Evolution of the Program

on this page: Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4

AHI started in 1995 when the intensively cultivated highlands ecoregion was chosen by its founders as an area where partnership could make a difference. AHI facilitates a consortium of research organizations1 that provide expertise to help address complex natural resource management (NRM) and agricultural productivity issues in the ecoregion. AHI started as a CGIAR ecoregional program, but early on national research programs (NARIs) joined in and AHI has since become a network of the Association to Strengthen Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA).


Process steps in achieving integrated watershed management in the highlands
AHI is hosted by ICRAF and has operated at one time or another in 5 countries of eastern Africa: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Madagascar and Ethiopia. Benchmark sites were chosen as representative highland areas having high population levels, small farm sizes and apparent natural resource degradation. The institutional context and R&D actors present in the area were also considered. Although the sites share some commonalities, they differ according to the enterprise mix, and the socio-economic, policy and NRM issues present.

Since 1995 AHI has evolved considerably, although its purpose has remained consistent. Evolution occurred as field experience was gained, as a wider set of actors became involved (policy makers and development agents), and as the research cadre made their own conceptual and practical leaps.

PHASE 1

In Phase 1 (1995-97), AHI was organized around regionally determined thematic technical agendas, i.e. characterization and diagnosis, integrated pest management, and improvement of soil productivity. An early evaluation of AHI (1996) indicated that the top-down thematic approach was not achieving the necessary integration, systems approach, or partnerships. In response, the regional "Task Force" recommended the appointment of National and Site Coordinators and the adoption of a benchmark "integrated research team" approach.

PHASE 2

In Phase 2 (1998-2001), AHI changed from its initial top-down thematic approach towards using a bottom-up approach, promoting participatory research (PR) methods, an integrated systems perspective, and multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary teamwork. AHI adopted funded work in pilot benchmark sites or case study areas as a way to test and demonstrate improved integration of inputs required to solve NRM issues and to test the new working modalities. The participatory research methods used by NARI research teams entail bottom-up problem identification, priority setting, planning and resource allocation, and monitoring and evaluation—a process called "PAM" (participatory agro-ecosystem management). Research teams started working through farmer groups, and focused on "entry points" and adaptive research where useful "on-the-shelf" technology options that could be quickly taken up by farmers were introduced in direct response to local priorities.

The PR was aimed at systems improvement through the introduction of a wide range of options for farmers to experiment with and choose from. By the end of Phase 2 (3 years later), the farmers involved in research had selected a wide range of options aimed at: solving soil fertility and conservation issues; further diversifying and intensifying through improved integration of livestock feeds, trees, and new varieties and crops; and, started to address some local policy issues having a bearing on resource management (in Kabale). Once farmers felt they were benefiting from the interaction, it was envisaged that the research agenda would gradually expand to include more complex NRM issues within the production systems—addressing collective watershed management as the next level of aggregation.

The following areas of progress are highlighted for Phase 2:

  • Improved technical integration and adoption by farmers;
  • Increased farmer involvement and empowerment;
  • Attitude change on the part of the farmers and researchers due to the participatory methods employed;
  • Improved tracking of progress through self-reflection and documentation (participatory M&E);
  • The regional dimension of AHI improved with cross-site sharing and learning, with stronger site teams offering inspiration for less advanced ones and the regional research fellows making a solid contribution;
  • Multi-institutional contributions were realized, and there was progress in terms of wider appreciation and use of INRM approaches.

AHI had a second evaluation in 2000 for the period 1996-2000. Many of the findings and recommendations, as well as subsequent discussions and reflections, have been taken into the design and direction of Phase 3. Some of the main points and adjustments follow:

  1. The need for a more specific focus and scope;
  2. A shift from technology generation and testing to methods and approach development for integrated natural resource management (INRM);
  3. Increased emphasis on capacity building and institutional innovation;
  4. Reduced number of sites for intensive work (from 8 to 5) to enable improved funding of pilot site innovations and cross-site, cross-country sharing of lessons, with site reduction done on the basis of the representative nature of certain key conditions and issues for regional comparison;
  5. Improved information sharing through: (i) increased inclusion of station managers and improved vertical and horizontal communication; (ii) an improved documentation and communication system; iii) replacing thematic working groups with focused regional sessions on specific research areas related to INRM; and (iv) an outreach thrust to assist other integrated research teams;
  6. More efficient governance structure, including a more streamlined Regional Steering Committee and replacement of the Technical Support Group with a regional research management team (RMT) will direct responsibility for regional projects and outputs;
  7. Better balance between research and networking, ensuring that new research dimensions and methods that are currently not holistically addressed in NARIs and IARCs are tackled and outreach is enhanced through a strengthened networking function.

