Strategic Typology of Impact Pathways for Natural Resource ... Typology of Impact Pathw… ·...

Strategic Typology of Impact Pathways for Natural Resource Management: A Case Study of the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Programme

Sissi Liu Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) World Agroforestry Centre Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Abridged version, with a forward by TP Tomich and Sandra J Velarde. 22 May 2004

Nairobi, Kenya

Forward This study by Sissi Liu, Strategic Typology of Impact Pathways for Natural Resource Management, provides an innovative perspective on the structure and functions of the Alternatives to Slash and Burn System-wide Programme (ASB) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). It was undertaken as one contribution to preparations for the upcoming external review and impact assessment of ASB by the CGIAR. The author was an intern with the ASB global coordination office in Nairobi, Kenya, for eight weeks in June and July 2003. Drawing on interactions with the staff of the global coordination office and review ofdocuments on file concerning four sets of ASB activities in Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, and Peru, the study explores the complex causal chain of relationships from the program’s activities at various levels (local to global) through to intended impacts, illustrating the role of programmatic integration in enhancing impact potential along these pathways and on associated feedbacks at various stages in the impact chain. The study concludes with specific recommendations to enhance ASB impacts, with particular relevance for the global coordination office.

field.

those

le from the ASB global coordination office [email protected]).

This is a desk study. Its conclusions have not been tested in the Perhaps it is most appropriate to view this study as a source of hypotheses that are based on serious analysis of ASB documents, but which require further testing and validation with ASB’s partners at the local, national and regional levels. Because of lack of opportunity for necessary “ground truthing” during Ms. Liu’s internship, this abridgedversion of the study omits her detailed case material. However, analyses are availab(a

Abbreviations and Acronyms ARI Advanced Research Institution ASB Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (CGIAR system-wide program) CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research (CGIAR) EIA Environmental impact assessment EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária GPG Global Public Good ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry;

known as the World Agroforestry Centre INRENA Peru’s National Institute for Natural Resources iNRM Integrated Natural Resource Management IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPG International Public Good iSC Interim Science Council (CGIAR) NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems NAR National Agricultural Research RBM Result Based Management RNR Renewable natural resource USAID United States Agency for International Development SWP System-Wide Programme STCP Sustainable Tree Crop Programme

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................ii

I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

II. Impact Typology and Analytic Methodology ......................................................................2

III. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn: a Boundary Organization.............................................4

IV. Impact Typology of ASB Programme ................................................................................6

General Schematic ...............................................................................................................6

Comprehensive Impact Causal Maps ..............................................................................10

Strengths and Weaknesses of Impact Pathways .............................................................11

V. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................13

Appendix....................................................................................................................................a

Appendix A – ASB Programme Comprehensive Impact Causal Maps..........................a

Appendix B – Preliminary Outcome Indicators ............................................................... e

i

Executive Summary Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB), a system-wide, integrated natural resource management (iNRM) program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has been heralded as a prototype of successful application of the iNRM methodology. While it has been widely acknowledged that since 1994 ASB has made substantial impacts on environmental conservation and poverty alleviation in the tropical forest biome, no systematic assessment of its impacts has yet been conducted. However, it is anticipated that an assessment team will be appointed by the incoming Science Council of the CGIAR to carry out an evaluation/impact assessment in 2004.

This paper presents results of a desk study, which reviewed various project documents to develop an impact typology for ASB in order to clarify and analyze the complex causal relationships between the program’s activities and their ultimate impacts. The conclusions of the paper are derived from a set of qualitative analyses, employing qualitative models based on the Result Based Management (RBM) framework.

The study is based on the examination of four ASB projects in Indonesia, Peru, Brazil and West Africa. These cases were selected for the distinctive sets of activities and actual impacts produced and may not be representative of the program as a whole. However, the program typology of impact channels does suggest general lessons that can be learned from the case studies. In particular, this approach clarifies the relationship between the components and mechanics of the program and should help the assessment team understand the unique nature and multilevel structure of ASB.

The qualitative analysis identifies impact patterns that help explain some aspects of ASB’s success with organizational learning. At the same time, the paper distinguishes some of the enabling factors and obstacles to the organization’s fulfillment of various missions, with a particular emphasis on production of international or global public goods. Finally, it suggests ways to better understand the ASB system-wide program’s opportunities, strengths, and weaknesses in the context of the global scientific research and policy environment.

The analysis concludes that three distinctive types of impact pathways are particularly key to the success of ASB. 1. Coordination, synthesis and extrapolation of local research for global policy impact

– the general schematic and case studies of ASB impact pathways indicate that key ASB impacts are produced at the global level through its ability to coordinate, synthesize and extrapolate research information from its eight benchmark sites in Peru, Brazil, Cameroon, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Specific experiences of benchmark sites are reviewed and analyzed for international and global applicability and transferability. The outputs of comparative analyses are then summarized as scientific publications and various public awareness and dissemination materials in print and online media formats that target specific audience groups, including scientists, policy makers, educators, business managers and investors, and the general public. This information contributes to global public goods and its global reach gives rise to the strongest direct ASB impact pathway.

2. Forging and leveraging partnership network for global collaboration and reach – ASB actively seeks to forge and leverages partnerships with international organizations, national agricultural research (NAR) institutions, and governments of benchmark countries in funding and collaboratively formulating local projects based on the iNRM problem definition approach, which views science and technology as an input to be fitted to the specific questions being addressed. Through such partnerships, ASB is able to extend its impacts through an expansive network that crosses the boundaries of politics,

ii

science, business, and civil society for enhancing information delivery and direct policy influence.

3. Negotiation and mediation support for global communication – ASB invests heavily in negotiation and mediation support for partners and local communities in their participation in benchmark projects as well as their interactions with policy makers and private businesses at the local, national, and global levels. By providing expertise, technical resources and networking, ASB spans boundaries between multiple sectors to help reach common understanding among diverse groups of stakeholders.

These pathways are important for characterizing ASB as a boundary organization, defined by David Guston as an institution that “straddle[s] the shifting divide between politics and science,” 1 facilitating dialogues between multiple spheres of activities and linking science and technology with decision making. As the analysis reveals, ASB in fact goes beyond bridging the chasm between politics and science. It has successfully connected them with private businesses and civil society.

Aside from these three major impact pathways, the importance of local level impact channels should not be underestimated. The most obvious impact is that local stakeholders enjoy greater community cohesion and benefit from the infusion of various forms of livelihood capital assets that support poverty alleviation of target groups. Similarly, ecosystem services receive deserved attention and become better protected at the local level. Moreover, local benchmark sites form the foundation of ASB pantropic presence, which drives the global program’s capacity to conduct adaptive sustainable development research. Insights into agroforestry management science, policy and social interactions among stakeholders are gained through comparing results from benchmark sites that reside within the same climate zone but utilize different methods toward attaining the same goals. Through conducting such analyses, adjustments to project activities can be made to avoid likely pitfalls already experienced elsewhere.

Results from the impact pathway study highlight the complexities of impact. While linear pathways can easily be identified, they do not satisfactorily describe ASB’s impact typology. Two other characteristics of the impact typology better explain the successes of the program. First, activity and output leverage nodes drive multi-scale impacts and reveal cross-sector relationships. The most important of these is the integration and extrapolation research activities performed by the global coordination office.

