Session 1A CONCEPTS: Concepts and frameworks for research on land management at different scales, methods, models and measurement

Organizer: F. Penning de Vries

Description

Progress in INRM is still slow because the field is large and complex, funding is limited, but also because there is insufficient agreement and common use of clear terminology. Some aspects are too immature for a widely accepted description, but we should make a start with the non-controversial ones. New science needs a new dictionary. This session aims at reaching a consensus about a number of concepts and terms, and to initiate a practical glossary. This relates to typical characteristics and features of INRM, including site and situation specific management, multidisciplinarity, multiple layers of management ('nested scales'), multiple goals and conflicting interests of stakeholders, participatory research, need for modelling but shortage of factual data and uncertainty, ecoregional approaches, resource management domains, etcetera).

Objectives

Establish a number of definitions of concepts and approaches for INRM, so that theses can be used in the future as a guideline for experts and non-experts in this field.

Organization

The session will consist of brief discussions of the terminology proposed, including fitting descriptions and practical dimensions, by a panel and by the floor, followed by a joint judgement of the degree of acceptability for common use.

Call for abstracts and papers

The session-specific part of the call would be: Research on Integrated Natural Resource Management needs tools and a language. In this session, we focus a primary requirement: language. We invite abstracts (1 pg) and papers (2-10 pg) that present a concept, a keyword, a specific term used in INRM, define it in a concise manner, and give at least one example of its use. In the session in Cali, we will try to identify those definitions that are clear for experts and non-experts, unambiguous, and with practical units (dimensions). A glossary with such definitions can be promoted widely to develop common language and increase the exchangeability of experiences in INRM-research. The field of 'systems research' provides a successful example from a related discipline (e.g. system, environment, state and rate variable, simulation, model, feedback, residence time, oscillation, exponential decay, resilience, input and output, etc.)

Oberthur, T.; Barrios, E.; Cook, S.; Thomas, R. Variation Of Soil Characteristics In A Sub-Watershed Of The Mid-Altitude Andes: Magnitude And Implications For Landscape-Based Soil Management

Jansen, H. G.P. On Tools For Land Use Analysis:Role And Complementarity Of Methodologies For The Evaluation Of Land Use On Different Scales With Applications For Costa Rica

Abstract; Full text (109 Kb)

De Pauw, E. Multi-Scale Agroecological Frameworks For Land Management Research

Douthwaite, B.; Weise, S.; Gockowski, J.; Keatinge, D.; Baker, D. IITA’s Benchmark Approach: Putting INRM Into Practice

Abstract; Full tex (262 Kb)

Prinsloo, M. A. Highveld Ecoregion Project

Antle, J.; Bowen, W.; Crissman, C.; Stoorvogel, J.;Yanggen, D. Tradeoff Analysis: A Framework For INRM From Field To Regional Scales

Tashi, N. Delineating Mountain Farming Systems From Socio-Economic Data: Testing Methodology In Tibet Autonomous Region

Tashi, N. An Explorative Analysis On Productivity Of Croplands In Tibet Autonomous Region, P.R. China

Spilsbury, M.; Poulsen, J. Status and gaps in impact assessment in natural resource management research and development

Session 1B. SCALES OF ANALYSIS

Organizer: J. Antle

Description

A key issue in INRM research is how to represent relevant biophysical and social processes at different scales of analysis. Our goal is to have case studies presented representing different scales of analysis to facilitate discussion of how scale impacts analysis of resource management. Examples of issues that could be addressed include the choice of spatial scale in relation to research or policy objectives; data and model design at alternative scales; impacts of scale and aggregation on INRM analysis.

In the session several case studies will be presented, a discussant will comment on the presentations and then open the floor for discussion among the presenters and the audience.

Okumua, B.N.; Jabbar, M.A.;Colmanc, D.;Russell, N.; Penderd, J. Bioeconomic modeling for ex ante assessment of technology and policy impact at watershed level: a case study

Monasterio, M.; Molinillo, M. Ecological and social sustainability of agricultural production in the Cordillera de Mérida: the flow of environmental services for potato crops in the high Andean Páramos.

