globalisation and sustainable development · the dgis-wageningen ur partnership programme...

GLOBALISATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme

Annual Report 2008

GLOBALISATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme

Annual Report 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Summary 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................3 2 Activities in 2008 ..............................................................................................4

2.1 Theme 1: Sustainable Agro-supply Chains ......................................4

2.1.1 Value Chains for Pro-Poor Development ................................................... 4

2.2 Theme 2: Competing Claims on Natural Resources.......................11

2.2.1 Competing Claims, Competing Models: Understanding (the benefits

of) bio-fuel based development models and their impact on resource use negotiations and rural livelihoods in southern Africa. ......................... 11

2.2.2 Coping with competing claims on water in the Incomati Basin through interactive science (WIBIS) .................................................................... 17

2.2.3 Improving livelihoods and resource management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia (ILCE) ........................................................................ 21

2.2.4 Illegal or Incompatible? Managing the consequences of timber legality standards on local livelihoods ............................................................... 25

2.2.5 Desk study ‘Reversing the Unsustainability Spiral’ ................................... 31 2.3 Theme 3: Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity..............................32 2.4 Institutional development and capacity strengthening ...................34

3 Programme coordination and management .....................................................35 4 Financial report 2008......................................................................................36

DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme, Annual Report 2008 Page 1

GLOBALISATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme

Annual Report 2008

Summary

The DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme ‘Globalisation and Sustainable Development’ started in June 2006 for a period of 4 years. The programme has four focal themes: (1) Sustainable Agro-Supply Chains, (2) Competing Claims on Natural Resources, (3) Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity and -as a cross-cutting theme- (4) Institutional Development and Capacity Strengthening.

Progress in 2008 was largely in line with the activities planned in the programme’s Work Plan 2008. As for Theme 1 ‘Sustainable Agro-Supply Chains’ pilot action research in Uganda (oilseeds) and Ethiopia (sesame) continued and new pilots were started in Mozambique (rice) and Rwanda (cassava and potatoes). In addition, Methodology Development under this theme was further elaborated and applied, for example in the (participatory) process of the selection of the new pilot sites mentioned above (see Section 2.1 of this Annual Report).

Following a Call for Proposals under Theme 2 of the Partnership Programme ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’ in late 2007, 4 selected proposals under this theme could be implemented as of April 2008. The projects address issues related to the competition between (i) The cultivation of bio-fuel crops and food crops in South Africa and Mozambique (Section 2.2.1), (ii) Trans-boundary re-allocation of water in the Incomati River Basin of Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland (Section 2.2.2), (iii) Land use planning, livelihood improvement and resource management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia (Section 2.2.3) and (iv) Governance mechanisms on timber legality standards for sustainable local livelihoods in Ghana and Indonesia (Section 2.2.4).

A Call for Proposals under Theme 3 of the Partnership Programme ‘Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity’ was compiled for launching in early 2009 (Section 2.3).

In 2008 a start was made in compiling and analysing lessons learned in terms of Institutional Development and Capacity Strengthening activities under the three main themes of the Partnership Programme for further targeting of the Programme’s efforts in this area (Section 2.4).

General coordination and management issues including one meeting of the Programme’s Steering Committee and meetings of the daily management team are being summarized in Chapter 4. An overview of the Programme’s expenditures in 2008 is provided in Chapter 5 of this Annual Report.


1 Introduction The DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme ‘Globalisation and Sustainable Development’ aims at effectively contributing to poverty alleviation, food security and livelihood improvement for the world’s (rural) poor by means of targeted research, institutional development and capacity strengthening. Through the Partnership Programme, the Netherlands’ Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) and Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) aim to make tangible contributions to the Millennium Development Goals, MDG1 (Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger), MDG7 (Ensuring environmental sustainability) and MDG 8 (Developing global partnerships for development) in particular.

The Partnership Programme has four interlinked thematic areas covering critical aspects of the globalization process: (1) ‘Sustainable Agro-Supply Chains’, (2) ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’, (3) ‘Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity’, whereas ‘Institutional Development and Capacity strengthening’ forms a cross-cutting theme. The partnership aims to develop practical recommendations for policy formulation and new models for livelihood improvement, rural entrepreneurship and sustainable management of the natural resources including biodiversity. The partnership aims to provide science-based support to public and non-governmental research and development organizations, as well to the private sector, both in the South and in the North. The geographic focus of the Partnership Programme largely follows the priority regions and countries of DGIS in sub-Sahara Africa. The programme is funded through financial contributions from DGIS that are being matched by in-kind contributions from Wageningen UR and its partners. The DGIS contribution is € 5 million for the first 4 years of the programme.

Daily management at programme level is shared between DGIS/DMW (Directorate Environment and Water) and Wageningen International/Front Office of Wageningen UR. Final responsibility for the Partnership Programme is with the joint DGIS-Wageningen UR Steering Committee (SC) which consists of 3 representatives each of DGIS and Wageningen UR and an observer/agenda member from the Netherlands’ Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The latter Ministry is represented in the Steering Committee in order to maintain synergy with the Policy Support Research Program International of LNV which covers largely the same thematic areas as the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership.

By applying the mechanism of Calls for Proposals, specific projects are being selected for implementation within each of the three thematic areas of the programme, Theme 1 ‘Sustainable Agro-supply Chains’ and Theme 2 ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’ in particular. For Theme 3 ‘Sustainable use of Agro-biodiversity’ a Call for Proposals call was prepared in 2008, for launching in 2009. This annual report summarizes progress made and output generated in 2008 in the framework of these sub-activities and projects. More elaborate reports per activity are available with the Programme Secretariat.


2 Activities in 2008 2.1 Theme 1: Sustainable Agro-supply Chains Theme 1 of the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme, ‘Sustainable Agro-Supply Chains’, aims at (i) Developing capacity and expertise for sustainable agro-supply chains in developing countries, (ii) Analysing pilot supply chains and formulating recommendations on how integrated supply chains can facilitate market access and sustained economic growth, and (iii) Evaluating the appropriateness of these market-driven economic developments and their mechanisms in contributing to income generation and improvement of rural livelihoods. Output of Theme 1 targets the actual implementation level of supply chains as well as national and international policy levels and includes specifically:

o Enhanced institutional and entrepreneurial capacities to meet (inter-)national agro-food standards and to participate in integrated supply chains;

o Private-sector driven supply chain approaches and mechanisms, including market development, analyzed on their impact on economic development.

o Pilot projects implemented utilizing results of research, development and co-innovation in solving supply-chain related issues.

Activities under Theme 1 have been centrally grouped and are being coordinated and implemented under one sub-programme ‘Value Chains for pro-poor Development’.

2.1.1 Value Chains for Pro-Poor Development

Project leaders

Dr. Sietze Vellema (Scientific Coordination) and Dr. André de Jager (Programme Coordination); Wageningen UR/Social Sciences Group/LEI. Project partners

In the Netherlands: o Wageningen UR/Social Sciences Group/LEI (Ir. Giel Ton and Ir. Gerdien Meijerink) and

Wageningen UR/Wag International/CD&IC o Agriterra (Ir. Nelly van der Pasch) o Agri-ProFocus (Ir. Hedwig Bruggeman and Ir. Roel Snelder)

In Uganda: o Ugandan Oilseed Subsector Platform (OSSUP) o Uganda Oilseed Producers and Processors Association (UOSPA) o SNV-Uganda o Makerere University, Kampala

In Ethiopia: o Ethiopian Pulse, Oilseed and Spice Processing Exporters Association (EPOSPEA) o Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) o SNV-Ethiopia o Ffarm, Mozambique

Background and project objectives

Linking and integrating smallholder agricultural producers to markets and domestic or international value chains is widely recognized as a valuable development trajectory. Many donor agencies and development organizations, non-governmental organizations, private companies and research institutes are engaged in this endeavour. The objective of the sub-programme ‘Value Chains for Pro-poor Development’ is to work with practitioners and policymakers on the integration of


validated intervention strategies into agro-based value chains. The sub-programme applies an action-research cum development approach that addresses the following key questions:

o What are the main levers to influence value chain developments toward sustainable development and poverty reduction?

o What are the conditions under which these levers work for specific commodities or in specific contexts?

o What are the options for policy makers, producer organizations, (international) corporate business managers and development practitioners to plan and use these leveraging interventions in an effective and efficient manner?

The programme has three interlinked components: o Experimentation and innovation through the design and implementation of specific action

researches. o Capacity strengthening and institutional development embedded in international networks of

business, producer organizations and donor agencies. o Learning through monitoring and evaluation, networking and an inventory of existing

experiences.

An important starting point of the programme is that pro-poor development is not an automatic outcome of value chain development or market access. Moreover, where pro-poor development implies more dimensions than generating higher incomes only, it also includes the strengthening of:

o Economic capabilities: The capability to earn an income, to consume, to have assets and to secure access to productive financial and physical resources.

o Protective capabilities: The capability to withstand economic and other external shocks, to cope with insecurity and vulnerability and to respond to seasonal variations.

o Political capabilities: The capability to have a voice and some influence over public policies and political priorities.

o Socio-cultural capabilities: The capability to participate as a valued member of a community and to put an end to geographic and social isolation.

o Human capabilities: The capability to ensure well-being, i.e. health, education, nutrition, clean water and shelter, and to improve livelihoods.

In order to ensure enabling conditions for pro-poor development, the programme concentrates on two key aspects: (i) Purposeful (re-)configuration of the institutional arrangements between horizontal organizations, in particular producer organizations, and the vertical column of (coordinated) commercial transactions that informs institutional crafting of governance and cooperation and (ii) Identification of levers for pro-poor development and detection of enabling conditions connecting chain-based interventions with policy and institutional networks.

The focus of the sub-programme is on agri-food chains of non-perishable products, in which chain linkages are needed to aggregate volumes and to coordinate and regulate productive activities and transactions. The agri-food chains selected for the programme involve economies of scale. Firms that are active at the bulking node are central units as well in trading and processing and this entails a certain degree of vertical integration. In many countries the functioning of agri-food chains is being affected both by the dismantling of state-led enterprises under privatisation and deregulation policies and by the introduction of new organising principles that try to install alternatives for monopolies or oligopolies. Therefore, the sub-programme’s action research informs decision-making about the possible roles of public agencies in processes or economic (re-) ordering from the perspective of achieving public goals, such as poverty alleviation.

The figure below (next page) shows the distinctive features of selected (diabolo-shaped) agri-food chains. The selection of agri-food chains deals directly with food provision in developing societies, relating poverty dimensions to both agricultural producers and food buyers. The commodities selected are largely embedded in markets for undifferentiated products, in which movements towards quality-driven transactions take place. An important consideration is that the livelihood of many low-income, smallholder producers depends on the dynamics in these commodity systems, in which price competition and reliable volumes are important drivers.


Lead firms active at the bulking node also control trade and processing and induce certain degrees of vertical integration

The agri-food chain serves a variety of end-use markets, including domestic food markets

The agri-food chain incorporates a large number of smallholder agricultural producers

Producer organizations seek modalities for up-scaling farmer based economic initiatives and localized innovations

Programme approach

The pilot studies cum action researches that are being implemented by the sub-programme explore the mechanisms available to (re-)configure value chains towards pro-poor development. They are embedded in existing value chains and, consequently, involve all stakeholders. A specific interest of the program is to cooperate with Producer Organizations (PO’s) in coping with these developments and in building capacity among their membership to deal with changing economic realities. In the scouting of novel and promising change processes the program builds on the networks of Agriterra, Agri-ProFocus and the Netherlands Embassies to align the action research. This approach results in strong interaction with a wide range of stakeholders in Africa.

The action research is being implemented in partnership with stakeholders in the four countries concerned (smallholders, retailers, processors, traders and knowledge institutions) and the research teams work together with producer and private sector organizations. Their transparent cooperation forms a delicate process of co-innovation, pilot studies, problem analysis, policy development and implementation. The action research also involves close collaboration with partners from the Agri-ProFocus network whereas the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) plays a crucial role as well in linking the program to local partners.

In Uganda, the program collaborates with a national multi-stakeholder platform that acts as a ‘Steering Committee’ to the action research. At district level, the programme aligns with regional platforms that are being facilitated by UOSPA (Uganda Oilseed Producers and Processing Association). Through these platform, the program interacts frequently with donor and development organizations with a strong local presence, including Danida, USAID and IFAD. The actual research within the sub-programme is conducted in partnership with Makerere University in Kampala and it supports building research capacity.

