CRP 1.1 Dryland Systems : Impact Pathways for East and Southern Africa
1. CRP 1.1 Dryland Systems
Impact Pathways for East and Southern Africa
DRAFT – 27 March 2013
Contents
Contents......................................................................................................................................1
Fig. 1: Draft Framework for CRP 1.1 Impact Pathways.......................................................2
Table 1: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2...............................................................................3
Table 2: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3.............................................................................11
Table 3: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3, Satellite Sites......................................................16
This document is an attempt to present the impact pathways as envisioned in the inception
reports for the SRT 2 and SRT 3 sites for East and Southern Africa. Figure 1 is a framework
that attempts to be broad enough to include all of the impact pathways envisioned last year at
inception stage for East and Southern Africa and South Asia. Please note, because of the
origin of these impact pathways, impact pathways relating to SRT 1 and SRT 4 are lacking.
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 1
2. Fig. 1: Draft Framework for CRP 1.1 Impact Pathways
Research, Knowledge and
Methodology Outputs
First Order Outcomes:
Governance, Policy and
Program Changes
Second Order Outcomes:
Changed Farmer/
Pastoralist Practices
Third Order Outcomes:
System Changes
Household
Level
Outcomes
Impacts
A1. Research findings on
technical improvements
A2. Research findings & analysis
aimed at understanding of
resources and of social, economic
and ecological systems
A3. Research findings and
analysis aimed at improved
household characterization
A4. Examples and models for
programming
A5. Tools, approaches, models
and capacity development for
governance, policy and planning
A6. Proactive knowledge
management:
• tools, approaches and models
• capacity development
• lobbying and information
sharing
B1. Better governance processes
B2. Better policies
B3. More and better investment
in drylands
B4. Better land and resource
planning and management
B5. Financial services
B6. Market development:
• Market systems
• Capacity development
• Market infrastructure
B7. Livestock, agricultural
rangeland and social
programming
B8. Better research
C1. Livestock-crop integration
C2. Better feed and herd
management
C3. Water harvesting
C4. Land and soil
management
C5. Better use of and access to
information
C6. Adoption of innovations
C7. Increased farmer/
pastoralists capacity
Agroecological improvements
D1. Increased productivity
D2. Improved sustainability
o Increased biomass
o Agrobiodiversity
Socio-economic outcomes
D3. Tenure security
D4. Reduced conflict
D5. Access to/participation
in markets
D6. Access to credit/ micro-
finance
D7. Landholding size
D8. Greater equity
E1.
Livelihood
assets
E2.
Livelihood
strategies
E3. Income
RV.
Reduced
Vulnerability
SI.
Sustainable
Intensification
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 2
3. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Table 1: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
B1 to B8 (esp. B2-B4)
(1) Although the multiple
drivers of vulnerability
of dryland commun-
ities are well docu-
mented, attempts to
reduce it are under-
mined by a limited
understanding of how
many people are
vulnerable, and to
what extent, in
different dryland
populations
(urban:rural,
NRM:non-NRM
based, aridity zones)
A5
1.1.1 Nationally / widely agreed frameworks to
define and measure vulnerability are in place and
integrated into existing government / development
partners household classification and monitoring
systems
A2/A3
1.1.1.1 Widely accepted and contextually specific definitions of
vulnerability (and resilience) exist for communities and
households in the target site
A5
1.1.1.2 Government approved monitoring frameworks in place to
monitor levels of vulnerability / resilience
A2/A3
1.1.1.3 Vulnerability/ resilience of dryland populations being mapped
and classified according to agreed indicators in framework
A5
1.2.1 Vulnerability framework being used to model
impact of long and short term variables (drivers)
and inform policy and programming interventions
A5
1.2.1.1 Framework used to create/ enhance modelling systems that can
predict long and short term shifts in vulnerability /resilience
based on multiple variables.