Abstract; Full text (85 Kb)

Quiroz, R.; Zorogastúa, P.; Ibarra, C.; Jongschaap, R.; León-Velarde, C. Integrating Remote Sensing with Process-Based models to Assess Management Options for Grazing Lands in the Andes

Abstract; Full text (118 Kb); Figures (365 Kb)

Durand, W.; du Toit, A. S. CERES-Maize – from farm to regional analysis - some South African Case studies

Antle, J.; Baigorria, G.; Barrera, V.; Bowen, W.; Crissman, C.; Romero, C.; Stoorvogel, J.; Yanggen, D. Impacts of Terracing, Agroforestry and Irrigation on the Sustainability of the Crop-Livestock System of the Peruvian Andes: An Application of the Tradeoff Analysis Approach

Aggarwal, P.K.; Kalra, N.; Kumar, S.; Pathak, H.; Hoanh, C.T.; Roetter, R. Exploring Land Use Options for Sustainable Food Security in Haryana

Beltrán, J. A.; Zeledón, J. C.; Morales, J. Participatory mapping, analysis and monitoring of Natural Resources in the Calico River MicroWatershed, in San Dionisio, Matagalpa, Nicaragua.

Abstract; Full text (1,324 Kb)

Erskine, W.; Abdel Safi, A.M.; Aboul Elenien, R.; Pala, M.; Solh, M.; Ryan, J. Anticipatory Long-term Research: Linking today’s demands to those of the future in an Egyptian case study

Session 1C. INRM MODELING INRM Modeling

Organizer: J. Poulsen

Background

As a result of the INRM meeting in Penang in August 2000, it was decided to initiate a coordinated modeling effort on INRM, under the umbrella name "Ecoregional Modeling Initiatives on INRM". Several efforts have since then begun (listed here followed by name of the Center taking the lead, but each involving several centers):

a. Eastern Kalimantan - CIFOR
b. Zimbabwe - ICRISAT
c. Andes - CIP
d. Pucallpa (Peru) or "Central American Hillsides" - CIAT
e. Yaounde (Cameroon) - IITA's ASB team

The emphasis and approaches to modeling differ among these and are driven largely by local demands, because issues deemed critical differ among the regions.

Purpose

The purpose of this session is to consolidate the progress on these modeling efforts, and this will be achieved by:

· Exchanging and comparing experiences and approaches to modeling, and thereby,
· Exploring possible synergies from among these modeling efforts,
· Developing a common conceptual framework for the INRM Ecoregional Modeling Initiatives.

Participation

This session will aim at anyone involved or interested in the ongoing and emerging Ecoregional Modeling Initiatives within the context of INRM. Resource persons (from within or from outside the CG) will be identified.

Session Modality

The session will be facilitated (person yet to be identified). A 3-4 person Session Process Steering Committee will be formed to discuss and draft a detailed agenda.

Possible synergies with other sessions

This session will/should be relevant to other sessions, such as "Scales of analysis, Session 1B" and "Impact Assessment, Session 2B". Organisers of those relevant sessions will be contacted to explore possible synergies and to develop a plan for how to make maximum use of such synergies.

Roetter, R.P.; Laborte, A.G.; Hoanh, C.T.; Van Keulen, H. Options for future agricultural land use in South and Southeast Asia: cross-site experiences at sub-national scale

Abstract; Full text (252 Kb)

Schreier, H.; Quiroz, R.; Brown, S.; Zorogastúa, P.; Cruz, M. Linking Himalayan Andean Watersheds

Legg, C.; Robiglio, V. Spatially Explicit Modelling Of Landscape Change At The Humid Forest Margin In Cameroon

Abstract; Full text (741 Kb)

Poulsen, J.; White, D.; Dimes, J.; de Alwis, D.; Spilsbury, M.; Sayer, J. Towards an INRM Analysis Framework: Comparison of INRM reference sites

Schreier, H.; Brown, S. Scaling Nutrient budgets from farmer’s fields to watershed and regions

Session 1D PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH: Participatory Research for INRM

Sims, B. G.; Rodríguez V, F. Forage Production And Erosion Control As A Complement To Hillside Weed Management.

Abstract; Full text (85Kb)

James, B.; Markham, R.; Khan, Z.; Overholt, W.;de Groote, H.; Odiambo, G.; Emechebe, A.; Kimani, M. Pilot sites for inter-institutional partnerships to increase IPM adoption by farmers.

Heinrich, G.M.; Rusike, J.; Twomlow, S. Farmer Participatory Research On Integrated Soil Water And Nutrient Management At Icrisat-Bulawayo: Approaches Used, Lessons Learned, And Directions For The Future.

Abstract; Full text (195 Kb)

Franzel, S.; Cooper, P.; Denning, G. Scaling up the benefits of Agroforestry Research: Lessons learned and research challenges from a review of 9 case studies from tropical Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Hofstede, R.; Segarra, P. Participatory mapping: involving the entire community in páramo management.