In Ethiopia, the sub-programme is embedded in EPOSPEA (Ethiopian Pulse, Oilseed and Spice Processing Exporters Association) and collaborates with its members. Moreover, the program is linked to the Public-Private Partnership on Oilseed, in which Ethiopian traders, processors and farmers are represented as well as the Dutch private sector (the Productschap MVO). This partnership is being supported by the Netherlands Ministries of Agriculture and Foreign Affairs. The research activities are embedded in partnerships with regional universities and specialised EIAR institutes. A similar approach is being developed in the newly selected pilot studies in Rwanda and Mozambique.

Activities and outputs in 2008

Implementation of action research The question leading our action research is: What kind of organisational structures, mechanisms, or arrangements make existing agri-food chains work better for pro-poor development? The action research is problem-oriented and combines: (i) Addressing localized problems with (ii) Answering ‘high level’ questions of strategic importance beyond the specific case at hand.


This type of action research reveals the aspects related to the up-scaling of such an intervention strategy and it provides a model for future development in other circumstances. Essential in the design and implementation of action research is the selection of research questions in close interaction with the (multiple) users of the research results. Action research also implies a certain level of flexibility to tailor the research process and output to the dynamics of the user group. In this set up, the programme aims to build innovative capacity jointly with chain actors and producers’ organisations. In addition, the programme builds research capacity within the respective countries through the involvement of local researchers in the actual implementation. Uganda oilseed sub-sector platform In 2008, the sub-programme supported joint fact finding and analysis by regional sub-sector platforms in Northern and Eastern Uganda. The research team had intensive interaction with IFAD teams that were concurrently exploring the options for implementation of a follow-up program for public support to the Ugandan oilseed sub-sector. Also, the team provided ideas and insights to OSSUP (Ugandan Oilseed Sub-sector Platform) for advocacy. One team member joined the ‘policy coherency’ mission, initiated by DGIS-DDE and organized by SNV, with the aim to translate the way synergies are constructed between the oilseed sub-sector and other sectors in Uganda. In addition, the research team supported a taskforce of OSSUP in preparing a National Strategic Conference, scheduled for 2009, that aims to advocate for sub-sector issues at the level of strategic policy in the government, in banks and in R&D organizations. In one of the preparatory workshops, the team worked closely with member of the Oilseed Sub-Sector Platform, in identifying important policy issues and audiences, which helped to target possible interventions by OSSUP.

The action research has resulted in 3 professional master theses from Ugandan students at Van Hall/Larenstein University of Applied Sciences on (i) Bulking and market coordination, (ii) Local innovation and up-scaling and (iii) HIV/Aids and vulnerability among sunflower producers. Two master theses of students of Makerere University are under way. These focus on (i) Market arrangements and collective markets and (ii) Connectivity in innovation systems, respectively.

Conceptual and methodological contributions by team members from Wageningen UR were provided to the research team in Uganda in the form of on-the-job training in research design and in action research. Preliminary insights from the research led to a case-based discussion with Dutch stakeholders during the event ‘Contract farming: Doing business with small-scale producers’ organized jointly by Agri-Profocus and ICCO. Regular presentations at national meetings of OSSUP supported the strategy formulation process among stakeholders in which, obviously, different positions and interests feature prominently. The interactive processes and collection of evidence-based research outputs pave the way for the National Strategic Conference that will be organized by OSSUP in 2009.

Ethiopian Public Private Partnership on Oilseeds Action research in Ethiopia started in April 2008 with a fact-finding mission that resulted in a an inventory of bottlenecks constraining the sesame value chain. This inventory was compiled on the basis of stakeholder interviews and secondary literature. Among the main conclusions were that transaction risks explain much of the inefficiencies in the sesame chain, how this chain is organized currently and what possible avenues exist for their improvement. In order to reduce transaction risks, value chain actors make several costs, spend much time negotiating or find it too risky to invest. Examples of transaction risks are: (i) missing adequate price information (paired with highly-fluctuating prices), (ii) lack of information on supply and demand, (iii) difficulty in assessing quality and (iv) possibilities of contract default.

The fact-finding mission also served to identify stakeholders and to determine their interest to participate in the action research programme. Subsequently, a research team for Ethiopian sesame was established, consisting of project coordinators for Ethiopia and The Netherlands, the Ethiopian research team (EIAR) and a project adviser from SNV. In June 2008 a first learning workshop with stakeholders was organized to discuss action research priorities. The discussions confirmed that transaction risks and costs are important bottlenecks in the sesame value chain. During the workshop, institutional arrangements that may decrease such risks and costs were reviewed. From among these arrangements two will be specifically explored, i.e. contract farming


and the (newly-established) Ethiopian Commodity Exchange. A baseline study providing further insight in the current sesame value chain was conducted jointly with the Netherlands-supported Public Private Partnership in Oilseeds. The Ethiopian research team collected examples of contract farming for various crops in different countries.

Land reform and rice chain configurations in Mozambique In 2008 preparations started for the implementation, as from early 2009, of a new action research pilot on ‘the tandem of land reform and socially equitable rice chain configurations in Mozambique’. The aim of this pilot is to develop organizational models that support land reform communities in Zambézia Province of Mozambique in building equitable linkages with domestic and regional rice chains. HIVOS, a Dutch NGO active in Mozambique, has expressed strong interest in the rice pilot. HIVOS is in the lead of enhancing synergies among other (Dutch) development organizations in Mozambique. Details on the selection procedure for this pilot are discussed in the section ‘Methodology and programme development’ below.

Farmer-led socially embedded domestic food chains in Rwanda A new pilot on ‘Farmer-led cluster development for socially embedded domestic food chains’ was initiated in Rwanda as well,. This pilot aims at building strategic connectivity and foresight capacity in farmer-led and socially-just agribusiness clusters in two of Rwanda’s agri-food ‘filières’: cassava and Irish potatoes. The pilot will be developed in close interaction with planned country focus activities by Agri-ProFocus which, for Rwanda, are being coordinated by ICCO.

Methodology and program development In order to develop pilot projects additional to those in Ethiopia and Uganda, a Call for Concept Notes was launched through our partner organizations including Agriterra and its partners, the Agri-Profocus network, the network of business partners of AKK and the various Netherlands’ Embassies in countries in Sub-Sahara Africa. In response to this Call seven concept notes for new pilots were submitted, which were subsequently discussed for further selection during the Strategic Conference of the Value Chain sub-programme in July 2008, in Utrecht, The Netherlands. An important element in the selection process was the creation of ownership among the organizations participating in the sub-programme. Each concept note described the external situation of the proposed value chain, the prevailing problems and an outline of the opportunities for action research. At the conference some 25 representatives from various public and private stakeholder organizations discussed their views on the strategic added value of the proposals and how they would contribute to a balanced and coherent portfolio of pilot studies under the Value Chains sub-programme. Four considerations for selection applied: (i) Programmatic coherence and synergy, (ii) Perspectives for replication and up-scaling of the proposed intervention approach, (iii) Capacity strengthening in a committed network of producer organizations, development practitioners, policy makers, and researchers and (iv) Potential impact on pro-poor development.

Based on the advice of the Strategic Conference, the Steering Committee of the Partnership Programme agreed to include two new action research pilots in the programme: (i) Land reform and rice chain configurations in Mozambique and (ii) Farmer-led socially embedded domestic food chains in Rwanda (see sections above). The Steering Committee also agreed to have another two pilot action researches identified for implementation by mid-2009.

The coherence of the sub-programme’s activities is reflected in a newly-written focus document. Drafts of this document were discussed with staff of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED, London, UK) building on their experiences with working in, and analysing, domestic food chains with high levels of concentration.

A first draft of the sub-programme’s report on ‘Methodological approach to action research’ was compiled and served to support project development in the new pilots. Also, this draft report will be shared with, amongst others, the Donor Committee on Enterprise Development. In this Committee other action research programmes make inputs as well, for example the one supported by the UK Department For International Development (DFID).

Through its pro-active involvement in the present Value Chains sub-programme and the collaboration with DGIS-DDE, Wageningen UR contributes to the further development of research networks. Active collaboration is realised, for example, with the ‘Roundtable for Africa’ programme coordinated by the Maastricht School of Management (MSM). Moreover, Wageningen UR has


become partners to ECSAD, the Expert Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Cooperation and collaborates in a DGIS-supported initiative to establish a Resource Centre Development Partnerships.

In 2008, the coordinators of the Value Chain sub-programme have started to explore opportunities for organising an international profiling event -or series of events- in 2010. The event would draw together lessons learned in a number of complementary value chain activities funded by DGIS, LNV and others, in order to intensify on-going collaboration among Dutch research organisations, including the ‘Roundtable for Africa’ mentioned above and our own sub-programme.

In the reporting year, a database was compiled of project-based interventions in value chains. This was done using a desk study of documented value chain projects (over 100 entries) that are being implemented by various development organisations or others actors. Similar information was collected from Netherlands’ embassies (over 30 entries) . The information gathered was analysed jointly with the Institute of Social Studies and the insights generated were discussed with DGIS/DDE. The database has been put to use in dialogues among policy makers, NGO’s, business representatives and researchers in the framework of a joint ISS and Wageningen UR DPRN project (Development Policy Review Network): ‘Value chain governance and endogenous economic growth: How can NGOs, firms and governments achieve inclusion and poverty reduction?’. This analysis further has resulted in a typology of development-oriented interventions in value chains that was presented at a DPRN stakeholder meeting in November 2008.

The Value Chain sub-programme searches for mechanisms that contribute to pro-poor development. However, as there are no ‘silver bullets’ methodologies to assess the potential efficacy of interventions need to address contextual factors when answering the question ‘what works for whom under what conditions?’. A paper stream and plenary discussion during the 8th International Conference on Management in Agri-food Chains and Networks (May 2008, Ede, the Netherlands), as facilitated by the Value Chain Scientific Coordinator, enhanced empirical insight and methodological understanding of such an endeavour. This event enabled interaction with businesses (e.g. the Heinz Food Company) and European donor organisations (e.g. GTZ of Germany). Project management

The Management Team of the Value Chains sub-programme comprises of the consortium partners including the pilot project coordinators and meets some 3-4 times per year. It executes the following tasks:

o Discussion and exchange of results and experiences in pilots; o Peer-reviews of results; o Implementation of reflection, synthesis and analysis of experiences and results in pilots;

Preparation and facilitation of strategic and iterative discussion and dialogue on results with

DGIS, LNV, Agri-Profocus network, organizations in Africa and others; o Discussion, critical analysis and documentation on methodology of action research; o Documentation and communication of results and analysis through reports, policy briefs and web-based information sharing and dialogue; o Raise and prioritise issues with policy makers and networks based on programme results; o Coordination, planning and monitoring progress of program activities; o Preparation progress and financial reports.

Challenges, constraints and concerns

A challenge for the programme is (how) to embed the various activities into a coherent and programmatic framework for action, experimentation and learning. And how to share insights and lessons from case studies with an audience strongly interested in replication and scalability of the investigated intervention strategies and impact models. This has been defined as one of the most important tasks for the entire Programme Team, which groups program management, pilot project


leaders, Agriterra and Agri-ProFocus. Within these networks, fruitful linkages with the Netherlands’ IDH programme (‘Initiatief Duurzame Handel’ ) are being be realised.

In 2008, communication of project activities and the results thereof among programme partners , colleagues within Wageningen UR, DGIS, LNV and beyond has been limited. Discussions on a structured communication strategy have started with the Management of the Partnership Programme, including establishment of formats for policy briefs, papers, reports and an inter-active website. Similarly, relatively little attention has been paid in 2008 on furthering the dialogue with Dutch policymakers. This will be taken-up with high priority in 2009. Budget realisation 2008

An overview of the budget realisation over the period 2006-2008 is given in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Value Chains for Pro-poor Development: Budget realisation 2006-2008 (in Euros).

