Disaster Risk Reduction: Addressing the longer term issues – October CAN

The Horn of Africa is currently dealing with the aftereffects of one of the worst droughts in a decade. Although the recent onset of the rains has brought respite to many parched areas, food security continues to deteriorate throughout the region. Worse, meteorologists predict a period of intense rainfall due to the El Niño weather phenomenon, which could trigger massive flooding in several countries before year-end. Analysts are concerned that heightened vulnerability levels in many drought-stricken communities will exacerbate the impact of flooding. In this issue of CAN, we report on the ways in which research by CGIAR centres – through Disaster Risk Reduction – is enhancing the ways in which relief and development agencies respond to natural hazards such as drought and floods.

In the Horn of Africa, more and more people are affected each time a drought occurs. Drought is becoming more frequent, allowing less time for recovery in between droughts, and increasing the vulnerability of local populations. Emergency food security interventions implemented in response to drought tend to involve the distribution of seed, water, fodder and veterinary inputs. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that, by the mid-1990s, more than US$10 million per year was being spent on procuring seed for emergency projects in the Greater Horn.

Click on the image to access full article.

Letter to Friends of ILRI by the DG Carlos Sere

Dear ILRI friends:

I write to update you on the drought now devastating the livelihoods of pastoral herders, as well as dryland farmers, in ILRI’s two co-hosting countries, Kenya and Ethiopia, as well as Eritrea and Somalia.

The food security situation here in the Greater Horn of Africa is acute and deteriorating. The crop harvest of the main season is about 15% lower than the historical average. This comes on the back of more than three consecutive droughts, which have decimated crop production and pasture in most arid and semi-arid areas. The World Food Programme estimates the number of affected people at more than 20 million.

We who live in the region are provided graphic daily reminders of the urgency of the agricultural sustainability work we are all involved in. Livestock herders as young as 9 years old are now at the end of months-long treks that have turned into death marches, with their animals dropping one by one onto the ground, refusing heroic efforts by the boys to get them to stand and move on. The herders keep moving to keep hope alive—hope of finding grass for their animals. They will not find it in time to save most. And still they keep moving. Asked why, they answer they have no choice. What they cannot do is stop walking; to stop walking would be to give up.

A quarter of a century ago, in the great drought that hit the Horn in 1984, nearly a million people, most of them rural farmers and herders in Ethiopia, perished. Better information systems, preparedness plans and relief coordination in the decades since mean that this current drought is unlikely to kill vast numbers of people. What it’s doing instead is sending hundreds of thousands of people, most of them pastoral livestock herders, into destitution, without the means of feeding themselves and their families and with no discernible means of recovering their traditional means of making a livelihood. And it is predicted that this drought will be followed by heavier-than-usual El Niño rains, which are likely to bring with them a greater disease threat, killing off many of the few remaining animals that manage to survive the drought.

Pastoralists in this region have been coping well with climatic shocks for at least four thousand years. But today’s changes are greater in kind and number, are increasingly globalized in nature and are coming faster, one on top of another, all of which is undermining the traditional coping mechanisms of Africa’s pastoralist peoples.

As reported two days ago by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in its publication The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009, the global economic slowdown, following on the heels of the food crisis in 2006–08, has deprived an additional 100 million people worldwide of access to adequate food. There have been marked increases in hunger in all of the world’s major regions. More than one billion people are now undernourished, which is more hungry people than at any time since 1970. Sustainable solutions to the underlying problems causing food insecurity will by necessity rely on healthy agriculture sectors in developing countries, which in turn will rely on the critical knowledge and technological inputs of agricultural science. (Click here to see examples of livestock research addressing some of the underlying factors augmenting the pastoral crisis in the Horn.)

In the coming weeks, the need and methods for eradicating hunger will be passionately discussed at various events hosted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, including a High-Level Expert Forum on How to Feed the World in 2050 (12–13 Oct), the 32nd Session of the Committee on World Food Security (30 Oct–4 Nov), World Food Day (16 Oct) and a World Summit of Heads of State and Government on Food Security (16–18 Nov). ILRI itself is taking part in launching a multicentre CGIAR exhibit in Dublin 15–16 Oct to help educate young Irish people about the value of agricultural research for development and is hosting a conference in Addis Ababa in November on the future of food security in Ethiopia.

But for all our good intentions and works and high-level talks, we are unlikely to eradicate world hunger until we can sustain food production within viable food chains and systems. We learned much from the great drought cycles that swept Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. We learned how to protect lives. We must now learn how to help communities transform their agricultural livelihoods. This greater enterprise of course is the core business of the CGIAR and its many partners.