Second, adaptive learning loops benefit organizational innovations and learning. Such learning occurs at the project site and improves project managers’ ability to guide collaborative projects. Learning, more importantly, happens through internal and external assessments that critically examine the saliency and legitimacy of the program’s activities and outputs as well as its missions. Such examination, therefore, helps to ensure the alignment between mission and activities. New scientific and indigenous knowledge and lessons from existing or past projects are incorporated in the new phases of problem definition to reinforce organizational learning at all levels. This double-loop learning also assures the inclusion of all make-or-break and enabling stakeholders in the project planning and execution process.

Although ASB demonstrates unique approaches to delivering impacts on multiple scales, some of the aforementioned impact pathways show gaps between outputs, outcomes and potential impacts. ASB should examine these linkages and consider ways to strengthen them so as to achieve even greater impacts. For example, information produced by ASB is not being proactively and strategically delivered to all relevant decision makers, especially some at the local and regional levels. While publication distribution lists are useful for the mass delivery of prepared documents, ASB lacks control over whether the information is read, interpreted, and incorporated into policies and reflected by local activities.

iii

Likewise, cross-site information sharing and technology transfer has been limited in some of the cases reviewed here. Indeed, outputs are not always read and utilized by scientists and other stakeholders at the local benchmark sites perhaps because the format of information presentation is not always the most effective given local and regional cultural differences. In addition, ASB has been passive in identifying and targeting potential private businesses, regional and global, for forming multi-sector partnerships in tropical agroforestry development. Instead, partnerships have been initiated by the private sector. Finally, ASB’s impact on general public awareness of forest management practices is indirect and limited as mass media channels have not been fully explored and exploited.

To address these limitations, ASB should • Translate more of its glossy publications into multiple languages in order to appeal to

readers of different nations; • Conduct market research by leveraging talents within the ASB consortia to identify

appropriate transnational corporations and regional businesses for building partnerships for increasing market access for agroforest and forest products;

• Seek funding to strengthen national and regional level program coordination to encourage cross-site information and technology transfer and to support feedback learning;

• Establish partnerships with journalists and civil society organizations to reinforce its impact channel linkages with mass media outlets and thus the general public;

• Devise a media and marketing strategy for external branding; • Produce non-scientific publications through mass media outlets such as general

interest magazines and youth television broadcast networks to increase interest and activism on rainforest sustainable development issues;

• Explore ways for driving Web traffic to the ASB Website. For example, expand the variation of key words associated with the Website and thus increase successful match hits using search engines such as Google and Yahoo!;

• Expand public and non-profit organization partnerships to introduce ASB methods and insights to other tropical areas. Since this study serves only as a first step toward preparing for the upcoming impact

assessment, more case studies of ASB projects should be analyzed and diagramed to verify the validity of the impact schematic as presented in this paper. It is advisable the future studies include case studies in the Philippines and Thailand in order to complete the panoramic view of the ASB impact typology.

Furthermore, the impact assessment team should make sure to conduct site visits at the ASB benchmark sites. This would help to evaluate the assumptions and assertions made in this desk study. On-site visits would also provide an opportunity to fill gaps. The ongoing strategic stakeholder analysis being carried out by global coordination office staff should also be used in conjunction with the impact assessment to identify ways for delivering greater impact. If necessary, ASB should seek additional funding for the impact assessment to ensure a productive and comprehensive review.

In conclusion, by characterizing ASB as a boundary organization, this paper highlights the opportunity for ASB to direct even more organizational resources toward communication, mediation, and translation between stakeholders from multiple sectors and geographic regions. Ironically, such impacts would be even more difficult to assess and measure within a conventional impact analysis framework. However, the potential for impact in international sustainable development would be indeed great. Since few boundary organizations exist in the area of scientific and policy research for sustainable development, ASB is in a position to take a leading role in advancing human and environmental interests in the tropics.

iv

I. Introduction Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB), a system-wide, integrated natural resource

management (iNRM) program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has been heralded as a prototype of successful application of the iNRM methodology. For example, the May 2003 World Bank report “CGIAR at 31: A Meta-Evaluation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research” recognizes that “ASB has been applauded in its most recent external review for innovative field research, strong science, and for going furthest within the CGIAR toward effectively implementing a holistic, ecoregional approach founded on in-depth local research linked methodologically across long-term benchmark sites around the world to permit effective scaling up to global level. It forms the backbone of the Rainforest Challenge Programme now before the iSC. The intellectual value of this work has derived from the synthesis afforded by careful methodological coordination across sites on different continents, and close working relationships with ARIs and NARS.” 2

Furthermore, the report emphasizes that “ASB has also contributed to methodological research into indicators of above-ground biodiversity and carbon stocks and spatially explicit land use modeling, as well as to policy research on quantifying tradeoffs among agronomic, conservation, and socioeconomic objectives and on the opportunities conservation credits potentially afford for small farmers in the tropics.” ASB has also been recognized for its successful execution of projects, leveraging inter-Center strategic cooperation.3 A direct outcome of ASB work, for instance, is that some of the program outputs have been absorbed as an input into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines.4

Despite the general acclaim of 10-year-old ASB Programme, no systematic assessment of its impacts has yet been conducted. However, it is anticipated that an assessment team will be appointed by the incoming Science Council of the CGIAR to carry out an evaluation/impact assessment in 2004. To aid the assessment team in understanding the unique nature and structure of the Programme, a set of analysis, employing qualitative modeling based on the Result Based Management (RBM) framework, was carried out to identify the impact channels of the ASB global program.

This paper summarizes the findings of the analysis and presents the Programme’s impact typology, a distillation and outline of complex causal relationships between the program’s activities and their ultimate impacts. It also identifies impact patterns that help explain the success of the program as well as the enabling factors and obstacles to the organization’s fulfillment of missions. Finally, it suggests ways to better define the organization in the context of the global scientific research and policy environment for achieving great impact on promoting sustainable development in the subtropical and tropical biome.

In Section II, the report first introduces the analytic methodology utilized. Section III then presents a brief overview of the structure of the Programme as well as the history of its transformation over the past 10 years. Section IV describes the impact schematic of the Programme and the related high-level findings. As well, Section IV compares three versions of the comprehensive program impact causal map. Each version highlights a distinct characteristic of ASB impact pathways. The same section also underscores the need to strengthen or expand certain aspects of the Programme to increase the magnitude of impacts. Section V concludes with a suggestion for the redefinition of ASB Programme within the changing policy environment and recommends areas for further research.