Budget Overview (€)Budget Realised Budget Realised Budget Realised Budget Realised

Methodology and Program Development - Development Database 22.896 3.952 26.848 - Methodology Development 5.463 13.660 19.123 - Program Development 6.916 37.750 44.666 Subtotaal 0 35.275 39.112 55.362 40.105 90.637 79.217Action research program Uganda - Coordination OSSUP/Rersearch agenda 21.018 21.018 - Coordination/Supervision Makerere University 9.704 9.704 - Fieldwork 37.998 37.998 - Conferences / meetings 49.159 47.159 - Publications 15.504 15.504 - Management 5.928 5.928 Subtotal 0 21.018 50.638 118.293 53.333 137.311 103.971Action Research Program Ethiopia -Agenda setting 10.000 10.000 -Coordination supervision 10.000 10.000 - Fieldwork 25.000 25.000 - Conferences 10.000 10.000 - Publications 0 - Management 5.000 5.000 Subtotal 0 2.385 60.000 28.225 60.000 30.610Program Management - Management and Coordination 17.198 15.544 32.742 Subtotal 3.147 17.198 16.594 15.544 29.971 32.742 49.713

3.147 108.729 249.199 151.635 320.690 263.511

2007 2008 Total 2006


2.2 Theme 2: Competing Claims on Natural Resources Theme 2 of the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme, ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’, aims at providing guidance in dealing with -potentially conflicting- multiple-uses of natural resources (land, water, vegetation, fauna, fish-stocks, etc.). In the context of globalisation, transitions are required in the thinking about the use options of natural resources in rapidly changing, and inextricable, local, national and international forces and processes. In the implementation of activities in this theme, emphasis is on (i) Strengthening of local capacity to facilitate multi-stakeholder platforms connecting across levels and networks for negotiation and priority setting, (ii) Enhancement of the ability of stakeholders to innovate and respond to changing pressures, (iii) Identification of options for sustainable use of natural resources at local scale in relation to the diversity of stakeholders and their differing access to resources, rights and power, and (iv) Understanding the effects of policy at multiple hierarchical scales (global, regional, national and local) and the related constraints. Output of the theme includes:

o Strengthened local capacity in analysis of resource use problems, established multi-stakeholder platforms for social learning and development of innovations, including locally-acceptable solutions for multifunctional resource use;

o Decision-making toolboxes for policy advice at local, national and international levels, taking into account sustainability considerations in the South and the North;

o Interdisciplinary approaches for complex system research; o Scientific publications, policy briefs and papers in the popular media.

Following a Call for Proposals and a subsequent selection procedure that was completed in December 2007, four projects were endorsed for implementation within Theme 2 of the Partnership Programme and these were actually started in April 2008. The projects concerned are:

o Competing Claims, Competing Models: Understanding (the benefits of) bio-fuel-based development models and their impact on resource use negotiations and rural livelihoods in southern Africa (Mozambique, South Africa);

o Illegal or incompatible? Managing the consequences of timber legality standards on local livelihoods in Ghana and Indonesia;

o Coping with competing claims on water in the Incomati Basin through interactive science (WIBIS) in South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland;

o Improving livelihoods and resource management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia (ILCE).

2.2.1 Competing Claims, Competing Models: Understanding (the benefits of) bio-fuel based development models and their impact on resource use negotiations and rural livelihoods in southern Africa.

Project leaders

Prof. Dr. Ken Giller, Dr. Maja Slingerland, Dr. Jens Andersson and Dr. Gerrie van de Ven (Wageningen UR/Plant Sciences Group/Chair Group Plant Production Systems) Project partners

In The Netherlands: o Wageningen UR/ Plant Sciences Group/Chair Group Plant Production Systems; o Wageningen UR/Social Sciences Group/Chair Group Innovation Systems

In Mozambique: o Centre for Agricultural Promotion (CEPAGRI), Mozambique. o Universitas Eduardo Mondlane (UEM), Mozambique. o Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition (SETSAN), Mozambique. o International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Mozambique. o International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Mozambique.


In South Africa: o Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Advisory Network (FANRPAN), South Africa.


The project ‘Competing Claims, Competing Models’ aims to understand the impact of bio-fuel based development interventions. More-specifically the project seeks to analyse the impact of different bio-fuel production models on rural livelihoods and resource competition in areas of production expansion. The programme focuses on southern Africa and builds on a country case study of Mozambique. Currently various bio-fuel initiatives are being developed and promoted in Mozambique both by national and international agencies. However, these initiatives are being implemented in the absence of detailed assessments of their possible impact, either beneficial of detrimental, on the livelihoods of the rural poor and on the environment. Bio-fuels enter an arena of existing competing claims on natural resources that manifest themselves at various scales and which are trans-boundary in nature. The growing global demand for bio-fuels is adding further pressure and complexity as it leads to additional claims on land and water resources by (multi-) national companies.

Current policy in Mozambique aims to stimulate the production of energy crops with the aim to foster rural employment and development, as well to address local and national energy needs. Policy on the export of biomass for energy generation is not yet in place and neither is there a comprehensive policy position on the relationship between bio-fuels and (mitigation of) global warming. The Mozambican national bio-energy policy is currently being formulated and in that respect, the research by the ‘Competing Claims, Competing Models’ project is timely in its objective to contribute to it.

In the Netherlands, government policy revolves around the potential benefits of bio-energy in terms of mitigation of global warming. Dutch policy also aims to stimulate the import of biomass for bio-energy conversion in the Netherlands. Certification schemes need to ensure environmental-friendly production of the feed stock. Many Dutch ministries, including those of Environmental Affairs, Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Foreign Affairs/Development Cooperation, are involved in policy formulation and, partly as a result, the relationships between the expansion of bio-fuel production in developing countries and the related opportunities and threats for sustainable development are poorly addressed, still.

The overriding research question underlying this project is:

Which local, national, regional and international bio-fuel production initiatives favour the inclusion of local stakeholders in the development process and under which conditions are these initiatives most likely to benefit the livelihoods of the local rural population?

Project activities in 2008

The project ‘Competing Claims, Competing Models’ addresses seven (sub-)themes that all have a bearing on the bio-fuel related competing claims issues at stake: (1) Scales, (2) Farmer organisations and contracts, (3) Economy, (4) Jatropha agronomy, (5) Role of knowledge, (6) WTO, Trade, etc’, and (7) Food security. Preliminary results from activities under these themes are summarized below.

In Theme 1 of the Competing Claims, Competing Models project (‘Scales’) different scale-levels of cassava processing for food, feed and energy have been analysed on their energy and nutrient efficiencies and on potential beneficial by-products. Preliminary results show that economies of scale in bio-energy production are being off-set -at least partially- by increased transportation costs of the feed stock: The larger the processing plants, the larger are the amounts of biomass required and –as a result- the longer the distances to the production sites. In biomass, components such as water and minerals are better not transported and hence, capital-intensive processing should be done large-scale and at central locations. Collection, pre-processing and storage however, should take place close to production sites. The latter would also favour re-use of components at field-level. Such rules of the thumb should be kept in mind when developing ‘bio-energy production-processing-consumption chains’. On the other hand, decentralised chains might


incur additional investment costs. Also, from the point of view of continuity, multiple feedstock input systems (e.g. those combining sugarcane and sweet sorghum) for a single output (bio-ethanol) would be preferable both, in terms of even supply over the year and in terms of spreading the risk of variable feedstock prices.

In Theme 2 (‘Farmer organisations and contracts’) a review on contract farming was compiled as this might be a useful model for bio-energy chains. Based on this review farmer contracts as applied in other commodity chains in Mozambique (cotton, tobacco and cashew) were investigated It showed that product characteristics (perishable vs. long shelf-life, bulkiness, quality grades, market specificity), transaction characteristics (frequency, uncertainty, quality measurement, delivery schemes) and institutional environment (roads, telecommunication, literacy rates, property rights, access to credit, technology and markets) are important factors determining chain governance and contract forms. The picture that emerges is that, initially, centralised Jatropha plantations need to be established to feed bio-diesel plants with low economic risks. At that stage, both the plantation and the plant provide work for local people. Eventually, these central feed stocks may be complemented by the produce from individual farmers/outgrowers. However, as long as the agronomy of Jatropha production is not well-understood and if the time lapse between planting and harvesting (some 2-3 years) is not compensated, smallholder farmers cannot afford the risk of planting it. Delays in return on investment in Jatropha cultivation may be countered by intercropping, for example with groundnuts (see Section below). Farmers may be convinced to engage in the activity only if harvesting the Jatropha does not coincide with labour peaks in food crops (e.g. maize or cassava). In addition, the farmer contracts should facilitate mechanisms for input provision as well as a certain level of price guarantees in order to be sufficiently attractive to smallholder farmers in Mozambique

In Theme 3 (‘Economy’) students investigate whether job provision by Jatropha plantations generates sufficient income to compensate for any loss of labour to the family farm. Potentially, the latter may lead to lower on-farm food production and increased food purchases. They also investigate whether labour peaks in food production do coincide with labour peaks in Jatropha harvesting. As land acquisition by plantations inevitably means that some (smallholder) farmers have to give up their land, the students also examine whether compensation, either in cash, in kind, or in land elsewhere, has an effect on the welfare of the farmers involved and on local food security.

In Theme 4 (‘Jatropha agronomy’) the agronomic practices of Jatropha growing in Maputo and Manica Provinces have been explored, showing that the crop’s agronomy is insufficiently known to dare putting smallholder farmers at risk of cultivating the crop. Uncertainties include potential damage due to pests and diseases, production variability and (world) market prices. Such uncertainties render Jatropha cultivation a risky business. Preliminary calculations show that growing groundnuts is more profitable to farmers, while implying lower dependency on a volatile energy market. Energy yields per unit area in terms of Jatropha-based bio-diesel were compared with those in fuel wood or charcoal. Our calculations show that sustained harvests of natural vegetation (based on annual re-growth) could be as energy-efficient as the production of bio-diesel from Jatropha. In addition, natural vegetation has higher biodiversity value and additional benefits in terms of fruits and medicine, habitat for wild animals, grazing land for domestic animals, etc.

Activities under Theme 5 (‘Role of knowledge’) have started by means of a PhD-level study on the various ways different actors (Mozambican and foreign investors, national and international research institutes, NGO’s, donors, etc) think and speak about sustainability and sustainability criteria: ‘Which definitions do they use/prefer?’; ‘How do they intend to make these definitions operational?’ and ‘How do they use scientific knowledge about the criteria?’. In Theme 6 of the Competing Claims, Competing Models project (‘WTO, Trade, etc’) a desk study was carried-out about bio-fuel trade, WTO and certification schemes. The results have been compiled in a Policy Brief that highlights the following issues:

o The lack of uniform classifications within the WTO, for example: (i) Ethanol is grouped under agricultural goods and agreement in essence putting restrictions on subsidies supporting ethanol production; (ii) Biodiesel falls under industrial goods and the general WTO agreement, (iii) Certification of bio-energy comes under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement


which, essentially, is product-based rather than production-process based, implying a potential problem when requesting compliance to sustainability criteria for biodiesel production as a condition for import; (iv) Within WTO agreements provisions are lacking to link trade with social and labour standards. Moreover, so far, attempts to make such linkages have met with opposition, again creating potential problems of imposing sustainability criteria as a condition for trade; and (v) Under WTO some bio-masses may be considered waste (although useable for bio-energy production) or a potential danger for spread of pests and diseases and therefore be under trade and transport restrictions.

o Many tricks are being used to classify or declassify bio-diesel products for trade. Blending bio-diesel with 0.1 % fossil diesel entitles it to be subsidized (in USA) as a blend, whereas this same blend can be exported to Europe for yet another subsidy as pure biodiesel. Similarly biodiesel specifications of the European Union deliberately exclude iodine content in the product thereby ruling out soy based biodiesel in favour of rapeseed biodiesel.

o Several preferential trade arrangements exist between the EU and specific (developing) countries which may apply to bio-mass or bio-energy as well. The Lomé agreement has been recently replaced by the system of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA’s) that aim at favourable tariffs for products from developing countries entering the European market. Under these EPA’s reciprocal trade opportunities allow export from Europe to developing countries, as well.