We may feel helpless in the face of great droughts such as the one we are now enduring in the Horn, but we are not. Our research spans the agricultural sustainability spectrum—working to enhance the resilience of pastoral and other vulnerable communities at one end and to intensify and sustain high-potential agricultural production at the other. Both are but different ends of the same continuum and should, we believe, be approached as such.

This point was vividly brought home to me in the last two weeks, as I travelled to Kenya’s western highlands, where mixed crop-and-livestock farmers are bringing in good harvests of maize and beans and praying for the good rains they have had to abate, so that their produce will not rot. Back home, I found the last cattle of the Maasai, having trekked for hundreds of kilometres from the drylands to the east, roaming the suburbs of Nairobi in search of a bit of grass to sustain them.

Such extremes, the climatologists tell us, is what we can expect more and more of in the future.  The developing world and its climate and the livelihoods of its peoples are changing fast. We in the CGIAR and its partner organizations shall have to change just as fast to stay relevant and useful to the agricultural and herding communities we work to serve.

We thank you for partnering and supporting us in this fast-evolving enterprise to help those we serve to endure; to create enduring food security for themselves, their families and their communities; and to build enduring food systems for their countries.

Yours sincerely,

Carlos Sere

Director General

International Livestock Research Institute

Online consultations to enhance agricultural research for development – September CAN

Online consultations to enhance agricultural research for development Broad representation and trust

This contribution is by Simone Staiger-Rivas, Knowledge Sharing Specialist at CIAT, who is serving as a coordinator, facilitator and technology steward for aspects of the ongoing Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) and e-consultations on reform of the CGIAR.

Broad representation and trust
Stakeholder engagement is crucial to successful reform. Where we often fail is
in developing and cultivating the indispensable networks and connections that allow us to involve a representative range of stakeholders actively in the reform process. This is further exacerbated by deeply institutionalized perceptions, norms and behaviors in regard to other actors of change. One consequence of these is the lack of trust among actors, which then leads to confidential side conversations that undermine the efforts for inclusive and transparent consultations around a reform.

Getting balanced representation and earning trust are two challenges in the ongoing efforts of the Global Forum on
Agricultural Research (GFAR), a global multi-stakeholder forum on agricultural research for development (which
includes the CGIAR), to organize in consultative processes for GCARD and CGIAR reform. Although virtual environments have the great advantage of allowing for broader engagement than physical meetings,
holding e-consultations does not guarantee that the desired range of actors, sectors and regional views are represented. And even if broad representation is achieved, distrust among participants and absence of face-to-face interactions can make it difficult to reach consensus in virtual environments.

The promising case of GCARD…Read more

Working with the facts – evaluation survey

The CGIAR Research in Africa evaluation survey is currently ongoing. The survey is intended to aid in the reclassification of main agricultural commodities, establish the level of awareness on the map and identify key areas of improvement in the map.

Besides the map being an informative and interactive tool that depicts the overall outlook of agriculture research in Africa our aim is also for the map to respond to the users needs as much as possible.

To participate, click on the link below to download the form and send the filled questionnaire to the address provided in the form by Friday the 2nd of October 2009.

Evaluation survey form

Stay tuned for the survey results in a couple of weeks…….

Rising food prices in eastern and southern Africa revisited: Lifting trade barriers is still the answer

In the August issue of the Collective Action News, we revisit food price trends across eastern and southern Africa, a topic we focused on in our first issue, in July 2008, just after the global food price crisis had peaked. We also draw attention to policy responses to the food price crisis, and provide an outlook for food prices in ESA for the rest of 2009.

Although the Global Food Price Index (FPI) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) fell between June 2008 and February 2009, global food prices have been rising slightly since then. Changes in the Global FPI were matched by a persistent increase in FPIs in countries belonging to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), except for Malawi and Comoros, which have experienced very volatile FPIs. On average, the prices of white maize, beans, milk, and non-tradable food items such as bananas, potatoes and yams all increased between January 2007 and January 2009.

White maize is the staple grain in Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia and some parts of Ethiopia. In Uganda, it is grown mainly as a commercial crop for export to the region. Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia, Uganda, and Tanzania have all seen substantial increases in maize prices from early 2007 – and there were no signs of decrease as of March 2009, apart for Zambia. The prices in these countries seem to be linked, perhaps due to cross-border trade and shortfalls of maize production within East Africa. For the season ending March 2009, maize supply in Kenya was constrained by reduced imports from Tanzania and Uganda during 2008/09 due to tightened markets in those countries as well as a trade ban in Tanzania – which led to prices almost 120% above normal. Similarly, from January 2007 to January 2009, bean prices have risen in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia and Tanzania…Read more

IITA and ILRI reaffirm ties, to explore broader partnership

Collective Action at work……..