1

II. Impact Typology and Analytic Methodology Impact assessments on NRM research remain underdeveloped.5 Indeed, there is still a lack of empirical work on impact assessment.6 This presents a methodological challenge to evaluating the success and failure of programs such as ASB. In the private sector, investments can be linked to specific profit generating product or service output. For the non-profit sector, especially an organization that concentrates its activities on research, it is more difficult to link inputs and activities with measurable impacts to justify the research budget allocated by donors. However, impacts and indicators are relatively easier to identify and monitor when research inputs are fed directly into producing broad-based commodity outputs. For example, dollars spent on research can be traced through impact channels to the percentage increase of grains produced and number of people protected from food insecurity in the developing world. Therefore, impact assessors currently have a tendency to downplay the social rates of return on NRM research investment. Integrated NRM research impacts are more difficult to monitor and measure mostly because they are comparatively more diffused throughout multiple scales and sectors of the complex policy system, which is comprised of various facilitators as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries and audiences. The nature of iNRM research also differs dramatically from commodity-focused agricultural research that the CGIAR system is traditionally founded on. The missions of the CGIAR – alleviating poverty, improving food security, and conserving the environment – are well served by iNRM research, which takes an alternative route, a more balanced and interdisciplinary approach to addressing the key concerns of the system. A key step toward understanding impacts produced by iNRM research programs such as ASB is to classify the components and patterns in the impact chains. The Result Based Management (RBM) framework for program planning and evaluation (See Box 1 and Figure 1) was the primary inspiration for the analytic methodology adopted for this paper. The most important benefit of applying the RBM framework in the impact typology analysis is that it emphasizes results as a logical derivative of inputs. However, the deficiency of the framework is that this linear mode of conceptualization renders a one-dimensional view of impact and is limiting to multi-dimensional analysis. Box 1. Result Based Management Framework The RBM framework was created and has been advocated by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The RBM defines result as “a describable or measurable change resulting from a cause-and-effect relationship.”7 Two main categories of results in RBM are 1) operational results – the administrative and management products achieved within the agency; and 2) development results – the outputs, outcomes, and/or impacts of an organizational investment in a project. Operational results are further divided into inputs and activities. Similarly, development results are subdivided into outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Indicators are attached to each stage of the result based impact chain, which represent the linear causal relationship between inputs and impacts. It also gives the project plan a sense of time scale. As developmental results tend to occur outside of the organization’s primary influence, the organization’s control over project impact decreases from left to right. In other words, as more variables are introduced, risks and uncertainties increase. The predictability of the success of impact delivery decreases. Figure 1 further defines each component of the RBM chain and illustrates the relationship between the two categories of results.

2

Figure 1. Result Based Management Causal Chain

O p era tio n a l R esu lts

In p u ts A ctiv ities

O p era tio n a l R esu lts

In p u ts A ctiv ities

D evelo p m en ta l R esu lts

O u tp u ts O u tco m es Im p ac ts

D evelo p m en ta l R esu lts

O u tp u ts O u tco m es Im p ac ts

M o d era te riskL o w risk H igh riskM o d era te riskM o d era te riskL o w riskL o w risk H igh riskH igh risk

G ro w in g se lf-su ffic ienc y o f fa rm ers in th e reg io n

O p en in g o f ag ricu ltu ra l land fo r p ro d u ctio n

H ill s id e s lop e s tab iliza tio n

T ree p lan tin gS eed ling s d e liv e red to a fa rm in g co o p era tive

E xa m p le:

L o n g-te rm resu lts th a t a re lo g ica l co nseq u ences o f ach iev ing a co m b ina tio n o f o u tp u ts an d o u tco m es

M ed iu m -term resu lts tha t a re log ica l co n sequ en ce o f ach iev in g co m bin a tion o f o u tpu ts

S h o rt- te rm resu lts th a t a re th e lo g ica l con seq uen ce o f p ro jec t o r p rog ra m ac tiv ities

O rgan iza tio n a l p ro g ram m in g

O rgan iza tio n a l h u m an , an d m ate ria l re so u rces

D efin itio n :

G ro w in g se lf-su ffic ienc y o f fa rm ers in th e reg io n

O p en in g o f ag ricu ltu ra l land fo r p ro d u ctio n

H ill s id e s lop e s tab iliza tio n

T ree p lan tin gS eed ling s d e liv e red to a fa rm in g co o p era tive

E xa m p le:

L o n g-te rm resu lts th a t a re lo g ica l co nseq u ences o f ach iev ing a co m b ina tio n o f o u tp u ts an d o u tco m es

M ed iu m -term resu lts tha t a re log ica l co n sequ en ce o f ach iev in g co m bin a tion o f o u tpu ts

S h o rt- te rm resu lts th a t a re th e lo g ica l con seq uen ce o f p ro jec t o r p rog ra m ac tiv ities

O rgan iza tio n a l p ro g ram m in g

O rgan iza tio n a l h u m an , an d m ate ria l re so u rces

D efin itio n :

In order to fully explore the complexities of ASB impact pathways, qualitative modeling techniques were utilized. First, four projects were selected as case studies spanning a broad range of the ASB domain of activity both geographically and substantively. Each was chosen for its distinctive set of stakeholder involvement, type of research conducted, and outputs produced. Components of each project were then classified according to the RBM’s definitions of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Logical linkages between the components were made in order to articulate their relationship. The resulting causal maps were compared and contrasted. Patterns that emerged from the case studies were then documented and further analyzed. Based on these case studies, a comprehensive causal map was composed. Information about the Programme at the global level was merged into the general causal map. Finally, the distillation of this comprehensive map generated the overall schematic of ASB typology. The exercise of comparing and contrasting the details of the causal models helped to enhance the analysis, which was used to develop specific recommendations for the Programme and impact assessment research.

3

III. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn: a Boundary Organization ASB is a partnership of over 50 institutions around the globe with a shared interest in conserving forests and reducing poverty in the humid tropics. The global program unites research institutes, non-governmental organizations, universities and other partners, each of which brings different strengths to the analysis of problems and the development of solutions.

ASB national consortia conduct research at benchmark sites, which span the humid tropics in Peru, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Cameroon. Although the benchmark sites represent similar agro-ecological environments characteristic of the humid tropics, the varying socio-economic and political conditions found at each site make for valuable comparative analyses and cross-site learning. Partners at each site use participatory methods to understand land users’ problems and evaluate opportunities for alleviating them. They also engage in dialogue with local and national policy makers to explore their perceptions of stakeholder needs. Through thematic working groups that link research across different sites, ASB researchers also explore issues of broader global significance. ASB’s work has shown that the policy environment critically affects the outcome of efforts to reduce poverty and deforestation in the humid tropics. The partnership supports policy makers in decision making by developing tools and methods that allow objective analysis of the issues associated with forest conservation and by disseminating the knowledge and experience gained in dealing with these issues. The missions of ASB, conserving forests and reducing poverty in the humid tropics, fit appropriately into the overall CGIAR missions. While most CGIAR research centers are apt to concentrate on promoting global food security, ASB treats it as an embedded result of accomplishing its other two missions of poverty alleviation and tropical forest conservation. Thus, ASB’s mission-directed iNRM approaches and activities suggest that it is more of a sustainable development program rather than an agricultural development one. In the promotion of sustainable development, a fitting definition of the Programme’s role is that of a “boundary organization.” A boundary organization, as defined by David Guston, is an institution that “straddle[s] the shifting divide between politics and science”8 and performs boundary work that bridges the chasm formed by “different norms and expectations in the two communities regarding such crucial concepts as what constitutes reliable evidence, convincing argument, procedural fairness, and appropriate characterization of uncertainty.”9 Box 2. Boundary Organization Characteristics10 Boundary management organizations have the following characteristics: “1.They involve specialized roles within the organization for managing the boundary

a. They provide the opportunity and sometimes the incentives for the creation and use of boundary objects and standardized packages; b. They involve the participation of actors from both sides of the boundary, as well as professionals who serve a mediating role; and c. They exist at the frontier of the two relatively different social worlds of politics and science;11

2. They have clear lines of responsibility and accountability to distinct social arenas on opposite sides of the boundary; and 3. They provide a forum in which information can be co-produced by actors from different sides of the boundary through the use of boundary objects.”12 Boundary management activities aid in:

4

1. Communication – Opening active, iterative, and inclusive communication channels between experts and decision makers;

2. Translation – Facilitating participants in the resulting conversation to reach mutual comprehension in the face of different interests and understanding; and

3. Mediation – Mediating conflicts and balancing tradeoffs between stakeholders that arise. 13 In summary, a boundary organization is the glue that engages multiple stakeholders in productive conversations that appropriately leverage scientific knowledge. In the process, it enhances the saliency, legitimacy and credibility of scientific information and motivates decision making in the promotion sustainable development.

