Project Title
"AHI-ASARECA Competitive Grant System Research Call, 2006-2007: Integrated Natural Resource Management"

Project Goal
Integrated management of natural resources for enhanced agricultural productivity, competitiveness and value added in East and Central Africa.

Project Purpose
Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) innovations utilized in East and Central Africa.

Project Background/Rationale
Theme 1: Integrated Management of Watersheds and Landscape Niches to Satisfy Multiple Needs of Multiple Local Stakeholders
Integrated watershed management is currently one of the major themes for AHI. The integration concept has two meanings within AHI: 1) to blend technical, social, institutional and policy solutions to improve upland watershed management; and 2) to optimize the returns/benefits from diverse system components (crop, livestock, soil, tree, water) rather than maximizing returns from individual components. Integrated watershed management deviates from previous approaches that took a purely technological approach, leaving out important social and institutional dimensions (equity, collective action, negotiation). Conventional approaches only look at the productivity side and do not take into account sustaining production through time through natural resource investments. Where natural resource governance is problematic, this dimension is also often left out. While more researchers are using participatory methods, this is often limited to plot-level testing of single commodity-based technologies, and does not look into impacts at a larger scale, for example on water or nutrient competition, or on other land users.

The main contribution from this research is to develop and test an integrated watershed management approach that optimizes resource use and minimizes competing interests so as to sustainably satisfy multiple needs of multiple local interest groups. The research must demonstrate its originality in terms of at least one of the integration concepts.

Theme 2: Integrated Natural Resource Management Policy and By-Laws
Land management practices carried out by individual landowners may have strong negative influences on other land users or communities. Upper catchment residents may carry out land management practices that compromise the quality or quantity of water flowing to lower catchment communities; boundary management practices may undermine the productivity of neighboring cropland; and water, pest and livestock management practices may directly harm neighboring landowners. Similarly, the absence of negotiated agreements may limit people's ability to tap into important opportunities for improving system productivity (for example, to manage community forests in degraded areas or to make outfield improvements given the free movement of livestock). Traditional and new by-laws (local agreements) exist but in some cases have not been enforced, have been forgotten about, or have been undermined by government or other forces. Additionally, social capital (collective action) related to defining and implementing these by-laws is breaking down due to population pressure, out migration and absenteeism, and development forces emphasizing individualized solutions. At the same time, national laws protecting water sources, regulating livestock movement and governing run-off exist but are not enforced because there is limited knowledge about them, or because they are too "general"—and fail to integrate local considerations into policy design. All of these factors limit policy implementation and translation into action, which is often more of a concern than the lack of the policies themselves. This situation clearly calls for improved natural resource governance through appropriate policies that are both respected by local residents and implemented through culturally-appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

The aim of this research is twofold: 1) to develop and test methods that enable local community interest groups to evaluate and improve their natural resource management and sharing agreements and modalities, and 2) to develop methods that enable communities to interact with policy-makers and enforcers in improving natural resource governance, in highland watersheds and districts.

Theme 3: Institution-Building for INRM
Functioning institutions are a necessary component of integrated natural resource management, as they provide the basis for ensuring that multiple local interests are articulated within development and conservation initiatives, and help to ensure effective delivery of services. Effective institutions are necessary at the local level, as well as at higher levels where support for local initiatives is organized.

Many traditional social structures exist, but only few actively engage in INRM activities as they are formed for other purposes. At district level, multiple institutions are present and give support to local communities, yet do so in an uncoordinated manner. At best, local people perceive the efforts of outside institutions to be duplicated or contradictory. In worst-case scenarios, the actions of one institution actually undermine the efforts of other institutions or certain aspects of rural livelihoods (i.e. trees disseminated by forestry departments undermining water conservation; or road construction undermining soil and water conservation efforts). The new concept of innovation systems holds promise in that all stakeholder involved in making a system work are involved in various actions as facilitated by a leader of the innovation. Different types of institutional arrangements are emerging and being tried out—partnerships, coalitions, networks, and consortia, among others, in order to improve coordination, synergies, and information and task sharing with a shared goal.

This research call seeks to address major institutional bottlenecks to INRM and livelihood at local and district levels. Research at the local level may seek to improve methods for strengthening social capital for watershed and buffer zone management, for marketing, for coping with vulnerability, for linking to development agencies, and for other endeavors that require groups of people to work together. Research at district level should test different types of institutional partnerships for improving coordination, synergies, and information- and task-sharing toward a shared goal and in support of local-level INRM. Action research would assist in testing and developing these types of new processes and methods, and distilling principles for effective institutions for INRM.

Theme 4: Institutionalizing INRM Methods
AHI Benchmark Sites have served as the testing ground for numerous methodological innovations for integrated natural resource management. Many of these methods are in advanced stages of development through field-based testing and validation. They include a host of methods that fall under multiple themes: participatory research; systems intensification and diversification; participatory integrated watershed management; collective action in natural resource management; and improved research-development linkages (integrating community facilitation with action and empirical research); among others. However, most of these methods remain within benchmark sites and have yet to be scaled up into research and development institutions.

This research call seeks to address the need to scale up methodologies developed within AHI Benchmark Sites through awareness-building, advocacy and dissemination strategies. Research or development (extension, NGO) institutions with a keen interest in institutionalizing one or more of these methods may be selected as target institutions.

Project Nature
Funding Stream B—CGS

Participating Countries and Institutions
Ethiopia: EIAR and partner organizations
Rwanda: ISAR and partner organizations
Tanzania: DRD and partner organizations
Uganda: NARO and partner organizations

Duration and Status
Ongoing, through June 2007

Source of Funding
European Union