The visit of Carlos Seré, Director General of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), to IITA Headquarters in Ibadan on Tuesday reaffirmed ties between the two research organizations and signalled potential for broader joint work.

Speaking before IITA and ILRI scientists and management during a luncheon meeting at the International House, Seré elaborated on some of the areas that the two organizations could explore.

“It has been clear for quite some time that there is a lot of potential for crops to be used in the livestock sector, which is growing quite fast globally. So there is increasing opportunity to add value and create new markets for crops and their by-products, for example in improving animal nutrition. This is just one area among many that ILRI and IITA could work together on in the near future,” he said.

“Additionally, I think the current challenge, research-wise, for both IITA and ILRI is how to optimally and efficiently produce and use biomass,” he added. Seré also mentioned developing value chain for cassava by-products as another possible area of partnership.

According to Seré, IITA and ILRI have had a long, strong and productive history of working together, even sharing resources and staff. “But it [partnership] could always be improved, and that is what we intend to do,” he emphasized.

Paula Bramel, IITA DDG R4D, supported Seré’s statement: “With the staff and structure changes in ILRI and IITA, we would like to see how we could work more closely and look at broader issues because most of our relationship has mostly been location-specific. We want to focus particularly on West Africa.”

“We will re-invest in this partnership,” she added.

Seré met with IITA DG Hartmann and Bramel after the luncheon meeting to further discuss and plan ways to move this renewed partnership forward and concretize areas of collaboration.

Full IITA Bulletin

Source: ilrinet (Dorine Adhoch) Article contributed by: Elaine Grings, Ibadan, Naigeria

Unveiling the New Revamped CGIAR Research in Africa Map!

Since it was launched early this year, CGIAR Research in Africa Map has continued to elicit a lot of interest from different people all around the world. From just trying to answer the simple question: Who is doing what, with whom and where?’ The database is now a source to key agricultural information in the region. Not only does the map depict the overall outlook of research carried out by CG centres but from the information in the map we have been able to carry out and publish periodic analysis of specific project information. Some of which include – the type of partners that the centres collaborate with in research, analysis of agricultural commodities in the centres and many more to come.

In his blog post titled Giving Research New Bearings: Take a Peek in the Google Engine Behind CGMap, Michael Marus of ICT-KM Program took an in depth look into the map’s development. The information and data structure which led to the rich geographic user interface that makes browsing of information exciting as well as informative have been well explained.

What to expect?

In collaboration with the ICT-KM Program we are pleased to announce that we will soon be unveiling the new map. With the new map you will now be able to;

1. Query the data based on different fields in the data such as project start and end date, primary area of research, research partner etc
2. Free text search criteria
3. Generate reports based on the applied filters
4. Enjoy user defined roles

Looking ahead

With a lot of talk on the need to break our communication barriers and have the CG centres working more closely together, it is becoming increasingly inefficient for us to stick to our old ways of communicating research information and outputs. The application and greater use of such tools is essential to all of us and a positive step to making agriculture a social endeavour!
Further, there is bound to be greater excitement when we start reporting on collaboration and networking from different stakeholders in the region, when new scientist will be brought up to speed on the past and ongoing research activities by just a click of a button, when our donors and partners will be able to know the new areas of priority, …………..

In the meantime do keep your ears and eyes open for the new improved map!

Saying goodbye to Ravi Prabhu

I have learnt that goodbyes are not only tough for the people leaving but also for the ones being left behind.

After a great 15 years, today August 10^th marks the last day for Ravi Prabhu in the CGIAR who has been Coordinator of the CGIAR Collective Action in Eastern and Southern Africa the past two and a half years.

It was interesting to see Ravi blush at his farewell and no, not because of the heat as it was a very chilly day but because of all the pleasant words that people said about him! Some of which include; kind, good sense of humour, eloquent, visionary, committed to what he does, a big dreamer and one who never fears to break the rules (own confession).

Having worked with Ravi for close to two years now, I must acknowledge that I will miss a great boss and a mentor, more specifically his wit, counsel, support, critical thinking, among others. Not only did he know what to say and how to say it but most importantly when to say it. He had a word for each season making him an all season communicator. He had a way of making me (and I believe those working with him) feel appreciated, gave credit where it deserved and acknowledged everyone who made contribution and was never short of correction when need be.

