanned to planned reuse to protect livelihoods while limiting the related risks to human and environmental health (Van Lier and Huibers, 2010; Scott et al., 2004). Looking at the scale of wastewater production, the challenge varies between regions but is generally immense. It is estimated that 80-90 per cent of Asia's wastewater is discharged with little or no treatment, while in Sub-Saharan Africa the percentage is close to 100 (UN/WWAP, 2003). When related to the urban water balance of a number of SSA cities, the total amount of wastewater produced may be as high as 10-50% of the total precipitation entering urban areas (Nyenje et al., 2010). Even countries reporting increased access to improved onsite sanitation ignore the fact that many of these facilities drain untreated water into waterways and groundwater, allowing pathogens and nutrients to re-enter the food and water cycle (USAID, 2010). The resulting environmental, occupational and food safety challenges of unplanned use have been highlighted by WHO (2006), UNEP and UN-Habitat (Corcoran et al., 2010). In addition, it is estimated that on a daily basis, two million tons of solid waste is uncollected and disposed of in rivers, lakes and coastal areas (UN/WWAP, 2003). According to UN- Habitat (2009) between one-third and one-half of the solid waste generated within most cities in low- and middle-income countries is not collected, affecting the health of children especially. The rest is either dumped or needlessly disposed of in landfills even though the majority of urban waste is biodegradable and hence of immediate interest for recycling into a useful resource for agriculture (SANDEC-Waste Concern, 2006). In both cases of solid and liquid waste management, the magnitude of planned resource recovery remains limited, although the agricultural value of both resources is well recognized (Otterpohl et al., 1997; Jiménez and Asano, 2008; Drechsel and Kunze, 2001). The International Year of Sanitation and strong support from ecological sanitation models raised awareness about the link between sanitation and food security, in particular the decreasing global phosphate reserves (Rosemarin et al., 2008; 2009). In view of the challenges, research is required which goes beyond technical solutions and theoretical advantages and puts equal emphasis on 1) market-based and business-oriented approaches to enhance and scale up the productive reuse of waste resources for increased food security, while 2) mitigating possible health risks for farmers and consumers, in particular where the reuse of waste resources is a result of poor sanitation coverage. The use of waste in a food production system must always be sensitive to public health 90 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse requirements (UN-Habitat, 2009), and address simultaneously the related livelihood dimensions of those directly concerned. The CGIAR is well positioned to assist in this global effort based on two decades of research on safe wastewater reuse and related livelihoods in urban and peri-urban agriculture, soil fertility management and organic fertilizer application. IWMI, for example, is today a key research arm of WHO and FAO in their efforts to develop and adapt global guidelines for the safe use of wastewater and excreta in agriculture (Scott et al., 2004; Drechsel et al., 2010b). CRP5 can lift this already fruitful collaboration to new heights given the increasing institutional strength of the CRP in simultaneously addressing land and water issues and the recovery of water and nutrients across the variety of waste streams. However, the task is ambitious and requires the CG to move out of its rural development box. New partnerships linking institutions and experts in and outside the CGIAR in water, soil, and land management, sanitation and waste management, public health and economy are required. With these efforts, this SRP will be the CGIAR portal for linking the agricultural and sanitation sectors and for bridging the rural-urban divide. In a nutshell: The fundamental agricultural production challenges are:  Water scarcity due to physical reasons, climate change but also due to pollution of fresh water resources.  Agricultural nutrient depletion, limited access to industrial fertilizers, and dwindling phosphate reserves.  Soil degradation due to lack of soil organic matter and uncontrolled application of chemical pollutants.  Unplanned and unsafe use of human waste products by farmers facing these challenges. SRP solutions: New, social or economically attractive, and scalable approaches for optimizing resource recovery from otherwise wasted resources while minimizing risks to producers and consumers and environmental health. The research will address the efficiency, viability and safety of resource recovery as a key element of natural resources management and link missing connections between research, the private sector, policy makers and markets in the rural-urban and agriculture-sanitation interfaces. Lessons learned Research in the agriculture-food-sanitation interface is a young domain, hardly comparable to the more traditional research in land and water management, although there are many obvious links. This implies that our general knowledge base is only emerging and much more research is needed. Based on the current state-of-knowledge, the situation can be summarized as follows: 91 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse 1. We have a good but still insufficient knowledge about the state of our agricultural resource base in terms of nutrient mining, land degradation and water scarcity. Many of the commonly cited data were proxies and/or are outdated. 2. We have a similar patchy understanding about wasted resources, i.e. about land and water pollution from human waste streams. 3. We have an increasing patchwork of data on the livelihood, health and poverty impact of waste and wastewater reuse, and the particular role of gender (see above) 4. We have a much better understanding of technical options to reduce waste generation and safely recover water, nutrients, organic matter and energy from waste. For example, we can do this through conventional and on- and off-farm treatment, composting or bio- digestion. However, most examples are at the ‘backyard’ scale. 5. What is as yet inadequately known is how to bring technical knowledge to an economically viable scale in the context of low-income countries. The most critical shortcoming in institutional capacities is the link between sanitation service provision and business process modeling, such as quantifying market demand and operational costs. Other shortcomings concern the assessment of aggregate benefits for society to support subsidies and the consideration of cultural and institutional perceptions (reuse is often taking place in the informal sector) as well as market and non-market incentives which limit the scalability of promising approaches and models. In terms of adoption, institutional learning alliances and networks and social science research appear to be crucial (much could be learned from the water, sanitation and health sector and their gender-sensitive efforts in social marketing to promote hand washing and toilets). To all these lessons, the research of the CGIAR and its partners has contributed a significant amount of knowledge: On Lesson 1. Magnitude of nutrient and water scarcity These data are provided in other sections of CRP5. On Lesson 2. Magnitude of sanitation problems resulting in wasted nutrients, polluted water resources used in agriculture, and related health risks The magnitude of sanitation related challenges, from the amounts of (un)collected and/or reused solid waste to the percentages of improved sanitation facilities are regularly compiled by various UN agencies (UN-Habitat, 2003; UN-Water, 2010). Almost one tenth of the global aggregate disease burden could be prevented by improving water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WHO, 2008). The exact share of wastewater irrigation in this figure is not yet known. 92 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse Data from 53 cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America showed that wastewater irrigation is a common reality in and around 75% of the cities (Raschid-Sally and Jayakody, 2008). In Accra, 200,000 consumers eat raw vegetables daily (Amoah et al., 2007). National estimates of the area under treated wastewater reuse are significantly better than of areas where raw or diluted wastewater or excreta are used, usually in the informal sector (Jiménez and Asano, 2008; LeBlanc et al., 2009; Raschid-Sally, 2010). The reuse of untreated and diluted wastewater (or polluted surface water) probably exceeds the use of treated wastewater globally at least by a factor ten. Data on the global wastewater irrigated area are however fragmentary, ranging between 3 and 20 million hectares, with the latter representing approximately 10% of the globally irrigated area. The largest (and so far least studied) share of wastewater use is probably in China and Sub- Saharan Africa (Jiménez and Asano, 2008; Scott et al., 2010). Models of waste streams deriving from urban areas show both potential and limitations for resource recovery (Belevi 2002; Erni et al., 2010) while analyzing urban footprints and placing cities and their demands in the basin context (Varis, 2006; Drechsel et al., 2007, van Rooijen et al., 2010). On Lesson 3. Livelihood impacts, benefits and costs of waste reuse Livelihood benefits and health risks of smallholder households engaged in wastewater irrigation have been qualitatively and in part quantitatively confirmed in several case studies which also highlighted the role of gender in reuse and exposure (e.g. Ghana, Mexico and India, Ethiopia; Pakistan) (Buechler 2004; Hussain et al., 2002; Ensink et al., 2002; Scott et al., 2004; Weldesilassie et al., 2010; Obuobie et al., 2006; Hope et al., 2009). Studies addressing the costs and benefits at city scale, including averted risks or replacement costs for lost benefits are largely missing (Scott et al., 2000). The same applies to the economics of environmental impacts of wastewater reuse. New options for easy-to-use ex-ante health risk assessments, such as Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA), have been tested in the field (Seidu et al., 2008ab), and also combined in first pilots with models for analyzing water and nutrient flows (Material Flow Analysis (MFA) (Nguyen-Viet et al., 2009). On Lesson 4. Technical options for resource recovery and risk reduction A large number of studies by IFDC and TSBF offered up a variety of options for Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) involving organic and inorganic fertilizers. Research also advanced on composting options for biodegradable solid waste, for example at the community level (SANDEC-Waste Concern, 2006; Cofie et al., 2009) and excreta reuse 93 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse (EcoSan research) mostly at household-backyard level (e.g. Esrey et al., 2001), Scalable low- cost options for excreta, wastewater and (if possible dehydrated) urine management require further study. Most conventional wastewater treatment options are rather expensive while a) often removing the nutrients which could be recovered, b) sometimes introducing metals to the water, c) supporting salinity, or d) not reducing microbial contamination to the level needed for actual risk reduction for farmers and consumers. This resulted in a call for research on scalable options for alternative treatment but also complementary non-treatment options for risk reduction where conventional treatment fails or continues to have low coverage in the short and medium term. This also includes the so far little addressed challenge of saline wastewater (Qadir and Drechsel, 2010). Studies on the potential compost market and perceptions of farmers’ willingness-to-pay are available from selected case studies. Results from Ghana and Kenya showed a higher demand for compost blended with industrial fertilizer or farmyard manure (Danso et al., 2006; CIP, 2007; Adamtey et al., 2008). Studies by EMBRAPA in Brazil and IRD in Vietnam showed the high acceptability of reuse projects that included biogas production from human and livestock manure. Farm-based options for health risk reduction have so far only been developed with and for smallholders irrigating vegetables in Ghana (Keraita et al., 2010). The options appear to be cost-effective (Seidu and Drechsel, 2010) but require more research on incentives to enhance their long-term adoption (Karg et al., 2010). Pilot studies on the best application of urine and raw sludge and related health risk assessments have been carried out (Cofie et al., 2005; 2010; Seidu et al., 2008b) but require much more research on safe and productive application rates under various settings as well as on their institutional acceptability. On Lesson 5. Institutional and economic scalability challenges A paradigm shift towards treatment design for reuse is emerging (Murray and Buckley, 2010) and supported by main donors. There are, however, key gaps in addressing institutional perceptions and capacities in most low-income countries. This concerns the limitations of addressing reuse as part of the informal sector, as well as the general lack of training in business process modeling in the field of sanitation, a gap resulting from many years of reliance on public funding (Evans and Drechsel, 2010). 94 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse Institutional dialogues (learning alliances), especially with the private sector, and networking appear to be key factors in facilitating support for resource recovery, but these require time (Evans et al., 2010). A positive outcome is the new Irrigation policy in Ghana that acknowledges informal wastewater irrigation and irrigated urban agriculture in order to facilitate research on options for safe resource recovery. Social marketing is needed where risk awareness is too low to support economic incentives for the adoption of risk mitigation measures. More emphasis on understanding and supporting behavior change should be given to places where market conditions do not apply (Karg et al., 2010). Theory of change Safe water and nutrient recovery from otherwise wasted resources is a pillar of NRM which can best be brought to scale through innovative research and partnerships taking particular account of emerging markets, business models and social benefits. Change can be effected through four major levers: Profitable business models that offer easy entry to small and medium enterprises. Depending on local conditions different types of entrepreneurs will have a competitive advantage. While targeting poverty reduction through supporting smaller entrepreneurs is one goal. Going to scale with the appropriate technology in the most cost-effective manner for the larger benefit of the society will be another. Careful consideration of safety concerns and perceptions which requires risk assessments and thorough tests of options for risk mitigation. Institutional dialogues and learning alliances are powerful forces for change but require well-trained coordination and facilitation. Social marketing and the facilitation of behavior change to shift discourses towards reuse or the adoption of safety practices; a process which requires a high level of gender sensitivity. Potential impact areas Any farmers in the vicinity of organic waste or wastewater from agro-industrial or domestic sources, and anyone in the urban-rural interface around cities and middle-sized towns across Asia, North Africa, part of the Middle East, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa: Projects are currently being implemented or planned for Ghana, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Senegal, Ethiopia; Kenya; and South Africa for South-South learning); India (Hyderabad), Vietnam (Hanoi), Pakistan, Uzbekistan, China, Jordan, Mexico and Brazil. The scope for promoting reuse is significant given large-scale nutrient mining and physical or economic water scarcity across most developing countries. Unplanned waste discharge and reuse are challenges which affect low- and middle-income countries across all climatic 95 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse zones. There are up to 20 million hectares under mostly uncontrolled wastewater irrigation. This indicates both urgent need and ample opportunity for impact supporting the poor in the form of food safety and food security improvements. To address the health risks, it has been estimated that in Anglophone West Africa only, with around 80 million urban dwellers, approximately 7 million poor street food consumers about 100,000 disability adjusted life years (DALY) annually. This figure could be reduced by 90% if the adoption of recommended practices are supported by appropriate incentives, education and social marketing to support behavior change (IWMI, 2009). Research questions 1. How best to manage productive and safe wastewater, excreta and fecal sludge reuse in agriculture and aquaculture? Given the existing institutional, infrastructure and gender roles in low-income countries, what are the viable waste reuse options that safeguard public health, reduce environmental pollution and support agricultural productivity, and how can these options better reflect our understanding of the differential implications of waste on the livelihoods and assets of risk- prone groups? What agronomic, economic, institutional and technical options do we have to make the current WHO Guidelines for wastewater, excreta and grey water use more applicable, accessible and sustainable in different market and non-market settings and for different reuse purposes? How can we link Material Flow Analysis of waste streams and Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment under the umbrella of a Strategic Environmental (and Health) Impact Assessment? How can we visualize the spatial dimensions of the results using remote sensing and spatial analysis? What are the local cultural, religious, social and psychological barriers to mainstreaming safe resource recovery from waste streams in agriculture? Which economic, communication and social marketing strategies and incentives are locally appropriate to support behavior change of male and female farmers, traders and consumers to adopt safety concepts even where risk awareness is low? 2. Which options do we have for making money and other benefits out of waste? What is the current scale of wastewater and excreta reuse and how significant are its benefits and food safety risks compared to other health risk factors for different social groups and gender within target areas? 96 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse What kinds of business and institutional models are feasible for recovering phosphorous, other nutrients, organic matter, water and energy from liquid and solid waste resources and how to integrate these into agribusiness fertilizer value chains? A business model in this context describes the entire solution for a task, including the chosen technology, supply and market analysis, institutional linkages and regulatory context. It includes information on its viability (with or without external support/subsidies) and the social and/or economic benefits it will achieve and who the beneficiaries are. How best could ‘reuse’ contribute to poverty alleviation, and/or provide economic benefits for the society at large by extending the lifetime of landfills, reducing waste transport costs, nutrient mining and environmental pollution and saving fresh water resources? How can innovative sanitation service delivery systems including treatment be supported? How can resource recovery mainstreamed in policies and strategies? 3. How will climate change affect wastewater generation, collection, treatment and reuse, and how far could waste and wastewater reuse increase the resilience of cities? Using an IWRM perspective, how could we better plan for water recycling at scale in the context of cities in the upstream-downstream continuum given the inter-sectoral water allocations and competition? How do take climate change into account? What reuse technologies and waste streams offer cost-effective and low-energy resource recovery to minimize the negative urban footprint? As environmental services, how can land application of waste or compost production take advantage of carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism? 4. How best to make an asset out of saline waste resources? What are the most efficient and productive options available for the use of marginal-quality water resources (treated wastewater, and saline drainage and groundwater) within the overall framework of water resources management? How can we rehabilitate saline-sodic soils and bring abandoned irrigated land back into production, considering pro-poor on-farm and off-farm options that benefit both men and women farmers? Implementation plan To move the research agenda forward, the shortcomings of our current work have to be actively addressed (see the five key points under Lessons learned). Priority attention goes to 97 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse the gap in human and institutional capacities in the development of viable models allowing out-scaling and up-scaling of resource recovery options from waste streams. This can be achieved through stakeholder involvement and applied action research as outlined below: 1. All projects will be linked to institutional multi-stakeholder platforms (learning alliances; www.irc.nl/page/14957) which will be established by building on existing local, national and regional platforms in all main research areas. This will foster the so far missing integration and close collaboration between economics and reuse, and between the sectors of agriculture, health, and sanitation as well as between policy makers and beneficiaries especially among the poor. CRP 5 provides a strong umbrella for this approach, as it links expertise in solid and liquid waste streams with the required CG internal and external economic, institutional and health expertise. The latter will also be linked with the research agenda of CRP4. 2. The research will add financial, economic and institutional analysis to learn about and support emerging business models used by entrepreneurs for different waste streams at different scales. It will further explore low-cost options to minimize the disease burden of farmers and consumers due to unsafe food from the use of excreta contaminated waste resources, as well as the risks for environmental health. This SRP will also have its limits. It will focus on low-income countries where the use of wastewater and other waste resources is predominantly limited to pathogens of domestic origin, like across SSA. It will put less emphasis on situations in emerging economies where industrial waste resources and chemical pollution are dominant and a healthy and acceptable balance between reuse and risks is unlikely. In this situation, industrial source treatment remains the priority recommendation (WHO, 2006). However, as source treatment is still seldom, and a significant share of the global poor live in emerging economies; we are open to innovative partnerships where the CGIAR could add value from the agricultural perspective (e.g. selection/breeding of more adapted crops, safe land and water treatment, constructed wetland management). The research program and its results While the exact methodology varies with the research question and scale, key components in various combinations will be:  Multi-criteria assessment of current resource treatment and reuse practices in agricultural production; their possible benefits, needs and risks for human health and the environment.  Disaggregated household data collection considering roles of gender and vulnerable groups.  The assessment of existing reuse (business) models, and technical and institutional options and constraints for up-scaling safe resource recovery (small and large scale). 98 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse  Perception studies among stakeholders with special consideration to marginalized low income groups, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of risk reduction options taking into account gender specific implications.  Combinations of Material flow analysis, Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessments, and Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment, linked where possible to GIS and remote sensing platforms.  Study of the enabling institutional, social and policy environment, and economic and social marketing options for safety recommendations.  Market and (public/private) investment analysis for planned, intensified, or safer resource recovery.  Participatory design of business options and risk mitigation measures at required scales.  Feasibility studies and piloting of reuse for further learning, stakeholder feedback, perception studies and re-assessment of risks. Research outputs In six years: 1. Innovative agricultural reuse and treatment models for domestic and agro- industrial waste that deliver social and financial returns • multi-criteria analysis of existing or piloted treatment schemes with reuse potential • catalogue of safer irrigation/application practices and small scale on-site treatment options • institutional and economic analysis of reuse business models 2. Global map of wastewater and excreta reuse, and assessment of consumer risks and benefits 3. Practices for farm- and off-farm opportunities for reducing microbial contamination of water resources and irrigated crops, and market and non- market based options for promoting their adoption, taking account of cultural and gender priorities. 4. Institutional, technical and economic options for re-use of waste streams to mitigate soaring fertilizer prices and reduce environmental externalities of inappropriate disposal and reuse practices, and support agricultural production in urban areas, especially by poor farmers and women. 5. Enhanced knowledge on the links between agricultural water use and integrated urban water and wastewater management/recycling (IWRM) to address water scarcity and inter-sectoral water allocations in the basin context (links to the SRP on River Basins). 99 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse 6. Better understanding of the role and significance of waste reuse practices in the context of multiple water- and food-borne pathogen pathways affecting poor households (supports CRP 4). 7. Contributions to international wastewater use guidelines 8. A range of tested scientific, technological and socio-economic solutions and approaches for sustainable and effective urban water management (UWM) analyzed in selected basins and countries. 9. Efficient use of marginal-quality water resources and its environmental implications assessed in selected countries. Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this SRP. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this SRP and formulate more specific output descriptions. Outcomes Increased institutional and public knowledge on the extent of water, organic matter, energy and nutrient recovery from waste streams, related risks and benefits, and agronomically, economically and socially viable options for up- and out-scaling safe resource recovery models. Expected after 5 years:  Business models and technical guidelines for the agricultural reuse of wastewater, excreta and other waste streams are being applied in 5 countries.  Catalogue of risk reduction measures for the safe reuse of wastewater and excreta for two geographical sub-regions adopted by WHO.  Data from the first global assessment of wastewater irrigation, benefits and health risks cited in UN reports. Expected after 10 years:  Catalogue of business models for safe resource recovery for different settings, waste streams and scales referenced in UN and donor publications and in use by business councils and associations.  Options for waste reuse incorporated in policies, strategies, investment or medium- term plans, as well as training programs in 80% of all intervention countries.  Integration of waste streams into the fertilizer value chain for supplying and servicing farmers in project countries.  Disease burden reduced by half due to pathogens from wastewater or excreta reuse in communities where new safety measures have been introduced. 100 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse Impact  Improved livelihoods and food security through reduced water scarcity and negative nutrient balances in agricultural production.  Reduced health risks from unplanned waste reuse that have a positive impact on livelihoods, particularly on vulnerable groups such as women, children and the aged, while mitigating poverty.  Higher overall system resilience to climate change, water scarcity, and increasing fertilizer prices. Impact pathway To achieve impact we have to address the complex challenges and emerging opportunities facing agriculture in the rural-urban interface. This requires a strong emphasis on innovative multi-stakeholder participation and extensive capacity building. Strategic institutional links between the sanitation and agricultural sectors and beyond the conventional (rural) research partners are necessary. A key component for impact is to address the constraints the public sector is facing and the opportunities of integrating the private sector (small, medium and macro enterprises) supporting various approaches to business development in the research process. Only the participatory integration of all stakeholders coupled with a multi-disciplinary action research approach will allow progress in the technology-biased domain of resource recovery. This also concerns reviews of existing perceptions and technology standards and frameworks which might become crucial to support innovative new treatment and safety approaches. For private sector participation and the review and revision of technical standards, the network of the International Water Association will be instrumental, along with national and regional utility and private sector entities. A key requirement for research implementation with full public support is the mitigation of possible health risks. Therefore, risk assessments and mitigation will be key components of any reuse strategy, taking advantage of close links with CRP4. At larger scale, strategic alliances (especially with WHO, FAO, UN-Habitat and UNEP) will facilitate the production of international public goods and the international outreach of the project outputs. IWMI’s close collaboration with various UN agencies will be useful in this regard. Networks such like the International Water Association and Sustainable Sanitation Alliance will facilitate the distribution of best practices and business models among NGOs, the private sector and donors. This SRP offers the CGIAR a research and capacity building portal for links between urban and rural stakeholders, producers and consumers, agriculture and sanitation. There are multiple options for innovative North-South and South-South partnerships, especially 101 Strategic Research Portfolio: Resource Recovery & Reuse involving universities. There appears to be significant potential for increased knowledge sharing especially between India and South-East Asia for the benefit of Sub-Saharan Africa. Links to others CPRs CPR 5 has its focus on natural resources management. This SRP will support safe resource recovery. This thematic focus is complemented and supported by CPR 4, which looks at health risk assessments and safe nutrition along the food chain. Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. CGIAR Institutes International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA; CIP- Urban agriculture, Lima, Peru; Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (TSBF/CIAT), Kenya Universities & Academia Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand; Universities of Arizona and Berkeley, USA DPU-University of London, UK; Greenwich University, UK; University of Copenhagen, Denmark; University of Stockholm and Uppsala, Sweden; Wageningen University (WAU), Netherlands; Emory University, Atlanta, USA; IHE, Netherlands; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Stanford University, USA; National universities in project countries International Research Centers & Networks The World Vegetable Center (AVRDC), Taiwan; Centre Régional pour l'Eau Potable et l'Assainissement à faible coût (CREPA), Burkina Faso; the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), ETC-Urban Agriculture, Netherlands; RUAF Foundation, Netherlands; International Fertiliser Development Center (IFDC), Alabama, USA; International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), Netherlands; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), UK; Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), UK; Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), Sweden; SuSanA Network; International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA), Dubai Private Sector and Business Schools Private sector engaged in waste management, including social entrepreneurs, such as Waste Enterprises Ltd., and development cum research organizations, such as the Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association (BORDA/DEWATS), Bremen, Germany; Business schools in the sanitation-agriculture interface, such as CEWAS in Switzerland. International Organizations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy; Un-Habitat; World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland; World Bank 102 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins Strategic Research Portfolio: Improved management of water and land resources in major agricultural river basins Vision River basins are managed so that the full range of benefits of water and land use are realized, shared and negotiated. The planning, allocation and monitoring of land and water resources assures that benefits will be equitably shared (Grey and Sadoff, 2007): to the basin - in the form of improved water quality, environmental protection, reduced land degradation and erosion; from the basin - in the form of food production, hydropower, irrigation, ecosystems restoration; because of the basin - in the form of reduced risk of conflict, increased food and livelihoods security, improved land and water rights: and beyond the basin - in the form of integration of markets, benefits of regional trade. The focus on realizing and sharing benefits will see water treated both as an energy flow through land, and a limited stock that must be shared. Planning and monitoring will help to ensure that: basin development interventions are targeted to improve or secure quality water and land access for the poor; conjunctive surface and groundwater use is the norm; land is managed for increased productivity, carbon sequestration, biodiversity maintenance and reduced soil erosion; basin flow regulation is conducted through environmentally sensitive practices, and basin water is allocated, amongst other uses, to enhance livelihoods; adaptive institutional arrangements are in place to respond to human and environmental change and provide resilience to human and environmental shocks; and there is a high level of integration amongst and between government institutions, river basin organizations, NGOs and civil society groups, all with a view to ensuring the optimal management of river basins. In the coming five years it is envisioned that we will have a much better knowledge of water and land availability and benefits sharing mechanisms and the governance systems and institutional arrangements that control their uses. This knowledge will have influenced national and international decisions on poverty reduction and sustainable basin land and 103 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins water resources development and allocation in the basins where we work. Policies will have been adopted in these basins for equitable arrangements for managing benefits, water sharing and allocation for poverty reduction, for improved conjunctive use of rain, river, and groundwater servicing multiple uses, and improved collective management of land and water resources, and accounting for social and physical drivers influencing land and water governance. National partners will have tested and adapted improved tools for monitoring basin level hydrology, human uses of water, ecosystem services, land use change, intervention cost- effectiveness analysis, and analysis of trade-offs amongst uses and regions. In the following years, the same processes will be in place in the major agricultural river basins of the developing world. Water scarcity and land degradation will be managed so as not to adversely harm rural livelihoods, agriculture or environmental flow requirements, and resilience will be increased, benefiting directly or indirectly some three billion people. In addition, the outputs of this Strategic Research Portfolio will be applied in river basins that are not yet water stressed or land degraded – ensuring poverty focused, sustainable water and land resources development from the start. In addition, the capacity to manage and mitigate escalating land and water related hazards as a consequence of climate change and increasing populations will have improved, yielding clear benefits and outcomes to vulnerable populations. Justification Approximately 2.8 billion people now live in water scarce basins (CA, 2007). Meanwhile, the demand for water continues to increase. Populations grow and incomes rise, resulting in more demand for staple foods and for water-intensive high value food products. Sometimes the response is an expansion of irrigated area. At the same time, non-agricultural water needs increase and some water must be allocated to maintain the environment. The result is increased water scarcity. In a world of 9 billion people, water scarcity, physical, economic or institutional, will be the norm. The issues will be management, equitable access, and resource sustainability. The magnitude, type and extent of scarcity vary across basins. Some basins are closed and water is over-allocated (physical water scarcity); others are open with relatively abundant water resources that can be harnessed through improved infrastructure (economic water scarcity). In some, institutions limit access to certain groups and exclude others (institutional water scarcity). All forms of water scarcity are influenced by seasonality and water quality. Increasingly, the picture has been complicated by global drivers of change, among them population growth, urbanization, dietary changes, land-use change, biofuel production, flow 104 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins regulation, and groundwater exploitation. All are further exacerbated by climate change. Always, the poor are the most vulnerable to the negative consequences. A common response to water scarcity is to improve water storage. Options include small and large reservoirs, artificial groundwater recharge and improved soil moisture storage. The development of new sources of water supply, however, is often constrained by cost and a range of hydrological, social and political risks. For example, changes in flow regimes associated with infrastructure development have sometimes negatively affected the livelihoods of the poor and the production of ecosystem services leading to social and political conflict (World Commission on Dams, 2000). Changes in land and water management have consequences both positive and negative. Negative consequences are all too often transferred to poorest and most vulnerable groups. Identifying and managing the benefits from land and water in ways that benefit the poor and maintain ecosystems services is difficult even in economically developed countries with strong and stable systems of government. Another response to water scarcity is to produce more with less. Land and water productivity are, in many instances, lower than they could be, which means there is ample scope for improvement. Water management and land management are intimately linked— every land use decision is a water use decision. The mitigation or prevention of land degradation is often fundamental to using water-related interventions to improve the livelihood resilience of the rural poor. Land and water problems in basins are embedded in a complex sociopolitical and economic context. Transboundary basins are a source of cooperation as well as for conflict at all levels from international to inter-state. Transboundary cooperation can serve as a basis for the political stability needed for development and poverty reduction. Many international rivers are the subject of shared agreements, but results have fallen short of expectations. In every case where we have had success, some mechanism for building trust is the key to achieving equitable and lasting agreements. In some cases that mechanism can be better measurement and monitoring. Hence, we must continue our efforts to improve access and availability to water data. Remote sensing and GIS tools have enormous potential here. Single discipline or single sector approaches to land and water problems may continue to work for simple problems in specific locations, but basin hydrology is complex and few problems are simple. For example, the complex web of use and reuse by various sectors and across multiple scales makes water accounting enormously difficult. A sound scientific understanding of these processes is a prerequisite for anyone who would offer advice to those making decisions about and managing the governance, policy and institutional environment. This is even more the case with transboundary basins where the CGIAR 105 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins concentrates its basin-related work. In fact, almost every river basin in Africa and most major basins in Asia are transboundary. These basins are home to the overwhelming majority of the poor. In terms of poverty alleviation, getting transboundary water management ‘right’ is a truly wicked problem. Lessons learned Seckler (1996) set a new direction in research on agricultural water management featuring three components: 1) using the basin as the main management unit; 2) distinguishing between ‘real’ and ‘paper’ water savings at the basin scale; and 3) focusing on increased crop-water productivity rather than irrigation efficiency. Stages of basin water resources development through to ‘reallocation’ at basin closure were identified and described, basin water accounting procedures developed and the use of various remote sensing and modeling tools for integrated assessment of water availability and access- examined. Basin standpoint in managing water for agriculture, the concepts of closed basins and global water scarcity had significant impact worldwide (Keller et al., 1998; Seckler, 1998; Molden, 1997; Kite and Droogers 2000; Giordano et al., 2006; Molle and Wester, 2009). Subsequent research illustrated the use of these concepts in specific river basins throughout the world, diagnosed the cases of physical and economic water scarcity, examined future scenarios of water availability with in-built environmental considerations and, more recently, started to explore underutilized water sources and the impacts of drivers of change on basin water resources (Amarasinghe et al., 2004, 2008; Biggs et al., 2007; Giordano and Vilholth 2007; McCartney and Arranz 2007; Molden 2007; Smakhtin et al., 2004; Venot et al., 2008). Keller et al., (2000) examined the principles of efficient use of storage in water management, Kite et al., (2001) and Molle et al., (2005); Rosegrant et al., (2000), Ringler (2001), Cai et al., (2006) explored tradeoffs and water allocation scenarios among various basin water users; Langford et al., (2007) formulated adaptive framework for river basin management in developing countries, and Smakhtin et al., (2007; King, 2000) illustrated the needs of environmental water allocation and its impacts on basin water planning. Sadoff and Grey (2002) introduced the concept of benefit sharing in river basin management, later expanded by Turton (2009) to better address the concern of the poor in river basin management. Cook et al., (2009) showed that basin water productivity helped identify priorities to realize such benefits. Lessons help to inform us about where we should be headed. For example, land use is a key factor in rainfed agriculture in river basins. Discussions about river basin management have tended to focus on the river water, but seldom land, while changes in land management is a legitimate river basin management strategy. Similarly, lessons learned (and unlearned) point to drivers of change and their impacts now and in the future, land-water-ecosystem 106 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins interactions and benefit sharing mechanisms such as but not limited to Payment for Environmental services. Potential target areas Target areas include river basins with physical water scarcity and economic water scarcity, and where one or more levers of change can be applied (see next section on “theory of change”). These include but are not necessarily limited to the following: Amu and Syr Darya; Andes basins; Euphrates and Tigris; Ganges, Indus and other basins originating in the Himalayas; Krishna, Limpopo, Mekong, Nile, Volta, and Zambezi. Within these basins, analysis will take place across scales, and more detailed analysis may take place at the scale of a sub-basin or catchment with reference to the entire basin. Theory of change There are three entry points that can be used to increase the magnitude, value and equitable sharing of water-related benefits. Because land management and water management go together, all entry points have both land and water dimensions. A first entry point is to invest in water infrastructure. Where economic water scarcity prevails, infrastructure improvements can improve water availability for all users. Complementary land management practices are needed, to take full advantage of infrastructure investment and to avoid land degradation, one consequence of which can be infrastructure deterioration. Our lever for change is to influence how these investments are made, by being physically or virtually present when key investors or policy makers are making decisions. We need to develop relationships with key influencers and provide credible alternatives. A related strategy is to inform and thereby influence the discourse about investments.  