ASB satisfies the criteria of boundary definition. It helps to ensure that scientific information reaches policy makers and that it is used appropriately. In fact it goes beyond the given definition of boundary organization. It bridges the gaps between the spheres of science, politics and policy, private business, and civil society. Both policy and business communities hold inherent values and interests that tend to distance the communities further away from each other as well as from the scientific community. They are also likely to misinterpret, misrepresent, or even misuse science and technology that prove detrimental to sustainable development. At the same time, both sets of decision makers have powerful roles and potential in the advancing sustainable development. Similarly, civil society activists and facilitators have especial know-how in bringing grassroots activism into sustainable development. Figure 2 represents ASB as the focal point for connecting the multiple spheres of influence. The Programme is positioned to take the lead in forging collaborative relationships among all sectors and at all scales to enable science and technology to be harnessed for sustainable development in the humid tropics. Figure 2. ASB as a Boundary Organization

Civil Society Capacity

Architects

Boundary Organization:

ASB

Scientists and Researchers

Politicians and Policy Decision

Makers

Private Sector Managers and

Investors

5

IV. Impact Typology of ASB Programme This section first presents and discusses the impact schematic of the ASB Programme. It points out the most important characteristics of the typology by focusing on and highlighting patterns in the comprehensive Programme impact causal map.

General Schematic

Figure 3 provides the impact schematic of the ASB Programme. The impact chains are diagramed as logical flows from inputs to impacts in a left-to-right linear fashion. In addition to the impact chain categories given by the RBM model, a new category, iNRM approach, has been added. Under the RBM framework, it is unclear what drives decisions for resource allocations. Inputs are assembled and applied to achieve intermediate outcomes and ultimate impacts.

However, such mission-driven organizational programming sometimes provides inadequate criteria for investment utilization and resource allocation. In the case of ASB, the Programme is clearly motivated by and activities are aligned with the achievement of impacts and missions. At the same time, the relevance and resource needs of individual projects are judged based on their ability to target and solve specific problems for the sustainable development of the humid tropics. Instead of implementing projects for testing the tools and techniques developed from basic research, ASB uses the iNRM approach, which begins with the integrative problem definition methodology. This methodology requires researchers to, first and foremost, focus attention on the salient issues and understand the problem being addressed. Furthermore, it enables researchers to select tools and customize research to solving problems. It is therefore crucial to clarifying the drivers and impact schematic of the Programme.

As shown in Figure 3, the interdisciplinary research team uses the integrative problem definition methodology, based on the information drawn from ASB’s pantropic benchmark sites to derive the problem definition for the Programme or particular project. Next, inputs are determined based on the project needs. Inputs include: the interdisciplinary research and other professional staff of ASB partner organizations, technical and indigenous knowledge, monetary funding from multiple sources, and negotiation support expertise that help sustain the long-term collaboration within the consortia. These inputs are pulled from all sectors and can be found at all scales of the Programme.

Activities in the ASB Programme, however, occur for achieving impacts at four levels, each with a distinct sphere of political influence, interests, and primary stakeholders. At the local benchmark sites, community and capacity building activities enable local experimentation with agroforestry management techniques. At the national and regional level, ASB and national partners, such as NARs, engage consortia inputs in research, fundraising, and negotiation support. The partnership obtains benchmark site observations and data, which make the integrative and tradeoff analysis possible. The global coordination office of ASB faces the audience of global stakeholders. It receives research from the eight benchmark sites and the national partners in order to perform pantropic evaluation, integration, and extrapolation research and analysis.

In order to effectively plug ASB Programme into the global policy environment, the global office devotes much energy and resources in classifying and making ASB information available to the public, scientific community, global policy community, and other sectors. Its other activities include negotiation support for national partners in their interactions with

6

stakeholders and fundraising assistance to ensure long-term sustainability of national and local projects.

In the short term, direct outputs at the local level often include the emergence and development of community networks, which help to improve smallholder land tenure and product-to-market delivery pathways. Through participatory programming activities, researchers push forward the implementation of agroforestry management techniques. At the national and regional level, new techniques and technology are derived from research, which aids in the development of innovative methodology for ASB local and regional projects. As well, productive dialogues are initiated and communication is advance between stakeholders and ASB partners. Finally, at the global and international scale, the global coordination team produces a variety of documentation and marketing materials such as the Policy Briefs series, as well as scientific and policy reports, aimed at disseminating information to a wide gamut of target audiences.

Outcomes, which occur in the medium term, are mostly related to behavioral and value changes. For instance, due to the success of benchmark projects, farmers may become convinced that alternatives to slash-and-burn practices do in fact exist. Thus, local participants may begin to adopt recommended production techniques, which involve the capacity building for the local community. Improvements in social network and collaboration are then likely to create better social cohesion. At the national and regional level, some NARs institutes and national governments have in fact adjusted their institutional agenda largely shaped by their interactions with ASB researchers.

On the global scale, outcomes include intellectual contribution to the global knowledge base. As well, they affect value systems and incentives of the private sector and general public. Policy makers and scientists are often directly affected. The interchange of information as well as the differences in the scope of influence among these actors often produces positive feedback loop effects on behavioral shifts. Information and experiences derived from one benchmark site may trigger policy makers of neighboring countries to reexamine their approaches to sustainable development. This could then lead to changes in national policy agendas.14

Between outcomes and the achievement of CGIAR/ASB missions, or the ultimate impacts of the Programme, an intermediary step was added to the RBM model to help bridge the two result categories. In the comprehensive causal maps, this next step is referred to as the “achievement of goals.” Ultimate impact, in this context, is an interchangeable concept with “CGIAR/ASB missions”. This categorization distinguishes missions and goals. As well, it adds another time dimension to the modeling framework.15

At the benchmark level, impacts can be evaluated based on the increase of income, conservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, and the broadening of future career options for the next generation. National policies in benchmark countries as well as those in neighboring nations may change as a result of the outcomes. Globally, social values may adjust and global capacity for addressing issues in the sustainable development of tropical forest ecosystems may indeed improve. An example of this was the recent inclusion of ASB work into the IPCC guidelines.

