Key territories of the Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program (MAP): concepts and selection

Sentinel landscapes workshop

CIFOR

October 2011

Key territories of the Mesoamerican

Agroenvironmental Program (MAP): concepts

and selection

Justifications for this presentation

Requests in messages from Robert:

“…presentations by resource people managing similar type of long term

multi-location experiments…; …including site selection criteria…;

…model(s)” for a sentinel landscape network…; …present your own

experience in multipurpose, multi-location, long-term experiments….”

My reply:

• I propose to present the experience with MAP, a regional development

programme that incorporates a lot of applied research.

• The procedure (criteria etc) for the selection of MAP’s “Key Territories”

(equivalent to Sentinel Landscapes) were different to what might be

considered for a research only focus.

• When pathways to impact and scaling-out of research results become

major goals (CRPs), MAP is a valuable contrast (different setting and

experience) to other presentations respect long term multi-location

experiments.

Since 1987, research on dynamics of tropical rain forests, sustainable forest management and global change impacts: >100 permanent plots (0.2 -2.0 ha) replicated along gradients (150 – 2800 masl) in Costa Rica

Now part of Neoselvas network (Central Amazon, Chiapas and Costa Rica); extension to proposed regional network (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica)

Relevance of CATIE’s experience with

“Key Territories” for CRP 6

• The concept of Key Territories (KT) was developed in CATIE in 2008, with

Norway, Sweden and Finland, for a regional development initiative called

the Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Programme (the “MAP”)

• Criteria and procedures for choosing and subsequently working in Sentinel

Landscapes (equivalent of Key Territories) should not be based only on

experience with regional / global research programmes

• The MAP includes a substantial amount of research for development, the

goal of the CRPs, and hence is a model that could provide valuable lessons

• Integration of different R&D teams in MAP’s Key Territories is only beginning

to be achieved after two years; the establishment of the Sentinel

Landscapes of CRP 6 is going to face some of the same challenges

• MAP’s M+E strategy (especially of impact) also has taken over two years to

develop; it could offer valuable input for the M+E of the Sentinel Landscapes

CATIE´s Scientific Programs and MAP

Q: Problems we are addressing in MAP Key

Territories

• Deforestation

• Anthropogenic degradation of natural resources (water, soils,

biodiversity, pesticide toxicity, scenic beauty, climate

change,…)

• Vulnerability (need for diversification)

• Socio-economic changes (internal, national, international)

• Need for systemic approaches

• Exclusion (equity - gender, indigenous)

Q: Problems we are addressing in MAP Key

Territories

• Quality of products, certification, requirements (EU, etc.):

competitiveness is increasingly affected by these issues

• Weak social organization and community structure, inter-

racial conflict, badly organized Cooperatives and

Associations, lack of “institutionality” (national / local),…

• Poor regional integration (of countries) slows progress

• Exogenous factors (both opportunities and problems):

e.g., changes in markets, geo-political shifts, infrastructure..

• Financial limitations (credit, insurance)

• Education is deficient at all levels

CATIE’s R&D approach in MAP Key Territories

Test participatory methods, principally using the livelihoods and

capitals framework, for integrating sectorial approaches (e.g.,

value chains) with territorial approaches (e.g., watershed

management) that can be used to develop holistic (systemic)

and specific answers to the combined economic, environment

and social challenges in each target region.

Value added of working in a Key Territory

• Potential to develop systemic interventions that take into

account interactions and the complexity of rural development

• Improvements in the impacts (target groups) thanks to

concentrated and longer term of efforts, working with partners and

allies in an integrated institutional framework

• Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of international

cooperation and CATIE, assuming that the additional costs of

coordination (donors, programmes; projects, etc) is less than the

operational and logistical benefits

• Unified institutional image that results from working in an integrated

manner

• Improved quality of CATIE’s products

• Located within priority areas identified in regional or national strategies;

e.g., Mesoamerican Biological Corridor [CBM] •

• Key stakeholders, with proven leadership and social capital, expressed

interest •

• Potential to internalize the costs of the provision of ecosystem services

through different financial mechanisms

• Correspond to CATIE´s expertise and in areas offering potential for

synergies within CATIE and/or with partners

*p.27. Implementation Proposal for the MAP; also mentions that Trans-frontier territories will

be favoured when possible.

•

•

Q: Criteria to choose Key Territories*

What was initially considered when

choosing a Key Territory (KT) for MAP?