In Theme 7 (‘Food Security’) an MSc-level study investigated the potential of sweet sorghum to provide food (grain) and fuel (stalks). Preliminary research by ICRISAT has shown that upon flowering and subsequent seed formation sugar content in the sorghum stalk decreases. This implies that ethanol factories prefer buying stalks before flowering over stalks from matured grain crops. Different varieties of sweet sorghum are now being tested on their performances and fit in the prevailing farming systems. The study also looks at how different actors (industry, policy, research, civil society) try to use preliminary research results to further their agenda’s in the ongoing food-fuel debate in Mozambique. So far sweet sorghum is either being put forward as ‘similar to sugarcane’ or as a ‘miracle crop’ providing food ánd fuel. Production of bio-fuel to the detriment of food production (early harvest of stalks preventing grain production) is probably not an option for the government of Mozambique which appears to be determined not to allow the use of food crops for bio-energy. Project outputs in 2008

Papers, reports and models o Working Paper ‘Contract farming in developing countries: An overview’ (J. Bijman, WU/MST;

May 2008); o Report ‘Jatropha experiences in Manica Province, Mozambique’ (A.Sitoe, UEM; October

2008); o Report ‘Study tour on Jatropha in Maputo Province, Mozambique” (September 2008); o Policy Brief ‘WTO and bio-fuels’ (A. Mol and P.Oosterveer, WU/ENP; December 2008); o Crop model ‘FIELD’ adapted for cassava, so that it can be used for exploring production

possibilities of cassava as bio-energy crop by Sander de Vries/Gerrie van de Ven (PPS); o Draft paper ‘Energy value of Jatropha as compared to firewood’ (M. Slingerland, WU/PPS and

A.Sitoe, UEM); o Report ‘Scale issues in cassava processing for food and energy in Mozambique’

(E. Zvinavashe, J. Sanders, W. Elberse, WU/AFSG, M. Slingerland, WU/PPS and S. Kolijn, IITA);

o Draft paper ‘Bio-energy and food security: Potential versus actual yields, Empty lands versus use of natural resources, Land versus labour scarcity’ (M. Slingerland and G. van de Ven, WU/PPS, A. Sitoe, UEM, F. Cabral (SETSAN) and S. Kolijn (IITA).

MSc students In 2008 7 MSc students of Wageningen University started their work in the framework of the project (see section ‘Preliminary results’ above). Five of the students did their field work in Mozambique. So far, course schedules at UEM did not allow for any local MSc student to participate in the project.


Joint student work with UEM A special MSc-level project on bio-energy has been developed by UEM (A. Sitoe and B. Guedes) within the existing curriculum. The project engaged 20 Mozambican students who approached local stakeholders -including the Governor of Manica Province- on Jatropha cultivation and processing practices and scientific underpinning. Their report (in Portuguese) serves as input for Mozambican policy formulation and as a basis for the students’ further MSc thesis work. The results of the study were shared with provincial authorities and others in a stakeholder meeting (see below).

Meetings, workshops, etc. o Monthly ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources Lunch Meetings’ are being organised at

Wageningen University, grouping and informing staff and students involved in Competing Claims activities, including those under the Universities’ INREF-Competing Claims Programme.

o In January 2008 a project start-up workshop was held in Mozambique with the main purpose to further deliberations with officials, project partners and other stakeholders. Output included an expanded stakeholder network and strengthened linkages between the stakeholders and the project.

o In March 2008 staff members of UEM, FANRPAN and IITA visited Wageningen and discussed further details of our collaboration project.

o The Regional Project Coordinator (Dr. Jens Andersson) co-organised two FANRPAN workshops in the region: (i) a regional consultation meeting with the Limpopo Basin Focal Project (April 2008, in Pretoria) and (ii) a stakeholder regional policy dialogue “Regional strategies for addressing the global food crisis” (September 2008, in Malawi).

o On the request of –and funded by- the provincial authorities, UEM organized a stakeholder meeting in Manica Province to discuss the results of the study by UEM MSc students in September 2008 (see above).

o The INREF Project ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’of Wageningen University organised a workshop in Massingir, Mozambique (8-12 December, 2008) during which the team visited the Procana Sugarcane Company in that town, sharing views on the competing claims on land and water resulting from bio-energy expansion and from the Limpopo national park policies.

Partnerships and linkages

The project is closely connected to CEPAGRI, the Centro de Promoção na Agricultura, which is the Mozambican national institute responsible for the assessment of investment plans in the agricultural sector. Through these contacts, outcomes of our research help to specify criteria for investment-approval ensuring both, benefits to the rural population ánd to sustainable resource use.

In order to facilitate knowledge generation and circulation, the project is linked to the Eduardo Mondlane University of Mozambique where future ‘bio-energy policy makers’ are being trained as well as future ‘bio-energy farm-managers’ and traders. Currently, many UEM MSc students are being recruited for jobs in the (public and private) bio-energy sector. The training modules developed and applied in the framework of our ‘Competing Claims, Competing Models’ project help preparing them for such jobs, providing skills, knowledge and competencies to deal with the competing claims issues at stake. The students’ individual research assignments aim to directly contribute to solving related competing claims issues.

The project works closely with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA-Mozambique) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT-Mozambique) assisting them in generating knowledge on the performance of their mandate crops (cassava and (sweet) sorghum, respectively) in terms of bio-energy. This collaboration focuses on crop performance in relation to plant nutrients and water, as well as on farming systems sensu largo, including (competition for) labour, land and cash at the farm household level, the need for inputs and market opportunities.


The project works with SETSAN, the Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition in Mozambique as, above all, the population of Mozambique must be fed. Food security can be achieved directly, through food production at the farm household level. This, however, may be jeopardized if bio-energy crops take the best of the land. Alternatively, households may purchase food if they avail of income which is generated elsewhere, for example by working at bio-energy plantations. Our research contributes to understanding such interactions and supports SETSAN in developing an evidence-based position on food security issues.

The programme works with FANRPAN, the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Advisory Network for the broader policy connections in the southern African region. Project management

One of the project coordinators (Dr. Maja Slingerland) spent four months in Mozambique (September-December 2008) in order to establish contacts with partner organisations and stakeholders including CEPAGRI, SETSAN, UEM, IITA, ICRISAT, Technoserve, GTZ-ProBec and various bio-energy plants and plantations (e.g. Sun-biodiesel in Chimoio; Jatropha in Beira, Bilene and Matutuim and Sweet sorghum in Cabo Delgado, open day of ProCana) to initiate joint research. She also prepared project infrastructure and facilities for students, collected supportive documents and data, engaged in policy debates and stimulated staff of partner organizations to put their experiences in (scientific) writing. In addition Dr. Slingerland guided student and staff research in support of the Competing Claims, Competing Models project and of the wider bio-energy debate. Budget realisation 2008

Table 2 shows the budget realisation 2008. Actual booked expenditure in 2008 lags behind in comparison to the Budget 2008, mainly because of late claims by project partners. Pending final accounting it is estimated that the project’s financial matching contribution amounts to Euro 22,428 or some 40 per cent of the total expenditure in 2008 (i.e. Euro 56,085).

Table 2 Competing Claims, Competing Models: Budget realisation 2008 (in Euros)

Category Budget 2008 Expenditure 2008

Staff time (Coordination) 34,880 6,104

Postdoc time (Research) 49,582 46,637

Travel expenditure staff 8,000 0

Costs of students research (travel, per-diem, field work, analyses) 10,500 1,195

Costs of workshops 10,000 2,144

Operational costs 5,000 6

Total 117,962 56,085


2.2.2 Coping with competing claims on water in the Incomati Basin through interactive science (WIBIS)

Project leader

Dr. Petra Hellegers, Wageningen UR/ Social Sciences Group/LEI Project partners

In The Netherlands: Wageningen UR/ Social Sciences Group/LEI; Wageningen UR/Environmental Sciences Group/Alterra WaterWatch B.V. Scientific Advisory Consultants, Wageningen, The Netherlands Waterschap Groot Salland

In Mozambique: National Directorate of Water (DNA), Mozambique Progressive Realization of the Incomati-Maputo Agreement (PRIMA), Mozambique

In South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), South Africa Water Research Commission (WRC), South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIRO), South Africa Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa WE Consult Ltd, South Africa

In Swaziland: Department of Water Affairs (DWA), Swaziland


In the Incomati River Basin of Southern Africa, many different driving forces are leading to new claims on water, and enhancing competition for water between the three countries that share this basin: South-Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland. For instance, global economic growth over the past decades, the liberalization of world markets and national policies have triggered the production of bio-fuel crops in the Incomati Basin. Cultivation of these bio-fuel crops, however, has been implemented without due regard to water availability and to the effects on the livelihoods of the local population. In fact, the increased production of bio-energy crops in the Incomati Basin, is adding to the already-existing strain on water resources and, as a result, poor urban consumers are being faced with higher prices for food. As international trade policies and consumer demands may have bigger impact on cropping patterns and on water use than local water management policies there is a need to identify more-harmonized policies as well as options for local communities to improve their livelihoods while sustaining the water resources in the Incomati Basin. In order to be able to do so, insight is required into the implications of international as well as national policies on water use and water productivity at the various governance levels involved.

The main objective of the WIBIS project is to support inter-sector and inter-state (i.e. ‘trans-boundary’) policy development and sustainable use of water resources in the Incomati River Basin in Southern Africa. Main emphasis of the project is on strengthening local capacity with respect to water valuation and innovative approaches to water monitoring.

Water valuation is a tool to enhance the ability of decision makers to evaluate trade-offs between different water policies and courses of social action that alter the use of water and the multiple services it provides. Within the WIBIS project, a decision support framework is being developed, and will be tested, that can be used to assess the implications of different water policies on different stakeholders. In addition, this decision support framework can also be used to support negotiations regarding water sharing agreements. The framework is being designed in such a way that it can explore opportunities to harmonize policies across sectors, i.e. to support integrated water resources management. It can also be used both to support local innovations for sustainable


water use and to provide feedback to, and influence, the initiators of claims that may be located elsewhere in the world. An example of the latter is the case of the blending targets for bio-fuels that have triggered sugarcane production in Southern Africa. In this respect the decision support framework is relevant not only for the developing countries directly concerned, but also for societies elsewhere, including the Netherlands.

To achieve its objectives, the WIBIS project builds capacity in interactive science: our multi-scale action research approach is not only oriented on local levels, but it addresses higher hierarchical decision-making levels as well. Together with the stakeholders in the Incomati Basin we work in a cycle of description, explanation, exploration and design, with each phase feeding into, and supporting, the negotiation process. As conflicts around the use of water often result from weak local and national institutions, strengthening of such institutions either local or national and the related governance systems is being addressed through institutional development.


In its overall Work Plan 2008-2010 the WIBIS project identifies three main groups of activities: o Actual water consumption and associated biomass production of the different land use

activities, sectors and countries in the Incomati Basin will be calculated. This is being done using remote sensing techniques in combination with a surface energy balance model.

o Insight will be provided into the socio-economic returns to water, taking social concerns such as poverty alleviation, externalities and more-equitable water allocation into consideration.

o Possible improvements in inter-sector and inter-state (“trans-boundary”) policy development and sustainable use of water in the Incomati Basin will be identified and assessed.

Research on complex issues such as water management requires multiple disciplines. We therefore combine technical expertise of Alterra and Waterwatch (a private Dutch knowledge consultancy enterprise), socio-economic expertise of LEI and, in South Africa, the Water Research Commission with institutional expertise from CSIR. Our project team represents a wide range of expertise concerning issues related to water in agriculture, forestry and ecology as well as economics and institutional aspects. The Netherlands’ team has ample experience with multidisciplinary approaches to study interactions and competitive effects of policies on land use.

In May 2008 activities of the WIBIS project started by means of a kick-off stakeholder workshop in South Africa involving representatives of governmental water-policy institutions including the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) of Swaziland, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) of South Africa and the National Directorate of Water (DNA) of Mozambique. Also present were staff of the Progressive Realisation of the Incomati-Maputo Agreement (PRIMA). The aim of the workshop was to explain and define with the stakeholders how (interactive) science can facilitate them in their decision-making processes on water re-allocation. The WIBIS project was presented to the Task Team (TT) of the Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC).

The workshop revealed that the policy-makers grouped in the Task Team are involved in an ongoing dialogue on water reallocation (e.g. through role plays addressing issues such as “What if South Africa were in a position downstream of Mozambique?”), actual re-allocation policy –a sensitive political issue between the three countries involved- is not being discussed yet. The WIBIS project can help to initiate such discussions and facilitate the negotiation process on the basis of solid and impartial technical analysis. The project, therefore, is very timely and can contribute to capacity strengthening. The task team expressed the need to avail of information from impartial studies covering the three countries involved.

