Dryland Systems Research ProgramEffective Partnerships for Research Impact

Dryland Systems of the WorldDrylands

•Physical water scarcity •Rapid natural resource degradation and desertification•Groundwater depletion•Drought•Climate change will make them drier

PremiseSuccessful dryland production systems evolve through an integrated approach that includes the right mix of:• Innovative partnerships•Diverse technologies, and•Appropriate policies.

• Part of conceptual framework and one of four Strategic Research Themes

• Partners set research priorities and identified “Action Sites”

• A simple example of how partnership in a systems approach can achieve impact even under very marginal dryland conditions

• Partnership in governance

Oveview: Partnership in Dryland Systems

Conceptual Framework• Framework Development

Workshop January 2012• Designed with participants

from CG centers (ICRISAT, ILRI, Bioversity, IWMI, CIP, ICRAF)) and FARA/SSA-CP

• SRT1: Approaches and models for strengthening innovation systems, building stakeholder innovation capacity, and linking knowledge to policy action

Partner Involvement in Inception PhaseSite selection and characterization

• Consultative selection of Action Sites—ministries, NARES, etc.

• Groundwork in 5 regions to characterize Target Areas (SRT2, risk management, and SRT3, sustainable intensification)--NARES

• Regional Inception Workshops to prioritize research—multiple stakeholders

Criteria Limits for SRT 2 Limits for SRT 3

Length of growing period <90 days 90-180 days

Distribution of poverty

Hunger and malnutrition (food security, no of people, % of people)

Aridity Index 0.03 to 0.35 0.35-0.65

Environmental risk (Rainfall variability, access to irrigation,

CV>15% CV<15%

Land degradation(soil salinity, soil erosion)

High Low-medium

Market access Travel time >2 hrs

Travel time <2 hrs

Population density

Characterization of Target Areas

Target Area PotentialAction Site 1

Potential Satellite Site 1

Potential Satellite Site 2

Country

Geographical location

Accessibility

Potential forhypothesis testing

Representativeness

Potential for out-scaling (impact)

Potential to attract funds

Potential to interactwith CRPs

Characteristics of potential Action Sites in Target Areas

Criteria for selection of Action Sites

West Africa & Dry Savannas

Regional: INSAH/CILSSBurkina Faso: INERAGhana: ARI, CSIRMali: IERNiger: INRAN Nigeria: ARC

SRT2: the KKM (Kano-Katsina-Maradi) action transect SRT3: the WBS (Wa-Bobo-Sikasso) action transect

South Asia

• Rajasthan (SRT2)• Chakwal, Pakistan as

satellite site, mainly SRT2

• Bijapur, Karnataka, India , SRT3 (black soils).

• Anantapur & Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh SRT2/3 (red soils)

• Maharashtra/ Karnataka Pradesh, satellite SRT3

Bangladesh: BARI India: ICAR, CRIDA, CAZRI, FES, NRAA, Watershed Organization Trust Pakistan: BARI, CSO, PARC, SSD

Central Asia and CaucasusSRT2: Aral Sea Basin and Rasht ValleySRT3: Fergana Valley

Central Asia and Caucasus:

Kazakhstan: South-Western Scientific Production Center of AgricultureTajikistan: TAAS Turkmenistan: National Farmers’ Association, NASUzbekistan: Kashkadarya Research Institute

North Africa and West Asia• SRT2: Jordan/Syria; • SRT2: Satellite: Béni Khedache-Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia• SRT3: Mekness region of Morocco; Egypt Nile delta• SRT3 Satellites: Karkheh River Basin, Iran

Egypt: ARC Jordan: NCARE Morocco: INRASyria: GCSAR, Agha Khan Foundation Tunisia: IRA

East & Southern AfricaSRT2: Northeastern Kenya and Southeastern EthiopiaSRT3: Chinyanja Triangle (central and southern Malawi, eastern province of Zambia, and the Tete Province of Mozambique

East and Southern Africa:

Ethiopia: EIARKenya: KARI South Africa: CSIR, Univ. of Ft Hare, WRC Sudan: ARCZambia: University of Zambia

• 16 Common Hypotheses • 20 Common Outputs

Partner Involvement in Inception PhaseResearch Prioritization

Partnership involvement in Activities (North Africa & West Asia)

SRT 2 SRT3

Partnerships in Systems ResearchBiological control of the pearl millet head miner

• Became serious pest during 1970s in marginal dryland systems of Sahel

• Sahel has some of the world’s poorest countries with weak institutions and resource-poor farmers

• Over 25 years, multiple funding partners (CILSS, FAO, USAID, McKnight Foundation and BM Gates Foundation)

• Over 25 years, multiple research partners (CIRAD, Texas A&M, ICRISAT, IITA, ISRA, IER, INERA) on pest ecology via several uncoordinated short-term projects

• Group of prominent national scientists funded by McKnight Foundation developed and deployed a systems-based IPM program

• Trained farmers to raise and release parasitic wasp to kill the head miner.

Better Model for Systems Research and Development

• Emphasis on partnership (McKnight Foundation)

• National research partners take the lead and gain recognition, leading to uptake and institutional strengthening

• Farmers, technicians, students, animateurs, etc. have integrated roles, facilitating adoption

• CG centers, “Advanced Research Institutes,” etc. play a supporting partner role

• Prominent role for women as scientists, farmers, and beneficiaries

Outputs, Impact, and OutcomeOutput: On-farm methodology for mass rearing and release of parasitoid wasp

Impact (after 3 years): Release in 385 villages, with an effective coverage approaching more than 200,000 ha. Estimates suggest yield increases of ~40% in the areas of intervention, and that ~72% of larvae akilled.

Outcome: National researchers, adequately supported and empowered, deliver real and effective solutions that are:•Scientifically sound•Meet the needs of the smallholder farmers, and •Contribute significantly to improved food security, community resilience, and reduced poverty.

Outscaling

1. Spillover effects a) Neighboring villages informally seek to learn from

animateursb) Widespread recognition from farmer organizations and

local, regional, and national governments (upscaling effects)

2. Good prospects for regional expansion to wherever pearl millet head miner is a production constraint (e.g. from Senegal to Sudan).

3. Because capacity was built at many community levels , the technology can spread based on community involvement without the need for large external financial support.

Governance with Partners

• Steering Committee (DG+3 CG centers+2 ARIs+3 Development Organizations+4 NARS + Director)

• Independent Science Advisory Committee (5 members)

• Regional Management Committees • Regional Stakeholder Advisory Committees• Regional Science Advisory Committee