Where

National and CATIE priority according to physical, biological and socio-

economic characteristics

– Water

– Poverty, environmental concerns and inequity (gender)

– Biological connectivity



Size

Geographical area of variable size (large >100.000 ha) containing much

smaller potential sites for direct intervention where the actions of various

initiatives (projects etc) could be integrated



Who

• At least two CATIE R+D programmes agreeing that the Key Territory is

central to their agenda

• Existence of an good institutional base where other actors and service

providers are active and with whom CATIE can work in order to

achieve “institutional anchorage”, scaling out and hence wide scale

impact

•

What

• Potential of MAP thematic areas to contribute to livelihoods in the

zone

• More than one principal land use (e.g. livestock, forests and coffee)

Additional criteria used to select

potential Key Territories

How

• Logistical feasibility, infrastructure, accessibility, security

• Representative of other areas / potential for scaling-out

Additional criteria used to select

potential Key Territories

Actual Key Territories of MAP

• Trifinio (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador): water is a central

theme (Climate Change and Watersheds programme) but actions of

CATIE Programmes focused on coffee, horticultural crops, forestry,

livestock and value chains are needed to achieve impact

• Bosawás (Centre- North Nicaragua)*: changing land use is a

central theme (Livestock and Environmental Management

Programme) but actions of CATIE Programmes focused on coffee,

cacao, forestry, CC-Watersheds and value chains are needed to

achieve impact

*CRP 3.7 (Livestock) has identified the same area of Nicaragua as well as part of

Southern Honduras as a target zone

Final list of characteristics used to justify

Key Territories selected for MAP Characteristics of MAP Key Territories Trifinio Bosawas

REQUIREMENTS

Inter-institutional governance platform in the territory X X

At least two CATIE programmes active X X

Pilot area of at least two MAP projects X X

Land use diversity X X

Potential to develop MAP thematic areas X X

National and/or regional priority area

X X

DESIRABLE

Trans-frontier territories X

Cultural diversity (includes indigenous groups) X X

Poverty and dependency on natural resources X X

Vulnerability to climate change X X

Environmental relevance (Mesoamerican Biological Corridor; Water) X X

Scale-out resources available (in the territory) X X

Representativeness (possibilities for extrapolation) X

Infrastructure and basic services X (x)

Reasons for choosing Bosawas as a Key Territory

1. High value for biodiversity conservation (buffer zone for the

BOSAWAS biosphere reserve; also Musun y Quiragua reserves;

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor)

2. Water quantity and quality is a central problem in this territory,

principally due to unsustainable management and use of soils; focus

on water facilitates the establishment of co-management initiatives

3. Predicted (extreme) effects of climate change and variability; includes

dry, transition and wet forest life zones (contrasting effects of CCV)

4. Dominance (and overlap) of coffee, pastures and cacao in adjoining

parts of the Key Territory facilitates the interaction of programmes

5. Presence of Coffee Innovations, Watersheds, Mesoterra and Central

American Cacao projects

Reasons for choosing Bosawas as a Key Territory

6. Organization of farmers: e.g., coffee cooperatives and NGOs

7. High poverty index in rural areas (Poverty MAP Nicaragua 2005)

8. FDL (“Local Development Fund”) and other micro credit mechanisms like

Fondeagro (project) supporting the implementation of best practices

9. Interest (and confidence) of local decision makers; presence of

Government and other strategic partners who have, are or wish to work

with CATIE

10. Possibility of replication in much larger areas

11. Continuity/ credibility of CATIE actions in this region

Q: Lessons learnt from MAP Key Territories

• “Integration” is the key word

• The shared testing of research and development

methodologies (e.g., multi-theme Farmer Field School) lead to

integration of disciplines, projects and programmes

• Few Key Territories: don’t choose too many

• Importance of previous presence, continuity and confidence

• Risk analysis: probability of long term favourable conditions?

• Selection: top-down together with bottom-up process

• Anchoring: key consideration when selecting partners

Lessons learnt from MAP Key Territories

• Differing needs / histories / commitments of research +

development groups: takes time to achieve the necessary

integration (e.g., CATIE programmes or CRP components)

• To achieve significant impact we need to support work in a

larger area than our pilot zones: we need criteria to select

research + development sites within the Key Territory (these

differ between components/ projects of MAP)

• Donor inconsistency

• Monitoring and Evaluation (M+E) contributes to integration

• Livelihoods and capitals approach: framework that permits

integration (e.g., socio- economic with ecological; value chain

with territorial; …)