Reflecting the sensitivity of trans-boundary water use, the Task Team made it clear that it prefers using the term alternative water use over water re-allocation. Also, the Task Team finds it too early to talk about ‘payment for environmental -or water- services schemes’, as this is being interpreted as a kind of water trading: “Do not learn the baby how to walk, before it can crawl” was the message. In line with the technical part of the WIBIS project, the Task Team recommends to first strengthen arguments regarding alternative water use using insights into the water productivity in current uses.


Next, the title of our project: ‘Coping with competing claims on water’ met with reservation from the Task Team. Instead, the title ‘Cooperation for Water in the Incomati Basin through Interactive Science’ was suggested. It was emphasized that the term economic water productivity –as used in our project outline- should be interpreted as financial water productivity for farmers. At the micro-level much work on the financial aspects of sugarcane cultivation has been done already by local organizations. These activities include social accounting matrices and social benefit/cost analyses. The strength of the WIBIS methodology, however, is that it allows large-scale application (up-scaling) and that it is a valuable monitoring tool.

During 2008 further contacts were established with Tshwane University of Technology in Pretoria, South Africa and the Universitas Eduardo Mondlane in Maputo, Mozambique to solicit their students’ participation in the project. One PhD-level study (Tshwane University) focuses on the development of catchment-level stochastic drought models for the Incomati Basin, using historical satellite imagery.

The role of the South African Water Research Commission (WRC) in the WIBIS project was specified in the sense that the WRC mandate is to initiate and facilitate water-sector projects and not to actually partake in implementation. True to its mandate, WRC will perform a supervising role, ensuring that there is good synergy with other research projects and that work is not being duplicated. According to WRC, water in the Incomati Basin is being over-allocated and there is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment of the water resources and their uses in the entire basin. The basin is very complex in terms of land use and hydrology with great diversity in land use patterns. Moreover, many land claims in the basin have not been settled. There is little understanding of the basin’s hydrological system and it is the first catchment in South Africa having a Catchment Management Authority (CMA).

At the technical level, project partner ‘Waterwatch’ made substantial progress in 2008 on the three-year water consumption calculations for the Incomati Basin. MODIS satellite data were used together with the SEBAL land energy balance1. Output from these calculations is summarized in the section below. Project outputs in 2008

The WIBIS project has been discussed with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Water Research Commission to explore further the policy relevance of such a discussion support tool and to fine-tune the WIBIS work plan to the daily problems they face.

The project also has been presented to the Task Team (TT) of the Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC), which currently mainly focuses on conflict resolution and information exchange as, so far, there are only a few common studies. At this stage the focus of both institutions is on doing impartial studies in order to acquire more objective information. The Task Team looks forward to the results of the WIBIS study which will provide insight into the water productivity of the various land use activities in the three countries concerned. This will support inter-sector and trans-boundary policy development and sustainable use of the water in the Incomati Basin.

Eventually the TT and TPTC will have to negotiate water re-allocations between South-Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland, as currently there is only an Interim Inco-Maputo Agreement. The discussion support framework that will be developed in the WIBIS project seems to be useful to assess the implications of different water reallocation scenarios on livelihoods and poverty alleviation. It is a strong tool to evaluate trade-offs between different water policies and courses of social actions that alter the use of water and the multiple services it provides. It can support stakeholders in their negotiations on water sharing agreements. There is definitely a need for such

1 SEBAL (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land) uses spectral radiances recorded by satellite-based

sensors, plus ordinary meteorological data to calculate the energy balance at the earth's surface. Its primary outputs are water consumption, or actual (not reference or potential) evapo-transpiration and biomass production of agricultural crops and native vegetation, pixel by pixel. For some crops, yield can be reliably inferred from biomass production.


a tool. Our project seems to be successful if not only the results but also the tool will be interactively used by the TT and TPTC

In order to assess the various implications of water re-allocation scenarios, insight is required into (i) The actual water consumption and associated biomass production of the various land use activities, sectors and states and (ii) The socio-economic returns to water, taking account of social concerns such as poverty alleviation, externalities and a more equitable allocation. Insight into actual water consumption and associated biomass production was mainly on the agenda of our project in 2008. The SEBAL analysis, including a number of sub-activities (e.g. processing of remote sensing images, land cover mapping, test running, etc), has been finalized. Three sets of 12 monthly layers with actual evapo-transpiration and biomass production -at 250m resolution- are now available. These impartial technical results will be presented in April 2009 in Maputo. Links with other regional water initiatives

The WIBIS project aims to link with other regional water initiatives like PRIMA, the ‘Progressive Realization of the Incomati-Maputo Agreement’. PRIMA is facilitating sustainable use of water, equitable distribution of water and reducing risk of natural disasters in the Incomati Basin. Its main objective is to realize the objectives and purposes of the Interim IncoMaputo Agreement by supporting the TPTC to promote co-operation and ensure protection and sustainable utilization of water resources. In the framework of PRIMA, three specific projects are being implemented: (i) Information collection and exchange, (ii) Maputo water supply study and (iii) Disaster management. In 2008, our project has been extensively discussed with the PRIMA Program Management in Maputo, Mozambique. Project management

In 2008, additional funding (Euro 10,000) has been made available through the LNV-Policy Support Cluster International (BOCI) to facilitate local activities of WE Consult, South Africa in support of the WIBIS project. These WE Consult contributions include the collection of data on water valuing and the liaison with local stakeholders in water use. In order to secure continued support, in 2009, from WE Consult and from the Waterschap Groot Salland’ (i.e. the Netherlands’ Waterboard Groot Salland) the WIBIS project submitted a request with LNV-BOCI. Budget realisation 2008

Budget realisation 2008 (DGIS-Wageningen UR budget) is shown in Table 3 below. In total € 70,284 was spent in 2008 (DGIS-Wageningen UR Programme budget). Pending final accounting the estimated financial matching contribution by the project partners amounts to € 65,680 or some 93 percent. Table 3 Coping with Competing Claims on Water: Budget realisation 2008 (in Euros)

Activity LEI WaterWatch Alterra Total

Staff time (Activity 1A) 50,652 50,652

Staff time (Activity 1B) 9,321 9,321

Staff time (Activity 2) 3,756 3,756

Staff time (Activity 3)

Project coordination 4,998 4,998

Travel costs 1,980 1,980

Other expenditure 142 142

Total 10,876 50,652 9,321 70,849


2.2.3 Improving livelihoods and resource management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia (ILCE)

Project leader

Dr. Huib Hengsdijk, Wag UR/PSG/Plant Research International Project partners

In The Netherlands: Wageningen UR/Plant Sciences Group/Plant Research International Wageningen UR/Environmental Sciences Group/Alterra Wageningen UR/Social Sciences Group/LEI Ministry of Agriculture/Dienst Landelijk Gebied (Government Service for Land and Water Management)

In Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Science Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network


The Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia is a closed river basin of some 1 million ha of land where poverty and natural resource degradation are firmly intertwined. In their struggle for survival the rapidly-growing population of the Rift Valley increasingly over-exploits the scarce natural resources. Symptoms of this are falling water levels in the lakes, gradual erosion of wood stocks, over-grazing of communal pasture lands, decreasing land productivity and expansion of cultivated land into marginal areas. Recent private-sector investments in irrigated horticulture and floriculture for local and international markets do stimulate economic growth and development but they also claim their share of the limited resource base, water in particular.

As the Central Rift Valley is a closed river basin -there is neither inflow nor outflow of fresh water- relatively small changes in water use have great impact. Changing climatic conditions may further intensify problems. Lake Shala-Abijata National Park, located in the downstream part of the Central Rift Valley, is already being threatened seriously by the water extraction that takes place upstream. There is an urgent need for integrated resource planning and management at different hierarchical and spatial levels in the area. Also, options for more-sustainable land use need to be identified, especially aiming at smallholder rain-fed production systems that form the mainstay of the majority of the population.

Problem owners are all those with a stake in the Central Rift Valley, the most important ones being: (i) national and regional authorities (National Investment Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Agriculture), district administrators (woredas) and municipalities such as the cities of Ziway and Meki; (ii) civil society organizations, ngo’s including environmentalists and academia, which have grouped themselves in the multi-stakeholder ‘Central Rift Valley Working Group’ and (iii) the private sector, including both smallholder farmers and large-scale farm entrepreneurs, and tourism enterprises.

The objective of the ILCE project is to strengthen the capacity of local authorities, development authorities, development organizations and the private sector in the area of natural resources management with the aim to (i) Mitigate competing claims on natural resources, (ii) Improve resource management in the Central Rift Valley and (iii) Improve the livelihoods of the rural population living in it. The project is being implemented in two work packages in the form of two PhD study trajectories:

Work package 1 To analyze and explore resource use and management options in the Central Rift Valley given the available resource base, constraints and goals of stakeholders. More specifically this includes: (i) The identification of the stakeholders in the Rift Valley and their development objectives, (ii) The characterization, both spatially and temporally, of the economic, biophysical and climatic resource


base and evaluate it for various production activities under current and changing climatic conditions, (iii) The identification of robust and risk-tailored land and water management strategies and policy options, and their potential contribution to increased food production and farm incomes, labor productivity and water use efficiency, and (iv) Identifying potential synergies, trade-offs and conflicts between and among various development objectives in view of livelihood improvement and sustainability.

Work package 2 To explore the potentials of co-investment aiming at improved land management and increased land productivity in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Specifically this includes: (i) The identification, at the level of farm households, innovations and adaptation strategies to cope with decreasing land productivity and climate change, (ii) Assessing the key factors affecting farm households’ investment-decisions in land management in rain-fed farming systems, (iii) Investigating the requirements and bottlenecks of co-investment in land management by kebele, district (woreda) and regional institutions operating in the area and (iv) Analyzing experiences with multi-level collaboration in the Central Rift Valley to draw conclusions concerning the prospects for co-investment in land management.

Both PhD studies are being implemented in close interaction with the existing multi-stakeholder platform the ‘Central Rift Valley Working Group’, consisting of professionals from the private and public sector organisations involved in regional development planning. The interaction is schematically presented below:


PhD projects Focus in 2008, the first year of the ILCE project, was on the development of research frameworks for two PhD trajectories. Drafts thereof were completed by the end of 2008 and these will be finalized by March 2009 when the two PhD students are planned to students return to Ethiopia to start their field work in the Central Rift Valley. In the implementation of their studies they will cooperate closely with the ‘Farmer Research Group Project’ of the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR).

Water use efficiency in smallholder irrigation systems Smallholder irrigation schemes constitute the major water users in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Water use and water use efficiency in the Haleku irrigation scheme was used as case study by Wageningen UR/PRI in a socio-economic assessment in 2007, jointly with the Selam Environmental Development Agency (SEDA), a local NGO and partner in the current ILCE project. This study is the first (documented) attempt to measure water use and water use efficiencies in smallholder schemes in the CRV.

Overall irrigation efficiency -the amount of irrigation water that is used consumptively in the process of evapo-transpiration- in nine vegetable cultivation plots in the Haleku scheme ranged from 17 to 55 percent, with an average of 31. The amount of water applied to the plots varied between 4000 and 9500 m3/ha/season depending on the crop and the season. However, as conveyance losses in the irrigation scheme amount to some 50 percent , the amount of (surface)


water actually extracted is twice as high. The low efficiency of the scheme appears to be related a faulty design: canal capacities are inappropriate in relation to the pumping capacity. Although irrigation structures across the Central Rift Valley differ widely, similar studies in other irrigation schemes do indicate that these inefficiencies are the rule rather than the exception. Results of this study provide important information for PhD1.

Fodder, feed and livestock production In 2008 a study was started which investigates livestock productivity in the Central Rift valley in relation to biomass production and quality from natural vegetation and feed crops. Like the water use efficiency study described above, this study is carried out jointly with SEDA and collaboration linkages have been established with the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI-Mozambique) and with FAO. In order to determine changes in fodder production and quality in different growth stages, the study covers an extended time period and results will be available as from the second half of 2009. and provide important input for PhD1.

Income impact assessment methodology One of the most difficult and challenging aspects of technological innovations is to assess and quantify their impact on income of adopters. Within the ILCE project an impact assessment methodology is being developed and tested using the project ‘Rural Prosperity Initiative: Fruits and Vegetables Value Chain Development ‘ of the International Development Enterprise (IDE) as a case study. This project aims at improving the livelihoods of smallholder households in the Central Rift Valley through increased productivity and improved marketing of selected high value vegetable and fruit crops. Technological innovations of the project focus among others things on treadle pumps and drip irrigation systems. Using time series of household surveys and accounting for exogenous effects such as (annual) price fluctuations and weather conditions the impact assessment methodology is developed and tested. This work is relevant for PhD1 as well as PhD2.