In Ravi’s own words the transition plan mapped out will “build explicitly on our achievements in engendering collective action within the four Flagship Programs, our editorial team at Collective Action News, our collaboration with the ICT-KM program in delivering the ‘ESA Map’ online database of research and other elements of the collective action that we have initiated”

I find console in Stephen Covey’s statement that “With an agreement (read vision) in place employees can manage themselves within the framework of that agreement. The manager can then serve like a pace car in a race. He can get things going and then get out of the way. His job from then on is it remove the oil spills.”

I believe that he has done more than that. Being the good manager that he is, he made us co-own the vision and I am convinced that the team which he built is keen on realizing the CGIAR’s mission in the eastern and southern Africa region through better alignment of research activities, more effective collaboration and dynamic integration of research programs.

If there is anything that I have learnt from working with Ravi is that the way of doing business is adapting to change and with that I believe that our paths will cross again, aren’t we all working for betterment of agriculture and related disciplines anyway!

I thank Ravi for his contribution to the CGIAR and wish him all the very best in his new assignment.

Managing the fertility of Africa’s soils: the case for collective action

In the July issue of Collective Action News, we direct the spotlight into a key aspect of those agricultural systems: Africa’s soils. How can we collectively manage this vital resource? Africa’s soils lose a dollar equivalent of US$ 4 billion in nutrients each year. In the past, single technological solutions were promoted across wide areas, often failing to take the heterogeneity of African soils into account. Today, collective action is developing principles and tools to tackle soil infertility more efficiently, and to enrich the knowledge base of how and where soil constraints manifest themselves in African landscapes and farms. On a continent where 65% of people are directly affected by soil degradation, this has not come a moment too soon.

Our Newsbytes highlight some of the resolutions that experts on agriculture, land and livestock reached at the African ministers meeting in Addis Ababa in April this year. Also featured is the CGIAR Research Map, highlighting the World Agroforestry Centre’s projects – 62 of which tie in with the lead story focus on INRM.

Happy reading and do keep your comments, questions and suggestions coming.

The New CGIAR – TMT Journal Upates

Last month, saw a lot of update from the Transition Management Team (TMT) on the new CGIAR.

The CGIAR chair Katherine Sierra reported on a meeting of the Executive Council at CIAT in Cali, Colombia, which assessed progress in implementing the reforms agreed to by the CGIAR Members at the Annual General Meeting in Maputo last December. She said that ExCo expressed support for the work to date in broad terms and provided a “green light” to continue with the transition process. At the same time, the Members flagged several issues that will require more analysis and discussion to resolve.

ExCo’s Assessment of Progress to Date – Summary

1. Consortium constitution – report clearly demonstrated the Centers growing commitment to the new Consortium as a means to achieve great development results.

2. Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs – also demonstrated the Centers’ growing enthusiasm about the reform process leading to a cohesive results-oriented research program.

3. New Fund – ExCo confirmed that we are on track with some remaining issues to be worked out around the composition of the Fund Council and Funders Forum, the role of the Independent Science and Partnerships Council and what the donor agreements with the Fund and performance contracts will look like.

4. Accountability framework – developing in the right direction. We are striving to identify the minimum set of tools that will combine clear accountability at both the program and systemwide levels with managerial simplicity.

For more on this report and also update from Ren Wang, Director CGIAR visit CGIAR Change Management blog on http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com/

Mega Programs

Contribution from John McDermott, Deputy Director General, ILRI on Lessons Learned from Developing Mega Program “Mock-Ups”. In a brief, he reported that in developing the three mock-ups each mock-up modeled a different type of mega program: (1) thematic   (improving the resilience of agricultural systems); (2) commodity-based (roots and tubers); and (3) regional (policies in sub-Saharan Africa)

To read more on this, click on the below link.

http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/lessons-learned-from-developing-mega-program-mock-ups/

Biotechnology, Bioinformatics and Food Security: Hype or hope?

This month’s issue of Collective Action News, delve’s into Biosciences: the role technology plays in dynamic and complex agricultural systems, and the need for a realistic assessment of its promise and pitfalls. This is against the backdrop of investments taking place in biotechnology and bioinformatics in the region, specifically the state-of-the-art Biosciences east and central Africa laboratory, which is nearing completion in Nairobi, Kenya.

Also in this issue, we link you to the latest analysis of all agricultural products that CGIAR centres are working on, and data from online surveys of research projects.