All of these impact pathways can be traced to the successful achievement of CGIAR/ASB organizational missions: improvements in poverty alleviation and environmental conservation in the humid tropics. Progress in providing better food security is, as mentioned previously, an embedded mission. The three are viewed as intimately related by the iNRM approach.

Another important pathway, which has not yet been discussed, occurs within the ASB Programme. ASB’s institutional innovations, which have also been absorbed into global research, have driven internal and external evaluations of the ASB program as a CGIAR

7

prototype. As the Programme is performing the functions of a boundary organization, its creative organizational designs are also enabling the CGIAR system-wide feedback loop learning on not just how to perform existing tasks more effectively and efficiently, but also on how to make the organization more relevant in the changing dynamics of the global system. Such systematic learning drives iNRM problem definition of new projects and encourages the evaluation of past and present projects. It is clear from the impact schematic that all results in the causal chain are logically interconnected in ASB’s efforts in achieving its organizational missions. The scales of activities, outputs, and outcomes are also interrelated. Within each category of results, what occurs at the global level, for example, has direct or indirect implications for results at the national or local level. These linkages amplify the impacts produced by any given activity or by any particular actor. Furthermore, some links not only connect sectors and scales but also create feedback loops that enable the improvement of inputs and capacity, internally and externally. Finally, many cross-sector effects exist between public, private, and non-profit communities. The magnitude of these impacts depends heavily on the capacity of ASB as a boundary organization.

8

Figure 3. General Impact Schematic

9

Interdisciplinary consortia of ASB

and partner researchers & staff

Techniques & methods from ASB

research, infrastructure,

external scientific knowledge & local

indigenous practices

Multiparty project funding

Interdisciplinary teams

Pantropicpresence

Integrative problem

definition methodology

Problem definition


Pantropicpresence

Integrative problem

definition methodology

Problem definition

Cross-sector inputs

Poverty alleviation

Food security

Environmental conservation

CG/ASB missions

Poverty alleviation

Food security

Environmental conservation

CG/ASB missions

Systematic institutional learningChanges in

external environment

National/RegionalResearch for enhanced

• productivity•human well-being

•ecosystem resilience;enabling integrative & trade-off analysis, securing funding

and providing negotiation support

New technology; prototype for institutional

innovations; dialogues with policy makers

NARS capacity building; change in focus and

agenda ofNARs & politicians in

primary program nations and regions

Policy changes & expansion of ASB program in partner

countries

Local experimentation; community & capacity

building

Community networks; implementation of

agroforestry practices; market access; secure land tenure; delivery

pathways

Change in production practices & social

cohesion

Increase in income, broadening of

opportunities for multiple generations, conservation

of local ecosystems

Local

Internal institutional innovations

Intern/external reviews & assessments

ASB as a boundary organization prototype

Innovations in organizational processes

& structure

ASB Internal

Global analysis, integration &

extrapolation; support for partners; information

dissemination

Scientific publications: theories, principles &

methods; Policy Briefs & local Voices; training

materials (Publicly accessible via research

database)

Global/InternationalImpacts on scientific

knowledge, private sector incentives, public

awareness, and partner agenda as well as

training and education

Global capacity building & change in social values

Global

Change in views & agendas of

scientists & politicians of multiple nations

Regulatory policy changes in non-ASB

partner countries; conservation of tropical

ecosystems

International

Multi-scale communication and negotiation

expertise

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes ASB ImpactsiNRM Approach Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes ASB ImpactsiNRM Approach

Comprehensive Impact Causal Maps The analysis so far has provided a high-level view of the characteristics of ASB’s impact pathways. The magnification of each component of the impact schematic allows for further clarification of relationships and causal links within the schematic. Figure I in Appendix A expands on the impact schematic. At this level of detail, cross-sector and cross-scale associations become more obvious. In addition, three major patterns – linear pathways, leverage webs, and adaptive learning loops – of the impact typology are highlighted in three versions (Figures II, III, and IV) of the same comprehensive causal map. Each version draws attention to one important aspect of the impact causal relationship. Linear Pathways Figure II represents the left-to-right pathways of impact. It is understandable that logical linear relationships should be the dominant pattern of impact since inputs are fed into activities, which are structured to deliver target outputs. Outcomes, direct and indirect, flow from these outputs. Potential and observed impacts as shown are mostly driven indirectly by outcomes. However, linear pathways alone are insufficient for identifying the ASB iNRM impact typology. Not all logical linkages can be explained by one-directional and one-dimensional cause-and-effect channels. If one only accepted such linear pathways as valid impact channels, many of the linkages in the causal map would not have been recognized. Such explanations of impact would also be deficient in reflecting the nature of iNRM research, which depends much on partnerships and cross-dimensional channels to amplify its impacts. Leverage webs Additional impact characteristics are present in the comprehensive causal map (See Figure III). One of them is the webbing of impact channels at impact leverage nodes. Each activity or output point in the map that has at least three impact arrows to its right is highlighted in red. Such nodes and arrows represent the logical progression of impact in the cause-and-effect direction as prescribed by the RBM framework. More importantly, they demonstrate that activities and outputs have different impact scopes. The elements that have at least three impact objects are judged to have higher impact potential and broader audience reach. In other words, they are the more vital leverage points that drive multi-scale responses and impacts. As presented, activities performed at the global level, especially those for advanced integrative research and analysis for pantropic learning, support the broadest umbrellas of leverage webs. Their outputs include publications on scientific and technological advancements, effective negotiation techniques, and innovative policy research. Similarly, policy analysis and negotiation support at the national level drive five key outputs that enable potential impacts on national policies and research agenda. At local benchmark sites, participatory research and capacity building through training have the effect of increasing local producers’ market adaptability, which results in the desired project outcomes and impacts.

The identification of such leverage nodes suggests that attention needs to be focused on them in order to help determine if they are indeed the most effective areas for devoting organizational resources. Through further analysis, it should become evident whether inputs are being allocated appropriately. Moreover, even if these points have the greatest potential

10

for channeling impacts to the desired audience, some linkages may need to be strengthened to take full advantage of the leverage webs.

Adaptive Learning Loops The final observation of the comprehensive causal maps is that adaptive learning loops help to bring feedback through the impact typology. The Programme has the ability to adjust its projects to avoid repeating mistakes and improve methodology and science through project learning. ASB’s global research, information integration from benchmark sites and internal institutional learning form the most critical feedback loop of the Programme. Such activities establish the Programme’s pantropic presence and increase the value of local experimentations. Combined with institutional innovation and learning, they contribute to the management and administration of adaptive experimentations at all benchmark sites. This process also legitimizes the scaling up of the program to other areas around the world and enhances ASB’s potential for global impact. Another such feedback loop is prominent in the CGIAR and ASB’s internal institutional learning pathway. ASB is currently being regarded as a prototype organization for iNRM research within the CGIAR system. As such, it could influence the CGIAR’s organizational structure and approach to iNRM research. All of these feed into ASB’s processes of problem redefinition and revision of its project impact typology. In addition, technological and methodological innovations lead to changes in methods selected for ongoing and new projects. At the same time, support for national partner fundraising allows the Programme to attract more funding for sustaining and expanding benchmark projects.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Impact Pathways

ASB’s most extensive impacts are leveraged through global research and information dissemination. The availability of publications and information in the public domain, on the Web and in print, inspire the adoption of iNRM techniques by other organizations. Leverage webs and feedback loops help form the foundation for long-term and broad based impacts. The iNRM problem definition approach, which drives project formulation and execution ensures the saliency of research information derived from benchmark site experimentation. The institutional and organizational learning feedback loop plays a key part in new problem definition and the reconsideration of methodology in new and ongoing projects. Multiple forms of ASB support to partners facilitate communication between stakeholders and thus enable partners’ institutional capacity building. This in turn strengthens the capacity of the ASB consortia. Through its partners, ASB has greater access to influence channels that help deliver ASB messages to the global audience. Finally, participatory research at the local level provides livelihood capital assets to local farmers and increases their community cohesion and market access. Such attributes constitute the strengths of the ASB impact typology.