Research can provide information on alternative investments covering a range of practices, and include likely magnitude and distribution of benefits and costs from infrastructure investments, with special emphasis on compensation for those negatively affected (e.g. downstream fishers affected by the construction of upstream reservoirs). Such information will be of special interest to investors concerned about social responsibility and potential risks to their reputation.  Research can also provide information on the extent to which infrastructure can help mitigate the effects of hydrological extremes. A second entry point is to allocate and manage water in a basin to raise productivity, improve equity and provide for ecosystem services. Water in a basin can be reallocated by water managers from less productive to more productive uses with appropriate 107 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins compensation provided for losses. This process must take into account of the distribution of water rights. The productivity of water in different uses is affected by land management practices. Our lever for change is to develop key relationships, provide credible alternatives, and inform and influence the discourse about water rights and water allocation.  Research can provide reliable science-backed information on water productivity for different uses (and how this is affected by land management decisions) and indicators for suitable levels of compensation for those who cede water rights. Water resources can be reserved for environmental flows and research can examine the consequences of that for other water users. The recent introduction of these concepts into discourse on the National River Linking Plan in India was the result of good science and the ‘right’ relationships that jointly ensured impact.  We can introduce information into stakeholder dialogue to inform policy change through such relationships. To do this in a systematic manner requires a ‘map’ of these platforms and mechanisms with additional information that tells us where, when and how to intervene. For example, some basins already have multi-stakeholder platforms or river basin organizations of some form that are effective to varying degrees. In other basins, such mechanisms are absent or dysfunctional. A third entry point is to introduce benefit sharing mechanisms to reduce negative externalities. Upstream land and water management practices affect the quantity, quality and reliability of water available to downstream water users. Downstream users include urban communities, fisheries, hydropower installations and irrigation facilities. Institutional innovations can be introduced whereby downstream water users invest in suitable upstream land and water management practices. Win-win strategies can be designed so that they improve the livelihoods of upstream communities while maintain essential environmental services, reducing sediment flow, and stabilizing downstream water availability.  Research can inform the design of alternative institutional innovations for benefit- sharing, test them with stakeholders and tailor them to specific environments or sets of circumstances, measure the extent to which upstream improvements in land and water management achieve their several objectives, and inform policy reform to encourage the widespread introduction of benefit sharing mechanisms.  Research can also help develop improved land and water management practices for upland communities capable of meeting multiple objectives as part of a benefit sharing mechanism. 108 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins Research questions 1. What are the hydrological and social dynamics of competing water uses and drivers of change within river basins? What tools can we bring to predict and manage change? Sub-questions include: o To what extent is water physically scarce? Economically scarce? o How is water used within the basin, and by whom? o How are benefits shared among stakeholders? To what extent do disadvantaged groups lack access to water-related benefits? Does gender influence access to water? o How are water-related benefits affected by land management practices? Who benefits and who loses when different land management practices are used? o How can trade-offs best be analyzed within and between sectors? To what extent do upstream water uses create negative or positive externalities for downstream users? o How can hydrological extremes (droughts and floods) be better predicted in developing country basins? o How does water quality affect water availability for various uses in the entire basin? o How can water-related benefits in a basin best be monitored? What indicators should be used? 2. What mechanisms can be used to increase the magnitude, value and more equitable sharing of water and land related benefits in river basins? How can negative impacts be reduced and positive impacts amplified? Sub-questions include: o What are the most appropriate ways to govern river basins and the land and water resources contained within them? o How can the benefits of land and water be shared across sectors, while improving the livelihoods of the poor, fostering gender equity, and minimizing environmental impacts? o What composite of research, rules, monitoring and governance is best suited to ensure that the negative impacts of an intervention in one part of a basin are not transferred to other parts of the basin? o What are the best institutional mixes needed to ensure that socio-political jurisdictions can better address transboundary issues and trends (international to state boundaries)? o How can hydrological extremes (droughts and floods) be better managed in developing country basins, and their negative impacts on land and agriculture be minimized? 109 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins o How do formal international and international agreements impede or encourage development, such as dam construction? To what extent do they contribute to the protection or reduction of ecosystem services? What is their effect on poverty? 3. How will various drivers external to river basins affect the availability of land and water, and the magnitude, value and distribution of water-, land- and related resource benefits? Outputs Research outputs will be tailored to the respective problem sets for each basin. However, generic cross-basin research outputs can also be listed. These will be produced within six years, as both on-going projects are completed and new sets of projects are designed and implemented. Generic research outputs from cross-basin research will include:  Institutional, policy and technical innovations: to increase water and land productivity in basins; to arrest land degradation; to improve transparency and participation in resource governance; and to share benefits  Information and guidelines: on the value and productivity of water in different uses (including environmental uses); on the selection and evaluation of various water storage options and their combinations at basin scale; on the planning and implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms; and on allocating and managing land and water in a basin to reduce poverty, provide for ecosystem services, and attain other developmental goals  Methods and techniques: to analyze trade-offs between different water and land uses; to evaluate the distribution of land and water related benefits; and to evaluate water availability, allocation and access  Improved capacity: in the form of non-specialists who are aware of and have access to advanced technologies and data resources for policy-making (remote sensing, modeling, GIS); and trained specialists including M.Sc. and Ph.D. students Basin-specific research outputs listed below are to be delivered in three years. These are largely based on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. This list of outputs is indicative and by necessity incomplete. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions. Basins are listed in alphabetical order. 110 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins Andes basins Institutional, policy and technical innovations: benefit-sharing and coordination mechanisms for specific circumstances for basins anywhere in the Andes Information and guidelines: quantification of the consequences of benefit sharing mechanisms for changes in land and water management for livelihoods; identification of areas in the Andes where water use could be improved by making more water available (modifying the use of water in upper lands) or allocating water to different plots (in lower lands). Methods and techniques: methods for adaptive management in design and planning that include benefit sharing mechanisms. (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru). Central Asian Basins (for example Amu and Syr Darya) Institutional, policy and technical innovations: IWRM water governance principles and management procedures fully introduced and practiced at pilot canals and small trans- boundary rivers; Joint Commissions are established and IWRM implementation in the pilot basins of small transboundary rivers introduced. Information and guidelines: financial and economic aspects and ability to pay at different operational and management levels are assessed; donors and governments have a common understanding of the roles and scope, tasks and responsibilities from WUA to basin level Capacity building: training of local specialists in Satellite Image processing and land use mapping. Ganges and Indus Institutional, policy and technical innovations: community based technical and institutional solutions for the management of wetlands and river basins with the aim of using drinking water supply and sanitation potentials of wetlands; strategies to integrate wetlands into river basin management and planning, including accounting for ecosystem functions. Information and guidelines: assess the value of aquatic resources to users and the constraints they face in accessing these resources; comprehensive and publicly available hydrological time series database for the Upper Ganges Basin; downscaled climate change scenarios for the basin which can be used by other parties and in other projects; analysis of the types and roles of various water storage strategies to improve access and cope with climate change; socio-economic assessment of the identified storage systems. 111 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins Methods and techniques: environmental flow methods commensurate with the level of data, information and expertise available and protocols for their application in Indian river basins. Improved capacity: significant enhancement of the national capacity of the Government of Indian to implement and further develop environmental flow methods; Mekong Institutional, policy and technical innovations: practical methods to minimize negative impacts of hydropower development; practices to enhance productivity of seasonally occurring floodwaters for the improved and sustained benefit of the livelihoods of the poor. Information and guidelines: characterization of the natural and agro-ecological systems and existing livelihood systems adopted by the communities selected zones of the Mekong; total value of water multi-uses estimated in the three focal sub-basins; comparative analysis of alternative resource management strategies in flood-prone ecosystems. Methods and techniques: improved methodology of a participatory commune agro- ecosystem analysis; integrated water valuation framework developed and field-tested. Improved capacity: research skills and institutional management capacity at Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI) of the Cambodian Department of Fisheries; a regional network in support of building local capacity for the sustainable and effective management of wetlands and aquatic resources; improved capacity of core training team and provincial technical teams to implement the revised commune agro-ecosystem analysis. Nile Basin Institutional, policy and technical innovations: identification of high potential water and land interventions for poverty reduction based on analysis of water availability, water access and productivity, poverty, institutions and potential interventions. Information and guidelines: comprehensive agricultural production database at district level; geo-referenced inventory of existing and planned irrigation areas; scenario set to examine the uncertain future of demand for agricultural produce; information products for water resources management. Improved capacity: a strong foundation of technical and human capacity in the Nile countries for water resources assessment, management and planning. 112 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins West African basins (for example, the Volta or the Niger) Institutional, policy and technical innovations: a multi-stakeholder platform with representation from all key stakeholders including government authorities produces an action plan for follow-up on issues and institutionalization of the dam dialogue and its objectives as part of the Ghana Dams Dialogue. Information and guidelines: analysis of the downstream impacts of small reservoir development and intensive groundwater development; raising the profile of fisheries in water use decision-making in Niger and Mali. Outcomes In three to six years:  Decisions on investments or allocation are informed by research materials in five river basins.  Benefit sharing mechanisms, influenced by this CRP, are in use in five locations.  Improved research capacity to analyze benefits, improve water and land monitoring, and in mitigating the negative impacts of anthropogenic interventions. After six years:  Basins are better able to cope with water scarcity. Implementation plan Our overall strategy is to build on the growing or strong presence across target basins to first understand stakeholders perceived problem sets. We will work closely with a range of partners to build credible outputs that directly address these problem sets, and point to emerging issues that have not yet drawn attention. In the process of research, we simultaneously build relations with those who can influence important decisions: these partners vary from one basin to another. Our approach is to make sure that credible information is available when those decisions are made. Many other CRP programs are working in these target basins. We will help by looking at cross scale considerations. For example, how will upstream developments impact coastal areas (linked with 1.3), or what are downstream impacts of upstream development in highlands (MP1.1, 1.2). A second approach is to look for opportunities where benefit sharing arrangements may work and work with partners in an action research mode to see if these can be stimulated. Third, we will use our position in working in several basins for comparative analysis to generate international public goods. Partners CGIAR Institutes 113 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka; Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF); WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, USA; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya; Bioversity, Rome, Italy; AfricaRice, Burkina Faso; International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Columbia; International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India NARES and ARIs Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Iran; Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN), Peru; Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa; Soils and Fertilizer Research Institute (SFRI), Vietnam; Amhara, Oromia, and Benishangul Gumuz Regional Agricultural Research Institutes (ARARI, ORARI, BSGARI) in Ethiopia; Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute; Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research; CIRAD UPR-Green Station la Bretagne, Volta; Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Ghana; Agricultural Research Institute (ARI), Ghana; Water Research Institute, Ghana; RESEARCH INERA, Burkina Faso; SP-PAGIRE (MHARH), Burkina Faso – among others International Organizations Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI); ICEM (International Centre for Environmental Management); SIC-ICWC Universities American University of Beirut; University of Florida, USA; Utah State University, USA; Texas A&M University, USA; University of Illinois, USA; Cornell University, USA; COSUAN (network of 16 Andean country universities); King’s College London, UK; University of Witwatersrand, SA; University of Zimbabwe; Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia; Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST, Ghana; Department of Geography, University of Ouagadougou; UDS-Tamale (University of Development Studies), Ghana; Wageningen University – Plant Production Systems Group; Water Resources Commission (WRC), White Volta Basin Board (WVBB), Ghana NGOs FUNDESOT (Foundation for Sustainable Development), Andes; RIMISP (The Latin American Center for Rural Development); FANRPAN (Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network), SA; Catholic Relief Services Donor Initiatives & Networks GTZ-Ecuador; Global Water Partnership (GWP) 114 Strategic Research Portfolio: Basins Regional Initiatives & Networks LimCom (Limpopo Basin Commission); WaterNet, Zimbabwe; MPOWER, Mekong; Eastern Nile Technical Regional Organization (ENTRO); Ethiopian Rain Water Harvesting Association (EWRHA) network; Nile Basin Initiative; Volta Basin Authority State & Quasi State Bodies Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Cambodia; Mekong River Commission; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Vietnam); Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (Cambodia); Nam Theun 2 Power Company, Lao PDR; National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR; Water Resources and Environment Administration, Lao PDR 115 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Strategic Research Portfolio: Improved ecosystem services and resilience Vision Natural resource management for agriculture mainstreams the maintenance, enhancement and creation of regulating and supporting ecosystem services to ensure productivity, stability, and reduced variability in the production systems of small scale agricultural producers. Justification Increases in agricultural productivity over the last 100 years have failed to maintain and account for the important role that ecosystem services play (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Unsustainable agricultural practices have profound, damaging side- effects on livelihoods, ecosystem functioning, and in the long-term could depress or reverse productivity gains and increase poverty. Many water use practices for agriculture have been shown to be unsustainable at the global scale, and the availability of other natural resources (land, phosphorous, and energy) is predicted to start running out by the end of this century (IAASTD, 2009). The magnitude of the problem is immense. The reduction of the Aral Sea Basin by 75% due to unsustainable agricultural water management practices caused winds to pick up 100 millions tons of dust containing a mix of toxic chemicals and salt, and led to a loss of 20 to 24 fish species, and 60,000 jobs (Postel, 1996). Trend analysis of 145 major rivers indicates that discharge has declined in one fifth of all cases due to regulation of rivers, including irrigation. It is estimated that over 50% of applied nitrogen fertilizer and 40 percent of phosphorus fertilizer is lost from agricultural fields, causing pollution of groundwater, exhaustion of soils, loss of the services provided by below ground biodiversity, and contributes to eutrophication of lakes, reservoirs and ponds (Smil, 1999; 2000). Much of the 30% of global harvests lost to pests and disease occurs in developing countries (Oerke et al., 1994). The resulting economic and food resource costs are, to a significant extent, a consequence of the continuing evolution of tolerant species of pests and pathogens that are able to overcome resistant genes introduced by modern breeding. This contributes to cycles of boom and bust and encourages increased use of pesticides. The production value of crops that depend on insect pollination is four times the value of those that do not (Gallai et al.., 2008). The global economic valuation of the pollination service provided by insect pollinators, mainly bees, for the main crops that feed the world has been estimated at USD 208 billion, or 9.5 percent of the total value of the world’s agricultural food production. Worldwide there is evidence that insect pollination services are in decline. Losses in diversity and numbers are particularly strong under intensive 116 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems agricultural management. Together with the habitat loss associated with the intensification of agriculture the use of pesticides (Aizen and Harder 2009). Production systems with less dependence on external inputs and wiser management of resources are needed if agricultural production is to increase and be sustainable (FAO, 2010; Rosegrant et al.., 2002; CA, 2007). A fundamental research question emerges, therefore, on how to ensure that continued agricultural intensification and productivity increases can be achieved in ways that use and enhance ecosystems services more effectively, as measured by increased stability and reduced variability in the agricultural production systems of small scale farmers (Foley et al.., 2005). This includes increasing the adaptability of agricultural ecosystems, such that the communities and agro-ecosystems are able to respond to changing conditions without debilitating losses in livelihoods, productivity or ecosystem functions. Not all ecosystem services directly benefit the poor. This Strategic Research Portfolio prioritizes selected ecosystem services. Earlier work has shown their potential to reduce vulnerability in the agro-ecosystems of small scale farmers (see section on Lessons learned). This Strategic Research Portfolio further targets the spatial connectivity of ecosystems in accounting for the benefits of ecosystem services at different scales from farms to river basins to landscapes. This Strategic Research Portfolio concentrates on regulating services and supporting services. Other services such as provisioning services (food, fuel wood, fiber and timber) are more fully taken up in CRP1, CRP3 and CRP6 and cultural services (spiritual, recreational, aesthetic) in CRP1 and CRP2. In particular, the regulating ecosystem services targeted here are concerned with loss of water quality and quantity, and pollination efficiency, and increased vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests and natural hazards (floods, droughts). The supporting ecosystem services targeted are hydrological cycling, soil nutrient cycling and soil formation. In a nutshell Fundamental agricultural production challenges • Destruction of ecosystem regulating services (water quality and pollination efficiency, and the increased vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests and natural hazards (floods, droughts) • Destruction of ecosystem supporting services – (hydrological cycling, soil nutrient cycling and soil formation) A paradigm shift • Move away from single solutions: reducing risk by creating ‘insurance’ portfolios comprised of multiple ways to better use soil, water, and biotic resources that enhance ecosystem services. • Enhance the capacity of natural resource managers to support and create partnerships with small scale farmers who use water, soil and biotic management methods that reduce vulnerability in the production system while at the same time maintaining productivity. • Change consumer and retailer norms that support agricultural production systems that reduce vulnerability with continued productivity through enhanced ecosystem services. 117 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems • Policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with less dependence on external inputs, and wiser management. Ecosystem links with other Strategic Research Portfolios Cross cutting questions across Strategic Research Portfolios include  How do we measure ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes and understand if interventions increase overall benefits?  When and how do ecosystem services benefit the poor?  Multifunctional agricultural landscapes: do they provide increased resilience, and how do we measure it?  Sustainable intensification – an oxymoron or real potential, and where? Does it include creating and sustaining multiple ecosystem services? Rainfed: Ecosystem benefits from upgrading rainfed areas can include improved water productivity by converting unproductive evaporation to biomass production, increasing habitat for beneficial insects and birds, regulating water flows, reducing erosion, and increasing carbon sequestration, agro- and natural biodiversity. Research in Ecosystems will contribute to enhancing a range of ecosystem services when upgrading rainfed landscapes, such as below ground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, promoting multifunctional landscapes, maintaining habitat niches, and reversing trends of nutrient depletion and erosion. Irrigated: Surface water irrigation and reservoirs in dry areas create new ecosystems with areas of open water, wetlands, and riparian zones that did not exist naturally and have the ability to support increased biodiversity. Biodiversity can increase over time in irrigated areas as people include more perennials, and create more habitat niches. Research will aim at developing and managing irrigation systems to create and promote ecosystem services including biodiversity and fisheries, limiting externalities caused by abstraction of water such as loss of downstream aquatic ecosystems, or water quality degradation. Groundwater: Groundwater use can draw water out of rivers and wetlands degrading above ground aquatic ecosystems and result in reduced capacity of aquifers to store water. Groundwater is also a natural storage system that can help buffer against climate shocks by absorbing excessive runoff in flood periods and supplying water on demand, thereby reducing the need for above ground storage that disrupts natural ecosystems. Ecosystems research will consider the links between groundwater, wetlands and rivers and associated impacts. Basins: Managing land use and water means managing landscapes and water flows to support agriculture and other ecosystems, and managing tradeoffs between multiple 118 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems objectives and uses of water at scales large enough to include urban and industry requirements, hydropower, and transboundary concerns. It means managing for resilience at larger scales. Research in Ecosystems will support understanding and enhancing overall ecosystem services at larger scales. Pastoral: Out of balance drylands are clear ‘tipping points’ in ecosystem ecology. Examples include large tracts of land in Australia and overgrazed lands on many continents. Drylands also offer possibilities for environmental provisioning services, such as carbon sequestration and various water related benefits and revenue generated from biodiversity conservation. This potential has been poorly assessed and trade-offs with traditional income from livestock production is an area that remains to be explored. Research will aim to enhance ecosystem services in drylands, balance it with livelihood concerns, and mitigate land degradation. Wastewater: Wastewater use in agriculture immediately raises water quality concerns. Using wastewater for irrigation over time can significantly degrade soils, creating massive nutrient imbalances and limiting productive use. However treatment of water by agriculture is an important ecosystem service. Ecosystem research considers the impacts of various waste stream recovery systems. Lessons learned This section offers examples of how prioritized ecosystem components and the services they provide ensure stability and reduce variability in production systems employed by the rural poor. Further detail on each lesson is in Annex 4. Terms used in these examples are defined in the box below. Resilience: the ability to absorb disturbances (www.resalliance.org). Functional diversity: the value and range of species’ traits rather than just species’ numbers is important to short-term ecosystem resource dynamics and long-term ecosystem stability, as it increases positive interactions or complementary functions (Diaz and Cabido, 2001; Wilby and Thomas, 2007). Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of change. The ‘insurance hypothesis’: individual traits may be useful at a later time. Having a variety of species and greater genetic diversity ensures an ecosystem against declines in its functioning in the face of a range of environmental upsets (Mulder et al., 2001; Norberg et al., 2001; Yachi and Loreau, 1999). Lesson: Wetlands and peatlands regulate flooding, mitigate droughts and dry spells, and provide water treatment services 119 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Peatlands in Sarawak, East Malaysia, play a major role in providing freshwater supplies. The peatlands are an important contributor to the base flow of the numerous streams that originate within them. The Muthurajawela marsh in Sri Lanka is estimated to have a water storage capacity of 11 million cubic meters and a retention period of more than 10 days. The flood attenuation value of the wetland is estimated to be USD 5.4 million per year (USD 1,758 per hectare) (Emerton, 2005). Wetlands improve water quality through processes of sedimentation, filtration, physical and chemical immobilization, microbial interactions and uptake by vegetation (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Lesson: Below-ground diversity and agroforestry improve soil health and nutrient cycling Significant work in the analysis of below ground diversity has proven that marked differences in the functional composition of particular functional groups can serve as indicator tax for soil health. Earthworm management (vermiculture) used on rice, maize and banana crops increases tolerance to plant parasitic nematodes by a systemic action on stress genes and expression of other genes (Blouin et al.., 2005). The technique allows the maintenance of high earthworm activity in the root zone while offering an alternative transition from conventional to partly or fully organic agriculture. Identifying and implementing sustainable and replicable management practices for below- ground biodiversity conservation have demonstrated the use of various types of inoculums as a substitute for fertilizers. Farmers in Uganda have started growing soybean using rhizobia inoculums. In Mexico, inoculums have been developed with material sourced from the benchmark areas and used in experiments with maize and palma comedor, an ornamental plant. Lesson: Biotic diversity helps regulate pests and diseases and reduces vulnerability Both farmers and plant breeders have selected and used genotypes that are resistant to the pests and pathogens of their crops (Frankel et al., 1995; Finckh and Wolfe 2006; Thinlay et al., 2000), and have developed farming systems that use crop biodiversity to reduce the damage they cause as a substitute for pesticides. Farmers have local preferences for growing mixtures of cultivars that provide resistance to local pest and diseases and enhance yield stability (Trutmann et al., 1993; Karamura et al., 2004; Trutmann et al., 1993; Jarvis et al., 2007). In progress in many parts of the world is the development of varietal mixtures, or sets of varieties with non-uniform resistance and with lower new pathogens migration or mutation 120 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems probability of existing pathogens. (Finckh et al., 2000; Finckh and Wolfe, 2006; Jarvis et al., 2007). Natural enemies of pests depend on resources such as food for adults, alternative prey or hosts, hibernation sites and shelter from adverse conditions (Landis et al., 2000). Habitat management designed to meet the needs of natural enemies of crop pests can attract species that offer the ecosystem service of natural biocontrol. Lesson: Enhancing pollinator services improves production The role of pollinators in horticultural crop production in countries such as Kenya, South Africa and Brazil has been well established (Allsop et al., 2008, Bispo dos Santos et al., De Marco and Coelho 2004, Gemmill-Herren and Ochieng 2008, Kasina et al., 2009a, b, Martins and Johnson 2009, Ndiritu et al., 2008). Lesson: Conservation tillage improves carbon and water cycling Conservation tillage has been shown to enhance carbon sequestration by increasing carbon content and mitigating Greenhouse Gas emissions (Quintero, 2009; Uri et al., 1999, Denef et al., 2004; Bossyut et al., 2002; Kong et al., 2005; Kuo et al., 1997; Rasmussen et al., 1980; Cole et al., 1993) and facilitate better drainage and water holding capacity. Lesson: Gender plays a key role in the management of ecosystem services Women are often left out of leadership roles and decision making processes, even when they may be the main custodians. Lesson: Collective action at different levels can support the provision of ecosystem services Ecosystem management often requires collective action to address the complexities arising from the existence of multiple uses and users of ecosystem services. At the local level, collective action leads to the sustainable exploitation of forests, watersheds and rangelands. The management of some natural resources, such as marine fisheries, transboundary watersheds and genetic resources needed for food production imply collective action problems that require coordinated measures at the international level. Lesson: Clearly recognized property rights are necessary for farming communities to provide ecosystem services It is generally recognized that secure property rights (in particular to land and the natural resources found in a given piece of land) are a necessary condition for farmers to provide ecosystem services because property rights provide the incentives required for individuals and/or groups to undertake the requisite long term investments required to manage ecosystems in a way that they keep providing environmental services and maintain a healthy level of resilience (Mwangi and Markelova, 2008; Meinzen Dick and Knox, 2001). 121 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Lesson: Markets currently capture only a small part of the value of ecosystem services that support the livelihoods of poor farmers and the benefits they may or may not be providing to others When included in better valuation processes, many ecosystem services can deliver exceedingly high financial values (or costs arising from their absence). Examples include regulation of water quantity and quality, flood and erosion. Values of ecosystem services have been realized by improving public awareness about socio-cultural values of the importance of local crop varieties and animal breeds and the associated biodiversity that surrounds them (Birol et al., 2007); by providing information on the substitution value of agricultural biodiversity for fertilizer and pesticides (Di Falco and Perrings, 2005); by moral suasion, regulation and planning; by preventing specific land management practices such as low input zones (Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Ruiz, 2009; Ramirez, 2001; Ceroni, et al., 2007); and advocating that local and national governments integrate ecosystem services into their legislation on environmental impact assessment programs (Slootweg et al., 2006; Wale, in press). Lesson: Some market interventions can work Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes provide market incentives for farmers who provide environmental services by compensating farmers for their conservation practices through payment for environmental services (FAO, 2007; Brussaard et al., 2010; van Noordwijk, 2005; 2007; Wunder et al., 2008). Environmental payment systems often include initiatives to link upstream and downstream users of natural resources (Pradhan et al., 2010). Lesson: Ecosystem services have socio-cultural, insurance and option values that will be under-estimated if left to the market Leaving ecosystem services to the market, as it is presently constructed, leads to choices that are biased against the maintenance of optimal levels of ecosystem services (Thies, 2000; Heal et al., 2004; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Drucker, 2007; Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Smale, 2006)5. There are few institutional and policy incentive structures that promote the enhancement of farmers’ customary practices supporting ecosystem services. 5 In a comprehensive SGRP/CGIAR review of the applied genetic resource economics valuation literature, covering over 170 publications (Zambrano et al., 2005[i]), Smale and Drucker (2007) concluded that recent advances in the analysis of the value and determinants of individual components of agrobiodiversity have provided a useful framework of knowledge on the ways in which improved valuation can contribute to optimal investment allocations and policy decisions. 122 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Lesson: Current policy and legal frameworks can be improved to recognize the contribution of farming communities in generating and enhancing ecosystem services There is a dominant trend towards agricultural intensification involving intensive production systems which put ecosystem services at risk. Institutions and policies are generally supportive of, and reflect, this dominant trend, creating disincentives for farmers to keep producing or preserving agro-ecosystem services thus preventing them to get revenues from the investments they made in sustainable ecosystem management (IAASTD 2009). Lesson: The long-term impact on sustainable poverty reduction of interventions that support the maintenance of ecosystem services has not been monitored and remains largely unknown Successful interventions come from supporting local institutions, enhancing collective action and property rights, and enabling farmers to participate and lead the decision making process and implementation (Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2008; Renard, 2003). Theory of change Many of the actions taken by individuals and groups are necessary and ‘right’ in terms of keeping productivity and maintaining ecosystem services, but will take a long time to get results. These include initiatives designed to facilitate collective action that strengthens existing groups (farmer groups, CSOs, NGO coalitions, etc.) or helping to set them up and giving them the tools they need to support and advocate their cause. It must be noted that not all collective actions lead to good outcomes for environmental services. For example, associations of organic farmers are likely to promote good stewardship, but a groundwater user group may be interested only in pumping more water to intensify crop production. Nor do we see any of these levers as simple quick fixes. For example, there are non-market actions used in natural resource management that have worked. Many are not mainstreamed because of agricultural production subsidies6, tax breaks and price controls (Tilman et al., 2002; Kontoleon et al., 2007; Kitti el., al, 2009), and because of the skewed investment of multi-national companies in research for high technology and patentable solutions may be contrary to the public goods ecosystem services provide. These difficulties aside, we have to keep pulling these levers of change because there is a shift in the wider society towards a demand for healthier food and environments, which leads to people understanding the real value of sustainable agricultural production systems. Creative incentive schemes. In Taiwan, the government pays farmers to maintain paddy fields because they comprise an effective form of flood control and mitigation. If we can 6 OEDC countries spend approximately US225$ billion annually on agricultural subsidies for their own producers, between one forth and one third the global value of agricultural production. 123 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems position wastewater irrigation as a form of treatment, city governors could be persuaded to pay for this service in the form of supporting legislation or campaigning for safe use, would encourage consumption which would put money in the farmers’ pockets. The private sector and fair trade. Fair trade is an organized social movement and market- based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries obtain better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold. The interests of fair trade programs, business associations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Alliance for Water Stewardship, and corporate CSR programs are very much in line with our goals and objectives. There are enough genuinely successful initiatives that we can ignore the green washing, empty rhetoric and exaggerated claims that are, unfortunately, also common practice. Using the social capital of our partnership networks. Harness the collective social capital of our partnership networks in soil, water, crops, livestock and fisheries to ‘get in the door’ of ministries that have traditionally been unsympathetic to environmental concerns and offer options they can accept. Influence policy to support production systems that replace external inputs with biotic components of the ecosystem. The heart of the matter here is how to persuade decision makers to make decisions to include the full costs of using non-biotic inputs such as chemical fertilizers and patented GMO seed varieties. In mainstream economics these costs are treated as ‘externalities’ and completely ignored. Advocacy, consumer power and policy remain the best tools we have at present. Identify custodians of ecosystem services and engineer the policy environment to support them. One of the main problems with environmental services is that in many cases there simply is no custodian. An individual farmer depends on bees to pollinate her fruit trees, but who is the custodian of the bees? What legal and intuitional frameworks support custodianship for the wider ecosystem beyond the fence of an individual farmer’s field? Community management models are one model that has been shown to work, but only if the policy and institutional environment support it. Research questions This Strategic Research Portfolio revolves around the hypothesis that through the creation, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services, natural resource management for agriculture will not only improve productivity but will also ensure stability and reduce variability in the production systems of small scale farmers. 124 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems The research needed to effect this change is organized to understand: 1) Which components of ecosystems are providing the ecosystem services that help reduce poverty in agricultural ecosystems, and how do they do this? 2) What management practices can create and enhance these services under changing production and environmental conditions? 3) Who are the custodians of these services? 4) Why are these ecosystem services not appropriately valued? 