‘It is high time that the heroic simplification of the ‘GM crops are good for the poor’ storyline is finally laid to rest’, contends Dominic Glover in a thoughtful new paper on BT Cotton (see link below). He goes on to conclude that ‘The extravagant hype of GM crop advocates (and not only the alarmism of anti-GM campaigners) has unfortunately suffocated debate about this important new technological field. It is a field which, in truth, does indeed hold the potential to help address some important developmental challenges of the twentyfirst century, whether through genomic techniques, marker-assisted selection or indeed some transgenic applications. But, to realize this potential, it is not enough to pay lip service to the idea that GM crops will not be a silver bullet against hunger and poverty, while simultaneously designing impact assessments around the implicit assumption that such a magical effect is indeed possible.’… Click on this link to download the full pdf

An Analysis of the Agricultural Components That CGIAR Centers Deal In (ILRI, IITA and CIAT)

It is said that CGIAR’s research is dynamic, flexible and responsive to emerging development challenges to this end most CGIAR centers are involved in research on more than one commodity. This summary report highlights the commodities that the centers are involved in as reported in CGIAR Research Map. In this premier report we focus on the agricultural components of 3 CGIAR centers with the highest number of projects recorded in the inventory.

In summary
On average across all the 3 centres 60% of the projects reported to be working on the centers primary commodity and capacities while about 40% of the rest of the projects work on more than one single commodity and other issues related to the primary commodity and capacities.

Click here to download the full report.

In the next database highlight we look at another set of CGIAR centers and their area of research activities.

Science Forum 2009 – ICT Workshop

The Science Forum held in Wageningen, NLD on 16 – 17 June focused on innovative science and the arrangements that can help to mobilize it more effectively to address poverty alleviation and sustainable natural resource management.

The workshop focused on six domains, each considering promising areas of science within that domain. They include:
1. Resilient natural resource systems
2. The future of food: developing more nutritious diets and safer food
3. Changing the Emperor: ICTs transforming agricultural science, research and technology generation
4. Beyond the yield curve: exerting the power of genetics, genomics and synthetic biology
5. Eco-efficiencies in agro-ecosystems
6. Agriculture beyond food science for a biobased economy

ICTs transforming agricultural science, research and technology generation

Information and Communication Technologies – Ways to Mobilize and Transform Agricultural Science for Development was a paper presented by Ajit Maru (GFAR), Enrica Porcari CGIAR), and Peter Ballantyne. The paper argues that the processes by which knowledge, information and data are generated and shared are being transformed and reinvented – especially enabled by ongoing developments in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs) – and that these transformations provide massive opportunities for the entire Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) community to truly mobilize and apply global scientific knowledge, in ways that are hardly yet appreciated.

Some of the trends and changes that we can expect in the coming years include;

• Increasingly ‘ubiquitous’ connectivity along value chains
• Increasingly ‘precise’ applications and tools
• Increasingly ‘accessible’ data and information
• Increasingly ‘diverse’ set of applications available across digital clouds
• Increasingly ‘inter-connected’ tools and knowledge bases

The paper highlights that the most significant impact of ICTs on agricultural technology generation will be in connecting and engaging communities in participatory agricultural innovation. Science will be able to come out of its ‘silos.’ New agricultural processes and technologies to solve agricultural problems will emerge through continuous innovation with user communities, thus eliminating many of the constraints that agricultural science, research and technology generation now face. The need for conventional extension from research stations to farmers’ fields will diminish. Agricultural innovations will best fit the needs of user communities.

Some of the changes that are needed to move in these include:

1. Improve communications infrastructure and bandwidth, investing in lower-cost hardware, software and applications that connect science right along the development chain.
2. Increase and improve formal education and training in information and communication sciences that contributes to innovation in the use of new ICTs in agriculture.
3. Extend the generation and dissemination of data and information content as a ‘public good’ that is widely accessible and is licensed to be easily re-used and applied.
4. Support applications that integrate data and information or foster the interoperability of applications and information systems, allowing safe and ethical access while protecting necessary rights.
5. Encourage the effective uptake and use of data, information and knowledge, particularly focusing on capacity building dimensions necessary for the outputs of science to have impacts.
6. Support innovation in the workflows, processes and tools used to create, share, publish, visualize, and connect the outputs of agricultural science and the people engaged in it.

The paper briefly traces some advances in information and communications technologies and forecasts how it might in the future have an impact upon agricultural research, innovation, and agricultural development in general.
These include; Hardware and Connectivity, Ubiquitous Telecommunication Infrastructure, Utility or “Cloud” Computing, Software and Content Management, Interaction with Biology, Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Materials Science and ICTs

Analytical Framework for ICTs in Agriculture and Agricultural Science were discussed under

• ICTs and Agricultural Production
• ICTs and Agricultural Science, Research and Technology Generation
• ICTs and Agricultural Innovation

It will change the realm of agricultural science, where it will not be only the formally educated scientists who bring new technological innovations but whole communities who do so. All within an agricultural community will be producers and consumers of information and innovations.