Waters-Bayer, A.; Abay, F.; Haile, M. Research and development building on indigenous innovation in land husbandry.

Session 1E. AGROBIODIVERSITY

Organizer: Agrobiodiversity group

Agrobiodiversity group

Willy Erskine (ICARDA)
Jean Hanson (ILRI)
Coosje Hoogendoorn (IPGRI)
John Poulsen (CIFOR)
Tony Simons (ICRAF)
Mike Swift (TSBF)
Jane Toll - Secretariat (SGRP/IPGRI)

'Genetic Resources Management in Integrated Natural Resources Management'

Background

Natural Resource Management (NRM) means different things to different people. Too often in the past it has excluded work on genetic resources for reasons of complexity or disciplinary bias. The lack of a theoretical core to NRM has reinforced such exclusion. More recent thinking by the CGIAR and others recognises the need for a more complete approach to NRM and hence the emergence of concepts for integrated natural resource management (INRM). Early attempts to define INRM have been more successful than activities to try and operationalise INRM. At best these activities seem more inclusive of the range of natural resources, including genetic resources, although may be more appropriately described as additive NRM as interactions of atmosphere, land, soil, water, plants and animals remain ignored. As far as genetic resources are concerned, such interactions need to be factored in at all levels, at farm, community, watershed and national scales.

Ecosystems consist of interacting species, often in complex food webs, that are embedded in a physical-chemical matrix. With growing degrees of habitat fragmentation and degradation from human activities, many ecosystems are undergoing major transformations, especially in urban and agricultural areas, that may lead to the extirpation of genotypes, local populations or species with limited geographical distributions. Extinction of some species can produce gaps in the food web and may provide opportunities for other species to increase in abundance or may lead to the extinction of associated species. Genetic processes are among the many processes influencing the abundances of the species in an ecosystem and can be considered at three levels of ecosystem disturbance.

First, the maintenance of genetic mechanisms is important for the preservation of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to ensure that the component populations in a species remain viable. Only by maintaining ecosystem services can ecosystem respond to environmental changes. The preservation of species diversity has value not only in maintaining ecosystem resilience, but also in providing germplasm for development for human use.

Second, genetic principles become increasingly more important in the conservation of small and declining populations. Because of small effective population sizes, threatened populations are at risk of extinction through several genetic mechanisms, including inbreeding depression, mutational meltdown, hybridization, introgression, and poor adaptation to changing conditions and selection due to low genetic variability, in addition to ecological processes.

Third, genetic considerations are important in restoring depleted populations and rehabilitating degraded landscapes to ensure effective population sizes and ecosystem balance. Restoration of within- and among-species genetic diversity is important in recreating resilient ecosystems.

Successful INRM is a community task, and adaptation will depend on the socio-economic conditions and implications of the available strategies. These factors need to be studied together with the biological effects using the approaches outlined in the Malawi Principles to Ecosystem Research.

The workshop

We invite abstracts for two sessions:

Biological management of genetic resources. These studies can include conventional and non conventional crops, agroforestry systems, biological control of pests and manipulation of soil biota. Presentations that give examples of interactions between the three ‘sub-systems’ (i.e. plant/animal, pest and soil) are particularly encouraged.
Community based management of genetic resources. These studies can include participatory research at the farm, the community and national level (policy) and lessons learned for new initiatives. Presentations that describe the interaction between management of genetic variation by communities and the management of other natural resources (water, soil, etc), in sustaining, conserving or restoring ecosystem resilience, are particularly encouraged.

The sessions will be chaired by an experienced moderator.

Expected outcome

Better understanding of the role and magnitude of genetic diversity in INRM
Identification of the key interactions between genetic resources management and soil and water resources management.
Identification of researchable questions for the CGIAR, for the development of collaborative activities covering these key interactions between genetics and soil and water.

Keynote lecture

Because of the importance of this subject for the further development of INRM within the CGIAR, SGRP will support a keynote lecture ‘The role of genetic variation in (agro-) ecosystems’ by Dr Kawal Bawa to be included in the plenary sessions of INRM workshop.

Herrera-Peraza, R.A.; Ferrer, R. L.; Furrazola, E.; Ramos de Solórzano, G.; Orozco, M. O.; Ruiz, M.; Torres, Y.; Morales, S.; Dágert, M.; Velazco, A.; García, M. J.; Pouyú, E.; Ruiz, L.; Fernández, F. Strategies for the sustainable management of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM) and other biofertilizing microorganisms in tropical agriculture

Rao, K.S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Sen, K.K.; Semwal, R.L., Nautiyal, S.; Saxena, K.G. Natural resource management strategies in settled farming systems in Himalaya

Simons, A.J.; Kindt, R. The exceptional diversity of trees and its relationship to the productivity and stability of agroecosystems.