5) What appropriate actions or interventions can provide benefits to stakeholders who maintain or enhance ecosystem services? Question 1: At what levels and scales do the components of ecosystems provide the ecosystem services that help reduce poverty in agricultural ecosystems? Answering this question will require: • Assessing the amount and distribution of ecosystem components and their role in providing ecosystems services • Understanding the continuum of ecosystem services in different farming systems that are critical for local populations • Assessing local, basin level and regional water cycles and the role of ecosystems services that underpin water security and vulnerability to flooding and drought • Measuring how these ecosystem services support rural livelihoods • Addressing the spatial connectivity of ecosystems in accounting for the benefits of ecosystem services • Determining the role of field-water outflows in regulating hydrology and supporting the environment Question 2: What management practices enhance or create ecosystem services for current and future use to reduce poverty? Answering this question will require: • Identifying which ecosystem services are most at risk through unsustainable agricultural practices and the magnitude of impact of these management practices • Understanding how drivers such as population growth, resource scarcity, changes in land and water use, high input development interventions and degradation affect the delivery of these ecosystem services • Identifying when degradation to ecosystem services are reversible and services can be recovered or if there are tipping points that permanently alter the environment. Question 3: How can the custodians of ecosystem services and providers be better identified and supported to continue practices that support and maintain ecosystem services? This will require: • Identifying custodians of ecosystem services and their inter-dependence within the larger landscape and watershed • Assessing how custodians and other stakeholders view themselves in their role 125 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems • Understanding what changes are needed for decision makers to implement management practices that are sensitive to ecosystem services • Identifying actions that will permit benefits to flow back to service custodians • Identifying governance platforms in natural resources management that are ecosystem service oriented Question 4: How can an enabling environment be created that can remove disincentives and create incentives to support the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services and resilience for poverty reduction? Answering this question will require: • Identifying and addressing local, national and regional institutional and policy- related disincentives • Quantifying the monetary and non-monetary values of ecosystem services, in particular their value to the poor • Identifying, quantifying and using private and public values of ecosystem services to inform the prioritization of development interventions • Measuring the value of the services they provide. Measurement does not have to be in monetary terms. For example, for water services, a value index like ‘population served per upstream hectare’ or ‘electricity generated per upstream hectare’ would be useful for prioritizing interventions • Attributing the positive impacts of ecosystem services on livelihoods, while minimizing tendencies towards levels of homogenization and oversimplification of production systems that are not socially optimal Question 5: How can we test, monitor and evaluate the impact of alternative interventions aimed at promoting the use, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services in support of the rural poor? Answering this question will require: • Identifying which types of interventions should be prioritized for testing, monitoring and evaluation (e.g. involving inter alia market [including PES] and non-market mechanisms; and policy, legal and institutional options) and with which stakeholders • Testing of a range of interventions • Developing appropriate tools and methods with which to monitor and evaluate livelihood and ecosystem impacts of interventions across a range of representative environments Research outputs In the next three years: Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Strategic Research Portfolio. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a 126 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems detailed analysis of all project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Strategic Research Portfolio and formulate more specific output descriptions. Tools and practices needed to manage local crop (intra-specific) genetic diversity developed for farmers and NARES researchers. (China, Equador, Morocco, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) Improved production practices in agriculture obtained through community based conservation models and tools that support indigenous and local communities and the scientific and development communities to conserve and use local crop biodiversity in areas of high environmental instability and variability (Nepal Himalayas). Support for those agrobiodiversity rich practices that are already part of the livelihood strategies of the target communities (Sri Lanka). Wild and cultivated materials identified that currently are being used or have the potential to be used by local communities to managing pests and diseases and to cope with biotic stress; Expanded biodiversity rich corridors within the agricultural production systems that provide refuge and increase population size of pollinators and seed dispersers. (Cuba) Demonstrated and used the functional benefits of the genetic diversity (crops, livestock, associated diversity) in oases of Algeria and Tunisia to support and improve the specific ecosystem services that these systems provide. (Algeria and Tunisia) A multifunctional agricultural landscape with bio-corridors and stepping-stones identified; land-use dynamics for each stepping stone assessed; scenarios and models for multipurpose landscapes with local tradeoffs between livelihood options and conservation tested; carbon assets and opportunities determined; ecosystem services and their rewards supported; negotiation processes initiated; and improvement in national capacities for integrated research in the Mekong region. A reliable standardized protocol for the quantification and assessment of C and greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits in all GEF and other projects involving natural resource management. Implement examples of good practice in Paramo management; support governmental and non-governmental levels to adopt key policies for Paramo conservation; increase the technical capacity of Paramo inhabitants and field practitioners to manage Paramo; replicate best lessons of the project to other areas and scales at Andean level. In six years: Identification of the biotic components to improve soil health through the use of below ground diversity and reduced need for external inputs. 127 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems New insights into the relationships between agricultural practices and ecosystem services and resilience. A portfolio of management practices that can be used to enhance or create ecosystem services for current and future use to reduce poverty. Identification of and support to custodians of ecosystem services and providers to continue practices that support and maintain ecosystem services given the above drivers of change.  Valuation and policy tools that support the removal of disincentives and the creation of incentives for small scale farmers and pastoralists to maintain and enhance ecosystem services and resilience. Systems to test, monitor and evaluate the impact of alternative interventions aimed at promoting the use, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services in support of the rural poor. Better tools:  for sustainable management practices of peat lands, pastures and aquatic systems that support ecosystem services  for better identification and prioritization of areas where specific actions or interventions can be used to improve natural resource management as well as reduce poverty  for water delivery by ecosystems at the local through to landscape and basin scales  to measure vulnerability that allows decisions on selecting biotic components within agro-ecosystem to better regulate pests and disease and reduce current and future crop loss  to increase production through improved pollinator efficiency  to remove disincentives and create incentives to support the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services and resilience for poverty reduction Outcomes In 6 years in 10 areas: Farmers and resource managers are moving towards ‘insurance portfolios’ comprised of multiple ways to better use soil, water and biotic resources that enhance ecosystem services. This will be demonstrated in 6 areas. Natural resource managers will support and create partnerships with small scale farmers who use water, soil and biotic management methods that reduce vulnerability in the production system while at the same time maintaining productivity. 128 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Consumer and retailer norms and behaviors are supporting agricultural production systems that reduce vulnerability with continued productivity through enhanced ecosystem services. Policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with less dependence on external inputs. The discourse of ecosystem services and resilience is more prevalent and more prominent within communities of resource managers at ministries of agriculture, land development and water resources and their associated departments at county and provincial levels. Insights and tools are found in the training and professional development curricula of resource managers such as hydrologists and irrigation engineers. Increased human capital of small scale male and female agricultural producers to take advantage of new information and communication technology and providing internet connections. Impacts Agricultural producers have reduced vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests through better use of crop biodiversity and associated below ground biodiversity. Increasing evidence that crop productivity is improved through better pollinator efficiency and below ground efficiency. Representative partnerships among ecosystem service providers and consumers to create decision making platforms. Potential impact areas Table 1 at the end of this Strategic Research Portfolio shows a list of on-going projects and their locations and the strategic research area being addressed. Countries with more than one CG center working in that country are listed by geographical region below: East Africa: Kenya Tanzania, Uganda West Africa: Burkina Faso, Mail SE Asia: Indonesia, Lao PDF, Thailand South Asia: Bangladesh, India East Asia: China (low land) Himalayas: China, Nepal Andes: Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Neotropics: Mexico 129 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Data generated in participation with the Strategic Research Portfolio on Spatial Information and Surveillance systems will provide a platform for generating empirical data and meta- analysis on ecosystem services and associated risk factors, and evaluation of intervention impacts. This will be at two levels: 1) through regional information systems based on available remote sensing and GIS data, and 2) through a network of long-term sentinel sites located within CG benchmark basins where standardized ground sampling protocols will be applied to collect ecological and socio-economic data at nested spatial scales and over time. Impact Pathway CG researchers collaborate with national agricultural and environmental research and education institutes, extension services, NGOs and selected farmer and pastoral communities. Research activities include disaggregated information by gender and age to develop and test practices that improve provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. These services include: resilience to water stress from better ecosystem management; improved soil health and soil-forming processes from below ground diversity and agroforesty; regulation of pest and diseases through crop biodiversity; enhanced pollination services; and improved carbon and water cycling from wetlands, peatlands and sustainable pasture and aquatic systems management. National resource managers train local and provincial staff to enable them to measuring regulating and supporting services. Local (county, provincial) and national research and education institutes (technical schools and local colleges) in water, soils, and agriculture have the skills to evaluate the impact of different management practices on regulating and supporting ecosystem service, and regard farmers as partners with legitimate knowledge and the ability to set research agendas. Leadership capacity is built for male and female custodians of ecosystem services to enable them to access and use information. Knowledge empowerment for small scale farmers is created by taking advantage of the new information and communication technology and providing internet connections, using solar power where electricity is not continuous or available, cell phone connections, and wire-wireless hybrid technology. Capacity for poor and vulnerable groups to access and use information is improved through links with NGOs and national extension services with the mandate to improve literacy. Campaigns are carried out to change norms towards understating the full costs of different soil and water practices. Retailer and private sector companies incorporate ecosystem services into retail standards, which establish gateways for getting ecosystem supportive products into their retail systems, while promoting diversity in lieu of uniformity among 130 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems products. Changed standards provide a market for technologies (processing, millers, water technologies, soil technologies) to be adapted to handle diversity of management methods. Natural resource management and agricultural policy makers advocate local and national governments to integrate ecosystem services into their legislation, allowing benefits to flow back to ecosystem providers. Implementation plan This Strategic Research Portfolio envisions technical coordinating teams with national partners in different geographical areas who will build on the knowledge gained from local partnerships and national and international research and educational institutes and organizations through participatory and adaptive management methods. This Strategic Research Portfolio has a strong gender focus that emphasizes the need for disaggregated collection of data by gender and age and the importance of supporting, through leadership and capacity building the role of women in natural resources management education. research and decision making positions. Links to others MPs Major link with MP1. Here MP5 is providing the knowledge and tools that might be used in MP1 Major link with MP2 (2.3 collective action and property rights) Partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. CGIAR Organizations Participatory Research and Gender Initiative – CIAT; All CGIAR centers except CIMMYT. International Organizations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy; Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, Montreal Canada; United National Environmental Programme (UNEP), Nairobi Kenya; UNESCO; IFAD; The Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research, Rome, Italy, Netherlands; Ford Foundation-Bioversity International, Rome, Italy; African Ecosystem Research Network (CAS-UNEP); The Mountain Institute. Universities & Academia University of Los Andes, Columbia; University of Florida, USA; University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna; Washington State University, Pullman, USA; Cornell University, USA; University of California, Davis, USA; Lewis and Clark College Law School, IAV Hassan II University, Rabat, Morocco; Yunnan Agricultural University, 131 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Kunming, China; Maccarere University, Kampala, Uganda; University of Kassel, Germany; Chinese Academy of Sciences, and their provincial Academies; Chinese Agricultural Academy of Sciences (CAAS), and their provincial academies (i.e., Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences YAAS); Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU); IRD, Montpellier, France; Uzbek Research Institute of Genetics and Experimental Plant Biology, Uzbekistan; Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kyrgyzstan; Academy of Sciences and National Institutes of Deserts, Turkmenistan Statal & Para-Statal Bodies Ministries of the Environment, of Agriculture, and of Education and their provincial and regional departments; Ministry of Planning (in relevant countries); National Agricultural, Environmental and Water Research Institutes and centers (NARES) and their regional and local research centers; CAR and CORPOGUAVIO (Environmental authorities in Colombia); Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAA), Algeria; Institution of Research and Agriculture's High Education (IRESA), Tunisia; Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT), Cuba; Centro Nacional de Areas Protegidas (CNAP), Cuba; Ministry of Nature Protection; 5 national institutes that feed data into the inventory, Armenia; Viceministerio de Biodiversidad, Biodiversidad y Cambios Climaticos, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua; and 9 linked institutes, Bolivia; Centre National de la Recherche Appliquée au Développement Rural (FOFIFA); L’Office national pour l’Environment (ONE), le portail dynamique du Réseau de la Biodiversité de Madagascar (REBIOMA), Madagascar; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources; Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya; PGRC, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Institute of Genetics and Plant Experimental Biology (IGPEB), Academy of Sciences; Uzbek Research Institute of Plant Industry of Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources; other 4 related scientific institutes, Uzbekistan; Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Hill Crop Research Programme, Nepal; Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecurarias (INIAP), Ecuador; Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Département d’Agronomie et d’Amélioration des Plantes, Morocco ; NGOs Ecociencia, Ecuador; The Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP), Chile; Foundation for Sustainable Development- Colombia (FUNDESOT); PROIMPA, Bolivia; Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development, Nepal; ECOAGRICULTURE Partners, WA. DC., USA; Numerous other national NGOs throughout partner countries Regional Research Institutes Alexander Von Humbolt Institute, Colombia; Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil Donor Programmes GTZ – GESOREN, Ecuador; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Bern Switzerland; Christensen Fund, California USA; IFAD; IDRC, Montreal Canada; JICA, Japan; NEDA, the Lessons learned This section offers examples of how prioritized ecosystem components and the services they provide ensure stability and reduce variability in production systems employed by the rural poor. 132 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Table 3.2: On-going projects, locations and strategic research Research Q1: Research Q2: Research Q3: Research Q4 : Research Q5: Identifying levels and scales Understanding management Identifying are the Economic evaluation and Monitoring actions or where ecosystem components practices can create and enhance custodians of ecosystem policy and legal interventions that provide produce ecosystem services and these services under changing services and their Constraints to the benefits to stakeholders who resilience that help reduce conditions perceptions and needs enhancement and creation maintain or enhance ecosystem poverty in agricultural of ecosystem services services ecosystems BMZ Carbon sequestration in BMZ 2010 proposal Carbon Three PhD studies on PES for ASARECA USAID Total AWF- USAID Kitengela pastoral - African rangelands (Burkina sequestration in African wildlife conservation in economic value of Kenya, land lease programs (Kenya) Faso; Ethiopia) rangelands (Burkina Faso; rangelands Tanzania, Ethiopia Ethiopia) rangelands; NERC+DFID ESPA Biodiversity, ecosystem services, social WRI DANIDA - GIS spatial sustainability and tipping points in ILRI planning economic value African drylands Develop land health surveillance UNDP/GEF Reduce sediment Building functional Development of carbon market methods discharge (Tanzania) Landscape Institutions in for bio corridors (China, Yunnan Soil Micronutrient deficiencies West and East Africa (Mali, Province, Laos, Myanmar and (Sub-Saharan Africa) CPWP – Nile basin ecosystem Sierra Leone) Thailand) services and rainwater Integrated Himalayan Transect management scales and socio-ecological zones Reducing degraded lands in highlands of Kilimanjaro ICRAF Carbon inventory (Kenya) Concept note: relationship Integrating agriculture, fisheries Concept note: relationship Concept note: relationship between agriculture and and environment in the Ganges between agriculture and between agriculture and wetlands in Ningxia, China Delta (Bangladesh) wetlands in Ningxia, China wetlands in Ningxia, China Concept note: relationship between agriculture and IRRI wetlands in Ningxia, China 133 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Aquatic resources for poverty Identifying the poor and Legal and institutional elimination in the Lower their dependence upon framework and economic Mekong aquatic resources value (Mekong River (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao wetlands) PDR, Vietnam) Valuing the role of living Wetlands Alliance aquatic resources to rural Programme, support to livelihoods in multiple-use building local capacity for seasonally inundated sustainable mgt. Of wetlands in China. wetlands and aquatic resources (Cambodia, Lao World Fish PDR, Thailand, Vietnam) Identify indigenous Identify indigenous nematophagous fungi nematophagous fungi associated associated with vegetables and with vegetables and test the test the potential of these potential of these indigenous indigenous fungi and AMF for fungi and AMF for nematode nematode biological control biological control (Benin) IITA (Benin) Conservation and Sustainable The Amazon project AMAZ Conservation Agriculture as Conservation and Conservation Agriculture as management of below ground (Reconstruction of eco-efficient alternative system to Sustainable management of alternative system to biodiversity (CSM-BGBD) landscape in Amazonia) (Brazil, conventional system Kenya, below ground biodiversity conventional system Kenya, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Colombia) Zimbabwe, Malawi, (CSM-BGBD) Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Zambia) Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Uganda, Western Ghats) Quesungual Slash & Mulch Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Agroforestry System Quesungual Slash & Mulch Uganda, Western Ghats) (QSMAS project) Honduras, Agroforestry System AfSIS – Africa Soil Information Nicaragua, Guatemala (QSMAS project) Honduras, The Amazon project AMAZ Services Mali, Malawi, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Guatemala (Reconstruction of eco- Tanzania, Kenya Conservation Agriculture as efficient landscape in alternative system to Amazonia) (Brazil, conventional system Kenya, Colombia) Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, CIAT-TSBF Zambia) 134 Strategic Research Portfolio: Ecosystems Develop reliable new methods Carbon, water and biodiversity Reduce the encroachment of Carbon fluxes and Carbon, water and biodiversity for field analysis of soil carbon stewardship in Andean agriculture in soil-carbon opportunity cost in different stewardship in Andean contents and recalcitrance smallholder farming communities rich peatlands to increase land uses and a scheme for smallholder farming communities (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and productivity and incentives for (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela) Venezuela) compensate steward environmental payments Venezuela) farmers (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and and Venezuela) CIP Venezuela) UNEP/GEF Use of local crop Home gardens, small tank Role custodians of Economic value of crop Economic methods, decision genetic diversity to regulate systems, and dry land temperate fruit trees in genetic diversity as an support tools and policy pest and disease and reduce management and ecosystem regulating ecosystem abatement factor to intervention strategies for pro- vulnerability in the production resilience in Sri Lanka services (pollinators and regulate pest and diseases poor agricultural biodiversity use system China, Morocco, pest and disease) in Central (Uganda, Ecuador) and ecosystems services Ecuador, Uganda, Central Asia Impact of Oasis agricultural Asia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, maintenance (India, Peru, Bolivia) Crop genetic diversity to biodiversity on soil and water Turkmenistan and Tajikistan Evaluating willingness to maintain high mountain management. (Tunisia, Algeria) pay (Choice models) for ecosystem services for ecosystem services (China, sustainable agriculture (Nepal) Bridging managed and natural Morocco) landscapes Cuba Status and Trends in loss of Policy incentives and Ecosystem Services and disincentive to maintain ecosystem resilience from loss ecosystem services and of agrobiodiversity (Boliva, benefit sharing (Nepal, Indonesia, Brazil, Tanzania, China, Ecuador, Morocco, Malaysia, Morocco, Mexico) Uganda, Central Asia) Bioversity 135 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information Strategic Research Portfolio: Information systems for land, water and ecosystems Vision of success The Information Systems Strategic Research Portfolio (Figure 2.4) will support decision making by stakeholders at a range of levels using location specific information on land, water and ecosystems to deliver greater land and water productivity and enhance the ability of people to sustain ecosystem services. Global and regional agro-ecological information and assessment tools will be made available through user friendly interfaces to stakeholders, including other Strategic Research Portfolios in CRP5 and other CRPs, and novel spatio-temporal surveillance methods will be developed to allow better, evidence- based planning and evaluation of agricultural interventions. This Strategic Research Portfolio will develop stakeholder capacity in the development of information and surveillance systems in data sparse regions and mainstream their use through participatory approaches for the planning and implementation of land and water management in agro-ecosystems. Justification The need for this Strategic Research Portfolio is succinctly expressed by the 2009 Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom (2006), who argues that the study of complex ecosystems requires the conduct of, “long-term research programs that use research methods that focus at different temporal and spatial scales, such as time series remote sensing images, repeated on-the-ground social-ecological surveys of local stakeholders and their [resources], and experimental laboratory studies.” Current land and water planning and management approaches in the developing world use at best rather general or scanty information on land use and the state of the environment (Paradzayi and R ther, 2002). Data collected are rarely comparable across ecological zones because of inconsistencies in methods or in the spatial scale at which observations are made. Most long-term ecological-monitoring networks have focused on natural ecosystems rather than agro-ecosystems (Sachs et al., 2010) and such data are rarely available in developing countries (Vorosmarty et al., 2002). There is enormous scope for improving agro-ecosystem productivity through provision of better data and information by making decisions on land and water management interventions more evidence-based and location specific. Using the type of scientific approaches used in the public health sector could accelerate reliable learning on agro- ecosystem management through systematic surveillance of resource conditions, trends, risks and intervention impacts. Modern earth observation techniques have potential to put such approaches into operation and provide specific empirical information on the state of the land and water resources and on the impact of interventions at different scales. Remote sensing techniques are available that enable measurement, monitoring, modeling, and mapping of vegetation condition, soil fertility, soil moisture status, groundwater levels, 136 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information water quality, and other elements of the hydrological cycle (e.g. Bjerklie et al., 2003; Tang et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2009). The challenge is to apply these technological advances to routine operations in water, land and agricultural management. Surveillance is the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data essential to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of land and water management policy and practice, and the application of these data to promote, protect, and restore land, water and ecosystem health. A surveillance system includes a functional capacity for data collection, analysis, and dissemination linked to land and water management programs. Spatio-temporal surveillance places emphasis on location specific monitoring using scientifically rigorous protocols. There are unprecedented opportunities for leveraging information and communications technology to help the poor through improved polices and planning and even direct provision of information services to land users. Widespread access to computing and low- cost connectivity is transforming the way science and development are conducted (Ballantyne et al., 2010). Advances in web services, applications programming interfaces, cloud computing, and automated work flows are enabling researchers to explore massive data sets and cooperate in new ways. Meanwhile, rapid developments in digital platforms and interfaces and open standards that facilitate interoperability across systems are providing new opportunities for universal access to science data products, tools, and information. Mobile phone technology is opening up possibilities for two-way data and information flow with resource-poor land and water users in remote areas. A key challenge for this Strategic Research Portfolio is to harness these advances for both accelerated scientific progress and effective decision support for stakeholders at different levels, and to engage stakeholders in information and surveillance systems design. Lessons learned There is a massive gap between the potential and actual use of environmental information in decision making (e.g. Paradzayi and R ther, 2002). For example, despite the role of remote sensing in problem identification and policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy control and evaluation, de Leeuw et al., (2010) found that out of more than 300 peer- reviewed articles, none described actual policy support. A key challenge for this SRP is to make better use of the latest geo-information and surveillance science and technology. Some examples of successful applications of information and surveillance systems in land and water management are summarized below. The Africa Soil Information Service (AfSIS; www.africasoils.net) has attracted USD 18 million in funding over four years to provide new empirical data on the functional capacity of African soils and make this information widely available to farming communities, extension services, development workers, project designers, planners, policy makers, the private sector, and scientists. The project is building a soil health surveillance system based on 137 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information recent CGIAR advances in digital soil mapping, infrared spectroscopy, remote sensing, statistics and integrated soil fertility management to improve the way that soils are evaluated, mapped and monitored. An important component of the project is the use of standardized protocols for measurement, data management and statistical analysis. These are being taken up by a number of sustainable land management and conservation projects outside the CG system for intervention targeting and impact monitoring. These include, for example the private sector in Kenya for rangeland management, Mars Inc. for improving smallholder cocoa production in West Africa, the Kenyan Government for carbon inventories of Mount Kenya, and sustainable land management projects in China, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. Dissemination is done through web-based interfaces and on-the-job capacity building. Current discussions are centered on how to migrate the project to a demand-driven service provider operating with a business mindset, but backed up by solid science. Issues include how to interface with other large initiatives (e.g. global ecological and agricultural monitoring frameworks, agronomic and development initiatives, private sector), models for franchising out data collection and other services, models for crowdsourcing data, and how to negotiate licensing , royalty and intellectual property rights. Water Information Systems are an essential component in the successful management of water resources and in targeting appropriate interventions. IWMI has developed various tools, frameworks and datasets for this purpose, including global data sets and maps on Environmental Flow Requirements and Environmental Water Stress, a Water Atlas (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/WAtlas/Default.aspx), a Water Accounting framework, approaches for hydronomic zoning, mapping water availability, crop water productivity, wetlands, and global maps of irrigated and rainfed areas (http://www.iwmigiam.org/info/main/index.asp). Some prototype tools, such as drought monitoring systems, are based on remote sensing; others, like water audit systems (http://slwa.iwmi.org/) include spatial, time series, social and legal information that can be updated to monitor the overall status of water resources at a national scale. Examples of other CG spatial information and surveillance systems are:  Africa Environmental Information System, including mapping of land-water health metrics, including evapotranspiration, water productivity, irrigated area, and estimates of biomass (ICRAF-IWMI)  DIVA GIS – free open source GIS system (CIP)  Spatial pest and disease modeling (CIP)  Climate reconstruction, data gap filling, interpolation, and downscaling tools (CIP)  Landslide modeling (CIP-WUR)  3-D internet-based modeling interface for soil & water modeling (CIP) 138 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information  Crop wildlife relative information at global level.  Digital Soil Map of the World initiative (www.globalsoilmap.net) linked to AfSIS. Key lessons emerging from these applications are: There is enormous opportunity for remote sensing to provide low cost location specific information to aid land and water management decisions, but ability to deliver reliable information is impeded by lack of consistent ground data on the state of the resource base. However, on-the-ground monitoring is seldom rewarded by funding agencies (Nisbet, 2007) and is yet one of the most deserving areas for future investment (Patching together a world view, 2007). The CG consortium has a comparative advantage in designing scientifically rigorous ground sampling protocols across sentinel sites7, and providing oversight and capacity building in systematic data collection, management and analysis. Land and water management intervention impacts are seldom systematically monitored in a scientifically rigorous way, especially at the programmatic level. As a result, there is little reliable learning on what works, where and why. The CG can change this by developing and implementing scientifically rigorous monitoring protocols for intervention evaluation across sentinel sites. Long-term thinking is needed with respect to data collection and management on natural resources. Tighter connections are needed with providers of remote sensing data such as NASA, USGS, ESA and JRC as well as with global environmental data archives, such as GMES8. CG long-term monitoring sites can provide essential calibration and validation data for remote sensing algorithms and applications. Stakeholders at all levels can benefit from improved information systems, but their relevance and use is often limited by a number of factors, including the degree of participation in their development, the demand for the information, ease of access, and technical capacity. The CG consortium is well placed to provide a boundary spanning role (van Noordwijk et al., 2001; Giller et al., 2008), sharing science and technology with 7 The aim of this approach is to obtain high quality and consistent data from a network of sites selected to sample a wide range of conditions or specific target conditions. The type and size of the sites will vary with the monitoring objective and can be a selection of river basins, watersheds, irrigations schemes, bore holes, stream monitoring networks or land units. 8 NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; USGS, United States Geological Survey; ESA, European Space Agency; JRC, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; GMES, Global Monitoring for Environment and Security. 139 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information stakeholders at the different levels and harnessing digital technology to provide easy-to-use and relevant applications. This includes engaging local communities in data collection and providing them with location specific information. Open data sharing platforms encourage others to share data and their further development could encourage or put pressure on governments and other agencies to release valuable data and information (e.g. stream flow data or water use records) into the public domain. Alternatively open access to remote sensing data could lessen the need for governments to restrict access to information. Potential impact areas Agro-ecosystem information systems will be developed globally for some products, but comprehensively at the scale of CG regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and West Asia and North Africa, South America, South Asia, East Asia, South-East Asia, and Central Asia. Our highest priority target areas are data poor regions, mainly developing countries of Africa and Asia. Sentinel site surveillance will be conducted at CG benchmark sites, with first priority given to CRP5 SRP sites where land and water management interventions are being tested. Theory of change The desired change is for the generation and use of data relevant to policy makers and land and water managers. Our change theory is that this will happen in three ways (Figure 2.4):  Integration of CG research and information on land and water management in regions that are vulnerable to poverty and ecosystem degradation will uncover a wealth of information and experience. Currently, CG research in this area is fragmented and yet there are good opportunities to create synergy by combining information and surveillance concepts, methods, models, databases, and map servers, and applying these resources to practical decision problems at common sites.  Activity in this Strategic Research Portfolio will be crucial for other Strategic Research Portfolios, which have their own theories of change and impact pathways through which this information can be put into use.  We recognize a number of constraints to the use of information. We hypothesize that key opportunities to enhance the use of information globally will be to 1) seek out demand for information or actively create that demand; 2) involve key stakeholders in the development of information products and services, and 3) provide remote sensing information using new open platforms to create demand and break down the need to hide or hoard data and stimulate the provision of more open access data. 140 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information Research questions Key research questions that need to be addressed to bring about these changes are: 1. What are the few key risk factors common to several land and water degradation problems that can form a basis for targeting preventive intervention programs (e.g. exposure of soils, drought, flooding, waterlogging, fire, insecure land tenure)? 2. Which remote sensing and spatial metrics and indicators are most informative for measuring and monitoring productivity, scarcity and use of land and water resources and indicating scope for improvement at different scales? What tools can be produced that allow closing the water balance from space observations? Can all water balance components and uses be reliably measured and monitored remotely? What are the limits to remote sensing of soil functional capacity? 3. What protocols are required for scientifically sound evaluation of impacts of land and water interventions at different scales? What land and water metrics can be used as a basis for reward schemes for environmental services? 4. How can land and water surveillance be incorporated into routine decision making processes in local participatory land use planning, national, regional and developing international policy making processes? How can surveillance data guide policy and action on improved agricultural land and water management for the poor? How can information and communications technology be most efficiently harnessed to this end? 5. What is the most effective way to build capacity in agro-ecosystem information systems and surveillance methods and tools at regional and national levels? What are the limitations to stakeholder use of spatial surveillance information in decision making for improved land, water and ecosystem management? How can farming communities contribute data to surveillance systems and receive location specific advice? 6. At regional and global scales, what will be the impact of various land and water interventions under different scenarios of change, using this information and simulation and agent based modeling techniques? Implementation plan The work will be done at two levels: agro-ecological information systems at global to regional scales; and sentinel site surveillance systems for monitoring land and water problems and risks and evaluation of interventions. The two levels are hierarchically linked: the sentinel site framework includes observation at nested scales from plot to watershed or household to district, and provides calibration and validation data for models and digital maps applied at regional scales. This Strategic Research Portfolio supports the other Strategic Research Portfolios in CRP5 by providing easy access to data, information, modeling approaches and protocols to help with problem prioritization, intervention targeting and evaluation of intervention impacts. 141 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information Sentinel site surveillance will be guided by the intervention needs of the other Strategic Research Portfolios. However, information and knowledge management is not an exclusive domain of this Strategic Research Portfolio and the other Strategic Research Portfolios will have their own systems for specific problem areas. At the global to regional level, agro-ecological databases will be compiled and made accessible to researchers and stakeholders through web-based map servers in open access format and for direct download access and viewing in Google Earth. This will allow researchers, managers and the public to use datasets for monitoring, modeling or forecasting with other available models. Specific platforms for tailor made products will be developed. The agro-ecological databases will combine time series of high (15-30 m) and moderate (250-1000 m) spatial resolution satellite images with near-real-time updating and freely available ancillary data, including available socio-economic data. From the present generation of satellite sensors and those expected to be launched within the next five-years, the project will monitor the biophysical properties of the land surfaces, lakes and near-shore areas, including vegetation density and biomass production, soil properties, above and below ground carbon storage, and key components of the hydrological cycle such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil moisture and infiltration capacity. Ground data and fine resolution imagery will be available from CGIAR sentinel sites (see below). The dynamic flows and fluxes of water, carbon, and key nutrients ranging from plot scale (1,000 m2) to river basins will be approached by a suite of model techniques, including simulation models for plot and basin scale, and statistical modeling. The information system could also benefit climate models and crop growth models. This project will ensure that models are empirically grounded through the sentinel site surveillance network and emphasize objective validation and uncertainty analysis. The monitoring and modeling system for predicting and forecasting environmental conditions will be driven by the continuous flow of environmental data on both terrestrial and marine conditions derived from satellite sensors, validated by long-term monitoring at the sentinel sites. The combined use of regional and sentinel site data will permit integrated quantitative analysis of ecological and socioeconomic risk factors associated with land and water management problems at different levels of scale within a single modeling framework. Sentinel site surveillance Across CGIAR regions, sentinel sites will be established at which ecological and socioeconomic baseline conditions will be measured at the start of the interventions, with at least quinquennial monitoring, for intervention evaluation and impact assessment. In some cases, sentinel sites will be dispersed networks of measurement sites across river basins (e.g. ground water monitoring, evapotranspiration flux towers). A standardized 142 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information protocol will be used across all sites, which can be supplemented with additional measurements of local interest. In the case of land health9, the surveillance methodology being currently applied in the Africa Soil Information Service (AfSIS) will be extended. This currently deploys sentinel sites of 10 x 10 km size, within which hierarchical standardized random sampling frames are used to implement georeferenced field measurements and sampling (www.africasoils.net). Field measurements of vegetation and soil condition are taken using a standardized protocol, which is applied the same way everywhere. Soils sampled from these sites are characterized in the laboratory using low cost high-throughput spectroscopic techniques. The protocol includes a carbon stock assessment and information on a range of land health metrics. Further research will test field and air-borne laser scanning applications for rapid assessment of above-ground carbon stocks and new field-based spectroscopic methods for soil analysis. The land health surveillance protocol includes assessment of a number of indicators related to hydrological regulation (e.g. flood risk, vegetation cover, topography, soil hydraulic properties), and these protocols will be extended to include other aspects of water health (e.g. water quality, streamflows, groundwater status). For hydrological monitoring, research will focus on community participatory monitoring systems so that consistent measurement protocols are used across sentinel sites. A behavioral risk factor surveillance protocol will be added to quantify both socio-economic and ecological determinants of land and water health. Sampling designs that help to better integrate biophysical and socioeconomic information for integrated risk and impact analysis will be further developed. Protocols will be designed in collaboration with other Strategic Research Portfolios and CRPs for statistically rigorous evaluation of interventions designed to improve land and water management (case-control studies, randomized and non-randomized designs, time series analysis), including socio-economic and ecological impacts. Scenario modeling (e.g. Grimm et al., 2005, de Fraiture et al., 2007), empirically grounded in the data generated in the sentinel sites will model the trends and affects of key risks on water supply and demand, land health, system productivity, and ecosystem services. Web-based infrastructure will be used to collect, centralize and analyze data from the sentinel site surveillance surveys. This will be designed to be independent of local hardware or software installations and integrate data collection from global positioning systems with centralized standardized databases. Automated data processing and statistical analysis processes will be established using graphical interfaces to process data and present 9 Land health is the capacity of land to sustain delivery of essential ecosystem services (the benefits people obtain from ecosystems). 