The paper has a well defined framework indicates the interconnection between basic sciences, applied sciences, information and communications development and its linkages with agricultural science, research and technology generation.

ICT use in agriculture and agricultural development as a distinct area of research is not yet recognized in a majority of agricultural research institutes. This needs to be corrected and entailed with appropriate organizational structures that nurture application of ICTs for agricultural innovation and technology generation.

The new arrangements needed for the effective and efficient use of advances in information and communications sciences and ICTs require the following:

1. Improve communications infrastructure and bandwidth, investing in lower-cost hardware, software and applications that connect science right along the development chain.
2. Increase and improve formal education and training in information and communication sciences that contributes to innovation in the use of new ICTs in agriculture.
3. Extend the generation and dissemination of data and information content as a ‘public good’ that is widely accessible and is licensed to be easily re-used and applied.
4. Support applications that integrate data and information or foster the interoperability of applications and information systems, allowing safe and ethical access while protecting necessary rights
5. Encourage the effective uptake and use of data, information and knowledge, particularly focusing on capacity building dimensions necessary for the outputs of science to have impacts.
6. Support innovation in the workflows, processes and tools used to create, share, publish, visualize, and connect the outputs of agricultural science and the people engaged in it.

To cope with all the diversity, there is an emerging need for a set of institutions with agreed standards, norms, rules and regulations to govern and guide the flow of information related to agriculture and ensure its equitable access through the Internet.

The CGIAR has an important role to play as creator and curator of much of the essential data and information needed, also as connector between different science communities seeking development impact.

Click here to read the full paper

ILRI; Dynamics of Mara-Serengeti ungulates in relation to land use changes

This new study that shows how widespread and substantial declines in wildlife in Kenya’s Masai Mara has received and is still continuing to receive massive coverage in both international and local media outlets.

The study provides the most detailed evidence to date on declines in the ungulate populations in the Mara and how this phenomenon is linked to the rapid expansion of human populations near the boundaries of the reserve. For example, an analysis of the monthly sample counts indicates that the losses were as high as 95 percent for giraffes, 80 percent for warthogs, 76 percent for hartebeest, and 67 percent for impala. Researchers say the declines they documented are supported by previous studies that have found dramatic drops in the reserve of once abundant wildebeest, gazelles and zebras…Read more

A peek into collective action

Ever wondered what Regional Plan for Collective Action is all about? Who is behind the steering wheel, where is it being driven to, on which path and to where? Do you wonder what exactly are its goals, mission, what has been achieved so far?

Wonder no more, in this blog feature we look at the history, the moments and the future of collective action.

The ‘Meetings of the Mind’ held in 2000 with a view of improving collaboration within Sub-Saharan Africa was the mother of this initiative, yes we date way back!

In the year 2005 the Centres proposed the development of two regional plans (‘Integrated Medium Term Plans’), one for West and Central Africa and one for Eastern and Southern Africa to bring about better coordination among Centres and better collaboration with partners. After more meetings and meetings the seed beared fruit and the Regional Plan for East Africa was created. Our goal;  to foster the emergence of a coordinated, cohesive program of agricultural research that unleashes economies of scale and scope at low transaction costs, in order to successfully address regional priorities, ranging from complex problems of stagnant or falling agricultural productivity, poverty, to impacts of climate variation.

It is important to recall that the plan was the product of a systematic consultative process that took place among centre scientists, between these and scientists in their regional partner institutions and with the relevant sub-regional organisations. In ESA, all fifteen centres, more than 10 NARS, both sub-regional organisations, FARA and the NEPAD-REC (regional economic commission) were directly involved.

How do we work you might wonder??

Our aim is to add value to ongoing and future agricultural research in eastern and southern Africa. This collaborative program is expressed in four Flagship Programs:

Flagship 1: Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM)

Flagship 2: Policies, Institutions and Information for Achieving Impact at Scale

Flagship 3: Conservation and Enhancement of Agricultural Biodiversity for Improved Agricultural Production

Flagship 4: Improving impact of emergency response on agricultural livelihoods in highly stressed and unstable systems.

Platform and capacity support include support to collective action on capacity strengthening, sub-regional organizations (ASARECA, SADC-FANR) and FARA and networks, and ‘platforms’ such as BecA, ReSAKSS. It also includes collaboration with ICT-KM’s ‘CG Map’ on a knowledge base of CGIAR research in the region that answers the question: “Who is doing what, with whom and where?” – http://ictkm.cgiar.org/cgmapTemplate/ESA_map.html

Major accomplishments

1. Programmes; inter-Centre working groups in all Flagship programmes that have significant SRO, NARS and regional network participation.