Altieri, M. A. Sharpening the agroecological research focus in the design of natural resource management strategies for poor farmers in marginal environments

Session 1F. POLICY Policy Analysis and Integrated Natural Resource Management

Organizer: Douglas Pachico

Description

Integrated natural resource management depends principally on decisions that farmers and other resource managers make. These decisions are not only often the target of policy makers who have the objective of improving resource management, but also resource management decisions are often heavily influenced by policies that were made without considering their potential impact on natural resources. Thus, policy analysis is often critical to unlocking the "hidden" causes of poor resource management. Likewise, policy analysis has great potential to envision new incentives for improved resource management. Policy is a particularly strong instrument because it is so all persuasive and reaches into many areas of integrated natural resource management, from biodiveristy, to soils, to climate change, to water resources, to pollution.

Pandey, S. Adoption and impact of soil conservation practices in developing countries: Policy and institutional considerations

Pachico, D. Some Implications of National Regulatory Policy Of Genetically Engineered Crops for an Integrated Natural Resource Management Research Agenda

Abstract; Full text (61 Kb)

Johnson, N. The economics of community watershed management: Some evidence from a Nicaragua

Session 2A. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION Social organization, and land mgmt

Organizer: J. Ashby

Description

This session addresses research on different ways of organizing to manage land resources and landscapes. Case studies or comparative analyses are invited of ways of organizing at different scales for NRM purposes: these may range from international or national scale organizations and may include their interface with local organizations, including those managing common property lands, watershed associations, collective forest-management and community-based organizations with natural resource management (NRM) objectives. A key issue is what kinds of institutions are needed for adaptive management and how social capital is built for the purpose of organizing, and for better NRM. Understanding and improving ways in which innovation, research, participatory learning, and knowledge management are organized to support NRM are of central importance. In addition, studies of the analysis of indigenous ways of coping with stressful environments and the adaptive strategies of resource-poor farmers can provide important insights into useful or perverse organizational principles.

Abstracts can be accepted for presentations at the session by May 30th and abstracts accepted will be published on the meeting web site and circulated at the meeting. Full papers will be invited separately once we have a journal or other vehicle lined up for publication: draft papers will be invited for August 30th and for completion by December 31, 2001 at the earliest. For more information about the meeting contact a.palau@cgiar.org

Selected Abstracts

Lundy, M. Participatory Community Management of Watersheds: Six case studies from Versalles, Colombia

Stroud, A. Achieving the “I” in INRM: Experiences in organizing multi-institutional inputs to support local community groups

Sotomayor, C.; Quiroz, R. PACHAMAMA RAYMI: An innovative way to assure the participation of rural households and communities in the management of natural resources

Valdivia, C.; Quiroz, R Rural livelihood strategies, assets and economic portfolios in coping with climatic perturbations: A Case Study of the Bolivian Andes

Abstract; Full text (144 Kb)

Meinzen-Dick, R. The Role of Collective Action and Property Rights in Integrated Natural Resource Management

Abstract; Full text (113 Kb)

Garrity, D. P.; Catacutan, D.; Koffa, S.; Buenavista, G.; Fay, P. C.; Amoroso, V. C. Integrated Natural Resource Management on the Poverty-Protection Interface

Carter, S. A multi-stakeholder approach to scaling-up participatory watershed management

Session 2B. IMPACT Impact assessment for INRM

Organizer: J. Poulsen

Goal: The ultimate purpose of this initiative is to develop approaches and methodologies for impact assessment of INRM, and to integrate them into the framework of the INRM research cycle.Such methods are expected to identify more effective and efficient research and management interventions as well as enable assessment of research's influence on decisions about adoption or non-adoption of specific practices.

Workshop objectives

The workshop session will aim at addressing some of the intermediate steps which need to be addressed before appropriate methodologies can be developed for IA of INRM. We aim to explore concepts and operational definitions, in particular, with respect to:

· what types of impacts are of interest to decision makers
· what impacts need to be measured
· what types of indicators/measures are appropriate.