143 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information standardized reports. These will include applications designed to meet specific decision problems for different stakeholder groups. Meta-analysis of trends and intervention impacts across sites and regions, made possible by the use of standardized protocols and data storage, will be done using techniques such as hierarchical mixed effects and Bayesian statistical models. All synthesized data will be made freely available using the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) (http://www.opendatacommons.org). End user engagement and dissemination Information from the regional and sentinel site framework will be provided to end user groups through development of cases. Dissemination of information and crowdsourcing of data capture through mobile phone technology will also be explored. Rapid development of smart phones will make it feasible to send maps and pictures. A variety of communication channels will be used to disseminate information to potential users including policy makers, local communities, agricultural extension workers, land use planners, wildlife managers, ecosystem managers, research scientists and climate modelers. Sustainability of this initiative will be achieved through embedding surveillance and spatial impact assessment in regional, national and local planning processes through capacity building at various levels. This will include interfacing and building business models for up- scaling information services with develop partners and agricultural input and information providers. The focus of CGIAR capacity building will be on training-of-trainers, including regional and national level scientists, development partners, educators and students, through joint implementation and student supervision and development of on-line tools. On-line tools include self-help spatial information, methods guidelines, standards, and statistical workflows. Research partners Integration of existing spatial databases will be done by drawing on partnerships within and outside the CGIAR, including the CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI), the Africa Soil Information Service (www.africasoils.net), HarvestChoice (http://harvestchoice.org/), World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), FAO (GLADIS, AQUASTAT), ESRI, Water Watch, ISRIC, CEISIN, and GEOSS. Strategic research partnerships with centers of excellence in the North will build on existing CG links. For example, collaboration with CIESIN and the Earth Institute at Columbia University through AfSIS will facilitate access to satellite imagery and IT infrastructural developments. Planning is underway with a global consortium led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Conservation International to design a global agricultural monitoring framework. National programs will be key partners in compiling time series hydrological and meteorological data. 144 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information Partnerships for engaging different stakeholder groups and for the constructing cases and will be developed through the sentinel sites, including national institutions and development organizations. Partnerships for capacity building will also use the sentinel sites as nodes, but also include regional centers engaged in land and water management (e.g. RCMRD in Eastern Africa, AGRIMET in West Africa). Research outputs Agro-ecosystem information systems  Comprehensive, web-enabled agro-ecosystem database and map server for CGIAR regions including surrounding near-shore areas for regional remote sensing monitoring of soil and vegetation conditions and water resources status. This database combines time series of high (15-30 m) and moderate (250-1000 m) resolution satellite images with near-real-time updating and freely available socio- economic and other ancillary data.  Parameterized scenario, simulation and statistical models and applications for a range of land and water management decision problems, including land and water resource evaluation and planning, watershed management, soil and livestock management, and water supply and demand modeling.  Increased capacity of regional and national organizations in design and application of environmental information and surveillance systems strengthened, including end user cases, decision profiles and example decision support modules. Sentinel site surveillance system  A sentinel site surveillance system consisting of a set of well characterized, long-term monitoring sites within CG benchmark sites, over 60 sites under the Africa Soil Information Service, ecosystem risk assessment and monitoring, model building and validation, and intervention evaluation.  Includes standardized protocols for land and water health surveillance and intervention evaluation, with a web-based infrastructure to collect, centralize and analyze sentinel site data.  Meta-analysis and mapping of land and water management problems, risks and intervention impacts across CG sentinel sites linked to the regional agro-ecosystem databases.  Capacity of regional and national organizations in spatial surveillance and intervention evaluation strengthened. This will be done partly through on-line learning tools, methods, standards, analytical tools, end user cases, and decision support products 145 Strategic Research Portfolio: Information Figure 2.4 Information system for Land, Water and Ecosystems 146 Strategies, Management and Budget Research outcomes  Scientifically sound methods, models and tools for systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data on land and water trends and risks are being used for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of land and water management policy and practice at local to global scales.  Land and water surveillance systems are adopted as an integral part of decision making processes on land and water management in regional, national and local systems, resulting in policies and practices that are well targeted on key risks to land, water and ecosystem health.  A wide range of stakeholders engaged with land and water management, from international and regional policy makers and donors to individual users, contribute and have access to high quality spatial information and decision support systems on land and water resource condition and trends (from patch to regional scales) and on intervention performance. Milestones Within the first three years key milestones that are not part of existing funded projects include: (i) Data portals for agro-ecosystem information systems for Africa, South Asia, SE/E Asia, and Latin America established; (ii) Technical specifications for regional agro-ecosystem and sentinel site data available; (iii) Existing global and regional spatial databases compiled according to technical specifications; (iv) Decision support priorities and use cases established with end users from different categories/scales leading to a defined workflow catalogue; (v) Sentinel site data collection in three priority benchmark rivers basins underway; and (vi) business plan vision for up-scaling data collection and information provisioning through partnerships with development and private sector organizations. In 5 years: Stakeholders from local to global level will have free access to spatial information and decision support tools allowing them to assess land health and water scarcity and quality, and to evaluate intervention impacts. Agro-ecosystem information systems and sentinel site frameworks and decision support applications will be informing land and water management decisions at different scales in five benchmark river basins. Spatially explicit post hoc environmental and socio-economic impact assessment methods and protocols will be mainstreamed in the planning and evaluation all CGIAR funded projects concerning land, water and ecosystem management. In 15 years: We envisage that all scientifically sound, location specific data and information in the world of water and land management for agriculture will be freely available to interested stakeholders, leading to increased productivity, sustained environmental benefits and reduced poverty. Capacity will be developed among regional and national partners in 15 benchmark river basins in developing countries across Africa, Asia and South America, allowing stakeholders to use improved information tools to plan land and water 147 Strategies, Management and Budget management interventions in agro-ecosystems and assess impacts at community to regional levels. Impact pathway CRP5 will support the development of spatial information and surveillance hubs implementing standardized approaches and methods that will serve as platforms for data collection and harmonization, dissemination and capacity building. Each hub, implemented through regional and national partners where possible, will serve a specific region and set of sentinel sites. This Strategic Research Portfolio will ensure that hubs are uniformly equipped and staffed to implement the standardized procedures. This will include data and map servers linked with high speed internet connections, soil infrared spectroscopy labs, and scientific and technical staff trained in the latest scientific and technical advances. The sentinel sites of CRP5 and other CRPs will serve as the principal platforms for engaging end users in the design and testing of information and surveillance systems, dissemination and capacity building. These partners will include the global agricultural monitoring community, regional and national research and extension organizations, universities, natural resource managers, development agencies and land and water user groups, and are described in the individual Strategic Research Portfolios. Capacity building in research methods will focus on regional and national researchers, principally through on-the-job training through joint implementation. Business models for scaling up innovations in information systems will be explored with development partners, agricultural service providers, the private sector, and donors. This Strategic Research Portfolio aims to achieve outcomes with a range of beneficiaries at different scales: Regional scale: Policy development, priority setting and resource allocation decisions on integrated land and water management programs by inter-governmental organizations, UN agencies, donors, non-governmental development agencies, and the private sector. National scale: Policy development, priority setting and resource allocation decisions on land and water management programs by governments and development agencies. Local scale: Design of local extension and development programs and targeting land and water management recommendations to farm communities by government local planners and both public and private extension services, and direct provision of information services to individual land users via mobile phone technology. 148 Strategies, Management and Budget Links to others CRPs Links to other CRPs will be at two levels. Agro-ecosystem information systems, models and information products will be improved and made more relevant through collaborative work with other CRPs; and joint implementation of sentinel site surveillance will help identify intervention priorities and assist with evaluation of the larger hydrologic and landscape implications of field scale interventions. Examples are given below. CRP1.1 - Integrated agricultural production systems for dry areas CRP1.2 – Integrated systems for the humid tropics CRP1.3 – Commodities CRP2 – Policies, institutions, and markets to strengthen assets and agricultural incomes for the poor CRP4 - Agriculture for improved nutrition and health CRP6 - Forests and Trees: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance CRP7 - Climate change, agriculture and food security CRP1: Improve spatial information for targeting agricultural systems for the poor and jointly monitored sentinel sites for landscape level evaluation of improved systems. CRP2: Jointly develop policy priorities to reduce risks to land and water health based on surveillance data and involve policy makers in the design of information and surveillance systems. Improve spatial data sets on policy, market and institutional indicators. CRP3: Orient spatial information on agro-ecosystem conditions for input to crop models and improve spatial information on crop productivity and production potential. CRP4: Improve spatial decision support for safe wastewater use and nutritional aspects of increased productivity. CRP6: Joint analysis of surveillance information on land and water health risks in forestry and agroforestry systems and co-develop improved hydrological models for tree-based systems. Joint design of CRP5 sentinel sites within CRP6 proposed sentinel landscapes. CRP7: Improve information on carbon stocks in agro-ecosystems and develop strategies for climate change adaptation. Input climate change projections in agro-ecosystem resilience and scenario analysis. 149 Strategies, Management and Budget Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and Partner Networks. CGIAR Partnered Initiatives CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI); Africa Soil Information Service (AfSIS), CIAT, HarvestChoice, IFPRI International & UN Organizations Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, USA; Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), Switzerland; Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES); International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA); International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Netherlands; Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Bank; World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Universities and ARIs Colorado State University; Michigan State University; MTT Agrifood, Finland; Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania; University of Columbia, USA; University of Florida, USA; University of Göttingen, Germany; University of Hohenheim, Germany; University of Makerere, Uganda University of Nairobi, Kenya; University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Austria; University of Nebraska, USA; WaterWatch, NL NARES & Regional Organizations AGRIMET, West Africa; Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and dry lands (ACSAD) InterGovernmental Authority on Development's Climate Prediction and Application Centre (ICPAC); Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Cote D’Ivoire; Macaulay Land Use Research Institute; Southern African Development Community; Center for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), GHANA; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), China Institut d' Economie Rurale (IER), Mali; Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kenya National Agricultural Research (IIAM), Mozambique; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USA; National Remote Sensing Centre, India; Mongolian Society for Range Management; National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), Uganda; National Institute for Environment and Agricultural Research (INERA), Burkina Faso; National Forestry and Agricultural Research Institute of Laos; Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD), Nairobi, Kenya; Tanzanian Agricultural Research Institutes; United States Geological Survey (USGS) NGOs Aga Khan Foundation; Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA); Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA; Conservation International, USA; WWF, USA Private Sector Bruker Optics and Bruker AXS, Germany & South Africa; Google Inc, USA; Mars Inc, USA Perkin Elmer, UK; Wajibu MS, Kenya 150 Strategies, Management and Budget State & Quasi-State Bodies Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya; Ministry of Land and Environmental Protection of North Korea; Rwanda Agriculture Development Authority (RADA), Rwanda. Part 3: Strategies, Management and Budget Partnership Strategy CRP5 will require partners at all scales (global, regional, national) who can fulfill different and sometimes multiple roles (research partners, policy, advocacy, outreach, investors). All the main implementation partners involved in CRP5 will bring with them a range of partners and partner networks and will be guided by the following principles:  Partnerships bring both benefits and transaction costs; CRP5 will leverage the wide experience it has to maximize the former;  Partnerships bring benefit by exposing people to new ideas, ways of thinking and resources. Innovation grows out of these new combinations; and  Using research to solve real problems involves strengthening and adding to existing partnerships. Working with impact pathways that are explicit about whose behavior must change in solving problem sets helps clarify the partnerships and networks of. During the first 6 to 12 months, an key milestone will be to identify program partners for Strategic Research Portfolios (SRP) and regions. This will be done at the same time as regional priorities are established and theories of change are developed. Essentially, partners are chosen who can best carry out the needed research-for-development activities when considering the impact pathway. Partner selection for each SRP is based on the theory of change (Figure 1.5, Part 1). Specific research questions are developed by consideration of the problem set and opportunities for change, the research gaps within that area, and partner input. Research partners are selected on the basis of their skills and experience in the area. Boundary partners for uptake are chosen on the basis of the uptake strategy identified, and partners who can help with ME&L will be selected based on their skills. Similarly, all research sites and regions will develop their theory of change and impact pathway. Research, development, uptake and learning partners will be selected based on their strengths and experience to deliver in each site. Partners, the roles they play and the duration of their engagement in CRP5 will depend on the time it takes to get the job done and will change over time as research activities progress and as outcomes are assessed. The positive energy which can be created through these partnerships was evident during the development of this proposal. Our consultations brought together a representative collaboration of scientists and experts from CG centers, government officers, academics, 151 Strategies, Management and Budget and people from the NGO and private sectors (see Box 3.1 How this proposal was developed). CG centers and partners quickly set up nine regional consultations in a very short time in the collaborative mode on which we want to build the CRP5. There was no need for one center to do it all. Types of partners Research partners Research partners are those who engage directly at project or strategic level, a familiar model in the CGIAR. The goal will be to move towards longer-term engagement at higher levels for many research partners, i.e., at the Research Portfolio and integrated synthesis levels, such that various research partners can develop niches of expertise and engage in CRP5 at a higher level than projects only. These partners will typically be in-country research institutes and universities and advanced research institutes (including private- sector agencies, e.g. McKinsey). Policy/decision makers and investors These partners form an integral part of the CRP5 impact pathway. They will be identified and targeted as potential levers of change at regional, strategic Research Portfolios, and program levels. If we are to have any influence on policy and investment practices, we will need ongoing engagement to understand their needs and concerns such that CRP5 can deliver useful guidance, and compelling advice.  Multilateral/International organizations;  Regional and subregional organizations;  International and regional development banks and major bilateral investors;  Bilateral donors and foundations;  National governments, local government;  Civil society organizations (policy, advocacy). Development implementers These partners area also part of the impact pathway, but one step closer to the ground than policymakers. These partners have local knowledge of how things work and can influence how and where changes in practices and management should or are most likely to occur. These partners will usually be:  Government ministries, especially departments at provincial and district level;  International and national NGOs;  Private-sector companies; Note: The private sector is becoming increasingly concerned with improved management of the natural resource base for long-term farm and environmental sustainability. We believe we can develop partnerships with fertilizer, irrigation, food and beverage industry, and other rural service providers that enhance the flow of information to farmers via private-sector networks and, at the same time, introduce efficiency concepts and waste 152 Strategies, Management and Budget management technologies to rural agricultural production facilities including dairies and food processing plants.  International and regional initiatives; Development and outreach partners Networks and platforms can be found or established at different scales. They facilitate dialogue between research and stakeholders, buy-in and impact. Already established networks and stakeholder platforms facilitate outreach and the direct engagement with governments and communities while functioning as learning alliances. At the global scale, FAO has a major role to play in this development space using their vast network of partners. At the local scale they should include from the start those partners later needed for the dissemination of research results, such as the educational sector, extension and media. These partners are usually:  Global, regional and local networks such as IMAWESA, ARID, AgWAWM, etc.;  UN, Conventions, and professional associations, such as IWA;  Educational sector (universities, etc.);  Media;  Stakeholder platforms at different scales; and  NGOs and CSOs. Box 3.1 How the proposal was developed An originating concept note was developed on water, soils and ecosystems and presented at the GCARD meeting in Montpellier in March. The inputs from that meeting, plus electronic consultations with other CGIAR Centers were used to develop a draft concept proposal submitted to the Consortium Board by 15 May 2010. We received suggestions from two reviewers who advised us to further develop this into a full proposal. A Design Workshop was held in Colombo from June 28 to July 1, 2010 attended by 24 people, about half from CGIAR Centers and half from partner institutes. This workshop was used to develop key ideas for the proposal, plus a process of developing the full proposal. For full proposal development, we split into teams, with a leader for each of the Strategic Research Portfolios to further develop those sections. We then set up two channels for feedback, the first: an electronic consultation using CG Exchange; the second: nine regional consultation meetings organized by participating organizations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In depth summaries of the workshop are available at www.iwmi.org/crp5. Feedback from these channels was a significant factor in shaping the proposal. A final writer’s workshop was held from 16 to 18 August to discuss outstanding issues and put the pieces of the proposal together. The final draft was prepared in consultation with the authors of the various sections. Through this process we were able to get input from a range of stakeholders (about 500) in a very short period of time. Regional Consultations The proposal was formally submitted on 3 September, 2010; comments received on 2 February 2011. In consultation with a representative of the main partners, the proposal was revised and was resubmitted on 5 of March. 153 Strategies, Management and Budget Date Location Host 8 July Tashkent, Uzbekistan IWMI 28 July Nairobi, Kenya ILRI and CIAT 2 August Lima, Peru CONDESAN and CIP 2 August Delhi, India ICRISAT 3 August Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso AGRA and IWMI 6 August Bangkok, Thailand FAO 8 August Aleppo, Syria ICARDA 9 August Cali, Columbia CIAT and CONDESAN 10 August Lusaka, Zambia NEPAD and IWMI Table 2.1 Examples of relevant partners for the Strategic Research Portfolio on Resource Recovery and Reuse Type of Examples Role partner Public and Private Research SANDEC/EAWAG (Switzerland) Recovery technologies (international) WASTE (Netherlands) Economic analysis Rollins School of Public Health, Health risk assessment and mitigation Emory University Research AIT, Bangkok Resource recovery and reuse (national) CREPA , Burkina Faso Biogas recovery Water Research Institute, Laboratory analysis Ghana Gender and livelihood analysis AME Foundation, India Policy WHO/FAO/UNEP Update of International Wastewater Use Guidelines USAID/USEPA National Donor Support Group Policy advice Ministry of Environment, Revision of national policies, strategies and Science and Technology regulations (Ghana) Development International Water and Stakeholder platform facilitation implementers Sanitation Centre (IRC) Logistical arrangements Waste Management Departments of Metropolitan On-farm research Assemblies North Ridge Farmer Association Private sector Waste Enterprise Ltd. Treatment plant operation for reuse Development Resource Center on Urban Information dissemination via professional and outreach Agriculture and Food Security networks (RUAF); International Water Association (IWA) Capacity building, curricula updates Business Schools, local Feedback via working groups, formulation of universities IPGs SuSanA network Radio broadcasting Media for Development Farmer Field School module preparation FAO Setting up systems: During the first year, under the direction of the Regional Leaders, a stakeholder and partner analysis will be carried out to map the existing web of partnership arrangements and networks that all main implementing partners in each regional focus area 154 Strategies, Management and Budget bring to the table. Being aware of each other’s partners, overlaps, and complementarities will provide a foundation for a comprehensive partner network for CRP5. The analysis will be accompanied by a gap analysis as the innovative character of the SRPs requires, in part, new, and for the CGIAR unconventional, partnerships, especially with the private sector. The CG Institutional Learning and Change Initiative is preparing a white paper on partnerships and networks which will help inform this process. We propose to establish a working group within the ME&L unit that will be responsible for monitoring, analyzing and providing feedback on partnerships to Strategic Research Portfolio Managers, Regional Leaders, the Management Committee and monitoring factors that influence success and constraints and ways and means of overcoming constraints.11 Scales and types of partners: Engagement with partners will become more inclusive throughout the process from priority setting, planning, research implementation and outreach to achieving outcomes and impact. While we recognize that each partner will have a specific role to play and not all partners will be involved throughout, the emphasis will be on longer-term involvement. This process will be overseen by the working group tasked with partnership strategy. Existing ongoing networks will be a focus. In Sub-Saharan Africa for example, there are several regional networks focused on Agricultural Water Management (AgWA) throughout the region, IMAWESA in the East and South, and ARID in the West. They have various strategies and focus, for example, on supporting the CAADP process (AgWAWM) and developing a network of professionals to engage in policymaking and project design (IMAWESA). The CRP5 strategy is to engage with them to support common development objectives. Another new and important area for partnerships is formal engagement with FAO and GFAR. As a partner in this proposal, FAO will build links to CRP5 research outputs to ensure they reach FAO project staff and stakeholders at the country level. CRP5 will also use GFAR and its links to regional research associations to ensure there is opportunity for grassroots land managers and farmers to provide input on relevance and applicability of research programs to their issues, and ideas for new avenues for research and development. Some of these issues are fundamental to the GFAR roadmap that describes a new system of global agricultural research-for-development. 11Spielman, D. and von Grebmer, K. 2006. Public–private partnerships in international agricultural research: An analysis of constraints. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 291– 300. 155 Strategies, Management and Budget Capacity building strategy Building capacity is essential to achieve results of the desired magnitude. This includes capacity in terms of numbers of people, knowledge content, and institutional capacity to implement results to produce the intended outputs of the CRP. Capacity needs differ according to the problem set and the country situation as described in the Strategic Research Portfolios. CRP5 plays a catalytic role by working with local capacity-building institutions, designing and disseminating training materials in appropriate formats, and leveraging investments in capacity building. Specifically, CRP5 will:  Promote hands-on learning during the research. Essentially, all partners will learn from the research-for-development exercise, a process which will change their knowledge, attitudes and skills (KAS) which will be documented by M&E.  Engage university and post-graduate students in research that directly contributes to the CRP research-for-development agenda; provide educational material appropriate for youth.  Promote learning alliances. A learning alliance is a process undertaken jointly by research organizations, donor and development agencies, policymakers and private businesses. The process involves identifying and sharing good practices in research and development in specific contexts. These practices can then be used to strengthen capacities, generate and document outcomes, identify future research needs or areas for collaboration, and inform public- and private-sector policy decisions. CIAT, IWMI, the Challenge Program and several other CG Centers and programs have been experimenting with various models of learning alliance with good results.  Develop training materials in collaboration with farmers, NARES and local NGOs and CSOs, . Engage training institutions to manage this process, coordinate training and deliver training programs.  Where there is a gap, the CRP5 partnership will develop and implement specialized training programs. Otherwise, CRP5 will use alternative service providers where they exist for specific training, and try to leverage funding for others to do the training. Where there is a gap, CRP5 will develop specialized training programs. It is often a change in institutional capacity that is needed to solve problems. As an example, we recognize that capacities for research and extension vary regionally and range from highly developed, to extremely limited. Where there is relatively strong capacity, local partners will be heavily involved in research and extension. In these contexts the main effort will be on development of training materials to upgrade skills. Where there is a need for developing institutional and/or human capacity, CRP5 will work with existing organizations and support South-South networks to leverage development funds for training of trainers, 156 Strategies, Management and Budget and take a proactive approach to get research findings into locally appropriate training material. We envisage CRP5 investments in capacity building growing rapidly in the first years. In addition, we would like to influence major investments in capacity building to use the material and carry out recommendations generated by CRP5. Mainstreaming gender and equity in CPR5 The inclusion of gender as a key analytical variable is a good science. It will provide more detailed knowledge and insights into farming systems and practices, technology adoption rates, extension methods, and lead to the development of agricultural policies that will be of equal benefit to male and female farmers, fishers and pastoralists. It has long been recognized that women are central actors in agricultural production but that most have unequal access to land, technology, credit, education and other resources, due to prevailing cultural norms, which are often reinforced by legal instruments. Figure 3.1 illustrates five key areas of agricultural research that can be, and usually are, strongly impacted by gender. Men and women have different levels of access to all of these resources but there are also big differences among men and among women depending on their social class, caste, wealth, level of education. Figure 3.1 Gender differentials in rural livelihoods Assets Markets •access to and control over social, physical, •participation and power in land, labour, financial, natural and human capital finance and product markets •distribution of risks and gains along the value chain Policies and Institutions Risk and Vulnerability Information and Organization •household composition/ labour availability •access to market information, extention •physical and agroecological risks & gender- services, and skills/training differentiated impacts •participation and leadership in rural •gender responsive social protection measures organizations •empowerment and political voice CRP5 recognizes that a rethinking of approaches is necessary to ensure that the rural poor gain adequate access to and input into the development of science and technology-based applications aimed at making their work easier. Women farmers should be seen as the 157 Strategies, Management and Budget innovators they are rather than as passive recipients of information through extension systems. A bottom-up approach is needed where they are seen as actors and fully involved in the process of science and technology development and dissemination. Women have ‘agency’. By introducing gender analysis as a core methodology within CPR5, the Strategic Research Portfolios will be able to isolate and analyze the extent to which the uptake of new technologies and approaches will be effected by gender-related obstacles and barriers. Approach Several measures will be taken to ensure that gender is mainstreamed through CPR5 and all the strategic Research Portfolios:  A CPR5 Gender Strategy will provide guiding principles for research in all the Strategic Research Portfolios.  A gender and equity (G&E) leader will be appointed, reporting directly to the CRP leader.  G&E focal points will be appointed in each Strategic Research Portfolio.  A G&E team made up of the G&E Leader, focal points and outside specialists as needed will work with the Strategic Research Portfolios to provide expertise and resources to support consideration of gender within each of them and to ensure that programs are designed so that later monitoring and evaluation can examine gender and equity impacts.  The G&E team will oversee the creation of internal capacity building for gender disaggregated research and partnership building with policymakers, NGOs, senior program managers, private investors, and centers of excellence in gender studies.  A small G&E grant competition will be established to cover innovative research components or projects that link gender, equity issues, environment and food production. The role of the gender focal points in each Strategic Research Portfolio will be of primary importance in implementing the CRP5 gender strategy, focal points should not be the most junior members of the team. They should be experienced and respected scientists, both male and female, who have a good understanding of the role of gender analysis in research on agriculture. Similarly, the G&E team should have a good balance of male and female members. The CRP5 gender strategy The gender strategy contributes to the CRP5 goal to sustainably improve livelihoods, reduce poverty, and ensure food security through research-based solutions to water scarcity, land degradation and ecosystems sustainability. The gender team must ensure that gender and equity objectives, indicators, analysis and evaluations are incorporated into research projects where and whenever this is relevant. The work supported under CRP5 is intended to be pro-poor and since women are overrepresented among the rural poor, explicit 158 Strategies, Management and Budget attention will be given to gender-based inequities. An analysis by gender should be undertaken whenever and wherever it is appropriate. “Not appropriate,” and therefore not necessary, is too often the default assumption. For example, remote sensing data do not seem to relate to people directly, but when you look at who farms in rainfed areas, we find quite a high proportion of women. When we look, for example, at how irrigation systems are spreading, we will find that women are less likely to be benefiting. When we look at how river basins are being reengineered, we will find that planners are not given due attention to women’s needs. Finally, when remote sensing researchers talk to communities about land and water use, they have in the past been less likely to be talking to women or to the least empowered members of the community. The specific objectives are to:  ensure that all research and associated work undertaken in CRP5 is pro-poor and benefits both men and women;  ensure that, where appropriate, all data are sex-disaggregated and analyzed from the perspective of gender and other factors that relate to equity issues;  examine the extent to which male and female farmers have different adoption rates and identify gender-specific barriers that may work against adoption;  identify gender bias in agricultural policy and in extension systems;  improve women’s access to and involvement in the management of major resources, including land, water, infrastructure and other public services; and  develop gender-sensitive policies for land and water management. While not all projects in CRP5 will directly address all these objectives, most should include one or more in their research design. Implementation of the gender strategy Research Design. The G&E focal point in each Strategic Research Portfolio should work with his/her colleagues to introduce gender-sensitive questions and tools into the research design. When necessary, additional technical support can be provided by the G&E team. At least some of the research objectives for each project should refer explicitly to anticipated gender outcomes. Baseline studies will be undertaken to collect information on male and female stakeholders, their separate and communal activities, and their separate needs and priorities. Gender-sensitive baseline data will provide a standard against which project impact can later be assessed. The type of data will vary depending on the specific project, but it could include: education, age, marital status/stage in the life cycle - whether women have young children whose care limits their time for agricultural and/or community works to improve water, land, soils or ecosystems, or have older children/daughters-in-law 159 Strategies, Management and Budget who can provide labor; and wealth/women’s access to land, livestock, and productive assets, experience/skills in agriculture and indigenous knowledge, etc. Research Implementation. While the gender-focal points in each Strategic Research Portfolio will act as resource persons, team members will be responsible for doing the gender-related research. Ideally, the gender aspect of research projects will not be “add- ons” but will be a central part of the research design, with full support from all research team members. Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation should be ongoing throughout the projects and each Strategic Research Portfolio will develop a set of gender indicators that will allow it to judge at different stages whether it is meeting the project objectives and to make corrections as necessary. Research teams can make use of the impact pathways methodology developed within the CGIAR system or other appropriate tools but in either case, they will set gender-specific outcome targets. For example, researchers might question the extent to which women farmers are receiving support from extension services or they might ask whether the views of both men and women have been sought in testing an innovation. Small Grants Program. The G&E team will manage a small grants program to support innovative research on gender and/or to test new tools and methodologies. Grants will be made available annually on a competitive basis to researchers in CRP5. While most grants will support stand-alone projects, a few will be available to add a gender component to larger projects that are already underway. Capacity-Building. In some cases, gender analysis skills are not present in Strategic Research Portfolios. It may be necessary for the person assigned as G&E focal point to participate in short training programs set up by the G&E team to learn about the methods and tools that can be used to do gender-sensitive research. When teams already include an experienced member, he or she may be the only researcher with such knowledge. However, there is great potential for these isolated researchers to network across Strategic Research Portfolios and to learn from one another. The G&E team will organize regular research fora where focal points can present their ongoing work and receive constructive feedback from other members of the team. Since CPR5 considers gender analysis to be good science, it is important that all team members have at least a rudimentary understanding of gender concepts and applications. Consequently, the G&E team will prepare a set of introductory tools that can be used for reference. 160 Strategies, Management and Budget Global Gender Conference. As part of its commitment to gender-sensitive research, CRP5 will co-organize as one of its first activities a Global Conference on Gender in Agricultural Land and Water Management. There has not been such a conference since the Gender Analysis and Reform of Irrigation Management conference held in Sri Lanka in 1997. Accountability Framework. Senior management has made a firm commitment to ensure that gender is mainstreamed into CPR5. It is expected that all Strategic Research Portfolios will appoint a gender focal point and will incorporate gender-sensitive objectives into their research. Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment Immediate funding is required to establish a CRP5 Monitoring, Evaluation and Leaning (ME&L) unit to begin the process outlined below. Monitoring, evaluation and learning has two major aspects. The first is to support adaptive management at the CRP level, making sure that we continuously learn from the outputs we generate (Figure 1.5, Part 1). The second aspect is monitoring progress of projects, mutual learning and to make sure that partnerships are working and we are delivering outputs as planned. Both aspects depend on sets of indicators for outputs of SRPs as well as regional and global outputs. Development of indicators is a priority during the inception phase. Regular monitoring of progress and achievements, combined with opportunities to synthesize lessons learned and improve the program form the basis for a flexible and adaptive management system. ME&L will take place at different levels and scales: for the CRP as a whole, for individual Strategic Research Portfolios, for regions, and for projects and their stakeholders. The ME&L framework follows the logic provided by the overall impact pathway (Figure 1.6), the theory of change (Figure 1.5). Specific theories of change and impact pathways should be derived for regional problem sets as well as for each SRP. Sample indicators can be derived from SRP theories of change and impact pathways. These will need continuous revision through the learning cycle of the ME&L framework. The impact pathway diagram (Figure 1.6, Part 1) indicates that the CRP5 will deliver outputs within each Strategic Research Portfolio and these are integrated across regions and the overall CRP. Through the levers of change outlined in each Strategic Research Portfolio, outputs are moved into CRP5 outcomes, a process that CRP5 actors are engaged in and partially responsible for. We recognize a host of other drivers and factors that ultimately influence desired development outcomes. To better understand causal links and relationships, the monitoring 161 Strategies, Management and Budget framework needs to extend into the realm of development outcomes to better improve the way the CRP5 makes inputs. The key element of the ME&L system is the feedback loop where we use what we learn to modify theories of changes, impact pathways, and key aspects of the program. Monitoring activities and outputs Monitoring activities are based on logical frameworks derived from the more specific theory of change and impact pathway. Each partner is responsible for achieving a set of milestones and outputs, which will be incorporated into partner agreements, linked to partner payments, and monitored on a regular basis by the Strategic Research Portfolio Manager. The overall quality of Strategic Research Portfolio project outputs will be overseen by the Strategic Research Portfolio Manager. We expect that the lead agency for each SRP project will have its own standardized institute quality-management procedures for documenting, reporting, monitoring and reviewing projects. Projects can continue to make use of these for the time being. How these will comply with standards for monitoring and reviewing to be set by CRP5 will be determined at the start of the CRP, and minimum requirements will be agreed. Contingent on funding, work can begin now on an overall framework and systems for monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring of progress in executing project activities will be the responsibility of each Project Leader (PL) – to be appointed by the lead agency of each project and activity. The PL will produce regular progress and financial reports to consolidate progress in terms of processes, tangible activities and outputs. This will ensure close monitoring of progress and identify the need to change the implementation plans if necessary. Workshops with the project team and stakeholders (partner meetings) at crucial points during the project duration will provide opportunities for planning, reviewing and synthesizing. Monitoring and evaluating outcomes and impact Each Strategic Research Portfolio targets key programmatic outcomes through its unique combination of levers of change and theory of change. Thus, ME&L systems working with strategic Research Portfolios have to develop a mechanism to detect whether or not change has occurred, and understand why this did or did not happen. This in itself is a research exercise, but extremely valuable in terms of informing the CRP. To facilitate outcome and impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation of baseline information on key indicators will have to be collected and agreed upon. It will not be possible to have full sets of baseline data for all CRP5 activities. Therefore, intelligent choices need to be made to focus on some key indicators and specific sites selected in each region, initially using the theory of change as guidance. Supplementing this monitoring 162 Strategies, Management and Budget procedure are the development of outcome stories to provide evidence that change is happening and that it happened because of the program, i.e., plausible attribution. Special attention will be paid to changes is knowledge, attitudes and skills of project stakeholders. The ME&L team must work closely with the gender team in developing gender indicators. Ultimately, we will want some indication of development outcomes. Sentinel sites, presented in the Information SRP, will play a role in this as well. Sentinel site information will include key socioeconomic, gender and equity data and information, as well as key biophysical parameters. The power of the system is that it enables long-term monitoring of change. A few selected impact assessment studies will be conducted annually , starting from year 3. Case studies for impact assessment will be identified with Strategic Research Portfolio Managers. Methodologies for impact assessment, in particular for NRM activities, are still in development. In recent years, the Standing Panel for Impact Assessment and various other groups and programs have provided inputs and support in this area. Support in the development of impact assessment methods will be sought whenever required. Evaluation Evaluation will be formal and informal at all levels. Key lessons learnt (operational and strategic) will be collected by Strategic Research Portfolio Managers and used for future priority setting, project and activity design and adaptive management. Informal evaluation will take place regularly through team meetings, workshops and virtual feedback mechanisms. This will be at all levels. Stakeholder feedback will be sought through informal and more formal means. This can be at the level of SRP, in basins and at the CRP level. Formal external evaluations will be commissioned for the Strategic Research Portfolios as and when required and for the CRP after 5 years. Setting up systems During the inception phase of CRP5, a team will be set up to develop an ME&L, impact pathways and uptake strategies for CRP5 to ensure close monitoring of achievement of project results, outcomes and impacts. The team will work with the participating CG Institutes and other lead agencies to build on their internal systems to develop a lean and “least cumbersome” ME&L framework. Key indicators will also take into account how individual projects will contribute to the overall CRP and Strategic Research Portfolio goals. Key lessons learned at all stages of the project will be evaluated, and appropriate adjustments made accordingly. The evaluation model will be based on a process of adaptive 163 Strategies, Management and Budget learning, putting into practice what has been learned, providing reflection and feedback on what has worked and what has not, followed by further cycles of learning, practice, reflection and feedback. In the first year, a workshop with Strategic Research Portfolio Managers and key project leaders will be held to discuss proposed M & E frameworks and suggestions for impact assessment and baseline studies. Funds are required immediately to set up this framework. Marketing, communications and knowledge management Marketing, communications and knowledge (MC&K) management will play a role in achieving such changes. MC&K research are in themselves valid and rich disciplines with their set of concepts, theories and rigorous scientific processes. Thus MC&K will be part of the research effort from the outset to bring about the desired changes, and there will be research on these topics and their MC&K and its role in uptake of research. Goals and principles The overall goals contribute to greater impact of the CRP5 research through both internal and external MC&K. Programmatic areas of work, focus and follow-up The strategy integrates the MC&K sciences into the research effort while also recognizing the importance of supporting traditional efforts to improve MC&K across the whole program (Figure 3.2). To do this, there are two overarching strategies and six component areas. All component areas are interlinked and systems and messages will cut across and support the CRP as a whole (SRPs, within regions and across the entire program). Figure 3.2 MC&K Management Strategy for CRP5 164 Strategies, Management and Budget Strategy 1: MC&K for research into use Integrate research utilization with the generation of research. Area 1A: Messaging Collaboratively develop and explicitly clarify what the key messages are. Emphasis on this area is a new way of contributing to building a collaborative approach, engaging partners, building awareness and contributing to the greater chances of achieving uptake. Messages are developed through an iterative process amongst partners at various levels – the CRP will develop processes for achieving this. Developing and clarifying what the key messages are, will be critical for:  the targeted uptake strategies of research results;  the strategies to raise awareness and influence the global agenda;  building the links across Strategic Research Portfolios and to contextualize this into the regional situation;  feeding into the internal communications and knowledge sharing; and  also being made available in the broad access strategies. Area 1B: Uptake of research results The “Developing Uptake Strategies” section details the need to see uptake as another discipline in a multidisciplinary approach and uptake strategies developed as part of, and integrated into, the research. Uptake is about scaling up and out, ranging from uptake at policy level to on-farm. MC&K is integral to this and should work hand-in-hand with researchers. Area 1C: Influencing the global agenda Clear objectives are needed on what issues and which agendas need to be influenced – e.g., bringing water and agricultural issues into the climate change and biodiversity Convention of Parties agendas. Targeted strategies then need to be developed to achieve this. MC&K are critical for achieving this. Area 1D: Making information and knowledge accessible This macro-strategy ensures CRP knowledge and international public goods are widely shared, accessible and available at different levels (nationally, regionally and globally). Systems will be linked to other CGIAR information sharing systems. Work will be closely coordinated with the Strategic Research Portfolio on information to develop systems and procedures for sharing information and knowledge across the CRP as well as contributing to the global knowledge system. 165 Strategies, Management and Budget Strategy 2: MC&K across CRP5 This strategy focuses on developing CRP-wide systems for marketing, communications and knowledge (MC&K) management. Area 2A: Positioning and branding of CRP5 This area focuses on building the reputation of the CRP5, positioning and branding. Given that the CRP is not an institution or organization it will be crucial to develop a ‘brand’ that is inclusive and shows the strength of working in partnership. The CRP should not be seen as being dominated by any one group. It will also be important to link with other CRPs and be guided by the CGIAR Consortium. Area 2B: Internal communications and knowledge sharing Internal communications and knowledge sharing is given high priority in order to build a sense of community, share results and lessons learnt more widely, and communicate messages to staff and partners working across Strategic Research Portfolios and regions. A range of web-based tools will be used to share and exchange information. A number of CGIAR institutes have already developed a number of knowledge-sharing tools. Thus, emphasis will be on building upon tools and systems that already exist rather than developing new systems. Area 2C: Relationship building with partners As a research-for-development initiative CRP5 is inherently partner-driven. Thus relationship building will be a critical element of the marketing and communication strategy. The focus will be developing cross program approaches to relationship building, providing tools and strengthening capacity in partner management and establishing cross-institutional contact management systems so duplication is avoided. Ensuring that CRP staff are not approaching the ‘same people with different messages’ will be one focus of this area as it is a common dilemma in many programs. Funding will be required to develop a more detailed communications strategy in consultation with communications units of the participating centers. Governance and management CRP5 has inputs from 14 centers and numerous external partners. Whilst the lead center will be responsible and accountable for governance, fiduciary oversight, and financial management, there has to be in place mechanisms that will facilitate effective partnership. Consequently, CRP5 is opting to have a Steering Committee that will help maximize ownership, transparency and participation. At the core of the CRP will be a Management Committee that will focus on research and outputs. Scientific quality and impact advice will 166 Strategies, Management and Budget be strengthened by a Science and Advisory Committee. This structure builds on the management and governance principles defined in the Strategic Research Framework. Composition and role of the CRP Steering Committee The Steering Committee will comprise main CG and external partners (based on significant financial and/or in-kind contributions to the CRP). These will include IWMI, CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT, Biodiversity, CPWF12 and World Agroforestry along with FAO, and ICAR. The lead center (IWMI) DG will Chair the Steering Committee (SC).  The Steering Committee will establish guidelines for membership of new partners as the CRP evolves.  The SC will facilitate collective agreement on equitable mechanisms, processes and decision criteria for funding allocations.  Develop a dispute resolution mechanism with respect to performance and delivery of SRP outputs and budgetary allocations.  Provides advice to the lead center on the CRP performance contract with the CB .  Recommends to the lead center board strategic and annual plans prepared by the Management Committee.  Recommends to the lead center board budget allocations between partners.  The SC will meet once a year, preferably back-to-back with a periodic annual CRP5 science forum.  The SC will advise the IWMI DG about the annual performance of the Program Director and the IWMI DG will provide his/her line management oversight on a routine basis. Composition and role of the CRP Management Committee The Management Committee (MC) will consist of the Program Director plus a minimum of four others from centers and partners who will be responsible for integration between Strategic Research Portfolios, ensuring impact, science quality and implementing, monitoring and evaluation, communication, gender and capacity-building strategies. The Program Director will be appointed by the lead center following consultation with other major partners in CRP5. The Director would be supported by an executive officer and an administrative secretary. He/she will be accountable and report to the Steering Committee in terms of overall program goals and outputs/outcomes. The MC may decide to enlarge its composition to include Strategic Research Portfolio Managers who will be selected via discussion between the Management Committee and contributing partners and will be appointees of the partnering CGIAR and external agencies. 12 until the completion of the CPWF Phase 2 by early 2014 167 Strategies, Management and Budget These leaders will be responsible for scientific management and outputs in each respective Strategic Research Portfolio and required to seek better ways of integration between Strategic Research Portfolios. Gender and diversity considerations will be a factor in team composition. The Performance Subcontracts will be the basis of determining expected outputs and performance against these. The CRP leader will report to Strategic Research Portfolio host institutions on performance and if major disputes arise regarding performance or delivery of outputs these will be dealt with at Steering Committee level. The MC will be responsible for:  Planning scientific inputs and delivery of CRP outputs via the development of rolling annual work plans.  Based on the operating plans, development of budgetary allocations between partners that will be the basis for performance contracts between the lead center and the partner centers.  Integrating outputs regionally and between Strategic Research Portfolios within the CRP and for complementarity and reduction of overlap with other CRPs - bringing context, contribution and synergy between different CRPs and CRP components.  Ensuring that gender issues are mainstreamed in the research.  In conjunction with the lead center oversee monitoring and evaluation processes for the CRP that are based on CB and ISPC requirements.  Ensuring that the CRP outputs are of the highest scientific quality.  Ensuring that partnerships are developed to deliver on-ground impact.  Submission of CRP documentation and funding requests through the lead center.  Collaborating with all partners for reporting against annual CRP budgets.  Supervise the communications strategy.  Reporting against work plans, milestones and outcomes.  Initial dispute arbitration between partners. Role of the CRP5 Program Director (a detailed job description will be developed by the lead center against which performance will be assessed)  Intellectual leadership.  Strategic planning.  Ensuring that CRP components work as a team to deliver high-quality, integrative outputs to users. 168 Strategies, Management and Budget  Ensuring that the CRP has a well-designed and implemented gender strategy.  Ensuring that a coherent and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strategy is implemented across the CRP.  Representation of the CRP within and outside the CGIAR.  Leadership of the Management Committee.  Managing relationships with Strategic Research Portfolio Managers.  Decision-making authority with respect to day-to-day operations of the CRP and within the constraints of the performance subcontracts, the release of funding to partners.  Sign off on all deliverables. Composition and role of the Scientific and Impact Advisory Committee The Management Committee will be supported by a Science and Impact Advisory Committee consisting of a Chair and, at least, three science advisors, plus a minimum of three development and impact advisors to provide feedback to the CRP as a whole. The SIAC will be built up from the existing CPWF Advisory Committee, which has developed appropriate experience in this area. One of the development/impact advisors will be a nominee of GFAR. The CRP will also use the extensive stakeholder networks developed by partners and enhanced during the consultation phase of CRP5 development as a community of practice for development and discussion of CRP5 methodologies and information flows to users.  Specific advice on scientific direction, science quality and feasibility of proposed approaches.  Specific advice on partnership and uptake/impact strategies.  Oversight and advice on gender and capacity-building issues. Role of center boards All CGIAR centers involved in CRP5 will maintain their own legal status and board, and authority over all center management policies. CRP5 activities will be reported by the respective centers in their audited financial statements. Center boards will ensure that the centers assume their leadership role at the Strategic Research Portfolio level. Role of the lead center  CRP5 will have one lead center (IWMI) accountable to the Consortium Board (Figure 3.3).  The DG of IWMI and its Board of Trustees are accountable to the Consortium Board for the successful execution of CRP5, for effective engagement of the SC 169 Strategies, Management and Budget and the MC, and for fulfilling the lead center’s own contractual obligations to CRP5.  Governance, fiduciary oversight and financial management of the main performance contract for CRP5 will be the responsibility of the lead center (i.e., there will not be a separate board for the CRP).  The lead centre will prepare consolidated financial statements for CRP5 for review by the Management Committee and the Steering Committee.  The lead center board will coordinate the audit and other due diligence and oversight responsibilities required by the performance agreement with the Consortium.  The lead center board will oversee monitoring and evaluation processes for the CRP consistent with CB and ISPC guidelines.  The IWMI board chair and DG will report to the Consortium Board on CRP5 as a whole, including an annual financial and progress report in relation to the performance contract signed between the Consortium Board and the lead center.  The lead center DG will also work closely with the Consortium CEO on matters related to CRP5 and liaise with leaders of research partners in case conflict resolution cannot be achieved by the MC or SC, before bringing the matter to the attention of the Consortium CEO and board.  The lead center will enter into performance contracts with centers or other institutes that will be responsible for leading major component projects related to Strategic Research Portfolios. Each organization leading a Strategic Research Portfolio will be responsible and accountable for managing its activities together with partners, ensuring that work is consistent with the CRP5 business plan and delivering results. This will ensure that wherever possible, funds, responsibilities and accountabilities are devolved to the center/unit/partner undertaking specific tasks. A critical aspect of implementation of CRP5 will be using the existing regional management structures of the centers and partners to deliver regionally integrated outputs. Key to this will be GFAR and its regional constituency, networks such as Improved Management of Agricultural Water in East and Southern Africa (IMWESA) administered by IWMI in Africa and communities of practice. Management of human resources and finances and administration will be undertaken by the responsible organizations at the Management Committee and Strategic Research Portfolio levels. Communications, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting on the program as a whole will be delivered collectively under the auspices of the CRP5 Director using skills combined from the partners with their respective 170 Strategies, Management and Budget roles and inputs defined in the performance contracts. Resource mobilization will be coordinated at CRP level under the leadership of the Director. Figure 3.3 Management Arrangements of CRP5 Integration with other CRPs Integration with other CRPs The entry point of CRP5 is Natural Resource Management. CRP5 complements and links to other CRPs by providing insights, information and analysis of broader water, land, and ecosystem resource management issues. CRP5 works across geophysical scale, from community to basin to landscape and across goepolitical and socioeconomic scales from region to country to global. CRP5 will complement much of the farm-scale work being done on production systems by providing context and an understanding of how interventions taken at farm or field scale impact the broader environment. CRP5 will provide links to national water and land policy, and the global water and environment communities. CRP5 will provide basin, watershed and landscape analysis of the implications of various interventions, and provide information on how drivers of change could influence research, and how research can influence drivers. As the impacts on other water and land uses and dependent ecosystems could be positive or negative, an assessment of the larger hydrologic and landscape implications of field-scale interventions will be critical. Figure 3.4 describes, from the perspective of CRP5, the complimentary spaces, scale and impact partners occupied by different CRPs, demonstrating different scales of activity and 171 Strategies, Management and Budget overlap. Another dimension not represented in this diagram is that of different natural ecosystems. The CRP6forest ecosystems focus means that CRP5 can look to CRP6 for research on that component. To ensure that we do collaborate, we will assign a CRP5 focal point to each CRP and, where appropriate, set up joint working groups. Figure 3.4 Complementary spaces occupied by CRPs. CRP1.1 and 1.2. CRP5 has clear links with CRP1.1 and 1.2. on Integrated agricultural production systems for dry and semi-humid areas. CRP1.1 and 1.2 focus on farming systems and reducing vulnerability and promoting agricultural intensification. The focus of CRP1.1 and 1.2 is at the field and farm scale, introducing and supporting innovation and increasing production and profit through value chains from farm to markets. In support of these efforts, CRP5 looks at sustaining the environment and natural resource base used across a range of dry, sub-humid and humid zones. CRP5 also addresses a different scale than CRP1, by focusing at landscape, watershed and basin scales. CRP1.1 and CRP5 have worked together to develop a list of complementarities as shown in Annex 6. The CRP1 focus on livelihoods is primarily about increased productivity and profitability, while CRP5 considers balancing environmental and production concerns to underpin both agriculture and ecosystem services and thus livelihoods. 172 Strategies, Management and Budget CRP 1.3. CRP5 activities will support CRP1.3 by addressing issues at larger biophysical scales (basins, landscapes) that are beyond the more site-specific focus of CRP1.3. This collaboration will be especially close where CRP5 and CRP1.3 are working in the same river basins, i.e., the Mekong and Ganges. Lessons learned from CRP5 will be made available for other basins where CRP1.3 is working. CRP1.3 supports CRP5 by working at the level of individual households and communities to improve use of land and water as an integral component of aquatic agro-ecosystems management, and is a component of the cross-scale analysis essential for water and land decisions at a larger scale being addressed by CRP5. CRP5 works with CRP1 in several ways. The first is co-location in many sites, such that the systems addressed at farm and field system level in CRP1 are the same as those addressed on ecosystem levels and above in CRP5. We will complement each other through different scales of analysis, and CRP1 can use CRP5 engagement with global conventions to further its impact goals, just as CRP5 will use CRP1 engagement with local actors to contribute to impact. CRP2: Policy and institutional issues are central to all aspects of CRP5, as they are to CRP2. The two programs will work cooperatively on analysis and development of governance mechanisms, policies and institutions that provide equitable and efficient allocation of water and land resources, benefit-sharing mechanisms, and tools for negotiating competing claims on resources. The two programs will concentrate on their areas of strength. In particular, CRP2 will focus on agricultural policy, while CRP5 focuses on INRM. CRP5 will benefit from the insights of CRP2’s cross-cutting policy and institutional analysis and analyses of policy processes. CRP2 will also contribute to the methods used and insights drawn from CRP5. At the same time, CRP5 will provide insights and detail to CRP2 on areas such as irrigation, groundwater and river basin policy which can improve the quality and depth of CRP2 analysis. CRP2 and CRP5 will continue the collaboration in areas such as collective action and property rights (e.g., CAPRi) as their member centers have previously done. In all cases, the two programs will collaborate to provide consistent policy messages. The collaboration will be ensured through the development of an inter-program working group and as part of the CRP5 communications strategy. CRP3: In the case of GRiSP, CRP5 will provide irrigation system analysis where rice irrigation is practiced, and work closely to understand the implications of water saving practices across scales. GRiSP will interact with the CRP5 Strategic Research Portfolio on Ecosystems, and contribute knowledge and expertise to identify, quantify, and map ecosystem services from paddy landscapes, and generate strategies to retain or improve these services in the face of major drivers of change (water scarcity, climate change, intensification). For CRP3.7 More Meat, Milk and Fish, CRP5 can contribute analysis to help balance the increased production agenda with improved sustainability and environmental outcomes. 173 Strategies, Management and Budget CRP4: Because natural resource management relates to health and livelihoods, links with CRP4 are important. Water storage and irrigation are vectors of waterborne diseases, and unplanned or informal resource recovery can spread diseases in farming communities and along the food chain. In areas like these, CRP4 and 5 will work together. While activities on health risk assessments will contribute to CRP4, management options for risk mitigation might be explored under CRP5. CRP4 will also inform CRP5 where health considerations have to be added in the assessment and out-scaling of agricultural water-management interventions, which will enhance their understanding and benefits, and impact of CRP5. CRP6: CRP6 will provide knowledge on how and where trees and forests can benefit smallholder farmers as part of integrated land and water management strategies. CRP5 and CRP6 will collaborate where we have the same sites, such as river basin work on the Mekong; on sentinel sites of the Information SRP; and within the Ecosystem SRP. CRP5 can provide inputs through its ecosystem SRP on in situ fruit genetic resources and research on pollination. CRP5 will provide inputs to CRP6 through its Information SRP on surveillance methods for monitoring impacts of large-scale interventions, and through the Basin SRP on ecosystem services of river flows. We expect research inputs from CRP6 on the protective role of trees within watersheds and basins, the productive capacity of fruit tree diversity, provision of ecosystem services from forests including the buffering role of forests on flows, and the potential role of forests on climate change adaptation; and on socioeconomic and behavioral risk factors for deforestation and land degradation. CRP5 and CRP6 will work collaboratively on concepts of provision of ecosystem services; monitoring landscapes and sites for assessing large area NRM interventions; meta analysis of baseline and long-term monitoring data across sentinel landscapes including risk factors of interventions; research at the river-basin scale that includes the role of forests on water regulating functions and sediment load reduction along with water use implications of afforestation and deforestation. CRP7: Many water, soil and ecosystem interventions of CRP5 work across scales and are appropriate climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies of concern to CRP7. In particular, CRP5 will develop water and land adaptation strategies to climate change. CRP7 will offer opportunities for testing CRP5-derived technologies, policies and practices in the context of integrated adaptation-mitigation strategies. CRP5 will provide a link to broader water and environment communities for other CRPs, just like CRP7 provides a link to the broader climate change community. CRP7 will collaborate on protocols for carbon and methane measurement in agricultural landscapes and provide climate change scenarios. 174 Strategies, Management and Budget Risk Management Strategy Administrative and management risks: CRP 5 includes 13 CGIAR Centers and many other partners. The first year will present many challenges resulting from new forms of collaboration, the transition from individual projects to a coherent research agenda, the different organizational cultures and disciplines and various other dimensions of a large complex research consortium. With all centers moving into CRPs there is also a risk that researchers are distracted by new procedures, reporting lines are unclear and various other changes lead to delays and nondelivery of outputs. Efficient Monitoring, Evaluation and learning systems, an effective Management Committee, and decentralization to existing centers rather than trying to build another bureaucracy will be key strategies to mitigate this risk. A simple and clear management system, drawing on competencies in the centers and learning lessons from inter-center initiatives such as the System Wide Initiatives and Challenge Programs will form the basis. Partnership risks: A wide range of partners is expected to participate in CRP5 to achieve the goals of the program. Lack of capacity of partners is often considered a key risk. However, at least as vital is the risk that the CRP5 does not engage with the right partners to achieve impact on the ground. Nontraditional partners will play a crucial role and there is still only limited experience in engaging with these partners (e.g., the private sector). During the first year of the CRP5 a gap analysis will form the basis for further partner selection, and a partnership working group will be established to work with the ME&L unit on monitoring and learning from partnerships. Financial risks: There is a risk that the funding base is insufficient or too fragmented to achieve significant goals. To mitigate, CRP5 needs to concentrate funding on a clear set of priorities (Strategic Research Portfolios) and to actively and collectively seek additional funds for activities. Coordinated fund-raising will be crucial. CRP5 will work together with the CGIAR Fund and Board to engage donors on the need for funding. Political and social risks: There is a risk that research ideas and partnerships will not be received favorably or be a voice at the table because of changes in politics or situations of conflict. This is mitigated by taking a long-term view and monitoring the political landscape where we may, at times, have to wait for opportunities to engage. In the meantime, we have the flexibility to move to a more receptive environment. We will be taking advantage and building on long-term engagements. 175 Strategies, Management and Budget BUDGET Overview The proposed outputs and outcomes described in the proposal present a vision of where we need to go with our research-for-development activities. This will require funds in addition to what is currently in our portfolio across centers. We present two budget scenarios. The first is a “growth for enhanced delivery” scenario required to implement the program as envisaged in the proposal. The second is a “baseline” scenario representing the current combined value of center work plus 5% increase per year. The proposed budget for CGIAR Research Program 5 on Water, Land & Ecosystems for the first 5 years, starting with 2011, is 537 million USD. This represents the work we are currently doing, plus additional new work in regions corresponding to SRPs, plus enhanced delivery on capacity building, gender and monitoring and evaluation. The “baseline” budget has a value of 446 million USD consisting of work that we are doing now and increasing at a moderate pace, plus essential functions for the program as a whole to operate. Budgets for the two scenarios are given in Tables A and B. The funding for CRP5 will be distributed to eight Strategic Research Portfolios (SRPs). Approximately 31 million USD will be earmarked for cross-SRP activities, including Coordination; Gender and Equity; Capacity Building; Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning; Marketing, Communications and Knowledge Management; and Information. Table A: Enhanced deliveryT sOceTnAaLri oB UDGET - Enhanced Delivery Amounts in 'USD'000s Strategic Research Portfolios 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Rainfed 21,305 23,862 26,725 29,932 34,075 1 35,900 Irrigation 7,055 8,431 10,075 12,039 14,501 52,100 Groundwater 5,466 6,532 7,806 9,328 11,267 40,400 Resource Recovery & Reuse 1,598 2,460 3,789 5,835 9,217 22,900 River Basin 20,583 21,561 22,585 23,658 24,713 1 13,100 Pastoral 1,865 2,639 3,735 5,285 7,540 21,064 Ecosystems 8,912 10,405 12,148 14,183 16,752 62,400 Information 6,937 8,068 9,383 10,913 12,698 48,000 - - - - - - Subtotal 73,723 83,959 96,246 1 11,173 1 30,763 4 95,864 Essential Programmatic Functions Coordination & Management 1,520 1,280 1,530 1,259 1,532 7,122 Gender & Equity 1,818 1,399 1,654 1,414 1,684 7,968 Capacity Building 600 960 1,200 1,200 1,200 5,160 Monitoring Evaluation & Learning 307 211 193 193 193 1,098 Communications 960 1,055 1,063 1,261 1,265 5,604 Information systems 407 1,983 1,007 244 256 3,897 Subtotal 5,612 6,888 6,647 5,571 6,130 30,849 CGIAR System Costs (2%) 1,587 1,817 2,058 2,335 2,738 10,534 TOTAL 80,922 92,664 1 04,951 1 19,079 1 39,631 5 37,247 FAO contribution 10,912 10,912 10,912 32,736 GRAND TOTAL 91,834 1 03,576 1 15,863 1 19,079 1 39,631 5 69,983 176 Strategies, Management and Budget Table B: Baseline delivery scenTaOriToA L BUDGET - Baseline Amounts in 'USD'000s Strategic Research Portfolios 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Rainfed 21,305 22,573 24,063 24,464 27,168 1 19,573 Irrigation 7,055 7,417 7,858 7,604 8,786 38,720 Groundwater 5,466 5,776 6,106 5,773 6,830 29,952 Resource Recovery & Reuse 1,598 1,703 1,815 1,787 2,066 8,969 River Basin 20,583 20,624 21,231 25,126 23,520 1 11,085 Pastoral 1,865 1,968 2,067 2,172 2,346 10,418 Ecosystems 8,912 11,684 12,389 12,877 13,014 58,877 Information 6,937 7,358 7,795 8,153 8,653 38,896 - - - - - - Subtotal 73,723 79,103 83,326 87,955 92,383 4 16,490 Essential Programmatic Functions Coordination & Management 1,520 1,280 1,530 1,259 1,532 7,122 Gender & Equity 1,217 799 1,054 814 1,084 4,967 Capacity Building 240 240 246 246 246 1,218 Monitoring Evaluation & Learning 307 211 193 193 193 1,098 Communications 947 814 823 1,021 1,024 4,630 Information systems 407 753 737 244 256 2,397 Subtotal 4,639 4,097 4,583 3,777 4,335 21,432 CGIAR System Costs (2%) 1,567 1,664 1,758 1,835 1,934 8,758 TOTAL 79,929 84,864 89,667 93,567 98,653 4 46,679 FAO contribution 10,912 10,912 10,912 32,736 GRAND TOTAL 90,841 95,776 1 00,579 93,567 98,653 4 79,415 Essential Budget Requirements Immediate funding is required for management, coordination, integration, ME&L, gender and equity, capacity building, marketing and communications, and uptake. The complexity and size of the program will necessitate some additional staffing and operational expenses to facilitate smooth implementation and quality enhancement. Chart A shows the difference between the enhanced and baseline budget scenarios. There is no difference in the coordination and communications budgets. The baseline budget would considerably curtail outputs, especially those related to gender and capacity building as described below. Chart A: Difference between the enhanced and baseline budget scenarios (in 1000 USDs) 177 Strategies, Management and Budget 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Baseline Enhanced Delivery Budget assumptions Coordination and management  Staff time: A lean management structure has been proposed for CRP5. A full time Director, Executive Officer and two support staff plus one month a year staff time for the members of the Science and Impact Advisory Committees have been budgeted. It is expected that Steering Committee members, Management Committee members, SRP leaders and regional leaders will be existing staff of the participating centers.  Travel costs: International travel for all of the above mentioned positions and committees, apart from Steering Committee members it is expected that their travel costs will be covered through existing budgets.  Operating Expenses: This includes an annual budget for consultants to support the implementation of the CRP plus funds for a mid-term and a five-year evaluation. Funds for communication equipment and bandwidth improvements have been included to support the functioning of virtual teams.  Training and workshops: Steering Committee meetings, Management Committee meetings, annual CRP workshops, workshops for each SRP and regional workshops. In addition, an Inception Workshop, mid-term Science Forum and Synthesis Forum. Costs for these three events include travel for partners and stakeholders.  Partnership costs: 50,000 USD per year has been set aside for partnership costs. These funds will be used to facilitate partner involvement in coordination and management. 178 Coordination & Management Gender & Equity Capacity Building Monitoring Evaluation & Learning Communications Information systems Strategies, Management and Budget The budget for coordination and management is required and does not change between scenarios. Gender and Equity  Staff time: A full-time Gender and Equity team leader plus support staff, including interns, plus travel is budgeted to ensure integration of gender and equity issues across the program.  Operating Expenses: This includes G&E website, publications, toolkits, methodological guides and consultants.  Training and Workshops: These include annual workshops, capacity building for CRP5 scientists (small on-site workshops at different CG centers given by the G&E team leader and/or consultants) and a global conference in Year 1. The cost for the global conference includes travel costs for participants outside the CG Centers.  Partnership costs: 500,000 USD per year is requested for the small grants program. In the baseline scenario this is reduced to 100,000 USD per year, and would represent less opportunity on research for development activities in the area of gender and equity in water, land and ecosystems. Capacity Building  Capacity building is included in existing activities of centers but more funds are required to fully achieve CRP5 goals. The capacity building budget is projected to grow from 240,000 USD to 1 million USD annually over 5 years under line items training and workshops and partnership costs to ensure capacity building, for e.g. learning alliances, training, degree programs and collaboration with partner institutes that are well equipped to package CRP5 findings for various target groups. In the baseline scenario such capacity building cannot be delivered with an annual budget limited to 240,000 USD per year. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning  Staff time: To ensure high quality monitoring, evaluation and adaptive learning take place, additional staff will be required. The budget includes a full time staff member, 25% support from a principal researcher, a full-time research assistant and part-time (25%) coordinators within the SRPs. This team will also be in charge of planning and coordinating impact assessment studies.  Operating Expenses: Consultants and cost for publications. Additional consultant costs have been included in Year 1 to support setting up an M&E system and in Years 4 and 5 to undertake impact assessment studies.  Training and Workshops: Annual workshops have been budgeted and in Year 1 funds have been set aside for training in methods and the ME&L framework of center staff. Training of key partners has been included in partnership costs. 179 Strategies, Management and Budget The baseline scenario shows an essential minimum for ME&L, and the enhanced delivery scenario shows what it will take to ensure that the learning element goes back into program design, and that research is carried out better to understand processes related to impact derived from research. Marketing, Communication and Knowledge Management No staff time is included in this budget. It is assumed that existing center staff will be involved in CRP communications and uptake. The budget includes additional travel costs, operating expenses such as funds for promotional activities and awareness raising, and consultants to support the team in setting up and integrating systems. Funds for workshops with communications staff, uptake strategy development, and review and knowledge sharing have been budgeted for each year. Partnerships costs include funds for partners to support outreach and uptake locally. There is no difference in the baseline and enhanced delivery scenarios. Tables C and D show the regional distribution of Strategic Research Portfolios (SRPs). Included is the annual budget of in-kind contributions of 33 million USD from FAO for their research to development activities. Table C: Total budget for enhanced delivery scenario Amounts in 'USD'000s Latin Sub Saharan South East CRP5 CWANA South Asia Global Other Regions Total America Africa Asia Rainfed 2 4,000 1 1,300 55,000 3 0,000 15,000 500 100 135,900 Irrigation 5,000 1 0,000 15,000 1 5,000 7 ,000 100 52,100 Groundwater - 6,000 13,000 1 6,000 5 ,000 300 100 40,400 Resource Recovery & Reuse 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 500 300 100 22,900 River Basin 8,300 1 0,000 52,000 2 8,000 14,500 200 100 113,100 Pastoral 64 4,000 12,000 5,000 - 21,064 Ecosystems 1 0,000 7,000 15,000 1 5,000 15,000 200 200 62,400 Information 1 0,000 5,000 20,000 6,000 3 ,000 4,000 - 48,000 Essential Programmatic Functions 30,849 Subtotal 6 1,364 5 9,300 188,000 121,000 60,000 5,500 700 526,712 CGIAR System Costs (2%) - - - - - - - 1 0,534 TOTAL 6 1,364 5 9,300 188,000 121,000 60,000 5,500 700 537,246 Percentage 11% 11% 35% 23% 11% 1% 0% 100% FAO 3 2,736 GRAND TOTAL 569,983 Table D: SRPs by regions in the baseline scenario Latin Sub Saharan South East Strategic Research Portfolios CWANA South Asia Global Other Regions Total America Africa Asia Rainfed 2 4,122 1 1,387 54,584 2 4,231 3 ,140 2,056 53 119,573 Irrigation - 8,348 14,035 1 1,867 2 ,826 1,520 124 38,720 Groundwater - 5,559 11,588 1 0,853 1 ,555 375 23 29,952 Resource Recovery & Reuse - 3,232 2,725 2,320 378 300 15 8 ,969 River Basin 8,348 6,399 52,643 2 8,363 14,515 771 45 111,084 Pastoral 64 2,795 6,638 510 127 284 - 10,418 Ecosystems 1 4,223 7,250 16,295 8,752 5 ,226 6,590 546 58,877 Information 9,890 2,611 20,096 1,785 1 ,544 2,971 - 38,896 Essential Programmatic Functions 21,432 Subtotal 5 6,647 4 7,581 178,604 8 8,681 29,310 1 4,866 806 437,920 CGIAR System Costs (2%) - - - - - - - 8,758 TOTAL 5 6,647 4 7,581 178,604 8 8,681 29,310 1 4,866 806 446,679 Percentage 13% 11% 40% 20% 7% 3% 0% 100% FAO 3 2,736 GRAND TOTAL 479,415 180 Strategies, Management and Budget Regional growth for enhanced delivery The baseline budget shows strong representation in Sub-Saharan Africa which is appropriate given the size of the poverty and natural resources management issues. However, most of the rural poor reside in South and Southeast Asia, and there are severe issues of land degradation, and water scarcity in this region that constrains agricultural growth. Therefore, our enhanced development scenario concentrates enhanced growth in South and Southeast Asia and modest growth is also planned in Latin America and CWANA in specific SRPs. Global studies will be more focused on information public goods such as databases and maps, plus generic methodology development such as ecosystem valuation and scenario development. Some growth is also projected for “other regions”. This would allow comparison with sites outside our main target research sites such as in China and Brazil (Chart B). Chart B: Regional differences between scenarios (in 1000 USDs) The enhanced delivery scenario is the requested budget. It allows us to offer a full research- for-development program. The descriptions below show what would be left out of the program under the budget in the baseline scenario. Essentially the descriptions represent additional work that would be done within each SRP (Chart C). 