Project outputs in 2008

Papers, reports and models o Beshir Keddi Lencha, 2008. Water use efficiency of smallholder irrigation in the Ethiopian

Central Rift Valley. The case of the Haleku irrigation project. Irrigation and Water Engineering Group, Wageningen UR.

o Hengsdijk, H., Van Driel, J., Van Uum, J., 2008. Towards a sustainable future for the western shoreline of Lake Ziway: Participatory land use plan development. Executive summary of workshop, Ziway, December 1-4, 2008. 8 pp.

o Ton, G., Hiller, S., Weight, E., Nath, D., 2008. IDE household income assessment methodology. Wageningen University and International Development Enterprises.

Land use planning workshop In December 2008, a ‘participatory land use plan development workshop’ was organized for the shoreline of Lake Ziway in the Central Rift Valley. The aim of the workshop was to: (i) Strengthen stakeholders’ capacities in integral resource planning, (ii) Raise awareness on the competing resource claims in the area, (iii) Contribute to sustainable environmental management and (iv) Jointly develop a vision and land use map for the western shoreline of Lake Ziway. Some 50 persons participated, representing local (Woreda’s/district level) and national governmental institutions (i.e. the Ministries of Water Resources, Agriculture and Rural Development) and organizations (the Oromia Investment Commission, Ziway Water Supply Agency) , NGO’s (nature conservationists, the Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre and Network, Oxfam-Ethiopia), farmers’ organizations, the private sector (the Ethiopian Horticulture Producers and Exporters Association, local horticultural enterprises, SHER-Ethiopia) and knowledge institutes (Haramaya University, University of Addis Ababa). The workshop was the first in Ethiopia to use geo-visualization tools in spatial planning. The workshop was co-facilitated by two professionals from the ‘Dienst Landelijk Gebied (DLG)’, a facilitator from the Ethiopia Country Water Partnership, and three local GIS experts. The workshop resulted in a number of tangible and less-tangible outputs, the most important ones being:

o The workshop brought many key stakeholders together who –even though their individual actions have cross-cutting policy dimensions- normally do not meet.


o A common vision on the future sustainable development of the area was developed by the stakeholders and translated in a number of follow-up activities.

o Awareness and appreciation was raised on the environmental problems and competition for natural resources in the area.

o Stakeholders’ commitments were expressed in terms assuming responsibility to lead follow-up activities.

o An updated version was compiled of the current land use map of the area. o Strengths, opportunities and risks of the area were identified. o Criteria were drafted for land use planning, decision making and monitoring of the

implementation process. o A future land use map of the area was developed in a participatory process. o Knowledge, experience and information on integrated land use planning were widely shared.

Perhaps the biggest gain of the workshop was that such a large group of stakeholders with very diverse backgrounds discussed and debated resource-use issues for four days. Many of these stakeholders had never met before while their individual actions have cross-cutting policy dimensions. Through such a process, private companies might gradually move towards more socially and ecologically sustainable entrepreneurship, while the public sector might be in a better position to provide an enabling environment in which market-driven initiatives can flourish.

Project management

Jointly with MTT Agrifood Research from Finland, further impetus was given to developing methodology to assess income impacts of (new) agro-technologies. This resulted in a joint research proposal within the European 7th Framework for Research ‘Exploring alternative scenarios of adapting to climate change: Analytical framework and a Sub-Saharan case’ which has been approved and which include a PhD study on the consequences of global climatic change on resource use and adaptation strategies in the CRV.

A joint expression of interest for the LNV-BOCI call on ‘Competing claims’ was submitted jointly with the Competing Claims, Competing Models team working in southern Africa. The proposal focuses at a cross comparison of the policy frameworks that are associated with increased resource competition in the two study cases, and on policy alternatives to alleviate competition for natural resources. The proposal was (narrowly) rejected however.

Budget realisation 2008

Table 4 below provides a summary of budget realisation in 2008 (April through December) of the ILCE project.

Table 4 Improving Livelihoods and Resource Management: Budget realisation 2008 (in Euros)

Category Budget 2008 (€) Expenditure 2008 (€)

Staff time (PRI: Coordination and research) 65,000 40,616

Staff time (Other partners: Research) 45,862

Travel expenditure staff 20,000 7,311

Costs of students research (travel, per-diem, field work, analyses) 15,000 14,390

Costs of workshops 10,000

Operational costs 20,000 1,276

Total 130,000 109,491


2.2.4 Illegal or Incompatible? Managing the consequences of timber legality standards on local livelihoods

Project leaders

Prof. Dr. Bas Arts, Dr. Freerk Wiersum (WU/Forest and Nature Policy Group), Ir. Hans Vellema (Tropenbos International), Ir. Nico Rozemeijer WUR/WI-CD&IC) Project partners

In the Netherlands: o Wageningen UR: WI/Capacity Development and Institutional Change Program) o Wageningen University: Forest and Nature Policy Group (FNP), Rural Development Sociology

Group (RDS), Environmental Systems Analysis Group (ESA), Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group (FEM), Communication Science Group(CIS)

o Wageningen UR : Environmental Sciences Group/Alterra o Tropenbos International (TBI)

In Ghana: o Forestry Commission Ghana (FCG) o Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG)

In Indonesia o Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Indonesia o Mulawarman University, Centre for Social Forestry, Samarinda, Indonesia (CSF)


The conservation and wise use of tropical forest resources is of global concern. Recently, the international debate has been focusing on the issue of illegal logging and the legality of timber as a contribution to sustainable management of forests. This is reflected in the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative (FLEGT) launched by the EU. Part of the initiative is the development of voluntary partnership agreements (VPA’s) with a number of important timber trade partner countries. Central to the VPA processes, and to future VPA-based timber trade, is the use of the Timber Legality Standard (TLS) in producer countries such as Ghana and Indonesia. Success of the VPA’s requires the process to include wider social and environmental issues around forestry. An important question here is: how will the enforcement of agreed TLS affect the lives of rural communities, especially those dependent on timber extraction and trade for their livelihoods? The ‘Illegal or Incompatible’ project aims to strengthen livelihood considerations in forest policy development to enhance effective implementation of the latter.

The specific objectives of the project are (i) to develop widely-supported governance mechanisms that manage the consequences of VPA legal timber legality standards on local livelihoods and (ii) to strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to (re-)negotiate institutional arrangements for sustainable resource use in Ghana and Indonesia. The three year program involves an action research contribution to current VPA negotiation and implementation and concurrent forest management reforms in Ghana and Indonesia. This is being achieved through developing mechanisms for improved policy dialogue and stakeholder participation in a limited number of pilots. In Ghana, the research takes place at both, national level and at local level, in eight communities in the High Forest Zone. These communities have been selected as they are the sites for a parallel EU-funded project on chainsaw lumbering. To put the results from Ghana into a wider context, a comparative analysis is being carried out in Indonesia with studies both at the national level and in East Kalimantan Province. The project objectives are being addressed by means of 4 interlinked work packages:

Work package 1 New (participatory) tools for valuing the provision of goods and services from forested landscapes and developing different scenarios for optimising forested landscape use in the context of VPA


implementation. In this work package information will be collected on the status of different landscape units and the effect on the livelihood of rural people, including their role in timber production. Information on available and quantified forest goods and services allows for the development of more-informed scenarios incorporating the implications of the VPA for forest communities’ livelihood considerations. It will also bring to the fore the competing claims between global demand for legally-harvested timber and the subsistence needs of forest-dependent local communities.

Work package 2 Improved governance mechanisms to manage the consequences of VPA-TLS implementation for local forest-related livelihood strategies. More reliable information such as gathered in Work Package 1, can be used to improve the dialogue amongst all stakeholders competing for scarce forestry resources. It will also facilitate the assessment of the consequences of the VPA process on local livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. In this work package research is being implemented on how more and more-reliable information can contribute to improved governance in the forestry sector, including the reconciliation of competing claims on forest land, from global to local, with livelihood strategies of the poor.

Work package 3 Improved capacities for stakeholder dialogue at local and district level, fed by ongoing VPA policy dialogue at national level. Policy dialogue can be improved by using reliable information (WP1) and by creating an enabling policy environment (WP2) but it also requires skilful facilitation. Therefore local process facilitators are being trained in particular in skills aiming at visualising issues related to competing claims between international and national timber interests and local level livelihood needs.

Work package 4 Broadened level of information among a wider group of stakeholders in VPA process in Ghana. Output from the three work packages described above can only be used effectively by both, project partners and stakeholders, if the information is packaged and disseminated tailored to the needs of the respective stakeholders. This is being addressed in work package 4. Project activities and outputs in 2008

Output from activities under the 4 work pacges described above take the form of workshops, reports, papers, power-point presentations, articles, etc. They are shown in Table 1, below, and they are available in full from the project’s website: http://www.vpa-livelihoods.org/. Alternatively, hard copies can be requested from the project coordinator. One-page summaries (‘Output Briefing Notes’) of the four key project-results in 2008 have been prepared as well.

Work package 1 In the reporting year, PhD student Kwame Oduro completed the compilation of his research proposal ‘Scenario analysis for sustainable management of Ghana’s high forests’ and elaborated the research approach, techniques and work plan. One of the scenarios to be analysed is the VPA. A start has been made with data collection and modelling. MSc student Bernd Slesazeck completed his thesis: ‘The role of timber-trees in the livelihood strategies of farmers in Ghana’s high-forests zone’. The MSc research proposal ‘Livelihood dependence of local communities on ecosystem services in Samreboi forest area of Ghana’ of Prosper Kwame Antwi was approved and research activities have started.

Work package 2 The start of the PhD thesis project ”Tools and advices for improvements of the VPAs in terms of (further) including local livelihood considerations” was delayed as the incumbent was not granted permission by his employer, the Ghana Forestry Commission, to spend the required amount of time on the proposed research. An alternative arrangement was agreed upon to be implemented in 2009 onwards and entails the compilation –by the incumbent- of two policy-relevant papers, based on applied research, under supervision of Wageningen University/FNP Group. The changes are budget-neutral.


Research in support of an MSc-level thesis ‘Forest stakeholder communication in policy intervention - a Case Study of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana’ was completed in 2008; the final report will be available in early 2009.

Work package 3 A tailor-made training course on the facilitation of policy dialogues on alternatives to illegal chainsaw lumbering in Ghana was designed and implemented by the Capacity Development &Institutional Change Programme of Wageningen International. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are governance mechanisms in dealing with illegality in, and sustainable use of forest resources and poverty alleviation. The EU-funded Chainsaw Lumbering Project, which is being implemented by Tropenbos International, is closely linked to the VPA-related policy discussions in Ghana. Where the VPA debate is linked largely to forest use for export, the chainsaw lumbering debate is linked to the local market, mainly. In Ghana, the latter (illegally) absorbs some 50 per cent of the annual forest harvest. Demand and supply of the local markets have serious implications on livelihoods, and as such they affect the implementation of the VPA. In facilitating a policy dialogue on alternatives for illegal chainsaw lumbering in Ghana it was suggested, by Tropenbos International, to apply a landscape approach in the dialogue. In 2008 a draft paper was prepared to test such a landscape approach as a tool for multi-stakeholder process approaches as described in the section above.

Work package 4 Tropenbos International (TBI) started the preparation of a communication plan to effectively sharer project-related information with all stakeholders, including local communities, national governmental organisations, DGIS and LNV, EU Directorates and the international research community. A project website ( http://www.vpa-livelihoods.org) has been designed and will be fully operational as from early 2009. A project share-point is operational for internal management purposes (see under Project Management, below).

Table 5 Illegal or Incompatible: Project output 2008

Project output 2008 Output Briefing Note available Remarks

PhD research proposal on ‘Scenarios analysis for sustainable management of Ghana’s High Forests’” by Kwame Oduro (FORIG and FEM/WUR)

Note # 2

“The role of timber-trees in the livelihood strategies of farmers in Ghana’s high-forests zone”. MSc Thesis by Bernd Slesazeck, FNP/WUR

Note # 3

MSc research proposal on: “Livelihood dependence of local communities on ecosystem services in Samreboi forest area of Ghana” by Prosper Kwame Antwi, ESA/WUR

(Field-)work completed

Final report expected early 2009

MSc research proposal: “Forest stakeholder communication in policy intervention - a Case Study of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement in Ghana” by Bossman Owusu, CIS/WUR.