We will also explore how specifically the results of the above would be used and operationalized. This will may consider the following:

· Quantitative and/or qualitative measures/indicators of the chosen changes/impacts need to be identified and specified prior to the assessment. Otherwise, the estimation process and outputs become fuzzy. Defining the appropriate indicators for INRM impacts and specifying the INRM processes to be assessed become extremely critical definitional issues, given the nature of INRM.

· Identifying impacts implies that we can estimate the "with and without" X and "before and after" X situations. We know that in most situations involving nature and life, changes occur in Y even in the absence of the impact of X, thus, the "before and after" is not enough. A discussion of impact assessment therefore needs to devote central attention to the counterfactual, which is going to be a complex matter in the case of most INRM processes and impacts.

· The issue of attribution. Even if one is considering process impacts (through participatory research and adaptive management), this becomes an important question that needs explicit specification. It is perfectly legitimate to say that INRM is dealing with partnerships and one does not want to separate CG from partner impacts. It just needs to be stated explicitly).

The session will be facilitated and synergies with other parallel sessions will be explored.

Douthwaite, B.; Weise, S.; Gockowski, J.; Keatinge, D.; Baker, D. IITA’s Benchmark Approach: Putting INRM into Practice

Abstract; Full text (420 Kb)

Buresh, R. Sustainable management of lowland rice ecosystems

Abstract; Full text (106 Kb)

Awinbo, J. Developing Methodology To Determine The Impact Of Training

Abstract; Full text (70 Kb)

Meinzen-Dick, R. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and Impact Assessment: Methods and Preliminary Findings

Abstract; Full text (131 Kb)

Spilsbury, M.; Poulsen, J. Status and gaps in impact assessment in natural resource management research and development

Abstract; Full text (97 Kb)

Diagne, A.; Arsene, K. K.; Innocent, A.; Gue, R. The Socioeconomic determinants of in-situ conservation of Biodiversity and The Impact of Modern Varieties on Rice Biodiversity

Gottret, M. V.; Westermann, O. Local Platforms for Achieving Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Towards an Integrated Resource Management Approach

Abstract; Full text (374 Kb)

Rusike, J.; Twomlow, S.; Freeman, A.H.; Heinrich, G.M. Impact Indicators For Comparing Participatory Research Approaches To Promote Soil Fertility Management In Semi-Arid Southern Africa

Abstract; Full text (207 Kb)

Session 2C. WATER Agriculture, water management and land use interactions

Organizer: F. Penning de Vries

Description

Managers of water, of land and of biodiversity (including crops and livestock) generally manage all three factors together within one production system. If the manager has full control over these factors, then management is relatively straight forward. But if land quality is low and fertilizer expensive, if rain is abundant and drainage insufficient, or weed control ineffective, then the manager should focus his/her efforts at the factor to which his/her main product responds strongest. This is difficult for managers of farms, but also for water, land and biodiversity management at community levels, and at the scale of a river basin. This session is aimed at examples where the manager is only partially in control of land, water and/or biodiversity, and needs to choose where best to allocate his/her limited economic and human resources. An analysis of the path that leads to the final actual decisions taken and of alternatives of those examples would be very welcome.

Objectives

Learn about case studies and of the thought path managers used in taking decisions. What information would have made the task of deciding easier or better?

Organization

6 - 8 short presentations of papers will be presented, and briefly discussed with the audience.

Call for abstracts and papers

The session-specific part of the call would be: Managers of water, of land and of biodiversity (including crops and livestock) generally manage all three factors together within one production system. If the manager has full control over these factors, then management is relatively straight forward. But if land quality is low and fertilizer expensive, if rain is abundant and drainage insufficient, or weed control ineffective, then the manager should focus his/her efforts at the factor to which his main product responds strongest. This is difficult for managers of farms, but also for water, land and biodiversity management at a community level, and at the scale of a river basin. This session is aimed at examples where the manager is only partially in control of land, water and/or biodiversity, and needs to choose where best to allocate his/her limited economic and human resources. We are looking for short papers (8-10 pp) that present the case study in essence, and analysis of the path that leads to the final decisions taken and of eventual alternatives.

Kam, S.P.; Hoanh, C. T.; Tuong, T.P.; Phong, N.D.; Dung, L.C.; Khiem, N.T.; Barr, J.; Ben, D.C. Managing water and land resources under conflicting demands of shrimp and rice production for sustainable livelihoods in the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam.