181 Strategies, Management and Budget Chart C: Differences in amount of additional work to be done within each SRP(1000 USDs) 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Baseline Enhanced Delivery Rainfed: Modest growth has been projected for this SRP which already has a substantial portfolio. Growth is envisaged only in South Asia and in particular in Southeast Asia where there is still considerable potential to increase productivity of rainfed agriculture and yet there is limited on-going research to support this. Irrigation: Reasonable growth has been projected for this SRP. There is a pressing need to revitalize Asia’s irrigation to address poverty, environmental issues and food security, yet this area has been underfunded by CGIAR research. In particular, research-for-development will aim at institutional reform to reinvigorate these systems. We have projected growth particularly in South and Southeast Asia. In Latin America there is no focus on this SRP in the Baseline budget, yet research can lead to results that will help reduce poverty and enhance environmental sustainability through improved institutions and management practices. CWANA is an area of extreme physical water scarcity and in-depth research will yield insights on how to produce more food with less water in these regions through better governance combined with improved management practices. Groundwater: This SRP could add substantially more value with increased funding. Groundwater will play an increased role in food production in the future, in particular as a resilience strategy in climate change scenarios. To meet the expected outputs and outcomes listed in the SRP we will need increased funding. In Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia potential for further development needs to be explored. Resource Recovery: This SRP is a new area for the CGIAR, thus the baseline scenario does not represent the funding needed. We are requesting additional funding to carry out new lines of research across all the regions. 182 Strategies, Management and Budget River Basins: No major increase in funding is considered for this SRP. We intend to carry on work in river basins after the closure of CPWF phase 2. Growth is needed in the CWANA region where complex issues of water scarcity and competition over a scarce research require research and will lead to international public goods lessons elsewhere. Pastoral: To carry out the work envisaged, overall growth is required, in particular in the Sub-Saharan African region where substantial populations of pastoralists live. Ecosystems: Considerable growth is envisaged in this SRP, with increased need for a better understanding, valuing and safeguarding of ecosystem services in the future. Growth is foreseen across all regions except Latin America, which already has a substantial portfolio. A substantial proportion of global research is still anticipated considering the need for better methodologies and generic cross disciplinary research to better understand and value ecosystem services. Information: Considerable growth is envisaged in this SRP, in particular in Asia and CWANA to increase coverage and sentinel sites in these regions. Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are already relatively well covered in the Baseline budget. Growth of the Information SRP contains projects with a focus on the delivery of global public goods. Budget allocations The budget allocation by centers based on existing activities is shown in the pie chart below (Figure 3.5). Each year the Management Committee will develop a program of work to be endorsed by the Steering Committee, thus this breakdown may change over time. Figure 3.5: Budget allocation by centers based on existing activities 183 Strategies, Management and Budget Tables E and F show the budget by expense categories for each scenario. The enhanced budget scenario shows that an increasing amount of budget goes to support partner activities, growing from 29% to 35%, whlle the baseline budget shows around 29% of the total budget is allocated for partnership and collaboration. This amount is almost double the average CGIAR budget allocation on partners/consultants between 2005 and 2009. Around 3.6% of the total enhanced delivery budget is devoted for training, workshops and capacity building, compared to 3 percent in the baseline budget. One third is allocated to cover staff time. Table E: Budget enhanced dTeOlivTeAryL BUDGET - Enhanced Delivery Amounts in 'USD'000s CRP 5 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Personnel Costs 2 6,100 30136 33826 37684 41440 169,186 Travel 2,820 3370 3805 4376 4973 1 9,345 Operating Expenses 9,734 11585 13319 15317 17957 6 7,912 Training & Workshop 2,711 2757 3171 3647 6768 1 9,055 Collaborators/Partnership 2 4,992 27035 32769 40115 48346 173,258 Capital and other equipment 1,368 1610 1691 1945 3509 1 0,122 Contingency 1,074 1190 1268 1459 1381 6,372 Subtotal 6 8,800 77684 8 9,850 104,542 124,374 465,250 Institutional Overhead (% of direct cost) 9,562 12431 13742 14587 11051 6 1,373 CGIAR System Costs (2%) 1,567 1802 2114 2431 2708 1 0,623 TOTAL 7 9,929 9 1,918 105,706 121,561 138,132 537,247 FAO 1 0,912 1 0,912 1 0,912 3 2,736 GRAND TOTAL 9 0,841 102,830 116,618 121,561 138,132 569,983 Table F: Budget baseline scenario Amounts in 'USD'000s CRP 5 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Personnel Costs 2 6,100 2 7,922 2 9,647 3 0,753 3 2,026 146,447 Travel 2,820 3,146 3,311 3,469 3,634 1 6,378 Operating Expenses 9,734 1 0,601 1 1,323 1 2,120 1 2,520 5 6,299 Training & Workshop 2,711 2,286 2,820 2,643 2,940 1 3,400 Collaborators/Partnership 2 4,992 2 6,353 2 7,003 2 6,103 2 6,929 131,380 Capital and other equipment 1,368 1,451 1,576 1,657 1,769 7,822 Contingency 1,074 1,112 1,189 1,131 1,278 5,784 Subtotal 6 8,800 7 2,871 7 6,868 7 7,876 8 1,096 377,510 Institutional Overhead (% of direct cost) 9,562 1 0,330 1 1,041 1 3,856 1 5,623 6 0,411 CGIAR System Costs (2%) 1,567 1,664 1,758 1,835 1,934 8,758 TOTAL 7 9,929 8 4,864 8 9,667 9 3,567 9 8,653 446,679 FAO 1 0,912 1 0,912 1 0,912 3 2,736 GRAND TOTAL 9 0,841 9 5,776 100,579 9 3,567 9 8,653 479,415 184 Strategies, Management and Budget Each participating center submitted budget proposals with separate allocations for funding from the CGIAR Fund and current restricted funding. It is assumed that centers’ allocation of restricted and unrestricted funding reflects the actual cost of running projects that would contribute to the outputs. It is not clear how much the CGIAR Fund would provide and, based on this number, center budgets will have to be adjusted upwards or downwards based on priorities endorsed by the Steering Committee. It is expected that centers would actively seek to raise bilateral funding to fill the gap, unless the same is channeled through the Fund. Under the enhanced delivery scenario, about 20% of the total five-year budget is to be covered from current restricted projects including proposals that have a high probability of materializing; 29% is expected to be funded from unrestricted funding, which is more or less in line with the current portion of center unrestricted funding, and the balance represents a funding gap to be filled by way of additional proposals or through the CGIAR fund. In future, we believe the current bilateral funding centers are able to generate would be channeled through the Fund and, as a result, the restricted funding of approximately 46% in 2011 decreases over time, thereby leaving a funding gap of 51% of total funding, which is currently added under “CG funding”. The CPWF funding after 2013 is included in the gap, hence the increase. 185 Strategies, Management and Budget Workplan Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Activities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 Confirm teams 2 Restructuring and setting up systems 3 Development of indicators for outputs all levels (Inception Workshop) 4 Overall Management, Coordination & Integration 5 Development of Regional Plans 6 Transition from existing projects to new portfolio 7 Implementation of new – fully aligned - CRP5 projects 8 Implementation of quality and impact enhancement activities Milestones A CRP 5 Inception Workshop X B Strategies / Frameworks approved by Science & Impact Advisory X Committee C Annual (rolling) Workplan approved by Steering Committee X X X X X D CRP 5 Mid-term Science Forum X E Mid-term Evaluation X F CRP 5 Synthesis Forum X G End of First Phase Evaluation X 186 Strategies, Management and Budget 1. Confirm teams: The proposal requires that teams be established to start working on Overall management, Coordination of SRPs and regions, gender and equity, ME&L, communications and uptake and capacity building. This requires reallocation of workloads for existing staff and some new recruitment. 2. Restructuring and setting up systems: At the start of CRP 5 a number of activities will need to take place. For example, mapping of existing projects and linking to SRPs including analysis of overlap in existing projects and plan for integration and sharing of experiences; inventory of present partnerships and stakeholders and gap analysis, further development of the partnership strategy; development of ME&L framework; further development of gender and equity strategy; development of overall communication strategy, uptake strategy. 3. Overall Management, Coordination & Integration: Immediate deployment of CRP5 coordination team, SRP and Regional Leaders; establishment of Management Committee, Science and Impact Advisory Committee and Steering Committee. 4. Development of Regional Plans: Each region will require a set of research questions based on assessment, prioritization and synthesis unique to that region and the natural resource challenges of its farming systems. Based on this, specific uptake strategies will be formulated with partners. Research sites will often overlap with other CRPs and within each site there will be interaction among and between SRPs. 5. Transition from existing projects to the new portfolios: Existing projects will continue to be implemented and their outputs synthesized through SRPs. 6. Implementation of new – fully aligned - CRP5 projects: Develop and implement a coherent set of new projects to deliver CRP5. 7. Implementation of quality and impact enhancement activities: Officially launch platforms and strategies for ME&L, gender, new partnerships and enhanced capacity building and continue with implementation. A. Inception Workshop: In Year 1, an Inception Workshop will be organized to gain support and input from all partners, stakeholders and anticipated users of research results. B. Strategies / frameworks approved by Science and Impact Advisory Committee: The ME&L framework, partnership strategy, gender and equity strategy and uptake strategy and resultant implementation plans will be presented to and approved by the Science and Impact Advisory Committee. C. Annual (rolling) workplan approved by Steering Committee: The Management Committee will prepare annual (rolling) workplans with the support of the SRP managers and Regional Leaders. These will be presented to the Steering Committee for approval. D. Mid-term Science Forum: In Year 3 a mid-term Science Forum will be held to present and discuss research results. 187 Strategies, Management and Budget E. Mid-term Evaluation: The Management Committee must commission a full-scale mid-term evaluation and report its findings. Terms of Reference have to be written for the evaluation and a team selected to conduct it. F. Synthesis Forum: In Year 5 a Synthesis Forum will be held to present and discuss research results, synthesize lessons and plan for future priorities. G. End of First Phase Evaluation: The Management Committee must commission a full- scale evaluation and report its findings. Terms of Reference have to be written for the evaluation and a team selected to conduct it. Immediate funding is required to establish Strategic Research Portfolio teams, gender and ME&L (including partnerships) working groups to ensure this transition happens as quickly and efficiently as possible. 188 Annex 1: Recognizing regional priorities Annex 1 Recognizing regional priorities To align the overall and specific CRP5 strategic research portfolios with regional needs, the strategic plans of the regional and subregional NARES fora under the umbrella of GFAR were consulted. The consultation showed a high degree of commonality in problem identification and research priority setting:  The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) highlights in its 2007-2016 Strategic Plan key areas which require attention. CRP5 will address 4 of the identified 11 areas, namely stress on land and water resources and accelerated soil degradation, water becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, crops/livestock practices and systems, and the conservation and sustainable use of water catchments and biodiversity (www.fara- africa.org/about-us/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-download/). FARA’s strategic plan was based on the targets and aims of the CAADP, and aligned with the strategic plans of the African Sub-Regional Organizations.  The Vision 2025 of the Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) fosters novel partnerships among NARES and other organizations for sustainable improvements in the productivity of agricultural systems and improved quality of the natural resource base which underpins agriculture. In its Research Need Assessment and Agricultural Research Priorities for South and West Asia which was jointly organized with the CGIAR, the need for INRM to address degradation of natural resource, water scarcity, and low productivity was highlighted (www.apaari.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/05/sw-asia-needs-assessment.pdf ).  The Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (CACAARI) highlights in its Priorities for Agricultural Research-for-development in Central Asia and the Caucasus (Dec. 2009) soil salinity and water and irrigation management, livestock research including rangelands, and the protection of biodiversity as priority research areas (www.cacaari.org/filesarchive/publications/GCARD_CAC_Final_Report_En.pdf ).  The Forum for the Americas on Agricultural Research and Technology Development (FORAGRO) describes its research priorities in its FORAGRO Position 2010 document. The preservation and sustainable management of natural resource: i) Technologies and good practices for the use of soil and water; ii) Use of environmentally friendly practices; iii) Preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; iv) Promotion of agro-ecological production systems, is one of its seven priority subjects and action areas. Other action areas include better exploitation of productive lands and protection of fragile ecosystems or highlight urban farming systems (http://infoagro.net/shared/docs/a2/Summary%20FORAGRO%20Position_Eng.pdf ).  The Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA) emphasizes in its Vision 2025 the fragility of its natural resource base with especially acute shortage of water and arable land. Opportunities for expanding 189 Annex 1: Recognizing regional priorities cultivated rain-fed or irrigated lands in the region are low, while most change can be realized through increasing factor productivity and technologies, enabling policies and appropriate institutions. The challenge for agricultural research is to increase productivity without further threatening natural resource while favoring the poor (www.aarinena.org/rais/documents/General/nars0059.PDF). The regional stakeholder consultations during the preparation of CRP5 allowed fine-tuning the research agenda in order to cover more detailed regional challenges and priorities. 190 Annex 2 – Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas Annex 2 Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas Nutrient depleted soils combined with lack of access to and control over water, result in overall degradation of ecosystem function and productivity. Linked sociopolitical, economic, demographic, and biophysical drivers of land degradation have resulted in the accelerated degradation of resources and diminished ecosystem resilience (Bossio et al., 2007). Decades of investment in these areas have largely failed, requiring attention to factors that affect the drivers of adoption of improved NRM practices at household and community levels, and particularly the fragile institutions that often inhibit integrated landscape management that is required to stabilize ecosystem services. Even where soil and water solutions and technologies are known, they are hardly adopted due to a range of well-known socio-economic reasons (Drechsel et al., 2005; Napier et al., 1991, Liniger et al., 2011). Thus there are interlinked problem sets that come together in low productivity rainfed systems: Land degradation, soil and water productivity Land degradation and productivity are integrally linked (Box 1). Land degradation was ranked as one of the three top threats to habitat and society by the Millennium Ecological Assessment. Agricultural productivity is constrained by severe nutrient depletion ranging from 30 to 60 kg of NPK/ha/year in humid forest and wetlands in Southern and Central Africa to more than 60 kg per year in the East African Highlands (Vlek, 2010). Fertilizer application rates across much of Sub-Saharan Africa need to be increased from the current average of 8 to 50 kg/ha/year (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009). In vast tracts of rainfed areas in India, there are widespread micronutrient deficiencies of Zn, B and S, along with N and P deficiencies (Sahrawat et al., 2007). Box1: Land and water degradation Loss of organic matter and physical degradation of soil that reduces nutrient availability and has significant negative impacts on infiltration and porosity. This impacts local and regional water productivity, the resilience of agro-ecosystems, and global carbon cycles. Resulting in loss of below ground biodiversity causes increased incidence of soil borne pests and disease. Nutrient depletion and chemical degradation of soil is a primary cause of decreasing yields and results in low on-site water productivity, and off-site water pollution. Soil erosion and sedimentation. Accelerated on-farm soil erosion leads to substantial yield losses and contributes to downstream sedimentation and the degradation of water bodies. This is a major cause of investment failure in water and irrigation infrastructure. Water pollution. Secondary salinization and water logging in irrigated areas threatens productivity gains. Globally, agriculture is the main contributor to non-point-source water pollution, while urbanization contributes increasingly large volumes of wastewater. Water quality problems limit water availability even where water access is given, but remain so far a hidden topic in many developing countries. 191 Annex 2 – Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas There is ample evidence that improved soil fertility and soil health improves yields and combats degradation. For example, rapid crop canopy growth from better soil fertility helps reduce erosion. Increasing fertilizer application and enhancing nutrient use efficiencies should be the major focus of a strategy to improve yields. However, accelerated land degradation confounds this strategy as soils become less responsive to fertilizer application. Accompanying measures are required to combat degradation, restore soil health and fertility and improve soil and water use efficiencies. In terms of water, the limiting factor is access, not the absolute amount of water available (Klaij and Vachaud, 1992; Agarwal, 2000; Wani et al.,2003; and Hatibu et al., 2003). Meteorological droughts occur on average once every decade in most semiarid regions and up to twice every decade in dry semiarid regions. In the dry temperate regions, however, both rainfall amounts and distribution are suboptimal for normal crop growth (ICARDA, 2005). Managing the local water balance can relieve agricultural dry spells (Agarwal, 2000), for example, storing water collected during periods of rainfall. Research has shown that much of the water stress or agricultural drought experienced in dry and semi-arid regions is human-induced (Falkenmark and Rockstrom, 2004). Unused water evaporates or runs off, carrying valuable sediment and nutrients with it. Agricultural droughts are caused by poorly managed water and soil and are more common than meteorological droughts. The right practices can bridge normal seasonal variations in rainfall and improve water balance management. Box 2: The case for integrated soil and water management The disciplinary silos of water research vs. soil research vs. crop research can be found at the national institutional level (e.g. in Ghana) but also within the CGIAR although it has been stated sufficiently that only the integration of soil and water management, especially in rainfed areas, can improve productivity, while addressing land degradation and water scarcity. Yield improvements and poverty alleviation come not from one input or improvement in one dimension of the system, but from simultaneous and parallel improvements in soil fertility and water management practices supported by changes in the social, institutional and policy environment. Adding water, for example even in the Sahel, might result only in short-term gains if soil fertility cannot provide the needed nutrients (Penning de Vries and Djiteye. 1982; Breman, 1998). The right balance of inputs is important because it greatly reduces risk and encourages investment in soil health, more responsive cultivars and new farming practices. Soil management is important because it increases water productivity. The interaction of water and nutrients in the soil fertility discussion can be summarized as follows: • Soil water stress can limit soil nutrient use, and vice versa, thus both fertilizer and irrigation efficiencies are linked with yield variations of 250% • No soil-supplied nutrient can be taken up except in the presence of water • Soil water content is the single most important factor controlling the rate of chemical and biological processes such as mineralization which steer nutrient availability • Water is the medium of transport of nutrients to roots, along slopes and in a basin. 192 Annex 2 – Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas Sociopolitical and economic People make decisions about water and land use based on sociopolitical and economic contexts, as well as the physical characteristics of land. Land tenure, markets and commodity prices, and gender relations all affect decision-making. In addition, political environments may be so repressive as to undermine the readiness of land users to develop and implement innovative land and water management practices. Under certain circumstances high and growing population densities can have serious impacts on water and land. This is particularly evident where populations spill over into previously uncultivated marginal dry lands (as has been happening rapidly in parts of East Africa) and where poor farmers are pushed further uphill onto ever steeper slopes (as is the case in parts of Asia and Central America). In both cases this land is especially vulnerable to degradation. Agricultural technologies have to be adapted to highly variable local biophysical and socio cultural conditions as both are influencing farmers’ decision making. Getting information to farmers is difficult and costly because there are large numbers of small households widely dispersed over sometimes difficult terrain, and quality of extension services is less than desirable (Renkow, and Byerlee, 2010). Penetration of mass media to the far reaches of the countryside is often poor, but new ICT technologies are opening up opportunities. Rainfed areas often have poor infrastructure and weak market links because investments usually go to cash crop or irrigated areas. This includes local institutions which often have limited capacity for providing services like health and agricultural extension. Fragile local institutions for NRM and/or political contexts that inhibit collective action make consolidated and integrated watershed management difficult to achieve. Often existing local institutions are disrupted during development efforts rather than strengthened, and are not replaced by effective bodies. Integration Our aim in this SRP is a) to bridge the silos of soil versus water management, b) understand the dynamics of the landscape, and c) focus on the socio-economic and institutional factors supporting or constraining soil and water management decision making. Only an integrated approach will give us the required cutting edge to support appropriate decision making across scales. This also means that the traditional household or farm focus will have to be broadened as ultimately communities are responsible for managing landscapes. Thus, this CRP provides the cross-scale point of view with a significant emphasis on landscapes to balance productivity gains with social and ecological objectives. 193 Annex 2 – Basic biophysical problems in low productive rainfed areas Box 3: Landscapes A landscape as a physical and social unit. It includes the full range of land uses on which local communities depend, either directly for provisioning ecosystem services (food, fiber, livestock, trees) or regulating services (watershed functions), and the range of social institutions (formal and informal) used for resource management. 194 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned Annex 3 Ecosystems lessons learned Lesson: Wetlands and peatlands regulate flooding, mitigate droughts and dry spells and provide water treatment services Peatlands in Sarawak, East Malaysia, play a major role in providing freshwater supplies. The peatlands are an important contributor to the base flow of the numerous streams that originate within them. It is estimated that throughout Sarawak, 3,000 megalitres are abstracted annually from these streams (Mailvaganam, 1994). Similarly, the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in northern Nigeria play a major role in recharging aquifers which provide domestic water supplies to approximately one million people as well as supplying water for agriculture (Hollis et al.., 1993). Flood mitigation is an important ecosystem regulating service. The Muthurajawela marsh in Sri Lanka is estimated to have a water storage capacity of 11 million cubic meters and a retention period of more than 10 days. The flood attenuation value of the wetland is estimated to be USD 5.4 million per year (USD 1,758 per hectare) (Emerton, 2005). Finally, wetlands improve water quality through processes of sedimentation, filtration, physical and chemical immobilization, microbial interactions and uptake by vegetation many (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). As an example, sewage from 40% of the residents of the city of Kampala (ca 500,000 people) is discharged into the 5.3 km2 Nakivubo wetland. Wetlands significantly improve the quality of water entering Lake Victoria, approximately 3 km from the city’s main supply intake. The water purification services of the wetland are estimated to be worth about USD 1 million per year (Emerton, 2005). Lesson: Below-ground diversity and agroforestry improve soil health and nutrient recycling Significant work in the analysis of below ground diversity has proven that marked differences in the functional composition of particular functional groups can serve as indicator taxa for soil health. For example, within the nematode group we see a marked increase in plant parasitic nematodes with increasing land use intensity. Clear trends of decreasing diversity and abundance are observed in the group of ‘ecosystem engineers’ that consist of macrofauna species like earthworms and termites that have a major impact on soil through soil transport, building aggregate structures and forming pores that provide micro-niches for other soil organisms. Earthworm management (vermiculture) used on rice, maize and banana crops increases tolerance to plant parasitic nematodes by a systemic action on stress genes and expression of other genes (Blouin et al.., 2005). The technique allows the maintenance of high earthworm activity in the root zone while offering an alternative transition from conventional to partly or fully organic agriculture. This method should allow some control of 195 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned nematodes and possibly other pests and diseases in tree plantations. Earthworms are known to enhance plant growth in most cases through a variety of direct or indirect effects. Identifying and implementing sustainable and replicable management practices for below- ground biodiversity conservation have demonstrated the use of various types of inoculums as a substitute for fertilizers. Farmers in Ugandan have started growing soybean using rhizobia inoculums, and the extension service is now expanding to communities outside the project’s benchmark areas. In Mexico, inoculums have been developed with material sourced from the benchmark areas and used in experiments with maize and palma comedor, an ornamental plant. Lesson: Biotic diversity helps regulate pests and diseases and reduces vulnerability Both farmers and plant breeders have selected for and used genotypes that are resistant to the pests and pathogens of their crops (Frankel et al., 1995; Finckh and Wolfe 2006; Thinlay et al., 2000), and have developed farming systems that use crop biodiversity to reduce the damage they cause as a substitute for pesticides. Farmers have local preferences for growing mixtures of cultivars that provide resistance to local pest and diseases and enhance yield stability (Trutmann et al., 1993; Karamura et al., 2004; Trutmann et al., 1993; Jarvis et al., 2007). High levels of diversity of traditional rice varieties in Bhutan have high functional diversity against rice blast (Thinlay et al., 2000; Finckh, 2003). High wheat diversity in Italy has been shown to provide yield stability in conditions of low pesticide application (Di Falco and Chavas, 2007). In progress in many parts of the world is the development of varietal mixtures, or sets of varieties with non-uniform resistance and with lower new pathogens migration or mutation probability of existing pathogens, (Finckh et al., 2000; Finckh and Wolfe, 2006; Jarvis et al., 2007). Multilines are mixtures of genetically similar lines or varieties that mainly differ only in their resistances to different pathotypes. They are in use in cereals in the USA (Finckh and Wolfe 2006) and in coffee (Coffea arabica) in Colombia. There the variety Colombia is a multiline of coffee lines differentially resistant to rust (caused by Hemilera vastatrix) and grown on more than 360,000 ha (Moreno-Ruiz and Castillo-Zapata 1990; Browning 1997). Natural enemies of pests depend on resources such as food for adults, alternative prey or hosts, hibernation sites and shelter from adverse conditions (Landis et al., 2000). Habitat management designed to meet the needs of natural enemies of crop pests can attract species that offer the ecosystem service of natural biocontrol. In particular, relatively undisturbed non-crop habitats, such as hedgerows, woodlots and termite mounds in agricultural landscapes, typically support a higher degree of biodiversity providing natural pest control than do crop systems (Bianchi et al., 2006). Zhang et al., (2010) develop a 196 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned spatial optimization model to explore economically optimal spatial configuration of natural enemy habitats in agricultural landscapes. Results indicate that non-crop habitat management can be a promising pest management option for organic cropping systems. Under current prices, however, habitat management tends to reduce net returns for conventional farms. Both area and configuration of non-crop habitats affect economic performance, with the greatest value coming from small, scattered areas of habitat. Lesson: Enhancing pollinator services improves production Horticulture, including fruit production, has been the fastest growing food sector worldwide with an annual average rate of growth of 3.6% during 1970-2004. 92% of this increase has come from developing countries, indicating how important this sector of agriculture is for rural livelihoods. The role of pollinators in horticultural crop production in countries such as Kenya, South Africa and Brazil has been well established (Allsop et al., 2008, Bispo dos Santos et al., De Marco and Coelho 2004, Gemmill-Herren and Ochieng 2008, Kasina et al., 2009a, b, Martins and Johnson 2009, Ndiritu et al., 2008). Considerable work is required to identify the specific agricultural management practices that can increase the amount of pollination and thus yield of pollinator dependent crops. Lesson: Conservation tillage improves carbon and water cycling Conservation tillage has been shown to enhance carbon sequestration by increasing carbon content and mitigating Greenhouse Gas emissions (Quintero, 2009; Uri et al., 1999, Denef et al., 2004; Bossyut et al., 2002; Kong et al., 2005; Kuo et al., 1997; Rasmussen et al., 1980; Cole et al., 1993) and facilitate better drainage and water holding capacity. It can limit the potential for water logging or drought (Holland 2004; Govaerts et al., 2007; Zibilske and Bradford 2007; Lichter et al., 2008) and soil loss (FAO 2001). In addition, net revenues can be increased when adopting these practices (Quintero, 2009; Sandretto, 2001; and Jeong and Forster; 2003). Quintero (2009) found that by improving the provision of soil related ecosystem services by implementing conservation farming practices, the resilience of the production system is improved as soil returns almost to its original condition after being disturbed, and small farmers benefit from greater returns. Lesson: Gender plays a key role in the management of ecosystem services. Women are often left out of leadership roles and decision making processes, even when they may be the main custodians. Lesson: Collective action at different levels can support the provision of ecosystem services Ecosystem management often requires collective action to address the complexities arising from the existence of multiple uses and users of ecosystem services. At the local level, collective action leads to the sustainable exploitation of forests, watersheds and rangelands. The management of some natural resources, such as marine fisheries, transboundary 197 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned watersheds and genetic resources needed for food production imply collective action problems that require coordinated measures at the international level. Lesson: Clearly recognized property rights are necessary for farming communities to provide ecosystem services It is generally recognized that secure property rights (in particular to land and the natural resources found in a given piece of land) are a necessary condition for farmers to provide ecosystem services because property rights provide the incentives required for individuals and/or groups to undertake the requisite long term investments required to manage ecosystems in a way that they keep providing environmental services and maintain a healthy level of resilience (Mwangi and Markelova, 2008; Meinzen Dick and Knox, 2001). Property rights do not just refer to an individual’s exclusive title land with a corresponding right to do whatever one wants with natural resources located on that land). Property rights should instead be understood as bundles of rights, which may vary according to circumstances, legal systems, local customs, etc. [necessarily imply sole authority to use and dispose of a resource (or full ownership).] The claim to a benefit stream can refer to a number of different bundles of rights, which do not require complete control over a resource. Schaleger and Ostrom (1992) distinguished between user rights, which include access and withdrawal and control rights, including management, exclusion and alienation. To be effective, property rights need recognition and legitimacy. This, in turn, implies the need for governance structures that enforce rights and the corresponding duties of others to respect those rights (Di Gregorio et al., 2008). Only clearly established property rights give the necessary authorization and control over the resource for farmers to first invest in ecosystem services and then negotiate possible revenues from such services (Greiber, 2009). Property rights can be recognized by statutory as well as customary laws, and these may differ. Creating or changing property rights in national laws without taking into consideration the bundles of rights and multiple claims recognized by the customary law of communities or indigenous peoples often leads to confusion, and political and legal instability (Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002; Greiber, 2009). There are numerous examples of forms of recognition of customary laws concerning natural resources management in national common and civil law (McNeil 1989). Engaging farmers in the provision of ecosystem services may require a balanced and flexible approach to property rights, taking into consideration that conferring exclusive rights on a ecosystem’s user or group of users will restrict the use rights of others and weaken secondary rights such as access options (Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002), with the risk of creating perverse incentives (Halewood et al. 2005). The use aspect of property acquires a particular relevance in this regard. Common pooling and management of resources such as 198 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned forest, fisheries and rangelands which may involve widely different forms of property arrangements including mixtures of state, common property, or private property may provide the necessary incentives for users to exploit them in a sustainable manner. These models of common property have proved to contribute significantly to rural livelihoods. (Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002) That said, there are also instances where natural resources are successfully collectively managed in the absence of any formal property rights, i.e., they are considered, de facto, to be in the public domain. For millennia, plant genetic resources have been commonly collectively conserved, used and managed by farmers/communities in the absence of the any formal legal rights with respect to those materials. Recent expansion of intellectual property rights over plant genetic resources improved by formal sector breeders and biotechnologists however call into question whether it continues to be equitable for farmers to continue to collectively manage and conserve in the absence of recognized property rights over such resources (Biber-Klemm and Cottier 2005). Lesson: Markets currently capture only a small part of the value of ecosystem services that support the livelihoods of poor farmers and the benefits they may or may not be providing to others. When included in better valuation processes, many ecosystem services can deliver exceedingly high financial values (or costs arising from their absence). Examples include regulation of water quantity and quality, flood and erosion. Values of ecosystem services have been realized by improving public awareness about socio-cultural values of the importance of local crop varieties and animal breeds and the associated biodiversity that surrounds them (Birol et al., 2007) by providing information on the substitution value of agricultural biodiversity for fertilizer and pesticides (Di Falco and Perrings, 2005); by moral suasion, regulation and planning; by preventing specific land management practices such as low input zones (Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Ruiz, 2009; Ramirez, 2001; Ceroni, et al., 2007); and advocating that local and national governments integrate ecosystem services, into their legislation on environmental impact assessment programs (Slootweg et al., 2006; Wale, in press). Lesson: Some market interventions can work. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes provide market incentives for farmers who provide environmental services by compensating farmers for their conservation practices through payment for environmental services (FAO, 2007; Brussaard et al., 2010; van Noordwijk, 2005; 2007; Wunder et al., 2008). Environmental payment systems often include initiatives to link upstream and downstream users of natural resources (Pradhan et al., 2010). 199 Annex 3 – Ecosystems lessons learned Lesson: Ecosystem services have socio-cultural, insurance and option values that will be under-estimated if left to the market. Leaving ecosystem services to the market, as it is presently constructed, leads to choices that are biased against the maintenance of optimal levels of ecosystem services (Thies, 2000; Heal et al., 2004; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Drucker, 2007; Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Smale, 2006)13. There are few institutional and policy incentive structures that promote the enhancement of farmers’ customary practices that support ecosystem services. Lesson: Current policy and legal frameworks can be improved to recognize the contribution of farming communities in generating and enhancing ecosystem services There is a dominant trend towards agricultural intensification involving intensive production systems which put ecosystem services at risk. Institutions and policies are generally supportive of, and reflect this dominant trend, creating disincentives for farmers to keep producing or preserving agro-ecosystem services, and preventing them to get revenues from the investments they made in sustainable ecosystem management (IAASTD 2009). While payment for ecosystem services and other forms of benefit-sharing are proliferating around the world, and while some countries have developed or are developing legal frameworks that regulate payment for ecosystem services (Greiber, 2009), policies that go against the production and maintenance of ecosystem services are still very common. These policies may take the form of subsidies, tax-exemptions and inappropriate or unclear allocation and recognition of property rights, among others. (Keysel Jack et al., 2008;Greiber, 2009) Lesson: The long-term impact on sustainable poverty reduction of interventions that support the maintenance of ecosystem services has not been monitored and remains largely unknown. Successful interventions come from supporting local institutions, enhancing collective action and property rights, and enabling farmers to participate and lead the decision making process and implementation (Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2008; Renard, 2003). 13 In a comprehensive SGRP/CGIAR review of the applied genetic resource economics valuation literature, covering over 170 publications (Zambrano et al., 2005[i]), Smale and Drucker (2007) concluded that recent advances in the analysis of the value and determinants of individual components of agrobiodiversity have provided a useful framework of knowledge on the ways in which improved valuation can contribute to optimal investment allocations and policy decisions. 