There was also broader acceptance that use of "learning and action" research ("research on research") methods would be required to derive methods. This process-oriented research would require oversight from a regional research team for mentoring, collaborative research and documentation.

PHASE 3

The emphasis for Phase 3 (2002-2005) was to link farm-level improvements from Phase 2 to other landscape issues involving water, forest and communal resource management. Phase 3 retained AHI's emphasis on addressing natural resource degradation issues while increasing productivity and improving livelihoods by:

  • Intensifying the INRM work in watershed2 sites;
  • Scaling up INRM approaches to district3 level and beyond;
  • Pursuing institutional change in favour of INRM; and
  • Enhancing networking among INRM practitioners

During Phase 3, AHI's primary emphasis has been on operationalizing an integrated watershed management approach to illustrate how the approach works, and to build local and external institutional capacity (research and development). AHI's focus has been on methodological dimensions of achieving the necessary integration, partnerships and working arrangements, collective action and farmer innovation to solve priority NRM and productivity issues. Working models to illustrate what stronger linkages between research and development can accomplish in the highlands were envisioned, with NGO-research and research-extension-community linkages successfully piloted. These models helped to generate and test new approaches to "integration" and "participation" at watershed and landscape level, and are available as examples for scaling up to other watersheds, institutions, districts and countries. A district focus—new in Phase 3—was proposed as a means of scaling up of INRM approaches, but has moved beyond this to represent a novel source of methodological innovation in some sites.

The mandate of institutionalizing change in research institutions for enhanced use of INRM approaches continued in the third phase. AHI and partner organizations have supported and enhanced researcher and research institutions' capacity to promote and use INRM so as to achieve better integration of technical, economic, policy, institutional and social processes. Finally AHI made a stronger commitment to influence wider INRM policy and practice through networking, information exchange and compiling and synthesizing information. The ultimate objective has been to mainstream environmental, sustainability and equity concerns into the traditional production-oriented focus.

PHASE 4

Phase 4, currently under way, is envisioned as a period in which development and institutionalization of the INRM approach would be consolidated. While AHI's mode of working "locally" and synthesizing and influencing "regionally" is sound and there was considerable progress in developing the integrated watershed approach in Phase 3, three years was insufficient to bring the approach "full circle" in benchmark sites. Even more time is needed to institutionalize the approach, given the need for "mind-set" change and the need to work with a wider group of scientists, managers and institutions (including the ASARECA family of networks). The envisioned Phase 4 emphases may be summarized as follows:

  1. To further develop the watershed approach, focusing on enabling collective action and integrating biophysical, social and economic dimensions of farm and landscape management. The outcome of this work will be livelihood, equity and environmental impacts in benchmark sites, while the output will be the synthesis of methods and tools that enabled these integrated outcomes to be realized.
  2. To use experiences and methods from AHI benchmark sites combined with information from more extensive surveys and syntheses to derive good practices and methods for development agencies.
  3. To conduct research to understand links and dynamics between vulnerability, poverty, livelihood strategies, economic growth and NRM. This would include methods to better articulate tradeoffs from the vantage points of different stakeholders and land use scenarios so as to provide information for improved dialogue across levels of decision-making;
  4. To provide relevant and timely information to district and national development actors and decision-makers by aiming research at: critical evaluation of R&D partnerships and linkages to enable better management; developing and testing analytical frameworks and performance monitoring schemes to improve quality and contributions of various actors to development processes; and learning from various scaling up and communication strategies.
  5. To impart "how to" information, provide "real life" examples, and follow with mentoring for institutional change in some key research institutions that will eventually serve as "models" and provide lessons to others in the ASARECA region and beyond.

Targeted beneficiaries and participants in Phase 4 include national and international research organizations and networks, civil society organizations, service providers, policy makers, local authorities, community-based organizations and male and female farmers.

1 The main organizations involved included: NARIs from 5 of the ASARECA countries (DRD in Tanzania, FOFIFA and FIFAMANOR in Madagascar, EIAR in Ethiopia, KARI in Kenya and NARO in Uganda), who provide local research teams together with NGOs and extension; IARCs (CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI and IPGRI); CGIAR system-wide programs (participatory research and gender analysis, soil, water and nutrient management and livestock); and regional and international research institutes (TSBF, NRI, ALTERRA).

2 Micro-watershed is a geographic unit representing ownership/use of land and water resources within a hydrologically-defined unit, but with loose boundaries that enable issues that do not conform to these boundaries to be addressed.

3 "District" is an administrative unit that is the lowest government level responsible for planning, budgeting and implementing development activities. In Ethiopia this unit is equivalent to the "woreda" and in Madagascar to the "commune."