Although ASB demonstrates unique approaches to delivering impacts on multiple scales, some of the aforementioned impact pathways show gaps between outputs, outcomes and potential impacts. ASB should examine these linkages and consider ways to strengthen them so as to achieve the maximum potential impacts. For example, information produced by ASB is not being proactively and strategically delivered to some relevant decision makers, especially those at the local and regional levels. While publication distribution lists are useful for the mass delivery of prepared documents, ASB lacks control over whether the information is read, interpreted, and incorporated into policies and reflected by local activities.

11

Likewise, cross-site information sharing and technology transfer has been limited. Indeed, outputs are not always read and utilized by scientists and other stakeholders at the local benchmark sites perhaps because the format of information presentation is not the most effective given local and regional cultural differences. The lack of or delay of information transfer could lead to poor feedback learning and the repetition of mistakes already experienced elsewhere.

In addition, ASB has been passive in identifying and targeting potential private businesses, regional and global, for forming multi-sector partnerships in tropical agroforestry development. Instead, partnerships have been initiated by the private sector. The lack of inclusion of such decision makers decreases the impact ASB has on linking local farmers to the global market places. Finally, ASB’s impact on general public awareness of forest management practices is indirect and limited as mass media channels have not been fully explored and exploited.

Hence, ASB could seek additional resources to fill these gaps and thereby to maximize the leverage of its strengths. To address these limitations, ASB should consider

• Translate more of its glossy publications into multiple languages in order to appeal to readers of different nations;

• Conduct market research by leveraging talents within the ASB consortia to identify appropriate transnational corporations and regional businesses for building partnerships for increasing market access for agroforest and forest products;

• Strengthen national and regional level program coordination to encourage cross-site information and technology transfer and to support feedback learning;

• Establish partnerships with journalists and civil society organizations to reinforce its impact channel linkages with mass media outlets and thus the general public;

• Devise a media and marketing strategy for external branding; • Produce non-scientific publications through mass media outlets such as general

interest magazines and youth television broadcast networks to increase interest and activism on rainforest sustainable development issues;

• Explore ways for driving Web traffic to the ASB Website. For example, expand the variation of key words associated with the Website and thus increase successful match hits using search engines such as Google and Yahoo!;

• Build public and non-profit organization partnerships to introduce ASB methods and insights to other tropical areas.

12

V. Conclusion The analysis of ASB impact pathways helps to condition the definition of the Programme. Each project could lead to impacts that balloon far beyond the intended scope. In the practice of applying adaptive management for sustainable development, organizations such as ASB may serve as the key to executing, monitoring, and adjusting local experiments that enable multiple ecosystems around the globe to draw lessons useful for navigating within uncertain futures, influenced by differing and evolving stakeholder interests and the turbulent project environment.

By defining ASB as a boundary organization, this paper highlights the need for ASB to direct more organizational resources toward communication, mediation, and translation between stakeholders from multiple sectors and geographic regions. As such, impacts would be even more difficult to assess and measure. Since few boundary organizations exist for furthering sustainable development, ASB is in a position to take the leading role in advancing human and environmental interests in the humid tropics.

More importantly, it should be noted that more work remains to be done in the area of delivering and marketing ASB research and scientific information to identified audiences. To overcome the tendency to wait for the demand to appear, the supplier of information must proactively explore channels of influence that have a bearing on sustainable development at the local, regional, and global levels.

Since this study serves only as a first step toward preparing for the upcoming impact assessment, more case studies of ASB projects should be analyzed and diagramed to verify the validity of the impact schematic as presented in this paper. It is advisable the future studies include case studies in the Philippines and Thailand in order to complete the panoramic view of the ASB impact typology.

Furthermore, the impact assessment team should make sure to conduct site visits at the ASB benchmarks. This would help to evaluate the assumptions and assertions made in this study. On-site visits would also provide an opportunity to fill in any gaps. The ongoing strategic stakeholder analysis being carried out by global coordination office staff should also be used in conjunction with the impact assessment to identify ways for delivering greater impact. If necessary, ASB should seek additional funding for the impact assessment to ensure a productive and comprehensive review.

13

Appendix

Appendix A – ASB Programme Comprehensive Impact Causal Maps Figure I

a

Achievement of Mission: Goals

Achievement of Mission: Impacts



Primary Activities Integrative ActivitiesPrimary Activities Integrative Activities

mm

Interdisciplinary researchers and prof ess ional staf f

o

sPantropic presence

Protot ype for inst itutional innov ations

New iNRM technology and techniques

Problem def inition

aa

bb

g

Soc ial capital: part icipatory planning and project execution

ll

m

Rise in general public awareness

pp

Impac t on global sc ient if ic knowledge and iNRM methodology

i ihh

h

c

dd

c 2

Sy stemat ic ins ti tutional learning

Conservation of tropical rain f orests

Longterm conservation of ecosy stem serv ices and env ironment

Pov ert y allev iation

Policy workshops and presentations

Impacts on training and educat ion

c 3

Secure land tenure

Broad scale adopt ion of f ores t management prac tices

Social capital: dev eloping menthods and measurements

Master and PhD theses

Policy makers: change in policy prioirites and f ocus

Local inst itutional strengthening and capac ity building

National regulatory policy changes in partner count ries

cc

Increase in income and rate of return to land & labor

f f

ee

Broadening of f uture opportunities for next generation of f armers

Food Securit y

jj

Internal instit ut ional innov at ions

ASB as a boundary organizat ion protot ype

oo Innov at ions in organizational processes and st ructure

Stronger local communit y and social network

Local adoption of agrof orest ry pract ices

nn

Manageged fores t production & output

Opening of a v ariety of market opportunities f or f armers

Lecture notes and training materials

gg

kk

Interdisc iplinary teams

Integrativ e problem def inition methodology

Changes in external env ironment: policy & market

Product iv e dialogue between policy makers and researchers

Analysis and integration: integrativ e and t radeof f analy sis

a

w

d

gg 2

Mult ipart y program funding

Public ly accessible publication database

tt

Techniques and methods f rom ASB research, ex ternal scientif ic knowledge, and local indigenous

practices

Impact on major ASB partners (GEF, IPCC, Millennium Ecosy stem Assessment ,

& World Bank): change in problem def inition and agenda priori ties

NARs: capac ity building and shif t in research agenda, priorities , f ocus and methods in primary program nations

and regions

Social capit al: support f armers in f orming marketing cooperatives

Global coordination: securing f unding, management resources and developing

partnerships

Global gov ernance: building ASB consort ium, ensuring f inancial

transparency , maintaining data & inf ormat ion av ai labil ity t o public domain