Note # 4 Final report expected early 2009

Capacity built of 8 facilitators to facilitate a multi stakeholder dialogue to find alternatives for illegal chainsaw lumbering.

Note # 1

Powerpoint presentation: Wiersum & Arts (2008) FLEGT: A government initiative to stimulate forest governance

Powerpoint

A landscape approach guiding a multiple stakeholder process to find alternatives for illegal chainsaw lumbering in Ghana – enhanced effectiveness or more confusion? Rozemeijer (Wageningen International)

Draft completed

Preliminary results of project activities have been tabled in a seminar ‘FLEGT beyond the T’ held in Driebergen, October, 2008. The seminar, which was organized by Wageningen UR, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Agriculture (LN/Department of Knowledge) VTB and the Royla tropical Institute (KIT), was attended by academia, policy-makers and representatives of civil society organisations in the Netherlands. A powerpoint presentation is available: ‘Wiersum & Arts (2008) FLEGT: A government initiative to stimulate forest governance’.


Project management

General The CD&IC Program of Wageningen International (WI/CD&IC)) is responsible for the daily coordination and administrative management of the project. In 2008, time was mainly spent on contractual arrangements and administrative procedures. General project management is the responsibility of the Project Management Committee (PMC) that is composed of the coordinators of the 4 Working Packages (WU/FNP, WI/CD&IC and Tropenbos International). The committee met 3 times in 2008. Most of the project partners met during a project kick-off meeting in April 2008, in Wageningen.

To assist in project coordination and communication WI/CD&IC has launched an internal web-based share point for project partners to upload and download project-related documents and references: https://portal.wur.nl/sites/CDICprojects/illegalorincompatible/ .

Adjustments in project planning The start of the PhD thesis project (Chris Beeko) on: ”Tools and advices for improvements of the VPAs in terms of (further) including local livelihood considerations” got delayed as the incumbent was not granted permission by his employer (the Ghana Forestry Commission) to spend the required amount of time on the proposed PhD research. An alternative arrangement was agreed upon to be implemented in 2009 onwards.

The start of the Indonesian MSc student in Wageningen under the supervision of FNP/RDS could not take place in 2008 as project approval was too late to allow the Indonesian candidate to go through the entry requirements. In 2008 two students were identified by CSF/CIFOR. One student will be selected. The student is expected to start in September 2009. The proposed MSc research will focus on comparing the Ghana VPA approach with that of Indonesia, and what that means for livelihood considerations. Fieldwork and paper-writing support will be provided by CIFOR (in 2010).

Linkage of the activities to poverty alleviation

All project activities are expected (impact cannot be assessed as yet) to strengthen livelihood considerations in forest policy development in Ghana and Indonesia:

o Research in WP1 will focus on the valuation of environmental goods and services and contribution to livelihoods (i.e. dependence of local communities on forest services);

o Research in WP2 will concentrate on assessing the implications of the VPA between Ghana/Indonesia and the EU on livelihood issues, and build local capacity to strategically interact with this VPA process, now and in the longer run (scenarios!). The initial research results highlight VPA livelihood implications that give reasons from concern. For example the absence of community representatives in the VPA negotiations has come to the fore in the preliminary results of the MSc study of Bossman Owusu. Another example are the results of the MSc study of Bernd Slesazeck that make it strikingly clear that currently farmers predominantly benefit from local (off-reserve) timber resources illegally. The question should therefore be raised to what extent an effective VPA in Ghana will cut off these (illegal) livelihood sources and what positive spin-off will be put in place as alternative?

o Information collected in the above working packages will feed into capacity strengthening programmes (WP3) targeting selected partner institutions in Ghana to ensure that multi-stakeholder interests and knowledge sources are duly incorporated in unfolding research and resulting policy debates. As research results are still limited today the translation into capacity strengthening has not yet been effected.

Linkage of planned activities to the development of novel, more equitable local options for management of natural resources (improved governance)

The short term objective of the project is to develop broadly supported governance mechanisms that manage the consequences of VPA timber legality standards on local livelihoods and to strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to (re)negotiate institutional arrangements for sustainable resource use in Ghana and Indonesia. The proposed research (WP 1 and 2) will contribute to current VPA negotiations and forest management reforms in Ghana and Indonesia through


developing mechanisms for improved policy dialogue and stakeholder participation in a limited number of pilots. In Ghana, the research will take place at national level and in eight communities in the High Forest Zone, as selected for the EU-funded project on chainsaw lumbering. To put the results from Ghana into a wider context, a comparative analysis will be carried out in Indonesia with studies both at the national level and in East Kalimantan Province.

Preparations have been made for a paper on a critical policy analysis of the VPA negotiation process and its outcomes (with a focus on stakeholder participation and livelihood considerations). This paper will form the basis for a next paper (on the VPA effects on livelihoods) and a policy document (on governance mechanisms to mitigate negative effects of the VPA on livelihoods). With the future Indonesian MSc student, a similar (and hence comparative) analysis will be made for Indonesia. Given the complexity and the conflicting nature of the logging issue in both Ghana and Indonesia, the action research will support a social learning process among the involved stakeholders. The projected trans-disciplinary approach brings scientific and local knowledge and insight of stakeholders together in an iterative process of strategic planning. The added value lies in the increased understanding of (longer term) implications and the consequent ownership of negotiated solutions which are considered elements of improved governance.

The chainsaw lumbering project launches an innovative governance mechanism in the form of a multi stakeholder dialogue (MSD) at national and (selected) district level. Research activities under WP1 and 2 are planned to feed into the MSD, and outcome of the dialogue is expected to feed into VPA debate that so far has largely taken place at global (EU) and national level. The fact that the VPA process predominantly (especially in the first stages) targets the export sector while the MSD process targets the local market, makes it important to proactively interlink both debates, and fill knowledge gaps where needed.

Budget realisation 2008

Table 6 below provides a summary of he budget realisation in 2008 of the ‘Illegal or Incompatible Project’. Table 6 Illegal or Incompatible: Budget realisation 2008 (in Euros)

Activity CD & IC Tropenbos ESG-FNP Total

Staff time 8,330 7,110 8,110 41,250

Consultant 500 500

Training workshop (Ghana) 29,687 29,687

Travel costs 270 1,470 1,310 3,050

Other expenditure 74 1,215 1,289

Total 9,174 39,482 10,120 58,776


Box 1: EU Chainsaw Logging Project Progress 2008 The Establishment of a Multi-stakeholder Dialogue for Chainsaw Logging issues in Ghana

In 2008, the EU-funded project ‘ Establishment of a Multi-stakeholder Dialogue for Chainsaw Logging issues in Ghana’started. The aim is to reduce conflicts, adjust perceptions and create mutually acceptable solutions to the problems associated with chainsaw milling. Project activities in 2008 included: Stakeholder identification and analysis A stakeholder identification and analysis has been conducted revealing that twenty-four stakeholders are either directly or indirectly involved in the chainsaw lumber production enterprise. These stakeholders have been grouped with respect to interest and perception, relationship and influence. Their importance and how they can influence the MSD and their capacity to participate in the MSD were also assessed. The stakeholder list was reviewed during the sensitization and district level meetings and was confirmed during the focus group meeting. Create capacity to facilitate the establishment of the MSD Hiring of facilitators - a national facilitator who doubles up as a community forestry advisor (Masters Degree level) and 8 community forestry workers/district level facilitators (bachelors degree level) were hired in 2008 for a period of 4 years. The national facilitator is stationed in the project secretariat (TBI Ghana in Kumasi), while the eight community forestry workers who are also staff of the forestry commission are stationed in the project districts to facilitate smooth and effective implementation of activities especially at the community level for the establishment of the MSD. Orientation workshop for community forestry workers (CFWs) - a one-day orientation workshop was organised for the CFWs. The CFWs were introduced to the project and activities they would be implementing. The purpose of the workshop was to ensure a smooth implementation of activities aimed at the district levels. Facilitators training - A 12-day facilitators training programme was organised to contribute to the knowledge and develop skills to enable the facilitators to guide stakeholders through series of activities that are consistent with landscape approach to establish and manage the multi-stakeholder learning platform. The training programme covered the fundamental theoretical elements concerning multi-stakeholder processes and also focused on complementary concepts and competencies such as communication and dialogue, facilitation, mediation, leadership and critical reflection necessary to facilitate successful multi-stakeholder learning platforms in the context of forest management in Ghana and Guyana. The knowledge, skills, techniques and tools learnt are being used by the project staff to effectively establish the MSD. Sensitization meeting Sensitization meetings were held following the stakeholder analysis and identification in all the project districts. This activity which was not part of the original activities helped the project team to meet for the first time with identified stakeholders. The stakeholders were informed about the project and their commitments sought for the successful implementation of the project. Community level stakeholders were consulted at the community level while the organizational /institutional stakeholders were sensitized at the district level. Stakeholders outside the project area were also sensitized. District level meetings Following the sensitization and the facilitators training programmes, district levels meetings were held in all the 8 project districts. Stakeholders within each district met for the first time on a common platform to have a problem analysis of chainsaw operation using the problem tree analysis. Stakeholder’s expectations of the multi-stakeholder dialogue were discussed. Focus group discussions Focus group discussions have been held for all stakeholder groups at the national level following the district level meetings. The aim of these meetings was to provide insight in the views of important stakeholder groups and their attitude and expectations with regard to the multi-stakeholder dialogue as a tool to address critical issues. The discussions generated stakeholder visions (expectations and fears) for chainsaw operations and identified issues, values, motivations, problems and opportunities associated with the MSD. Remaining activities to be implemented for the establishment of the MSD Activities remaining for implementation include a preparatory workshop and the creation of a task force to manage the MSD. These activities will be implemented in 2009, as a follow up of the national focus group meetings. Stakeholder capacity strengthening which started during the district level meetings is still ongoing. Research activities for case studies on chainsaw lumbering in Ghana In 2008 research activities on chainsaw lumbering were finalised by FORIG. In 2009 the data will be compiled into a case study on chainsaw lumbering in Ghana. This in-depth analysis will provide insight into the driving factors and impacts of chainsaw milling in Ghana, and identify socio-economic conditions that have fostered and continue to foster chainsaw milling and promoted or reduced illegal forms of chainsaw lumbering. Website about chainsaw lumbering TBI has dedicated space on its website to the project, for which a separate url has been requested: www.chainsawmilling.org. Information about the project is posted here; the website will be maintained throughout the project.


2.2.5 Desk study ‘Reversing the Unsustainability Spiral’ The desk study ‘Reversing the Unsustainability Spiral’ was completed in 2008. The study aimed at deciphering the unsustainability of the development spiral of sub-Sahara Africa, using a spatial multi-agent model, in order to produce policy recommendations that go beyond simple prescriptions like 'build roads' or 'open your markets'. The model analyzes the interaction between macro- and micro-mechanisms and biophysical and social forces that shape the evolution of agriculture and thereby the wider socio-economic development in sub-Sahara Africa. Spatial multi-agent modelling allows the analysis of complex processes that involve different scales, interdependencies and disciplines. The model has been described in papers published in peer reviewed journals (Interdisciplinary Descriptions of Complex Systems 5(2), 112-137, 2007: An agent-based modelling approach to unravel the unsustainability spiral) and at an international conference (Research Advancement for Sustainable Societies (Zagreb 2007). The model was also presented at the Steering Committee Meeting of the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme in September 2009.


2.3 Theme 3: Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity Background and project objectives

Agro-biodiversity encompasses all components of biological diversity in agro-ecosystems that are of relevance to agriculture and fisheries. Agro-biodiversity provides essential components and functions in the livelihood of resource-poor farmers, including food security and nutritional variety as well as risk reduction through diversification of income sources and reduced vulnerability to crop failures. Agro-biodiversity contributes to the resilience, robustness and sustainability of agricultural production systems. However, growing population pressure, globalization processes, outsourcing of food production, scarcity of fossil fuels and the resultant competition for land to produce biomass for energy purposes, as well as changing climatic conditions do all exert pressure on agro-biodiversity. Processes and policies that impact negatively on agro-biodiversity include the intensification of agricultural production, loss of traditional knowledge and conversion of non-agricultural habitats.

