Present: UNEP: Dr. Anna Tengberg. ICARDA: Dr. Abdul-Majid, Dr. Richard Thomas. ICRISAT: Dr. Barry Shapiro, Mr. K. Subba-Raju, Dr. Suhas Wani, Dr. Mark Winslow. India - CAZRI: Dr. Pratap Narain. India – CRIDA: Dr. Y. Ramakrishna. Pakistan - PARC: Dr. Mohamed Saleem (made strong efforts to attend but unable due to visa issues - submitted written report).

Welcomes and overviews

Dr. Barry Shapiro welcomed all participants, and expressed collective gratitude to UNEP and GEF for providing the means to launch this important new effort. He also expressed thanks that the Directors of the three premier national research institutes in India and Pakistan had committed to attend (appreciating the great efforts made by Dr. Saleem in addition to the attendance and strong participation by Drs. Narain and Ramakrishna). Dr. Shapiro reviewed the genesis and evolution of the project concept and an overview of the main strategy and approach, especially the integrated ecosystem concept and the synergy and cross-learning sought by choosing three complementary locations for focus.

Dr. Richard Thomas described four strengths that ICARDA will contribute to the project: i) water management in rainfed situations; ii) rangeland management; iii) adding value to livestock products; and iv) ways to manage the complexity of interdisciplinary and multisector research as needed for this project. (Later he gave a followup presentation on the CGIAR INRM Task Force approach to this issue, including a checklist we can use to to highlight weak points in our project approach – see INRM Guide). 

Dr. Anna Tengberg described the background, concepts and perspective of the GEF Operational Program 15 (OP 15) on Land Degradation and its approach to Sustainable Land Management (SLM). (She went into more detail on these issues in a later presentation). Dr. Tengberg pointed out that we need to decide which of the GEF-4 priorities we should target, recommending main effort towards the third priority which is on generating and disseminating knowledge. She said we should finish the GEF Project Brief (PDF-B) by January 2007 to leave enough time for the UNEP reviews to be completed in time for May 2007 submission to GEF. If successful this would lead to full project takeoff around the end of 2007.

She pointed out that GEF is still seeking to better measure and explain how combating land degradation delivers global benefits. She also noted that there are large ongoing projects focused on mainstreaming SLM policies into national policy processes in Pakistan and India, and that our project should not attempt to duplicate those larger projects but rather to provide valuable new learning about how SLM at the nexus of agriculture and the environment can be implemented in ways that increase the success of those larger mainstreaming initiatives.

She further noted that the environment-poverty nexus is an issue of  particular interest to UNEP’s global program on poverty and the environment. Any new knowledge we contribute to that issue would be much appreciated by UNEP as it would help UNEP UNEP’s efforts to mainstream environmental issues into national poverty reduction frameworks.

Perspectives of India

Dr. Pratap Narain described the extent of desertification in India with particular emphasis on the arable margins of the Thar Desert in Rajasthan State, northern India. He presented the work of CAZRI related to the desertification-poverty nexus and ways to break it. He described the main issues of water shortage, high and growing population pressure and desertification.

He noted that watershed approaches work where there is more water than can be used by the current crop (i.e. where there is an excess to manage hydrologically) but this is not the situation in much of Rasjasthan. This points out one of many distinctions we must make between locations that will provide interesting cross-comparisons and points of learning in this project.

He also emphasized that community action is essential for common resources such as wellwater and grazing land. Rajasthan is strong in community-based organizations (CBOs). He outlined a wide range of tree-crop-grass land management systems that can provide substantial SLM benefits while increasing incomes in this zone.

Dr. Y. Ramakrishna reviewed the characteristics of drylands across India and the main strategic approaches of research and technology dissemination. He focused on south-central dryland India, especially Andhra Pradesh State. He discussed in detail the watershed approach that has been a major focus of India for many years. Most watershed interventions delivered a large benefit/cost ratio. He described a wide range of agro-silvopastoral sustainable land management models that involved a wide range of crops as well as livestock Many of the crops have high market value thus can build livelihoods while saving lands. Technology-sharing approaches were also described.

Perspectives of Pakistan

Dr. Mohamed Saleem of PARC-Pakistan submitted a written report (presented by Dr. Abdul-Majid) focusing on the Pothwar Plateau which is geographically situated along the lower Himalayan piedmont plains. This area is commonly known as ‘Barani’. Steep slopes are common, causing water erosion. Groundwater is scarce except along river plains. Most areas are utilized for farming, grazing and forestry, and degradation is widespread.

Land privatization appears to increase degradation because social traditions require allowing community grazing even on private lands. He described the institutional setting and major projects underway, and emphasized the need for participative solutions. Higher-value crops and practices are needed, along with water harvesting and better rangeland management.