Support f or ASB partner programs: support f or dev elopment, f undrasis ing

and impelmentation

Global

International

Scale: Global/International - Global Integration

Scale: National/Regional

Scale: Local - Local Experimentation

CGIAR/ASB Internal

Global sy nthesis: analysis , integration and extrapolat ion

Scientif ic publications : t heories, principles and

methods

Policy Brief s and local Voices: research f indings and policy

recommendat ions

Regulatory policy changes in non-ASB partner count ries

Conserv at ion of t ropical ecosy stems

Natural capital: selection, dis tribut ion, and plant ing of seedlings

based on research results

Human capital: ent repreneurial training of smallscale f amers and support f or gaining

market acess

Iimpact on scientif ic community and policy makers in multiple nations:

changes in v iews and agendas

Collaborat iv e germplasm and ecosys tem research NARs sc ientis ts

f or enhanced productiv it y , human well-being, and ecosy stem resi lience

Change in produc tion choices and increased social cohesion among indigious and f arming

Improved market access and deliv ery pathway s for

reaching smallholders

Collaborativ e market and policy research f or determining demand

and market opportunities

Capacity bui lding: st rengthening global policy env ironment and dev eloping

adv anced global inf ormat ion sy s tem

Change in private sector incentiv e st ructure, increased awareness of

market opportunities and expans ion in priv ate sec tor inv olv ement

ASB and CGIAR organizational rev iews and assessments by

internal/ external panels

Shif ts in social v alues and market demands

Securing f unding for national and local act iv ities

Brokering c ross-sectoral relat ionship and prov iding

negotiation support






Activities Outputs Outcomes ASB ImpactsInputsiNRM Approach Activities Outputs Outcomes ASB ImpactsInputsiNRM Approach

Figure II – ASB Programme Comprehensive Impact Causal Map: Linear Pathways

b

mm

Interdisciplinary researchers and prof essional staf f

o

sPantropic presence

Prototy pe f or institutional innov ations


Problem def inition

aa

bb

g

Social capital: participatory planning and project execution

ll

m


pp

Impact on global scientif ic knowledge and iNRM methodology

iihh

h

c

dd

c 2

Sy stematic institutional learning

Conserv ation of tropical rain f orests

Longterm conserv ation of ecosy stem serv ices and env ironment

Pov erty allev iation


Impacts on training and education

c 3

Secure land tenure

Broad scale adoption of f orest management practices




Local institutional strengthening and capacity building

National regulatory policy changes in partner countries

cc


f f

ee

Broadening of f uture opportunities f or next generation of f armers

Food Security

jj

Internal institutional innov ations

ASB as a boundary organization prototy pe

oo Innov ations in organizational processes and structure

Stronger local community and social network

Local adoption of agrof orestry practices

nn

Manageged f orest production & output



gg

kk




Productiv e dialogue between policy makers and researchers

Analy sis and integration: integrativ e and tradeof f analy sis

a

w

d

gg 2

Multiparty program f unding

Publicly accessible publication database

tt

Techniques and methods f rom ASB research, external scientif ic knowledge, and local indigenous

practices

Impact on major ASB partners (GEF, IPCC, Millennium Ecosy stem Assessment,

& World Bank): change in problem def inition and agenda priorities

NARs: capacity building and shif t in research agenda, priorities, f ocus and methods in primary program nations

and regions

Social capital: support f armers in f orming marketing cooperativ es

Global coordination: securing f unding, management resources and dev eloping

partnerships

Global gov ernance: building ASB consortium, ensuring f inancial

transparency , maintaining data & inf ormation av ailability to public domain

Support f or ASB partner programs: support f or dev elopment, f undrasising

and impelmentation

Global

International

Scale: Global/International -- Global Integration


Scale: Local -- Local Experimentation

CGIAR/ASB Internal

Global sy nthesis: analy sis, integration and extrapolation

Scientif ic publications: theories, principles and

methods


recommendations

Regulatory policy changes in non-ASB partner countries

Conserv ation of tropical ecosy stems

Natural capital: selection, distribution, and planting of seedlings


Human capital: entrepreneurial training of smallscale f amers and support f or gaining

market acess



Collaborativ e germplasm and ecosy stem research NARs scientists

f or enhanced productiv ity , human well-being, and ecosy stem resilience

Change in production choices and increased social cohesion among indigious and f arming

Improv ed market access and deliv ery pathway s f or




Capacity building: strengthening global policy env ironment and dev eloping

adv anced global inf ormation sy stem

Change in priv ate sector incentiv e structure, increased awareness of

market opportunities and expansion in priv ate sector inv olv ement


internal/external panels


Securing f unding f or national and local activ ities

Brokering cross-sectoral relationship and prov iding

negotiation support







Figure III – ASB Programme Comprehensive Impact Causal Map: Leverage Webs

c

mm

Interdisciplinary researchers and prof essional staf f

sPantropic presence

Prototy pe f or institutional innov ations


Problem def inition

g


m


pp

Impact on global scientif ic knowledge and iNRM methodology

ii

h

c

dd

c 2

Sy stematic institutional learning

Conserv ation of tropical rain f orests

Longterm conserv ation of ecosy stem serv ices and env ironment

Pov erty allev iation



c 3

Secure land tenure

Broad scale adoption of f orest management practices






cc


f f

ee

Broadening of f uture opportunities f or next generation of f armers

Food Security

jj

Internal institutional innov ations

ASB as a boundary organization prototy pe

oo Innov ations in organizational processes and structure


Local adoption of agrof orestry practices


gg

kk




Productiv e dialogue between policy makers and researchers

a

w

d

gg 2

Multiparty program f unding


tt

Techniques and methods f rom ASB research, external scientif ic knowledge, and local indigenous

practices

Impact on major ASB partners (GEF, IPCC, Millennium Ecosy stem Assessment,

& World Bank): change in problem def inition and agenda priorities

NARs: capacity building and shif t in research agenda, priorities, f ocus and methods in primary program nations

and regions

Social capital: support f armers in f orming marketing cooperativ es

Global coordination: securing f unding, management resources and dev eloping

partnerships

Global gov ernance: building ASB consortium, ensuring f inancial

transparency , maintaining data & inf ormation av ailability to public domain

Support f or ASB partner programs: support f or dev elopment, f undrasising

and impelmentation

Global

International

Scale: Global/International -- Global Integration



CGIAR/ASB Internal

Global sy nt sis: analy sis, integration and extrapolation


Conserv ation of tropical ecosy stems

Natural capital: selection, distribution, and planting of seedlings




Collaborativ e germplasm and ecosy stem research NARs scientists

f or enhanced productiv ity , human well-being, and ecosy stem resilience

Change in production choices and increased social cohesion among indigious and f arming