A5
1.2.1.2 Vulnerability / resilience modelling integrated into government
MIS/ EW / M&E systems
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 3
4. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
B1 to B3
(2) Low political will to
develop drylands and
ineffective governance
systems result in
increased vulnerability
B1/B2/B4
2.1.1 Improved multi-sectoral (government) NRM
plans (national and local) are developed,
implemented and enforced
A4/A5
2.1.1.1 Validated model for local level NRM governance established
and disseminated
A5
2.1.1.2 Model used to develop govt standards and guidelines
A5
2.1.1.3 Capacity built / support given to develop quality plans in all
areas
B4
2.1.1.4 # plans developed using guidance
D3
2.2. Insecure land rights,
weak strategic and land
use planning are increas-
ingly undermining the
productivity and envi-
ronment of the drylands
B4
2.2.1 The quality of
local strategic and land
use plans and applica-
tion is improved
processes are improved
by being more holistic
and participatory
A4/A5
2.2.1.1 Effective models for participatory planning processes are
identified and inform practice
B4
2.2.1.2 Quality local strategic plans developed following effective
participatory processes
B4
2.2.1.3 Quality land use plans in place developed in full consultation
with all parties
B1
2.2.1.4 Representative and participatory governance structures in place
to monitoring the Implementation of local plans
B3 D1
2.3.1 Sufficient and appropriate investment secured
for basic services and infrastructure directly
boosting pastoral (and non) productivity
A6
2.3.1.1 Evidence for lobbying produced linking poor productivity with
gap in infrastructural / basic services investment
A2/A4
2.3.1.2 Models/ research exists to assess the benefits of large scale
investment in infrastructure / basic services
A4
2.3.1.3 Model uses to assess the relative benefits of different
investments in different dryland contexts to secure investment
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 4
5. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D1
(3): Despite strong
growth in demand for
livestock in both
domestic and
international markets,
the productivity of
many (most) smaller
pastoralists in the
drylands is declining
resulting increasing
poverty and
vulnerability
D5
3.1.1 Smaller pastoralists access and
integration into national livestock markets is
increased
A2
3.1.1.1 Systems in place for tracking utilisation of livestock markets by size of
producer
B6
3.1.1.2 Livestock market infrastructure and operation improved in remote areas
A4 B6/C7
3.1.1.3 Effective interventions for increasing business acumen of small
pastoralists and achieving better prices through joint ventures etc scaled up
A6
3.1.1.4 Expanded price information networks using new and existing technologies
D1
3.2.1 Smaller pastoralists improve their
productivity (not necessarily herd size)
increasing incomes and resilience
B7
3.2.1.1 Effective systems for comprehensive provision of quality animal health
care in place
B7
3.2.1.2 Expanded systems to ensure year round access to feed and fodder
B7
3.2.1.3 Expanded access to year round (drought resistant) watering points
B1
3.2.1.4 Access to credit as required
C5
3.3.1 Dryland technicians and pastoralists
have improved access to quality technical
advice and support
B4
3.3.1.1 Best practice incorporated into government rangeland/ NR management
B7
3.3.1.2 Expanded numbers of livestock / pastoral outreach workers
B7
3.3.1.3 Improved access to consistent quality technical advice on enhancing local
breeds and production methods
B1
3.3.1.4 Improved regulation and monitoring of animal health care services
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 5
6. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D1
(4) The productivity
of smaller pastoralists
is further undermined
by a lack of
investment in the
production of, or
commercial markets
for, other livestock
related products,
particularly milk but
also other dairy
products, fodder and
forage
D1
4.1.1 Small holder commercial milk (and other dairy)
production/sales/ income in the dry lands is increased
A5
4.1.1.1 Systems in place to monitor dryland milk / dairy production
(and sale)
D1
4.1.1.2 Increased milk production for sale
D1
4.1.1.3 Improvements in milk quality
D5
4.1.1.4 Expanded number of commercial milk processing enterprises
D1/D6
4.1.1.5 Expanded milk supply to markets out of drylands
D8
4.2 Milk production in the dry-
lands is primarily managed by
women and is a key element of
child nutrition. How can women
continue to control and benefit
from the commercialisation of
the milk industry without any
negative impacts on child
nutrition?
