Presentation on theme: "The Challenges of Integration: Lessons from ASB research in the tropical forest margins Presented by Thomas P Tomich Principal Economist and ASB Global."— Presentation transcript:
The Challenges of Integration: Lessons from ASB research in the tropical forest margins Presented by Thomas P Tomich Principal Economist and ASB Global Coordinator World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya Prepared for MA Conference on Bridging Scales and Epistemologies, Alexandria, Egypt 18 March 2004
The real world challenge … is to identify innovative policies, institutions, and technologies that can reconcile forest conservation and poverty reduction. The Riquez Family, Peruvian Amazon
Source: WWF Global 200 Ecoregions (WWF 2001). Notes: The Biomes displayed are only forest biomes that are present in the warm humid and subhumid tropics. Alternatives to Slash-&-Burn (ASB) Benchmark Sites span the humid tropics Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest Biome HIGH EXTRAPOLATION POTENTIAL: PANTROPIC PROBLEM DOMAIN
a long-term, distributed network of benchmark sites, started in 1994 a global consortium of over 50 research institutions, NARS, NGOs, government agencies, universities, and community groups; with contributions from about 250 researchers ASB is the only cross-cutting sub- global assessment of the MA and looks at tropical forest margins serious about integrated natural resource management (iNRM) principles: problem focused, driven by user needs, multidisciplinary, integrated approach to natural resource management Works at multiple scales through a nested local, national, regional and global structure Involves multiple knowledge systems: local knowledge, policymakers knowledge, and scientific knowledge Results from the World Bank Meta-Evaluation of the CGIAR: ASB has been applauded … for innovative field research, strong science, and for going furthest within the CGIAR toward implementing effectively 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. 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… (From the May 2003 World Bank report CGIAR at 31: A Meta- Evaluation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research from p. 15 of the Thematic Working Paper on Natural Resources Management Research in CGIAR). ASB: balancing rainforest conservation & poverty reduction
The organizational challenge: How to discover the truth about how ASB works? Its possible that no two ASB participants have the same views on ASB processes. Certainly no individual or small group really knows the collective truth.
Method: on-line consultation Asynchronous online event Electronic polls to test premises, establish a common baseline, and to identify areas of consensus and of divergence in views Followed by facilitated, open-ended discussions on-line These are the data for this paper Participants: 42 of potential 109 Biases?
19 participants are coauthors of this paper Julio Alegre, ICRAF Amazonia, Lima, Peru Veronika Areskoug, ICRAF SE Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand Andrea Cattaneo, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA Jonathan Cornelius, ICRAF Amazonia, Lima, Peru Polly Ericksen, Earth Institute of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA Laxman Joshi, ICRAF SE Asia, Bogor, Indonesia Joyce Kasyoki, ICRAF/ASB, Nairobi, Kenya Chris Legg, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria Marilia Locatelli, Embrapa, Rondonia, Brazil Daniel Murdiyarso, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia Cheryl Palm, Earth Institute of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA Roberto Porro, CIAT/ICRAF Amazonia, Belem, Brazil Alejandro Rescia Perazzo, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Angel Salazar-Vega, Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana (IIAP), Iquitos, Perú Dagmar Timmer, ICRAF/ASB, Nairobi, Kenya Meine van Noordwijk, ICRAF SE Asia Regional Programme, Bogor, Indonesia Sandra Velarde, ICRAF/ASB, Nairobi, Kenya Stephan Weise, IITA Humid Forest Centre, Yaounde, Cameroon Douglas White, CIAT, Cali, Colombia
Analytical Framework Clark et al. 2002; Integration Institutional learning Participation Human & financial resources
Featured result: integration A 5 th dimension of the integration challenge 1.Disciplinary 2.Functional (institutional) 3.Spatial and temporal 4.Knowledge (epistemologies) 5.North – South integration needs specific attention
Featured result #2: learning and participation Growing awareness by scientists of a widening range of stakeholders, hence potential participants and users. ( Note: many have conflicting interests ). Scientists feel tension between: 1.delivering results for ASBs core constituents (farmers and policymakers) 2.reaching out to a broader set of potential users (e.g., civil society, environmental groups, private sector)
Hypotheses on integration (a selection) USERS NEEDS & PROBLEM FOCUS: clear problem definition derived from users needs is key to disciplinary, functional, spatial/temporal and knowledge integration PLACE-BASED FOCUS: sustained focus on specific sites facilitated co- location of measurements, which was essential in disciplinary integration. INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS: functional integration (among institutions) is more difficult than disciplinary integration (among teams of individual scientists). BALANCED GOVERNANCE by institutions from North and South helps integrate across disciplines and interests – especially the top-down aspects of global environmental concerns and the bottom-up nature of rural development. BOUNDARY CROSSING & INTEGRATION: boundary functions are key to integration across institutions, scales, knowledge systems and arenas (local, civil society, policy, science).
ASB as a Boundary Organization (Guston, 2001) Characteristics –Forum for interaction among actors across social arenas –Attention to managing boundary crossing activities Goals are achieved through boundary crossing activities: –Communication –Translation –Mediation Other Private Sector Managers and Investors Policymakers and Public Policy Shapers Farmers, local communities Boundary Organization: ASB NGOs, Civil Society