200 Annex 4 – List of Acronyms Annex 4 List of Acronyms 3R Water Recharge, Retention and Reuse ACSAD Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Drylands ACTS African Centre for Technology AfSIS Africa Soil Information Services AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AIT Asian Institute of Technology AMAZ Reconstruction of Eco-efficient Landscape in Amazonia APFAMGS Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater System AQUASTAT FAO's global information system on water and agriculture ARC Agricultural Research Center ARI Agricultural Research Institute ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa AVRDC The World Vegetable Center AWADI Alternate Wet and Dry Irrigation AWF African Wildlife Foundation BB BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development BORDA Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association CA Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture CAAS The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences CABI CAB International CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CC Climate Change CG Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGWB Central Ground Water Board CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network CIP International Potato Center CONDESAN Consortium for sustainable development of the Andean ecoregion CPWF Challenge Programme on Water and Food CREPA Centre Régional pour l'Eau Potable et l'Assainissement à faible coût CRP Consortium Research Program CSI CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CSM-BGBD Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below Ground Biodiversity CSO Civil Society Organisation CWANA Central and West Asia and North Africa DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DEWATS Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems 201 Annex 4 – List of Acronyms DFID Department for International Development DPU Development Planning Unit EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation ESA European Space Agency ESPA Ecosystems Services and Poverty Alleviation ET Evapo-transpiration FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation GAAS Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences GCSAR General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research GEF Global Environmental Facility GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems GIS Geographical Information Systems GLADIS Global Land Degradation Information GLASOD Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security IAAST International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas ICBA International Center for Biosaline Agriculture ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics IDRC International Development Research center IFDC International Fertiliser Development Center IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IHE Institute for Water Education IITA Agricultural Research-for-development in Africa ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IMT Irrigation Management Transfer IPGs International Public Goods IPTRID International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISRIC International Soil Reference and Information Centre ISFM Integrated Soil Fertility Management ITC The International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWA International Water Association IWMI International Water Management Institute IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JRC Joint Research Centre LSHTM London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge 202 Annex 4 – List of Acronyms MASSMUS Mapping systems and Services for Multiple Uses MFA Material Flow Analysis MIS Management Information System MP Mega Programme MUS Multiple Use Systems NARES National Agricultural Research System NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NERC Natural Environment Research Council NGO Non Governmental Organisation NGRI National Geophysical Research Institute NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium NRM Natural Resource Management NWRC National Water Research Center O&M Operation and Maintenance ODC Open Data Commons PDR People’s Democratic Republic PES Payment for Environmental Services PIM Participatory Irrigation Management PRADAN Professional Assistance for Development Action QMRA Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment QSMAS Quesungual Slash-and-Mulch Agroforestry System R&D Research and Development RAP Rapid Appraisal Procedure RCMRD Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development RIMISP Latin American Center for Rural Development RS Remote Sensing RUAF Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security SANDEC/EAWAG Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology SE South East SEA Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment SGRP System-wide Genetic Resources Programme SPS Samaj Pragati Sahyog SRI System of Rice Intensification SSA Sub Saharan Africa SuSanA Sustainable Sanitation Alliance SWM Soil and Water Management TSBF Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environmental Program USA The United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development 203 Annex 4 – List of Acronyms USAID United States Agency for International Development USBR US Bureau of Reclamation USD United States Dollars USGS United States Geological Survey VSF Vétérinaires Sans Frontières WAU Wageningen University WCRP World Climate Research Programme WEDC Water, Engineering and Development Centre WHO World Health Organisation WISP World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism WRI World Resources Institute WUA Water Users’ Association WUR Wageningen University WWAP World Water Assessment Programme 204 Annex 5 – Workshop participants Annex 5 Workshop Participants Participants from online consultations and e-discussions: Dr.Angel Elias Daka (ACTESA); Kabatabazi Patricia, Community based Impact Assessment Network for Eastern Africa (CIANEA); Fernando Cesar Serafim Particular; Desta Gebremichael, Relief Society of Tigray; Ali Ünlükara, Erciyes University Agricultural Faculty Agricultural Structures and Irrigation; Ananda Wijayaratna, Daham Pasal; Raymond Ouedraogo, 1- PhD student at BOKU-University of Natural Resources& Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 2-Senior Offiecr of Fisheries at the Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fish Resources, burkina Faso; Raga Mohamed Elzaki, University of Gezira – Sudan; Lalit Mohan Sharma, Institute of Rural Research and Development; Ben Aston, Gantry House; Dr. V.E.Nethaji Mariappan, Sathyabama University; K.D.N.Weerasinghe, University of Ruhuna; Abraham Ndungu, Rosedale College; Victor Kongo, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI); Dr.Mustafa Yousif Mohamed, AA University; Elena Lopez-Gunn, FMB-Water Observatory and LSE; Gashaw Alemye Agegne, Mekelle university; Romel B. Armecin, Visayas State University – Philippines; Assem Tesfaw Ayelle, ORDA; Dov Pasternak, ICRISAT; Kristina Toderich, ICBA-CAC , under umbrellla of ICARDA, and Department of Desert Ecology and Water Resources Research, Samarkand Division of the Academy of Scinces of Uzbekistan, Central Asia; John Lamers, (ZEF/UNESCO); Mamadou Khouma, (IDEV); Palaniappan Venkatachalam, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India; K.Palanisami (IWMI); Carlo Carli (CIP); Dr. Firdaus Fatima Rizvi, IIDS, New Delhi; Tilahun Amede, ILRI/ IWMI/ CPWF; Vladimir Smakhtin (IWMI); Luna Bharati (IWMI); Peter Messerli, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern Muhammad; Rafique, Villagers Development Organization; Gunnar Jacks, KTH; Nirad Chandra Nayak, CGWB, Min. of Water Resources; Lalit Mohan Sharma, Institute of Rural Research and Development; Anik Bhaduri, Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn; Shabbir Ahmad Shahid, ICBA, Dubai, UAE; Alim Pulatov, Tashkent Institute of Irrgation, EcoGIS center, Uzbekistan Participants at the Regional Stakeholder Meetings: Aleppo: Dr. Awni Taimeh, University of Jordan, Jordan; Dr. Dia El Din Ahmed El-Qousy, National Water Research Center, Egypt; Dr. Ahmed Hachum, Mosul University, Iraq; Eng. Ali El-Zain, AGA KHAN Foundation, Syria; Dr. Omran Al Shihabi, The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD), Syria; Dr. Awadis Arslan, General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR), Syria; Dr. Jamil Abbas, Aleppo University, Syria; Aleppo; Dr. Faisal K Taha, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA). UAE; Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Abdelwahab, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr. Theib Oweis, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr. Fadi Karam, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr. Fawzi Karajeh, Nile Valley and Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Program (NVSSARP) International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas; Dr. Rolf Sommer, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr.Ahmed M. Al-wadaey, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr. Mohamed Al-Azhari Saleh, International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria; Dr. Ahmed Amri, International Centre for 205 Annex 5 – Workshop participants Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA); Dr. Zieaoddin Shoaei (ICARDA – Tehran office), Iran; Dr. Michael C. Shannon, USAID. Lusaka: Pius Chilonda (IWMI); Fred Kalibwani (IWMI); Seleshi Bekele Awulachew (IWMI); Rudo Makunike, NEPAD Planning & Coordinating Agency (NPCA), South Africa; Almeida Almeida, National Directorate of Agricultural Services, MINAG/DNSA, Mozambique; Andrew Sanewe, Water Research Commission (WRC), South Africa; Fhumulani Mashau, Southern Africa Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), South Africa; Alfred Mtukuso, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi; Ishmael Sunga, Southern Africa Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), South Africa; Graham Jewitt, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Helder Gemo (IWMI), South Africa; Elijah Phiri, AU-NEPAD/ CAADP Pillar 1/UNZA-SADC LWMP, University of Zambia, Zambia; Mwase Phiri, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Zambia; Angel Daka, COMESA/ACTESA, Zambia; Simunji Simunji, Golden Valley Agriculture Research Trust (GART), Zambia; Moses Mwale, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), Zambia; Sesele B. Sokotela, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), Zambia; Peter Manda, CARE Zambia; Martin N. Sishekanu, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Zambia; DCW Nkhuwa, University of Zambia, Lusaka; Sina Luchen (FAO); Andy Levin USAID - Zambia Lima: Falberni De Souza Costa, EMBRAPA, Brazil; Marcos Ferreira, EMBRAPA, Brazil; Juan Carlos Alurralde, Agua Sustentable, Bolivia; Luis Acosta (CONDESAN) Peru; Luis Alban, Nature & Culture – NCI, Peru; Rodrigo Alvites, Ministry of Environment, Peru; María Teresa Becerra, General Secretariat – Andean Community, Peru; Edith Fernández Baca, (CONDESAN), Peru; Manuel Glave, GRADE, Peru; Sonia Gonzáles, Ministry of Environment, Peru; Braulio La Torre, UNALM, Peru; Carlos León Velarde, CIP, Peru; Víctor Mares, (CIP), Peru; Marcela Quintero, (CIAT), Peru; Roberto Quiroz, (CIP), Peru; Miguel Saravia, (CONDESAN), Peru; Thomas Walder, (SDC) Peru, Corinne Valdivia, University of Missouri; Roberto Valdivia, CIRNMA, Peru; Emilio Ruz, (PROCISUR), Uruguay Nairobi: Sibonginkosi Khumalo (Bioversity); Elizabeth Nambiro (CIAT); Linda Wangila (CIAT); Jeroen Huising(CIAT)-TSBF; Peter Okoth (CIAT)- TSBF, Paul Woomer, CGIAR FORMAT; Edwudo Bamos (ICRAF); Keith Shepherd (ICRAF); Samuel Gaturu (ICRAF); KPC Rao (ICRAF- ICRISAT); Ephraim Nkonya (IFPRI); Duncan Turere (ILRI); Jan de Leeuw (ILRI); Jane Gitau (ILRI); Julius Nyangaga (ILRI); Mohamed Said (ILRI); Polly Ericksen (ILRI); Tilahun Amede, (ILRI-IWMI); Lisa-Maria Rebelo (IWMI); Izzy Birch, Ministry Of Nothern Kenya & other Arid Lands; Charles Gachoki, Ministry Environment And Natural Resources, Kenya; Callist Tindimugaya, Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda; Daniel Atula, National Irrigation Board; Emmanuella Olesambu (FAO); Michael Gitonga (FAO); Tara Garnett, Food Climate Research Network (FCRN); Steve Twomlow (UNEP); Jane W. Wamuongo (KARI); Edward Mare Muya (KARI); James K. Ndufa, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI); John Mulumba, NARO, Uganda; Emmanuel Mwendera (IUCN); Byron Anangwe, Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development; Finn Davey, Wajibu MS, Kenya. 206 Annex 5 – Workshop participants Delhi: Arun Pal (ICRISAT); Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA); Dar MH (IRRI); Dindo M Campilan (CIP); Iain A Wright (ILRI); Jagat Devi Ranjit, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC); Lalit Mohan Sharma, Institute of Rural Research and Development; Kuhu Chatterjee, Australian Centre for International (ACIAR); Mathur PN (Bioversity); Minhas PS, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR); Munasinghe MAK, Natural Resources Management Centre, Sri Lanka; Parvati Krishnan, Coca-Cola India Inc.; Pawan Kumar, Institute of Rural Research and Development; Peter Q Craufurd (ICRISAT); Prabhat Kumar (ICRISAT); Ramesh Rawal , BAIF Development Research Foundation; Ruchi Srivastava (ICRISAT); Virendra Sharma (DFID-India); Sharma KD, National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA); Tewari RK , Department. of Agriculture & Co- operation; Upali Amarasinghe (IWMI); Venkateswarlu B, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture; Wani SP (ICRISAT) Ouagadougou : K. Kankam Yeboah, CSIR ; Regassa Namara (IWMI) ; Charlotte de Fraiture (IWMI); Zongo Roger, DRAHRH/CENTRE, Burkina Faso ; Ouattara Korodjouma, Research Inera, Burkina Faso ; Taondas Jean Baptiste, AGRA; Oumar Mdiaye, UICN-PACO ; Oedraogo Clement, CILSS ; Hema Belo , Soil research (Development Bunasols Direction Fertilite Des Sols); Mme Diallo Veronique, DGRE/MAHRH; Tigasse Abel (CILSS); Charles A. Biney, VBA; Nanema Romaric University Of (Ufr/Svt), Burkina Faso; Dembele Youssouf, Inera Bobo, Burkina Faso; Ouattara Badiori, Inera/Coraf, Burkina Fasso; Toure Mahamane, Cer Cedeao/Ccre, Burkina Faso; Boube Bassirou, Institut 2IE, Burkina Faso; Levite Herve (IWMI/CILSS); Tiemtore Mahamoudou, Dadi/Mahrh, Burkina Faso; Seleshi Bekele (IWMI); Ousseni Ouedraogo, Roppa Sepi, Burkina Faso; Mogbante Dam (GWP/AO); Bado Bazoin Igor (WASCAL); Zongo L. Issa (WASCAL); Sidibe Aminata (WASCAL) Tashkent: Victor Dukhovny, (SIC ICWC); Hamdam Umarov, Republican Water Inspection; Gayrat Rahimov, Republican Water Inspection; Kushiev Habib, Gulistan University; Alim Polatov, Ecogiscentre, TIIM; Mehriddin Tursunov, TIIM; Myagkov Sergey, Scientific Research and Hydro-meteorologic Institute, UzGidroMet; Raisa Tarannikova, Methodology and Agro- meteorologic Observation Services, UzGidroMet; Dr.Abdukhalil Kayimov, Forestry and Forest Amelioration Department; Dr. Evgeniy Butkov, Agro-forestry Department; Omina Islamova, (SDC); Djamshid Begmatov (EU); Makhmud Shaumarov (UNDP); Rustam Murodov, (UNDP); Dr. John Lamers, (UNESCO/ZEF); Shavkat Rakhmatullaev, (GTZ); Dr.Hafiz Muminjanov, Grain and Seed Testing Laboratory of Tajik Agrarian University, Tajikistan; Erkin Satenbaev, KazAgroInnovations JSC, Ministry of Agriculture, Kazakhstan; Dr.Nikolay Zverev, Head of Forest and Natural Rangelands Department, Turkmenistan; Dr. Zakir Khalikulov (PFU, ICARDA CAC); Dr. Stefanie Christmann (ICARDA CAC); Dr. Carli Carlo, (CIP); Dr.Muhabbat Turdieva, (Bioversity); Dr. Kristina Toderich, (ICBA); Dr.Ravza Mavlyanova (AVRDC) Cali: José Manuel Sandoval, Ministry of Environment, Colombia; Wilson Otero, FUNDESOT, Colombia; Jose Antonio Gomez, PNUD-GEF-Federacion Nacional de Cafeteros Colombia; Christopher Hansen, IICA, Colombia; Jorge Rubiano Professor, Universidad del Valle Colombia; Alex Bustillo, CENICANA (sugarcane research center –Colombia) Colombia; Inés Restrepo, CINARA, Colombia; Fernando Gast, CENICAFE, Colombia; Andrés Felipe Batancourth, Red Interinstitucional para el Oriente de Caldas, Colombia; Robert Hofstede, Ecuador; Juan Rodríguez (GTZ –GESOREN), Ecuador; Martha Liliana Cediel, Ministry of Environment - Ecosystems Division, Colombia; Jorge Uribe Calle, ANALAC, Colombia; Luis 207 Annex 5 – Workshop participants Alberto Duicela, COFENAC, Ecuador, Ruben Dario Estrada, Colombia; Rao Idupulapati, (TSBF CIAT); Steve Fonte (TSBF CIAT); Aracely Castro (TSBF CIAT); Jeimar Tapasco (CIAT) Bangkok: Tek Vannara, CEPA, Cambodia; Kao Sochivi, Fisheries Administration Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Cambodia; Kol Vathana, Cambodia National Mekong Committee, Cambodia; Andreas Wilkes, World Agroforestry Center, China; Oroth Sengtaheuanghoung, Soil Center, Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Lao PDR; Kim Geheb, Challenge Program on Water and Food, Lao PDR; John Dore, Mekong Region Water and Insfrastructure Unit, AusAid – Australian Government, Lao PDR; Kriengsak Srisuk, Groundwater Research Center, Groundwater Research Center, Thailand; Sacha Sethaputra, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand 208 Annex 6 - Complimentaries between CRP 1.5 and CRP 5 Annex 6 Complimentaries between CRP 1.5 and CRP 5 Points of intersection and difference between CRP5 and other CRPs. CRP5 has most in common with CRP1.1 Integrated agricultural production systems for dry areas and CRP 7 Climate Change. Simply put, CRP1.1 is about agricultural productions systems. In contrast, CRP5 is about sustaining the environment and natural resource base used across a range of dry, sub-humid and humid zones. CRP1.1 and CRP5 have worked together to develop the following list of points that emphasize these differences between them and their complementarity. The key points are: 1. CRP1.1 is focused at field and farm level/scale with an entry points predominantly through improving agricultural production systems. CRP5 is focused at landscape, watershed and basin scales with entry points predominantly through sustainable management of the natural resource base. 2. Rightly so, both CRPs are concerned with improving livelihoods and reducing poverty, sustaining the environment and increasing food production. CRP1.1 does this predominantly from the viewpoint of sustainably increasing production and profitability of crops, livestock, trees and fish, and managing risks as components of an integrated agro-ecosystem. CRP5 takes the view of protecting the environment to ensure that water and soil resources and their quality are sustainably managed to underpin both agriculture and ecosystem services and thus livelihoods. 3. CRP1.1 is concerned with crop/soil/water relations. CRP5 is concerned with how agricultural land use and land use change may impact run-off and drainage and thus, downstream water resources availability and quality. 4. CRP5 will take climate change predictions from CRP7 to determine changes in rainfall, run-off and overall hydrological responses at basin and watershed level and use this information to provide CRP1.1 with input data with respect to water availability and quality for various cropping systems. CRP 1.1 will focus on adaptation of natural resources and cropping systems to expected changes, and mitigation (e.g. conservation agriculture) when and where possible. 5. CRP5 will focus on aspects of supplementary and full irrigation as related to water resources (surface and groundwater) supply, conveyance and allocation from the point of view of governance, management and sustainable use. CRP1.1 will focus on field and farm irrigation management and techniques from a viewpoint of sustainable improvements in crop productivity. 6. CRP 1.1 will address issues of water harvesting at the micro-catchments level whereas CRP5 will address macro-catchments issues especially those of upstream- downstream relations. 7. CRP1.1 will look at crop nutrition at field and farm levels. CRP 5 will focus more on broader issues of soil fertility and soil management including fertilizer sources such as reuse of wastes and improving soil physical and chemical fertility and land cover to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation. 8. CRP1.1 will look at carbon in terms of on-farm fertility. CRP5 will bridge to CRP7 with respect to the issue of carbon storage at landscape level and its impacts on climate change mitigation. 209 Annex 6 - Complimentaries between CRP 1.5 and CRP 5 9. CRP1.1 will predominantly be focused on impact pathways that lead to the adoption of a better balanced mix of new technologies, varieties and field/farm management practices. CRP5 will predominantly focus on impact pathways that lead to policy and governance changes required for better management of natural resources. 10. CRP1.1 will look at issues of biodiversity as they relate to cropping systems. CRP5 will look at issues of how agricultural landscapes can be managed better to deliver critical environmental services including clean water suppliers. 11. CRP 1.1 will look at ecosystem services from the point view of food, feed, organic matter, fuel and other production services. CRP5 will focus on natural resources resilience, and regulations where CRP2 will address cultural issues. CRP5 further targets the spatial connectivity of ecosystems in accounting for the benefits of ecosystem services at different scales from farm to landscape to river basins. . In particular, the regulating ecosystem services targeted here are concerned with loss of water quality and pollination efficiency, and the increased vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests and natural hazards (floods, droughts). The supporting ecosystem services targeted are hydrological cycling, soil nutrient cycling and soil formation. There are, of course, some areas that remain grey in terms of which CRP provides the best fit. Management of both CRP1 and CRP5 undertake to ensure that these are discussed further as the work programs progress to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication and furthermore, that where the work is equally relevant to both CRPs results and outcomes and where possible activities will be shared. 210 Annex 7 - References Annex 7 References Part 1 Alliance of CGIAR Centers. 2008. Alliance of CGIAR Centers’ to Boost Crop Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/alliance_bestbets_july2008.pdf Chartres et al. 2010. Principles for Consortium Research Programs Governance and Management. Paper submitted to Consortium Board, June 2010. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 645p Douthwaite, B. 2002.. Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. Zed Books, London, England2003). Douthwaite, B., T. Kuby, E. van de Fliert, and Steffen Schulz. 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems." Agricultural Systems 78:243-265. Guijt, I. 2008. Seeking surprise : rethinking monitoring for collective learning in rural resource management. Doctoral Dissertation. SI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism IWMI, FAO, SEI, IFPRI. 2008. Agricultural Water Management Scoping Study. Powerpoint presentation prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Joshi, P.K. , A.K. Jha, S.P. Wani, Joshi Laxmi, and R.L. Shiyani. 2005 Meta-analysis to assess impact of watershed program and people's participation. In Sharma BR, Samra JS, Scott CA, Wani SP (eds) Watershed management challenges: improved productivity, resources and livelihoods. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report 8. Colombo: IWMI 18. McKinsey & Company. 2009. Charting Our Water Future. Unpublished report. Oldeman, L.R., R.T.A. Hakkeling, and Sombroek, W.G. 1991. World Map of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD). 3 map sheets and explanatory note. UNEP, Nairobi, and ISRIC, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Reij C, and E. Thiombiano. 2003 Développement rural et environnement au Burkina Faso: la rehabilitation de la capacité productive des terroirs sur la partie nord du Plateau Central entre 1980 et 2001. CIS, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin1,15, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell19, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461472a; Published online 23 September 2009. Sanchez, Pedro A. 2009. A smarter way to combat hunger, Nature 458, 148 (12 March 2009) doi:10.1038/458148a. Sanginga, N., K. Dashiell, J.A. Okogun, and G. Thottappilly. 1997 Nitrogen fixation and N contribution by promiscuous nodulating soybeans in the southern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Plant and Soil 195(2): 257- 266. Sayer, J. and B. Campbell. 2001. Research to integrate productivity enhancement, environmental protection, and human development. Conservation Ecology 5(2), 32. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art32. Shah, T. 2009 2009. Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia, Resources for the Future Press. Washington D.C. Smakhtin, V.U., Revenga, C., Döll, P. 2004. Taking into account environmental water requirements in global- scale water resources assessments. Research Report of the CGIAR Comprehensive Assessment Programme of Water Use in Agriculture. N 2, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Smith, D. 2008. The Penguin State of the World Atlas, Eight Edition. Penguin Books. UK. p.9. Tabo, R., A. Bationo, K. Diallo Maimouna, O. Hassane, and S. Koala. 2006 Fertilizer Micro-Dosing for the Prosperity of Small-Scale Farmers in the Sahel, Global Theme on Agroecosystems 23, ICRISAT. Vanlauwe, B., A. Bationo, J. Chianu, K.E. Giller, R. Merckx, U. Mokwunye, O. Ohiokpehai, P. Pypers, R. Tabo, K. Shepherd, E. Smaling, P.L. Woomer, and N. Sanginga. 2010. Integrated soil fertility management: 186 Annex 7 - References Operational definition and consequences for implementation and dissemination. Outlook on Agriculture, in press. Vlek, P.L.G., Q. B. Le and L. Tamene. 2010. Assessment of Land Degradation, Its Possible Causes and Threat to Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Rattan Lal and B.A. Stewart (eds.): Advances in Soil Science - Food Security and Soil Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 57-86. Oldeman, L.R., R.T.A. Hakkeling, and W.G. Sombroek, 1991. World Map of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD). 3 map sheets and explanatory note. UNEP, Nairobi, and ISRIC, Wageningen, The Netherlands. von Braun, J., S. Fan, R. Meinzen-Dick, M.W. Rosegrant, and Pratt A. Nin. 2008 What to Expect from Scaling Up CGIAR Investments and “” Programs. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/oc58.pdf Wagner, C.S. 2008. The New Invisible College, Brookings Press. Weiss, Carol Hirschon. 1995. "Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families." In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, ed. James Connell et al. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Part 2 SRP: Irrigation - Revitalizing irrigation in Asia and Africa Aw, D., and G. Diemer. 2005. Making a Large Irrigation System Work: A Case Study from Mali. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Barker, R., R. Meinzen-Dick, T Shah, T. P. Tuong, and G. Levine. 2010. Managing irrigation in an environment of land and water scarcity, IRRI Silver Jubilee Publication (forthcoming): IRRI. Bos, M.G., M. A. Burton, and D. Molden. 2005. Irrigation and drainage performance assessment: Practical guidelines. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Viii, 158p. Bos, M.G., D. H. Murray-Rust, D. J. Merrey, H. G. Johnson, and W. B. Snellen. 1994. Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage management. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 7 (4):231- 261. Brown, E.P., and R Nooter. 1992. Successful small-scale irrigation in the Sahel. In World Bank Technical Paper 171. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Carruthers, I., and R Stoner. 1981. Economic aspects and policy issues in groundwater development. In The World Bank Staff Working Paper 496. Washington, D.C. FAO. 2006. FAOSTAT database. Faures, J.M., M. Svendsen, Hugh Turral, J. Berkhoff, M. Bhattarai, A. M. Caliz, S. Darghouth, M. R. Doukkali, M. El-Kady, T. Facon, M. Gopalakrishnan, D. Groenfeldt, Chu Thai Hoanh, I. Hussain, J. Y. Jamin, F. Konradsen, A. Leon, R. Meinzen-Dick, K. Miller, M. Mirza, C. Ringler, L. Schipper, A. Senzanje, G. Tadesse, Rebecca Tharme, P. van Hofwegen, R. Wahaj, C. Varela-Ortega, R. Yoder, and G. Zhanyi. 2007. Reinventing irrigation. In Water for food, water for life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, edited by D. Molder. UK: Earthscan; Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Pp353-394. IWMI-IPTRID benchmarking system, http://oibsv2.iwmi.org Keller, A.A., and J. Keller. 1995. Effective efficiency: A water use efficiency concept for allocating freshwater resources. USCD Newsletter, 5-19. Kloezen, W.H., C. Garces-Restrepo, and S.H. Johnson III. 1997. Impact assessment of irrigation management transfer in the Alto Rio Lerma irrigation district, Mexico. Research Report No. 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Merrey, D.J., and H. Sally. 2008. Micro agricultural water management technologies for food security in Southern Africa: part of the solution or a read herring? . Water Policy 10:515-530. Mukherji, A., T. Facon, J. Burke, C. de Fraiture, J.-M. Faurès, B. Füleki, M. Giordano, D. Molden, and T. Shah. 2010. Revitalizing Asia’s irrigation: to sustainably meet tomorrow’s food needs. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute; Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Oorthuizen, J. 2003. Water, Works and Wages: The Everyday Politics of Irrigation Management Reform in the Philippines. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Perry, C.J. 2001. Charging for irrigation water: the issues and options, with a case study from Iran. Research Report No. 52, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 187 Annex 7 - References Ramirez, A., and R. Vargas. 1999. Irrigation transfer policy in Colombia: Some lessons from main outcomes and experiences. Paper presented at the International Conference on Irrigation Management Reforms, Hyderabad, India, December 11-14. Rap, E., P. Wester, and L. Nereida-Perez-Prado. 1999. The articulation of irrigation reforms and the reconstitution of hydraulic bureaucracy in Mexico. Paper presented at the International Conference on Irrigation Management Reforms, Hyderabad, India, December 11-14. Raschid-Sally, L. 2010. The role and place of global surveys for assessing wastewater irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Special Issue on Wastewater reuse 24 (1-2):5-21. Sakthivadivel, R., C. de fraiture, D. J. Molden, C. Perry, and W. Kloezen. 1999. Indicators of land and water productivity in irrigated agriculture. Water Resources Development 15 (1/2):161-179. Shah, T. 2009. Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future Press. Shah, T., B.V. Koppen, D. Merrey, M. D. Lange, and M. Samad. 2002. Institutional alternatives in African smallholder irrigation: Lessons from international experience with irrigation management transfer. Research Report No. 60, Colombo,Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Shah, T., and O.P. Singh. 2004. Irrigation Development and Rural Poverty in Gujarat, India: A Disaggregated Analysis. Water International 29 (2):167-177. Svendsen, M., and G Nott. 1997. Irrigation Management Transfer in Turkey: Process and Outcomes. In Participatory Irrigation Management: Benefits and Second Generation Problems. Cali, Colombia. Vermillion, D. 1996. The Privatization and Self-Management of Irrigation: Final Report. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute. Wang, J., J. Huang, L. Zhang, Q. Huang, and S. Rozelle. 2010. Governance and Water Use Efficiency: The Five Principles of WUA Management and Performance in China. American Water Resources Association 46 (4):665-685. SRP: Unlocking the potential of rainfed agriculture through irrigated land and water management within social- ecological landscapes Ayarza, M.A. and L.A. Wélchez. 2004. Drivers effecting the development and sustainability of the Quesungual Slash and Mulch Agroforestry System (QSMAS) on hillsides of Honduras. In International Water Management Institute, Comprehensive Assessment “Bright Spots” Project, Final Report, 187-201. Ben Mechlia, N. Oweis, T., Masmoudi, M., Khattali, H., Ouassar, M., Bruggeman, A., Sghaier, M., Anane, A. and N. Sghaier. 2009. Assessment of Supplemental Irrigation and Water Harvesting Potentials: Methodologies and case studies from Tunisia Comprehensive Assessment for water Management & ICARDA publication. Bossio D., Noble, A. Aloysius N., Pretty, J., Penning de Vries, F. 2008. Ecosystem benefits of ‘Bright Spots’. In: Bossio, D. A. and Geheb, K. (eds) Conserving Land, Protecting Water. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, Oxford, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 205-224. Bossio, D., Critchley, W., Geheb, K., van Lynden, G. and Mati, B., 2007, Conserving land - protecting water. In Molden, D. (Ed.) Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London and International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp. 551-583. Bossio, D., Geheb, K., and Critchley, W. 2010. Managing water by managing land: addressing land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods. Agricultural Water Management, 97:536-542. Bossio, D.A., M.S. Girvan, L. Verchot, J. Bullimore, T. Borelli, A. Albrecht, K.M. Scow, A.S. Ball, J.N. Pretty, and M.A. Osborn. 2005. Soil Microbial Community Response to Land Use Change in an Agricultural Landscape of Western Kenya. Microbial Ecology, 49:50-62. Breman, H. 1998. Soil fertility improvement in Africa: a tool for or a by-product of sustainable production? African Fertilizer Market 11 (5): 2-10 Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoon, F. (eds.). 1997. Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No 51. Madison, USA. pp 251. Castro, A., Rivera, M., Ferreira, O., Pavón, J., García, E., Amézquita, E., Ayarza, M., Barrios, E., Rondón, M., Pauli, N., Baltodano, M.E., Mendoza, B., Wélchez, L.A., Cook, S., Rubiano, J., Johnson N. and I. Rao. 2009. Quesungual slash and mulch agroforestry system improves crop water productivity in hillside agroecosystems of the sub-humid tropics. In: Increasing the productivity & sustainability of rainfed cropping systems of poor smallholder farmers. Proceedings of the CGIAR challenge program on water and food international workshop on rainfed cropping systems. E. Humphreys & R. S. Bayot (eds). A publication of CGIAR Challenge Program on Water & Food, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, pp. 89-97. CIAT. 2009. Quesungual slash and mulch agroforestry system (QSMAS): Improving crop water productivity, food security and resource quality in the sub-humid tropics. CPWF Project Report. Cali, Colombia. 64 p. 188 Annex 7 - References Derpsch, R. 2008. No-tillage and Conservation Agriculture: A progress report. In: Goddard, T., Zoebisch, M.A., Gan, Y.T., Ellis, W., Watson, A. and Sombatpanit, S. (eds). No-Till Farming Systems. World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, Bangkok. pp 7-39. Drechsel, P., A. Olaleye, A. Adeoti, L. Thiombiano, B. Barry and K. Vohland. 2005. Adoption driver and constraints of resource conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. 21pp. http://westafrica.iwmi.org/Data/Sites/17/Documents/PDFs/AdoptionConstraints-Overview.pdf Drechsel, P., M. Giordano, and T. Enters. 2005b. Valuing Soil Fertility Change: Selected Methods and Case Studies. In: B. Shiferaw, H.A. Freeman and S.M. Swinton (eds.) Natural Resources Management in Agriculture: Methods for Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts. ICRISAT-CABI Publishing, Wallingford, p. 199-221. Enfors, E.I., Gordon, L.J., Peterson, G.D., and Bossio, D. 2008. Making investments in dryland development work: Participatory scenario planning to increase the robustness of investments made in small-scale farming in the Makanya catchment, Tanzania. Ecology and Society. Enfors, E.I., Gordon, L.J., Dealing with drought: The challenge of using water system technologies to break dryland poverty traps. Global Environmental Change (2008). Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. 2009. Conservation Agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114:23-34 Haggblade S. and Tembo G. 2003. Conservation farming in Zambia. Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2003, No.108, pp.128 Herrero, M., P. K. Thornton, A. M. Notenbaert, S. Wood, S. Msangi, H. A. Freeman, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, M. Peters, J. van de Steeg, J. Lynam, P. Parthasarathy Rao, S. Macmillan, B. Gerard, J. McDermott, C. Seré and M. Rosegrant 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting the focus. Science Policy Forum. International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, Global Report (Island, Washington, DC, 2009). Liniger, H.P., R. Mekdaschi Studer, C. Hauert and M. Gurtner. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Molden, D. (2007). ‘Water for Food, Water for Life: a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.’ (Earthscan: London.) Napier,T.L., Napier ,A.S., Tucker, M.A. 1991. The social, economic and institutional factors affecting adoption of soil conservation practices: the Asian experience. Soil Tillage Research 20:365-382 Noble, A., Bossio, D., Pretty, J., Penning de Vries, F. 2008. ‘Bright spots’: Pathways to ensuring food security and environmental integrity. In: Bossio, D. A. and Geheb, K. (eds) Conserving Land, Protecting Water. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, Oxford, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 191 - 204. Oweis, T. and A. Hachum 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Management 80 (2006) 57–73 Penning de Vries, F.W. and M.A. Djiteye. 1982. La productivité des paturages sahéliens: une étude des sols, des végétations et de l’exploitation de cette resource naturelle. Agricultural Research Report 918, 525 pp. Rego TJ, Sahrawat KL, Wani SP and Pardhasaradhi G. 2007. Widespread Deficiencies of Sulfur, Boron and Zinc in Indian Semi-Arid Tropical Soils: On-Farm Crop Responses. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 30: 1569-1583. Reij C & Thiombiano T 2003. Développement rural et environnent au Burkina Faso: la réhabilitation de la capacité productive des terroirs sur la partie nord du Plateau Central entre 1980 et 2001. Free University of Amsterdam, GTZ and USAID, Amsterdam 80 p. Sahrawat KL, Wani SP, Pardhasaradhi GP, and Murthy KVS. 2010. Diagnosis of secondary and micronutrient deficiencies and their management in rainfed ecosystems: Case study from Indian semi-arid tropics. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Vol41: 346-360. Sanders D.W., P.C Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T. Enters. 1999. Incentives in soil conservation. From Theory to practice. Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Dehli Sanginga, N. and Woomer, P.L. (eds.). 2009. Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa: Principles, Practices and Developmental Process. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. 263 pp. Sanginga, N., Dashiell, K., Okogun, J.A., Thottappilly, G., 1997. Nitrogen fixation and N contribution in promiscuous soybeans in the southern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Plant Soil 195, 257-266. 189 Annex 7 - References Sreedevi TK and Wani SP. 2009. Integrated farm management practices and up-scaling the impact for increased productivity of rainfed systems. In: Rain-fed agriculture: Unlocking the Potential. Wani SP, Rockström J and Oweis T (eds) Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series, CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 222-257. Sreedevi TK, Wani SP, Sudi R, Patel M S, Jayesh T, Singh S N and Tushah Shah. 2006. On-site and Off-site Impact of Watershed Development: A Case Study of Rajasamadhiyala, Gujarat, India. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 20. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 48 pp. Tabo R, Bationo A, Gerard B, Ndjeunga J, Marchal D, Amadou B, Annou MG, Sogodogo D, Taonda J-B Sibiry, Hassane O, Diallo MK and Koala S 2006. Improving cereal productivity and farmers’ income using a strategic application of fertilizers in West Africa. In: Bationo A, Waswa BS, Kihara J and Kimetu J (eds) Advances in integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer NL pg 192-199 Wani SP, Sahrawat KL, Sreedevi TK, Singh P, Pathak P and Kesava Rao AVR. 2008. Efficient Rainwater Management for Enhanced Productivity in Arid and Semi-Arid Drylands. Journal of Water Management. Vol. 15 (2) 2007 pp.126-140. Wani SP, Singh HP, Sreedevi TK, Pathak P, Rego TJ, Shiferaw B, Shailaja Rama Iyer. 2003. Farmer-Participatory Integrated Watershed Management: Adarsha watershed, Kothapally India, An Innovative and Upscalable Approach. A Case Study. In Research towards Integrated Natural Resources Management: Examples of research problems, approaches and partnerships in action in the CGIAR. (eds. R.R. Harwood and A.H. Kassam) Interim Science Council, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Washington, DC, USA: pp. 123-147. Wani SP, Sreedevi TK, Yin Dixin, Thawilkal Wangkahart and Thang NV. 2009. Conservation of Natural Resources and their Efficient Use for Sustainable Development in Asia. 2009. Rainfed Agriculture in India: Perspectives and Challenges (Editors: Surjit Singh and MS Rathore), Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur. 121-145 pp. Woomer, P.L., Bokanga, M. and Odhiambo, G.D. 2008. Striga Management and the African Farmer. Outlook on Agriculture 37:277-282 Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper, No. 42. Jakarta: CIFOR. SRP: Pastoral systems Angassa, A. and G. Oba, 2008. Herder perceptions on impacts of Range enclosures, crop farming, fire ban and bush encroachment on the rangelands of Borana, Southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 36: 201-215. Baker, L. and M.T. Hoffman. 2006. Managing Variability: Herding Strategies in Communal Rangelands of Semiarid Namaqualand, South Africa. Human Ecology 34: 765–784 Behnke, R., I. Scoones, and C. Kerven. 1993. Range ecology at disequilibrium. New models of natural variability and pastoral adaptation in African savannas. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). London, GB. 1993. 248 p. Birch, I. and R. Grahn. 2007. Pastoralism – Managing Multiple Stressors and the Threat of Climate Variability and Change. Human Development Report 2007/2008. UNDP. Butt, B., A. Shortridge, and A. Winklerprins. 2009. Pastoral Herd Management, Drought Coping Strategies, and Cattle Mobility in Southern Kenya. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99: Campbell, B., I. J. Gordon, M.K. Luckert, L. Petheram, and S. Vetter 2006. In search of optimal stocking regimes in semi-arid grazing lands: One size does not fit all. Ecological Economics 60: 74– 85 Cioffi-Revilla, C., J.D. Rogers, and M. Latek, 2009. The MASON Households World Model of Pastoral Nomad Societies. The Science of Social Simulation. Desta, S. and D.L. Coppock. 2004. Pastoralism under Pressure: Tracking System Change in Southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology 32(4): 465-4 Davies, J. 2008. Turning the tide: enabling sustainable development for Africa’s mobile pastoralists. Natural Resources Forum 32: 175-184 Devereux and I. Scoones. 2006. The crisis of pastoralism? A response from Stephen Devereux and Ian Scoones, IDS, Sussex. Future Agricultures Website. Haro, G.O., G.J. Doyo, and J.G. McPeak. 2003. Linkages between Community, Environmental and Conflict Management: Experiences from Northern Kenya. Unpublished Conference Paper. Hobbs, N.K.A. Thompson, Galvin, C.J. Stokes, J.M. Lackett, A.J. Ash, R.B. Boone, R.S. Reid, and P.K. Thornton. 2008. Fragmentation of rangelands: Implications for humans, animals, and landscapes. Global Environmental Change 18: 776-785. 190 Annex 7 - References Lamprey, R. H., and R. S. Reid. 2004. Expansion of human settlement in Kenya’s Maasai Mara: What future for pastoralism and wildlife? Journal of Biogeography 31(6): 997–1032. Little, P., J. McPeak, C. Barrett, and P. Kristjanson, 2008. Challenging Orthodoxies: Understanding Poverty in Pastoral Areas of East Africa. Development and Change 39: 587-611. Mortimore, M., 2009. Dryland Opportunities: a new paradigm for people, ecosystems, and development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; IIED, London, UK; and UNDP, New York, USA. Niamir-Fuller, M. 1998. The resilience of pastoral herding in Sahelian Africa. In: Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (Eds), Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Cambridge University Press. Oba, G. and L.M. Kaitira 2004. Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid rangelands in northern Tanzania. Journal of Arid Environments 66 (2006) 168–186. Rass, N. 2006. Policies and Strategies to address the vulnerability of pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pro- Poor Livestock Policy Initiative FAO. Reid, R.S., R.L. Kruska, N. Muthui, A. Taye, S. Wotton, C.J. Wilson, and W. Mulatu. 2000. Land use and land cover-dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political forces: the case of Southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology 15, 339–355. Reid, R. S., D. Nkedianye, M. Y. Said, D. Kaelo, M. Neselle, O. Makui, L. Onetu, S. Kiruswa,N. Ole Kamuaro, P. Kristjanson, J. Ogutu, S. B. BurnSilver, M. J. Goldman, R. B. Boone, K. A. Galvin, N. M. Dickson, and W. C. Clark. 2009. Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: Balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. PNAS. Sanford, S. and I. Scoones. 2006. Opportunistic and conservative pastoral strategies: Some economic arguments. Ecological Economics 58: 1-16. Serneels, S., M. Y. Said, and E. F. Lambin. 2001. Land cover changes around amajor eastAfrican wildlife reserve: The Mara ecosystem (Kenya). International Journal of Remote Sensing 22 (17): 3397–420. Turner, M.D and T.O Williams. 2002. Livestock market dynamics and local vulnerabilities in the Sahel. World Development. 30 (4) 683- 705 WISP. 2008. Policies that work for pastoral environments: A six-country review of positive policy impacts on pastoral environments. IUCN, Nairobi. SRP: Groundwater - Groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods security Abderrahman, W.A. 2003. Should intensive use of non-renewable groundwater resources always be rejected? In Intensive use of groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by R. Llamas and E. Custodio. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V. pp. 192-206 Calow, R., and A. MacDonald. 