Lessons for CRP 6 Sentinel Landscapes

from MAP’s experience with Key Territories

• Linking existing initiatives of different research groups, even if they operate

in the same zone, will not create a KT (SL); it will only show that a

conglomerate of different initiatives exists

• In order to implement systemic approaches for rural R+D, such as CRP 6

proposes, a new approach is required where each research group has to be

prepared to commit research resources rather than results to a mutually

agreed plan of work; i.e., share decision making respect research planning

and priorities and be prepared to integrate into a team

Lessons for CRP 6 Sentinel Landscapes

from MAP’s experience with Key Territories

• The vision of the role of partners in “Research for Development” requires a

change of attitude by researchers; e.g., institutional “anchoring” becomes an

important goal requiring true participation of the local and national partners

in all stages (participatory R+D) rather than treating the partners as a

conduit for the dissemination of results

• Rigid definitions of the borders of a KT (SL) can not be made

• Researchers have to be prepared to participate in development activities

(e.g. publications in English for international journals are not enough) but for

efficiency scaling-out is the role of local and national partners

• ?R&D (resources) based on territorial projects rather than disciplinary

projects?

MAP an ambitious intersectorial platform designed

to achieve sustainable land use that improves

human wellbeing in rural areas of Mesoamerica

Criteria for selecting Sentinel Landscapes*

• Comparable sites (= geographical [site] differences)

• Where we can study trends (= temporal differences)

• Research for Development (= where impact can be obtained)

• Strong partners wish to collaborate

• Many initiatives (especially other CRP) find appropriate

conditions

• Suitable conditions for long-term Research + Development

(security, political support, priority [for donors + countries] ,…)

*Possible criteria to select Sentinel Landscapes – summary of

information taken from Annex 4 of the CRP 6 proposal

Criteria for selecting Sentinel Landscapes*

• Interdisciplinary research + development (especially socio-

economic with ecological) is facilitated

• Local people and organizations wish to participate

• A forest transition exists, is dynamic and could be influenced

• Relevant work/ information) is already underway/ available (=

don’t start from zero)

• Impact (livelihoods + environment) can be measured

• It is feasible to apply standardized methods

*Possible criteria to select Sentinel Landscapes – summary of

information taken from Annex 4 of the CRP 6 proposal

Who participated in the choice of MAP Key

Territories?

Internally: workshops, meetings and exchanges involving

project personnel, programme leaders and national technical

office representatives; more bottom-up than top-down

Externally: local and national government, civil society,

Universities, representatives of regional organizations (e.g.,

IUCN) and of international cooperation respect both the topics

and location of MAP interventions (demand and relevance); both

bottom-up and top-down

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system

• The integration of pre-existing regional projects and other R+D

mechanisms was a major challenge when developing MAP’s M&E

system

• MAP indicators and targets, and procedures for defining these, have

evolved continuously during the first two years of the programme

• Final version based on XX products (outputs), YY capitals, direct

(programme objective) and indirect (development objective) ZZ impact

as well as UU performance indicators : the poverty alleviation focus,

through MAP’s Sustainable Land Management focus, goes far

beyond financial capital

Capacity development and reinforcement

HUMAN CAPITAL

Wisdom and dialogue HUMAN AND CULTURAL

CAPITAL

Strengthening of grass roots

organizations SOCIAL AND POLITICAL

CAPITAL

Improvement of productive infrastructure and equipment

for families BUILT CAPITAL

Diversification and development of value chains

FINANCIAL CAPITAL

Livel ihoods

Sustainable Land Management (SLM); AFS, Social and ecological resilience (CC); Environmental Services

NATURAL CAPITAL

Final proposal for MAP’s Logical Framework

Development objective

Indicators (indirect impact indicators developed for each dimension)

Programme objective

Indicators (direct impact indicators developed for each dimension)

Result / component /

dimension 1

(farm/ family)


dimension 2

(local)


dimension 3

(national)


dimension 4

(regional)


dimension 5

(CATIE)

Products R1 Products R2 Products R3 Products R4 Products R5

Capitals: human, natural,

financial, social, political and physical


financial, social, political






financial, social, political and physical

Performance

indicator

Impact

indicators(direct / indirect)

Performance

indicator

Impact


Performance

indicator

Impact


Performance

indicator

Impact


Performance

indicator

Impact


Definitions of the limits of a MAP Key Territory

• The geographical extent of a key territory can not be fixed

with precision as it can for a watershed; it has to be flexible

according to the needs of the different R+D lines (themes).

For example, the limits are different for a municipality,

interested in a town’s water supply, to those considered by a

coffee cooperative interested in capturing coffee production in

the same zone.

• A landscape is a social construction whose geographical

expression is related with the interests of the human

population located in and interdependent with that territory.

Key territories of the Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program (MAP): concepts and selection

Education

Transcript of Key territories of the Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program (MAP): concepts and selection