"Crucial issues and consequences for INRM"

Results of Working Group 1 "Institutional constraints"

(Rapporteur: Lucas Brader)

Key Issues

• Substantial transaction costs (consequence of co-operation )
• Lack of ownership, support and commitment by Centres and NARS esp. for eco-wide programmes
• Present institutional modes
• Accountability
• Balance between co-operation and competition amongst centres

Other constraints

• Insufficient learning from each other
• Inconsistencies of donor supports, (and centre support)
• Mandates by centres: Not always a clear responsibility of centres

Conclusions

• Complementarity between system wide eco-regional programmes of centres and activities by others
• Mechanisms at systems level required to increase visibility of INRM
• Organising research around problems (based on experiences from current work)
• Centres should not try to dominate alliances / collaborations (incl. funding)
• Distinguish facilitating role and implementation of shared research agenda
• No permanent operational structure need at systems level in order to implement INRM
• Ecoregional actors and global competency / disciplinary groups need to have a common place / site to work
• Annual scientific meetings for INRM to pool and socialise knowledge (exchanging methods and tools) based on leadership provided by eco-regional programmes
• Need to make clear the mandate in individual ER programs and the role of IARC in solving concrete problems
• Consistency in donor support is essential as well as budget allocation by centres

Results of Working Group 2 - "Disincentives and Obstacles"
(Rapporteur: Ian Scoone)

Historical

• CG History – Commodity thrust – Green revolution – living on past image (TAC / CG Sec.)Sec.)
• Professional status / recognition of INRM researchers – "who are the heroes"?
• Lack of commitment, understanding, individual learning / collective memory

Styles of Science

• Lack of appreciation of interdisciplinary, qualitative , integrative, non-newtonian approaches
• Lack o problem focus
• Narrow mandates of centres
• Stationary focus
• Impact / outputs assessment approaches
• Links to implementation , decisions, policy

CG Organisation

• Organisational inertia
• Critical mass issues - Teams
• Partnerships linkages – transaction costs -> between centres and between centres and others
• Capacity / interest of partners in INRM (esp. conventional NARS links)

Financing

• Donors pick and choose -> difficulties for long-term, participatory integrated partner based programmes
• Start up costs / seed money lacking
• Centres compete for limited funds
• Special project funds -> how flexible can they be used?-
• Allocation of core funds –> what are the priorities
• Adjunct professional –> how long term contracts ?
• Costs of stations ets – high overheads

Human Resources and Management

• Lack of integrative skills

• Skill mixes within centres
• Gender / age balance of staff
• Difficulties of matrix management
• Difficulties with cross centre appointments
• Reward system which encourage interdisciplinary , output/impact focus, while acknowledging professional development / career tracks
• Staff development / training for NRM approaches

Options

• "Marginal change option"

• Systemwide

Methodological implications

• New (?) approach or greater emphasis on:

• Project team with commitment, interest and appropriate incentives to work across disciplinary boundaries, in long term projects, developing

• Action oriented research which treats Research – Development as a continuum, i.e. functional continuum

• Creation of flexible and informal networks (CGs, NARS, scientists) as relevant to the NR problem to steer project identification

• More appropriate evaluation of scientists required

Build on existing tools, models and approaches for:

• Better mining of existing data and information
• Better analysis / integration component research results

Opportunities through the us of GIS, bio-economic modelling, multi-agent systems, decision support tools)

• Communication science (=> simplification of concepts and messages appropriate to the users)
• Partnership and ownership in design of research programmes (delivery of results to be costed in research budget; techniques for simplifying scientific findings)

(socio-economic, environment)

Definition of components: Any piece of research that has

Component function and interaction

• Each component has its own quality and quantity of interaction (below and above)
• Change of a component requires interaction knowledge consistent with its interaction pattern and intensity
• The problem determines the level of research within the hierarchy (the system / component balance)
• The outcome f INRM research is system level improvement driven by changes in components (e.g., changes in a barely filed system which improves farmers well-being and landscape output

R+D model

• Goals, gradients, contribution and interactions established at each level
• Individuals, teams, institutions work at their assigned / appropriate level(s)
• Frequency of stakeholder interaction determined by nature of problem and its interaction pattern (e.g, fragile marginal areas have hih interaction)

Key Points

• Research organization and management crucial
• Stakeholder understanding of R+D process critical
• Many breakthroughs come at the component level
• Responsibility and credit for system improvement is a major issue (stakeholder and share)
• How to value system – level improvement?

Process Summary

• Define the framework
• Assign tasks
• Ex-ante assessment
• Periodic rechecks at higher team level
• Component team integrate only as necessary (they work within set gradients and limits of the framework)