Abstract; Full text (1,803 Kb)

Alurralde, J.C.; Solón, P.; Udaeta, M.E.; Méndez, R.; Salazar, L.; Posner, J. Finding Common Ground: The Bolivian Water Policy Committee

Molden, D. INRM Approaches for Sustainable Increases in the Productivity of Basin Water Resources

Estrada, R.D.; Posner, J. Watershed analysis and estimating externalities: A new approach to sustainable development in the Andes

Poats, S. V.; Proaño, M. Resolving water management problems through participatory action research in a watershed context: a case study of the San Vicente Canal in the El Angel watershed, Carchi, Ecuador.

Session 2D. INNOVATIVE TOOLS Examples of innovative tools and their application

Organizer: Reimund Rötter

Description

In this session new analytical, computer-based tools for INRM will be presented along with applications illustrating their use. Emphasis is on tools that facilitate integration of disciplinary data and models, and stimulate discussion among different stakeholder groups on resource use and related policy issues. Exploratory and predictive tools both for decision support and for integrated assessment and policy analysis are welcomed. Organizers intend to arrange additional time for in-depth demonstration of the various tools to interested participants.

Dimes, J.; Shamudzarira, Z. Simulation modelling and participatory research: Closing the gap between research and management in smallholder farming systems.

Abstract; Full text (99 Kb)

Beaulieu, N.; De Wispeleare, G.; Alvarez, M.; Jaramillo, J.; Rubiano, Y.; Fajardo, A. Supporting local planning efforts through monitoring of environmental dynamics: the contribution of Remote Sensing Images

Abstract; Full text (1,438 Kb)

Leclerc, G.; Beaulieu, N.; Jaramillo, J.; Zapata, V.; Narvaez, G. The Intelligent Team Decision Assistant (ITDEA): A Discussion Support System for the information age.

Quiroz, R.; Cruz, M.; Noll, R.; García, A.; Romero, C.; Quiroz, E. Modeling interface through computer-generated three-dimensional virtual environments: a prototype

Laborte, A.G.; Roetter, R.P.; Hoanh, C.T.; Nuñez, B.; Dreiser, C. Harnessing the power of IT: lessons learned from developing an integrated web-based system for interactive land use scenario analysis

Abstract; Full text (707 Kb)

du Toit, A. Using weather analogue model to manage seasonal variability

Abstract; Full text (71 Kb)

Stoorvogel, J.; Antle, J.; Bowen, W.; Crissman, C.; Yanggen, D. The Tradeoff Model: A New Tool to Support INRM Policy Decision Making

Abstract; Full text (323 Kb)

Bontkes, T. S.; Singh, U.; Chude, V. Problems And Opportunities In Adopting System Tools For Decision-Making Related To Soil Fertiliy Improvement In Africa

Abstract; Full text (122 Kb)

Bousquet, F.; Trébuil, G.; Boissau, S.; Baron, C.; Castella, J.C.; Kam, S.P. The Use of Multi-Agent Simulations in Companionable Modeling Approach for Agro-ecosystem Management

Abstract; Full text (665 Kb)

Session 2E. AGROBIODIVERSITY 2

Organizer: Agrobiodiversity group

Agrobiodiversity group

Jean Hanson (ILRI)
Coosje Hoogendoorn (IPGRI)
John Poulsen (CIFOR)
Tony Simons (ICRAF)
Mike Swift (TSBF)
Jane Toll - Secretariat (SGRP/IPGRI)

Proposal for SGRP coordinated session at the next CGIAR - INRM meeting/workshop

Description

At present the exact objectives and the format of the workshop are being finalised. Earlier indications suggest a 4 day meeting of about 50 participants, with plenary and parallel sessions, and abstracts of papers have been invited. There is a clear interest from the organizers to include discussions on the role of genetic variation & genetic resources in INRM. Given recent thinking by donors and the CGIAR Change Design Management Team the SGRP would like to suggest a half day workshop entitled

'Genetic Resources Management in Integrated Natural Resources Management'

Background

Natural Resource Management (NRM) means different things to different people. Too often in the past it has excluded work on genetic resources for reasons of complexity or disciplinary bias. The lack of a theoretical core to NRM has reinforced such exclusion. More recent thinking by the CGIAR and others recognises the need for a more complete approach to NRM and hence the emergence of concepts for integrated natural resource management (INRM). Early attempts to define INRM have been more successful than activities to try and operationalise INRM. At best these activities seem more inclusive of the range of natural resources, including genetic resources, although may be more appropriately described as additive NRM as interactions of atmosphere, land, soil, water, plants and animals remain ignored. As far as genetic resources are concerned, such interactions need to be factored in at all levels, at farm, community, watershed and national scales.