D1 or D5
4.2.1 Investment in
commercialisation
are gender and
nutrition sensitive OR
Increased milk sales
result in increased
incomes for women
in the drylands
A2/A3
4.2.1.1 Gender assessment undertaken to ensure commercialisation of
milk markets is gender sensitive and pro-nutrition
B3/B6
4.2.1.2 Subsidies provided to enable women to expand and realise the
income generating potential of milk production
D1 E3
4.3.1 Fodder and forage production and incomes
sustainably expanded by vulnerable groups in the
drylands
A4
4.3.1.1 Pro-poor models of community managed fodder and forage
production enterprises identified and disseminated
A2
4.3.1.2 Fodder and forage production capabilities of different dryland
habitats assessed and mapped
A1
4.3.1.3 Improved fodder and forage seeds and species identified
B3
4.3.1.4 Government / donors invest resources to expand best practice
models and approaches
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 6
7. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D2
(5): Growing populations
in the drylands depend on
non-pastoral economic
activities that do not
generate sufficient returns,
are environmentally
unsustainable and can
undermine pastoral
production systems
B1/B4
5.1.1 Standard cost – benefit- environmental
assessments undertaken by government and donor
agencies before funding alternative / diversified
livelihood programmes
B1/B4
5.1.1.1 Improved and institutionalised environmental assessments of
new investment options
A5
5.1.1.2 Validated tool for ecosystem-scale impact assessment that
accounts for impacts on pastoral landscape management
A5
5.1.1.3 Validated tools for evaluating community-level food-security
impact of public investments
A6
5.1.1.4 Monitoring system established to track long-term economic and
other impacts
B1/B4
5.2.1 All irrigation schemes are subject to an
approval process that ensures compliance with local
level NRM plans
A1/A4
5.2.1.1 Standard guidelines in place and utilised to promote models of
irrigated agriculture that do not impact negatively on the wider
drylands environment
A1/A6
5.2.1.2 Information on irrigation options are available to communities
and government planners at all levels (e.g. good practice
guidelines/minimum standards)
B2
5.2.1.3 Recognition in government policies and plans that pastoralism
should remain principle agricultural system in the dry lands.
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 7
8. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D4/RV
(6). High levels of conflict
among three ethnic groups
who compete for resources
leads to high levels of
vulnerability
B4
6.1.1 Improved management of existing natural
resources
B4
6.1.1.1 Improved rangeland and upland forest management strategies
B4
6.1.1.2 Improved water harvesting and management
D2
6.1.2 Enhanced natural resources base, including
biodiversity
D2
6.1.2.1 Restored land
D1/D2
6.1.2.2 Reduced erosion and improved soil health
B4
6.2 Immobility leading to
inability to access resources
and to over-use of resources
B4/D3
6.2.1 Improved land
tenure, use and
ownership systems
A2
6.2.1.1 Understanding of community-based land use, tenure and
demarcation systems
B1
6.2.1.2 Community-based demarcation of land recognized and
sanctioned by government authorities
?
6.3 Poorly defined and
changing administrative,
electoral and ethnic
boundaries
B2/B4
6.3.1 Adoption of
improved NRM and
land management
policies
A6
6.3.1.1 Improved linkages and information exchange between
administrative and community levels covering land use, conflict
resolution, coordination and development efforts
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 8
9. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D2/D4
(7) Severe land
degradation leads to
increased vulnerability,
food insecurity, conflict
and poverty
D2
7.1 Severe pressure on
natural resources due to
increased numbers of people
and animals
C1/C2/C4
7.1.1 Improved land
and livestock
management
practices and
diversification of
income generating
opportunities
B4
7.1.1.1 Improved rangeland and upland forest management strategies
B4
7.1.1.2 Improved water harvesting and management
A1
7.1.1.3 Defined options for income generation on and off farm and for
women in particular
B7
7.1.1.4 Improved access to reproductive health care for women
D1
7.2.1 Increased productivity and profitability per
unit of resource
B4/C2
7.2.1.1 Better, all year, fodder availability and management
C2/C4
7.2.1.2 Managed spontaneous regeneration
C2/C4
7.2.1.3 Controlling invasive species
C2
7.2.1.4 Rotational grazing and other improved practices adopted
D5
7.2.1.5 Improved livestock value chain
D3
7.3 Inappropriate and ill-
defined land tenure policies
and practices
B2
7.3.1 Appropriate
policies defined,
implemented and
adopted
A5
7.3.1.1 Institutional framework to analyze the current situation,
prepare a reform strategy and plan and implement change.