Capacity building: strengthening global policy env ironment and dev eloping

adv anced global inf ormation sy stem

Change in priv ate sector incentiv e structure, increased awareness of

market opportunities and expansion in priv ate sector inv olv ement


internal/external panels


Securing f unding f or national and local activ ities







o

aa

bb

ll

hh

nn

Manageged f orest production & output


Analy sis and integration: integrativ e and tradeof f analy sis

he

Scientif ic publications: theories, principles and

methods


recommendations

Human capital: entrepreneurial training of smallscale f amers and support f or gaining

market acess

Improv ed market access and deliv ery pathway s f or


Brokering cross-sectoral relationship and prov iding

negotiation support

Figure IV – ASB Programme Comprehensive Impact Causal Map: Adaptive Loops

d







mm

mmm

o

s

Pantropic presence

Prototype for institutional innovations


Problem definition

aa

bb

g


ll

m


pp

Impact on global scientific knowledge and iNRM methodology

iihh

h

c

dd

c 2

Systematic institutional learning

Conservation of tropical rain forests

Longterm conservation of ecosystem services and environment

Poverty alleviation



c 3

Secure land tenure

Broad scale adoption of forest management practices

n

Social capital: developing menthods and measurements


Policy makers: change in policy prioirites and focus



cc


ff

ee

Broadening of future opportunities for next generation of farmers

Food Security

jj

Internal institutional innovations

ASB as a boundary organization prototype

oo Innovations in organizational processes and structure


Local adoption of agroforestry practices

nn

Manageged forest production & output

Opening of a variety of market opportunities for farmers


gg

kk


Integrative problem definition methodology

Changes in external environment: policy & market

Productive dialogue between policy makers and researchers

Analysis and integration: integrative and tradeoff analysis

a

w

d

gg 2

Multiparty program funding


tt

Impact on major ASB partners (GEF, IPCC, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, & World Bank):

change in problem definition and agenda priorities

NARs: capacity building and shift in research agenda, priorities, focus and methods in primary

program nations and regions

Social capital: support farmers in forming marketing cooperatives

Global coordination: securing funding, management resources and developing partnerships

Global governance: building ASB consortium, ensuring financial transparency, maintaining data

& information availability to public domain

Support for ASB partner programs: support for development, fundrasising and impelmentation

Techniques and methods from ASB research, infrastructure, external scientific knowledge, and local

indigenous practices

Multi-scale and cross-sectoral communication and negotiation expertise

Interdisciplinary ASB and partner researchers and professional staff

Global

International

Scale: Global/International -- Global



CGIAR/ASB Internal

Global synthesis: analysis, integration and extrapolation

Scientific publications: theories, principles and methods

Policy Briefs and local Voices: research findings and policy

recommendations


Conservation of tropical ecosystems

Natural capital: selection, distribution, and planting of seedlings based on research results

Human capital: entrepreneurial training of smallscale famers and support for gaining market acess

Iimpact on scientific community and policy makers in multiple nations: changes in views

and agendas

Collaborative germplasm and ecosystem research NARs scientists for enhanced

productivity, human well-being, and ecosystem resilience

Change in production choices and increased social cohesion among

indigious and farming groups

Improved market access and delivery pathways for reaching smallholders

Collaborative market and policy research for determining demand and market

opportunities

Capacity building: strengthening global policy environment and developing advanced global

information system

Change in private sector incentive structure, investor priorities, increased awareness of market

opportunities and expansion in private sector involvement

ASB and CGIAR organizational reviews and assessments by internal/external

panels

Shifts in social values and market demands

Securing funding for national and local activities

Brokering cross-sectoral relationship and providing negotiation support

Appendix B – Preliminary Outcome Indicators

The analysis performed for this paper recognizes that appropriate quantitative and qualitative indicators must be selected and utilized to effectively measure and communicate the true magnitude of impacts. Although indicators for most stages of the impact chain are available, measurements for outcomes, especially iNRM outcomes, are more challenging to obtain due to the lack of empirical impact assessment work available on the measurement of outcomes. This is understandable as outcomes are often changes in beliefs, value systems, and behaviors that are difficult to observe and measure. In Table I below, I list the outcomes of the ASB impact typology. For each outcome, I suggest potential indicators and methods for measuring them. However, rigorous research should be conducted for the selection and evaluation of appropriate outcome indicators. Table I – Suggested Indicators OutcOutc

Frequent survey of NARs partner organizational changes

Changes in NAR’s policies, agenda, and hiring decisions

Impact on NARs

Reader surveysSatisfaction ratingImpact on partners and target audience

Demographic and market analysisPercentage and change in percentage of people engaged in agroforestry productionQuantity and quality of output

Local output and market changes

Newsprints and official publications;Number and significance of policy changes relevant to iNRM research and agroforestry management

Number of national policy makers alluding to ASB work;Number of countries adopting ASB policy suggestions

Cross-boundary international policy impact

Tracking of local producer’s output and sales growth

Number of private partnerships;Sales of products

Changes in private sector incentives and behaviors

Tracking of reader demographicsNumber of students and educators trained and informed

Impact on training and education

Newspaper/mass media issue cycle analysisChanges in public discussionGeneral public awareness increase

Citation countNew reader demographic analysis

Number of referencesImpact on scientific knowledge

MethodologyIndicatorome

Frequent survey of NARs partner organizational changes

Changes in NAR’s policies, agenda, and hiring decisions

Impact on NARs

Reader surveysSatisfaction ratingImpact on partners and target audience

Demographic and market analysisPercentage and change in percentage of people engaged in agroforestry productionQuantity and quality of output

Local output and market changes

Newsprints and official publications;Number and significance of policy changes relevant to iNRM research and agroforestry management

Number of national policy makers alluding to ASB work;Number of countries adopting ASB policy suggestions

Cross-boundary international policy impact

Tracking of local producer’s output and sales growth

Number of private partnerships;Sales of products

Changes in private sector incentives and behaviors

Tracking of reader demographicsNumber of students and educators trained and informed

Impact on training and education

Newspaper/mass media issue cycle analysisChanges in public discussionGeneral public awareness increase

Citation countNew reader demographic analysis

Number of referencesImpact on scientific knowledge

MethodologyIndicatorome

e

References 1 D. H. Guston. Boundary organizations: A background paper. Workshop background paper. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1999. 2 Ibid. p. 62. 3 Ibid. p. 65. 4 Ibid. p. 61. 5 Christopher Barrett, “Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR: a Meta-Evaluation.” p. 1. 6 Mike Nelson and Mywish Maredia, “Reducing Poverty through Cutting-Edge Science.” International Centers Week, 25-29 Oct. 1999. 7 “ ”, CIDA 8 Guston 1999. 9 David Cash, William Clark et al. “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development.” PNAS early edition. 2003. p. 1. 10 Definition from David Cash, William Clark et al. 11 D. H. Guston. “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction.” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 26 No. 4, Autumn 2001 399-408, p. 400-401 12 Cash et al. 13 Cash et al. 14 “Global” is distinguished from “international” by the definition that global is multi-regional whereas international is transnational between two or more countries. 15 Missions and goals in organizational management analysis are often differentiated for their similar but distinct characteristics and time scales. Goals are specific and require adjustments over time for realignment with organizational missions. Missions, on the other hand, need less frequent reevaluations and can be understood as the organization’s raison d’être in the long run.

I

Strategic Typology of Impact Pathways for Natural Resource ... Typology of Impact Pathw… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Typology of Impact Pathways for Natural Resource ... Typology of Impact Pathw… ·...