Ecosystems consist of interacting species, often in complex food webs, that are embedded in a physical-chemical matrix. With growing degrees of habitat fragmentation and degradation from human activities, many ecosystems are undergoing major transformations, especially in urban and agricultural areas, that may lead to the extirpation of genotypes, local populations or species with limited geographical distributions. Extinction of some species can produce gaps in the food web and may provide opportunities for other species to increase in abundance or may lead to the extinction of associated species. Genetic processes are among the many processes influencing the abundances of the species in an ecosystem and can be considered at three levels of ecosystem disturbance.

First, the maintenance of genetic mechanisms is important for the preservation of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to ensure that the component populations in a species remain viable. Only by maintaining ecosystem services can ecosystem respond to environmental changes. The preservation of species diversity has value not only in maintaining ecosystem resilience, but also in providing germplasm for development for human use.

Second, genetic principles become increasingly more important in the conservation of small and declining populations. Because of small effective population sizes, threatened populations are at risk of extinction through several genetic mechanisms, including inbreeding depression, mutational meltdown, hybridization, introgression, and poor adaptation to changing conditions and selection due to low genetic variability, in addition to ecological processes.

Third, genetic considerations are important in restoring depleted populations and rehabilitating degraded landscapes to ensure effective population sizes and ecosystem balance. Restoration of within- and among-species genetic diversity is important in recreating resilient ecosystems.

Successful INRM is a community task, and adaptation will depend on the socio-economic conditions and implications of the available strategies. These factors need to be studied together with the biological effects using the approaches outlined in the Malawi Principles to Ecosystem Research.

The workshop

We invite abstracts for two sessions:

Biological management of genetic resources. These studies can include conventional and non conventional crops, agroforestry systems, biological control of pests and manipulation of soil biota. Presentations that give examples of interactions between the three ‘sub-systems’ (i.e. plant/animal, pest and soil) are particularly encouraged.
Community based management of genetic resources. These studies can include participatory research at the farm, the community and national level (policy) and lessons learned for new initiatives. Presentations that describe the interaction between management of genetic variation by communities and the management of other natural resources (water, soil, etc), in sustaining, conserving or restoring ecosystem resilience, are particularly encouraged.

The sessions will be chaired by an experienced moderator.

Expected outcome

Better understanding of the role and magnitude of genetic diversity in INRM
Identification of the key interactions between genetic resources management and soil and water resources management.
Identification of researchable questions for the CGIAR, for the development of collaborative activities covering these key interactions between genetics and soil and water.

Keynote lecture

Because of the importance of this subject for the further development of INRM within the CGIAR, SGRP will support a keynote lecture ‘The role of genetic variation in (agro-) ecosystems’ by Dr Kawal Bawa to be included in the plenary sessions of INRM workshop.

Organizing committee

Willy Erskine (ICARDA)
Jean Hanson (ILRI)
Coosje Hoogendoorn (IPGRI)
John Poulsen (CIFOR)
Tony Simons (ICRAF)
Mike Swift (TSBF)
Jane Toll (SGRP/IPGRI)

Secretariat

SGRP (Jane Toll)

Jarvis, D.; Rijal, D.; Sadiki, M.; Upadhyay, M.P.; Tuyen, T.V.; Trinh; Sawadogo, M.; Balma, D.; Lope-Alzina, D.; Gauchan, D.; Rana, R.; Mar, I.; Sthapit, B.; Chavez, J-l; Smale, M. Managing Crop Genetic Resources in Agroecosystems as part of the Ecosystem Approach

Guarino, L. Geographic information systems (GIS): a common platform for natural resources and genetic resources management

Prain, G. In situ conservation of agro-biodiversity on farm: some recent lessons from the field

Session 2F. INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Organizer: R. Thomas

Description

Nutrients are being depleted from farmers fields in developing countries and alarming estimates for losses at the local, country and regional level have drawn the attention of both scientists and politicians. Because resource-poor farmers either cannot afford or, do not have access to, fertilizers, an integrated approach has been advocated that promotes the use of available, predominantly organic, nutrient sources with the judicious use of purchased fertilizers. Guidelines for fertilizer use for smallholders in the tropics and sub-tropics are often inappropriate and are rarely verified in farmers' fields. Guidelines for the integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers are at the incipient level of development. An often overlooked aspect of nutrient use by farmers is the patchy application of nutrients to different parts of their farm whereby in some areas there may be a net accumulation of nutrients while in others there is a severe depletion of nutrients.