2. Platforms: Support to ReSAKSS and ASARECA in preparation of responses to food price crisis. Support to inter-centre capacity strengthening initiative

3. Research monitoring: Development of an online database of CGIAR research in ESA together with ICT-KM’s “CG Map” (publicly accessible on the internet from Feb. 15, 2009). This is based on an inventory of over 80% of the CGIAR’s research in the region.

Conclusion

‘The CGIAR was an institutional innovation when it was created in the 1960s. By aligning itself a new with its partners in eastern and southern Africa to unleash innovations — in strategy, structure, support systems, skills and, not least, shared values — the CGIAR is grasping a unique opportunity’. Howard Elliott

‘We cannot move in four integration directions at the same time and expect coherence to emerge from that’. Jan Laarman (Former ICRAF DDG)

Priority actions on agricultural markets? Not easy at a market of ideas! – May Collective Action News

This month we bring you news from a major review of work on improving the functioning of agricultural markets in Africa.

Sponsored by AGRA – the Alliance for a green Revolution in Africa and organized on their behalf by the International Livestock Research Institute – the international conference showcased the incredible breadth and depth of what has been going on in the region. This presented a huge dilemma for us at Collective Action News – should we wait until the official proceedings of the Conference are published to report outcomes, or should we report what we had witnessed at the conference? We decided not to wait so that you, our readers, are made aware of what was on offer and can proactively engage with the organizers on any issues that interest you…Read more

It is estimated that 70 % of the CGIAR Centers are partnering with NARS partners – Myth or Fact!

This article looks at the CGIAR centers that have research activities in Africa and their partners. The summary is drawn from the CGIAR research map in Africa which is an online project repository of the CGIAR projects in the region.

There are a total of 830 different partners collaborating with the centers which have been broadly categorised into 11 partner types.

• Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
• Community Based Organisation (CBO)
• Development Organization – UN and international organization
• Government
• International Agricultural Research Centers (IARC)
• National Agriculture Research System (NARS) – NARI and NARO
• Non Governmental Organisation (NGO)
• Private sector – seed sectors, farmers, farmer organization / communities etc
• Regional and Sub-Regional Organization
• Universities
• Others – Agricultural Development Programs (ADP)

Although there are variations in individual centers majority of the centers reported to be partnering the most with NARS (26%), Universities (18%) and IARC (11%) and least with ARI (4%), Development Organization – UN and international organization (4%) and CBO (2).

Click here to down the full report.

Two collective action posters win prizes in international competitions

Two Collective Action posters have recently been ranked as being among the top entries in different competitions.

‘Routes to better partnership_A map of CGIAR Research in Africa’ which talks about the CGIAR research in Africa map was selected as one of the top ten entries in the 2009 Science Forum Poster Competition on the theme “ICTs: Enabling Agricultural Science to Be a Social Endeavour”. The map is an online project repository for CGIAR projects in Africa (CGIAR Research in Africa)

For more details on the Science Forum 2009 and the selected posters and abstracts, please check the GFAR website  (www.egfar.org).

‘Collectively we can’, which highlights the overall work of the Regional Plan is the second poster that won a Bronze Award in the entry “International Posters – Collective Action” in class 14 – Posters of the 2009 ACE Critique and Awards program.

To view the poster go to; http://www.ilri.org/regionalplan/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=116

Climate and agriculture in East Africa: The future is mixed – April Collective Action News

The April issue of Collective Action News, addresses climate change and its impacts on agriculture in East Africa. Our lead story–the work of Phil Thornton and co-workers – is part of a larger research project called the Climate – Land Interaction Project (CLIP). Linkages between land use/cover and climate change are being examined through various methods, and two-way interactions between land use and regional climate systems are being quantified at multiple scales in East Africa.

The issues newsbytes, all related to the topic of climate change and agriculture, feature work from no less than six Centres!

For more on this content go to;  http://www.ilri.org/regionalplan/documents/Collective Action News Issue 7. April 2009.pdf

Overarching research agendas – Ravi Prabhu shares

Meet Ravi Prabhu, the coordinator of CGIAR Regional Plan for Collective Action in Eastern and Southern Africa, Alliance of the CGIAR Centers, as he shares insights from recent efforts to build “overarching research agendas”
this and much more in the April issue of cgiarNews

Q: What does “collective action” mean for you, and why do you believe it’s important for the CGIAR?