The loss of agro-biodiversity comes against the price of degenerating local production systems and associated knowledge which, in turn, have major impacts on local culture and local identity. Moreover, the effects of erosion and loss of agro-biodiversity play out at every level. Local farmers and communities are confronted with improved technology options to increase their income through higher yields. As a consequence, however, they face larger dependence on external inputs (seeds, fertilisers and pesticides) and the impact intensification has on the sustainability of production. Governments, on the other hand, wrestle with the right balance between the need for economic development and the need for environmental protection, including agro-ecosystems and biodiversity. National governments also face the challenge of having to implement international agreements in a context of national jurisprudence and local cultures. Lastly, the international community has to deal with the upcoming effects of climate change and those of the growing attention for, and investments in, bio-fuel production on food security. Strong interactions –if not competition- between all these levels occur.

Sustenance of agro-biodiversity is among the main focal areas in the Policy Report ‘Agriculture, rural economic development and food security’2 of the Netherlands’ Government. In line with many other recent policy reports which call for new attention as to the pivotal role of agriculture in economic development3, the Netherlands’ policy identifies five priority tracks for intervention: (1) Research and innovation for increased productivity in a changing climatic context, (2) Enabling environments and public institutions, (3) Sustainable development of supply chain, (4) Improved access to markets and (4) Food security and re-distribution mechanisms. In particular within Tracks 1 and 3 the sustainable use of agro-biodiversity is being addressed in relation to the need for in-situ conservation, the development of pro-poor supply chains and the formulation and implementation of investment policies.

In the broader sense, the interest in agro-biodiversity fits in the international concern for biodiversity as addressed in international fora and initiatives including, amongst others, the Convention on Biological Diversity (www.cbd.int), the FAO Global Plans of Action on Plant and Animal Genetic Resources (www.fao.org/ag/agp/agps/gpaen/), the Biodiversity Action Plan of the European Union (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity), the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (www.millenniumassessment.org) and the Diversitas International Programme for Biodiversity Science (http://www.diversitas-international.org).

The Netherlands’ Policy Programme Biodiversity International (BBI) aims to contribute to international policy formulation and implementation, knowledge generation, project implementation and capacity development. Within BBI, the priorities most relevant with regard to the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme include International trade and supply chains and their

2 Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2008): Agriculture, rural economic development and food security, Min of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands. 3 For an overview, see: WUR (2007): The Role of Agriculture in Achieving MDG1; a review of the leading reports.


impact on biodiversity and Payment for, and safeguarding of, ecosystem services. An additional BBI priority is Marine diversity and fishery-chains.

Objectives

Within the general framework of the DGIS-Wageningen UR partnership Programme, the objectives of Theme 3 ‘Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity’ are to: (i) gain better understanding of the (possible) contribution of agro-biodiversity to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods, (ii) develop novel options for the sustainable use and management of agro-biodiversity, (iii) strengthen local communities in improving the use, processing and marketing of genetic resources, (iv) strengthen local capacity and institutions for the out-scaling of viable approaches to community support, (v) support the development of pro-poor biotechnology applications and (vi) contribute to policy development on agro-biodiversity and genetic resources in a national and international policy contexts.

In addressing agro-biodiversity in its full breadth, agronomists, bio-physical experts, sociologists and economists need to collaborate in taking local perspectives as starting points in developing new management options. These options should not confine themselves either to farm lands or to nature conservation areas only, but they need to analyse the entire local environment and seek ways to improve its overall performance. In doing so, resultant programmes need active involvement of the local communities in order to build on their indigenous and often deep knowledge of the environment. Public-private partnerships and collaboration with NGOs may form appropriate approaches to reach project goals. Participation of local and national governmental planners and policy makers in these processes is a requirement, also with regard to accommodating the policies concerned in global agreements and conventions.

Activities in 2008/Call for Proposals

Toward the end of 2008 a Call for Proposals was compiled on Theme 3 ‘Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity’ of the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme for launching –upon endorsement by the Steering Committee- in January 2009. A stepped evaluation approach is proposed in which targeted research groups within Wageningen UR are encouraged to develop Concept Notes for agro-biodiversity projects, which upon an initial positive evaluation may be elaborated into Full Proposals. The evaluation criteria that apply are:

o Thematic priority in the local or regional setting and strategies (PRSP’s, MASP’s), alignment with national strategies and demand authenticity;

o Proposals need to take into account the global, national and local socio-economic environment in which the activities will be undertaken;

o Proposals should be gender sensitive in their design and implementation, as well as taking age and social stratification into account;

o Contribution to poverty alleviation, food security and environmental sustainability (MDG’s 1 and 7);

o Contribution to policy formulation; o Contribution to capacity strengthening and institutional development; o Scientific and interdisciplinary quality: A comprehensive approach addressing (interaction

between) social, economic, cultural and agricultural aspects are a prerequisite; o Local impact and quality of the internal monitoring and impact assessment system; o Quality of the partnership: Proposals should involve collaboration in partnerships and

networks of relevant organizations in the public, private and civil sectors; o Linkages with activities under the two other themes of the Partnership Programme:

Competing Claims on Natural Resources and Pro-poor Agro-supply Chains.


2.4 Institutional development and capacity strengthening

Institutional development and capacity strengthening forms a cross-cutting issue throughout the three main themes of the Partnership Programme. Over the last decade, institutional development and capacity strengthening has emerged as a key area for sustainable economic development. Institutional development involves the establishment of enabling environments which, for example, support the empowerment of economically disadvantaged groups, encourages self reliance, creates conditions for equitable private sector participation in development and establishes mechanisms for sustainable natural resources management. 'Institutions' in this context refers not only to government agencies and organisations, but also to the policy and legal frameworks, mechanisms for good governance, market mechanisms, incentive frameworks, networks and other mechanisms for co-ordinating the actions of different stakeholders and even the values and attitudes of different groups. Capacity strengthening, traditionally, has focused on simply the training of individuals. While this remains important, capacity strengthening for institutional development –or even: institutional change- requires support for long-term processes of organisational change and development. Capacity strengthening therefore can be more-broadly defined as “the process by which individuals, organisations, institutions and societies develop abilities (individually and collectively) to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives”.

For government agencies and the mechanisms of governance, the implications of trends such as globalisation, decentralisation, privatisation, greater private sector involvement in development, government taking a facilitation role, use of market opportunities to drive poverty reduction and sector wide approaches are immense. A huge capacity development effort is required to reorient government institutions towards this new environment. Particularly important is the capacity of governments to establish effective public, private and NGO sector partnerships for rural development initiatives and to create a supportive and enabling institutional framework. This requires, for example, new skills for interactive, multi-stakeholder and system-wide decision and policy making. It also requires the capacity for institutional analysis, design and adaptation.

In the framework of the DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme institutional development and capacity strengthening are being addressed both at the formal level of education and training -at different levels: tailor-made courses, formal MSc-level courses and PhD trajectories- and at the informal level of on-the-job training, learning in negotiation platforms (as implemented for example in the different projects within Theme 2 ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’, learning in subject matter workshops (e.g. the Participatory Land Use Planning Workshop under the ILCE project), and in multiple stakeholder participatory project development processes (e.g. the stakeholder processes leading to the identification of new pilots within the Value Chain sub-Programme, etc.). Institutional development issues are also being addressed in the so-called soft-skills training components (including inter-cultural communication skills, interdisciplinary and system thinking approaches, institutional analysis, design and adaptation, etc.) that are generally part of the Wageningen University Sandwich PhD approach as these are being implemented in the PhD trajectories for different projects under Theme 2 ‘Competing Claims on Natural Resources’. Experiences gained in the institutional development and capacity strengthening activities of the Partnership Programme are being mutually shared with other capacity development initiatives in which Wageningen UR at large is involved, including NUFFIC-NPT projects in South Africa, Mozambique, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Benin, the WSSD Partnership Initiatives and the joint Wageningen UR-MDF-KIT Support Programme on Institutional and Capacity Development (SPICAD, a DGIS-supported programme). In 2008 a start was made by staff of the Wageningen International Centre for Capacity Development and Institutional Change to compile and analyse lessons learned in the Partnership Programme for further targeting of the Programme’s efforts in this area.


3 Programme coordination and management

In September 2008 a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Partnership Programme was held. Main decisions from the meeting included the selection of two additional pilots under the Sustainable Agro-Supply Chains theme (see Section 2.1 of the present report) and approval of the modalities for Calls for Proposals under Theme 3 (Agro-biodiversity) of the Partnership programme, and criteria for the evaluation thereof (see Section 2.3). At this Steering Committee meeting the coordinator of the ‘Competing Claims, Competing Models’ project, Prof Ken Giller presented progress made and challenges encountered in his project (see Section 2.2.1). Also, the decision support model developed under the sub-activity ‘Reversing the Unsustainabilty Spiral’ was presented (Dr. N. Koning, Ir. G. Becx, see section 2.1.5).

A number of meetings were held at daily management level, between DGIS/DMW (M. Schippers, F. Hoogveld, R-J Scheer) and Wageningen UR (A. Huijsman, W. Andriesse), preparatory to the Streeing Committee Meeting as well as in follow-up thereof,

In addition to general and administrative coordination and reporting work, the Programme Secretariat (W. Andriesse at Wageningen UR/WI and F. Hoogveld at DGIS/DMW) spent time and effort in 2008 on the formulation of the criteria and modalities applicable to the Call for Proposals under the theme ‘Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity’.


4 Financial report 2008

Table 7 below, provides the overview of the budget, revenues and expenditure of the Partnership Programme in 2008. It is noted that Activities under Theme 3 ‘Agro-biodiversity’ were not started as planned, in 2008. These will now be budgeted for 2009. Actual expenditure under Theme 1 ‘Agro-supply Chains’ largely match the total original budget 2008. However, the budget lines ‘Management and Coordination’ and ‘Methodology Development’ are being exceeded. This is due to the fact that the executing agency, LEI of Wageningen UR, only commenced invoicing the programme’s administration unit in 2008, as was already reported in last year’s Annual Report. Expenditures under budget line ‘Implementation of projects’ in Theme 2 ‘Çompeting Claims’ do lag behind the budget 2008, also due to late and partial invoicing by two projects mainly.


DGIS-WUR PARTNERSHIP AFREKENING 2008 BEGROTING MATCHING TOTAAL

nr./days rateGeneral ManagementGeneral Management Costs (Secretary): 60 € 911 € 54,660 54,660€ Reis/verblijfkosten (project bezoek) € 5,000 265€

€ 59,660 54,924.57€ 19,951€ 74,875€

Monitoring and Evaluation: 40 € 833 € 33,320

Theme 1: Agro-Supply ChainsManagement and coordination* 20 € 911 € 18,220 49,713.00€ Methodology and programme development* 40 € 911 € 36,440 79,217.00€ Pilot implementation (Ethiopia/Uganda/2 new pilots) 4 € 60,000 € 240,000 134,581.00€

€ 294,660 263,511€ 163,119€ 426,630€

Theme 2: Competing ClaimsImplementation of 4 Comp Claims projects 4 € 130,000 € 520,000 295,203€ Follow-up of Desk Study (6 x 5 days) 30 € 911 € 27,330 17,538€ Reversing Insust Spiral: 1 € 10,000 € 10,000 4,318€

€ 557,330 317,059.21€ 203,571€ 520,631€

Theme 3: Agro-biodiversityDesk study Agro-biodiv: (6 x 5 days) 30 € 911 € 27,330Evaluation of Concept Notes € 2,500Call for Proposals/Elaboration of 5 Concept Notes into Full Props 5 € 10,000 € 50,000Evaluation of Full Proposals: (5 x 2,5 days) 12.5 € 911 € 11,388

€ 91,218Institutional Development and Capacity StrengtheningDesk study (6 x 5 days) 30 € 911 € 27,330 14,565€ 14,565.00€ 14,565€

Total € 1,063,518 650,059.78€ 650,059.78€ 386,641€ 1,036,701€

* Expenditure exceeding 2008 budget is due to non-submittal of invoices over 2007, as reported already in Annual Report 2007

AFREKENING

Table 7 DGIS-Wageningen UR Partnership Programme Globalisation and Sustainable Development Programme Budget, actual expenditure and matching contributions 2008

globalisation and sustainable development · the dgis-wageningen ur partnership programme...

Documents