Any strategy to help farmers better integrate the use of available nutrient resources needs to consider the temporal and spatial patterns of nutrient use, the availability of nutrients and how best to combine nutrients from different sources. This requires not only more strategic research but also a deeper understanding of how farmers perceive soil fertility and the development of a common language between scientists and farmers whereby farmer research can be complemented by new or existing technologies that are introduced from outside the local environment.

Objectives

This session will review advances in INM including new strategic research and means to engage the farming community with the scientific community using new approaches.

Organization

The session will consist of brief 15 minute presentations that present conceptual and practical advances in the area of INM. We will try and identify where progress is needed and develop research strategies that encompass both socio-economic and biophysical competencies.

Sanginga, N.; Diels, J.; Vanlauwe, B.; Lyasse, O.; Iwuafor, E.; Okogun, J.A.; Manyong, V.; Deckers, S.; Merckx, R. Integrating process research and farmers' adoption of balanced nutrient management systems for maize-based cropping systems in the northern Guinea savanna of West Africa

Buresh, R. J.; Balasubramanian, V.; Witt, C.; Ladha, JK.; Peng, S. Development and delivery of nutrient management innovations for lowland rice farmers.

Abstract; Full text (46 Kb)

Waithaka, M.; Thornton, P.; Booltink, H.; Kaitho, R.; Shepherd, K.; Salasya, B. Systems prototyping in western Kenya

de Haan, N.C.; Tarawali, S.A. Moving from strategic research on herbaceous legumes to their adoption by farmers as an INRM strategy

Smalberger, S. Geographical Cultivar Recommendation System as part of a integrated nutrient management system

Harwood, R.; Fortuna, A. M.; Sanchez, J.; Smeenk, J. Managing Ecosystem Processes as a Starting Point for Nutrient Management and Soil Quality

Vanlanwe, B.; Ramisch, J.; Swift, M. J. Integrated nutrient management from concept to practice: The role of process studies at the technical and dissemination levels

Barrios, E.; Delve R. J.; Thomas, R. J. Integration of local soil knowledge for improved soil management strategies

Session 2G. PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Organizer: J. I. Sanz

Description

Participatory watershed projects have greatly increased at national, international and bilateral levels over the past 10 years. This approach appeals in its promise to satisfy Agenda 21’s complex demands with a single coherent strategy of involving local stakeholders and with communities at multiple scales and zones while addressing cross-ecosystem issues and interactions related to farming and natural resource conservation. However, the newness, complexity, and ambition of multi-purpose, multi scale watershed approaches make success elusive even in the best circumstances.

In a watershed, crops, livestock, and forestry products are all marketable and paid for. Water is another product of watershed yet is almost never paid for, although it is sold onwards by a water authority to downstream users. Traditionally, the focus of watershed management has centered on the water itself, often only as a product for consumption outside the watershed even though it is intrinsically tied up with the other watershed products. Existing problems are addressed rather that any attempt being made to develop the resource.

In the past, a top-down planning approach was based on land capability, rather than on the capacities and needs of local people, and typically promoted activities that were forced upon residents and communities from outside. This lack of fit between human and biophysical boundaries has caused tensions and antagonisms between local populations and outside watershed project managers (Datta and Virgo 1998). The other extreme was externally driven watershed projects with no local ownership (Farrington and Lobo 1997). Presumably, respecting local views and tapping into local knowledge in making decisions on research and management questions can help design and have accepted more sustainable, locally-relevant management systems (Hufschmidt 1986). Neither of these extremes works well. We need a synergetic point between the perception and actions of both the local people and the specialists, a combination of both the technical and scientific aspects with local participation.

We strongly believe in the importance of empowerment of the local people. We cannot develop tools and the technology transfer approach without involving the local communities. The opportunities are clear. People are not empowered because of inadequate education, lack of farmer organizations, research development and extension organizations that focus on one-time technology transfer, and the formal agendas of research and development are out of touch with long-term processes.

Cook, S.; Sanz, J. I.; Oberthur, T. Coping with risk in hillside environments

Quiroz, R.; Zorogastúa, P.; Cruz, M.; Ibarra, C.; Baigorria, G.; León-Velarde, C. Using Innovations in Information Technology (GIS, Remote Sensing, simulation) for INRM in the Andes.

Bussink, C.; Posner, J.; Hijmans, R. Using GIS to promote spatial awareness and improve natural resource management in Andean watersheds

Copyright © Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical 2001. All rights reserved.
Workshop: 28-31 august 2001.
CIAT-Colombia.