B2
7.4.1 Strategies that are adapted to the dynamics of
change
A4
7.4.1.1 Multiple community based strategy options defined and
developed
B2/B7
7.5.2.1 Administrative support of good practices in land restoration,
combatting erosion, conservation and reforestation
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 9
10. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 2
Problem Component/Outcome Output
D1/E3
(8). Dryland ‘on-farm’
production, profitability
and income generation do
not reach their maximum
potential
D1/D3
8.1.1 Improved yields and incomes
A1/C2
8.1.1.1 Improved breed and livestock management
C6
8.1.2 Profitable and diverse income generating
opportunities for communities, groups, men and
women realized
A1
8.1.2.1 Diverse income generating opportunities tried and tested
A4
8.1.2.2 Optimal utilization and management strategies developed
D3
8.2 People’s access to
productive natural
resources are defined under
legally pluralistic regimes,
so rights to access are not
commonly defined
A2/A6
8.2.1 Better
understanding among
communities and
local authorities of
how resource access
is defined and
controlled
A2/A6
8.2.1.1 Surveys and maps of legal and extra-legal definitions of rights
of access to land
B7
8.4.1 Improved community-based methods of
controlling and managing Prosopis and Opuntia spp
A1
8.4.1.1 Technologies for controlling Prosopis and Oputia spp
A1
8.4.1.2 Technologies for managing Prosopis spp including for high
quality charcoal production and for timber production
C1
(9). Poor livestock-crop
integration
C6
9.1.1 Enhanced access to and uptake of key inputs
such as seeds and fertilizer
A1/B7
9.1.1.1 Improved technologies and inputs developed and made
available
C1
9.1.2 Enhanced diversity of crops and forage plants
A6
9.1.2.1 Diverse crops and information about their cultivation, storage,
and marketing is made available
C1/C4
9.2.3 Farmers implement sustainable agronomic
practices, including rotation, irrigation, soil fertility
measures, and erosion control
A6
9.2.3.1 Information on appropriate technologies and interventions is
made available
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 10
11. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Table 2: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Problem Component/Outcome Output
E1
1. Physical access to
resources
D6
1.1.1 Farmers make use of better cash/credit
availability
B5
1.1.1.1 Mechanisms developed to enable farmers to access credit
B8
1.1.2 Researchers understand, and give
appropriate weight to, the role of household
resource endowments in determining sustainable
intensification opportunities
A3
1.1.1.2 Household constraints on, and potential for, sustainable
intensification characterized.
A2
1.1.1.3 Resource gaps quantified
A1/A4
1.1.1.4 Sustainable Intensification programs for household categories
developed
C4
1.3 Farmers manage their natural resources in a
more sustainable ways
A2
1.3.1 Soil, land and water characteristics determined
A2
1.3.2 Input requirements for a sustainability threshold determined
A6
1.3.3 Information on Sustainable Natural Resource Management available
C6 D1
1.4 Farmers use additional resources, e.g.
irrigation, improved varieties, sustainably to
increase productivity and profitability.
A1/A2
1.4.1 Irrigation potential, e.g. water resources, topography identified
A1/A4
1.4.2 Sustainable irrigation systems identified, tested and promoted
C1
1.5 Farmers use resources more efficiently, e.g.
better crop-livestock integration.
A1
1.5.1 Appropriate options for better crop-livestock integration developed
A5
1.5.5 DSS and Trade-off analysis tools developed and deployed
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 11
12. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Problem Component/Outcome Output
E1 (E3?)
2. Inputs and outputs for
sustainable intensification
D5
2.1.1 Farmers participate more in input and output
markets.
A2/A3
2.1.1.1 Constraints to farmer participation in markets identified.
B6
2.1.1.2 Potential buyers and input suppliers identified and linked to farmers.
A4/B5/B6
2.1.1.3 External solutions for overcoming constraints identified and
delivered, e.g. subsidies, small packs, micro-finance.
A4
2.1.1.4 Local institutional mechanisms for enhancing market participation
identified and tested, e.g. group buying and selling.
A6
2.1.1.5 Effective mechanisms for accessing and using price-, quality- and
quantity information by farmers and buyers identified.
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 12
13. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Problem Component/Outcome Output
B2
3.Policies and institutions
B2B6
3.1.1 Policymakers influence market development
to support SI.
A5
3.1.1.1 Policies and instruments with beneficial effects on markets
identified.
A6
3.1.1.2 Communication channels between policymakers and researchers
improved.