RP: In the context of the CGIAR’s collaborative research, collective action refers to a number of Centers, though not necessary all, working together on a common agenda, one they could not adequately address individually. With respect to the Regional Plan for Collective Action in Eastern and Southern Africa, this also means collaborating with our partners in the region, especially with subregional organizations, like ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa). The challenges of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation are too complex and dynamic for any single Center to deal with them effectively through individual effort. Hence the need for collective action.

Q: What are some of the primary means by which you have fostered collective action?

RP: As coordinator of the CGIAR Regional Plan for Collective Action in Eastern and Southern Africa, I have sought to bring together leading researchers from all the Centers working in the region to articulate overarching research agendas for the plan’s four flagship program areas. These are integrated natural resource management, markets, agrobiodiversity and postcrisis recovery in agriculture. My approach is to engage in a dialogue with researchers who are on top of their game and have realized that further progress in these areas is likely to come only if they join hands with researchers from other Centers who have complementary skills or mandates. I’m also facilitating the emergence of “communities of practice” – that is, self-directing, action-oriented groups – focused on the four program areas.

Q: What has been your most gratifying experience in this work?

RP: The enthusiastic and unselfish support of senior researchers, who despite being extremely busy, have proved willing to engage in our four flagship areas and address the development challenges articulated by regional bodies. This is especially impressive given that the organizational frameworks and institutional incentives for such work – for example, in annual performance appraisals – are weak or missing for the most part. It has been really exciting to receive the scientists’ help in forming a strategic view of the role of research on particular topics and of its contribution to development.

Q: What has been your greatest frustration in promoting collective action?

RP: Two aspects have been frustrating. The first – and it’s almost a principle – is that collective action moves no faster than its slowest critical component. At times, the pace has been frustratingly slow. On most days, we’re fairly sure to beat a snail in a race, but I don’t think the tortoise has much to worry about! One must ask whether collective action is the appropriate response in each and every case. When I look back, though, I’m quite amazed at what the various collective action groups working on the regional plan have achieved within 2 years on a very modest budget. My second frustration is that the regional plans have lacked support from the Centers of the participating researchers. Though this picture is not homogenous, I think it’s a fair generalization.

Q: What do you consider the key requirements for the success of collective action?

The two most important are a clear understanding of what the collective action is for and a clear agreement that it is the appropriate organizational response to a given problem. On that basis, we can articulate common objectives and a common agenda, without which collective action is pointless. Other key requirements are effective facilitation (including conflict management), a commitment to keeping transaction costs as low as possible (or they will totally swamp the initiative), an awareness that collective action is a means and not an end (in other words, one must not be seduced into creating “hard” institutional frameworks to support collective action, when “soft” ones will do), trust among the participants and, lastly, effective communication and learning processes.

Q: What views have CGIAR partners expressed to you about collective action in the CGIAR?

RP: I’ve heard views ranging from very negative to very positive. It’s difficult to generalize, as opinions are always expressed in the context of a particular form of collective action. On the whole, I would say that partners don’t have a particularly positive opinion of collective action in the CGIAR. I believe, though, that this opinion is not well founded. In fact, it may be somewhat prejudicial. Of course, some partners express hope that collective action will get better in the future.

Q: In your opinion, what is the single most important untapped opportunity for strengthening collective action in the CGIAR?

RP: The urgency of the challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century and the wide recognition of their importance. I would add to this my conviction that the majority of CGIAR (and partner) researchers are favorably disposed towards collective action, providing the transaction costs aren’t too much of a burden. It would also help if researchers received some recognition for their contributions. Perhaps, the CGIAR could do more to recognize examples of effective collective action.

Q: What recent example of collective action in the CGIAR would you single out for recognition?

RP: Last year, when the whole world was worrying about the food price crisis, colleagues from ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) and ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) came to me and explained how eastern and central Africa is likely to be impacted in ways that differ from the global picture presented in the media. A collective action group, consisting of researchers from various Centers and partner organizations, was formed to articulate a regional perspective on the crisis. ASARECA was the logical candidate to lead the group. Its findings quickly became the basis for discussions among policy makers, multilateral organizations and others about policy responses and research strategies. This initiative bore all the hallmarks of good collective action – it was based on a broad and equal partnership involving diverse organizations, and it delivered useful outputs in a timely way. Clearly, we need more such initiatives!

Q: How have the recently proposed reforms in the CGIAR altered your expectations about the future of collective action in that and other areas?

RP: The proposed reforms seem to favor collective action quite strongly. But it’s too early to gauge their likely impact. If the reforms are what I understand them to be, then I think they should be welcomed wholeheartedly.