2009. What will climate change mean for groundwater supply in Africa? Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Background Note, March 2009. Carter, R.C., and P. Howsam. 1994 Sustainable use of groundwater for smallscale irrigation : With special reference to Sub-Saharan Africa. Land Use Policy 11 (4):275-285. COMMAN. 2005. Managing groundwater resources in rural life: the community and beyond. In British Geological Survey Report CR/05/35N. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. 645p Dains, S.R., and J.R. Pawar. 1987. Economic returns to irrigation in India. New Delhi. Report prepared by SDR Research Groups Inc., for the US Agency for International Development, New Delhi. Deb Roy, A., and T. Shah, eds. 2003. Socio-ecology of Groundwater Irrigation in India. Edited by R. Llamas and E. Custodio, Groundwater Intensive Use: Challenges and Opportunities. The Netherlands: Swets and Zetlinger Publishing Co. Dillon, P.J. 2005. Future management of aquifer recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 13 (1):313-316. Dubash, N. 2007. The Electricity-Groundwater Conundrum: Case for a Political Solution to a Political Problem. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (52):45-55. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2008. Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems: Evaluation Report.: FAO, Rome. Garduño, H., S. Foster, P. Raj, and F. van Steenbergen. 2009. Addressing Groundwater Depletion Through Community-based Management Actions in the Weathered Granitic Basement Aquifer of Drought-prone Andhra Pradesh - India Sustainable Groundwater Management: Concepts and Tools. In Case Profile Collection Number 19. Washington: World Bank. Giordano, M. 2006. Agricultural groundwater use and rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: A first-cut assessment. Hydrogeology Journal 14 (3):310-318. 191 Annex 7 - References Giordano, M. 2009. Global groundwater? Issues and solutions. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 34 (7.1):7.24. Giordano, Mark, and Karen Villholth (eds). 2007. The agricultural groundwater revolution: opportunities and threats to development. Wallingford, UK: CABI. (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 3). Gleick, P. H. 1996. Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, edited by S. H. Schneider. Oxford University Press, New York, Vol. 2, pp 817-823 IAH (International Association of Hydrogeologists). 2004. World Groundwater Vision: Preparatory Roundtable for 4th World Water Forum. Hotel Quinta, Zacatecas, Mexico, Executive Summary Report, 6 Dec. 2004. Janakarajan, S., and M. Moench. 2006. Are wells a potential threat to farmers well-being? Case of deteriorating groundwater irrigation in Tamil Nadu. Economic and Political Weekly 41 (37):3977-3987. Johnston, R.M., C. T. Hoanh, G. Lacombe, A. Noble, V. Smakhtin, D. Suhardiman, S.P. Kam, and P.S. Choo. 2010. Rethinking agriculture in the Greater Mekong Subregion: how to sustainably meet food needs, enhance ecosystem services and cope with climate change. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 24p. Kinzelbach, W., P. Bauer, T. Siegfried, and P. Brunner. 2003. Sustainable groundwater management - problems and scientific tools. Episodes 26 (4):279- 284. Llamas, M.R., and M. Santos. 2006. Significance of the Silent Revolution of intensive groundwater use in world water policy In Water Crisis: Myth or Reality, edited by P. Rogers, M. R. Llamas and L. Martínez-Cortina: Taylor and Francis Publishers. Llamas, R., and E. Custodio (eds). 2003. Intensive Use of Groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., 478 p. Moench, M. 2003. Groundwater and poverty: exploring the connections. In Intensive Use of Groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by L. R. and E. Custodio. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V. Moench, M. 2007. When the wells run dry but livelihood continues: Adaptive responses to groundwater depletion and strategies for mitigating the associated impacts. In The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development edited by M. Giordano and K. G. Villholth: CAB International, pp. 173-194. Moench, M., and J. Burke. 2002. Groundwater and Society. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization. Mukherji, A. 2004. Groundwater market in Ganga-Meghna-Brahmaputra basin: a review of theory and evidence. Economic and Political Weekly 30 (31):3514-3520. ———. 2007. The energy-irrigation nexus and its impact on groundwater markets in eastern Indo-Gangetic basin: Evidence from West Bengal, India. Energy Policy 35 (12):6413-6430. Mukherji, A., B. Das, N. Majumdar, N.C. Nayak, R.R. Sethi, and B.R. Sharma. 2009. Metering of agricultural power supply in West Bengal, India: Who gains and who loses? Energy Policy 37 (12):5530-5539. Mukherji, A., K. G. Villholth, B. R. Sharma, and J. Wang (eds). 2009. Groundwater governance in the Indo- Gangetic and Yellow River basins: Realities and Challenges: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. Ngigi, S.N. 2009. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: Water Resources Management Options for Smallholder Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. The MDG Centre for East and Southern Africa, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York. 189p. Postel, S., P. Polak, F. Gonzales, and J. Keller. 2001. Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers : A New Initiative to Alleviate Hunger and Poverty. Water International 26 (1):3-13. Prakash, A. 2006. The dark zone: groundwater irrigation, politics and social power in North Gujarat. New Delhi: Orient Longman Private Ltd. Rama Mohan, R. V. 2009. Social regulation of groundwater and its relevance to existing regulatory framework in Andhra Pradesh, India,. In Groundwater governance in the Indo-Gangetic and Yellow River basins: Realities and Challenges, edited by A. Mukherji, K. G. Villholth, B. R. Sharma and J. Wang: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, pp 231-246. Regassa, N. 2010. Autonomous smallholder shallow groundwater irrigation development in Upper East region of Ghana. In Draft IWMI Research Report. Colombo. Repetto, R. 1994. The ‘second India’ Revisited: Population, Poverty, and Environmental Stress over Two Decades. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Sakthivadivel, R. 2007. The Groundwater Recharge Movement in India In The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development edited by M. Giordano and K. G. Villholth: CAB International, pp. 195-210. 192 Annex 7 - References Shah, T. 1993. Water Markets an Irrigation Development: Political Economy and Practical Policy. Bombay: Oxford University Press. ———. 2008. India’s master plan for groundwater recharge: an assessment and some suggestions for revision. Economic & Political Weekly 43:41-49. ———. 2009a. Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia, Resources for the Future Press. Washington D.C. ———. 2009b. Climate change and groundwater: India’s opportunities for mitigation and adaptation. In Environmental Resources Letters. 4(2009) 035005 (13pp). Shah, T., and S. Verma. 2008. Co-management of electricity and groundwater: An assessment of Gujarat’s Jyotirgram Scheme. Economic and Political Weekly 43 (7):59-66. Sharma, B.R., and G.K. Ambili. 2009. The Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act: A regulatory mechanism for saving water. In Draft IWMI paper. Siebert, S., J. Burke, J. M. Faures, K. Frenken, J. Hoogeveen, P. Döll, and F. T. Portmann. 2010. Groundwater use for irrigation – a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss 7 (3977-4021). Van Steenbergen, F., and A. Tuinhof. 2010. Managing the water buffer for development and climate change adaptation: Groundwater recharge, retention, reuse and rainwater storage. Wageningen/Gouda: MetaMeta and Acacia Water, Third Edition. World Bank. 2006. Reengaging in agricultural water management: Challenges and options, Directions in Development Series. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 2010. Deep wells and prudence: towards pragmatic action for addressing groundwater overexploitation in India. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Zekri, S. 2009. Controlling groundwater pumping online. Environmental Management 90 (11):3581-3588. Zhang, L., J. Wang, J. Huang, S. Rozelle, and Q. Huang, eds. 2009. Groundwater markets in the north China plain: Impact on irrigation water use, crop yields and farmer income. Edited by A. Mukherji, K. G. Villholth, B. R. Sharma and J. Wang, Groundwater governance in the Indo-Gangetic and Yellow River basins: Realities and Challenges.: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 293-308. Zhang, X., D. Pei, and C. Hu. 2003. Conserving groundwater for irrigation in the North China Plain. Irrigation Science 21 (4):159-166. SRP: Resource Recovery -Resource recovery from solid and liquid waste streams for enhanced food security Adamtey, N., O. Cofie, G.K. Ofosu-Budu , and D. Foster. 2008. Turning waste into fertilizer. Sandec News. 9:16. Amoah, P., P. Drechsel, R.C. Abaidoo and M. Henseler. 2007. Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana: Microbiological contamination in farms and markets and associated consumer risk groups. Journal of Water and Health 5(3): 455–466. Belevi, H. 2002. Material flow analysis as a strategic planning tool for regional wastewater and solid waste management. Paper read at Globale Zukunft: Kreislaufwirtschafts-konzepte im kommunalen Abwasser- und Fäkalienmanagement, at Munich, Munich, 13-15 May. Buechler, S.J. 2004. A sustainable livelihoods approach for action research on wastewater use in agriculture. In Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: Confronting the livewlihood and environmental realities edited by C. A. Scott, N. I. Faruqui and L. Raschid-Sally. Wallingford, UK ; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Ottawa, Canada: CABI Publishing; IWMI; IDRC. Carruthers, I., and R Stoner. 1981. Economic aspects and policy issues in groundwater development. In The World Bank Staff Working Paper 496. Washington, D.C., pp.25-40. CIP. 2007. Impacts of urban agriculture. Highlights of Urban Harvest reserachh and development, 2003-2007. Lima, pp.27-29. Cofie, O., G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, and P. Drechsel. 2005. The use of human waste for peri-agriculture in northern Ghana. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20 (2):73-80. Cofie, O., A. Olugbenga, and P. Amoah. 2010. Introducing Urine as an Alternative Fertiliser Source for Urban Agriculture: Case studies from Nigeria and Ghana. UA Magazine no 23: 49-50. Cofie, O.O., P. Drechsel, S. Agbottah, and R. van Veenhuizen. 2009. Resource recovery from urban waste: options and challenges for community based composting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Desalination 248:256-261. Cofie, O.O., and A. Murray. 2010. A Compilation of Reuse Cases. Report to the BMGF, v. 3. June 2010. IWMI Colombo. SANDEC-Waste Concern. 2006. Decentralized composting for cities of low- and middle income countries. A users’ manual, Waste Concern, Dhaka. Duebendorf: EAWAG. Corcoran, E., C. Nellemann, E. Baker, R. Bos, D. Osborn, and H. Savelli, eds. 2010. Sick Water? The central role of wastewater management in sustainable development. A Rapid Response Assessment. : United Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-Arendal. www.grida.no. 193 Annex 7 - References Danso, G., P. Drechsel, S. Fialor, and M. Giordano. 2006. Estimating the demand for municipal waste compost via farmers’ willingness-to-pay in Ghana. Waste Management 26 1400–1409. Drechsel, P., S. Graefe, and M. Fink. 2007. Rural-urban food, nutrient and virtual water flows in selected West African cities. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 35p (IWMI Research Report 115). Drechsel, P., and D. Kunze, eds. 2001. Waste Composting for Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture: Closing the Rural-Urban Nutrient Cycle in Sub-Saharan Africa: International Water Management Institute, Food and Agriculture Organisation and CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Drechsel, P., C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood, and A. Bahri, eds. 2010. Wastewater irrigation and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. : Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK. 404p. Ensink, J., W. van der Hoek, Y. Matsuno, S. Munir, and M. R. Aslam. 2002. Use of untreated wastewater in peri- urban agriculture in Pakistan: risks and opportunities. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI Research Report 064). Erni, M., P. Drechsel, H-P. Bader, R. Scheidegger, C. Zurbeuegg, and R. Kipfer. 2010. Bad for the environment, good for the farmer? Urban sanitation and nutrient flows. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Special Issue on Wastewater Reuse 24 (1-2):113-125. Esrey, S.A., Andersson I., Hillers A., and Sawyer R. 2001. Closing The Loop: Ecological Sanitation for Food Security: UNDP, SIDA. 96p. Evans, A., and P. Drechsel. 2010. Landscape analysis of reuse of waste products. In Report to the BMGF, v. 20.06.2010. Colombo: IWMI. 46p. Evans, A.E.V., L. Raschid-Sally, and O. Cofie. 2010. Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Managing Wastewater Use in Agriculture. In Wastewater Irrigation and Health: Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low Income Countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri. London: Eartchscan. Pp.355- 377. Huibers, F., M. Redwood, and L. Raschid-Sally. 2010. Challenging Conventional Approaches to Managing Wastewater Use in Agriculture. In Wastewater Irrigation and Health: Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low Income Countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri. London: Earthscan. pp.287-301. Hussain, I., L. Raschid, M.A. Hanjra, F. Marikar, and W. van der Hoek. 2002. Wastewater use in agriculture: review of impacts and methodological issues in valuing impacts. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. (IWMI Working Paper 37) IWMI. 2009. Wastewater Irrigation and Public Health: From Research to Impact-A Road Map for Ghana. A report prepared for Google.org Accra, Ghana: IWMI. Jiménez, B., and T. Asano. 2008. Water reclamation and reuse around the world. In Water Reuse: An International Survey of Current Practice, Issues and Needs, edited by B. Jimenez and T. Asano. London, UK: IWA Publishing. pp. 3-26. Jiménez, B., P. Drechsel, D. Koné, A. Bahri, L. Raschid-Sally, and M. Qadir. 2010. Wastewater, sludge and excreta use in developing countries: An overview. In Wastewater Irrigation and Health: Assessing and Mitigating Risks in Low-income Countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri: Earthscan-International Development Research Centre (IDRC)-International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Karg, H., P. Drechsel, P. Amoah, and R. Jeitler. 2010. Facilitating the adoption of food safety interventions in the street food sector and on farm. In Wastewater irrigation and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri. UK: Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. Pp. 319-335. Keraita, B., F. Konradsen, and P. Drechsel. 2010. Farm-based measures for reducing microbiological health risks for consumers from informal wastewater-irrigated agriculture. Edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri, Wastewater irrigation and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. UK: Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. Pp. 189-207. Koné, D. 2010. Making urban Excreta and wastewater management contributes to cities’ economic development. A paradigm shift. Water Policy 12: 602-610. LeBlanc, R.J., P. Matthews, and R.P. Richard. 2009. Global Atlas of Excreta, Wastewater, Sludge, and Biosolids Management. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. Van Lier, J.B. and F.P. Huibers. 2010. From planned to unplanned agricultural use: making an asset out of wastewater. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Special Issue on Wastewater reuse 24 (24 (1-2)):143-152. Murray, A., and C. Buckley. 2010. Designing Reuse-Oriented Sanitation Infrastructure: the Design for Service Planning Approach. In Wastewater Irrigation and Health: Assessing and Mitigation Risks in Low-Income 194 Annex 7 - References Countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri. UK: Earthscan- IDRC-IWMI. pp. 303-318. Murray, A., and P. Drechsel. 2010. Positive deviance in the sanitation sector in Ghana: Why do some wastewater treatment facilities work when the majority fail? : Waterlines (in press) Nguyen-Viet, H., R. Schertenleib, C. Zurbruegg, J. Zinsstag, and M. Tanner. 2009. Integrated framework for health and environmental sanitation assessment. In Research partnerships for sustainable development in Southeast Asia. Highlights of the NCCR North-South Program, 2005-2009. P.8. Nyenje, P.M., J.D. Foppena, S. Uhlenbrooka, C.R. Kulabakob, and A. Muwanga. 2010. Eutrophication and nutrient release in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa — A review Science of The Total Environment 408 (3):447-455. Obuobie, E., B. Keraita, G. Danso, P. Amoah, O.O. Cofie, L. Raschid-Sally, and P. Drechsel. 2006. Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana: Characteristics, benefits and risks. Accra, Ghana: IWMI-RUAF-IDRC-CPWF. IWMI, 150 pp. www.cityfarmer.org/GhanaIrrigateVegis.html. Otterpohl, R., M. Grottker, and J. Lange. 1997. Sustainable Water and Waste Management in Urban Areas (Part 1). Water Science and Technology 35 (9):121-133. Qadir, M., and P. Drechsel. 2010. Managing salts while irrigating with wastewater. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 5 (016):1-14. Qadir, M., D. Wichelns, L. Raschid-Sally, P.S. Minhas, P. Drechsel, A. Bahri, and P. McCornick. 2007. Agricultural use of marginal-quality water — opportunities and challenges. In Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, edited by D. Molden. London, UK: Earthscan. Raschid-Sally, L. 2010. The role and place of global surveys for assessing wastewater irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Special Issue on Wastewater reuse 24 (1-2):5-21. Raschid-Sally, L., and P. Jayakody. 2008. Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in developing countries: Results from a global assessment. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 35pp (IWMI Research Report. 127). Rooijen, D. Van, I. Smout, T.W. Biggs, and P. Drechsel. 2010. Urban growth, wastewater production and use: a comparative study on Accra, Addis Ababa and Hyderabad. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Special Issue on Wastewater reuse 24 (1-2):53-64. Rosemarin, A., G. de Bruijne, and I. Caldwell. 2009. The next inconvenient truth: Peak Phosphorus. The Broker 15:6-9. Rosemarin, A., N. Ekane, I. Caldwell, E. Kvarnstroem, J. McConville, C. Ruben, and M. Fodge. 2008. Pathways for sustainable sanitation. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. London: SEI-IWA. Rouse, J., S. Rothenberger, and C. Zurbruegg. 2008. Marketing Compost. A guide for compost producers in low- and middle-income countries. Duebendorf.: EAWAG/SANDEC. Scott, C., P. Drechsel, L. Raschid-Sally, A. Bahri, D. Mara, M. Redwood, and B. Jiménez. 2010. Wastewater irrigation and health: challenges and outlook for mitigating risks in low-income countries. Edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri, Wastewater irrigation and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. UK: Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. pp. 381-394. Scott, C.A., N.I. Faruqui, and L Raschid- Sally, eds. 2004. Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities Publishing. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI. Scott, C.A., J. A. Zaraza, and G. Levine. 2000. Urban wastewater reuse for crop production in the water-short Guanajuato River Basin, Mexico. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. (IWMI Research Report 41) Seidu, A.R., P. Drechsel, P. Amoah, O. Löfman, A. Heistad, M. Fodge, P. Jenssen, and T.A. Stenström. 2008b. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment of Wastewater and Faecal Sludge Reuse in Ghana. Paper read at 33rd WEDC International Conference, at Accra, Ghana. Preprint of Proceedings p. 90-97. Seidu, R., and P. Drechsel. 2010. Cost effectiveness analysis of interventions for diarrhoea disease reduction among consumers of wastewater-irrigated lettuce in Ghana. In Wastewater irrigation and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries, edited by P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri. UK: Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. pp.261-283. Seidu, R., A. Heistad, P. Amoah, P. Drechsel, P.D. Jenssen, and T.-A. Strenstrom. 2008a. Quantification of the health risk associated with wastewater reuse in Accra, Ghana: a contribution toward local guidelines. Water and Health 6 (4):461-471. UN/WWAP. 2003. 1st UN World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life. Paris, New York and Oxford. UNESCO and Berghahn Books. 195 Annex 7 - References UNDP. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. In UNDP Publication Series for Habitat II. New York UNDP. UN-HABITAT. 2003. The Challenge of Slums — Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. Nairobi. UN-HABITAT. 2009. Planning Sustainable Cities - Global Report on Human Settlements 2009. Nairobi. UN-Water. 2010. Global annual assessment of sanitation and drinking water (GLAAS). Geneva. USAID. 2010. A rapid assessment of septage management in Asia. USAID/RMDA, EAWAG, WaterLinks, Bangkok. Varis, O. 2006. Megacities, development, and water. Water Resources Development 22 (2):199-225. Weldesilassie, A.B., E. Boelee, P. Drechsel, and S. Dabbert. 2010. Wastewater Use in Crop Production in Peri- urban Areas of Addis Ababa: Impacts on health in farm households: Environment and Development Economics (in press). WHO. 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. Geneva: WHO, FAO, UNEP. ———. 2008. Safer water, better health. Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: WHO. SRP: Basins - Improved management of water and land resources in major agricultural river basins Amarasinghe, U., Shah, T. and Singh O.P. (2008) Changing Consumption Patterns: Implications on Food and Water Demand in India. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 119, Colombo, Sri Lanka Amarasinghe, U., Sharma,B.R,. Aloysius,N., Scott,C., Smakhtin,V.U And De Fraiture, C. (2004) Spatial Variation In Water Supply And Demand Across The River Basins Of India. IWMI Research Report N 83, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Biggs, T.W., Gaur, A. Scott, C.A., Thenkabail, P. Rao,P.G., Gumma, M.K., Acharya, S. and Turral, H. (2007) Closing of the Krishna Basin: Irrigation, Streamflow Depletion and Macroscale Hydrology. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 111, Colombo, Sri Lanka Cai, X.; Ringler, C.; Rosegrant, M. W. 2006. Modeling water resources management at the basin level: Methodology and application to the Maipo River Basin. Washington, DC, USA: IFPRI. 151p. (IFPRI research report 149). Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International Water Management Institute, 645p. Cook, Simon E.; Fisher, M. J.; Andersson, M. S.; Rubiano, J.; Giordano, Mark. 2009. Water, food and livelihoods in river basins. Water International, 34(1):13-29. De Fraiture, C. Smakhtin, V, Bossio, D. Mccornick, P. Hoanh, C. Noble, A., Molden, D., Gichuki, F., Giordano, M. Finlayson, M. Turral, H. (2007) Facing Climate Change by securing Water for food, Livelihoods and Ecosystems. E-Journal of Semi-Arid Tropical Agricultural Research. ICRISAT Fraiture, C. de, Giordano, M., and Liao. (2008). Biofuels and agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy, 10: 67-81 Giordano, M. and Villholth, K. (eds) 2007. The agricultural groundwater revolution: opportunities and threats to development. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 3. Wallingford: IWMI and CAB International. Giordano, M., Rijsberman F. R. and Saleh, R.M. (2006) “More crop per drop”: revisiting a research paradigm.Results and Synthesis of IWMI’s research: 1996-2005. IWA Publishing, London, UK: 273 pp.. Grey, D.; Sadoff, Claudia W. 2007. Sink or Swim?: Water security for growth and development. Water Policy, 9(6):545-571. Keller A., Sakthivadivel R. and Seckler, D. (2000) Water Scarcity and the Role of Storage in Development. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 39, Colombo, Sri Lanka Keller, J., A. Keller, and G. Davids. 1998. “River Basin Development Phases and Implications of Closure.” Journal of Applied Irrigation Science 33 (2): 145–64. King, J. M.; Tharme, R. E.; De Villiers, M. S. 2000. Environmental flow assessments for rivers: Manual for the building block methodology. Pretoria, South Africa: WRC. xxii, 340p. Kite G. and Droogers, P. 2000 Integrated Basin Modeling, International Water Management Institute, Research Report 43, Colombo, Sri Lanka Kite, G. Droogers, P. Murray-Rust H.m, and Voogt K. (2001) Modeling Scenarios for Water Allocation in the Gediz Basin, Turkey. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 50, Colombo, Sri Lanka Lankford, B.A., Merrey, D.J. Cour, J. and Hepworth, N. (2007) From Integrated to Expedient: An Adaptive Framework for River Basin Management in Developing Countries. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 110, Colombo, Sri Lanka 196 Annex 7 - References McCartney M.P. and Arranz R. (2007) Evaluation of Historic, Current and Future Water Demand in the Olifants River Catchment, South Africa. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 118, Colombo, Sri Lanka Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use and productivity. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI). ix, 16p. (SWIM paper 1). Molden, David. (Ed.) 2007. Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. London, UK: Earthscan; Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 645p. Molle, F. Jayakody, P. Ariyaratne R. and Somatilake, H.S. (2005 ) Balancing Irrigation and Hydropower : Case Study from Southern Sri Lanka. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 94, Colombo, Sri Lanka Molle, Francoise; Wester, P. (Eds.) 2009. River basin trajectories: societies, environments and development. Wallingford, UK: CABI; Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 311p. (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 8). Ringler, C. 2001. Optimal allocation and use of water resources in the Mekong River Basin: Multi-country and intersectoral analyses. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. 220p. (Development economics and policy series, vol.20). Ringler, C. 2001. Optimal water allocation in the Mekong River Basin. Bonn, Germany: Center for Development Research. 50p. (ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy 38). Rosegrant, M. W.; Ringler, C.; McKinney, D. C.; Cai, X.; Keller, A.; Donoso, G. 2000. Integrated economic- hydrologic water modeling at the basin scale: The Maipo River Basin. Agricultural Economics., 24:33-46. Seckler, D. 1996. “The New Era of Water Resources Management: From ‘Dry’ to ‘Wet’ Water Savings.” IIMI Research Report 1. International Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Seckler, D., Amarasinghe, U. Molden, D. de Silva, R. and Barker, R. (1998) World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues International Water Management Institute, Research Report 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Smakhtin, V., Gamage, N., Bharati, L (2007) Hydrological and environmental issues of inter-basin water transfers in India: a case of Krishna river basin. IWMI Research Report 120, Colombo, Sri Lanka Smakhtin, V.U., Revenga, C., Döll, P. (2004) Taking into account environmental water requirements in global- scale water resources assessments. Research Report of the CGIAR Comprehensive Assessment Programme of Water Use in Agriculture. N 2, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Turton, A. 2008. A South African perspective on a possible benefit-sharing approach for transboundary waters in the SADC region. Water Alternatives, 1(2):180-200. Venot, J-P., Turral, H., Madar, S and Molle, F. (2008) Shifting Waterscapes: Explaining Basin Closure in the Lower Krishna Basin, South India. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 121, Colombo, Sri Lanka WCD (World Commission on Dams). 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. London: Earthscan. SRP: Ecosystems - Improved ecosystem services and resilience Allsopp M.H., de Lange W.J., Veldtman R. 2008. Valuing Insect Pollination Services with Cost of Replacement. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3128. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0003128 Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H., Tscharntke, T., 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 273, 1715-1727. Birol, E., Kontoleon, A. and Smale, M. 2007. Assessing the private value of agro-biodiversity in Hungarian home gardes using the data enrichment methods. In: Biodiversity Economics. pp 594-622. Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. and Swanson, T. M., Eds., Cambridge University Press, UK. Bispo dos Santos, S.A. Roselino A.C., Hrncir M., Bego L.R. 2004. Pollination of tomatoes by the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata and the honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera, Apidae. Genetics and Molecular Research 8 (2): 751-757 (2009) Bossuyt, H., J. Six, and P.F. Hendrix. 2002. Aggregate-Protected Carbon in No-tillage and Conventional Tillage Agro-ecosystems Using Carbon-14 Labeled Plant Residue. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1965–1973. Browning, J.A., 1997. A unifying theory of genetic protection of crop plant populations from diseases. In I. Wahl, G. Fischbeck, and J.A. Browning, eds. Disease Resistance from Crop Progenitors and Other Wild Relatives. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 197 Annex 7 - References Brussaard, L., Caron, P., Campbell, B., Lipper, L., Mainka, S., Rabbinge, R., Babin, D. and Pulleman, M. 2010. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2: 1-9. Doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.007. Ceroni, M., Liu, S. and Constanza, R. 2007. Ecological and economic roles of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. In: Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. pp. 446-472. Jarvis, D. I., Padoch, C. and Cooper H. D., Eds., Columbia University Press, NY, USA. Cole, C.V., K. Flach, J. Lee, D. Sauerbeck, and B. Stewart. 1993. Agricultural sources and sinks of carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut.70:111–122. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International Water Management Institute, 645p De Marco, Jr., P, Coelho F.M.. Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 1245–1255, 2004. Denef, K., J. Six, R. Merckx, K. Paustian. 2004. Carbon Sequestration in Microaggregates of No-Tillage Soils with Different Clay Mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:1935–1944 Di Falco, S. and Chavas, J. P. 2007. On the role of crop biodiversity in the management of environmental risk. In: Biodiversity Economics. pp. 581-593. Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. and Swanson, T. M., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Di Falco, S. and Perrings, C. 2005. Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance. Ecol. Econ. 55: 459-466. Diaz, S., Cabido, S., 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 646–655. Drucker, A. 2007. Economics of Livestock Genetic Reousrves Conservation and Sustainable Use: State of the Art. In: Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. pp. 426-445.. Jarvis, D. I., Padoch, C, and Cooper, D., Eds., Columbia University Press, NY, USA. FAO, 2001. The economics of conservation agriculture. Rome, Italy. FAO. 2007. State of Food and Agriculture Report: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services, http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1200e/a1200e00.htm. United National Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. FAO. 2010. Second report on the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. [in press]. Electronic version ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/ak528e.pdf. United National Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. Finckh, M. R. 2003. Ecological benefits of diversification. In: Rice Science: Innovations and Impact for Livelihood. Proceedings of the International Rice Research Conference, September 16–19, 2002. pp. 549– 564. Mew, T. W., Brar, D. S., Peng, S., Dawe, D. and Hardy, B., Eds., Beijing: International Rice Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Engineering and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Finckh, M. R. and Wolfe, M. S. 2006. Diversification strategies. In: The Epidemiology of Plant Disease. pp. 269- 308. Cooke, B. M. et al., Eds., Springer, NY, USA. Finckh, M. R., Gacek, E. S., Goyeau, H. et al., 2000. Cereal variety and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis on disease resistance. Agronomie 20: 813-837. Frankel, O. H., Brown, A. H. D. and Burdon, J. J. 1995. The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Gallai, N., Salles, J-M, Settele, J. Vaissière, B.E. 2008. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics. Gallai, N., Salles, J-M, Settele, J. Vaissière, B.E. 2008. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics. Gemmill-Herren, B., Ochieng’ A. O. 2008. Role of native bees and natural habitats in eggplant (Solanum melongena) pollination in Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127 (2008) 31–36. Govaerts, B., K.D. Sayre, K. Lichter, L. Dendooven, J. Deckers.2007. Influence of permanent raised bed planting and residue management on physical and chemical soil quality in rain fed maize/wheat systems. Plant Soil 291:39–54 Holland, J.M. 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:1–25 IAASTD., 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads. In: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu J. and Watson R.T., Eds, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. 198 Annex 7 - References Jarvis, D. I., Brown, A. D. H., Imbruce, V., Ochoa, J., Sadiki, M., Karamura, E., Trutmann, P. and Finckh, M. R. 2007. Managing crop disease in traditional agro-ecosystems: the benefits and hazards of genetic diversity. In: Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. pp. 292-319. Jarvis, D. I., Padoch, C, and Cooper, D., Eds., Columbia University Press, NY, USA. Jeong, H., and L. Forster. 2003. Empirical Investigation of Agricultural Externalities: Effects of Pesticide Use and Tillage System on Surface Water. Department of agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics. The Ohio State University. Working Paper: AEDE-WP-0034-03.December 2003. Ohio. Karamura, D., Mgenzi, B., Karamura, E. and Sharrock, S. 2004. Exploiting indigenous knowledge for the management and maintenance of Musa biodiversity on farm. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 12(1): 67-74. Kasina J. M., Mburu J., Kraemer M, Holm-Mueller, K. 2009b. Economic benefit of crop pollination by bees: A case of Kakamega small-holder farming in Western Kenya. J. Econ. Entomol. 102(2): 467- 473 Kasina, M., Manfred, K., Martius, C. & Dieter, Wittmann, D. 2009a. Diversity and activity density of bees visiting crop flowers in Kakamega, Western Kenya. Journal of Apicultural Research and Bee World 48(2): 134-139 (2009). DOI10.3896/IBRA.1.48.2.08 Kesavan P. C. and Swaminathan, M. S. 2008. Strategies and models for agricultural sustainability in developing Asian countries. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 363: 877-891. Kitti, M., Heikkila, J. and Huhtala, A. 2009. Agrobiodiversity in poor countries. Price premiums deemed to miss multifaceted targets? In: Agrobiodiversity, Conservation and Economic Development. pp. 335-354. Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. and Smale, M., Eds., Routledge Oxon, UK. Kong, A.Y., J. Six, D. C. Bryant, R. F. Denison, and C. van Kessel. 2005. The Relationship between Carbon Input, Aggregation, and Soil Organic Carbon Stabilization in Sustainable Cropping Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:1078–1085 Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. and Swanson, T. M. 2007. Biodiversity Economics. Cambridge University Press, UK. Kuo, S., U.M. Sainju, and E.J. Jellum. 1997. Winter cover crops effects on soil organic carbon and carbohydrate in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61: 145–152. Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D., Gurr, G.M., 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45, 175-201. Lichter K, B. Govaerts, J. Six, K.D. Sayre, J. Deckers, L.Dendooven. 2008. Aggregation and C and N contents of soil organic matter fractions in the permanent raised-bed planting system in the Highlands of Central Mexico. Plant Soil 305:237–252 Martins, D. J., Johnson, S. D. 2009. Distance and quality of natural habitat influence hawkmoth pollination of cultivated papaya. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 114–123, 2009 doi:10.1017/S1742758409990208 MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Moreno-Ruiz, G. and J. Castillo-Zapata, 1990. The variety Colombia: A variety of coffee with restance to rust (Hemileia vastatrix Berk.&Br.) Cenicafe Chinchina Calda. Colombia Technical Bullentin 9:1-27. Mulder. CPH et al.,. 2001. Physical stress and diversity-productivity relationships: the role of positive interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98: 6704-6708. Nderitu, J, Kasina, J. Nyamasyo, & Oronje M-L. 2008. Diversity of sunflower pollinators and their effect on seed yield in Makueni District, Eastern Kenya. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2008 6(2), 271- 278 Norberg, J., Swaney, D.P., Dushoff, J., Casagrandi, R., Levin, S.A., 2001. Phenotypic diversity and ecosystem functioning in changing environments: A theoretical framework. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98, 11376–11381. Oerke, E.C., H.W. Dehne, F. Schonbeck and A. Weber. 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection, Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pascual U. and Perrings, C. 2007. Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 121: 256–268. Pearce, D.W., Moran, D. 1994. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Programme. James & James/Earthscan. 186 pp., Pradhan N., Providoli, I., Regmi, B. and Kafle, G. 2010. Valuing water and its ecological services in rural landscapes: a case study from Nepal. Mount. Forum Bull. January 2010: 32-34. Quintero, M. 2009. Effects of conservation tillage in soil carbon sequestration and net revenues of potato- based rotations in the Colombian Andes. Thesis. University of Florida. Gainesville, USA. 103 pp. Ramirez, M. 2001. Adventures in Agrobiodiversity, Ecotourism for Agrobiodiversity Conservation, a Feasibility Study. Instituto Internacional de Recursos Fitogeneticos, Cali, Colombia. 199 Annex 7 - References Rasmussen, P.E., R.R. Allmaras, C.R. Rohde, and N.C. Roager, Jr.1980. Crop residue influences on soil carbon and nitrogen in wheat-fallow system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:596–600. Renard, M. C. 2003, Fair trade: quality, market and conventions. J. Rural Stud. 19: 87-96. Ruiz, M. 2009. Agrobiodiversity zones and the registry of native crops in Peru: learning from ourselves. Bioversity International and Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental, Lima, Peru. Sandretto, C. 2001. Conservation tillage firmly planted in U.S. agriculture. Agricultural Outlook. March. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 2 pp. Slootweg, R., Kolhoff, A, Verheem, R., Hoft, R., 2006. Biodiversity in EIA and SEA. Background Document to CBD Decision VIII/28. Voluntary Guidelines on Bioversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada. Smale, M., 2006. Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic change. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Smale, M., Drucker, A.G., 2007. Managing crop and livestock biodiversity in developing economies: a review of the economics literature. In: Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Swanson, T. (Eds.), Biodiversity Economics: Principles, Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Smil, V. 1999. Nitrogent in crop production: an account of global flows. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 13: 647- 662. Smil, V. 2000 hosphorus in the environment: natural flows and human interferences. Annual Review of Energy Environment 25: 53-88. Thies, E. 2000. Incentive Measures Appropriate to Enhance the Conservatioin and Sustainable Use of Agrobiodiversity. Deutsche Gesellschaft Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Eschborn, Germany http://69.90.183.227/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-gtz-incentivesagrobiodiv-workshop2009-en.pdf (accessed 16 May 2010). Thinlay, X., Finckh, M. R., Bordeosc, A. C. and Zeigler, R.S. 2000. Effects and possible causes of an unprecedented rice blast epidemic on the traditional farming system of Bhutan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 78: 237-248. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677. Trutmann, P., Fairhead, J. and Voss, J. 1993. Management of common bean diseases by farmers in the Central African highlands. Int. J. Pest Manage. 39: 334–342. Uri, N. D., J. D. Atwood, and J. Sanabria. 1999. The Environmental benefits and costs of conservation tillage. Environmental Geology 38: 111–125 Van Noordwijk, M. 2005. Rupes Typology of environmental service worthy of reward. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia. http://www.worldagroforestry.org:8090/water/downloads/Watershed%20Publications/2005%20van%20 noordwijk.pdf Wale, E. In press. On biodiversity impact assessment: the rationale, conceptual challenges and implications for future EIA. In: Examining the impact of development interventions on biodiversity: lessons from GRPI- Egypt. Halewood, M. and Wale, E., Eds. Genetic Resources Policy Initiative, Bioversity International. Rome, Italy. Wilby, A. and MB Thomas, 2007. Diversity and Pest Management in Agro-ecosystems: Some Perspective from Ecology. In: Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. pp. 269-291. Jarvis, D. I., Padoch, C, and Cooper, D., Eds., Columbia University Press, NY, USA. Wunder, S., Engel, S. and Pagiola, S. 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65: 834-852. Yachi S. and M. Loreau, 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96: 1463-1468. Zhang, W., and S.M. Swinton. 2010. “Optimal Control of Soybean Aphid in the Presence of Natural Enemies and the Implied Value of Ecosystem Services.” To be submitted for review at the journal Agricultural Economics. Zibilske, L.M., J.M. Bradford. 2007. Soil aggregation, aggregate carbon and nitrogen, and moisture retention induced by conservation tillage. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:793–802 SRP: Information -Information systems for land, water and ecosystems Ballantyne P, A. Maru, and E.M. Porcari. 2010. Information and Communication Technologies— Opportunities to Mobilize Agricultural Science for Development. Crop Science 50: S-63 – S-69. de Leeuw, J., Y. Georgiadou, N. Kerle, A. de Gier, Y. Inoue, J. Ferwerda, M. Smies, and D. Narantuya. 2010. The Function of Remote Sensing in Support of Environmental Policy. Remote Sens. 2010, 2, 1731-1750. 200 Annex 7 - References Bjerklie, D.M., S.L. Dingman, C.J. Vorosmarty, C.H. Bolster, and R.G. Congalton. 2003. Evaluating the potential for measuring river discharge from space. J. Hydrology, 278: 17-38. de Fraiture, C. et al., 2007. Looking ahead to 2050: scenarios of alternative investment approaches. In Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture (ed. D. Molden), pp. 91 – 145. London, UK: Earthscan. Giller, K. E., C. Leeuwis, J.-A. Andersson, W. Andriesse, A. Brouwer, P. Frost, P. Hebinck, I. Heitkönig, M.-K. van Ittersum, N. Koning, R. Ruben, M. Slingerland, H. Udo, T. Veldkamp, C. van de Vijver, M.-T. van Wijk, and P. Windmeijer. 2008. Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science? Ecology and Society 13:34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34/. Grimm, V et al., 2005. Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from Ecology. Science 310: 987 – 991. Nisbet, E. 2007. Cinderalla science. Nature 450(6): 789-790. Ostrom, E., and H. Nagendra. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 103: 19224-19231. Paradzayi, C., and H. R ther 2002. Evolution of environmental information systems in Africa. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XXXIV, Part 6/W6: 73–77. Patching Together a World View. (2007). Nature 450(7171): 761. Sachs J et al., 2010. Monitoring the world’s agriculture. Nature 466, 558-560 (28 July 2010). Tang, Q., H. Gao, H. Lu, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2009. Remote sensing: hydrology; Progress in Physical Geography, 33(4) (2009) pp.490–509. van Noordwijk, M., T. P. Tomich, and B. Verbist. 2001. Negotiation support models for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest margins. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 21. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art21, 18 pp Wagner, W., N.E.C. Verhoest, R. Ludwig, and M. Tedesco. 2009. Remote sensing in hydrological sciences. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13: 813–817. Vorosmarty, C., A. Askew, W. Grabs, R.G. Barry, C. Birkett, , P. Doll, B. Goodison, , A. Hall, R. Jenne, L. Kitaev, J. Landwehr, M. Keeler, G. Leavesley, J. Shaake , K. Strzepek, S.S. Sundarvel, K. Takeuchi, F. Webster. 2002. Global water data: a newly endangered species. EOS, Transactions of American Geophysical Union 82(5): 54. 201