A6 B6
3.1.1.3 Awareness of policies and their implications among market actors
improved
B2 C5
3.1.2 Policymakers develop and implement
policies that support/promote technology transfer.
A5
3.2.1.4 Policies that facilitate, promote or hamper the transfer of technology
identified.
A6
3.2.1.2 Researchers and research managers improve their capacity to engage
with policy makers.
B8
3.2.1.3 Researchers take account of the effect of various policy options on
technology transfer when developing and promoting technologies
(sensitivity analysis).
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 13
14. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Problem Component/Outcome Output
C6
4.Appropriate innovations
A6
4.1.1 Farmers adopt reduced-risk SI innovations.
A3
4.1.1.1 Household goals and aspirations understood
A2/A3
4.1.1.2 Constraints on adoption understood.
A1
4.1.1.3 A basket of low-risk crop- and livestock innovations with technical
potential for SI developed and tested
A1
4.1.1.4 Technologies screened for adoptability (‘attractiveness’)
A1/A4/A6
4.1.2 Feedback from farmers/CRP1.1 researchers
informs development of technologies in other
CRPs and better approaches for promoting
adoption.
A1
4.1.2.1 Feedback from farmers collected and synthesized.
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 14
15. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3
Problem Component/Outcome Output
C5
5. Information
C5
5.1.1 More peer-to-peer information exchange
A2
5.1.1.1 Social networks characterized
A6
5.1.1.2 Improved processes for facilitating information exchange
A6
5.1.2 New approaches to information flow used
C7
5.1.2.1 Farmers’ management skills enhanced
A6
5.1.2.2 Methods using new technologies for information exchange, e.g.
mobile phones, internet, developed.
C6
5.1.3 Farmers benefit from new niches for
exogenous innovation
A2/A6
5.1.3.1 Validated technologies for identifying and delivering new niches that
complement existing practice
B6
5.1.4 Public and private sector form integrated
information services
A6
5.1.4.1Public sector data on, e.g. demand, informs private sector investment
opportunities.
?
5.1.5 Better informed development at scale.
?
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 15
16. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3 Satellite Sites
Table 3: Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3, Satellite Sites
Component Outcome Output
C7
Engagement of
youth/demographic and
social change
C7
Youth engaged more productively in agriculture
and livestock activities
B7
Establishment of youth based agricultural enterprises, including innovation
programs and youth focused training courses.
B7
Agricultural innovation programs targeting transition from school to
employment, with particular focus on agri-business opportunities.
C7
Youth engaged in income generating activities derived from agriculture
D2
Soil loss and nutrient
depletion in mixed crop
grazing lands
C1/D2
Soil loss and nutrient depletion is halted in mixed
crop grazing lands
A4
Demonstrate opportunities for value-added activities for smallholder
livestock (e.g. milk) and associated benefits of grazing land management.
A1/A4
Opportunities for more effective tree-crop livestock integration.
C4
Diverse forest resource are maintained and
regenerated
B4
1.2.1 Increase for cover based on community managed regeneration with
indigenous species.
B4
Community engaged in sustainable conservation based income from forest
regeneration and opportunities for eco-tourism etc.
A1
Alternative fuelwood sources developed for farmers
A6
Efficient energy use interventions promoted within cultural norms
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 16
17. Impact Pathways – ESA SRT 3 Satellite Sites
Component Outcome Output
C6
Technologies are not
suitable to local context,
and do not appreciate the
integrated nature of needs
for sustainable
intensification.
C6
Suite of integrated technologies available relevant
to local agro-ecological and socio-economic
context
A1/A2
Comparative analysis through research evaluation of CRP technologies
suitable to local context
A1/B8
Participatory technology evaluation by farmers, which is fed into the
research evaluation and drives implementation plans.
A6
Technology is utilized by extension officers and available in the local
market to allow an integrated approach to sustainable intensification.
B4 (C4 D4)
Lack of integrated and
scaled planning to allow
sustainable land use
management
B4
Appropriate plans at village and district level
developed, implemented & enforced.
A5
Land management using local context specific cultural norms to aid the
reduction of court cases around land-use conflicts.
B4
Water resource sharing plans implemented and managed.
CRP 1.1 ESA Impact Pathways – Draft – 27/03/13 Page 17