Dr. Abdul Majid described Pakistan’s BVDP program for the Barani in which ICARDA is closely engaged with PARC and other partners. The area has been characterized into three sub-agro-ecosystems of low, medium and high rainfall (in the context of drylands) within different ‘Tehsils’ or sub-districts. He suggested that our project can focus on the drier 4-5 Tehsils. Local institutions in these dry areas are strong on livestock/range management and on soil/water conservation. Local, district and national level consultations are necessary for buy-in and impact.

Most farms in this area are 1 to 1.5 ha, migration is unusual and off-farm income is often 50% or more of total income. Livestock income tends to be higher than crops income in these dry areas. Farmers are interested in digging wells to increase water security; improved bulls to raise the performance of their herds; and credit, noting that credit payback rates are 100%. Scaling-up of input supplies is a major constraint to SLM at present.

Perspectives of ICRISAT

Dr. Suhas Wani presented the watershed management research of ICRISAT. He noted that farmers more readily recognize nutrient mining than they do erosion, although both of course contribute to land degradation. He emphasized the need to involve government departments into our project process early on so they buy into the outcomes for sustainable impact of the project.

He mentioned recent work on Pongamia as an oil crop, generating 197 tons of payments for carbon fixation as a renewable energy substitute for fossil fuel combustion. This suggests the large potential that could lie ahead for advances in understanding that we make on the carbon sequestration issue. He highlighted community self-help approaches e.g. communities allowed to plant on common property if they agree to use sustainable practices.

How to carry out complex, interdisciplinary research: findings of a CGIAR Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) Task Force study

Dr. Richard Thomas briefly described a major study conducted by the CGIAR INRM Task Force that he felt could be useful for ensuring an effective approach to our SLM project. This study was a global review that identified eleven key elements of approach that characterized the most successful NRM projects. The 11 elements were shortlisted as a checklist that we can use to ensure we are following an approach most likely to succeed.

The group felt this was a very useful tool for our project. Dr. Thomas also provided an in-depth document entitled “Navigating amidst complexity: Guide to manage R&D interventions for improving livelihoods and the environment” (64 pp.) that explains this topic in detail.

Nexus targets

The discussions following these presentations brought out a number of important points:

We need a ‘typology’ so we can compare/contrast our sites using common criteria; this will help us greatly in gaining a better understanding and baseline measurement methodology.

We need to describe more specifically how we are going to involve our stakeholders and at what levels (local, state, national?) Too many levels would make project management complex, yet we do need to have representation from all three levels of scale. Perhaps some levels can be combined to achieve both aims.

We need to specify the criteria we are using to choose these sites. But consultation with local residents to identify these criteria might lead to their disappointment if the project ends up choosing a different locality. This has to be managed with sensitivity.

Outcomes of Full Project

On day 2 the discussion began with a review of the intended outcomes. The proposed outcomes of the Full Project are:

1. Enhanced understanding of the basic drivers and dynamics of land degradation in South Asian drylands
2. Enhanced policy and institutional options
3. New land use options that balance sustainability with improved livelihoods
4. Upscaling and dissemination through improved knowledge exchange and management
5. Project management system

The group reviewed each Outcome and elaborated Outputs for each, listed below. Some additional points made in the discussions are in italics.

Corresponding Outputs of Full Project

1. Enhanced understanding of the basic drivers and dynamics of land degradation in South Asian drylands (we should not attempt to quantitatively measure the extent of land degradation over large areas, which is a massive and costly exercise better done by other agencies. We should focus on identifying the drivers and SLM solutions to them)

1.1 Database on extent of land degradation (LD) from secondary data

1.2 Conceptual model of drivers and dynamics of LD in South Asia

1.3 Appropriate tools, methods and indicators to monitor LD and impacts on ecosystem structure and function

2. Enhanced policy and institutional options

2.1Analysis of existing policies, regulations and institutions that constrain SLM

2.2 Sectoral and national policy, regulatory and institutional options that promote SLM

2.3 Development pathways and investment models for SLM

3. New land use options that balance sustainability with improved livelihoods (participants agreed to fold carbon sequestration into this new output; carbon sequestration had been a separate output in our original proposal)

3.1 Environmental and socio-economic impact assessment of new and existing SLM options and technologies

3.2 New and improved SLM systems and livelihood strategies upscaled

3.3 Improved productivity and carbon sequestration at demonstration sites

4. Upscaling and dissemination through improved knowledge exchange and management

4.1 Information and Communication Systems upscaled for the rural poor

4.2 Stakeholder dialogue and participation system

4.3 Capacity building for integrated SLM approaches

5. Project management system

5.1 Formation of regional, national, and other coordination units (to be elaborated after receiving stakeholder input during the PDFB consultations)

5.2 Project advisory/steering bodies - regional, national and other committees (to be elaborated after receiving stakeholder input during the PDFB consultations)

5.3 Project M&E system